Circumcision versus...

[Ys_Woman]

I am pro-choice. However, I was thinking about it the other day and was wondering how those who violently oppose circumcision might feel about the de-sexing of animals.
Is it as offensive as circumcision?

Amy:)

[sam's mum]

as far as I know (and I could be wrong here) they are operating on different parts of the anatomy. I am pretty sure that de-sexing removes the ability to procreate, but doesn't actually interfere with the organs.

eta - I know that when we did the horses we removed the testicles, but didn't touch the penis.

[Ys_Woman]

True sam's mum. So you still have to remove part of the animal's anatomy..a part that must have had a purpose.

Amy

[sam's mum]

I guess having made that point my opinion goes something like this.

I don't believe in Routine Circumcision and I don't believe in Routine De-sexing.

I believe that there are strong reasons for de-sexing in a lot of cases.

I believe that animals aren't people.

I haven't really thought it through before though.

as much as I would like animals to be able to go forth and multiply as much as they want, I spent a lot of years on a farm and that shaped my thinking. there are some animals that it is just not desireable to have them reproduce.

[FiveInTheBed]

hmmmmm....interesting thread.

I am pro choice when it comes to circ.

I am pro choice about the sterilisation of people ...what I mean is my DP has had the snip...I think it would be wrong to permanently sterilise a person without their consent!

I feel like I was forced into de sexing my two border collies. :( All the vets points were valid, but I think it has messed up my fur babies a little. We try to show them we love them everyday, and they show us their love too.:D

....funny how 'people' see them selves as superior to animals...:rolleyes:

They have a right to be here and procreate just as much as we do....most of the cases of over population of a species has stemmed from the impact of mankind...as too the massive reduction in numbers and extinction of some.:(

"people are lonely and only animals with fancy shoes...and too many tools!"

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

I don't really understand how it's comparable.
I believe in animal rights, and human rights.
However humans are the only species that have free will, and getting a cat done isn't so he will look like his dad :laughing:.
Animals are desexed for many reasons, one can be to save wildlife, one can be because if a cat or dog has a litter then there is a possibility of them going to homes where they won't be looked after- they could end up dumped and/or put down.
Desexing a cat or dog is not the same as circing a human being.
If my puppy could grow up and responsibly make the decision for himself, then of course he could do that.:laughing: "So rover are you glad I didn't circ you????"

[SassyMummy]

I can't see the comparison really.

A human being is an individual. As a child, it's pretty much under the care of an adult and therefore the adult makes hte decisions for them... but eventually, that child will grow up and become independent and make decisions for themselves.

A pet is ALWAYS a dependant. They don't grow up and start living lives of their own.

They require people to look after them, for their entire lives.

If we allow pets to freely breed, then we'd be overrun with unwanted animals, who would then just be euthanised as there's nobody to take care of them.

It's very important to desex your pets so that this doesn't happen. Okay, so your pet might not be impressed with the removal of its testicles/uterus.... but I'm sure it would be far less impressed being put to sleep because nobody wanted it or its numerous offspring.

Circumcision is no longer an issue of hygeine, nor does it really do anything other than alter the appearance of the flacid penis.

So I don't really see how there can be a comparison made...??:confused:

[Ys_Woman]

I guess I'm just fascinated that people who feel so strongly about one thing don't feel as strongly when it comes to an animal.
I personally am amazed at the similarities between the two:

BABY AND (ANIMAL)

. Requires a responsible parent (owner) to make decisions on their behalf as they cannot formulate or articulate their own consent.

. Circumcision (desexing) requires the removal of parts that apparently serve a purpose (wonders about tonsils, gallbladder and appendix??).

. "But you can wash the penis to avoid infection" ("but you can keep an animal penned when they are in heat").

. "Not all penises will become infected" ("not all animals become pregnant at each mating").

. "It is a painful procedure to put a baby through" ("It is a painful procedure to put an animal through").

. both are generally healed within two weeks after which time most carry on without effect, except the baby will be minus a flap of skin and the male animal will be minus some testes (the female animal will have no external change of appearance).

So then it is fine to make informed choices with regards to pets, but somehow unacceptable to make similar informed choices with children?

Interesting to think on.

Amy.

[SassyMummy]

I think I made it clear in my previous post why I cannot see the comparison.

I don't think many anti-circers are "anti-circ in all cases."

It's ROUTINE infant circumcision that is the problem. It's cutting off the foreskin of a baby for no real reason.

If there's a medical reason why it needs to be removed, I don't think many would be angry about that. What needs to be done, needs to be done.

And like I said, a child is only a dependant for a short period of time. Not even half their life... maybe a third or a quarter or even a fifth. Then they grow up, and have to live with any choices you have made for them. They can make these choices at a later stage in life if they so wish.

