Log In Sign Up

Consent, Choice and Circumcision


Forum: Heated Debates

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to [email protected].

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #1  
July 4th, 2006, 10:15 AM
Revamp's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Troy
Posts: 542
It seems clear to me that the central point of this debate is choice and consent.

It can easily be agreed by all that the medical benefits of circumcision are negligible at very best and thus it is rendered nothing more nor less than cosmetic surgery. This we must be able to agree on: the AAP have released statements stating this and the BMA recently released a statement that was highly critical of circumcision and its medical consequences.

So the only area worthy of discussion is parental choice of the infant's parents versus personal choice of the infant.

As a libertarian I feel that this form of debate is fought on something akin to home turf. There are those who claim that supporters of genital integrity are somehow "Anti-choice" but this is a grotesque distortion of my argument, the precise reason that I oppose circumcision is that it is the blatant and shameless robbery of consent, liberty, choice and rights.

An infant boy is born with foreskin, that is the default state for him and the one in which he would continue if allowed to progress unmolested. The prepuce is a natural part of the body, it is not some abnormal growth, it is not a birth defect, it is not "Extra", it is not "A little flap" and it is not a disease.

It is there, it is functional.

Now to claim that it is the perogative of the parent to remove this healthy piece of tissue and all of the benefits which it brings and despite the fact that it is clearly an erogenous zone is, to my mind, a hi-jacking of the libertarian argument of the most bizarre nature.

The body is not and never shall be the property of any other than its owner. The duty of the parent is to protect and it is for this reason that they are bestowed with additional rights over the child. They act as medical custodians until the child obtains medical autonomy, that is true, but circumcision is not a medical operation. It is a culturally motivated piece of cosmetic surgery and accordingly it is not the right of the parent to have it performed upon their child.


The reason for this is infringements of the child's rights: the child is the owner of the penis, they will be forced to live with the consequences of a circumcision for the rest of their lives, far beyond the age when the parent's duty expires.

Accordingly they should be the sole ones with the say over all cosmetic surgery: their body is their own, it is not parental property and can not be altered as the parents see fit. Their desires are secondary to the right of the child to be free from unwanting modification of what is rightfully his. The body is its owners property exclusively and unless the child is at any risk from a body part remaining attatched to him, and in the case of a healthy foreskin he is undoubtably not, then no one has the right to amputate organs without his say-so.
__________________
When the cat befriended the mouse, there wasn't a dry eye in the house!

http://www.observer.org.sz/main.asp?id=182...mp;Section=main
Reply With Quote
  #2  
July 4th, 2006, 04:41 PM
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: the baby-cutting country
Posts: 136
Well put, Revamp. I think that the pro-circ'ers get so caught up in their genital preference issues that they forget that their son is a living, breathing, human being with his own rights.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
July 6th, 2006, 06:13 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
Well put, Revamp. I think that the pro-circ'ers get so caught up in their genital preference issues that they forget that their son is a living, breathing, human being with his own rights.[/b]
I may be getting cynical, but after reading "he is MY son, and I can do it" , "or it is legal so I can do it" more times than I can remember; I really am beginning to think that many circumcisers don't think of their children as being an individual human being having any rights--they seem to think of them as their property.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
July 6th, 2006, 07:55 AM
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: the baby-cutting country
Posts: 136
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
Well put, Revamp. I think that the pro-circ'ers get so caught up in their genital preference issues that they forget that their son is a living, breathing, human being with his own rights.[/b]
I may be getting cynical, but after reading "he is MY son, and I can do it" , "or it is legal so I can do it" more times than I can remember; I really am beginning to think that many circumcisers don't think of their children as being an individual human being having any rights--they seem to think of them as their property.
[/b][/quote]

I get that feeling, too - that parents think they own their children, especially their newborns.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
July 6th, 2006, 08:01 AM
Revamp's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Troy
Posts: 542
The word "My" and "I" certainly are used far too often by those who circumcise.

When considering such delicate and valuable tissue you can not consider only yourself, the implications of your actions can have immense effects on another human being who the organ in question actually belongs to and accordingly basing your decision around any discomfort it might cause you is inadequete reasoning.

