Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.

12 3 ... 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- Air
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
OP - November 11, 2009, 12:20 AM

Would you folks agree with this?

My argument focuses on the rights of the child: why should anyone be able to decide what body parts a person gets to keep? Surely everyone should be given a choice. In situations where it's medically unnecessary and the child is too young to consent, I say the practice should be outlawed. The foreskin is a natural part of the body, and to remove it without consent is fundamentally immoral. I know there are other arguments for and against, but for me the issue of consent overrides everything else.

You need to read this book.
- awais
- Ex-Muslim
- mulhid taqwa
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #1 - November 11, 2009, 12:35 AM

I regret choosing to get circumcised, though I believe that parents should still have the freedom to choose if they want their sons to be circumcised.

My 'foreskin' has stretched a little bit since I got circumcised (5 years ago at 17), though I wasn't actively trying to. Don't think it matters, nerves ain't coming back, it'll just be cosmetic if you try to 'restore' your skin.

I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
- Air
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #2 - November 11, 2009, 01:08 AM

Quote from: awais
I believe that parents should still have the freedom to choose if they want their sons to be circumcised.

Why exactly? Children are not property. One person's rights end where another's begin. Parents are free to raise their kids however they'd like, but is it right that they're allowed to make irreversible changes to the body of another human being without consent? I don't think so.

You need to read this book.
- awais
- Ex-Muslim
- mulhid taqwa
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #3 - November 11, 2009, 01:16 AM

Children are property of their parents until they've become adults.

I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
- allat
- Euphoria
- Administrator
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #4 - November 11, 2009, 01:18 AM

No way... children are never the property of parents. That's messed up, man. What about children's rights? What about parental abuse? Nobody bothers you if you beat up your own car or throw your vase at the wall in a fit of rage. Can't do that to your kids, because they are NOT property.

"Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
- awais
- Ex-Muslim
- mulhid taqwa
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #5 - November 11, 2009, 01:24 AM

What rights? If abuse means discipline by whupping their ass then I am for it. See http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=4555.0

If a parent wants to circumcise their male infant in accordance to their religious or cultural tradition, or misnotions of possible health benefits, then I see no problem with it.

I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
- allat
- Euphoria
- Administrator
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #6 - November 11, 2009, 01:32 AM

Well if you need to stick to that for some reason, it's your prerogative. But it's an outdated form of child-raising, and most people see that corporal punishment does more harm than good.

Anyway, circumcision is a barbaric practice and I'm all for getting rid of it. BTW, here's an excerpt from Hitchens' God is Not Great.

Quote
I pose a hypothetical question. As a man of some fifty-seven years of age, I am discovered sucking the penis of a baby boy. I ask you to picture your own outrage and revulsion. Ah, but I have my explanation all ready. I am a mohel: an appointed circumciser and foreskin remover. My authority comes from an ancient text, which commands me to take a baby boy's penis in my hand, cut around the prepuce, and complete the action by taking his penis in my mouth, sucking off the foreskin, and spitting out the amputated flag along with a mouthful of blood and saliva. This practice has been abandoned by most Jews, either because of its unhygienic nature or its disturbing associations, but it still persists among the sort of Hasidic fundamentalists who hope for the Second Temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem. To them, the primitive rite of the peri'ah metsitsah is part of the original and unbreakable covenant with god. In New York City in the year 2005, the ritual, as performed by a fifty-seven-year-old mohel, was found to have given genital herpes to several small boys, and to have caused the deaths of at least two of them. In normal circumstances, the disclosure would have led the public health department to forbid the practice and the mayor to denounce it. But in the capital of the modern world, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, such was not the case. Instead, Mayor Bloomberg overrode the reports by distinguished Jewish physicians who had warned of the danger of the custom, and told his health care bureaucracy to postpone any verdict. The crucial thing, he said, was to be sure that the free exercise of religion was not being infringed. . . . It happened to be an election year in New York for the mayor, which often explains a lot. But this pattern recurs in other denominations and other states and cities, as well as in other countries.

"Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
- awais
- Ex-Muslim
- mulhid taqwa
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #7 - November 11, 2009, 01:37 AM

Yeah sure, that form of circumcision should be prohibited because it is harmful and potentially fatal, whereas most are routine procedures.

I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
- Air
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #8 - November 11, 2009, 01:37 AM

Quote from: awais
What rights? If abuse means discipline by whupping their ass then I am for it.

Wow...

Corporal punishment is barbaric, unacceptable, and the hallmark of an incompetent parent.

You need to read this book.
- allat
- Euphoria
- Administrator
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #9 - November 11, 2009, 01:41 AM

Quote from: awais on November 11, 2009, 01:37 AM
Yeah sure, that form of circumcision should be prohibited because it is harmful and potentially fatal, whereas most are routine procedures.

So what if Hassidic Jewish parents want to put their baby sons through this traditional practice of peri'ah metsitsah - why should they be prohibited?

Quote from: awais on November 11, 2009, 01:24 AM
If a parent wants to circumcise their male infant in accordance to their religious or cultural tradition, or ideas of possible health benefits, then I see no problem with it.

