US circumcision rates drop to record low of 33%

[SirConcis]

Parents are not elected politicans sworn into office to protect the population. A politician would be breaking the "human rights" issue if he decided that circumcision would be mandatory at age X (or at birth).

However, parents are a different category. Think of them as artists who create a new human being and shape him/her with their own DNA, and raise the kid in a way that is acceptable to them. By definition, the parents will steer the kid in a particular direction and deprive him of choices in his life. In this sense, parents have the right to decide on the circumcision of their son's penis.

Having the right to have son circumciserd does not cancel the ethical issue of delaying any such decisions until the son is old enough to decide for himself. But where does this stop ? Postpone baptism until he is 18 ? Postpone selection of schools until he is 18 ? Postpone orthodontist visits (wearing braces to fix teeth) until he is 18 ?

As far as I am concerned, if parents make an informed decision to ahev son circumcised and are perfectly confident they can explain this decision to their son when he is older, than it is fine by me.

 

[wallaboi]

As if your attitudes in this thread aren't fueled by an overall obsession/fetish of your own disguised as some kind of pseudo-moralistic nonsense. Ignoring the fact that the reason why anyone here is uncircumcised is because the choice was made available to your parents to do it or not. Yet you have no problem denying that same choice or trying to make others feel guilty about their own if they don't align with your obsessions. What's that gooey stuff on the floor? Oh, it's your seed too. Then again, you've whacked off in every circ thread on this board every time someone cheers about their foreskin.

You're such a hypocrite.

Well it's good to hear that the rate of infant circumcision is declining in the USA.

The important thing to note, is that the reason many men like dxjnorto, and probably yourself were circumcised is because circumcision was in those days ROUTINE! Parents were most often, not asked and were certainly not educated about the arguments for or against circumcision. Today, ignorance is no excuse for parents, and the medical profession can no longer make the asumption that all parents want their boys cut.

The reason why parents are now given the choice to circumcise or not, and it is no longer a routine operation is due to individuals speaking out against this practice.

Your accusation of hypocrisy against dxjnorto is absurd. His opinion has been clearly stated and has never waivered.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Your accusation of hypocrisy against dxjnorto is absurd. His opinion has been clearly stated and has never waivered.

There's no absurdity in my accusation.

The dictionary definition of hypocrisy is as follows: 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. 2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Whether or not someone approves or disapproves of the procedure is not the issue. I could careless whether or not someone thinks circumcision is necessary or if they would rather leave their infant boys untouched. What I do have grievance with is the notion that someone else, based on their own prejudices, thinks they should be making that decision for me. If I decided to get together with a female and we gave birth to a baby boy, we (along with our doctor) will make that decision. F*** whoever else thinks they have a say on it. Again, no male is on this earth is cut or uncut without the input of their parents. Anyone with foreskin now would be without it if their mom and dad decided to get you circumcised when you were born. They made a choice. To deny others that choice for whatever reason is the height of hypocrisy. And dxjnorto wants governments around the world to ban infant circumcision, interfering in the lives of responsible parents and make that decision for them. That's example one.

Secondly, there are 87 circumcision threads, active or inactive, on LPSG. dxjnorto has posted in the mass majority of them, and several times, for about 4 years. In each of these threads, he continually makes propagated, rhetorical comments about how people who are cut are going against what nature intended, have lousy sex when they get older and have referred to the appearance of their genitalia as unnatural, deformed, scarred, mutilated, etc... When you say that he's entitled to his opinion and he never changed his view, that's fine. However, after 4 years of "sharing his views" I think he made himself clear a LONG time ago. Seriously, I don't know anyone who argues the same point on any message board for this long and I've done online chat since the days of IRC and 300 baud modems. So when dxjnorto made this ridiculous comment against someone who was for the procedure:

"Circumcision advocate just spooged thinking about his favorite fetish"

...he snidely equates a person's decision to get cut to being a perversion just off of one post, ignoring the fact that he's been belligerently talking about his stances on the issue longer than anyone I can think of on this board beyond the level of personal obsession. That's hypocrisy number two. I could go on, but these two are just some of the most recent offenses.

Anyway you position your argument, you can't dispute the dictionary. Without it and its rules, you can't even form your own opinion. Some of the people on these threads have no idea of the heightened level of ignorance they emit on this subject matter. When it comes to issues regarding the facts, your ideologies and beliefs don't mean a damn thing. To immediately discredit facts on another side just because of your prejudices is equally ignorant. Whether or not circumcision is a good thing or not will always be debated like the right to have an abortion. However, there's no questioning that dxjnorto is a damn hypocrite. I don't care if you, he or anyone else doesn't like the labeling, but THAT is what he is even if you agree with him or approve of his borderline perversions. I'm no saint by any means, but the last person on Earth that should be passing judgement on anyone regarding circumcision is dxjnorto.

 

[DiscoBoy]

Whether or not someone approves or disapproves of the procedure is not the issue. I could careless whether or not someone thinks circumcision is necessary or if they would rather leave their infant boys untouched. What I do have grievance with is the notion that someone else, based on their own prejudices, thinks they should be making that decision for me.

