Circumcision of infants

[Symmetry]

Let's divorce the male circumcision debate in the other thread to the nuts and bolts of what you should be able to cut off a baby.

[Dukasaur]

Let's divorce the male circumcision debate in the other thread to the nuts and bolts of what you should be able to cut off a baby.

I'm opposed to cutting off the baby's nuts. Bolts, too, I think, although there might be a case made for some people.

[rdsrds2120]

I'm against it regardless of sex. Fight the cisgenderism!

-rd

[/]

This is the worst kind of loaded question, I will not deny the cuteness of kittens by taking a side, no matter what may happen to the children.

[Symmetry]

This is the worst kind of loaded question, I will not deny the cuteness of kittens by taking a side, no matter what may happen to the children.

The worst? Hyperbole much?

Anyway, if I can ground you for a second or two- what's your take?

[2dimes]

You don't seem to understand why a Hebrew is circumcised. There is no option for a person that does.

[/]

This is the worst kind of loaded question, I will not deny the cuteness of kittens by taking a side, no matter what may happen to the children.

The worst? Hyperbole much?

Anyway, if I can ground you for a second or two- what's your take?

Kittens are cute.
Also, while as much a "tradition" of culture as male circumcision, female circumcisions of all varieties had been linked with increased risk of infectious diseases, I would say it is wrong under any circumstance to endanger others without logical cause.

It is sad that there are still societies where it is taboo not to undergo random rituals, neck lengthening, body scarring, etc, but the weight of value such things means to them is so foreign to me, that I am unable to judge without bias.
I would think male circumcision at the very least may have some plausible benefit to them; in that soap is still a luxury item in many poorer countries.

However, I believe in a civilized and free society, people should be free to perform legal rituals on themselves as they see fit, they should not be allowed to performed any potentially harmful (That is, to be clear, without proven benefit, a child may grow up to advocate against inoculations, it doesn't mean a parent is not within their right to do what they will to protect their child before they might consent.) ritual on a child before they are able to decide what they may believe for themselves.

[Symmetry]

This is the worst kind of loaded question, I will not deny the cuteness of kittens by taking a side, no matter what may happen to the children.

The worst? Hyperbole much?

Anyway, if I can ground you for a second or two- what's your take?

Kittens are cute.
Also, while as much a "tradition" of culture as male circumcision, female circumcisions of all varieties had been linked with increased risk of infectious diseases, I would say it is wrong under any circumstance to endanger others without logical cause.

It is sad that there are still societies where it is taboo not to undergo random rituals, neck lengthening, body scarring, etc, but the weight of value such things means to them is so foreign to me, that I am unable to judge without bias.
I would think male circumcision at the very least may have some plausible benefit to them; in that soap is still a luxury item in many poorer countries.

However, I believe in a civilized and free society, people should be free to perform legal rituals on themselves as they see fit, they should not be allowed to performed any potentially harmful (That is, to be clear, without proven benefit, a child may grow up to advocate against inoculations, it doesn't mean a parent is not within their right to do what they will to protect their child before they might consent.) ritual on a child before they are able to decide what they may believe for themselves.

Male circumcision of infants is also linked to infectious diseases and other complications.

Williams & Kapila state: "the literature abounds with reports of morbidity and even death as a result of circumcision."[45] Complications may be immediate or delayed, and complications from bleeding, infection and poorly carried out circumcisions can be catastrophic.[46] The immediate complications may be classified as surgical mishap, hemorrhage, infection and anesthetic risk.
The American Medical Association quotes a complication rate of 0.2%–0.6%,[47] based on the studies of Gee[48] and Harkavy.[49] These same studies are quoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[24] The American Academy of Family Physicians quotes a range of anywhere between 0.1% and 35%.[50] The Canadian Paediatric Society cites these results in addition to other figures ranging anywhere between 0.06% to 55%, and remark that Williams & Kapila[45] suggested that 2-10% is a realistic estimate.[51] A study quoted by the National Institute of Health reported that 1 complication occurs for every 476 circumcisions.[52] The RACP states that the penis is lost in 1 in 1,000,000 circumcisions.[53]
Deaths have been reported.[54][55] The American Academy of Family Physicians states that death is rare. It estimates a death rate from circumcision of 1 infant in 500,000.[50] Gairdner's 1949 study reported that an average of 16 children per year out of about 90,000 died following circumcision in the UK. He found that most deaths had occurred suddenly under anaesthesia and could not be explained further, but hemorrhage and infection had also proven fatal. Deaths attributed to phimosis and circumcision were grouped together, and Gairdner argued that such deaths were probably due to the circumcision operation.[56]
Adult circumcisions are often performed without clamps, and require 4 to 6 weeks of abstinence from masturbation or intercourse after the operation to allow the wound to heal.[57]

