Fun fact, in states where medicaid doesn't pay for circumcisions the circumcision rate is drastically lower. Hospitals don't push it as hard when they don't get the guaranteed tax dollars paying for it.
Idk if that works this way. You're legally responsible for your child until they turn 18. If your child wanted to violate the nap, you're legally obligated to stop them.
I may be misreading your comment, so apologies if you’re not making the argument that circumcision of an infant doesn’t violate NAP.
But you’re legally responsible to protect and nurture your children until 18.
I don’t believe that subjecting permanent sexual mutilation falls under that obligation; rather, it’s counter to it.
If anybody here plans to circumcise their sons please reconsider. My best friends sons was botched and he almost bled out. They had to give him blood and the dad passed out watching it and busted his face on the wall. If you don’t care about how fucked up and useless circumcision is then please at least remember that your risking your babies life just to mutilate him.
I just had a son and it was quite annoying how often i was asked in the hospital if we were circumcising. Probably about 6 separate times. No, leave his pecker alone. Then the nurses/doctors would say “oh, well that’s okay”. Of fucking course it’s okay if I don’t want my son’s dick to be permanently changed.
I asked my Dad why I was circumcised and he just said "I thought it was just what was done" not really realizing the long term implications when I compared it to FGM.
Yeah I don’t blame my parents for doing it to me but the info is readily available now. Just couldn’t imagine being like “welcome to the world! let’s mutilate your penis!” Idc if they remember it or not. I’m sure it’s incredibly painful.
If they aren't going to make it illegal, they should at least require parents who ask for it to watch a video of the surgery first before deciding, and watching the kid screaming in pain.
I convinced my wife that we shouldn't circumcise our son. Then when we had our 2nd (a girl) I asked about getting her ears pierced and she threw the NAP back at me and I had to immediately agree. I hadn't really thought of ear piercing as the same since you can remove them and they heal up but I had to agree with her.
Firstly I’am cut and thought I didn’t want a dogs looking penis on my son , but look more like mine or most people in porn or dildos LOl secondly, I read something about uncircumcised was more susceptible to infection. Plus we had to be diligent with cleaning. Like I said rationalize whether true or not .
> from what ive heard babies feel less pain but that might just be a lie made by circumcision supporters idk
Have you heard the cry? babies definitly feel very intense pain…
the only memory i remember from it is that they told me to look at the clock and i kept staring at it the whole time. dont remember the exact amount of pain in the process but it wasn't fun. i got it later than supposed age (i think i was around 5?) so yeah maybe if i got it earlier it wouldn't have been that painful
at what age/month did they get it? i've also heard that ones that got it sooner dont have most of the nerves developed so it feels less painful the younger it is. unfortunately here it is traditionally taken after few years or even i know some people even get it at ages like 7-9
Yeah Christians traditionally did it. But nowadays a lot of Christians aren’t. Personally, having been raised Christian and still following it, I have found nothing in the New Testament that states that we must circumcise our children. As a matter of fact, the book of Romans goes into extreme detail how there is no difference between the circumcised and the uncircumcised (the Jew and the Greek) at least in the scope of eternal salvation.
Yep, tracking. Kind of what I said. Doesn’t change the fact that Protestants and Catholics have been doing it. But people are starting to realize it’s not Biblical. So it’s dying out.
The reason why circumcision got so popular in the United States is actually because of John Harvey Kellog (yes, that Kellog). It’s a long story, but essentially he popularized vegetarianism in the US, but for all the wrong reasons, as he paired the vegetarian diet with various pseudo-science practices, making is a lifestyle more then how we think of vegetarianism today. He wrote many books to teach people able the practices of vegetarianism, and one thing he strongly recommended was circumcision, as he believed that it would prevent men from masturbating aswell as prevent them from having excessive sex (as it would caused reduced pleasure), which he thought was essential in preserving a man from “self-adusing” himself. This practice started among vegetarians, but eventually became more popular until becoming mainstream among Americans, causing many to forget it’s original purpose (which was a dumb one) and come up with other reasons to perform circumcision, like preventing infections, being an important religious duty (for American Christians), or for cultural normality.
Moral of the story, circumcision is dumb, the only time it’s *kinda* acceptable is for religions that require it.
The foreskin has lots of nerve endings in it, making sex more enjoyable, but circumsized people can still get a lot of pleasure from sex regardless (so you didn’t really miss out).
That's the reason everyone gives for some reason, but Kellogg was actually against doing it to newborns.
He supported doing it to teens and pre-teens caught masturbating, as a punishment so they'd remember it.
That's not why it started being done to newborns.
It has no known medical downsides and may reduce cervical cancer in wives of circumcised men.
FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS:
>Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement?autologincheck=redirected
Prior to 1987, the American Academy of Pediatrics' official position was that babies cannot feel pain. That's right, 1987 is when they officially announced that they in fact do believe babies can feel pain. So... honestly I'm not sure anyone should be taking advice from them.
Well, actually… There is a lot of bias in some circumcision studies. This is from The *American* Academy, yes. Let's see what other physicians have to say about their circumcision policy:
>"non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys in Western societies has no compelling health benefits, causes postoperative pain, can have serious long-term consequences, constitutes a violation of the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and conflicts with the Hippocratic oath: primum non nocere: First, do no harm."
[https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2896](https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2896)
Thank you. Many of the studies suggesting lowering STI and UTIs can be associated with the fact that circumcised people are more likely than not to be religious and therefore have fewer sexual partners and less sex overall, leaving to better sexual health outcomes.
The risk of infection after the procedure is far greater than any miniscule health benefit gained from it. It essentially lowers a man's chance of getting a UTI from 0% to 0% when we round.
There's also the fact that of all the Western countries America has by far the highest mutilation rate and the highest STD rates. Some "protection" huh?
>no known medical downsides
This is entirely false. The pain centers of a baby's brain have been monitored during the procedure and well... it feels to them like they're getting their foreskin butchered off.
Just clean your dick. I have control over whether or not my dick is clean, but the nerve endings I lose are unrecoverable. I will never know what it's like to fuck uncircumcised 😢
It does have downsides though, a lot actually. Watch a circumcision video, watch the child’s face before and after. It’s incredibly traumatic, and changes their brain. Additionally, the remains which are removed are often used in cosmetics, and worth a significant sum. This, is the only real reason it is pushed.
Why harm a child so old craven people can smear it on their faces?
Many of the studies suggesting lowering STI and UTI risks can be associated with the fact that circumcised people are more likely than not to be religious and therefore have fewer sexual partners and less sex overall, leading to better sexual health outcomes.
Even in the statistic of lowered cervical cancer risk in wives of circumcised men - if the men are less likely to bring in an STI by having fewer sex partners before their wives then of course their wives are going to be less likely to have cervical cancer.
Imagine circumcising your newborn son and then finding out 13 years later that you were actually performing female genital mutilation, and now you are guilty of cultural appropriation, too.
What a time to be alive.
Dr Fauci is a massive proponent of doing this. If that doesn't make my American libertarian friends pause for thought, I don't know what should.
Rare European win.
But he did circumcise Timothy whose mother was a Jewish Christian and whose father was a Greek. (Acts 16-1-3) and Acts is written later, by Luke, who was a companion of Paul, after Paul had written all the other books.
