Should Circumcision Be Banned?

Started by Chemdude
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor

Should Male Circumcision Be Banned

  • Yes

    Votes: 89 23.5%

  • No

    Votes: 290 76.5%
  • Total voters
    379
Chemdude

Chemdude

Full Member
15+ Year Member
A German court ruled that circumcision can cause "serious bodily harm" today. I'm not an expert on the medical effects of circumcision, but I always thought that circumcision was becoming a universal practice due to its many medical benefits. Wasn't there a study a couple years ago that suggested that circumcision reduced the chance of HIV transmission?


Reuters) - Germany's foreign minister added his voice on Thursday to a chorus of criticism of a court decision to ban the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons, arguing that such traditions must be permitted in a tolerant society.

"Germany is an open-minded, tolerant country where religious freedom is firmly established and religious traditions like circumcision are considered an expression of religious pluralism," Guido Westerwelle told the daily Bild in an interview to be published in its Friday edition.

A court in Cologne ruled on Tuesday that involuntary religious circumcision should be illegal as it could inflict serious bodily harm on people who had not consented to it.

The ruling, which applies only to the area around the western city of Cologne but sparked fears among Muslims and Jews in particular that other German states could copy the ban, said boys can consciously decide to be circumcised later in life.

According to the court ruling, "the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighs the fundamental rights of the parents".

Westerwelle said the ruling caused "irritation" around the world after being reported in the international media.

The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet's website said Turkish European Minister Egemen Bagis had criticized the German ruling, saying that circumcision was a matter of freedom of religion and conscience.

"If German judges have a problem understanding this issue, we can send our scientific circumcisers, we can give them lessons in how to circumcise," he was quoted as saying.

"We are ready to make any contribution for a country that is a friend and ally. But it is not possible for us to accept this ruling as a fait accompli ... God willing, this verdict will be changed," Bagis said.

The Central Council of Jews in Germany called the ruling an "unprecedented and dramatic intrusion" on religious freedom and the Central Council of Muslims in Germany called it "blatant and inadmissible interference" in the rights of parents.

Germany's two main Christian churches also criticized the Cologne court ruling, the Catholic Episcopal Conference calling it "extremely disconcerting".

"To ban circumcision is a serious attack on religious freedom," said Catholic Bishop Heinrich Mussinghoff.

The Evangelical Church's Hans Ulrich Anke said: "Religious freedom and parents' right to choose how to educate their children have not been weighed against the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity".

The United Nations' special rapporteur on religious freedom, Heiner Bielefeldt, told German radio the court's reasoning was "nonsense".
Click to expand...
 
If the poll asked about whether forced circumcision should be banned, I would vote. I have no problem with adults being allowed to choose to be circumcised, but forcing it on kids doesn't sit well with me.
 
V5RED said:
If the poll asked about whether forced circumcision should be banned, I would vote. I have no problem with adults being allowed to choose to be circumcised, but forcing it on kids doesn't sit well with me.
Click to expand...

If circumcision is assumed to have its medical benefits, what's wrong with "forcing" it on our newborns? We don't ask infants if they want to be immunized...
 
I often lay awake at night crying in agony over the absence of my foreskin.

What a cruel, cruel world, where a baby departs from his foreskin before he really gets a chance to decide if he wants it or not.
 
V5RED said:
If the poll asked about whether forced circumcision should be banned, I would vote. I have no problem with adults being allowed to choose to be circumcised, but forcing it on kids doesn't sit well with me.
Click to expand...

What about "forcing" vaccinations on babies?
 
Chemdude said:
If circumcision is assumed to have its medical benefits, what's wrong with "forcing" it on our newborns? We don't ask infants if they want to be immunized...
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between circumcision and immunizations.

I have never been shown real evidence of any medical benefit to circumcision, and in this thread all we have is a maybe it helps you not get aids if you are having unprotected sex which is not really relevant for infants.
 
V5RED said:
There is a huge difference between circumcision and immunizations.