Link

That's just for the actual doctors doing this. The non-medical professionals have a dodgier record.

[/]

The Canadian Paediatric Society cites these results in addition to other figures ranging anywhere between 0.06% to 55%

What kind of a margin of error it that?!?

Also from the link given

Advocates for circumcision say it provides important health advantages which outweigh the risks, that it improves on sexual function,[2] has a complication rate of less than 0.5% when carried out by an experienced physician, and is best performed during the neonatal period.[3]

Still while there seems to be some (potentially biased) benefits for either case, I suppose if it's part of one's body (barring some forms of deformity) it is probably wise to leave well enough alone. Even the commonly removed "useless" tonsils are now thought to a be a first line of defense to infection, those too have also had potential complications from removal.

[rdsrds2120]

The Canadian Paediatric Society cites these results in addition to other figures ranging anywhere between 0.06% to 55%

What kind of a margin of error it that?!?

27.53% +/- 27.47% With a confidence interval of...I'm guessing 5%

-rd

[thegreekdog]

Did you know that getting an amniocentisis results in a 1 in 400 chance of miscarriage?

[saxitoxin]

Should we have a poll on how many circumcision threads the Club needs? Four threads seems to be good, but maybe we're setting our sites too low?

[whitestazn88]

Should we have a poll on how many circumcision threads the Club needs? Four threads seems to be good, but maybe we're setting our sites too low?

sights

[Symmetry]

Should we have a poll on how many circumcision threads the Club needs? Four threads seems to be good, but maybe we're setting our sites too low?

sights

Ouch, the first cut is the deepest, baby, I know

Try to love again.

[saxitoxin]

Should we have a poll on how many circumcision threads the Club needs? Four threads seems to be good, but maybe we're setting our sites too low?

sights

Ouch, the first cut is the deepest, baby, I know

Try to love again.

WHITESTSYMMMMMMMETRY

[Symmetry]

Should we have a poll on how many circumcision threads the Club needs? Four threads seems to be good, but maybe we're setting our sites too low?

sights

Ouch, the first cut is the deepest, baby, I know

Try to love again.

WHITESTSYMMMMMMMETRY

Cat Stevens is responsible:



Just don't blame Islam.

[PLAYER57832]

Let's divorce the male circumcision debate in the other thread to the nuts and bolts of what you should be able to cut off a baby.

IF you are going to do it, it is less painful and more biologically sound to do it in infants.
That said, there is a question of how much a parent gets to decide. Historically, things that do not cause serious and grave harm, and even a few of those done for religious reasons (withholding medical treatment or blood transfusions, for example) are allowed to a point.

The same could be argued about piercing infant ears, giving them marks/tattoos, etc.

[MeDeFe]

Let's divorce the male circumcision debate in the other thread to the nuts and bolts of what you should be able to cut off a baby.

IF you are going to do it, it is less painful and more biologically sound to do it in infants.
That said, there is a question of how much a parent gets to decide. Historically, things that do not cause serious and grave harm, and even a few of those done for religious reasons (withholding medical treatment or blood transfusions, for example) are allowed to a point.

The same could be argued about piercing infant ears, giving them marks/tattoos, etc.

Or cutting pieces off the labia.

[PLAYER57832]

Let's divorce the male circumcision debate in the other thread to the nuts and bolts of what you should be able to cut off a baby.

IF you are going to do it, it is less painful and more biologically sound to do it in infants.
That said, there is a question of how much a parent gets to decide. Historically, things that do not cause serious and grave harm, and even a few of those done for religious reasons (withholding medical treatment or blood transfusions, for example) are allowed to a point.

