Routine castration more reasonable than circumcision.

[Snail-land]

I have often heard circumcision advocates use the argument that the genital mutilation of baby boys, without consent, without adequate anaesthetic, and without any immediate need, is justified by the potential decrease in future health risks. They feel that circumcising a boy falls into the same ethical category as vaccinating a child and should be decided by the parents, who have the boy's best interests at heart. However, the evidence for the health advantages is often inconclusive and may be negated entirely by even worse potential risks and complications.

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

It makes more sense to let men choose for themselves in adulthood for a variety of reasons.

If he wants circumcision later, he will have the benefits of:
A) lower death rate. An infant.only needs to lose 2.3 ounces of blood to die. An adult would have to lose 2 liters or SIXTY-FOUR ounces to die.
B being put under, as the dorsal nerve cannot be numbed (so, an infant feels it as those 20,000 nerves are crushed and sliced off his body),
C) proper pain medication after the procedure (Infant Tylenol just isn't sufficient!),
D) won't have to have an open wound regularly drenched in urine or feces (in his diaper),
E) less cutting, since his foreskin is already retracted. In infants, they have to rip the foreskin from the glans, before they can slice those 20,000 nerve endings off his body.
F) keeps his frenulum, called the male "g-spot", on the underneath tip of his penis, infants rarely get to keep theirs.
G) can choose for himself the risk of full loss of his penis, repeat surgeries to correct errors during the first surgery, the risk of death (which goes down drastically when he is older anyway), infection, adhesions, erectile dysfunction and host of other less savory complications,
H) the opportunity to say no to this procedure if he is not comfortable with the risks to (potential and unproven) benefits ratio.
I) choosing for himself what God he wants to lose 20,000 nerve endings for- if he even participates as an adult, in a religion that asks for circumcision.
J) deciding how he prefers his penis to look and function.

As a feminist, I feel strongly that bodily autonomy is a basic right, regardless of sex or gender, but having to argue so often to protect the rights of baby boys has me thinking about something else I read.

There is evidence to suggest that castrating boys can add up to twenty years to their lives. If possible health advantages are seen as a legitimate reason to perform dangerous, permanent, often unwanted surgery on baby boys, many of whom may grow up wishing they had been left intact, then why don't we castrate our boys to prolong their lives?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/2 ... 10455.html

If avoiding having to occasionally treat urinary tract infections with antibiotics is worth sacrificing one of the most sensitive parts of his penis, isn't giving your child twenty years of extra life worth sacrificing his ability to reproduce? If one is a parent's choice, shouldn't the other be?

As a secondary question, would you have wanted your parents to castrate you if it meant getting to live that much longer?

[MisandristMantis]

I think you make a good point. Circumcision is something that retains it's benefits regardless of when it was done whereas all the studies on the impact of early castration indicate that the life extension correlates to the age it was performed.

I wonder if this is something the mens rights movement should pick up? Are boys being denied a simple, life saving procedure (castration) simply because of cultural bias against it?

I'm aware of two studies (one with mental patients and the other a study of ancient eunuchs) showing that men who are castrated at a young age live longer. It seems wrong to deprive men of years of their life simply because of reproductive utility.

[Off-reasonable People]

I think you make a good point. Circumcision is something that retains it's benefits regardless of when it was done whereas all the studies on the impact of early castration indicate that the life extension correlates to the age it was performed.

I wonder if this is something the mens rights movement should pick up? Are boys being denied a simple, life saving procedure (castration) simply because of cultural bias against it?

I'm aware of two studies (one with mental patients and the other a study of ancient eunuchs) showing that men who are castrated at a young age live longer. It seems wrong to deprive men of years of their life simply because of reproductive utility.

A ban on castration without consent exists not because of cultural aversion to the practice but because it decreases your genetic lifespan by ending it. Circumcision does nothing of the like.

Also, babies don't remember the procedure at all. It's not unreasonable or in violation of their rights at all. Crusade elsewhere.