I have never been shown real evidence of any medical benefit to circumcision, and in this thread all we have is a maybe it helps you not get aids if you are having unprotected sex which is not really relevant for infants.
Click to expand...

But what are the alleged harms of circumcision? There are any number of cosmetic procedures done on infants that no one's griping about.
 
V5RED said:
and in this thread all we have is a maybe it helps you not get aids if you are having unprotected sex which is not really relevant for infants.
Click to expand...
the idea behind any preventative measure like vaccines is to remove risk factors prior to exposure.. so the benefit of circumcision would be greater if it was performed prior to unprotected sexual activity, right?
 
armybound said:
the idea behind any preventative measure like vaccines is to remove risk factors prior to exposure.. so the benefit of circumcision would be greater if it was performed prior to unprotected sexual activity, right?
Click to expand...
Is this a serious argument?

Vaccines protect you from diseases that you can get while doing normal things like going to class. The only option aside from vaccines to get such a benefit is to never go anywhere unless you are in a hazmat suit.

Circumcision might give you a slightly less chance of getting an STD during unprotected sex. If you have unprotected sex you are deliberately choosing to risk getting an STD. The other option is to wear a condom which is an easily accessible device which definitely will reduce the risk.

The benefits of the two are not remotely close.

Unless you have something better than it might slightly reduce the chance of an STD if you have unprotected sex, the argument for circumcision is very weak.
 
V5RED said:
If the poll asked about whether forced circumcision should be banned, I would vote. I have no problem with adults being allowed to choose to be circumcised, but forcing it on kids doesn't sit well with me.
Click to expand...

**** that noise, the entire point of parenthood is making kids do **** they don't want to. If you let your 5 year old run the house, you'd have candy every night and then scurvy.
 
V5RED said:
Unless you have something better than it might slightly reduce the chance of an STD if you have unprotected sex, the argument for circumcision is very weak.
Click to expand...
Argument against?

Foreskin is srs bizness. Oh, and phimosis. And cosmetics. And tradition.

I'm always amused by the arguments against, and how typically 95% of the people arguing against it are female. I bet fewer than 10% of dudes on here really care whether or not they have foreskin.
 
V5RED said:
Unless you have something better than it might slightly reduce the chance of an STD if you have unprotected sex, the argument for circumcision is very weak.
Click to expand...

You can use whatever wishy-washy language you want, but the benefit of circumcision as a prophylactic against STIs is widely reported in the literature and substantial in magnitude.

armybound said:
Argument against?

Foreskin is srs bizness. Oh, and phimosis. And cosmetics. And tradition.

I'm always amused by the arguments against, and how typically 95% of the people arguing against it are female. I bet fewer than 10% of dudes on here really care whether or not they have foreskin.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The argument against is non-existent thus far. It kind of makes me curious as to what circumstances prompted the litigation of the case to begin with. Unless some kid learned his junk had been amputated by a shaky surgeon, I don't see why anyone would think to complain. Yes, it's involuntary for the baby. Tough noogie. Babies are raised as vegetarians, babies often get piercings, and no one bothers to ask infants with cleft palates if they like their face the way it is.
 
Chemdude said:
A German court ruled that circumcision can cause "serious bodily harm" today. I'm not an expert on the medical effects of circumcision, but I always thought that circumcision was becoming a universal practice due to its many medical benefits. Wasn't there a study a couple years ago that suggested that circumcision reduced the chance of HIV transmission?
Click to expand...

There is evidence supporting circumcision's protective effect in preventing HPV transmission (the cause of genital warts and often cervical cancer in women), the development of squamous cell carcinoma, and it eliminates the occurrence of phimosis, which is not a trivial experience. And who can forget smegma?

Ladies, please remember to win one for the Snipper.
 
It's a weird precedent to allow parents to give elective genital surgery to a kid that doesn't have capacity for consent.

