To me, I care not about tradition, it is abuse. The child has no say because an infant CANNOT say for himself.
It should be illegal until an age where a child can decide for himself - preferably adulthood really - as long as it is HIS decision, not the parents just because THEY want him snipped.
More
islamic crimes against children
Videos
News
Slideshows
Questions
Topics
PUBLIC OPINION > Child Circumcision Should Not Be Allowed
News
2012/06/29 21:00:00
A controversial court ruling in Germany classified child circumcision as "grievous bodily harm," upsetting religious communities over what some say is a religious right. The bulk of the issue falls on the way circumcision affects children who are too young to make their own decision. However, it has been a religious practice for thousands of years and many feel it should be protected as such.
This was an extremely heated debate, but after more than 1,300 votes, the public sided against circumcision. Those most concerned about freedom of religion were supportive of continuing to allow the practice, but the Top Opinion argued, "Religious freedom is about the baby's religion. I don't see how he can have one at that age." It's a delicate issue containing a perfect storm of controversy.
The Religious Response
As you might expect, the demographic breakdown shows religion was the backbone of the issue. Jewish and Muslim voters were almost unanimously supportive. Christian voters weren't as convinced, but still supported it with about two-thirds. By the time we got to the atheist vote, support was down to a mere 19%.
Underage Opposition
Nearly every demographic was split on this one, but next to religion and politics, age was one of the strongest divisions. There was a clear break at about age 35 -- below that age, support dropped nearly a third. Evidently, the younger generations are either not as convinced of the benefits, or not as concerned with tradition.
Men Don't Mind the Snip
Oddly enough, those directly affected by circumcision (males) were more likely to support it. It's also interesting to note that female voters were more likely to oppose circumcision, as there was some discussion over what women prefer... if you know what we mean.
If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our poll about circumcision. We'd love to hear from you!
Top Opinion
-
Just Jenn for Now 2012/06/29 21:12:39
There are several:
1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!
2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.
3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?
4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this appli...
There are several:
1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!
2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.
3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?
4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)
A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.
5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.
6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.
7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.
8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.
Here is what femalecircumcision looks like:
[...]
And the WOMAN'S reaction to having it done:
If you think any of these fully grown women had any say in any of these things, you are sadly mistaken.
Here is what femalecircumcision looks like:
[...]
And the WOMAN'S reaction to having it done:
If you think any of these fully grown women had any say in any of these things, you are sadly mistaken.
Now, consider this: 80% of the nerve fibers in the penis are located in the foreskin. There is no medical evidence that circumcision has had any effect whatsoever on infection rates. The first circumcision done in the United States was done by a psychiatrist upon a patient with a penchant for enjoying himself -- the circumcision was meant to stop him, and it was effective since the boy was fully awake, and no analgesics or numbing agents were utilized. Makes one wonder who thought it'd be a great idea to do it to all children.
WHO endorses circumcision
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/ma...
The Mayo Clinic endorses circumcision
http://www.mayoclinic.com/hea...
P.S. It is ironic that this debate comes out the same time as the Tom Cruise-Holmes divorce. Apparently Scientology teaches that children should be treated as adults and nothing should be done without their consent. And Holmes objects to this and wants some parental control. So, religions are on both sides of the issue.
"ICGI Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision and Genital Integrity," www.icgi.org is a powerfully written document complete with references. The APA does not support circumcision but doesn't make a strong argument against it. Rather, they simply state that it is not medically necessary and a decision parents should make. Not medically necessary.
American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "Guidelines for Perinatal Care," Fifth Edition. 2002:111.
I didn't make stuff up. But then, what does it matter? This argument is a long-standing one and clearly the sides are divided in a rather strange manner. It would seem more people are passionately justifying their own circumcisions, or those they've elected done to their children rather than actually researching to determine if there's really a point to it at all. Since the data clearly shows no medical benefit, it would seem like this is another "climate change" issue. Divided sides with a lot of insulting and defaming.
I didn't present a religious point of view, nor an opin...
"ICGI Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision and Genital Integrity," www.icgi.org is a powerfully written document complete with references. The APA does not support circumcision but doesn't make a strong argument against it. Rather, they simply state that it is not medically necessary and a decision parents should make. Not medically necessary.
American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "Guidelines for Perinatal Care," Fifth Edition. 2002:111.
I didn't make stuff up. But then, what does it matter? This argument is a long-standing one and clearly the sides are divided in a rather strange manner. It would seem more people are passionately justifying their own circumcisions, or those they've elected done to their children rather than actually researching to determine if there's really a point to it at all. Since the data clearly shows no medical benefit, it would seem like this is another "climate change" issue. Divided sides with a lot of insulting and defaming.
I didn't present a religious point of view, nor an opinion on the matter from a spiritual point of view. What I suggest is that at the forefront of this issue is informed consent and the ethics involved in cosmetic surgery. I also suggest that misinformation is really really dangerous. Paul M. Fleiss, MD has written a few books for the average person who does not have access to medical publications -- some of them can be quite thick to get through, if not downright unintelligible. "The Case Against Circumcision," and "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision: Untold Facts on America's Most Widely Performed -- and Most Unnecessary -- Surgery." Both of those books are loaded with medical facts and references.
In addition, if one were bothered to research fully, there are scores of abstracts regarding the work being done to protect children worldwide -- much of it being done by WHO-related scientists. The overall effort is improved health and welfare of the world and it starts with our youngest inhabitants. We're not merely saying that circumcision is unnecessary, we're also saying that if it's going to be done, it must be done by a medically-trained professional in a sterile setting and under conditions which promote the health and healing of the child. Clearly, we're not necessarily discussing circumcision ONLY in the United States, but most passionately those performed by individuals who have no medical knowledge whatsoever, and those who do not understand pathology or simple biology. It's a clearly documented unnecessary procedure.
You SHOULD doubt me. You should question what I write. I'm not a subject-matter-expert. But, before you out me as a fabricator of interesting dialog or slap my face with websites, it might help to read some of the sites I've listed. I've looked at yours, even read it. Did you? Do you understand the purpose of that document? The goal there was to continue working on a theory that circumcision may reduce the transmission of HIV in Africa. The method is circumcision under anesthesia. It's one of MANY ongoing projects regarding combating HIV in Africa. A completely different program in Thailand had twice the effective results. What was the program? "100% Condom use, 100% of the time." Similar trials of the circumcision study failed in Israel, and in several Muslim countries. Why is it working in Africa? Unclear. I read the science behind the document you listed. It seems plausible. But they weren't suggesting that any child's aging relative hack off the foreskin's of children with a dirty knife they also use to butcher livestock... They're recommending a surgical procedure for at-risk individuals in a very specific environment for some very specific reasons. Why should the entire world be circumcised for prophylactic measures when the study failed in many other locations? That study is specific to Africa, along with the results and the recommendations which have arisen.
I kept yeast infections. I asked him on several times to get it done as an adult, he said it would be to painful.
Circumcision rate declined to below 50% in 2010
Point is moot.
During the procedure, I damn near passed out... I wanted it stopped but thought it was too late. It was barbaric, totally barbaric doing this horrific very painful procedure to my tiny baby boy. Not even any anesthetic! I have always regretted that I did not just plain find myself and demand they stop!
"cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men."
http://www.mayoclinic.com/hea...
Hell yes because if a little procedures that no one remembers can save lives it seems like a no brainer. Unless the man would rather abstain from sex or always use condoms.
And if you read the link there are 6 other reasons simply for health benefits to the man.