Circumcision

[volgadon]

I'm a male.

I was circumcised, and by traditional methods to boot.

Have no traumas from it, no recollection of pain, no discomfort, no adverse health effects, no complexes, no complications, I'm married and enjoy a satisfying sex life. Try as I may, I fail to see how this is a "barbaric abomination."

[Vort]

I'm a male.

I was circumcised, and by traditional methods to boot.

Have no traumas from it, no recollection of pain, no discomfort, no adverse health effects, no complexes, no complications, I'm married and enjoy a satisfying sex life. Try as I may, I fail to see how this is a "barbaric abomination."

I remember reading an article about 20 or so years ago about an African tribal woman in New York who scarified her infant son's face with a hot iron, in accordance with her tribal traditions. She was put on trial for the act. In her defense, a man who was a member of her tribe said essentially the same thing you are saying: He experienced no trauma, no recollection of pain, no miserable life, no ill effects, and he's considered handsome.

So should the woman be allowed to brand her son's face with a hot iron, or not?

I vote not.

Just because you had the end of your penis amputated in infancy and today believe that you're doing A-OK, that does not imply nor even suggest that it is therefore a good thing to amputate the end of an infant boy's penis. The description alone sounds barbaric, and the large majority of the world views it as such.

[volgadon]

I remember reading an article about 20 or so years ago about an African tribal woman in New York who scarified her infant son's face with a hot iron, in accordance with her tribal traditions. She was put on trial for the act. In her defense, a man who was a member of her tribe said essentially the same thing you are saying: He experienced no trauma, no recollection of pain, no miserable life, no ill effects, and he's considered handsome.

So should the woman be allowed to brand her son's face with a hot iron, or not?

I vote not.

Just because you had the end of your penis amputated in infancy and today believe that you're doing A-OK, that does not imply nor even suggest that it is therefore a good thing to amputate the end of an infant boy's penis. The description alone sounds barbaric, and the large majority of the world views it as such.

So, basically, your argument boils down to emotionalist rhetoric and an extreme Western cultural bias. To each his own.

I do admit to having a cultural bias, on top of the things I listed above, I grew up in a country where the majority of males are circumcised, so you are going to have to come up with something far more compelling than the arguments you currently use. My cultural bias however doesn't have me either encouraging circumcision or discouraging it. Each parent is free to decide without feeling guilty either way.

[Vort]

So, basically, your argument boils down to emotionalist rhetoric and an extreme Western cultural bias.

Not at all. I have given my argument above, and it's not "emotionalist rhetoric" nor any cultural bias. On the contrary, I have encouraged research into the issue. But while we're on the subject, your argument appears to be, "I'm circumcised and I'm OK!", which really isn't much of an argument at all.

I do admit to having a cultural bias, on top of the things I listed above, I grew up in a country where the majority of males are circumcised, so you are going to have to come up with something far more compelling than the arguments you currently use. My cultural bias however doesn't have me either encouraging circumcision or discouraging it. Each parent is free to decide without feeling guilty either way.

Are you equally open-minded about cutting off your infant's toes or branding his face? Or is it only your culturally induced biases that allow you to participate in foreskin amputation without guilt? I suggest it is the latter.

I don't ask that you accept my reasoning or that you agree with me. I only ask that you acknowledge your own prejudices in accepting the amputation of an infant's penis as somehow reasonable and acceptable, and that you engage in real research on the issue and encourage others to do so.

If, after honest and open-minded research, you conclude that amputating the foreskin of your infant son's penis is an appropriate and worthwhile activity that in no way violates the integrity of his body, then I will have no criticism to offer (other than that I think you reached the wrong conclusion). My concern is that people are having their sons circumcised, not because they have an informed opinion that circumcision is a good thing, but because they have a cultural bias predisposing them towards the act, or that everyone else they know does it so they should probably do it, too, or that they heard something here or there on some news report somewhere that it was a good thing, so therefore it must be good.

[volgadon]

Not at all. I have given my argument above, and it's not "emotionalist rhetoric" nor any cultural bias. On the contrary, I have encouraged research into the issue.

The two are far from being mutually contradictory, especially when you are dictating the results of said research.

But while we're on the subject, your argument appears to be, "I'm circumcised and I'm OK!", which really isn't much of an argument at all.

Your argument seems to be that being circumcised means one isn't ok.

Are you equally open-minded about cutting off your infant's toes or branding his face?

