Should we routinely circumcize

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Sherlock Holmes

Should we routinely circumcize

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Today the US is perhaps the only developed nation that routinely circumsizes baby boys, some estimates put the figure at close to 80% of new borns are subjected to this.

Given that no country other than the US circumcises for non-religious reasons, do you think this should continue or be discouraged, perhaps banned? is there any credible science based justification for what is - to all intents and purposes - genital mutilation?
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #2

Post by Gracchus »

Female genital mutilation is generally considered horrible in the non-Muslim world. But the mutilation of infant male genitalia is :? fairly routing in the US. I suspect that is because it generates a profit. :?

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #3

Post by Miles »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:16 am Today the US is perhaps the only developed nation that routinely circumsizes baby boys, some estimates put the figure at close to 80% of new borns are subjected to this.
Re. your 80% figure, which appear to be closer to 58%


Rates of circumcision performed on male newborn infants
discharged from short-stay hospitals: United States, 1979–2010

Image
source: CDC


Comments about the claims made in your linked article
Did you know?

The foreskin is perfectly normal, healthy tissue that plays an important role in sexuality.
Looking into the unbiased literature a bit (Doctors Opposing Circumcision is biased towards eliminating circumcision) there's considerable disagreement among medical professionals as to this "importance." Some consider the foreskin to be important to sexuality, while others, very little-to-no importance at all; the lack of a foreskin having very little to nothing to do with deriving sexual pleasure.

Circumcision has no justifiable benefits and is in fact harmful – from pain and suffering, to surgical botches, to reduced maternal-child bonding.
Well, keeping a penis clean is easier accomplished on a circumcised penis then on one that is not---this pretty much stands to reason---which is a clear benefit. And speaking as someone who's been circumcised, I don't recall any pain or suffering during the procedure whatsoever. And what's all this with maternal-child bonding? Just how do mothers bond with the genitalia of a child? (I'm cringing just to imagine what it may be.)

Medical authorities throughout the world consider circumcision medically unnecessary and unethical.
I'll go along with the unnecessary part, but the ethics of it aren't up to medical authorities to decide. Its ethics should be left to the parents.

Given that no country other than the US circumcises for non-religious reasons, do you think this should continue or be discouraged, perhaps banned?
A questionable practice to be sure, but why should it matter what other countries do? So lacking any real harm I see no reason to encourage or discourage it.

.

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #4

Post by Gracchus »

[Replying to Miles in post #3]

Any adult male who wishes to be circumcised should be allowed to do it. But to circumcise without the informed consent of the victim is the infliction of grievous bodily harm. Now, you may not remember when it was done to you, but that pain marked your mind permanently, and just as much or more than it marked your body.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #5

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Miles wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 4:20 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:16 am Today the US is perhaps the only developed nation that routinely circumsizes baby boys, some estimates put the figure at close to 80% of new borns are subjected to this.
Re. your 80% figure, which appear to be closer to 58%


Rates of circumcision performed on male newborn infants
discharged from short-stay hospitals: United States, 1979–2010

Image
source: CDC


Comments about the claims made in your linked article
Did you know?

The foreskin is perfectly normal, healthy tissue that plays an important role in sexuality.
Looking into the unbiased literature a bit (Doctors Opposing Circumcision is biased towards eliminating circumcision) there's considerable disagreement among medical professionals as to this "importance." Some consider the foreskin to be important to sexuality, while others, very little-to-no importance at all; the lack of a foreskin having very little to nothing to do with deriving sexual pleasure.

Circumcision has no justifiable benefits and is in fact harmful – from pain and suffering, to surgical botches, to reduced maternal-child bonding.
Well, keeping a penis clean is easier accomplished on a circumcised penis then on one that is not---this pretty much stands to reason---which is a clear benefit. And speaking as someone who's been circumcised, I don't recall any pain or suffering during the procedure whatsoever. And what's all this with maternal-child bonding? Just how do mothers bond with the genitalia of a child? (I'm cringing just to imagine what it may be.)
I don't see how you can establish that unless one has two penises - one circumcized and one as nature intended.

When you say "unbiased literature" are you referring to stuff published specifically in the US? or across the developed world?
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 4:20 pm
Medical authorities throughout the world consider circumcision medically unnecessary and unethical.
I'll go along with the unnecessary part, but the ethics of it aren't up to medical authorities to decide. Its ethics should be left to the parents.

Given that no country other than the US circumcises for non-religious reasons, do you think this should continue or be discouraged, perhaps banned?
A questionable practice to be sure, but why should it matter what other countries do? So lacking any real harm I see no reason to encourage or discourage it.

.
OK so you're neutral.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #6

Post by Miles »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:03 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 4:20 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:16 am Today the US is perhaps the only developed nation that routinely circumsizes baby boys, some estimates put the figure at close to 80% of new borns are subjected to this.
Re. your 80% figure, which appear to be closer to 58%


Rates of circumcision performed on male newborn infants
discharged from short-stay hospitals: United States, 1979–2010

Image
source: CDC


Comments about the claims made in your linked article
Did you know?

