Should Circumcision Become Illegal?
Circumcision is a practice that dates back to the time of Abraham, nearly 4,000 years ago. Ever since that time Judaism, and then Islam, has practiced circumcision. Circumcision is also being practiced by more than 50% of American Christians. Christianity does not require circumcision, but numerous Christians believe its practice should continue. Recently, there has been a growing movement attempting to ban circumcision and make it illegal, namely a crime. Do you agree with these modern oppoents of circumcision, Should Circumcision become illegal?
Yes
Side Score: 28
|
 |
No
Side Score: 27
|
|
|
|
|
Just because a desert bandit called Abraham or Muhamad had a sexual circumcision fetish why should millions of people have to go through this disgusting ritual? Almost all circumcisions are on babies and children, not on grown adults. They do not decide, they do not choose, someone chooses for them. Should we allow fundamentalist muslims to cut off the clitoris of their female children? If someone wants to mutilate their own bodies in this way then fine, but people should not have the right to do so onto innocent children who have no say in the matter. Disadvantages of circumcision: (From http://www.circinfo.com/ a. Unnecessary Operation. If performed in the absence of essential indications, or as a routine procedure, it may be an unnecessary operation. Some men who were circumcised in infancy feel that they have been mutilated and deprived of an important structure without their consent and they are just as obsessional about this as those who clamour to be circumcised. On the other hand feelings of regret or resentment are not engendered in men who are coerced into having the operation when it is not essential (e.g. going to sea or request of fiancée) and they are just as pleased as those who are done for say phimosis. b. Theoretical Risks. As with any other operation there are theoretical risks of bleeding, infection, surgical error and death under the anaesthetic. Out-of-date statistics and 'horror' stories from the past are still quoted even though modern infant circumcision with a 'Plastibell' under 'Ketalar' anaesthesia is devoid of these complications. Adults and adolescents can be circumcised using only local anaesthesia so as to again eliminate the risks. c. Psychological Harm. It has been suggested that the operation may cause psychological harm if it is performed at an unsuitable age. It may well be that separation from parents and not the operation is the factor because I have never been able to find any evidence of psychological trauma. Also if circumcision is not explained the child may be disturbed to find he is different from his brothers and friends. Life may also be made miserable by remarks from his uncircumcised school-fellows in the showers about the shorn state of his organ. Conversely in a society where infant circumcision is the rule it is the uncircumcised scholar who is made to feel inferior by his class-mates. d. Meatitis. If an uncircumcised infant gets a nappy (diaper) rash his foreskin becomes inflamed but his glans is protected. In the circumcised infant if the glans becomes involved, a sore (meatitis) develops at the opening of the water pipe (meatus) and passing water is painful. The meatus soon heals, occasionally there is slight scarring and very rarely the opening may have to be stretched. Napkin rash is caused by urine in sodden napkins decomposing and releasing ammonia so the condition can be prevented by proper hygiene. Modern high-absorbancy disposable nappies also make the risk negligible. The risk of meatitis, which is the most common complication of circumcision in infancy, is advanced as the main argument against routine circumcision but little mention is made of the fact that balanitis in the uncircumcised male later in life is the most common cause of meatal scarring. Severe inflammation of the foreskin due to nappy rash can result in phimosis or balanitis and thus in any case lead to a need for circumcision. e. Loss of Sensitivity. A number of men complain that a loss of sensitivity or dryness of the glans following circumcision has spoiled their sex lives. At the other extreme are those who seek the operation to achieve these changes in the glans to enhance their sex lives. These complaints are similar to the mutilation obsession because men with naturally short foreskins are not troubled by having the glans exposed. Side: yes
The foreskin is there for a reason and should be a common sense matter. Unfortunately, it seems that today's society doesn't have much of that. It is selfish for any parent to think they own their child, like he was a pet. But you would be arrested if you circumcised your pet. Does that make any sense? Side: yes
0
points
"Today's society?" Make that virtually all of western history, and much of eastern history. I never considered that i owned my sons but, for their safety and well being, i made every single health decision for them until they were of an age to decide for themselves. And, yes, they were circumcised. And neither of them has ever suggested that they miss the skin. This discussion is so foolish. Why am i here???? Bye. Side: No
0
points