My, there is an awful lot of this non-existant emotionalist rhetoric.

Or is it only your culturally induced biases that allow you to participate in foreskin amputation without guilt? I suggest it is the latter.

One is able to function perfectly normally without a foreskin, which isn't quite the case with amputated toes.

I don't ask that you accept my reasoning or that you agree with me. I only ask that you acknowledge your own prejudices in accepting the amputation of an infant's penis as somehow reasonable and acceptable, and that you engage in real research on the issue and encourage others to do so.

I have engaged in real research. This isn't the first time I've been involved in such a debate. And your baloney about amputating an infant's penis is yet another example of that baseless, emotionalist rhetoric which you deny spouting.

If, after honest and open-minded research, you conclude that amputating the foreskin of your infant son's penis is an appropriate and worthwhile activity that in no way violates the integrity of his body, then I will have no criticism to offer (other than that I think you reached the wrong conclusion).

Alright, case closed. You can drop the self-righteous guilt-triping crusade.

[beefche]

Ok, everyone, let's take a step back and gain control. I think both sides have expressed their views. No need to begin to take this thread to a lower level.

[Vort]

Ok, everyone, let's take a step back and gain control. I think both sides have expressed their views. No need to begin to take this thread to a lower level.

For the record, I have been nothing but respectful toward others in this conversation, including volgadon. Please do not attribute his rhetorical devices to me.

[estradling75]

For the record, I have been nothing but respectful toward others in this conversation, including volgadon. Please do not attribute his rhetorical devices to me.

Not buying it Vort...You are an intelligent guy and you have shown great skill with words. You are addressing a topic you know to be heated. You throw out terms like barbaric abomination, penis amputation, and genital mutilation. Which are very loaded terms to begin with, and you expect a forum full of parents who struggle every day with trying to make the best choices they can for their kids, not to go up in flames about a choice that for the most of them is already made. You might not be producing any flames but you provided the fuel and the spark knowing the likely result.

When I had my son's circumcised I did it after talking with the Doctor and my wife. We made the choice made on best information that was available to us at the time. I don't feel one bit guilty about that. Since then more studies have been done, more information has come available to me. If the same choice was make available to me now with this new information I might very well choose differently, but I am not going to beat myself up over what is in the past.

[FunkyTown]

Just to chime in:

I was circumcised, and I can promise you that I can't remember a single bad thing about it.

[Vort]

Not buying it Vort...You are an intelligent guy and you have shown great skill with words. You are addressing a topic you know to be heated.

Neither of which are relevant.

You throw out terms like barbaric abomination,

Because such I believe it to be. So you are suggesting that an honest expression of heartfelt opinion, directed toward a topic but no individual, constitutes disrespectful speech in the same manner as volgadon's open attacks?

penis amputation,

A perfectly sound and accurate description. Circumcision is in fact the amputation of the skin at the end of the penis. That some might object to this description is evidence of denial of the facts of circumcision, not that the description is inherently flawed.

and genital mutilation.

If one mutilates genitals, is that not genital mutilation?

If someone forks his tongue, would not "lingual mutilation" be an accurate description? And remember, tongue forkers do so on their own, not because their parents did it to them as infants.

Which are very loaded terms to begin with, and you expect a forum full of parents who struggle every day with trying to make the best choices they can for their kids, not to go up in flames about a choice that for the most of them is already made.

Of course I expect civilized people to act, well, civilized.

You might not be producing any flames but you provided the fuel and the spark knowing the likely result.

This is a completely false characterization. I am not stirring the coals just to see if flames spring to life. I am stating my opinion as clearly and convincingly as I can.

When I had my son's circumcised I did it after talking with the Doctor and my wife. We made the choice made on best information that was available to us at the time. I don't feel one bit guilty about that.

How wonderful for you. But guess what? I do feel guilty. And my guilt is no less valid than your lack thereof.

In any case, that is irrelevant. Feeling guilty is not and never has been the point. The point is that circumcision is an unnecessary mutilation of an innocent infant's genitals, and parents ought to protect their children from such, not subject them to it. Guilt is only useful if it serves to help change the damaging behavior.

[Justice]

I was circumcised, my sons were not... by my wife's choice. Honestly, it really didn't matter to me.

After a couple of infections, at times she wish they had been.

Otherwise, we are all normal physically.

However, I agree that it's not needed. It's not part of our covenant now.

