It's just cosmetic surgery

[JohnC]

However much people twist and turn, the bottom line is that circumcising a boy (or girl) without medical indication is cosmetic surgery, ie imposing a personal, cultural or religious preference on the genitals of your child without their consent.

If we exclude Jews, Muslims and other groups who claim Bronze Age justifications for the practice (and who do not generally argue their case on boards such as this), we are left with a bunch of parents (about 10-15%, depending on how you do the count) who are imposing their sexual tastes on their male children without a sliver of ethical justification.

And certainly without medical justification, as the RACP has -- once again -- reaffirmed only a few days ago.

If their children were female, the parents would be liable to prosecution. Perhaps one day male children will enjoy the same legal protection.

[bada]

So true.

Perhaps one day male children will enjoy the same legal protection. Lets hope it's sooner rather than later.

It's good to see you posting again JohnC.

[JohnC]

It's good to see you posting again JohnC.

It's a bit like Groundhog Day, but I guess I'm up for another round ;)

The recent concern was of course the RACP, but that seems to have come good.

Next cab off the rank is the CDC in the US, and I have no sense of what's going to happen there.

[Alexander Beetle]

However much people twist and turn, the bottom line is that circumcising a boy (or girl) without medical indication is cosmetic surgery, ie imposing a personal, cultural or religious preference on the genitals of your child without their consent.

If we exclude Jews, Muslims and other groups who claim Bronze Age justifications for the practice (and who do not generally argue their case on boards such as this), we are left with a bunch of parents (about 10-15%, depending on how you do the count) who are imposing their sexual tastes on their male children without a sliver of ethical justification.

And certainly without medical justification, as the RACP has -- once again -- reaffirmed only a few days ago.

If their children were female, the parents would be liable to prosecution. Perhaps one day male children will enjoy the same legal protection.

:iagree:Absolutely

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

It is indeed, purely and simply cosmetic surgery. It's so sad.:(

[MummaBear03]

For some reason, no matter many anti-circ threads there are, it seems different coming from a male. Almost like men standing up for the rights of the penis. Women can argue the point all they like, but in all honesty it comes across much stronger when a male says these things about male parts.

[JohnC]

it seems different coming from a male.

Unhappily, neither the gender of the messenger nor the integrity of the message seems to have slightest purchase with the "my baby, my choice" crowd.

There were 19,488 Medicare rebates for circumcision of infants aged 0-6 months last financial year, which is about 14% of the total male birth cohort. One can guarantee that virtually none of these procedures were undertaken for genuine medical reasons. (There were 246 for phimosis in boys aged less that one year, which is in any case a ridiculous diagnosis for a child that age.)

This is pretty much unchanged from a decade ago, and in reviewing these threads today, I see the same stale, invalid arguments are still being offered up as an excuse to violate the bodily integrity of male infants.

The Romans at one stage (under Hadrian) made circumcision of children a capital crime. Perhaps they were onto something.

[Rabbity Babbity]

:iagree: with all the above...

[MummaBear03]

There were 19,488 Medicare rebates for circumcision of infants aged 0-6 months last financial year, which is about 14% of the total male birth cohort. One can guarantee that virtually none of these procedures were undertaken for genuine medical reasons. (There were 246 for phimosis in boys aged less that one year, which is in any case a ridiculous diagnosis for a child that age.)

:( Shame about those rates, wonder how many of them were for religious reasons?

[JohnC]

Shame about those rates, wonder how many of them were for religious reasons?

It's impossible to be definitive, but about 2 percentage points is my best estimate. In other words, about 12% of male infants were circumcised last year for purely cosmetic reasons.

[Sheer Bliss]

:no: It's very sad for those poor boys.