This issue is much more pronounced in intersex newborns, where for a long time the standard was to perform a sex assignment surgery in one way or the other almost immediately. They pretty frequently made what the kid eventually decided was the wrong assignment, and that's being backed away from as a standard of practice. It's kind of a similar issue from an ethical principle standpoint, but I realize that practically it's pretty different since the potential for harm in circumcision is more nebulous.
 
Also, speaking of vaccinations, there is an HPV vaccine available to people of both sexes, which doesn't involve altering a child's gross anatomy.

I also don't think phimosis is a widespread enough epidemiological concern to merit widespread surgical prophylaxis.
 
The health benefits of circumcision are incredibly small compared to lifestyle choices one can make later in life. Yes, it reduces ones chance of contracting HIV. But not having sex with men also does, much more so.

I think circumcision should be an option when one turns 14. At that age, you're old enough to think for yourself but young enough to have your innocence.
 
BHaus9 said:
You can use whatever wishy-washy language you want, but the benefit of circumcision as a prophylactic against STIs is widely reported in the literature and substantial in magnitude.
Click to expand...
You could probably prevent even more STDs by just removing the penis entirely!

Agreed. The argument against is non-existent thus far. It kind of makes me curious as to what circumstances prompted the litigation of the case to begin with. Unless some kid learned his junk had been amputated by a shaky surgeon, I don't see why anyone would think to complain. Yes, it's involuntary for the baby. Tough noogie. Babies are raised as vegetarians, babies often get piercings, and no one bothers to ask infants with cleft palates if they like their face the way it is.
Click to expand...
No, you don't get away that easily. It's not "tough noogie." It's a cosmetic/aesthetic procedure being forced on a non-consenting individual. Being vegetarian is instantly reversible the first time you go eat a cheeseburger, and piercings are tiny holes in your ears. I'm also pretty sure that a cleft palate is a congenital defect rather than the normal way all male infants are born, and it comes with a host of complications - difficulty speaking, eating, breathing, drinking, etc.
 
I'm indifferent about circumcision. Having said that, I would not circumcise my son. I just don't think it's a necessary procedure. Most of the men in the world are uncircumcised, and for the most part, I think everybody is doing fine.
 
I like how some individuals on here are comparing circumcision to vaccines.

Because you know, uncircumcised men can totally eradicate entire populations with their foreskins.
 
I had part of my foreskin removed when I was 24... I was not a very pleasant time but it did heal. To force this on children/newborns forces the parents and physicians to weight out the harm verses benefit ratio. As a surgery to prevent HIV we actually have better ways of preventing this. Condoms work better at preventing all STI then circumcision.
Clean and sanitary conditions are a better way to prevent urinary tract infections.

Cutting away the foreskin is a harmful procedure. It damages the sexual response and does cause other forms of harm that are often not talked about.

In the end it is a cosmetic surgery and should not be covered under insurance.
 
TheProwler said:
You could probably prevent even more STDs by just removing the penis entirely!


No, you don't get away that easily. It's not "tough noogie." It's a cosmetic/aesthetic procedure being forced on a non-consenting individual. Being vegetarian is instantly reversible the first time you go eat a cheeseburger, and piercings are tiny holes in your ears. I'm also pretty sure that a cleft palate is a congenital defect rather than the normal way all male infants are born, and it comes with a host of complications - difficulty speaking, eating, breathing, drinking, etc.
Click to expand...

Given the fact that circumcision IS functionally related to reduced incidence of STIs, no, it's not purely cosmetic/aesthetic. You present a compelling argument for lopping off cocks, but to borrow your own language, removing the penis entirely "comes with a host of complications," whereas circumcision does not.... at least, no one has been able to muster an example yet.

And while being a vegetarian is instantly reversible, the developmental effects of being raised vegetarian aren't always. I'll grant that a cleft palate can have medical complications, but what about an unseemly birthmark? Many parents have opted for surgery to remediate blemishes that are of purely cosmetic consequence. Should this practice be banned? What about unnecessary dental work? 99% of kids wouldn't want braces, and that has a permanent effect. Do we really encroach so much on parenting practices when there's so astonishingly little said about potential harms?
 
