Why is it considered mutilation?

Question

Why is circumcision of boys considered male gential mutilation?
Do you agree with it why or why not?

Answer 1

i wouldn't call it mutilation...unless the doctor butchered the job or something...but it IS considered an unnecessary surgery. actually it's considered cosmetic surgery.

research it hon...you will be swamped w/heated opinions on this thing about it. and I'm sure you will be getting TONS of links from ppl about why it shouldn't be done. click on those links, and read for yourself. i educated myself about it and decided not to have my youngest son circumcised. i WISH i had left my older boys alone...but back then...i wasn't aware of why it was done..it was just done, it's become "normalized" and anyone that isn't done is considered a freak...which it silly cause all boys are born that way.

and you will be getting tons of ppl saying...a friend of a friend's sister's cousin's son had a terrible infection, yadda yadda.
if there were truly that many infections then most of Europe would have rotten off penises by now...cause most Europeans are NOT circumcised at all. teaching your child how to properly clean themselves will avoid infections.

3 reasons why ppl still do it here in the US:

1.to look like daddy (which is a pretty selfish reason i think to cut a piece of your child's penis off!)
2.religious reasons..(i won't go there, LOL)
3.believing MYTHS about why it "must" be done.


BTW- The American Board of Pediatrics does NOT endorse circumcisions. even THEY recognize that this procedure is completely w/out merit.

AND i honestly don't see how someone can say cutting a girl is not the same as cutting a boy w/a straight face. it IS the same. you are removing a part of a child's anatomy that need not be removed. cleaning a penis w/a foreskin is not that bloody difficult, ppl just seem lazy. teaching your child proper hygiene is easy..good lord!

cutting the foreskin is the SAME as cutting the hood of the clitoris OFF.
it's the same because anatomically speaking during development in an unborn baby all babies are essentially female at first...to become a male (X and Y chromosomes considered here) the HOOD becomes the foreskin in development while the clitoris becomes the penis in later development...get it ppl! it IS the same, and BOTH are unnecessary.

and cutting off the foreskin DECREASES sensitivity during intercourse, it does not increase it. the foreskin has been found to have as many nerves as our fingers and just as much sensitivity as a females clitoris.
the foreskin also acts in protecting the vagina from become dry during sex, unlike a circumcised penis which usually makes vaginal dryness during sex worse.
the foreskin acts as a glove over the penis during sex..rubbing in on it's self (sounds pretty awesome to me) AND it also rubs that all important G spot in women!

i really doubt these "pro-circumcision" ppl have EVER read about it at all. if they did they would change their minds...I DID!

Answer 2

I feel that it is mutilation (there is a BUT). You are taking something natural and snipping it off. This would be similar to cutting docking a dogs tail or ears. If you practiced male circumcision on an adult with the same level of consent that a baby is given you can see why many feel this is mutilation. Unfortunately there is a strong divide especially in the US on the benefits of the practice. I've heard anecdotal and scientific evidence why you should and why you shouldn't but my opinion it's up to the parents.

Answer 3

It's considered mutilation to those who oppose it and want to change your viewpoints on the subject (ie by making you feel guilty)

Like anything, it's a choice.

I don't see it as mutilation but I have told DBF I'm letting him make the call when the time comes. That's because I don't want any part of the decision making process where it comes to that anyway. Only men can understand what it's like. I can't.

You will hear a lot of opposing facts about it, and probably get a lot of flack for whatever decision you make. My opinion? Do your own research and be your own decision maker regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Good Luck!

Answer 4

Circumcising your baby boy violates his property rights, whether or not you think it's mutilation. I wouldn't do it to my son, if I had one.

The foreskin is a normal part of the male body. It is part of a baby boy's body, and his parents don't have the right to remove it without his consent. A newborn clearly cannot consent to anything, therefore chopping bits off of him is morally wrong.

Once he's old enough to make decisions for himself, he can whack the whole thing off for all anyone should care.

Male circumcision is genital mutilation because the foreskin is supposed to be there, and it's cut off. Also, anesthetic isn't used, meaning that the way we circumcise boys is by tying them down and applying a scalpel while they're fully conscious. Sounds a lot like Mengela to me. It also gets rid of a lot of nerve endings and decreases sensitivity, or so I've read.

While it's not comparable to the FGM that often happens in Africa -that would be like comparing decapitation to a haircut- it's still wrong.

If I had a son I would be sure that he knew how to keep himself clean. Saying your son should be mutilated because you don't want to show him how to wash himself is like cutting off his hands so he doesn't have to wash them either.

Answer 5

My son is not due to the pre-mee size he was and then to his own choice. I've been told its about 1/2 and 1/2 now on doing it. It was started in many groups as a religious and coming of age thing and of course you hear the old addage that its cleaner and safer health wise but my son has never once had a problem and is a well built 20 yr old going off on his own-he is quite open with his Mom too (sometimes too much!) but I know he and his long time gal have no complaints--I think it is truely a personal choice.

Answer 6

Circumcision is considered mutilation to people because you are making an incision on a part of the male's body, which they deem is not for medical purposes. People believe it is more of a comfort for the parents rather than giving children the right to "decide" whether they wish to have the incision or not. It's a very moralistic approach in the medical field and usually makes people incensed when they discuss it either way. I actually had one woman told me I was going to hell for my decision.
I do agree with the procedure and honestly, it wasn't me who made the decision; it was my husband and he was adamant. If I have another boy, the same procedure will be done. My son was just fine when he was broght back to me and has suffered no ill effects for the PARENTAL decision we made. However, I find it entertaining that some people who are insanely on the negative on circumcision think it's ok to have their baby's ears pierced. Those holes in the ears don't heal and I have four of them to prove it. :)

PS - I'm loving the fact someone is going through these answers and if someone mentions anything of infections, STD's, painful later on or that they plan on circumcising their son; that they are being given a negative for their answer. Very mature.

PSS - And thefilthycommie's comment on how they strap the baby to the table with no local athestic (sp) is false. My son wasn't strapped to a table, in fact,he was asleep in the nurses arms and they did give him a local PLUS tynelol for the afterpain if any. My son didn't suffer and I love the moralist rightwinged people who come out of the woodwork for questions like this. There are pro's and con's to every situation.

Answer 7

I don't think it is mutilation I think it is choice, it is alot for a child to have to keep up cleaning and caring for a uncircumcised penis but it is a choice that a parent has to make whether on personal or religious beliefs. I had my son circumcised because my mom had my brother circumcised and her mother had my uncle and so on. My husband is circumcised it is just what everyone around me does, so it is a personal preference not mutilation

Answer 8

this is the definition of mutilation:

1)To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

2)To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.

3)To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

circumcision does none of these.. some may think it does exactly the opposite.. so therefore to me it is not mutilation and i see nothing wrong with it.
(even tho i chose not to have my son circumsized)

Answer 9

I don't think it is a mutilation- all Jews and many Christians believe that God commanded his male followers to be circumcised

I am a Christian and although I don't think it is necessary, if I ever have a boy I will follow the Jewish tradition of circumcision

Answer 10

By definition circumcision if genital mutilation. It is done for hygienic reasons. The practise is minor compaired to female genital mutilation practises in some North African countries.