[Camicon]

I think you make a good point. Circumcision is something that retains it's benefits regardless of when it was done whereas all the studies on the impact of early castration indicate that the life extension correlates to the age it was performed.

I wonder if this is something the mens rights movement should pick up? Are boys being denied a simple, life saving procedure (castration) simply because of cultural bias against it?

I'm aware of two studies (one with mental patients and the other a study of ancient eunuchs) showing that men who are castrated at a young age live longer. It seems wrong to deprive men of years of their life simply because of reproductive utility.

A ban on castration without consent exists not because of cultural aversion to the practice but because it decreases your genetic lifespan by ending it. Circumcision does nothing of the like.

Also, babies don't remember the procedure at all. It's not unreasonable or in violation of their rights at all. Crusade elsewhere.

Because if they can't remember it, it doesn't matter what we do to them? I hope you realize how completely and entirely fucked up that argument is.

[MisandristMantis]

I think you make a good point. Circumcision is something that retains it's benefits regardless of when it was done whereas all the studies on the impact of early castration indicate that the life extension correlates to the age it was performed.

I wonder if this is something the mens rights movement should pick up? Are boys being denied a simple, life saving procedure (castration) simply because of cultural bias against it?

I'm aware of two studies (one with mental patients and the other a study of ancient eunuchs) showing that men who are castrated at a young age live longer. It seems wrong to deprive men of years of their life simply because of reproductive utility.

A ban on castration without consent exists not because of cultural aversion to the practice but because it decreases your genetic lifespan by ending it. Circumcision does nothing of the like.

Also, babies don't remember the procedure at all. It's not unreasonable or in violation of their rights at all. Crusade elsewhere.

Genetic lifespan? Isn't it arbitrary to value genetic lifespan more than actual lifespan? I mean, you don't get to experience your genetic lifespan.

[Snail-land]

I think you make a good point. Circumcision is something that retains it's benefits regardless of when it was done whereas all the studies on the impact of early castration indicate that the life extension correlates to the age it was performed.

I wonder if this is something the mens rights movement should pick up? Are boys being denied a simple, life saving procedure (castration) simply because of cultural bias against it?

I'm aware of two studies (one with mental patients and the other a study of ancient eunuchs) showing that men who are castrated at a young age live longer. It seems wrong to deprive men of years of their life simply because of reproductive utility.

A ban on castration without consent exists not because of cultural aversion to the practice but because it decreases your genetic lifespan by ending it. Circumcision does nothing of the like.

Also, babies don't remember the procedure at all. It's not unreasonable or in violation of their rights at all. Crusade elsewhere.

The "babies don't remember" argument is not a valid justification. If somebody drugged you and sodomized you, would the fact that you didn't remember it make it acceptable? What if it left lasting scars on your body or changed how it functioned?

Also, this:
http://cirp.org/library/psych/chamberlain/

[Off-reasonable People]

A ban on castration without consent exists not because of cultural aversion to the practice but because it decreases your genetic lifespan by ending it. Circumcision does nothing of the like.

Also, babies don't remember the procedure at all. It's not unreasonable or in violation of their rights at all. Crusade elsewhere.

Genetic lifespan? Isn't it arbitrary to value genetic lifespan more than actual lifespan? I mean, you don't get to experience your genetic lifespan.

It's not arbitrary at all. Circumcision isn't in the same league as castration. It would be like if cutting off the earlobes increased life expectancy by five years but cutting off the ears increased it by fifteen. They're two entirely different procedures.

[Off-reasonable People]

A ban on castration without consent exists not because of cultural aversion to the practice but because it decreases your genetic lifespan by ending it. Circumcision does nothing of the like.

Also, babies don't remember the procedure at all. It's not unreasonable or in violation of their rights at all. Crusade elsewhere.

The "babies don't remember" argument is not a valid justification. If somebody drugged you and sodomized you, would the fact that you didn't remember it make it acceptable? What if it left lasting scars on your body or changed how it functioned?

