The ethics of male circumcision

[Trinity]

Yeah no one should circumcise their son. There's no good reason to, it can lead to sexual health problems, and then there's the obvious moral aspect of causing gratuitous suffering and mutilating someone else's body without their consent.

That would apply to the unborn. Surgical abortion leads to the mutilation of the unborn's body resulting in death.

[Brian_G]

In my view, the burden of proof falls on medical intervention.  I wouldn't allow them to ever remove my child's appendix unless I thought there was good reason.  Heck, I won't give my kid Tylenol without a good reason.  If someone wants me to have minor surgery performed on my son (which is what circumcision is), then there must be some sound justification for it.  Surgery, even minor surgery, carries risks and side effects.  With circumcision, people seem to take the exact opposite approach.  Let's do it unless there is reason not to.  Honestly, that was almost the approach I took.  It just seemed easier to do what everyone else does and not to think about it.  After all what guy wants to think about foreskin?  But I realised that I had a responsibility as a parent to think about it.  When I did, I didn't think that the burden of proof was met.  Think about the reasons offered in this thread.  His son wasn't made fun of in the locker room.  So effectively we're talking about cosmetic surgery on a newborn to remove a perfectly normal part of the body, so that later they won't be made fun of.  Is this for real?  Does that sound crazy to anyone else?  I don't mean any disrespect to that poster.  I just think our society is so used to the notion of circumcision that we don't stop to think how weird it is.

[alex1212]

In my view, the burden of proof falls on medical intervention.  I wouldn't allow them to ever remove my child's appendix unless I thought there was good reason.  Heck, I won't give my kid Tylenol without a good reason.  If someone wants me to have minor surgery performed on my son (which is what circumcision is), then there must be some sound justification for it.  Surgery, even minor surgery, carries risks and side effects.  With circumcision, people seem to take the exact opposite approach.  Let's do it unless there is reason not to.  Honestly, that was almost the approach I took.  It just seemed easier to do what everyone else does and not to think about it.  After all what guy wants to think about foreskin?  But I realised that I had a responsibility as a parent to think about it.  When I did, I didn't think that the burden of proof was met.  Think about the reasons offered in this thread.  His son wasn't made fun of in the locker room.  So effectively we're talking about cosmetic surgery on a newborn to remove a perfectly normal part of the body, so that later they won't be made fun of.  Is this for real?  Does that sound crazy to anyone else?  I don't mean any disrespect to that poster.  I just think our society is so used to the notion of circumcision that we don't stop to think how weird it is.

Totally agree.

[Stephen]

The proper function of the part is relevant here, though. Merely removing a body part isn't the problem, the problem is that you're maiming the body.

And it does have sexual health risks:

"This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality."

Sure it's not the worst thing you could do to your child, but why would you ever want to cause any amount of unnecessary harm?

Where for every study like this I can find one that says just the opposite, such as this one:
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2814%2900036-6/abstract

So the case can be equally made for its benefits, maybe even better.

Consider then if this cannot be adjudicated health-wise, then on an aesthetic level (which can in and of itself come to bear on [mental] health). Consider AnimatedDirt's last post herein.

[AnimatedDirt]

In my view, the burden of proof falls on medical intervention.

I don't know that any person has said circumcision is medically necessary.
 

[Brian_G]

The proper function of the part is relevant here, though. Merely removing a body part isn't the problem, the problem is that you're maiming the body.

And it does have sexual health risks:

"This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality."

Sure it's not the worst thing you could do to your child, but why would you ever want to cause any amount of unnecessary harm?

Where for every study like this I can find one that says just the opposite, such as this one:
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2814%2900036-6/abstract

So the case can be equally made for its benefits, maybe even better.

Consider then if this cannot be adjudicated health-wise, then on an aesthetic level (which can in and of itself come to bear on [mental] health). Consider AnimatedDirt's last post herein.

There are benefits.  But the benefits don't seem significant enough to justify sugary.  It seems to be more of a case of post hoc justification.  People want to do circumcision and so they look for reasons to justify it.  For example, there are some studies that show that there is a 60% decreased risk in acquiring HIV in males that are circumcised.   That's a nice side-effect to something you're planing on doing anyway, but 60% isn't really enough to rely on as a form of protection.  Your sexual choices are going to be a far greater factor than circumcision in determining if you get HIV.  If a drug company offered a vaccine for HIV that was only 60% effective, I'd be concerned that the vaccine would give a false sense of security and thus do more harm than good.