You need to switch your argument, I think. I am one of a growing number of Christians who believe that the future of Christianity is circumcised, including infant circumcision. Circumcision is healthy and hygenic, you're repeating anti-circumcision propaganda, usually aimed at Jews and Judaism. Side: No
0
points
Your entire argument boils down to, "Well, I think it's bad, but it also might not be bad. Here's an allegorical example of why it's bad. But just to be fair, let me contradict myself in the last sentence and say that this claim is unsubstantiated." This summary is done to support all those who think "tl;dr" If someone wishes to have it done, let them have it done. If a parent wishes their child to be circumcised, then let them do it. The "social stigma" you talk about is only present if people make a fuss over something, and obviously, there is only a fuss if people decide to make a fuss over it. Therefore, let the family be, and let them make their own personal choices. (As a side note, the same argument of "not letting a baby be circumcised because they cannot make the decision independently" could be made for parents who give/don't give their child immunizations, give/don't give baptisms, do/don't breast feed, etc. Parents should be given the benefit of the doubt to do with their children what they think is best, and not be dictated what to do by social evangelists.) Side: No
Saying that something is unsubstantiated is a scholarly way of saying that s/he is not posting citations, so if you challenge what he is saying find some facts to back your dispute. It is pretty clear to me that xyze's answers are straight forward, not allegorical. In fact, if you look, the opposition's argument is full of "biblical facts" which are 100% allegorical. Their are many of things that parents can no longer make their own decision about. For some reason cutting a part of his penis off isn't one of them. Sounds odd huh. Side: Yes
|
1
point
0
points
UNDERSTANDING THE ENEMIES OF CIRCUMCISION No son of a man may be forcibly circumcised. - Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 48a Jews have seen anti-circumcision agitations previously in history, so this new early 21st century round of attempts to criminalize male circumcision should be seen as nothing new, but a perpetual cycle of clearly Pagan, anti-Biblical, attempts to destroy Judaism, and quite possibly Christianity as well. Of course, there have been anti-circumcision movements before, but most Jews historically have continued the religious practice of circumcision even under the threat of death. - The Jewish Journal - North Boston A quick look at the internet shows that opponents of male circumcision are organized and their numbers are growing more numerous with each passing day. Their rhetoric has also became far more belligerent. In short, there is ample reason to worry about the future of circumcision, both in this country and around the world. Here is a small sampling of some of the more strident, and scary, websites dedicated to the enemies of circumcision:
+ Anti-Circumcision Quotes from an Online Search for 'Circumcision' on Google + - Circumcision. A Barbaric Practice, A Human Rights Violation... - Circumcision Is Barbaric And Unnecessary. Jews Against Circumcision - Do not circumcise, it is barbaric, primitive and a human rights violation. Circumcision is barbaric and... - circumcision is barbaric...Also, check out the links for more info on this evil practice. - Is circumcision a barbaric ritual that harms a child physically? Or is it a deep meaningful... - When our son was born, my wife decided circumcision was barbaric, but my parents insisted it was an essential... - Circumcision (Bris Milah) is a cruel, barbaric procedure that can traumatize... - I do find that male circumcision is barbaric and totally pointless for christians... - Why circumcision should be abhorred- Circumcision is a barbaric tradition with deep roots in religious dogmas, like infant baptism.... Thus, it should come as little surprise that the enemies of male circumcision are at it again both in California and Massachusetts. A recent 'San Francisco measure proposes to make the circumcision of males under 18 a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine or a year in jail.' Also, Santa Monica is discussing a similar proposal. This attempted prohibition against circumcision is especially worrisome to Jews. As one source notes bluntly: [The] measure clearly is aimed at a particular part of the community, and there's no doubt that this proposition knowingly targets Jews. Marc Stern, a lawyer for the American Jewish Committee, had the matter exactly right when he said: "This is the most direct assault on Jewish religious practice in the United States. It's unprecedented in Jewish life." - The Los Angeles Times Out on the east coast, there is an effort to ban circumcision in Massachusetts where an anti-circumcision group has filed the Male Genital Mutilation Bill presented to the Massachusetts Legislature. The proposed new law 'calls for a ban on circumcision for males under 18, unless medically necessary, and with no religious exemptions.' The Jewish Journal of North Boston reports: The leader of this current initiative, Matthew Hess, president of