And do not even get me started on those who say "It just looks better"...

Creepy stuff.
__________________
When the cat befriended the mouse, there wasn't a dry eye in the house!

http://www.observer.org.sz/main.asp?id=182...mp;Section=main
Reply With Quote
  #6  
July 6th, 2006, 10:02 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
And do not even get me started on those who say "It just looks better"...

Creepy stuff.[/b]
I have never been able to understand HOW a scarred, dried-up, grey looking penis looks "better".

Can you imagine a classical nude statue with an exposed glans? Well THAT would have been obscene to the classicists.. and frankly more than a little erotic to me--hardly simply aesthetically beautiful.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
July 6th, 2006, 10:19 AM
NaynayPie's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding somewhere in IL
Posts: 986
Quote:
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
<div class='quotemain'>Well put, Revamp. I think that the pro-circ'ers get so caught up in their genital preference issues that they forget that their son is a living, breathing, human being with his own rights.[/b]
I may be getting cynical, but after reading "he is MY son, and I can do it" , "or it is legal so I can do it" more times than I can remember; I really am beginning to think that many circumcisers don't think of their children as being an individual human being having any rights--they seem to think of them as their property.
[/b][/quote]

I get that feeling, too - that parents think they own their children, especially their newborns.
[/b][/quote]

I think it's mainly because newborns are essentially strangers. If more pro-circ'ing parents would just set a goal that they would wait at least 6 months before circumcising, I'm sure there would be quite a bit fewer infant circumcisions. For one thing, the baby would no longer be the little stranger, but an actual loved member of the family. For another, after 6 months of seeing an intact penis every day, the parents would realize that it really isn't that strange, and it's not at all difficult to clean. In six months time, most of their fear and excuses would simply vanish to be replaced with normalcy and acceptance.

~Nay
__________________
<div align="center"><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">[b]I'm A
Natural Birthing, Delayed-Vaxing, Sleep Sharing, Baby Wearing, Tandem Breastfeeding, Cloth Diapering, Never Spanking Mama to two Beautiful, Healthy and Intact Little Babies
</div>
Reply With Quote
  #8  
July 6th, 2006, 03:44 PM
jw- jw- is offline
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 195
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
<div class='quotemain'>Well put, Revamp. I think that the pro-circ'ers get so caught up in their genital preference issues that they forget that their son is a living, breathing, human being with his own rights.[/b]
I may be getting cynical, but after reading "he is MY son, and I can do it" , "or it is legal so I can do it" more times than I can remember; I really am beginning to think that many circumcisers don't think of their children as being an individual human being having any rights--they seem to think of them as their property.
[/b]
I get that feeling, too - that parents think they own their children, especially their newborns.
[/b][/quote]

I think it's mainly because newborns are essentially strangers. If more pro-circ'ing parents would just set a goal that they would wait at least 6 months before circumcising, I'm sure there would be quite a bit fewer infant circumcisions. For one thing, the baby would no longer be the little stranger, but an actual loved member of the family. For another, after 6 months of seeing an intact penis every day, the parents would realize that it really isn't that strange, and it's not at all difficult to clean. In six months time, most of their fear and excuses would simply vanish to be replaced with normalcy and acceptance.

~Nay
[/b][/quote]


Nay,

Moses Maimonides had the same thought and used that as a reason to circumcise at eight days.


The third is that the parents of a child that is just born take lightly matters concerning it, for up to that time the imaginative form that compels the parents to love it is not yet consolidated. For this imaginative form increases through habitual contact and grows with the growth of the child. Then it begins to decrease and to disappear, I refer to this imaginative form. For the love of the father and of the mother for the child when it has just been born is not like their love for it when it is one year old, and their love for it when it is one year old is not like their love when it is six years old. Consequently if it were left uncircumcised for two or three years, this would necessitate the abandonment of circumcision because of the father's love and affection for it. At the time of its birth, on the other hand, this imaginative form is very weak, especially as far as concerns the father upon whom this commandment is imposed.

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/



jw
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:41 AM.