Also, this:
http://cirp.org/library/psych/chamberlain/

I'm not a baby. I can move my head on my own. I can recognize more faces than I have digits. I can speak and read. I have object permanence. And no shit, kids who feel more pain in early childhood tend to develop worse than kids who didn't feel as much pain. If parents can decide to give their kid braces - or decide the right course in potentially life-saving (or life-threatening) situations when that kid has the full capacity to perceive and interact with the world around them, then they can certainly decide to trim the foreskin from the penis of a blob of quickly-developing flesh whose entire vocabulary consists of "goo" and "waah."

[Snail-land]

The "babies don't remember" argument is not a valid justification. If somebody drugged you and sodomized you, would the fact that you didn't remember it make it acceptable? What if it left lasting scars on your body or changed how it functioned?

Also, this:
http://cirp.org/library/psych/chamberlain/

I'm not a baby. I can move my head on my own. I can recognize more faces than I have digits. I can speak and read. I have object permanence. And no shit, kids who feel more pain in early childhood tend to develop worse than kids who didn't feel as much pain. If parents can decide to give their kid braces - or decide the right course in potentially life-saving (or life-threatening) situations when that kid has the full capacity to perceive and interact with the world around them, then they can certainly decide to trim the foreskin from the penis of a blob of quickly-developing flesh whose entire vocabulary consists of "goo" and "waah."

What evidence do you have that traumatizing a young child will make the child develop better?

There are actual studies indicating the opposite.

Circumcised boys have more emotional and behavioral problems.
(Leone-Vespa, T. "Understanding the Relationship Between Circumcision and Emotional Development in Young Boys: Measuring Aggressiveness and Emotional Expressiveness," Alliant International University, 2011, 138 pages; 3467063.)

Circumcision is associated with adult difficulty in identifying and expressing feelings.
(Bollinger, D. and Van Howe, R., "Alexithymia and Circumcision Trauma: A Preliminary Investigation," International Journal of Men's Health (2011);184-195.)

It can even lead to PTSD.
(Boyle G., Goldman, R., Svoboda, J.S., and Fernandez, E., "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae," Journal of Health Psychology (2002): 329-343.)

Are you really okay with those risks, just because you see babies as "blobs?"

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Not the same thing at all. Kindly move along, thanks.

[MisandristMantis]

Not the same thing at all. Kindly move along, thanks.

I don't believe anyone argued that castration and circumcision are the same kind of thing except perhaps that they both involve surgery without consent. Correct me if I am wrong but the original poster seems to be arguing that the arguments for castration are more reasonable than the arguments for circumcision.

[Snail-land]

Not the same thing at all. Kindly move along, thanks.

Both permanently damage someone's genitals without that person's consent, for purported health benefits. In fact, sometimes, people circumcise boys for purely cosmetic reasons. If that is considered okay, why not approve of castration because it "looks cleaner?"

[Off-reasonable People]

I'm not a baby. I can move my head on my own. I can recognize more faces than I have digits. I can speak and read. I have object permanence. And no shit, kids who feel more pain in early childhood tend to develop worse than kids who didn't feel as much pain. If parents can decide to give their kid braces - or decide the right course in potentially life-saving (or life-threatening) situations when that kid has the full capacity to perceive and interact with the world around them, then they can certainly decide to trim the foreskin from the penis of a blob of quickly-developing flesh whose entire vocabulary consists of "goo" and "waah."

What evidence do you have that traumatizing a young child will make the child develop better?

There are actual studies indicating the opposite.

Circumcised boys have more emotional and behavioral problems.
(Leone-Vespa, T. "Understanding the Relationship Between Circumcision and Emotional Development in Young Boys: Measuring Aggressiveness and Emotional Expressiveness," Alliant International University, 2011, 138 pages; 3467063.)

Circumcision is associated with adult difficulty in identifying and expressing feelings.
(Bollinger, D. and Van Howe, R., "Alexithymia and Circumcision Trauma: A Preliminary Investigation," International Journal of Men's Health (2011);184-195.)