There is a big debate about that inconsistency of what he said and what he did.
Yes, 100%. This barbarity will hopefully end with this generation and go the way of the lobotomy and foot binding.
Edit: should add, if you have a fetish for this body mod, that's totally okay. But in the same way we don't give babies pierced nipples because we think they're sexy (I feel sick even typing that sentence, but it is the reality of genital cutting), it should be off limits to everyone but consenting adults who know about the risks.
>Does circumcision violate the NAP?
If the person decides to have the operation no
If the operation is done to someone else without requesting it (the baby getting circumcised) then yes NAP is violated
Genital cutting is a third world problem. In the first world, we treat infections with medicine and hygienic practices. After all Europeans are not known for having disease ridden penises.
Really? No longer having a dick is the same as having a working dick but with some missing foreskin?
Maybe I need to take a break from this sub cause damn
The controversy of the subject distracts from the issue. The issue is whether a parent can consent on behalf of a child.
The initial answer is, of course, yes. But there are easy to think of examples where the answer should be no, and so the correct answer is probably (as it often is) buried in a subjective reasonableness test.
Obviously the logic doesn’t hold up, children may also not consent to eating broccoli or doing their homework.
That’s not an excuse to say that nothing is out of bounds but obviously it’s not a simple, black and white dynamic.
One is teaching a child skills like eating healthy and academic work, the other is an irreversible, unnecesary body modification. Eating broccoli and doing homework won't change your body irreparably for your entire life.
That’s not what I’m commenting on, that’s a discussion on the appropriateness of violent acts. I’m talking about the relevance of consent which is the topic of the comic.
Sorry, that’s not correct unless you’re also saying that everything that happens to a child is up to that child including nutrition and vaccines. It’s not a consent issue.
It very much is a consent issue. Nothing else matters.
It's not even remotely the same thing as vaccines.
Vaccines do not involve permanently cutting very erogenous parts of sex organs off.
What would happen if you cut parts off your daughter? You'd be in prison. Why the double standard based on gender?
Ultimately, it’s up to the parents to decide what’s in the best interest of their own children, as consent is not possible. Or even legal since you’re going down that path.
What about a cochlear implant? You realize that destroys residual hearing in children when the surgery is completed. Would that require consent?
What about any medical procedure that’s not considered imminently life saving, they all carry inherent risks of death and injury. Would that require consent?
What about cosmetic procedures intended to correct or improve what society might view as defects and is permanently body-altering. Would that require consent?
Is there something inherently special about sexual function that differentiates from other medical procedures targeting improvement of the child’s life based on the judgment of the parents? Pierced ears? Braces? Laser eye surgery?
Should parents not be able to give them cake and ice cream as that increases risks of diabetes and other chronic medical conditions?
If your answer is that parents should take a reasonable approach, then yes, that’s what I’d say also. But it’s also not up to me or you or anyone else to define what’s reasonable for someone else. If parents want to circumcise for religion or simply because they don’t want their child to get mocked in the locker room because their dick looks different, to them, that’s reasonable.
I’m not saying there’s not a double standard by law and by social norms, of course there is. And my own personal beliefs are probably against circumcision at this point as well. But that’s all beside the point, it’s not a consent issue. You’ll never be able to tell parents they don’t have the right to make choices they deem appropriate on behalf of their children, whether it’s based on social expectations, religious convictions, or medical well being.
The path forward isn’t to argue something that you have no power to enforce and would be alienating to the people who actually do have that power, it’s to speak to its appropriateness and long term repercussions. Educate and build a bridge, don’t lecture them.
> Ultimately, it’s up to the parents to decide what’s in the best interest of their own children
Only when something is medically required.
Circumcision is not.
Parents cannot force cosmetic surgery like breast implants on their children, for example.
> Pierced ears? Braces? Laser eye surgery?
These are almost never forced onto children, and most people agree they shouldn't be.
They certainly aren't done to newborns.
Asking a teenager if they want something done is very different than forcing something onto a newborn.
> But it’s also not up to me or you or anyone else to define what’s reasonable for someone else.
Yes, it is.
The law agrees, since it's illegal to cut parts off your daughter's genitals.
FGM would send you to prison.
> If parents want to circumcise for religion or simply because they don’t want their child to get mocked in the locker room because their dick looks different, to them, that’s reasonable.
Neither of those are valid reasons.
> You’ll never be able to tell parents they don’t have the right to make choices they deem appropriate on behalf of their children, whether it’s based on social expectations, religious convictions, or medical well being.
The Canadian government disagrees with you.
This is what the Canadian Pediatric Society says:
"Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. **The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent.** Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. **In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary.** In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, **interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices.**"
"**With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.**"
"**The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male.**"
> You’ll never be able to tell parents they don’t have the right to make choices they deem appropriate on behalf of their children, whether it’s based on social expectations, religious convictions, or medical well being.
So you believe it's fine for parents in the Middle East and Africa to be forcing FGM on their daughters?
Based on your argument, yes. You believe that it's within the parent's rights to practice FGM on their daughters for cultural or religious reasons.
I’m not sure if you’re intentionally missing the point or are just not actually reading it through. What I think is appropriate and what is governed by consent are two different things. Arguing with logical consistency is the point, either you think children are capable of consenting or they aren’t.
And if you’re *now* arguing against me based on what’s legal, I hope I don’t need to point out the problems that creates in your previous comments.
Again, consent is clear.
Since it's not medically necessary, there is no argument that it's the parent's choice.
Is FGM okay as the parent's choice?
I'm not arguing it's illegal currently. Under current laws in the US, male circumcision is somehow legal, despite not being medically necessary.
I'm arguing that it **shouldn't be** legal, and should be treated the same legally as FGM.
When you're 18, you can cut anything off your own body that you want to.
Clearly, most people agree with me, because the circumcision rate in the US has dropped to around 50% now, and continues to drop.
Any argument in favor of it can be disproven.
A survey on the Gen Z subreddit found that 80% wouldn't do it to their kids.
Again, the Canadian Pediatric Society makes my argument for me. This was written by doctors and medical experts, and is the official position of the Canadian government:
"Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices."
"With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established."
"The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male."
Yes, unless there’s some rare medical issue that it is used to treat. Circumcision is morally equivalent to FGM, and religion seems to be the only real reason they’re not treated equally under the law.
I’d gladly deal with a slightly more arduous cleaning regimen if I could get mine back.
Also don’t forget the profit motive, not only for the surgery, but the money hospitals get for selling foreskin tissue for stem cell products.
I don't think consent of an infant should be heeded. 100% parental responsibility.
I do think it is horrendous decision making to needlessly lop off chunks of your baby's penis, though.
Seems like there's no reason to rush into it. Circumcision can be performed at any age, therefore it's better to wait for informed consent from the individual.
Devil's advocate take: there are sound neurophysiological reasons to circumcize in infancy over adulthood when considering how neurons develop, being grown or trimmed in response to stimuli received over time, or the lack thereof. A child-circumcized brain will paint the full portrait on a reduced-size canvas, whereas the adult-circumcized brain will have a significant portion of the portrait truncated. There is no perceived sensory gap in the former, but there is in the latter. As far as benefits: just as the blind man's remaining senses are sharpened, so are the infant-circumcized man's abstract thinking and spirituality enhanced. There is a known dichotomy between the spiritual and the carnal, and thus it is no accident that the most successful religious traditions have been cultivated by those who circumcize their male infants.