It's their tradition, and according to you they own their children.... I guess like you own your laptop. So what's the problem? Why is the line drawn there?

"Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
- awais
- Ex-Muslim
- mulhid taqwa
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #10 - November 11, 2009, 01:47 AM

Quote from: Godot on November 11, 2009, 01:37 AM
Quite frankly, I find your views on this issue to be morally reprehensible and utterly disgusting.

Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. Peace.

Allat I draw the line when there is harm done to the child. I do not regard regular circumcision as harmful, nor whupping a child's ass with a belt.

I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
- allat
- Euphoria
- Administrator
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #11 - November 11, 2009, 01:54 AM

So putting a small helpless baby through an unnecessary surgical procedure where a strange man cuts off part of his most intimate body part, that will result in loss of sensation for the baby as an adult and possibly permanent, traumatic pre-verbal memories, these things are not to be considered harmful? Beating a child is not considered harmful? What *IS* harmful in your book, I wonder.

"Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
- Air
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #12 - November 11, 2009, 02:22 AM

Quote from: awais
I draw the line when there is harm done to the child.

If that's the case, the following shouldn't bother you at all:

- removal of ear lobes
- laser hair removal
- tattoos
- piercings
- plastic surgery
- taking a kidney, et cetera.

See our point yet? It isn't right to impose these kinds of bodily alterations on children, or anyone else for that matter.

You need to read this book.
- awais
- Ex-Muslim
- mulhid taqwa
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #13 - November 11, 2009, 02:24 AM

Quote from: allat on November 11, 2009, 01:54 AM
So putting a small helpless baby through an unnecessary surgical procedure where a strange man cuts off part of his most intimate body part, that will result in loss of sensation for the baby as an adult and possibly permanent, traumatic pre-verbal memories, these things are not to be considered harmful? Beating a child is not considered harmful? What *IS* harmful in your book, I wonder.

I feel like you're re-asking questions I've already answered, and my previous answers will do.

I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
- awais
- Ex-Muslim
- mulhid taqwa
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #14 - November 11, 2009, 02:27 AM

Godot, who has done that to a child? There's no need, no point.

I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
- Air
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #15 - November 11, 2009, 02:39 AM

Quote from: awais
Godot, who has done that to a child? There's no need, no point.

Don't dodge the issue now. If I were to invent a religion which incorporated all the alterations I listed, and I then planned to carry them out on a child, would you object? If yes, then you'd better think of a good reason why those alterations are any different to circumcision.

You need to read this book.
- awais
- Ex-Muslim
- mulhid taqwa
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #16 - November 11, 2009, 02:52 AM

I'm not getting into your issue because I think it's stupid. Good day.

I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
- Air
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #17 - November 11, 2009, 03:25 AM

Quote from: awais
I'm not getting into your issue because I think it's stupid. Good day.

Touche.

You need to read this book.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #18 - November 11, 2009, 10:04 AM

I thought Godot was making a damned good point. Ok, so what about "female circumcision"? I mean if a parent wants to "circumcise" their female infant in accordance with their religious or cultural tradition, or notions of possible health benefits, would you see no problem with it?

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- RIBS
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #19 - November 11, 2009, 10:40 AM

Quote from: Godot on November 11, 2009, 12:20 AM
Would you folks agree with this? I'm a guy, and I resent my parents somewhat for having me circumcised.

My argument focuses on the rights of the child: why should anyone be able to decide what body parts a person gets to keep? Surely everyone should be given a choice. In situations where it's medically unnecessary and the child is too young to consent, I say the practice should be outlawed. The foreskin is a natural part of the body, and to remove it without consent is fundamentally immoral. I know there are other arguments for and against, but for me the issue of consent overrides everything else.

On a side note, has anyone here looked into foreskin restoration? I've read about the stretching techniques you can use, but I don't think it'd be that beneficial, as you'd never be able to restore the lost nerve endings and other specific anatomical components. Perhaps stem cell research will make this possible someday, although probably not in our lifetimes.

I did get to let off some steam recently when I confronted my parents about this, but they just played dumb and acted like it didn't matter. I'd have liked an apology, but alas, how can you expect rational understanding from irrational people?

Totally agree.... it is barbaric and an extreme cultureligious offense against very young human beings. Parents have no right to mutilate their kids for their self-gratification... that is purely sadistic...

Here in this thread (http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=5137.0) I have mentioned how hurt I was when I became old enough to know what had happened to me.

My father passed away several years ago, but last year I told my mother about what I feel and she apologized and acknowledges that they should have waited until I decided for my self.

I am too happy to say that I have 4 boys and they are still intact and I am proud to confront all silly billy Muslims who insist on harassing me and my kids and asking why they are not mutilated yet....

We live in a strict Muslim country and I am glad to say that my line of defense is that Circumcision (or Mutilation as I prefer to call it) is an insult to Allah who have supposedly created us in the best form. They become speechless when I demonstrate to them a whole list of Suras and verses that says so. I simply say to them that by cutting that tiny piece of skin which is unlike cutting off hair and finger nails, the damage is permanent.

