Do you think that circumcision is a form of mutilation?

Question

I think it is... for both males and females. Why is it necessary in this day and age? Please give medical reasons not religious ones.

ps: My brother was circumcised when he was 5 without any anasthetic. My parents did it for religious reasons. I thought that it was very cruel and barbaric, even when I was 7 years old.

I am surprised by how many women in the gender & women's studies section think female circumcision is uacceptable, but male circumcision is ok. It seems very hypocritical to me. I understand that female circumcision is much more disfiguring and pointless (there is no debate about infections and hygiene, etc), but that doesn't make male circumcision necessary. Going by the logic of some people here, babies should have their tonsils removed shortly after birth because they'll be at less of a risk for infection.

Answer 1

Yes, it is a cruel, barbaric form of mutilation.

The American Academy of Pediatrics 1971 manual of Standards and Recommendations of Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, and reiterated in the 1975 and 1985 revisions, concluded that "there are no valid medical indication for circumcision in the neonatal period." In 1978, the American College of Obstetricians endorsed the Academy's position.

An R.N. friend who works in a nursery at a local hospital told me it is the most barbaric act she has ever seen. She told me that many doctors and nurses tell parents that their child "slept" through the procedure to make them feel better, but, in fact, the babies pass out from the pain and shock.
My brother-in-law, a respected OBGYN, advises his patients that circumcision is not medically necessary.

Today the practice has been virtually abandoned in Britain and New Zealand, and circumcision rates have been reduced markedly in Canada and Australia. But in the United States 60-80 % of infant boys still are circumcised in spite of authoritative medical opposition to the practice.

To Lynn: As a nurse you should know better. Why would you want to put your boys through unnecessary brutality. I'm sure you can teach your sons how to wash clean themselves.

My son was not circumcised. He's now 22 years old and has never had any problems medical or hygiene problems. He has also thanked me for being an informed, compassionate mother who spared him from the horrific multilation 22 years ago!

See my answer to a question posted several weeks ago for medical references: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ap8XYahumuZG00uNwLgM86Hty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071030160011AAr4EOg&show=7#profile-info-uVH3IoTjaa

Answer 2

Unless there is a good medical reason to support male circumcision, then I do believe it's an unnecessary operation and I do believe it to be cruel when done to young babies, especially seeing that no anaesthetic is used.
None of my three sons are circumcised, but the youngest has a too-tight foreskin which becomes infected very easily and doctors have recommended that he be circumcised under a general anaesthetic. Though, I am still reluctant to put my son through this, I'll wait a little longer to see if the problem resolves itself as sometimes a boy's foreskin will over the years become more easily retractable.
Edit: Yes Gnu :) It's a hard choice at times when it comes to a person's own children. My eldest son has already had an operation when he was only a year old to move an undescended testi that was stuck high in his groin. It was the most awful time to see him crying afterwards from the anaesthetic, so that perhaps explains my reluctance and wait and see attitude with the youngest, if it gets bad then I'll reconsider the op.
It's interesting to hear that some people here think that all circumcision is terrible and there's no medical reason for it at all. My son is kept very clean and he has antibiotic creams for when he does get an infection, but if the infection keeps persisting and causing my son misery and the foreskin is building up with scar tissue, then am I wrong in thinking that in a few cases there are justifyable medical reasons for circumcision?

Answer 3

Yes, circumcision IS mutilation. It can't be compared to ear piercing, as if a person decided they made a mistake in having their ears pierced, they can just leave the earring out, and the earlobe heals in a few weeks. Circumcision is permanent -- more like foot binding than ear piercing (I am not advocating ear piercing until the child is old enough to ask for it, and I did not pierce my daughter's ears, but it is nothing like circumcision). I am always amazed that some people who would not dream of having their cat declawed or their dog's ears docked will just casually have the most sexually sensitive part of their infant sons chopped off. Foreskin is not a birth defect that needs to be corrected.

A wait and see approach is prudent when doctors try to talk parents into circumcision because their sons have a tight foreskin -- it's SUPPOSED to be tight when they are little! The famous case of the boy who was raised as a girl after his penis had to be amputated is a case in point. He was a twin, and both were supposed to be circumcised for the same "problem." After the first circumcision went terribly wrong, they left the second twin intact -- and he never had a problem with his "tight" foreskin. His brother/sister was so traumatized that he eventually committed suicide after reclaiming his identity as a genetic (but penisless) male as an adult.

Answer 4

america is the only u . s . to coach recurring circumcision for non non secular motives. it particularly is mutilation and merely yet in a various thank you to function a pair hundred greenbacks on the surgeon invoice. There are the uncommon prevalence of issues that require circumcision yet no longer adequate to mandate or no longer this is performed for all. you need to apply that reasoning to justify all women have mastectomies through fact a million in 8 women will advance breast maximum cancers. lady circumcision is torture and mutilation.

Answer 5

Any form of circumcision IS mutilation, plain and simple. As far as male cicumcision goes, there is absolutely NO sound medical evidence to prove it is necessary, therefore there is no reason to have it done. Nearly all possible complications are treatable if caught early, so there is rarely the need for circumcision. While I agree that the female variety is more severe, I still believe the routine male kind should be just as unnacceptable.

Answer 6

Yes I consider it to be a form of mutilation - we were made this way. As long as men shower each day (as we are all meant to do) the justifications due to infections are mostly false - I am 35, have not been circumcised and never had any issues.

Answer 7

Mutilation is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the human body, usually without causing death.
I'd say circumcision falls into this category - Unless it is medically necessary of course, due to foreskin problems.

Answer 8

WHO (World Health Organization) has classified FGM/FGC in to 4 classes. Type 1 is the least and Type 4 is the worst, where everything is removed and sewn shut.

Male circumcision is the exact same thing as FGM Type 1. In both case they are removing the prepuce. In males the prepuce is the foreskin, on females the prepuce is the clitoral hood. It is illegal in the US to remove the prepuce of a baby girl (Federal FGM Act of 1996).

At this point, most all of the "reasons" for circumcision are gone.
Hygiene, something you do, I find no trouble in washing myself daily.
Penis Cancer, American Cancer Society does not see foreskin as the cause. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Misleading_Information.asp
STI/STD's, There are studies both ways. An interesting study recently to prove a relationship between increased AIDS risk and foreskin, found that there was no difference in STI's. But of course the "proved" what they set out for.


An additional side note on circumcision and aids:
Langerhans cells are present in the foreskin and the clitoral hood. Langerhans cells are what researchers claim is responsible for increase risk of AIDS transmission. So if we are going to advocate circumcision for AIDS prevention for men, we should really do the same for women and really get rid of AIDS. Are all you ladies ready to be circumcised?

Answer 9

There is no valid medical reason today for circumcision. Yes, it is a form of mutilation, just as is plastic surgery or having one's ears pierced. The issue of mutilation is an individual's business. For example, I personally would never get my ears pierced. That's MY business, just as it is a man's personal business to, say, have hair transplantation done to "cure" baldness. What deeply concerns me is the practice of circumcision, or any other form of medical mutilation, without the consent of the person being circumcised. Women who are forced to submit to this mutilation and children under the age of 18 who are circumcised are being terribly violated. NO one has the right to hack away at anyone else's body unless they have the adult consent of that person. Period.

Answer 10

I agree, I think it is mutilation when you don't have the consent of the person involved. So every case when it is done on a newborn or a child for non-medical reasons (and I mean real medical reasons).