It can even lead to PTSD.
(Boyle G., Goldman, R., Svoboda, J.S., and Fernandez, E., "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae," Journal of Health Psychology (2002): 329-343.)

Are you really okay with those risks, just because you see babies as "blobs?"

I am 100% okay with the "risks," considering that:
1. in the studies above, none accounted for the fact that circumcision is so common that the word in the title could be switched with "breathing a mix of nitrogen, oxygen, and various other atmospheric gasses." Circumcision is no more risky than vaccination. Which, by the way, parents can often opt out of or into.
2. Babies are just blobs. They're beautiful blobs who will turn into amazing individuals but anything that can't interact with the world or perceive it (would you let a coma patient decide their medication regimen?) cannot have the ability to control its fate.
3. Circumcision is not traumatic. It is a brief procedure which is routinely done with no anesthetic and rarely (though, again, like vaccination there are some examples of complications) leads to complications.

Parents get to make decisions for their children until those children can perceive and interact with society. Deal with it.

[Off-reasonable People]

Not the same thing at all. Kindly move along, thanks.

Both permanently damage someone's genitals without that person's consent, for purported health benefits. In fact, sometimes, people circumcise boys for purely cosmetic reasons. If that is considered okay, why not approve of castration because it "looks cleaner?"

So then is removal of the placenta via surgical process not okay?

[Sun Wukong]

Both permanently damage someone's genitals without that person's consent, for purported health benefits. In fact, sometimes, people circumcise boys for purely cosmetic reasons. If that is considered okay, why not approve of castration because it "looks cleaner?"

So then is removal of the placenta via surgical process not okay?

Your placenta argument reeks of desperation.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Not the same thing at all. Kindly move along, thanks.

Both permanently damage someone's genitals without that person's consent, for purported health benefits. In fact, sometimes, people circumcise boys for purely cosmetic reasons. If that is considered okay, why not approve of castration because it "looks cleaner?"

No, still not the same thing, sorry. Not even close. I can /see/ you, btw. And this feels suspiciously close to trolling. Due notice given, hm?

[The Alma Mater]

1. in the studies above, none accounted for the fact that circumcision is so common that the word in the title could be switched with "breathing a mix of nitrogen, oxygen, and various other atmospheric gasses."

So, in nations where it is NOT common (say: most of the western world, except the USA) - it would be wrong ?

[Off-reasonable People]

So then is removal of the placenta via surgical process not okay?

Your placenta argument reeks of desperation.

It's a routine procedure performed without anesthetic on babies who have not given their consent which causes permanent damage to the figure. How is it different?

[Sun Wukong]

Your placenta argument reeks of desperation.

It's a routine procedure performed without anesthetic on babies who have not given their consent which causes permanent damage to the figure. How is it different?

It's pretty much a biological imperative that that comes off.

[Off-reasonable People]

1. in the studies above, none accounted for the fact that circumcision is so common that the word in the title could be switched with "breathing a mix of nitrogen, oxygen, and various other atmospheric gasses."

So, in nations where it is NOT common (say: most of the western world, except the USA) - it would be wrong ?

So now we get to ignore points 2. and 3.? Cool! This will be fun!

And anyways, that's not what point 1 meant. The same number of procedures are done worldwide whether they're mostly performed in the USA and developing world or not.

Just like you don't get to pick and choose snippets of an argument to piece together in an easily-deconstructed way (if one pillar doesn't stand, this is totally different - but this wasn't a pillar. It needed supports) you don't get to piece snippets of Earth together in an easily-deconstructed way. Argument invalid.

[MisandristMantis]

Both permanently damage someone's genitals without that person's consent, for purported health benefits. In fact, sometimes, people circumcise boys for purely cosmetic reasons. If that is considered okay, why not approve of castration because it "looks cleaner?"

No, still not the same thing, sorry. Not even close. I can /see/ you, btw. And this feels suspiciously close to trolling. Due notice given, hm?

I'm curious, in what way would this be considered trolling? And what do you mean by you can "see" her.

As a moderator you should not engage in ambiguous threats against posters.