the group called the Bill to End Male Genital Mutilation, was quoted in the Boston Herald (February 21, 2010) as saying “circumcision is painful and unnecessary, violates a baby’s human rights and decreases sexual sensation in mature males.” - The Jewish Journal - North Boston It should not be too far of a stretch to say that the motivation behind the move to ban circumcision in San Fransisco and elsewhere is clearly anti-Semitic and possibly indicates a serious, and perhaps enduring, hostility towards the Judeo-Christian God and the Biblical tradition. It would have been nice to see the force behind the misguided anti-circumcision campaign in Santa Monica...voicing appropriate disgust, from a movement that created a repulsively anti-Semitic comic to advance its cause online. - The Los Angeles Times Luckily, the state government of California has managed to come to the rescue in the name of religious freedom, especially Jewish religious freedom for trained Rabbis to practice infant male circumcision. Specifically, 'Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill prohibiting cities and counties from banning male circumcision, his office announced' recently. More good news came when the San Francisco ballot measure meant to outlaw child circumcision there was struck down by 'a judge in July [who] ordered the circumcision ban off the November ballot.' Support against the enemies of circumcision also came from Assemblyman Mike Gatto, a Democrat from Los Angeles, who got a bill passed unanimously that heads off future anti-circumcision laws and bans their implementation. Mr. Gatto publicly stated that bans on circumcision amounted to 'an affront to the exercise of personal, medical and religious freedom.' These small victories for the forces of circumcision should not be taken for granted as the avowed enemies of circumcision will most probably only grow that much stronger. This is especially true in a nation where the number of males being circumcised has dropped below 50%. Some of the opponents' arguments against the practice of male circumcision include the following: Opponents of circumcision liken it to "genital mutilation" - the forced removal of a healthy body part from an unconsenting child. - The Miami Herald Opponents of circumcision claim that the outdated procedure affords no medical benefits, that it causes unnecessary pain for infants, and that the lack of a foreskin may reduce sexual pleasure and performance. - Wiki-Answers.com Given the history of anti-circumcision movements, 'Jewish groups have decried anti-circumcision efforts as anti-Semitic.' This is probably accurate, but the enemies of circumcision are now using more sophisticated reasoning in order to have the procedure made illegal and to deny accusations of anti-Jewish bias. Here are some of them, followed by the rebuttals of male circumcision proponents:
+ Accusations of Circumcision Opponents + - the procedure is out-dated - Has no medical benefits - Causes unnecessary pain for infants - Reduces sexual pleasure and performance
+ Advocates of Circumcision Findings + - The procedure is modern, clean, and hygenic - May reduce cancer risk and other disorders - Infant pain is slight and easily forgotten - Does not affect either sexual pleasure or performance
One of the new opponents of circumcision, a Jewish professor named Ronald Goldman, began his opposition to Jewish circumcision sometime during the mid-1990s. He founded the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center which 'serves to support the questioning of circumcision among Jews.' Dr. Goldman has published two books, one entitled Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, and another book called Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective. They have both met with success and now 'both books have become primers on their subjects.' Clearly, Ronald Goldman is an enemy of circumcision, who somehow envisions an uncircumcised Jewish future. One sources sums it: Goldman says his organization decided to issue the statement because of the increased attention to the topic, accompanied by a general lack of awareness about the harm of circumcision. "There may be a misunderstanding of the reasons why many people question circumcision," Goldman says. "We wanted to clarify that and take the opportunity to raise awareness about the practice."
- Jewish Circumcision Opponents Grow More Vocal, by Rebecca Wald, Beyond the Bris
Dr. Goldman began his crusade after being made uncomfortable and a little nauseous at a traditional Jewish bris, an infant male circumcision ritual performed by a professional Rabbi. Ever since this 'unfortunate' encounter, Goldman has moved on to become a very well-organized and influential opponent of Jewish circumcision. Nonetheless, he claims that he wants 'to assure Jews that questioning circumcision can be done respectfully and compassionately.' The actual historical facts concerning Jewish male circumcision show Dr. Goldman's concerns to be completely unfounded. As a reliable source writes:
Jews have circumcised tens of millions of their infant sons for over 3,000 years with few complications and without the dire pain, trauma, and other horrible effects claimed by opponents of circumcision.