There are a significant number of births every year of babies with more than one set of nipples, or ambiguous genitalia, etc. It's the way they were born and it will not harm them physically. But the standard practice is to "fix" them shortly after birth to prevent emotional problems in the future. (to make them appear like their peers) This logic is easily extended to circumcision.
 
BHaus9 said:
Given the fact that circumcision IS functionally related to reduced incidence of STIs, no, it's not purely cosmetic/aesthetic. You present a compelling argument for lopping off cocks, but to borrow your own language, removing the penis entirely "comes with a host of complications," whereas circumcision does not.... at least, no one has been able to muster an example yet.
Click to expand...
I take it you have no first-hand experience with pediatric urology. I've seen several complications of botched circumcisions, requiring surgical revision, skin grafting, excessive scar tissue, etc.

Secondly, I maintain that is is almost entirely aesthetic/cosmetic. When there is a much more effective method of STI prophylaxis, namely condoms, why would we do anything less than push for appropriate safe sex techniques as opposed to snipping off extra skin? Removing warm, moist skin folds is going to reduce safe havens for pathogens, but we don't go around the rest of the human body looking for bits of skin to snip off. You can prevent cavities by pulling all of someone's teeth, but it's more appropriate to advocate for brushing your teeth and flossing.

And while being a vegetarian is instantly reversible, the developmental effects of being raised vegetarian aren't always. I'll grant that a cleft palate can have medical complications, but what about an unseemly birthmark? Many parents have opted for surgery to remediate blemishes that are of purely cosmetic consequence. Should this practice be banned? What about unnecessary dental work? 99% of kids wouldn't want braces, and that has a permanent effect. Do we really encroach so much on parenting practices when there's so astonishingly little said about potential harms?
Click to expand...
Who doesn't want braces? I'd like to meet the adult that says "Man, I really I wish I hadn't had corrective hardware to produce appropriate dental alignment." I'm incredibly grateful that my parents shelled out $5000 for my braces. Not so much for being circumcised.
 
Chemdude said:
If circumcision is assumed to have its medical benefits, what's wrong with "forcing" it on our newborns? We don't ask infants if they want to be immunized...
Click to expand...

See you have to be careful here. You don't just suggest to a patient that get vaccine X when you know full well vaccine Y works better and doesn't have the side effects of vaccine X.

Think about it would you recommend that a person get circumcision to prevent STDs over the use of a condom? No way right, you tell both the cut and uncut guy to wrap that. Think about the damage it does as well. Would you honestly think of this as a vaccine of any sort? If so what medical benefit does it have and is it more effective then current preventive methods?

Many times in medicine me need to know when not to treat. This is one of them.
 
But the standard practice is to "fix" them shortly after birth to prevent emotional problems in the future. (to make them appear like their peers) This logic is easily extended to circumcision.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? I don't even know where to start. There needs to be no "fixing" of the foreskin because it's a part of the body that is supposed to be there at birth. You're equating a foreskin to a birth anomaly when it is not, so no, the logic is not "easily" extended to circumcision.

Making a child appear more like their peers causes more emotional problems than it prevents. When should one stop going against the norm? Should everybody be blonde? Brunette? Blue eyes?

Circumcision rates are also decreasing in the United States. If you want a child to appear more like his peers, it would be more wise to NOT circumcise.
 
On a less serious note, uncircumsized looks weird and is territory I would rather not explore. I vote to keep circumcisions!!

[I'm female for context]
 
For newborns it should definitely be banned. I don't buy the vaccines argument because I feel that circumcision violates bodily integrity.

But lets be honest with one another. How many parents really do it for health reasons?
 
For what it's worth, I'm a gay man, and I've been with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. Penises are pretty much all the same across the board --circumcised or uncircumcised.
 