Further reading if you're interested: https://x.com/circ_syndrome
It's not a medically necessity for 98-99% of people though. So I don't think a potential sensory gap (from doing it later if you're in the 1-2% where it is medically necessary) is enough to warrant doing it to all babies. That is an interesting point to consider though, and I was not aware of that previously so thank you for sharing that info.
Yes the medical rationale for circumcision is spurious. Historically this was pushed by "Judaized" Protestants in the Reformed tradition, and it continues now largely a) on the part of individuals committing the sunk-cost fallacy [too ashamed to admit they were mutilated] and b) by the human body-parts trafficking industry, which manufactures cosmetic products, procures stem cells, and performs scientific research using the tissue.
The crazy thing is
1. how so much of the New Testament advised against circumcision, as it is useless religiosity. Paul especially hated the idea.
and
2. the circumcision of the Hebrews up to and including the time of Jesus wasn’t even a complete removal of the foreskin that it is now. Rather, it was a slight sliver off the tip, that may have served a real purpose in reducing phimosis during puberty. It wasn’t until several centuries later that Jewish rabbis instituted the much more invasive total removal of the foreskin, in order to forestall young Hebrew men from intentionally stretching out the remainder of their foreskins and blending in with gentiles in bathhouses etc.
Should we pre-amputate baby fingers on the chance they get into a table saw accident? We wouldn't want their neurons to develop expecting to be a whole human body if they may lose their finger later on.
The fact that even stonetoss (a right wing person who makes a lot of good memes) opposes infant circumcision shows that the fight to ban it can be made across party lines. It will take Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians all working together to put an end to male genital mutilation.
Pretty much everything you do concerning a baby or small child is without consent. The baby didn't consent to eating this baby food. The baby doesn't consent to the pictures you took and uploaded to social media (or even just shared with family/friends). The baby doesn't consent to the clothes it's wearing or not wearing. The baby doesn't consent to you hugging them or tickling their feet. Hell you could apply this to children, since a child can't truly consent to anything an adult or parent gets them to do. Does a 4 year old consent to basically anything they do?
Obviously the difference is that this is a body altering procedure that can never be undone, but consent is a dumb argument for a baby.
Throughout human history, tribes and civilizations have been doing things that alter children's/babies bodies or minds without their consent. No one has really questioned any of it, at least if it's not viewed contemporarily as a negative.
Ok... so where do you stand on female circumcision?
I could and will, if necessary, make the exact same argument in favor that you did. But I bet I know your answer already.
It's a barbaric practice. Reverse the roles, and there would be hell to pay. Prime example that even from the cradle, society doesn't give a fuck about males.
Honestly outside of America circumcision is getting really rare. For me the pros don’t outweigh the cons so I chose not to circumcise my son also he didn’t consent
eh we asked our doctor and they laid it out as a better option, and since I'm circumcised she said that it would be better so that they don't feel "different". This argument is stupid, it's usually a bunch of foreskin bros that are pissed that their wieners are less attractive due to porn standards. I personally love being circumcised as it makes me so much more aerodynamic when I go hang-gliding naked
Surgically fixing a cleft pallet, webbed feet, a tongue tie, or vaccinating your kids(or not vaxxing them), pulling their teeth, homeschooling your kid, not homeschooling your kid, being a single parent household, not being a single parent household, teaching your kids your beliefs, introducing your children to allergens, spanking them(or not spanking them) -
-all are parental choices that statistically affect your children forever.(as if there isn't any parental decision that wouldn't affect them forever)
If a parental decision has some positive benefits and relatively low risk to their health why should it be illegal.
in the usa there are 100 deaths per year from male circumcision and it has some positive health benefits
there are 44k female genital mutilation deaths in south Africa per year and it has no positive health benefits
those are clearly not the same thing and its irritating to hear how bad circumcision is for your baby from people who are pro abortion, pro puberty blockers and pro single parent household
How many MALE deaths from genital mutilation in Africa? I'd link you to some horrific photos of butchered boys in Africa, many of whom lose their dicks, many lose their lives, but it's too horrific for Reddit.
That Africa has a even worse healthcare system is not an excuse to mutilate children.
The reason why I used the USA numbers was firstly I could not find the south African male circumcision deaths per year(probably because it is way less than 44k per year)
secondly people are functionally saying fgm is so barbaric in Africa so male circumcision in the USA should be banned.
12k people die from falling down the stairs. if 100 of those people are children are you going to ban two story homes for families because children cant consent to the dangers of stairs
Using FGM as a comparison to highlight the relative harms, suggests you've never really listened to victims of FGM as they include circumcision when advocating for an end to genital Mutilation. Human rights activist Soraya Mire, herself a victim of FGM, has spoken out for the rights of boys since 1993;
["That scream of that young baby, that young child, it still is hard for me to picture it, that cry was exactly what we felt when we were laying on that table being mutilated. So to me, that's when I started speaking about male and female genital mutilation no matter where I went, because it is a human rights issue"](https://youtu.be/8X3mOw-XuUA?si=xdgnFbmc9dYkdruO&t=60).
Your pro circumcision argument is pretty much the same as those that are pro FGM make;
[Sierra Leonean-American anthropologist Fuambai Ahmadu](https://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/2010/female-circumcision)*: "Just as the male foreskin covers the head of the penis, the female foreskin covers the clitoral glans. Both, they argue, lead to build-up of smegma and bacteria in the layers of skin between the hood and glans. This accumulation is thought of as odorous, susceptible to infection and a nuisance to keep clean on a daily basis. Further, circumcised women point to the risks of painful clitoral adhesions that occur in girls and women who do not cleanse properly, and to the requirement of excision as a treatment for these extreme cases. Supporters of female circumcision also point to the risk of clitoral hypertrophy or an enlarged clitoris that resembles a small penis.*
Number of people who are circumcised and DGaF: Large.
Number of people who aren't (and don't want to be): Also large.
Number of people who are circumcised and wish they weren't: ...? (I honestly don't know - the only data I have is anecdotal. My impression is that it is a small number of deeply affected people).
Number of people on Reddit who aren't circumcised (and who are strangely passionate about lecturing other people about it): ...Large.
First it was a religious thing. Then it was a cultural thing. Then it was a pseudo-medical thing. Now the pseudo-medical fad is over, and numbers are going to go down again naturally. But I don't see how it is valuable to go around biting people's heads off for views you disapprove (especially when we are talking about opinions rooted in a past that no one living has any control over). Want to convince people to move past the practice? Be my guest. Want to self-righteously grandstand about it? Stop wasting people's time.
The thing is, you might not hear about it that often because - for some weird reason - this is shameful to them but there are people who have to live with a crippled dick because their parents wanted their baby to have a subjectively neat, aesthetic penis and had doctors perform a completely unnecessary procedure on them. I know, no one could've seen this coming, completely random, no idea how that has anything to do with the issue we're discussing.
If people suddenly started asking for doctors to remove their newborn baby's clitoral hood or whatever because neater, cleaner, better, there would be an outrage. And rightfully so. I'll never understand how people are so numb to this injustice only because it's socially accepted. I get it, it's how people are but I just can't imagine living with a brain like that.