- The Jewish Journal - North Boston Another outspoken opponent of male circumcision is Dr. George C. Denniston, most probably a Gentile. He believes that history 'shows that the arguments in favor of circumcision are questionable.' He disparages studies that showed that circumcision may prevent cervical cancer in female sexual partners. Dr. George C. Dennistone also belittles the studies showing that circumcision can prevent urinary tract infection and penile cancer. Obviously, Dr. Denniston is a zealous enemy of circumcision and he makes this quite clear in the following statement: Who has the right to order or perform such surgery on a newborn infant? I contend that no one does - certainly not the physician who should know better - since there is no proven medical reason to do so, and the procedure is known by many to be harmful. Circumcision can always be performed in adulthood for men who desire it, with fully informed consent. - Unnecessary Circumcision, by George C. Denniston, M.D. Notice that he now insists that newborn infants have rights, which is absurd considering they are completely dependent upon their parents and other adults for survival. Dr. Denniston also defames circumcision as being 'harmful'. He even goes to extreme lengths in 'proving' that circumcision causes harm to sexual function by quoting Maimonides, a Jewish philosopher from the Middle Ages! No, Dr. George Denniston's motivations are easily seen in this closing argument: Physicians who continue to perform routine circumcision are not only harming infants but are also harming the integrity of the medical profession. It is hard to accept that these physicians - many of whom have been circumcised themselves - are using their medical licenses to continue this contraindicated practice. This is tragedy perpetuating itself. - Unnecessary Circumcision, by George C. Denniston, M.D.
As can be seen, the opponents of circumcision are growing bold and more dangerous everyday. Those who support circumcision and its practice, both religious and otherwise, need to become more vigilant and more wary in their understanding of the enemies of circumcision. Side: yes
0
points
I don't agree with the lunatic that you were arguing with; he's a demon-believing moron. But newborns shouldn't have as many rights as older forms of humans. Should we allow a newborn to choose what to eat, wear, go? Of course not. A newborn does not have the capability to make decisions. If the parents are making decisions that do not harm the newborn, there's no reason to deny the parents the right to make such a decision. Are you really comparing circumcision to murder? Are you fucking crazy? Circumcision does not result in any harm, let alone death, you know... Side: No
0
points
3
points
0
points
2
points
A baby does not have the mental capability to consent or not consent to anything. The parents make the consenting decision, therefore. It's not like the doctor is cutting off the baby's flesh at night without consent of the only people who can consent. Also, it doesn't harm anyone. Why disallow parents from doing something to their child that does not harm their child? Oh, probably because you're a rebellious teenager who wants to make all your own decisions for your life even though you haven't paid for a single meal of your life yet with your own hard-earned money. Sorry boy, but nobody is going to give your parents less rights then they already have. It's already outrageous that they have to put up with you disrespecting them. Side: No
1
point
0
points
The arguments both for and against circumcision are weak; it is primarily a non threatening and non necessary procedure. Both sides claim reduced risk to various diseases & malady's if their stand is followed, and they are both right. However, the question is not how wise or necessary circumcision is, the question is whether it should be illegal. What a silly waste of brain cells. Why make a law to protect people (yes, week old babies are people) who don't know and don't care, from a decision their parents are making for them in the best way they know how. Should we pass a law to force circumcision? That question makes as much sense, and is equally silly. Side: No
You claim that both arguments are weak but your reply is full of inconsistencies. First, I dont think that a medical procedure like circumcision will ever become illegal as it is a legitimate procedure to correct and prevent rare medical issues. The real issue is whether to take the decision out of the hands of the parents like they have with female circumcision. Female circumcision, at one point, was just as popular as male and the reasons for the procedure are nearly identical to the reasons for male circumcision. However Female circumcision was outlawed in the US in 1997 and renamed "Female Genital mutilation" Its the same thing, just leave his thing alone until he is old enough to make the decision on his own. If he has medical issues that would best be resolved with the procedure, it should be performed just like any other medically necessary surgery. Side: Yes
1
point
|