TipToad said:
Wait, what? I don't even know where to start. There needs to be no "fixing" of the foreskin because it's a part of the body that is supposed to be there at birth. You're equating a foreskin to a birth anomaly when it is not, so no, the logic is not "easily" extended to circumcision.

Making a child appear more like their peers causes more emotional problems than it prevents. When should one stop going against the norm? Should everybody be blonde? Brunette? Blue eyes?

Circumcision rates are also decreasing in the United States. If you want a child to appear more like his peers, it would be more wise to NOT circumcise.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? I don't even know where to start. So nipples are not part of the body? Are they supposed to be there? Who are you to determine what is or is not an "anomaly"? And "peers" is almost always used to define a more narrow subset of the human population than an entire country. (think religious affiliation)
 
plumazul said:
There are a significant number of births every year of babies with more than one set of nipples, or ambiguous genitalia, etc. It's the way they were born and it will not harm them physically. But the standard practice is to "fix" them shortly after birth to prevent emotional problems in the future. (to make them appear like their peers) This logic is easily extended to circumcision.
Click to expand...

First off having a third nipple is a good luck charm in most cultures. ( Have you ever seen the man with the golden gun)

Second ambiguous genitalia is harmful to the child. Socially we force people to choice one gender and prefer it to be natural and before birth. People that don't hold to this principle are subject to physical violence. Not safe.

Third if the shape of an uncircumcised penis gives you emotional problems I think you may have to address the source of this and not attack the projection of the problem.

Fourth circumcision isn't to "fix" an error it is to cause an error that some people often mothers find fashionable and cloud it in the excuse it is cleaner, prevents STDs and other garbage. There is no proof the circumcision prevents STDs better then other protective methods.
 
Generally there's not much pushing for the sustaining of the practice. I don't think it needs to continue on a mass scale, but the practice likely has no negative affects overall. It is not a practice that can be considered malignant as say female genital mutilation which is a form of objectifying women.
 
TheProwler said:
I take it you have no first-hand experience with pediatric urology. I've seen several complications of botched circumcisions, requiring surgical revision, skin grafting, excessive scar tissue, etc.

Secondly, I maintain that is is almost entirely aesthetic/cosmetic. When there is a much more effective method of STI prophylaxis, namely condoms, why would we do anything less than push for appropriate safe sex techniques as opposed to snipping off extra skin? Removing warm, moist skin folds is going to reduce safe havens for pathogens, but we don't go around the rest of the human body looking for bits of skin to snip off. You can prevent cavities by pulling all of someone's teeth, but it's more appropriate to advocate for brushing your teeth and flossing.


Who doesn't want braces? I'd like to meet the adult that says "Man, I really I wish I hadn't had corrective hardware to produce appropriate dental alignment." I'm incredibly grateful that my parents shelled out $5000 for my braces. Not so much for being circumcised.
Click to expand...

Well, I take it you have no first-hand experience in orthodontics, because there are risks and complications associated with any dental procedure or orthodontic appliance. Yes, that includes braces. This can be something as simple as tooth discoloration or being uncomfortable with the final appearance. But it can be as serious as loss/destruction of a tooth or infection. It probably depends who you talk to, but I've definitely heard more people bemoan having had braces than having had a circumcision.

And what of the other examples? Should cosmetic procedures in infants or young children should be universally banned?
 
WorldChanger36 said:
I had part of my foreskin removed when I was 24... I was not a very pleasant time but it did heal. To force this on children/newborns forces the parents and physicians to weight out the harm verses benefit ratio. As a surgery to prevent HIV we actually have better ways of preventing this. Condoms work better at preventing all STI then circumcision.
Clean and sanitary conditions are a better way to prevent urinary tract infections.

Cutting away the foreskin is a harmful procedure. It damages the sexual response and does cause other forms of harm that are often not talked about.

In the end it is a cosmetic surgery and should not be covered under insurance.
Click to expand...

Does it really? I've actually heard the opposite.
 