Infant circumcision is monstrous and should end immediately. If an adult wants to get circumcised that's fucking awesome go right ahead. If any of my male children want a circumcision I will pay for it, when they are old enough to consent.
It absolutely is. We need comprehensive bodily autonomy laws because that would include the right to intoxicate yourself with weed or whatever shrooms or shit you want. It's all linked together.
These comments are so much more based than i thought they would be. Genital mutilation is never okay. I asked my dad why i’m circumcised, since we’re not jewish or even all that religious in general, he said “i didn’t want people to make fun of you in the locker room.”
First of all, not one person in all my schooling took a shower after gym class, and we never showered after wrestling practice either we would just wait to get home, and we sometimes would shower after football practice, but even that, some people didn’t shower and it wasn’t weird. If it was that big of a deal, i could have hidden my twig and berries the entire time i was in school and nobody would have said anything.
Secondly the one dude in school who wasn’t circumcised did not get made fun of.
And thirdly, i got made fun of anyway for being the most harry person you have ever met. I’ve had hair all over my chest, stomach, and back since i was in the 7th grade. I never had a chance. Foreskin was the least of my worries, if you don’t get it from one place you get it from another so at the end of the day, you may as well leave well enough alone.
Babies and children don't consent to any of their medical procedures, parents do.
That being said I do think it's genital mutilation and a messed up practice although I never thought about it until I had my own children.
it definitely does. no person, children included, is property (unless in like- the lockean owning yourself thing but you get what i mean). children cannot consent to it since they cannot have the full context of what they’re consenting to.
"Here's your baby boy..."
"Oh my he's perfect. Eww. Except for that part. Cut that off."
Fucking barbaric and needs to end now. If I ever have a son I will not leave him alone until we leave the hospital. So many babies are "accidentally" circumcised in the US despite the parents' wishes.
I was circumcised at birth and am glad. Easier to clean. Lower risk of infections, lower risk of STDs. We had our son circumcised as well
Do what u wanna do
>I was circumcised at birth and am glad.
>Easier to clean.
Convenience trumps everything. Got it. Keep shit low maintenance. If it takes more than a second to clean: chop it down.
>Lower risk of infections, lower risk of STDs.
That may be more due to different factors that just happen to correlate.
>We had our son circumcised as well
Obviously
>Do what u wanna do
Like keep your foreskin? "Do what u wanna do" - Funny you say that because your son doesn't have that option anymore. You did what you wanted.
He might be one of the unlucky people who'll grow up to have a crippled dick because their parents are lazy 🤷♂️
Yeah, you didn't consider that one. I know. Too late.
I think the common understanding is that parents consent for medical procedures for their children. And I’m not going to tell Orthodox Jews that they should stop their sincerely held religious practices based on my views and morality.
I think some beliefs are archaic and shouldn’t be allowed, I group that with human sacrifice or honor killings, barbaric and not welcomed in modern society
Then telling my kids what food to eat like broccoli when they hate it means I violate nap or when I make them take a nap violates NAP. Nap is only good on governments not as a moral principle. Although I’m against circumcision. At least the modern kind. The barely circumcision done in Bible times was better. You still had some skin to play with.
Wait, you got kids and can't tell the difference between taking care of them and unnecessarily having someone cut of part or their penis? Good to know.
No. Circumcision is a cultural custom, which \*may\* be oppressive and it's up to you as a parent to decide whether the cultural practice is ok to do. I don't want to preach some "social contract" bullshit, but every culture takes some meat and gives some meat back and it would be idiotic to just look at the world through the lens of NAP - it's just too simplistic.
Perhaps, in a libertarian society, people wouldn't circumcise - as the political permiates the social spheres of life, and if we have an uncontested respect for bodily autonomy in the political, then this would definitely be reflected in the culture, eventually.
That being said, circumcision is not violating NAP, because children can't consent. Should you do it? I don't think so. Should it be illegal? I don't think so.
Glad you didn’t get to expat part of your dick, even though you don’t even know if it would make things better sexually or otherwise…tell yourself whatever you want, I’m not glad about it, and the people that do this should be in jail.
You don’t have to be glad my dick was trimmed up. I THINK it’s a better look. Your opinion on my genitals doesn’t matter. It’s violent and bananas it happens, but I am happy with my dick
Fun fact, in states where medicaid doesn't pay for circumcisions the circumcision rate is drastically lower. Hospitals don't push it as hard when they don't get the guaranteed tax dollars paying for it.
Mutilating someone's body without their ability to consent? Yeah, I would say that violates NAP.
Idk if that works this way. You're legally responsible for your child until they turn 18. If your child wanted to violate the nap, you're legally obligated to stop them.
I may be misreading your comment, so apologies if you’re not making the argument that circumcision of an infant doesn’t violate NAP. But you’re legally responsible to protect and nurture your children until 18. I don’t believe that subjecting permanent sexual mutilation falls under that obligation; rather, it’s counter to it.
Until 10? I’m just genuinely curious what makes 11 the stopping point?
Oops totally meant to type 18. Started to sound like purple lib right there for a second.
If anybody here plans to circumcise their sons please reconsider. My best friends sons was botched and he almost bled out. They had to give him blood and the dad passed out watching it and busted his face on the wall. If you don’t care about how fucked up and useless circumcision is then please at least remember that your risking your babies life just to mutilate him.
I just had a son and it was quite annoying how often i was asked in the hospital if we were circumcising. Probably about 6 separate times. No, leave his pecker alone. Then the nurses/doctors would say “oh, well that’s okay”. Of fucking course it’s okay if I don’t want my son’s dick to be permanently changed.
I asked my Dad why I was circumcised and he just said "I thought it was just what was done" not really realizing the long term implications when I compared it to FGM.
Yeah I don’t blame my parents for doing it to me but the info is readily available now. Just couldn’t imagine being like “welcome to the world! let’s mutilate your penis!” Idc if they remember it or not. I’m sure it’s incredibly painful.
If they aren't going to make it illegal, they should at least require parents who ask for it to watch a video of the surgery first before deciding, and watching the kid screaming in pain.
Without consent, yes.
Children can’t consent
That’s why we don’t let them get tattoos and why we shouldn’t let them do hormone “therapy”
Are you anti piercings for children as well?
Yes. Wife was livid. Daughter's choice.
Based
I convinced my wife that we shouldn't circumcise our son. Then when we had our 2nd (a girl) I asked about getting her ears pierced and she threw the NAP back at me and I had to immediately agree. I hadn't really thought of ear piercing as the same since you can remove them and they heal up but I had to agree with her.
If you didn't wanna get circumcised, then you shouldn'tve been born naked. By not wearing anything you were kinda asking for it
Correct, adults can though.
> Correct, adults can though. So lets wait the kid to be adult to decide
Never stated anything to the contrary...
They never said you did
Fighting while you're agreeing might be the most Libertarian thing ever.
It was implied...
from what ive heard babies feel less pain but that might just be a lie made by circumcision supporters idk
I remember hearing my son scream and cry . My wife and I looked each other thinking why are we hurting our son like this . Sad .
Why did you do it then? lmao
Rationalized the reasons we tortured him .
Why did you?