The foreskin is perfectly normal, healthy tissue that plays an important role in sexuality.
Looking into the unbiased literature a bit (Doctors Opposing Circumcision is biased towards eliminating circumcision) there's considerable disagreement among medical professionals as to this "importance." Some consider the foreskin to be important to sexuality, while others, very little-to-no importance at all; the lack of a foreskin having very little to nothing to do with deriving sexual pleasure.

Circumcision has no justifiable benefits and is in fact harmful – from pain and suffering, to surgical botches, to reduced maternal-child bonding.
Well, keeping a penis clean is easier accomplished on a circumcised penis then on one that is not---this pretty much stands to reason---which is a clear benefit. And speaking as someone who's been circumcised, I don't recall any pain or suffering during the procedure whatsoever. And what's all this with maternal-child bonding? Just how do mothers bond with the genitalia of a child? (I'm cringing just to imagine what it may be.)
I don't see how you can establish that unless one has two penises - one circumcized and one as nature intended.
Assuming you're talking about keeping the penis clean, have you ever heard of "smegma"? It's "the cheesy sebaceous matter that collects between the glans penis and the foreskin or around the clitoris and labia minora."* When going swimming I recall its foul odor in the pool's changing room among some of the those who weren't circumcised, but never among us who were. We didn't have foreskin for it to collect behind.

* source: Merriam Webster Dictionary.
When you say "unbiased literature" are you referring to stuff published specifically in the US? or across the developed world?
Don't really recall. Why would it matter?

.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #7

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Miles wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:49 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:03 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 4:20 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:16 am Today the US is perhaps the only developed nation that routinely circumsizes baby boys, some estimates put the figure at close to 80% of new borns are subjected to this.
Re. your 80% figure, which appear to be closer to 58%


Rates of circumcision performed on male newborn infants
discharged from short-stay hospitals: United States, 1979–2010

Image
source: CDC


Comments about the claims made in your linked article
Did you know?

The foreskin is perfectly normal, healthy tissue that plays an important role in sexuality.
Looking into the unbiased literature a bit (Doctors Opposing Circumcision is biased towards eliminating circumcision) there's considerable disagreement among medical professionals as to this "importance." Some consider the foreskin to be important to sexuality, while others, very little-to-no importance at all; the lack of a foreskin having very little to nothing to do with deriving sexual pleasure.

Circumcision has no justifiable benefits and is in fact harmful – from pain and suffering, to surgical botches, to reduced maternal-child bonding.
Well, keeping a penis clean is easier accomplished on a circumcised penis then on one that is not---this pretty much stands to reason---which is a clear benefit. And speaking as someone who's been circumcised, I don't recall any pain or suffering during the procedure whatsoever. And what's all this with maternal-child bonding? Just how do mothers bond with the genitalia of a child? (I'm cringing just to imagine what it may be.)
I don't see how you can establish that unless one has two penises - one circumcized and one as nature intended.
Assuming you're talking about keeping the penis clean, have you ever heard of "smegma"? It's "the cheesy sebaceous matter that collects between the glans penis and the foreskin or around the clitoris and labia minora."* When going swimming I recall its foul odor in the pool's changing room among some of the those who weren't circumcised, but never among us who were. We didn't have foreskin for it to collect behind.
I think that's hysteria, imagination running wild, the quantities are often miniscule and as you note men and women each produce that, it actually fades away too as one ages. If you attended a pool where the swimmers were that dirty then I'd have stopped attending myself. Recommending surgery for newborns because of your delicate sensibilities also strikes me as perverse.
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:49 pm
When you say "unbiased literature" are you referring to stuff published specifically in the US? or across the developed world?
Don't really recall. Why would it matter?

.
Well if you regard the literature produced in the US by the various medical establishments as unbiased, you'd be mistaken because outside of the US there isn't a health service anywhere (certainly in the developed world) that recommends routine circumcision, there's has to be something medically wrong in order to cut a child's body.

It become institutionalized in the US, cultural, men circumcize their sons just because they were themselves circumcized by their fathers, it is ongoing child genital mutilation dressed up as science, no different to eugenics in my opinion.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #8

Post by Miles »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:08 am
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:49 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:03 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 4:20 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:16 am Today the US is perhaps the only developed nation that routinely circumsizes baby boys, some estimates put the figure at close to 80% of new borns are subjected to this.
Re. your 80% figure, which appear to be closer to 58%


Rates of circumcision performed on male newborn infants
discharged from short-stay hospitals: United States, 1979–2010

Image
source: CDC


Comments about the claims made in your linked article
Did you know?

The foreskin is perfectly normal, healthy tissue that plays an important role in sexuality.
Looking into the unbiased literature a bit (Doctors Opposing Circumcision is biased towards eliminating circumcision) there's considerable disagreement among medical professionals as to this "importance." Some consider the foreskin to be important to sexuality, while others, very little-to-no importance at all; the lack of a foreskin having very little to nothing to do with deriving sexual pleasure.