Pets, however, are forever dependant. They don't get to "grow up and make their own decisions." They don't use their brains - they use instinct. They won't think, "Well, this backyard isn't really big enough for any more pets, and I'm not sure my owners could afford it... and I mean, will anyone want to adopt my puppies or will they just go to the pound and eventually be put down?"

They'll just mate and have babies... and then it's the adults their dependant on, and their babies, who will suffer as a result.

I think it's a bit insulting really, to say to anti-circers, "Well, what about THIS then? Ner Ner, I got you good!" It doesn't even make sense as a comparison.

[stellarella]

I can see the point you are trying to make here but coming from the most avid animal activist here, I am still amused that you would liken the unnecessary and routine removal of a baby boys foreskin (which contains 20,000 nerve endings - compared to female clitoris which contains something like 7,000) with desexing an animal.

You should be comparing a tubal ligation or a vasectomy with desexing an animal.

[Ys_Woman]

I can't see the comparison really.
A human being is an individual.
You've not had pets with individual natures?
As a child, it's pretty much under the care of an adult and therefore the adult makes hte decisions for them... but eventually, that child will grow up and become independent and make decisions for themselves.
Not all children grow up to be independent though. Through accident/illness/genetic problems, those children will grow to require a parent to make decisions on their behalf.

A pet is ALWAYS a dependant. They don't grow up and start living lives of their own. A pet is only dependent because we keep them that way. If you let it go into the wild it would find food and a place to sleep.

If we allow pets to freely breed, then we'd be overrun with unwanted animals
I absolutely agree! However, responsible owners could keep their pets in when they are in season.

Circumcision is no longer an issue of hygiene True! Many conditions that require circumcision have nothing to do with hygiene, simply an unexplained condition that causes scarring in the foreskin, therefore making it tight and rigid.

However I've not yet understood the argument for why it is not acceptable to make choices for children but fine for animals.

Amy.

[Ys_Woman]

I can see the point you are trying to make here but , I am still amused that you would liken the unnecessary and routine removal of a baby boys foreskin (which contains 20,000 nerve endings - with desexing an animal.
lol..I'm glad the situation amuses you. I personally am not for or against either situation however, I do believe in choice..and there are times when it is extremely necessary to remove the foreskin.
Does the removal of that fold of skin, carrying 20,000 nerve endings as you suggest, have any detrimental affect on the boys who have it removed (for whatever reason). The question is: what are they missing by comparison? It doesn't hinder the internal functions, and aside from a visual external difference, doesn't seem to have any effect on the more pleasureable external side of things either, if you believe what the majority of circumcised men are saying that is.

Amy.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

I'm sorry but this is the silliest comparison IMO.
Most children as Sassy said grow up to be independant, we are raising and gearing them towards that!
We are not raising animals to be independant. Simple really.
The two are not the same, if you want to compare the desexing of animals to men having the snip then by all means.

[shed]

I got our male dog desexed because I didn't want him to breed with my female who I am planning to breed, with her own breed. I didn't want cross breed puppies.

I didn't circ my son because I couldn't think of one good reason to.

So, I guess if someone can think of a good reason to do either one they should do it. and if they can't they shouldn't.

in victorian times circumcision was used to reduce the sensation in the penis. To stop masturbation. This would seem to show that it does actually reduce the sensation. I don't know if its true or not, just prefer not to mess with such things since its not actually my body part.

I am responsible for my dogs and their puppies. I won't be responsible in the same way for my son's kids. Not that a foreskin is anything to do with that so can't really see the correlation.

[Ys_Woman]

in victorian times circumcision was used to reduce the sensation in the penis. To stop masturbation.
That is soooo funny Shed. The parents must have felt ripped off when they found Johnny 'at it again' once the swelling had gone down:laughing:. Obviously it didn't reduce the sensation enough.

Amy:)

[Ys_Woman]

I'm sorry but this is the silliest comparison IMO.
Well the argument that I keep hearing is that the foreskin wouldn't have been given by God if it didn't serve a purpose (which again makes me wonder about the gallbladder and appendix which really have no primary purpose and can easily be done without).
I am merely equating the removal of these 'purposeful' body parts, be it from a young human or an animal. A responsible adult is required to make decisions for both.
So I asked..is it ok for one but not the other?

Amy

[Frany]

I agree with Shed, I can't think of any good reason to perform routine infant circumcision, but I can think of many good reasons to desex my pets.

If this discussion was about a comparison to a similar painful and unnecessary procedure on an animal I would most certainly be against it also. Hang on a minute, surgical modification of animals (e.g. tail docking, ear cropping etc) is actually banned already. If an animal (like a human) was to have a problem with that body part, of course you would do what you had to to ensure the animal (or human) lived a healthy and pain free existence, BUT until there are signs of problems, it is unnecessary.