WorldChanger36 said:
First off having a third nipple is a good luck charm in most cultures. ( Have you ever seen the man with the golden gun)

Second ambiguous genitalia is harmful to the child. Socially we force people to choice one gender and prefer it to be natural and before birth. People that don't hold to this principle are subject to physical violence. Not safe.

Third if the shape of an uncircumcised penis gives you emotional problems I think you may have to address the source of this and not attack the projection of the problem.

Fourth circumcision isn't to "fix" an error it is to cause an error that some people often mothers find fashionable and cloud it in the excuse it is cleaner, prevents STDs and other garbage. There is no proof the circumcision prevents STDs better then other protective methods.
Click to expand...

Do you not see how these two statements conflict with each other?
 
It should not be banned. People should have the choice.

As for the research, I only hope my child(ren) does not have sex with someone infected with HIV regardless of if he is circumcised or not. I do not believe removing a small piece of skin is going to protect him.

For me, I will not circumcise my future child(ren).
 
From a practical point,
I wish my parents had gotten me circumcised as a baby. I had it done when I was 4 and it was painful as hell every time I tried to walk after the procedure. I could have avoided being in bed bored to death for days.
 
WorldChanger36 said:
First off having a third nipple is a good luck charm in most cultures. ( Have you ever seen the man with the golden gun)

Second ambiguous genitalia is harmful to the child. Socially we force people to choice one gender and prefer it to be natural and before birth. People that don't hold to this principle are subject to physical violence. Not safe.

Third if the shape of an uncircumcised penis gives you emotional problems I think you may have to address the source of this and not attack the projection of the problem.

Fourth circumcision isn't to "fix" an error it is to cause an error that some people often mothers find fashionable and cloud it in the excuse it is cleaner, prevents STDs and other garbage. There is no proof the circumcision prevents STDs better then other protective methods.
Click to expand...

You see, your introducing your own biases into this by considering it a creation of an error.
 
WorldChanger36 said:
I had part of my foreskin removed when I was 24... I was not a very pleasant time but it did heal. To force this on children/newborns forces the parents and physicians to weight out the harm verses benefit ratio. As a surgery to prevent HIV we actually have better ways of preventing this. Condoms work better at preventing all STI then circumcision.
Clean and sanitary conditions are a better way to prevent urinary tract infections.

Cutting away the foreskin is a harmful procedure. It damages the sexual response and does cause other forms of harm that are often not talked about.

In the end it is a cosmetic surgery and should not be covered under insurance.
Click to expand...

Ppppphhhhhhhhbbbbbbbtttt... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Is this a joke? If you take a look at the populations likely to be circumcised and their birthrates, I don't think you'll find any harm to their...ah...sexual response.
 
WorldChanger36 said:
Cutting away the foreskin is a harmful procedure. It damages the sexual response and does cause other forms of harm that are often not talked about.
Click to expand...
Safety and Efficacy of Nontherapeutic Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review
The evidence suggests that adult circumcision does not affect sexual satisfaction and function.
Click to expand...
Does circumcision affect male's perception of sexual satisfaction?
...we cannot conclude that circumcision might bring certain benefit on sexual satisfaction by itself but certainly does not bring deleterious effects and, when dissatisfaction is associated with local problems, some benefit could be expected.
Click to expand...
 
plumazul said:
Wait, what? I don't even know where to start. So nipples are not part of the body? Are they supposed to be there? Who are you to determine what is or is not an "anomaly"? And "peers" is almost always used to define a more narrow subset of the human population than an entire country. (think religious affiliation)
Click to expand...

An anomaly is any deviation from a standard (or deviation from something that is expected). So yes, multiple sets of nipples or ambiguous genitalia are anomalies. Having foreskin at birth is NOT an anomaly.
 
If you mean banned altogether, no of course not. It should remain an optional procedure. However, parents should be educated on the practice and their choices. I haven't looked into it a lot since it's not an issue close to me heart, but my understanding is that most recent studies suggest that it's unnecessary, and decreases sensitivity. There's no reason it should be done without a second thought the way so many do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.