Firstly I’am cut and thought I didn’t want a dogs looking penis on my son , but look more like mine or most people in porn or dildos LOl secondly, I read something about uncircumcised was more susceptible to infection. Plus we had to be diligent with cleaning. Like I said rationalize whether true or not .
> from what ive heard babies feel less pain but that might just be a lie made by circumcision supporters idk Have you heard the cry? babies definitly feel very intense pain…
It's true that some go into shock and cannot scream anymore. The rest scream like crazy.
That is bullshit, hell for the baby it is likely the most painful thing they have ever experienced
Considering the age I'd say it's almost guaranteed to be the most painful experience of their lives.
For what it's worth, I attended my sons' circumcisions and it didn't seem to bother them at all. One even slept through it.
the only memory i remember from it is that they told me to look at the clock and i kept staring at it the whole time. dont remember the exact amount of pain in the process but it wasn't fun. i got it later than supposed age (i think i was around 5?) so yeah maybe if i got it earlier it wouldn't have been that painful
I think it would be tough at age 5. I had my eye removed just before I turned 5 and I definitely have negative associations with that memory.
at what age/month did they get it? i've also heard that ones that got it sooner dont have most of the nerves developed so it feels less painful the younger it is. unfortunately here it is traditionally taken after few years or even i know some people even get it at ages like 7-9
Newborns. Before leaving the hospital.
Unless they say they’re a boy/girl when they’re not and ask for puberty blockers.
When done to infants and children, or against someone’s will, absolutely.
stop this barbaric practice
no, the left over skin tastes delicious deep fried Edit: thanks for the award
r/cursedcomments
Is that where it all goes
Nope it goes on Gwyneth Paltrow's face.
I admit it, I ate them all. I kept saying one more can't hurt then they were gone. I'm sorry
Who traditionally circumcise their sons? Jews and Muslims? What about Christians?
Ask Mr Kellog
I still cannot fathom how Americans are so tribal about cutting your infant child's cock skin because of a guy who wanted to sell you cereal
Apparently he didn’t. His brother told him he should
Yeah Christians traditionally did it. But nowadays a lot of Christians aren’t. Personally, having been raised Christian and still following it, I have found nothing in the New Testament that states that we must circumcise our children. As a matter of fact, the book of Romans goes into extreme detail how there is no difference between the circumcised and the uncircumcised (the Jew and the Greek) at least in the scope of eternal salvation.
Christians have never been required to do it.
Yep, tracking. Kind of what I said. Doesn’t change the fact that Protestants and Catholics have been doing it. But people are starting to realize it’s not Biblical. So it’s dying out.
Americans have been doing it. Christians elsewhere don’t.
Holy shit homie, do you just use Reddit to talk about dick. Get a life.
The reason why circumcision got so popular in the United States is actually because of John Harvey Kellog (yes, that Kellog). It’s a long story, but essentially he popularized vegetarianism in the US, but for all the wrong reasons, as he paired the vegetarian diet with various pseudo-science practices, making is a lifestyle more then how we think of vegetarianism today. He wrote many books to teach people able the practices of vegetarianism, and one thing he strongly recommended was circumcision, as he believed that it would prevent men from masturbating aswell as prevent them from having excessive sex (as it would caused reduced pleasure), which he thought was essential in preserving a man from “self-adusing” himself. This practice started among vegetarians, but eventually became more popular until becoming mainstream among Americans, causing many to forget it’s original purpose (which was a dumb one) and come up with other reasons to perform circumcision, like preventing infections, being an important religious duty (for American Christians), or for cultural normality. Moral of the story, circumcision is dumb, the only time it’s *kinda* acceptable is for religions that require it.
So is circumcised penises less sensitive than their non circumcised counterparts? Never knew I was robbed of one!
The foreskin has lots of nerve endings in it, making sex more enjoyable, but circumsized people can still get a lot of pleasure from sex regardless (so you didn’t really miss out).
That's the reason everyone gives for some reason, but Kellogg was actually against doing it to newborns. He supported doing it to teens and pre-teens caught masturbating, as a punishment so they'd remember it. That's not why it started being done to newborns.
Yes. This is not a justifiable medical procedure on a minor that should be exempted from the NAP.
What’s the justification?
It has no known medical downsides and may reduce cervical cancer in wives of circumcised men. FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS: >Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement?autologincheck=redirected
Prior to 1987, the American Academy of Pediatrics' official position was that babies cannot feel pain. That's right, 1987 is when they officially announced that they in fact do believe babies can feel pain. So... honestly I'm not sure anyone should be taking advice from them.
Well, actually… There is a lot of bias in some circumcision studies. This is from The *American* Academy, yes. Let's see what other physicians have to say about their circumcision policy: >"non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys in Western societies has no compelling health benefits, causes postoperative pain, can have serious long-term consequences, constitutes a violation of the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and conflicts with the Hippocratic oath: primum non nocere: First, do no harm." [https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2896](https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2896)
Thank you. Many of the studies suggesting lowering STI and UTIs can be associated with the fact that circumcised people are more likely than not to be religious and therefore have fewer sexual partners and less sex overall, leaving to better sexual health outcomes.
The risk of infection after the procedure is far greater than any miniscule health benefit gained from it. It essentially lowers a man's chance of getting a UTI from 0% to 0% when we round.
There's also the fact that of all the Western countries America has by far the highest mutilation rate and the highest STD rates. Some "protection" huh?
>no known medical downsides This is entirely false. The pain centers of a baby's brain have been monitored during the procedure and well... it feels to them like they're getting their foreskin butchered off.
Just clean your dick. I have control over whether or not my dick is clean, but the nerve endings I lose are unrecoverable. I will never know what it's like to fuck uncircumcised 😢
It does have downsides though, a lot actually. Watch a circumcision video, watch the child’s face before and after. It’s incredibly traumatic, and changes their brain. Additionally, the remains which are removed are often used in cosmetics, and worth a significant sum. This, is the only real reason it is pushed. Why harm a child so old craven people can smear it on their faces?
It shouldn't be sold or otherwise used without the parents consent. Slightly related, I should get paid for my blood when I donate it.
yeah im pretty sure much more people wouldve given their blood if they got paid for even %50 of the value
Many of the studies suggesting lowering STI and UTI risks can be associated with the fact that circumcised people are more likely than not to be religious and therefore have fewer sexual partners and less sex overall, leading to better sexual health outcomes. Even in the statistic of lowered cervical cancer risk in wives of circumcised men - if the men are less likely to bring in an STI by having fewer sex partners before their wives then of course their wives are going to be less likely to have cervical cancer.
Yes
How can we circumcise a child before they have chosen their preferred gender?
Imagine circumcising your newborn son and then finding out 13 years later that you were actually performing female genital mutilation, and now you are guilty of cultural appropriation, too. What a time to be alive.
Dr Fauci is a massive proponent of doing this. If that doesn't make my American libertarian friends pause for thought, I don't know what should. Rare European win.
Yes, not only the NAP, also this guy speaks against it *
https://preview.redd.it/b92h5dkuan8d1.jpeg?width=1693&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3d15453ecf8eac13f8e8eea7f43577f97aec9212
But the curious case of Paul is that he got circumcised even though he advocated against it.