[shed]

That is soooo funny Shed. The parents must have felt ripped off when they found Johnny 'at it again' once the swelling had gone down:laughing:. Obviously it didn't reduce the sensation enough.

Amy:)

It was routine infant circumcision so little Johnny would have been at it as much as he was going to anyway.

He would never know the difference anyway so I doubt he would complain.

Circ'd men often don't complain. That doesn't mean much though. They have nothing to compare it with.

[shed]

If this discussion was about a comparison to a similar painful and unnecessary procedure on an animal I would most certainly be against it also. Hang on a minute, surgical modification of animals (e.g. tail docking, ear cropping etc) is actually banned already.


Excellent comparison.

[Jakois]

If this discussion was about a comparison to a similar painful and unnecessary procedure on an animal I would most certainly be against it also. Hang on a minute, surgical modification of animals (e.g. tail docking, ear cropping etc) is actually banned already. If an animal (like a human) was to have a problem with that body part, of course you would do what you had to to ensure the animal (or human) lived a healthy and pain free existence, BUT until there are signs of problems, it is unnecessary.
:iagree::iagree:
:yelclap::yelclap:

[Milliner]

If this discussion was about a comparison to a similar painful and unnecessary procedure on an animal I would most certainly be against it also. Hang on a minute, surgical modification of animals (e.g. tail docking, ear cropping etc) is actually banned already. If an animal (like a human) was to have a problem with that body part, of course you would do what you had to to ensure the animal (or human) lived a healthy and pain free existence, BUT until there are signs of problems, it is unnecessary.

:iagree:That’s what I was going to say.

[neostudded]

Ys_Woman If you want to know what they are missing by comparison I have a lot of information. PM me if you are interested :)

I know someone in person who was circumcised at birth he feel's hurt, violated, depressed and helpless about it. It did hinder his sexual function.

[NibbleCurlynBub]

I think circumcision is a bit different to something like castration or sterilisation.

Circumcision doesn't affect a man's ability to have babies at all. :)

[WorkingClassMum]

(which again makes me wonder about the gallbladder and appendix which really have no primary purpose and can easily be done without).



A gall bladder and an appendix is only removed when it becomes a matter of life and death.

A burst appendix or pancreitis caused by a gall stone being stuck or lodged - can kill.

A foreskin left on a man rarely kills - and should only be removed (IMO) in the instance where it staying on causes an impact on health and enjoyment of life and when there is no treatment that cures a condition.

An animal - whether you like it or not - is not on the same level as a human according to law. It is now often the law that requires us to "fix" our animals. Female cats and dogs live longer if they do not breed as versus having a litter every 6 months when they come on heat.

It is ultimately for the betterment of the offspring if numbers of domestic animals are controlled as versus our cities and towns and especially country side being overrun by feral animals with the diseases that always accompany a feral animal.

Oh - have you ever tried to contain a female dog or cat on heat - it can done in most cases but some animals will not be contained. And have you ever tried to keep horny male animals away from a female on heat? I've had as much as 10 toms howling in my yard when my girl was in her run.

We mayn't always like what's for the best for our animals - and I believe we often treat our animals better than other humans - and this is the way of society.

We mayn't always like that an archaic practise is now being questionsed - but this too is the way of society

[Areca]

If this discussion was about a comparison to a similar painful and unnecessary procedure on an animal I would most certainly be against it also. Hang on a minute, surgical modification of animals (e.g. tail docking, ear cropping etc) is actually banned already. If an animal (like a human) was to have a problem with that body part, of course you would do what you had to to ensure the animal (or human) lived a healthy and pain free existence, BUT until there are signs of problems, it is unnecessary.

Well said. Tail docking/ear cropping is in comparison to circumcision. Desexing isn't.
There are already so many unwanted animals, we don't need to add to it. There are huge benefits (health and otherwise) for spaying/neutering an animal.
It's funny how, in this country, we can manage to protect the rights of animals so they can keep their ears and tails (and people will argue with you that some breeds need to have their tails docked because their tail is too long and could get broken, or their ears are easier to keep clean if they're cropped) and yet we can't say the same for precious little human baby boys.

[FiveInTheBed]

Ys_Woman... I think I get the point you are trying to make...as obscure as it is.


The argument that we de sex our pets for a good reason is all because we as humans have taken it upon ourselves to domesticate animals for our own, wants or needs...(me included :o)...food, labour, company.

I believe each animal does have feelings and who knows what emotion effect we have on them by taking away their right to become a parent...they can't verbally tell us so we will never know!!
I definitely know that 'most' mammalian creatures bond with their young in very much the same way humans do and in the wild choose to live in social groups...all when studied show striking similarities to our own social structures ---hmmmmm, some even 'harvest' plants and other species such as insects to feed on.!!:D
...so in response to a PP - I personally see animals as 'thinking' creatures...we have just taken away their freedom to do so in the venture of expanding our own species.