The same could be argued about piercing infant ears, giving them marks/tattoos, etc.

Or cutting pieces off the labia.

No, but we have been through this before. Even the labia is not truly equivalent to foreskin. Also, you keep referring to a little used procedure as if that were what is generally meant by "female circumcision.". You do nothing positive by distorting it that way.

Male circumcision is much more like ear piercing than cutting the labia.

[saxitoxin]

Let's divorce the male circumcision debate in the other thread to the nuts and bolts of what you should be able to cut off a baby.

IF you are going to do it, it is less painful and more biologically sound to do it in infants.
That said, there is a question of how much a parent gets to decide. Historically, things that do not cause serious and grave harm, and even a few of those done for religious reasons (withholding medical treatment or blood transfusions, for example) are allowed to a point.

The same could be argued about piercing infant ears, giving them marks/tattoos, etc.

Or cutting pieces off the labia.

No, but we have been through this before. Even the labia is not truly equivalent to foreskin. Also, you keep referring to a little used procedure as if that were what is generally meant by "female circumcision.". You do nothing positive by distorting it that way.

Male circumcision is much more like ear piercing than cutting the labia.

You're thinking of a Prince Albert.

[MeDeFe]

Let's divorce the male circumcision debate in the other thread to the nuts and bolts of what you should be able to cut off a baby.

IF you are going to do it, it is less painful and more biologically sound to do it in infants.
That said, there is a question of how much a parent gets to decide. Historically, things that do not cause serious and grave harm, and even a few of those done for religious reasons (withholding medical treatment or blood transfusions, for example) are allowed to a point.

The same could be argued about piercing infant ears, giving them marks/tattoos, etc.

Or cutting pieces off the labia.

No, but we have been through this before. Even the labia is not truly equivalent to foreskin. Also, you keep referring to a little used procedure as if that were what is generally meant by "female circumcision.". You do nothing positive by distorting it that way.

Male circumcision is much more like ear piercing than cutting the labia.

Whatever.

That doesn't change the fact that the argument you hinted at can be made for cutting pieces off the labia. Or skin away from around the clitoris. Or for removing the clitoris. Or for sewing the vagina shut until the girl grows up and marries.
When performed correctly any of the ones I mentioned are less dangerous than withholding certain medical treatments.

[PLAYER57832]

Let's divorce the male circumcision debate in the other thread to the nuts and bolts of what you should be able to cut off a baby.

IF you are going to do it, it is less painful and more biologically sound to do it in infants.
That said, there is a question of how much a parent gets to decide. Historically, things that do not cause serious and grave harm, and even a few of those done for religious reasons (withholding medical treatment or blood transfusions, for example) are allowed to a point.

The same could be argued about piercing infant ears, giving them marks/tattoos, etc.

Or cutting pieces off the labia.

No, but we have been through this before. Even the labia is not truly equivalent to foreskin. Also, you keep referring to a little used procedure as if that were what is generally meant by "female circumcision.". You do nothing positive by distorting it that way.

Male circumcision is much more like ear piercing than cutting the labia.

Whatever.

That doesn't change the fact that the argument you hinted at can be made for cutting pieces off the labia. Or skin away from around the clitoris. Or for removing the clitoris. Or for sewing the vagina shut until the girl grows up and marries.
When performed correctly any of the ones I mentioned are less dangerous than withholding certain medical treatments.

That is utter and complete bull.

Study some medical texts before making such claims, PLEASE.

[MeDeFe]

They're certainly less dangerous than withholding blood transfusions when a child needs surgery after a car crash or something, wouldn't you say?

[PLAYER57832]

They're certainly less dangerous than withholding blood transfusions when a child needs surgery after a car crash or something, wouldn't you say?

When discussing the male form and lighter female forms, yes. When discussin the full blown procedure, including sewing the openings, it can have disasterous and life-threatening medical impact.

Anyway, in the US at least, many courts have ruled, many hospitals in practice go ahead and give the transfusions in emergencies. Courts can also order surgery for Christian Scientist kids, etc. It is very touchy, and always difficult, though.

[BigBallinStalin]

CUT OFF THAT LIL BABY PENIS!! MAKES ME FEEL HAPPY AS A PARENT!