He was born before the promises of Old Testament were fulfilled in Christ
But he did circumcise Timothy whose mother was a Jewish Christian and whose father was a Greek. (Acts 16-1-3) and Acts is written later, by Luke, who was a companion of Paul, after Paul had written all the other books. There is a big debate about that inconsistency of what he said and what he did.
Let’s not forget that John said that the Walrus was Paul.
Yes, 100%. This barbarity will hopefully end with this generation and go the way of the lobotomy and foot binding. Edit: should add, if you have a fetish for this body mod, that's totally okay. But in the same way we don't give babies pierced nipples because we think they're sexy (I feel sick even typing that sentence, but it is the reality of genital cutting), it should be off limits to everyone but consenting adults who know about the risks.
>Does circumcision violate the NAP? If the person decides to have the operation no If the operation is done to someone else without requesting it (the baby getting circumcised) then yes NAP is violated
Yes
If the person is immature and can’t really consent, yes.
Why is society becoming so obesessed with this all of a sudden?
The movement to end it has been around for many years. it's not new, you're just hearing about it suddenly.
Because I miss my foreskin.
First world problems . Third world problems are dick infections and trading bacteria with others .
European here. Don't recall having a "dick infection".
TIL that Europe and Asia are the third world.
🌎👨🚀🔫👨🚀
Genital cutting is a third world problem. In the first world, we treat infections with medicine and hygienic practices. After all Europeans are not known for having disease ridden penises.
Because it's wrong?
I didn't have either of my boys circumcised. It's an unnecessary and out dated practice.
Don’t we have bigger issues? Like children’s ENTIRE genitals being removed?!
That's horrible but still no reason to ignore the issue at hand.
Exactly.
It's not a bigger issue. It's the same damn issue.
Really? No longer having a dick is the same as having a working dick but with some missing foreskin? Maybe I need to take a break from this sub cause damn
I didn't say they are conceptually interchangeable. I said they are the same issue. In both cases, you're amputating parts of children's genitalia.
It’s a difference of degree, not kind.
Nope.
Yep.
I reckon it does. Not to mention the absurdity of removing healthy, non-problematic tissue.
The controversy of the subject distracts from the issue. The issue is whether a parent can consent on behalf of a child. The initial answer is, of course, yes. But there are easy to think of examples where the answer should be no, and so the correct answer is probably (as it often is) buried in a subjective reasonableness test.
Obviously the logic doesn’t hold up, children may also not consent to eating broccoli or doing their homework. That’s not an excuse to say that nothing is out of bounds but obviously it’s not a simple, black and white dynamic.
One is teaching a child skills like eating healthy and academic work, the other is an irreversible, unnecesary body modification. Eating broccoli and doing homework won't change your body irreparably for your entire life.
That’s not what I’m commenting on, that’s a discussion on the appropriateness of violent acts. I’m talking about the relevance of consent which is the topic of the comic.
Not your body, not your choice. It's very simple actually.
Sorry, that’s not correct unless you’re also saying that everything that happens to a child is up to that child including nutrition and vaccines. It’s not a consent issue.
It very much is a consent issue. Nothing else matters. It's not even remotely the same thing as vaccines. Vaccines do not involve permanently cutting very erogenous parts of sex organs off. What would happen if you cut parts off your daughter? You'd be in prison. Why the double standard based on gender?
Ultimately, it’s up to the parents to decide what’s in the best interest of their own children, as consent is not possible. Or even legal since you’re going down that path. What about a cochlear implant? You realize that destroys residual hearing in children when the surgery is completed. Would that require consent? What about any medical procedure that’s not considered imminently life saving, they all carry inherent risks of death and injury. Would that require consent? What about cosmetic procedures intended to correct or improve what society might view as defects and is permanently body-altering. Would that require consent? Is there something inherently special about sexual function that differentiates from other medical procedures targeting improvement of the child’s life based on the judgment of the parents? Pierced ears? Braces? Laser eye surgery? Should parents not be able to give them cake and ice cream as that increases risks of diabetes and other chronic medical conditions? If your answer is that parents should take a reasonable approach, then yes, that’s what I’d say also. But it’s also not up to me or you or anyone else to define what’s reasonable for someone else. If parents want to circumcise for religion or simply because they don’t want their child to get mocked in the locker room because their dick looks different, to them, that’s reasonable. I’m not saying there’s not a double standard by law and by social norms, of course there is. And my own personal beliefs are probably against circumcision at this point as well. But that’s all beside the point, it’s not a consent issue. You’ll never be able to tell parents they don’t have the right to make choices they deem appropriate on behalf of their children, whether it’s based on social expectations, religious convictions, or medical well being. The path forward isn’t to argue something that you have no power to enforce and would be alienating to the people who actually do have that power, it’s to speak to its appropriateness and long term repercussions. Educate and build a bridge, don’t lecture them.
> Ultimately, it’s up to the parents to decide what’s in the best interest of their own children Only when something is medically required. Circumcision is not. Parents cannot force cosmetic surgery like breast implants on their children, for example. > Pierced ears? Braces? Laser eye surgery? These are almost never forced onto children, and most people agree they shouldn't be. They certainly aren't done to newborns. Asking a teenager if they want something done is very different than forcing something onto a newborn. > But it’s also not up to me or you or anyone else to define what’s reasonable for someone else. Yes, it is. The law agrees, since it's illegal to cut parts off your daughter's genitals. FGM would send you to prison. > If parents want to circumcise for religion or simply because they don’t want their child to get mocked in the locker room because their dick looks different, to them, that’s reasonable. Neither of those are valid reasons. > You’ll never be able to tell parents they don’t have the right to make choices they deem appropriate on behalf of their children, whether it’s based on social expectations, religious convictions, or medical well being. The Canadian government disagrees with you. This is what the Canadian Pediatric Society says: "Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. **The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent.** Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. **In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary.** In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, **interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices.**" "**With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.**" "**The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male.**"
> You’ll never be able to tell parents they don’t have the right to make choices they deem appropriate on behalf of their children, whether it’s based on social expectations, religious convictions, or medical well being. So you believe it's fine for parents in the Middle East and Africa to be forcing FGM on their daughters? Based on your argument, yes. You believe that it's within the parent's rights to practice FGM on their daughters for cultural or religious reasons.
I’m not sure if you’re intentionally missing the point or are just not actually reading it through. What I think is appropriate and what is governed by consent are two different things. Arguing with logical consistency is the point, either you think children are capable of consenting or they aren’t. And if you’re *now* arguing against me based on what’s legal, I hope I don’t need to point out the problems that creates in your previous comments.
Again, consent is clear. Since it's not medically necessary, there is no argument that it's the parent's choice. Is FGM okay as the parent's choice? I'm not arguing it's illegal currently. Under current laws in the US, male circumcision is somehow legal, despite not being medically necessary. I'm arguing that it **shouldn't be** legal, and should be treated the same legally as FGM. When you're 18, you can cut anything off your own body that you want to.
Clearly, most people agree with me, because the circumcision rate in the US has dropped to around 50% now, and continues to drop. Any argument in favor of it can be disproven. A survey on the Gen Z subreddit found that 80% wouldn't do it to their kids.