As far as those who have had their sons circumcised should feel guilty...

Guilt should come from intent to injure. I don't think it's any mother's intent to injure their sons by having them circumcised. So, likely, there would be no guilt. I think it's more accurate to say mothers have their sons circumcised for reasons they feel will benefit them, not injure them.

[Seminarysnoozer]

There is a difference between talking about medical circumcision versus the ceremonial circumcision, part of the law of Moses.

[Vort]

There is a difference between talking about medical circumcision versus the ceremonial circumcision, part of the law of Moses.

I don't believe there is any difference today. The original circumcision as practiced by the ancient Hebrews has not been done regularly in over 2000 years. The radical denuding of the glans penis is the standard method of circumcision performed today, whether by hospitals or by a Jewish mohel (or whatever the Muslim equivalent is).

[volgadon]

For the record, I have been nothing but respectful toward others in this conversation, including volgadon. Please do not attribute his rhetorical devices to me.

I think the difference is that you might have attempted more subtelty. Not a lot more though. I am not sure how stating that your arguments appeal more to emotionalist rhetoric and an extreme Western cultural bias rather than actual substance is any less respectful than than comparing me to someone chopping off a baby's toes, or insinuating that I am ignorant on this mattes and am all for barabrously amputating a baby's penis.

Of course, your fall-back defense seems to be special pleading, as you are merely voicing "an honest expression of heartfelt opinion," though one is reminded of the proverbial goose and gander.

[Vort]

I am not sure how stating that your arguments appeal more to emotionalist rhetoric and an extreme Western cultural bias rather than actual substance

I was referring to your personal attack in accusing me of a "self-righteous guilt-triping [sic] crusade".

is any less respectful than than comparing me to someone chopping off a baby's toes,

But this is a false allegation, volgadon. See the previous link to remind yourself of the context of my remark.

or insinuating that I am ignorant on this mattes and am all for barabrously amputating a baby's penis.

As in your false claim that "One is able to function perfectly normally without a foreskin"? That one can successfully copulate and even have a fulfilling sex life is not at all the same thing as being "able to function perfectly normally". The mechanics of sex are not the same for circumcised men as for intact men. This is a fact, not an opinion. Yet you clearly did not know this (or else you were consciously telling an untruth -- but I gave you the benefit of the doubt in attributing your error to ignorance rather than dishonesty), so obviously you were ignorant on this matter.

As for your being "all for barabrously [sic] amputating a baby's penis", I neither said nor suggested any such thing.

Of course, your fall-back defense seems to be special pleading, as you are merely voicing "an honest expression of heartfelt opinion," though one is reminded of the proverbial goose and gander.

My expressions did not involve personal attacks, as yours did.

[volgadon]

I was referring to your personal attack in accusing me of a "self-righteous guilt-triping [sic] crusade".

I do apologise for the "self-righteous" epithet. The guilt-tripping crusade, however, is exactly how your posts on this topic come across.

But this is a false allegation, volgadon. See the previous link to remind yourself of the context of my remark.

Right, and the context supports what I was saying, that you are comparing those who would circumcise to those who would chop off a baby's toes.

As in your false claim that "One is able to function perfectly normally without a foreskin"? That one can successfully copulate and even have a fulfilling sex life is not at all the same thing as being "able to function perfectly normally".

No?

The mechanics of sex are not the same for circumcised men as for intact men. This is a fact, not an opinion.

It is far from being clear how significant this difference is. Your facts really aren't as clear-cut in their implications as you claim.

Yet you clearly did not know this (or else you were consciously telling an untruth -- but I gave you the benefit of the doubt in attributing your error to ignorance rather than dishonesty), so obviously you were ignorant on this matter.

I'm sorry, your claims of clairvoyance aside, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

As for your being "all for barabrously [sic] amputating a baby's penis", I neither said nor suggested any such thing.

No?

"Just because you had the end of your penis amputated in infancy and today believe that you're doing A-OK, that does not imply nor even suggest that it is therefore a good thing to amputate the end of an infant boy's penis. The description alone sounds barbaric, and the large majority of the world views it as such."

"I only ask that you acknowledge your own prejudices in accepting the amputation of an infant's penis as somehow reasonable and acceptable..."

My expressions did not involve personal attacks, as yours did.

I beg to differ. I would suggest you seriously examine your tone and verbiage.

[beefche]

Thread closed.