Forums → WEPR → Circumcision
| 40 | 20048 |
Many parents today face an important, yet difficult decision concerning their male children: Whether or not to circumcise. Circumcision, a practice dating back thousands of years, has been practiced by many groups of people around the world, most notably the Jewish people. Today, however, this practice has been criticized by many people, labeling it a cruel and inhumane practice, even comparing it to genital mutilation. But there are still others who believe it is beneficial to the human body, even necessary.
How do you feel: Does circumcision give the human body any benefits?
Is circumcision still necessary? Or is this a 'cruel and inhumane' practice?
- 40 Replies
So let's put the act in a less messy environment. So, it wouldn't be a necessary procedure, there are no issues of cleanliness involved, and the procedure itself is done in a safe, sterile environment.Hopefully now, we're just focused on the act itself. So there are a few questions before us:
1) Is the procedure moral/immoral as it stands?
I would say the act itself is neutral in that aspect.
2) Would it be more permissible (or better off) to wait until the child can make the decision for himself?
Definitely. Experiences vary from case to case, hence the importance to leave it open to the person to choose.
3) What, if any, ethical duties or codes are we violating should we circumcise a baby?
What follows from question 2: non-consensual intervention on one's body with possible unpleasant outcome.
First of all, I would like to formalize my position on this topic and say that I am for circumcision.
---------------------------------
1) Is the procedure moral/immoral as it stands?
I feel that this procedure is neither moral nor immoral.
2) Would it be more permissible (or better off) to wait until the child can make the decision for himself?
In the Philippines, circumcision, or pagtutuli, is performed on boys when they are eight years old or older. At that age, they are usually aware of what they are about to go through with. Circumcision isn't forced upon. It is the child's decision whether or not he would like to be circumcised.
3) What, if any, ethical duties or codes are we violating should we circumcise a baby?
If circumcision is performed upon a child, the good side to that is he will not have any memory of the procedure. But arguing for the rights of the child, doing an operation like that without the child's consent can be considered morally wrong.
My oppinion:
It is all right if needed (medically) and in other cases it is fine when he himself decided.
It is practiced religiously and culturally and as far as i know,there are no bad effects of it ,seeing that it has been done to me :P
Is it immoral, or merely unnecessary?
I can see the opposing side's viewpoint in that circumcision is immoral in that removing the foreskin without the consent of the child is in violation of his rights. However, if certain circumstances warrant performing circumcision on the child, such as in a medical emergency, then the health of the child is more important than his rights.
Here's my thoughts. If a man actually is religiously obligated to be circumcised, I just pray to God that it happens when he is a baby, not older.
as far as i know,there are no bad effects of it
in south-africa, 1 per 250 man get infections after the procedure. it sometimes results in losing their genitals. (note that by far most of the circumcisions are done in the clean environment of a hospital (unlike most of africa))
in south-africa, 1 per 250 man get infections after the procedure.
The number given in this source and many others says 250 per year get amputated in South Africa, as a result of botched circumcision. Ritual circumcisions are not uncommon in South Africa, as the Xhosa tribe, whose male members traditionally go through ritual circumcision, makes up around 18% of the population.
The ritual core of initiation is circumcision, meaning the actual surgical operation, and it is an irreversible symbol of the social maturity of the individual (Gitywa 1976:180). It is this act that remains as a permanent sign that one has been circumcised. The operation, which is the severing of the foreskin, is done by the ingcibi (traditional surgeon). It is done outside of the lodge and the initiates are immediately led to the lodge after the operation (Gitywa 1976:181). The initiates have to repeat after the surgeon as he says, “You are the man” (Unpublished document). After severing, the skin is handed over to the owner and it is usually buried later in an ant-heap where it will be devoured by the ants (Gitywa 1976). The wound is then covered with herbs and the initiates move into the lodge
That doesn't sound like the safest way to circumcise, and it does not sound like it takes place in a hospital either.
The number given in this source and many others says 250 per year get amputated in South Africa,
i must have mixed or badly remembered the info. it's also not really a topic that bothers me. so i hope you all can forgive me for it. just wanted to point out. that it isn't completely without risks like the 1 i quoted made it seen. =)
Circumcision is allowed for religion "needs"or if needed medically. People in Africa should should be taught about dangerous infections. Else I don't see a reason for it exepct some tradition.
Circumcision, a practice dating back thousands of years, has been practiced by many groups of people around the world, most notably the Jewish people.
Not really as wide spread as you might think. Beyond the Middle East/African region (which later spread from there to Europe) The practice has been observed in Australian Aborigines/Polynesians and it was also possibly practiced by the Aztecs.
How do you feel: Does circumcision give the human body any benefits? Is circumcision still necessary? Or is this a 'cruel and inhumane' practice?
Discounting the situations where there actually are medical issues and just speaking in general...
There are many questionable claims of health benefits. For instance there were three studies done in Africa all not taken to their completion claiming due to overwhelming indication of circumcision reducing chances of contracting HIV by up to 60%. The way this is claimed to work is that the foreskin contains cells that are directly targeted by the virus and that the softer moister area that the foreskin produces creates an environment where the virus can more easily enter through micro fractures in the skin that could be more common in uncircumcised men.
The first problem is it was not taking to completion, due to believing that the data they had received was good enough. The second problem here is that on top of being circumcised the males who were circumcised also received safe sex education, which the uncircumcised group did not. Even if the claim of 60% reduction were true this could easily be accounted for by the education the group received. This reduction report is also in question and may have been closer to 29%.
A second big argument is that the foreskin allows for the harboring of bacteria which can cause infection in the female partner.
It would seem hygiene practices would fix this problem.
With both issues it would seem simply wearing a condom could work just as well if not better. The reduction report of HIV through condom use is around 80%. So even if the 60% reduction is accurate and circumcision is really that effective, condom use is still 20% more effective.
The right to choose is of course the biggest issue here. None of the benefits would be beneficial to a young child, let alone a baby. The argument presented for doing it shortly after birth is that it reduced the risk involved to the patient. So it comes down to risk reduction for an otherwise unnecessary surgery vs personal choice.
In short I see not point in taking things to the level of removing part of your body for what appear to be either easily remedied problems and likely skewed claims that either way could be handled in less evasive ways. And I don't see how even a risk reduction can justify taking someone's choice to have it done or not away.
I think people are looking at only one point here, and that's the religious value. I couldn't care less about the religious purposes for circumcision, but there are plenty of health benefits for it. For example, it helps prevent penile cancer, it helps prevent Urinary tract infections, it prevents phimosis, and easier hygene. I just started looking into it because I met a girl who does protests against circumcision. All of the honest medical sites are saying that the benefits outweigh the risks. I don't understand what the huge movement against it is about other than a religious thing.
All of the honest medical sites are saying that the benefits outweigh the risks.
The Cochrane Library, which, it should be made clear, is the only fully trustworthy source on medical matters, found strong evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission in unprotected homosexual sex, no conclusive evidence on whether it HIV transmission in homosexual sex, and no conclusive evidence on whether it reduces UTI in babies. Not enough research has been done in the latter two areas.
i think people should be given the choice when they get older, not forced to go through the pain as a baby /:
You must be logged in to post a reply!