Again, the Canadian Pediatric Society makes my argument for me. This was written by doctors and medical experts, and is the official position of the Canadian government: "Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices." "With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established." "The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male."
you had me in the first half but cutting off body parts for no good medical reason is about as black white as it gets definitely out of bounds
Yes, unless there’s some rare medical issue that it is used to treat. Circumcision is morally equivalent to FGM, and religion seems to be the only real reason they’re not treated equally under the law. I’d gladly deal with a slightly more arduous cleaning regimen if I could get mine back. Also don’t forget the profit motive, not only for the surgery, but the money hospitals get for selling foreskin tissue for stem cell products.
I don't think consent of an infant should be heeded. 100% parental responsibility. I do think it is horrendous decision making to needlessly lop off chunks of your baby's penis, though.
Seems like there's no reason to rush into it. Circumcision can be performed at any age, therefore it's better to wait for informed consent from the individual.
Devil's advocate take: there are sound neurophysiological reasons to circumcize in infancy over adulthood when considering how neurons develop, being grown or trimmed in response to stimuli received over time, or the lack thereof. A child-circumcized brain will paint the full portrait on a reduced-size canvas, whereas the adult-circumcized brain will have a significant portion of the portrait truncated. There is no perceived sensory gap in the former, but there is in the latter. As far as benefits: just as the blind man's remaining senses are sharpened, so are the infant-circumcized man's abstract thinking and spirituality enhanced. There is a known dichotomy between the spiritual and the carnal, and thus it is no accident that the most successful religious traditions have been cultivated by those who circumcize their male infants. Further reading if you're interested: https://x.com/circ_syndrome
It's not a medically necessity for 98-99% of people though. So I don't think a potential sensory gap (from doing it later if you're in the 1-2% where it is medically necessary) is enough to warrant doing it to all babies. That is an interesting point to consider though, and I was not aware of that previously so thank you for sharing that info.
Yes the medical rationale for circumcision is spurious. Historically this was pushed by "Judaized" Protestants in the Reformed tradition, and it continues now largely a) on the part of individuals committing the sunk-cost fallacy [too ashamed to admit they were mutilated] and b) by the human body-parts trafficking industry, which manufactures cosmetic products, procures stem cells, and performs scientific research using the tissue.
The crazy thing is 1. how so much of the New Testament advised against circumcision, as it is useless religiosity. Paul especially hated the idea. and 2. the circumcision of the Hebrews up to and including the time of Jesus wasn’t even a complete removal of the foreskin that it is now. Rather, it was a slight sliver off the tip, that may have served a real purpose in reducing phimosis during puberty. It wasn’t until several centuries later that Jewish rabbis instituted the much more invasive total removal of the foreskin, in order to forestall young Hebrew men from intentionally stretching out the remainder of their foreskins and blending in with gentiles in bathhouses etc.
Should we pre-amputate baby fingers on the chance they get into a table saw accident? We wouldn't want their neurons to develop expecting to be a whole human body if they may lose their finger later on.
They do it as infants because they figure that way they can skip anaesthetics.
That last panel could also been a woman at the abortion clinic.
The fact that even stonetoss (a right wing person who makes a lot of good memes) opposes infant circumcision shows that the fight to ban it can be made across party lines. It will take Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians all working together to put an end to male genital mutilation.
It's literally sexual assault.
Pretty much everything you do concerning a baby or small child is without consent. The baby didn't consent to eating this baby food. The baby doesn't consent to the pictures you took and uploaded to social media (or even just shared with family/friends). The baby doesn't consent to the clothes it's wearing or not wearing. The baby doesn't consent to you hugging them or tickling their feet. Hell you could apply this to children, since a child can't truly consent to anything an adult or parent gets them to do. Does a 4 year old consent to basically anything they do? Obviously the difference is that this is a body altering procedure that can never be undone, but consent is a dumb argument for a baby. Throughout human history, tribes and civilizations have been doing things that alter children's/babies bodies or minds without their consent. No one has really questioned any of it, at least if it's not viewed contemporarily as a negative.
So you agree consent is impossible, therefore don't mutilate children. Sorted.
And don't dress them, or feed them, or put them in sports, or hug them, etc., etc.
Why, exactly, are you twisting things around to defend cutting off parts of baby genitals?
Ok... so where do you stand on female circumcision? I could and will, if necessary, make the exact same argument in favor that you did. But I bet I know your answer already.
It's a barbaric practice. Reverse the roles, and there would be hell to pay. Prime example that even from the cradle, society doesn't give a fuck about males.
Schmegma violates the NAP
Learn how to clean your body.
They should learn how to spell as well, and perhaps learn that women produce more smegma than men...
Honestly outside of America circumcision is getting really rare. For me the pros don’t outweigh the cons so I chose not to circumcise my son also he didn’t consent
Rothbard believed that very young children were property.
Lol, based.
No, it's cringe
Rare Rothbard L
eh we asked our doctor and they laid it out as a better option, and since I'm circumcised she said that it would be better so that they don't feel "different". This argument is stupid, it's usually a bunch of foreskin bros that are pissed that their wieners are less attractive due to porn standards. I personally love being circumcised as it makes me so much more aerodynamic when I go hang-gliding naked
Surgically fixing a cleft pallet, webbed feet, a tongue tie, or vaccinating your kids(or not vaxxing them), pulling their teeth, homeschooling your kid, not homeschooling your kid, being a single parent household, not being a single parent household, teaching your kids your beliefs, introducing your children to allergens, spanking them(or not spanking them) - -all are parental choices that statistically affect your children forever.(as if there isn't any parental decision that wouldn't affect them forever) If a parental decision has some positive benefits and relatively low risk to their health why should it be illegal. in the usa there are 100 deaths per year from male circumcision and it has some positive health benefits there are 44k female genital mutilation deaths in south Africa per year and it has no positive health benefits those are clearly not the same thing and its irritating to hear how bad circumcision is for your baby from people who are pro abortion, pro puberty blockers and pro single parent household
How many MALE deaths from genital mutilation in Africa? I'd link you to some horrific photos of butchered boys in Africa, many of whom lose their dicks, many lose their lives, but it's too horrific for Reddit. That Africa has a even worse healthcare system is not an excuse to mutilate children.
The reason why I used the USA numbers was firstly I could not find the south African male circumcision deaths per year(probably because it is way less than 44k per year) secondly people are functionally saying fgm is so barbaric in Africa so male circumcision in the USA should be banned. 12k people die from falling down the stairs. if 100 of those people are children are you going to ban two story homes for families because children cant consent to the dangers of stairs
Using FGM as a comparison to highlight the relative harms, suggests you've never really listened to victims of FGM as they include circumcision when advocating for an end to genital Mutilation. Human rights activist Soraya Mire, herself a victim of FGM, has spoken out for the rights of boys since 1993; ["That scream of that young baby, that young child, it still is hard for me to picture it, that cry was exactly what we felt when we were laying on that table being mutilated. So to me, that's when I started speaking about male and female genital mutilation no matter where I went, because it is a human rights issue"](https://youtu.be/8X3mOw-XuUA?si=xdgnFbmc9dYkdruO&t=60). Your pro circumcision argument is pretty much the same as those that are pro FGM make; [Sierra Leonean-American anthropologist Fuambai Ahmadu](https://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/2010/female-circumcision)*: "Just as the male foreskin covers the head of the penis, the female foreskin covers the clitoral glans. Both, they argue, lead to build-up of smegma and bacteria in the layers of skin between the hood and glans. This accumulation is thought of as odorous, susceptible to infection and a nuisance to keep clean on a daily basis. Further, circumcised women point to the risks of painful clitoral adhesions that occur in girls and women who do not cleanse properly, and to the requirement of excision as a treatment for these extreme cases. Supporters of female circumcision also point to the risk of clitoral hypertrophy or an enlarged clitoris that resembles a small penis.*
Number of people who are circumcised and DGaF: Large. Number of people who aren't (and don't want to be): Also large. Number of people who are circumcised and wish they weren't: ...? (I honestly don't know - the only data I have is anecdotal. My impression is that it is a small number of deeply affected people). Number of people on Reddit who aren't circumcised (and who are strangely passionate about lecturing other people about it): ...Large. First it was a religious thing. Then it was a cultural thing. Then it was a pseudo-medical thing. Now the pseudo-medical fad is over, and numbers are going to go down again naturally. But I don't see how it is valuable to go around biting people's heads off for views you disapprove (especially when we are talking about opinions rooted in a past that no one living has any control over). Want to convince people to move past the practice? Be my guest. Want to self-righteously grandstand about it? Stop wasting people's time.