So yes.... It is about time governments ban the mutilation of both boys and girls!
LOL... I think I made my self clear I hated MGM!

...
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #20 - November 11, 2009, 11:29 AM

Quote from: awais on November 11, 2009, 01:16 AM
Children are property of their parents until they've become adults.

I am speechless!!!

Quote from: Godot on November 11, 2009, 03:25 AM
Touche.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U93ZiR692l4&feature=related

I love the way Hitchens takes no prisoners.

Btw my mum was strictly against me getting circumcised and I am grateful for that. It is my body and it should be my choice. And she did just that, she put my right to make a choice about my body into my hands.
And that is exactly what any good parent would do - try and second guess what their children would want. Unfortunately a lot of parents love a stupid Bronze Age dogma more then they love their children.

And that is truly sad!
- ninurta
- Ninurta the Apostate
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #21 - November 20, 2009, 11:47 PM

This absolutely should be banned. The child should consent when he is old enough to consent. If he or she doesn't consent to you cutting part of his part of, then that's too bad for the circumsizer surgeons, or whoever does the operation. It's a cosmetic practice that is useless, pointless and religious, therefore, it should wait till the child decides.

As for being the property of our parents, no we are not. Maybe by law, as were african americans property of white americans, but that doesn't make it right. That must chance too.

We are not property of our superiors, nor should children be.

It is not the way you live your life that is important, it is how well you enjoy it that matters.
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #22 - November 20, 2009, 11:53 PM

I would be against banning it until I see very strong evidence that such a ban is justified on health grounds.
- Tommy
- Let me feel your butt
- Ex-Muslim
- The Ass Patter
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #23 - November 20, 2009, 11:59 PM

I don't care to be honest. I'd have to see some medical evidence to suggest that it's actually harmful to the human being. If not, then I don't see any reason to bann it.

To me, without a proper medical arguement against circumcisions, I put it in the same category as piercing ears or something. Of course, the person have to give their consent to have it done, but I don't think it should be banned entirely.

Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
- ninurta
- Ninurta the Apostate
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #24 - November 21, 2009, 12:02 AM

Quote from: Hassan on November 20, 2009, 11:53 PM
I would be against banning it until I see very strong evidence that such a ban is justified on health grounds.

What about the fact that it is a medical procedure in which your taxes pay for, or your insurance you buy pays for, that really is medically unnecessary.

There is also a strong moral arguement, should you be able to mutilate someone else's body beyond their ability to consent?

Also, why fix what isn't broken? Or in this case, why chop off what doesn't need to be chopped?

It is not the way you live your life that is important, it is how well you enjoy it that matters.
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #25 - November 21, 2009, 12:02 AM

Quote from: Tommy on November 20, 2009, 11:59 PM
Of course, the person have to give their consent to have it done,

The point is a baby/young child can't give consent.

But I wouldn't like to see the state deciding what a parent can or cannot do unless there was strong medical/health evidence to back it up.
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #26 - November 21, 2009, 12:04 AM

Quote from: ninurta on November 21, 2009, 12:02 AM
What about the fact that it is a medical procedure in which your taxes pay for, or your insurance you buy pays for, that really is medically unnecessary.

There is also a strong moral arguement, should you be able to mutilate someone else's body beyond their ability to consent?

Also, why fix what isn't broken? Or in this case, why chop off what doesn't need to be chopped?

I didn't know it was available on the NHS. When I had my two sons circumcised I had to pay for it privately. (The first was done by a Rabbi and the second by a Muslim.)
- ninurta
- Ninurta the Apostate
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #27 - November 21, 2009, 12:07 AM

Quote from: Hassan on November 21, 2009, 12:04 AM
I didn't know it was available on the NHS. When I had my two sons circumcised I had to pay for it privately. (The first was done by a Rabbi and the second by a Muslim.)

I don't know if it is or isnt, if it has to be done out of pocket, thats another reason to wait till the child consents. I havent had kids yet, and havent discussed circumcision with anyone who has had to get their kid circumcised.

It is not the way you live your life that is important, it is how well you enjoy it that matters.
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #28 - November 21, 2009, 12:12 AM

Speaking for myself, I have never been aware of any medical or health problem from the fact that I was circumcised as a baby without my consent and it has never been a problem or an issue and has all worked fine for 50 years and to be honest I quite like it the way it is

I don't think I would have it done to any kids I might have now not that I'm planning to have kids lol ) - but I don't see why it should be banned unless there was some strong evidence that it is detrimental.

I think banning should only be taken in extreme cases - otherwise just educate.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #29 - November 21, 2009, 12:15 AM

Quote from: Hassan on November 21, 2009, 12:02 AM
The point is a baby/young child can't give consent.

But I wouldn't like to see the state deciding what a parent can or cannot do unless there was strong medical/health evidence to back it up.

Ok, so by that logic parents can have their daughters "circumcised" too as long as it isn't one of the more extreme forms that have known medical complications..

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
12 3 ... 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »