Should circumcision be banned?

[ChairmanSanchez]

Its a local level issue, but I personally think it shouldnt, though I dont get the Jewish ritual of doing a few days after birth.

[Free Palestine]

Unsure, though I disagree with the procedure.

[So the Heroes Fall]

You know I would be kind of curious in a poll of Thai prostitutes as to how many of their customers are circumcised. Next time opebo's with one he should ask for an estimate of a percentage. I wonder how common uncircumcised customers are with Israeli hookers.

[Χahar]

First Amendment does not allow every religious act.  I can't commit a ritualistic bull sacrifice in my hypothetical back yard.

You can, however, commit ritualistic bull sacrifice elsewhere.

You can't commit ritualistic bull sacrifice if it violates animal abuse laws, so...doesn't that kind of defeat your point?  Assuming you had one? 

I didn't, so it doesn't.

[Harry]

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

[The Mikado]

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

Doesn't that imply that it's not something that should be done?  I mean, if no one (and that's a bit of an exaggeration: adult circumcision has existed in several places) would be willing to do it if consent is an issue, doesn't that imply that they find having their genitals mutilated an inherently problematic practice?

[Harry]

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

Doesn't that imply that it's not something that should be done?  I mean, if no one (and that's a bit of an exaggeration: adult circumcision has existed in several places) would be willing to do it if consent is an issue, doesn't that imply that they find having their genitals mutilated an inherently problematic practice?

Well, if this were a new procedure, I'd agree with you, but it has been a well-established procedure for literally thousands of years and has been shown (arguably, I know) to have benefits.  Also, I never see men who were circumsized as infants complaining about it as adults.  It's just a no-big-deal kind of issue.

Also, calling infant male circumcision "mutilation" seems to make light of the real horrors of female genital mutilation in other countries.  Not even close to comparable there.

[CitizenX]

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

Doesn't that imply that it's not something that should be done?  I mean, if no one (and that's a bit of an exaggeration: adult circumcision has existed in several places) would be willing to do it if consent is an issue, doesn't that imply that they find having their genitals mutilated an inherently problematic practice?

Well, if this were a new procedure, I'd agree with you, but it has been a well-established procedure for literally thousands of years and has been shown (arguably, I know) to have benefits.  Also, I never see men who were circumsized as infants complaining about it as adults.  It's just a no-big-deal kind of issue.

Also, calling infant male circumcision "mutilation" seems to make light of the real horrors of female genital mutilation in other countries.  Not even close to comparable there.

As someone with a penis I can and do compare the two.

And yes there are most certainly men who were circumcised against their will as children who complain about it.  You just choose not to listen.  Ever heard of a guy call Howard Stern?

And yes, once again there are alternatives such as vaccines which are far cheaper for our already bankrupt health system.  Vaccines are economical, have fewer side effects, and are infinitely more human and civilized.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

Doesn't that imply that it's not something that should be done?  I mean, if no one (and that's a bit of an exaggeration: adult circumcision has existed in several places) would be willing to do it if consent is an issue, doesn't that imply that they find having their genitals mutilated an inherently problematic practice?

Well, if this were a new procedure, I'd agree with you, but it has been a well-established procedure for literally thousands of years and has been shown (arguably, I know) to have benefits.  Also, I never see men who were circumsized as infants complaining about it as adults.  It's just a no-big-deal kind of issue.

Also, calling infant male circumcision "mutilation" seems to make light of the real horrors of female genital mutilation in other countries.  Not even close to comparable there.

As someone with a penis I can and do compare the two.

And yes there are most certainly men who were circumcised against their will as children who complain about it.  You just choose not to listen.  Ever heard of a guy call Howard Stern?

And yes, once again there are alternatives such as vaccines which are far cheaper for our already bankrupt health system.  Vaccines are economical, have fewer side effects, and are infinitely more human and civilized.

Vaccines were never intended as a replacement or "alternative" to circumcision.

[CitizenX]

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

Doesn't that imply that it's not something that should be done?  I mean, if no one (and that's a bit of an exaggeration: adult circumcision has existed in several places) would be willing to do it if consent is an issue, doesn't that imply that they find having their genitals mutilated an inherently problematic practice?

Well, if this were a new procedure, I'd agree with you, but it has been a well-established procedure for literally thousands of years and has been shown (arguably, I know) to have benefits.  Also, I never see men who were circumsized as infants complaining about it as adults.  It's just a no-big-deal kind of issue.

Also, calling infant male circumcision "mutilation" seems to make light of the real horrors of female genital mutilation in other countries.  Not even close to comparable there.

As someone with a penis I can and do compare the two.

And yes there are most certainly men who were circumcised against their will as children who complain about it.  You just choose not to listen.  Ever heard of a guy call Howard Stern?

And yes, once again there are alternatives such as vaccines which are far cheaper for our already bankrupt health system.  Vaccines are economical, have fewer side effects, and are infinitely more human and civilized.

Vaccines were never intended as a replacement or "alternative" to circumcision.

Yes but they ARE a safe, cost effective, humane way to avoid genital mutilation... for the few deluded people that hang their hat on the dreaded penile cancer argument.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.

This is demonstrably false considering it actually happens.

[True Federalist]

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.

This is demonstrably false considering it actually happens.

Of course, it can have some undesired side-effects, just ask Shechem if you don't believe me.

[Gustaf]

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

Doesn't that imply that it's not something that should be done?  I mean, if no one (and that's a bit of an exaggeration: adult circumcision has existed in several places) would be willing to do it if consent is an issue, doesn't that imply that they find having their genitals mutilated an inherently problematic practice?

I'd disagree with that. There are a lot of things that people wouldn't agree to in the moment that they might still consider good in the long term. Time inconsistency makes liberalism a sad panda bear.

[Earth]

I would be perfectly fine with circumcision being banned for infants. It's a ridiculous procedure.

[white trash heroes]

I would be perfectly fine with circumcision being banned for infants. It's a ridiculous procedure.

Citizen X is the voice of reason on this thread. Think about that for a moment.

[True Federalist]

Lately I've been going through the Bible and jotting down my thoughts on various passages for my own reflection, and I got to the story of Tsiporah at the inn. (Exodus 4:24-26)  That caused me to think of a question I hadn't before, and which a quick search was unable to answer. What is done with what is removed?  I doubt the example of Tsiporah is followed, at least I hope not.

[The Mikado]

Lately I've been going through the Bible and jotting down my thoughts on various passages for my own reflection, and I got to the story of Tsiporah at the inn. (Exodus 4:24-26)  That caused me to think of a question I hadn't before, and which a quick search was unable to answer. What is done with what is removed?  I doubt the example of Tsiporah is followed, at least I hope not.

You mean throwing the foreskin at her husband and calling him a "bloody husband?"  No, that's not a part of the traditional practice.

Also, what translation calls Zipporah "Tsiporah?"

[True Federalist]

What is done with what is removed?

You mean throwing the foreskin at her husband and calling him a "bloody husband?"  No, that's not a part of the traditional practice.

I didn't think so, but that what isn't done doesn't tell me what is done.

Also, what translation calls Zipporah "Tsiporah?"

Mine. More seriously, since I consult more than one translation while doing this, rather than follow any single translation's decision on how to Romanize the Hebrew, I follow my own, and I chose to Romanize the tsade "צ" consistently as "ts".  It's not the most common choice of how to Romanize the name.  In my notes, "z" always represents a zayin "ז"