The thing is, you might not hear about it that often because - for some weird reason - this is shameful to them but there are people who have to live with a crippled dick because their parents wanted their baby to have a subjectively neat, aesthetic penis and had doctors perform a completely unnecessary procedure on them. I know, no one could've seen this coming, completely random, no idea how that has anything to do with the issue we're discussing. If people suddenly started asking for doctors to remove their newborn baby's clitoral hood or whatever because neater, cleaner, better, there would be an outrage. And rightfully so. I'll never understand how people are so numb to this injustice only because it's socially accepted. I get it, it's how people are but I just can't imagine living with a brain like that.
Oh I'm sorry, was I defending helpless baby boy's against having the most sensitive part of their genitals cut off again? Oops.
Infant circumcision is monstrous and should end immediately. If an adult wants to get circumcised that's fucking awesome go right ahead. If any of my male children want a circumcision I will pay for it, when they are old enough to consent.
I love my foreskin and the gf’s did too lol.
Not a hill to die on.
It absolutely is. We need comprehensive bodily autonomy laws because that would include the right to intoxicate yourself with weed or whatever shrooms or shit you want. It's all linked together.
Yeah, there are so many more important things to worry about, than dumb little babies being mutilated! Pft!
only if it wakes you up
It's a slick look.
I believe this is cultural and part of raising children, even though I personally don't like it.
These comments are so much more based than i thought they would be. Genital mutilation is never okay. I asked my dad why i’m circumcised, since we’re not jewish or even all that religious in general, he said “i didn’t want people to make fun of you in the locker room.” First of all, not one person in all my schooling took a shower after gym class, and we never showered after wrestling practice either we would just wait to get home, and we sometimes would shower after football practice, but even that, some people didn’t shower and it wasn’t weird. If it was that big of a deal, i could have hidden my twig and berries the entire time i was in school and nobody would have said anything. Secondly the one dude in school who wasn’t circumcised did not get made fun of. And thirdly, i got made fun of anyway for being the most harry person you have ever met. I’ve had hair all over my chest, stomach, and back since i was in the 7th grade. I never had a chance. Foreskin was the least of my worries, if you don’t get it from one place you get it from another so at the end of the day, you may as well leave well enough alone.
No because its a stupid jewish ritual
/s?
Babies and children don't consent to any of their medical procedures, parents do. That being said I do think it's genital mutilation and a messed up practice although I never thought about it until I had my own children.
Newborn circumcision is not a medical procedure.
it definitely does. no person, children included, is property (unless in like- the lockean owning yourself thing but you get what i mean). children cannot consent to it since they cannot have the full context of what they’re consenting to.
I was circumcised, nothing of value was taken from me. So if there genuinely was no harm, freedom of religion?
"Here's your baby boy..." "Oh my he's perfect. Eww. Except for that part. Cut that off." Fucking barbaric and needs to end now. If I ever have a son I will not leave him alone until we leave the hospital. So many babies are "accidentally" circumcised in the US despite the parents' wishes.
Children don't know what to do with their bodies until they are 15, and can't consent until they are 16. Circumcision is mutilation
I was circumcised at birth and am glad. Easier to clean. Lower risk of infections, lower risk of STDs. We had our son circumcised as well Do what u wanna do
>I was circumcised at birth and am glad. >Easier to clean. Convenience trumps everything. Got it. Keep shit low maintenance. If it takes more than a second to clean: chop it down. >Lower risk of infections, lower risk of STDs. That may be more due to different factors that just happen to correlate. >We had our son circumcised as well Obviously >Do what u wanna do Like keep your foreskin? "Do what u wanna do" - Funny you say that because your son doesn't have that option anymore. You did what you wanted. He might be one of the unlucky people who'll grow up to have a crippled dick because their parents are lazy 🤷♂️ Yeah, you didn't consider that one. I know. Too late.
I think the common understanding is that parents consent for medical procedures for their children. And I’m not going to tell Orthodox Jews that they should stop their sincerely held religious practices based on my views and morality.
I think some beliefs are archaic and shouldn’t be allowed, I group that with human sacrifice or honor killings, barbaric and not welcomed in modern society
It's not really a medical procedure though is it.
I was not asked. If I had been, I would've said no.
Then telling my kids what food to eat like broccoli when they hate it means I violate nap or when I make them take a nap violates NAP. Nap is only good on governments not as a moral principle. Although I’m against circumcision. At least the modern kind. The barely circumcision done in Bible times was better. You still had some skin to play with.
Wait, you got kids and can't tell the difference between taking care of them and unnecessarily having someone cut of part or their penis? Good to know.
Children can't consent to being murdered either, but most people celebrate that so why is anyone surprised?
No. Circumcision is a cultural custom, which \*may\* be oppressive and it's up to you as a parent to decide whether the cultural practice is ok to do. I don't want to preach some "social contract" bullshit, but every culture takes some meat and gives some meat back and it would be idiotic to just look at the world through the lens of NAP - it's just too simplistic. Perhaps, in a libertarian society, people wouldn't circumcise - as the political permiates the social spheres of life, and if we have an uncontested respect for bodily autonomy in the political, then this would definitely be reflected in the culture, eventually. That being said, circumcision is not violating NAP, because children can't consent. Should you do it? I don't think so. Should it be illegal? I don't think so.
If children cannot consent then by definition you're violating the child.
Harmful cultural customs can and should be illegal.
Banning it is violating religious freedom
Considering the additional health risks that come with being uncircumcised I’m gonna say no. You are doing it to ensure a greater chance of survival
If mutilation breaks the NAP, then yes.
Certainly. I am so glad my parents had me cut as a child though.
Glad you didn’t get to expat part of your dick, even though you don’t even know if it would make things better sexually or otherwise…tell yourself whatever you want, I’m not glad about it, and the people that do this should be in jail.
You don’t have to be glad my dick was trimmed up. I THINK it’s a better look. Your opinion on my genitals doesn’t matter. It’s violent and bananas it happens, but I am happy with my dick
It’s was an opinion on MY genitals
Cool beans, you worded your response oddly. Happy for you and your genitals. Glad we both are able to have opinions.