...and when desexed, most carry on without showing signs of distress...just as most circ'd men carry on without showing any signs of distress.
-of course there are some that do, and I acknowledge that and feel for those individuals.
-but everyone has at least one thing from their life that they wish was different...I haven't met one person yet who is 100% happy with every choice that was made for them, or in fact that they made for them selves.

Off track slightly...
Alot of people are against the one child rule in China, because of human rights. Yet we are happy to take away an animals right because it suits us.
Just because we have evolved a language and an ability to use tools and transport, and ceased to be nomadic...doesn't really give us the 'right' to treat other creatures and their environments the way we do...but we do - without a second thought!! (guilty here....but it seems to be innate)

I see this thread as just that "A thought"...something to ponder.
I don't know if Ys_woman is trying to say "circing young children" is exactly the same as "de sexing a pet"...but there a definitely some valid comparisons.IMHO.

:goodvibes:

[MotherNurture]

I am pro-choice. However, I was thinking about it the other day and was wondering how those who violently oppose circumcision might feel about the de-sexing of animals.
Is it as offensive as circumcision?

Amy:)

No, not as offensive; in the same way I'm against eating children but I'm not a vegetarian.

[Ys_Woman]

Caelenjacksmum: Good points:yelclap:. I honestly didn't think it was obscure though..I thought it was in neon lights on a big billboard..:laughing:.

My aim was to find out how people who so strongly oppose the idea of preventative surgery for babies (like circumcision), felt about preventative surgery for animals (ie: desexing).

I aim to change nothing in here. I wouldn't even attempt to change an opinion. I think we will always have the anti and the pro-choice factions for every issue in life..be it abortion, circumcision, or euthenasia. Facts can be manipulated to suit either side so dragging out reams of supportive data is useless. Ultimately, as parents or pet owners we have the responsibility of making good choices as we see fit, regardless of what anyone else thinks and without being howled down.

Amy:)

[serendipity22]

My concern is that animals sometimes have more rights regarding things like tail docking than baby boys have with their genitals.

I believe in pro-choice. The owner of the penis decides what is done when he is old enough.

[NibbleCurlynBub]

Well, I don't know.

I got my cats desexed.. But I felt terribly guilty.
I would be just heartbroken if my ability to have children was taken from me, so I felt heartbroken on her behalf.

But being that she is a cat, she will never know why that is and probably doesn't care too much either.

[bunintheoven12]

You're joking aren't you??? To compare de-sexing an animal which is done while the animal is asleep to slicing off a boy's foreskin while the poor child is held down and forced to go through extreme pain....surely you're just after the usual reaction on this one!!

[MordecaiAliVanAllenO'Shea]

Alot of people are against the one child rule in China, because of human rights. Yet we are happy to take away an animals right because it suits us.


It's not really comparable as animals view procreation and family groupings differently. For example, they don't deliberately mate with the object of fulfilling a desire to have children. They mate to fulfill their instinctual physical urges, which in turn creates babies to further the species. Once the babies are weaned, most species nolonger relate in a parent/child relationship - the offspring is just another in the pack. I know I took my dog back to see his mother a couple of months after I had gotten him, and she was completely disinterested, there was no loving family reunion!! We shouldnt put human emotions and dreams/desires for a family onto our pets.

Yes the actual procedure causes some pain for them, but it prevents future puppies that cant be cared for needing to be euthanised.

Circumcision effects (to what degree can be debated elsewhere) sensation during sex for the males entire sexual life. My dog does not feel any effects from being desexed on a day to day basis. Also my dog does not have body image issues, while these are very common for us humans. Lastly, my son one day will get to an age where he can decided that he would rather be circed and do that for himself, whereas as others have pointed out, my dog will never get to an age where he can understand the pros and cons of the choices involved.

As others have said, it really isnt comparable anyway - tubiligations and vasectomies are the human equivalent.

I'll tell you what, if I ever have a pet that is able to make it's own decision regarding contraception, and will be able to raise and provide for any children resulting from not using that method of contraception reliably, for those children's entire life - I will agree to not desex them.

[Knocked_for_six]

It is a strange comparison, but anyways I choose not to circm my sons as my DH and I don’t feel it is essential procedure, just as I didn’t have my appendix removed ‘just in case’ but I did have it removed when it was medically required. Our dog is de-sexed as we don’t want her to have any puppies, that we would be responsible for, my husband will also be de sexed… well he will have a vasectomy (yes I know.. not quite the same procedure as a male dog) so we don’t have any more children. :)