Should Circumcision of young male children be banned?

[Douglas Carpenter]

Poll question: Should Circumcision of young male children be banned?

Given the vehemence expressed on this still on going thread on the LBN Forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4611604#4614210

I wonder what the majority opinion actually is.

BTW: San Francisco is NOT actually considering banning Circumcision - at least not so far - one person has announced that they are starting a petition drive to place it on the ballot.

[racaulk]

1. .

:popcorn:

[Iggo]

4. Move over.

:popcorn:

[Occulus]

6. I got ya both. And everyone else.

[HopeHoops]

2. Genital mutilation is just wrong - male or female.

If one is of sufficient age to voluntarily undergo the procedure, and that's not necessarily 18, then that is their choice. Doing it to someone who is incapable of protesting and/or fighting back is inhumane. Keep in mind that the most widely cited reason for non-religious male circumcision (and by something like 80+%) is so he'll "look like daddy".

[zbdent]

3. Let's ask a bunch of young male children

if they want someone to cut off a piece of their d*ck ...

I mean, if Republicans are so concerned about the "pain threshold" of a barely-formed fetus, maybe they could be concerned about the pain levels inflicted on this (un-anesthetized) practice on the "already-born" ...

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. in the Philippines Circumcision is usually performed when boys are about 11 years old

I am talking about Christian Philippines where there is no direct religious requirement. They usually view it as a kind of rite-of-passage and they most certainly do want to go through it for the most part - I suppose they think it means that they are now growing up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. There's nothing in the poll about "un-anesthetized"

It just talks about a ban on all circumcision; or allowing it only for a religious reason. Both of those options would ban the surgical operation with anesthetic.

[uppityperson]

13. PENIS penis PENIS penis PENIS penis PENIS penis

Why put an asterisk in "dick"? Seriously? Is a euphemism for a penis SUCH a nasty word? Is it so offensive? How about cock? How about yang? Willie? Penis penis penis penis penis?

Why use a euphemism that you can't even type out?

Rant over, sorry, personal pet peeve.

I think most medical male circumcisions are now used with anesthesia but I agree, the fundie repubs are hypocrites.

[dawg]

7. I'm kinda glad I was circumcised.

What can I say? I like the way mine looks! :evilgrin:

I can't see where it would make a tremendous difference, either way. Some guys seem really emotional about this. I mean, of course, I really can't know myself either, but they can only *imagine* the sensitivity they are missing out on. And imagination is almost *always* greater than reality.

Besides, how much sensitivity do you need, anyways?

[frazzled]

9. No, but polls about circumcision should be banned

That is all.

[HughBeaumont]

20. + 1,000,000.

Glad the parents chopped me. Don't remember it, don't care, thank you M & P for not sticking me with root-looking junk.

I'm more concerned about the impending doom we all face under Republican rule.

[FSogol]

10. Note to self: Invest in popcorn futures.

:popcorn:

[Coventina]

11. I predict greatness for this thread.

(apologies to flvegan for stealing his line)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

12. I'd actually prefer . . .

to ban ANY physical mutilation before a person is capable of consent.

Leaving the religious alternative in there only leaves room for weaseling around the prohibition. There are plenty of religious practices we don't permit, even though it's in whomever's magic book. For instance, the same book that tells some people to lop off the end of baby's tiny johnson also tells them that when he gets a little older, if he gets uppity, he should be stoned to death. And I don't think another sect is allowed to castrate little boys so they'll have lovely, high-pitched singing voices.

Sometimes government has a legitimate reason to step in and tell the religious people "No!" even if they holler that god won't like 'em anymore.

[chidy]

14. i'm in the firm "yes" camp.

sorry, but it's barbaric and ridiculous and cruel and based on mostly superstitious unscientific reasons. i'm all in favor of allowing young men, once they are about to be sexually active, *choosing* to ritually mutilate themselves. if that's what they want. which i'd really hope they wouldn't. but if they do? sure, that's what "freedom" means. you make up your own mind about what to do with your body. someone else, even your sainted parents, making that decision for you? when you're unthinking and helpless and alone and powerless? the very opposite of "freedom."


there's no good justification for it other than "well, we've always done it and if we don't some kids will stand out as different." oooooh. yeah, like that's always been a good justification for shit. not. if we were talking about the removal of all/parts of the clitoris, or the labial tissue of the vagina "for health and safety reasons" everyone here would HOWL at the ridiculous and patriarchal rhetoric of such a statement and reject it.

in some Native Australian cultures, there is a practice known as "sub-incision." it's when the shaman and a young boy first come to manhood and the father have a ritual ceremony welcoming the young man to the group, and then they take a ritual knife and some herbs and permanently scar a long groove into the underside of his penis. it's symbolic of his connection with the female principle in the universe and spirit world. it hurts, a lot. now, i'm an atheist, and i wouldn't want my son to do that either. but that's what i think the big C should really be about, if it's that "important." let the young man choose it, to show his fidelity to your religion. if he doesn't... well. you can probably guess how that makes me feel.

i'm sure i'm not the first person to point out that in many, many parts of the world cutting is unknown, and even illegal in some countries.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. As a matter of interest, where is it illegal now?

I've found a report that says a Finnish court ruled it illegal a few years ago, but their Supreme Court over-ruled that. Apart from that, I can't see anywhere it's illegal.

[WolverineDG]

15. another week, another circumcision flamewar

seriously, can y'all find something *new* to be outraged about?

dg

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. Let me give you a "tip":

Enough of this circumcision stuff. It's getting to be every damn day lately.

[pgodbold]

17. I would like to see a similar poll taken that does not include female participants. nt

[Igel]

18. I'll make a meta-post.

The middle option--banned saving for religious reasons--is too squishy to be useful.

As a regulation or law it falls into the "should" category: It's not the parents' religious beliefs that ultimately decide the issue, it's what organization the parents belong to. If you fervently, passionately believe circumcision is required by whatever god you have but have never gone to any service or joined with those of like mind, your religious beliefs won't be acknowledged; meanwhile, a secular Jew who just wants his son to be circumcised because, well, he's Jewish and it's an ethnic thing will have no problem.

[apocalypsehow]

21. Uh-oh....

:hide:

:nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke:

[Edweird]

22. I'm cut and I'm good with it.

[Xicano]

23. I think its a family issue and nobody else's business.

n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. I agree

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. I agree

[Renew Deal]

26. That's a tough one

Because if I believe that it's generally wrong, then I sould also believe it should be banned. But there are medical and religious reasons for keeping it legal.