[Snail-land]

What evidence do you have that traumatizing a young child will make the child develop better?

There are actual studies indicating the opposite.

Circumcised boys have more emotional and behavioral problems.
(Leone-Vespa, T. "Understanding the Relationship Between Circumcision and Emotional Development in Young Boys: Measuring Aggressiveness and Emotional Expressiveness," Alliant International University, 2011, 138 pages; 3467063.)

Circumcision is associated with adult difficulty in identifying and expressing feelings.
(Bollinger, D. and Van Howe, R., "Alexithymia and Circumcision Trauma: A Preliminary Investigation," International Journal of Men's Health (2011);184-195.)

It can even lead to PTSD.
(Boyle G., Goldman, R., Svoboda, J.S., and Fernandez, E., "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae," Journal of Health Psychology (2002): 329-343.)

Are you really okay with those risks, just because you see babies as "blobs?"

I am 100% okay with the "risks," considering that:
1. in the studies above, none accounted for the fact that circumcision is so common that the word in the title could be switched with "breathing a mix of nitrogen, oxygen, and various other atmospheric gasses." Circumcision is no more risky than vaccination. Which, by the way, parents can often opt out of or into.
2. Babies are just blobs. They're beautiful blobs who will turn into amazing individuals but anything that can't interact with the world or perceive it (would you let a coma patient decide their medication regimen?) cannot have the ability to control its fate.
3. Circumcision is not traumatic. It is a brief procedure which is routinely done with no anesthetic and rarely (though, again, like vaccination there are some examples of complications) leads to complications.

Parents get to make decisions for their children until those children can perceive and interact with society. Deal with it.

1. Yes, the studies did compare circumcised boys with intact boys, and there was a significant difference. Circumcision is not as common as breathing. It is relatively rare in most of the world. Globally, only about a third of boys are circumcised, and almost 70% of those are Muslims whose reasons probably differ from yours.
2. Babies clearly perceive enough to suffer adverse psychological effects, and babies grow up into adults. Circumcision affects the penis for life.
3. I just provided evidence that it is traumatic. Your opinion is not supported by the research.

Also, not all decisions that parents make for their children are beneficial or should be encouraged.

[The Alma Mater]

So, in nations where it is NOT common (say: most of the western world, except the USA) - it would be wrong ?

So now we get to ignore points 2. and 3.? Cool! This will be fun!

No, we will just adress them one by one.

And anyways, that's not what point 1 meant. The same number of procedures are done worldwide whether they're mostly performed in the USA and developing world or not.

Just like you don't get to pick and choose snippets of an argument to piece together in an easily-deconstructed way (if one pillar doesn't stand, this is totally different - but this wasn't a pillar. It needed supports) you don't get to piece snippets of Earth together in an easily-deconstructed way. Argument invalid.

[/quote]

NIce try. Now please give an actual answer.

[Off-reasonable People]

So now we get to ignore points 2. and 3.? Cool! This will be fun!

No, we will just adress them one by one.

And anyways, that's not what point 1 meant. The same number of procedures are done worldwide whether they're mostly performed in the USA and developing world or not.

Just like you don't get to pick and choose snippets of an argument to piece together in an easily-deconstructed way (if one pillar doesn't stand, this is totally different - but this wasn't a pillar. It needed supports) you don't get to piece snippets of Earth together in an easily-deconstructed way. Argument invalid.

NIce try. Now please give an actual answer.[/quote]
No because you need 2 and 3 for the answer. Parents the world over have a certain right to decide what's right for their child. That would not change so circumcision, even where uncommon, would not be wrong at all.

[Kalaron]

Both permanently damage someone's genitals without that person's consent, for purported health benefits. In fact, sometimes, people circumcise boys for purely cosmetic reasons. If that is considered okay, why not approve of castration because it "looks cleaner?"

So then is removal of the placenta via surgical process not okay?

So, do you think that cutting the Clit off a baby girl is okay then?
They don't remember it, and in this situation, you're her father / mother.
So by your logic, it's okay, right?