Circumcision has no justifiable benefits and is in fact harmful – from pain and suffering, to surgical botches, to reduced maternal-child bonding.
Well, keeping a penis clean is easier accomplished on a circumcised penis then on one that is not---this pretty much stands to reason---which is a clear benefit. And speaking as someone who's been circumcised, I don't recall any pain or suffering during the procedure whatsoever. And what's all this with maternal-child bonding? Just how do mothers bond with the genitalia of a child? (I'm cringing just to imagine what it may be.)
I don't see how you can establish that unless one has two penises - one circumcized and one as nature intended.
Assuming you're talking about keeping the penis clean, have you ever heard of "smegma"? It's "the cheesy sebaceous matter that collects between the glans penis and the foreskin or around the clitoris and labia minora."* When going swimming I recall its foul odor in the pool's changing room among some of the those who weren't circumcised, but never among us who were. We didn't have foreskin for it to collect behind.
I think that's hysteria, imagination running wild, the quantities are often miniscule and as you note men and women each produce that, it actually fades away too as one ages. If you attended a pool where the swimmers were that dirty then I'd have stopped attending myself. Recommending surgery for newborns because of your delicate sensibilities also strikes me as perverse.
It's only in response to your statement, "I don't see how you can establish that unless one has two penises." There are other ways. Nothing else. :roll:

Miles wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:49 pm
When you say "unbiased literature" are you referring to stuff published specifically in the US? or across the developed world?
Don't really recall. Why would it matter?

.
Well if you regard the literature produced in the US by the various medical establishments as unbiased, you'd be mistaken because outside of the US there isn't a health service anywhere (certainly in the developed world) that recommends routine circumcision, there's has to be something medically wrong in order to cut a child's body.

It become institutionalized in the US, cultural, men circumcize their sons just because they were themselves circumcized by their fathers, it is ongoing child genital mutilation dressed up as science, no different to eugenics in my opinion.
The issue at hand is not whether or not circumcision is routinely recommended, but whether or not the foreskin is relevant to sexual pleasure. But your opinion on the operation itself is duly noted.


.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #9

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Miles wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:39 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 10:08 am
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:49 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:03 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 4:20 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 11:16 am Today the US is perhaps the only developed nation that routinely circumsizes baby boys, some estimates put the figure at close to 80% of new borns are subjected to this.
Re. your 80% figure, which appear to be closer to 58%


Rates of circumcision performed on male newborn infants
discharged from short-stay hospitals: United States, 1979–2010

Image
source: CDC


Comments about the claims made in your linked article
Did you know?

The foreskin is perfectly normal, healthy tissue that plays an important role in sexuality.
Looking into the unbiased literature a bit (Doctors Opposing Circumcision is biased towards eliminating circumcision) there's considerable disagreement among medical professionals as to this "importance." Some consider the foreskin to be important to sexuality, while others, very little-to-no importance at all; the lack of a foreskin having very little to nothing to do with deriving sexual pleasure.

Circumcision has no justifiable benefits and is in fact harmful – from pain and suffering, to surgical botches, to reduced maternal-child bonding.
Well, keeping a penis clean is easier accomplished on a circumcised penis then on one that is not---this pretty much stands to reason---which is a clear benefit. And speaking as someone who's been circumcised, I don't recall any pain or suffering during the procedure whatsoever. And what's all this with maternal-child bonding? Just how do mothers bond with the genitalia of a child? (I'm cringing just to imagine what it may be.)
I don't see how you can establish that unless one has two penises - one circumcized and one as nature intended.
Assuming you're talking about keeping the penis clean, have you ever heard of "smegma"? It's "the cheesy sebaceous matter that collects between the glans penis and the foreskin or around the clitoris and labia minora."* When going swimming I recall its foul odor in the pool's changing room among some of the those who weren't circumcised, but never among us who were. We didn't have foreskin for it to collect behind.
I think that's hysteria, imagination running wild, the quantities are often miniscule and as you note men and women each produce that, it actually fades away too as one ages. If you attended a pool where the swimmers were that dirty then I'd have stopped attending myself. Recommending surgery for newborns because of your delicate sensibilities also strikes me as perverse.
It's only in response to your statement, "I don't see how you can establish that unless one has two penises." There are other ways. Nothing else. :roll:

Miles wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:49 pm
When you say "unbiased literature" are you referring to stuff published specifically in the US? or across the developed world?
Don't really recall. Why would it matter?

.
Well if you regard the literature produced in the US by the various medical establishments as unbiased, you'd be mistaken because outside of the US there isn't a health service anywhere (certainly in the developed world) that recommends routine circumcision, there's has to be something medically wrong in order to cut a child's body.

It become institutionalized in the US, cultural, men circumcize their sons just because they were themselves circumcized by their fathers, it is ongoing child genital mutilation dressed up as science, no different to eugenics in my opinion.
The issue at hand is not whether or not circumcision is routinely recommended, but whether or not the foreskin is relevant to sexual pleasure. But your opinion on the operation itself is duly noted.


.
Of course it's relevant, you can take my word for it!

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #10

Post by The Barbarian »

If the foreskin is significant to anyone's sexual pleasure, I'm pretty sure they're doing it wrong.

Post Reply