Taeshi, on 12 January 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:
People can feel awkward about their penis being mutilated, but fact is.. it IS mutilated. There's no way going around that, at the end of the day that's what happened. There really is no genuine reason to cut it, it's something that was done as some religious thing that people are beginning to take as some sort of social norm, and desperately trying to justify it, but it still is mutilated. People can prefer circumcision, but to act like circumcision is the "norm" and not mutilation is just plain deluded.
I'd just like to point out that I disagree with this for two reasons.
First of all, if you consider circumcision mutilation, you must also consider ear piercing mutilation, and many young girls get this at a young age. Tell me, how is this any better than circumcision? It's equally damaging to the body - which is to say, it has no proven long term consequences - and makes about equal sense. Is it more acceptable because it's "pretty"? At the age of 11 or 12, I'd say it's still pretty out of the child's hands.
The other thing is that, in Judaism at least, the baby is drunk at the time, and on top of that quickly forgets the pain. I believe in some modern cases they may even use proper anesthetic, so the issue isn't really the pain, as it's brief and quickly forgotten. I for one certainly remember none of it, and I don't feel like I'm missing anything, but that's irrelevant.
Also, not actually in response to your post, but in general, the other thing is that a parent has the legal right to make choices for their child. Under the thought process of "the child should get to choose whether to undergo circumcision or not", a child should also get to choose which pre-/elementary school to go to, since the time they spend there is irreversable. Hell, that could probably be a lot more scarring then getting the tip of your pecker getting cut off.
In giving the child that choice, you open up a world of others which could theoretically undermind the idea of a parent being able to make decisions for their children. Since there are no proven health deficits, it is really the parent's decision, since they have the legal right to make decisions in their child's name.
I think the main opposition to circumcision isn't because 'the child should have the decision', or health reasons. It's because of strong anti-religious current currently going through the secular world that says that all things that have their basis in religion and tradition should be removed simply because their basis is in religion.
While I'm all for tearing apart stupid things, discarding something simply because it's got a religious basis is equally, if not more stupid.
Let me just close by saying that since the parent has the legal right to do things in the child's name, the child is usually drunk at the time, It's no more harmful than getting an ear piercing, the pain pretty much lasts less than the time it takes for a bruise to heal - that is to say, not long at all - and there are no proven health deficits, there's no legitimate reason for circumcision to be banned, like it was going to be in San Francisco and Massachusetts before they got overturned.
Plus I think uncircumcized penises just look ugly