Circumcision ban getting people snippy.

[Sri Lumpa]

chocoloco said:

Sri Lumpa said:

chocoloco said:
When you never had something you don't know what your missing and so no real harm is done.

Not necessarily true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

It actually depends on how important the thing you miss is. Lacking a foreskin is small enough that it shouldn't matter much.

For those being against a ban against underage circumcision because a ban is forcing people out of a choice let's not forget that underage circumcision in itself is forcing people out of a choice, and whilst the ban temporarily prevents a choice that can later be made by the primarily concerned party, the lack of a ban prevents said primarily concerned party from having any part in the choice, with their only option being to cosmetically remedy it.

Either case you are restricting somebody's freedom, so as I do not believe that parents have any rights on their child's body but dutys towards it (feed it, including mentally and emotionally, clothe it, put a roof over its head...) I would have no problem against such a ban, at least until they reach puberty* or the age of consent (given that the major benefit seems to be lowering the risk of infection by STD).

Stever, can you think of any medical reason why it is advantagous to do it at birth rather than when the child is old enough to choose for himself? The only reason I can think of is that you are then at an age where you can feel the pain of the operation but not only is it not enough in itself to remove that freedom of choice from a person as the potential pain is simply one more factor in the decision (like the pain of getting a tattoo can be a factor in whether to get one or not) but I suppose that it can be alleviated with anaesthesia. 

 

* note that the foreskin is fused to the glans of a child so having little children not like to bathe is no excuse as by the time it separates they are old enough to understand why they should clean it properly.

First off how can you miss something that is taken off many years before people even are able to remember it in later life? The earliest people remember anything conciously about their life is estimated at about three years old.     Also compare this to other forms of genital alteration in males like spitting the penis in half to make two heads, (wish I could post a pick) this type of alteration would actually cause severe pain to an infant if it was performed on them for cultural reasons. Circumsision seems no more traumatic than actual birth and the severing of the ambilical cord. And finally I am not advocating the practice. It is little more than a strange cultural norm in America. I just think that it is very strange that guys who have never had it done would think it causes anything more than a very brief moment of stress for a infant.

I should have been more clear. In the beginning of the post I was not arguing that circumcision itself is equivalent to the David Reimer case (hence why I said: Lacking a foreskin is small enough that it shouldn't matter much) except for the low number of cases where it is really botched but I was arguing against the general idea that because you never had something you don't miss it. It can be true (and I think it is the case for foreskin) but it is far from a universal truth as I am pretty sure that if somebody had to have an arm (or even a finger) amputated at birth that they wouldn't miss it and no real harm would be done. In other words I wasn't so much arguing against the specific case that you used in this thread as with the general idea itself.