Like the decision of circumcision being made for an infant based on their parents' own prejudices?

Why should a parent even have that option, unless it's medically necessary? How does the aesthetic of a child's penis affect their parent in any way? There's just no viable reason for offering that choice to parents. It's an outdated practice.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Like the decision of circumcision being made for an infant based on their parents' own prejudices? Why should a parent even have that option, unless it's medically necessary? How does the aesthetic of a child's penis affect their parent in any way? There's just no viable reason for offering that choice to parents. It's an outdated practice.

In the United States, parents are ultimately responsible for their children's well being and health under state & federal law. Infants have no concept of what is right and wrong, and many crucial choices regarding an infant's health are made during these stages which can determine whether or not the baby lives or dies. As responsible adults, we should make sure any expecting parents know the pros and cons of each stance and allow them (along with their primary doctor) to make their own informed decisions. Considering that rates are dropping in circumcision, people against the measure should be content. People are voluntarily siding with your ideologies. However, that doesn't mean that parents who think otherwise should be forced to follow suit. Whether or not to circumcise a baby boy isn't (or shouldn't be) something that is determined by public majority rule. Besides, many medical procedures we are presented with today have existed for centuries, so the age of its practice doesn't apply. Acupuncture is a prime example.

Until the law changes and government wants to assume full duties of every parent, then the choice to circumcise should remain for parents to deliberate on. Call it prejudice all you want, but the word means nothing without its context. Case in point, I prefer vodka over rum. I would choose Nintendo over Sony. Both of these are prejudices. Care to report me to the Human Rights Campaign? :wink:

 

[madman411]

Like the decision of circumcision being made for an infant based on their parents' own prejudices?

Why should a parent even have that option, unless it's medically necessary? How does the aesthetic of a child's penis affect their parent in any way? There's just no viable reason for offering that choice to parents. It's an outdated practice.

i believe that in most cases of RIC in the US, the doctor typically just performs the procedure without the parents consent... at least this is what happened in my case. i'm sure i'm not the only one. i'm sure he just told my parents that it was for the best, and they took his word because he's the professional. no questions asked.

 

[SirConcis]

I have to wonder if circumcision was ever performed without parents giving any type of consent. You'd think that when you check in, you'd fill forms and there would be a check box for circumcision (or one to NOT perform circumcision).

It is quite possible that parents just signed a whole slew of forms without reading. But I doubt that the lawyers would have allowed hospitals to circumcise without having some signature from parents authorizing it.

 

[Sapien]

At the end of the day, you were either cut or left uncircumcised as a child because your PARENTS chose to do what they thought was best for their baby. Period. F**k what you think about others because it ain't your kid. The beliefs and opinions of an infant are also irrelevant because parents are 100% responsible for their offspring till they are of legal age. Double period. If they want to leave them uncut, then more power to them. If they want to circumcise their baby boy for whatever reason then so be it with absolutely no scrutiny, judgement or banter from you. So mind your f***in' business.

Well I just started my own religion. Earlobes are out and must be removed on the 14th day after birth. At the age of two males are to have their left eyebrow permanently removed, females the right. Also, the clitoral hood must be removed on females at age 2.

I am 100% responsible for my offspring as are the other parents are that belong to my new religion. Our children have no opinions, rights because we are responsible for them until they are of legal age.

Do you wish to sign up so that you too can do this to your children?

If you don't and wish to object you can mind your f***in' business.

 

[mandoman]

I have to wonder if circumcision was ever performed without parents giving any type of consent. You'd think that when you check in, you'd fill forms and there would be a check box for circumcision (or one to NOT perform circumcision).

It is quite possible that parents just signed a whole slew of forms without reading. But I doubt that the lawyers would have allowed hospitals to circumcise without having some signature from parents authorizing it.

Circumcision was commonly done without the parents' consent in parts of the US as late as the 1960s and 1970s. Some parents just got a surprise, when they changed the baby's diaper.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Well I just started my own religion. Earlobes are out and must be removed on the 14th day after birth. At the age of two males are to have their left eyebrow permanently removed, females the right. Also, the clitoral hood must be removed on females at age 2.

I am 100% responsible for my offspring as are the other parents are that belong to my new religion. Our children have no opinions, rights because we are responsible for them until they are of legal age.

Do you wish to sign up so that you too can do this to your children?

If you don't and wish to object you can mind your f***in' business.

You are an idiot.
It's 2010 and I don't apologize or pander to anyone who talks out of their ass like this anymore. None of your red herring, logically devoid, pseudo moralistic tripe deserves to be addressed by anyone with a brain. You are an embarrassment to your cause and to those who harbor your ideology. Even people who are against circumcision should tell you to shut up.

"I started my own religion. Earlobes are out."
Seriously, dude, what kind of moron are you to come up with such mindless hypotheticals? LOL!!!!!

Create an argument that has any factual backing, common sense and understanding of current law and maybe, just maybe I'll humor you with a response. Or you can make another stupid post and I'll label it as such. Your call.

 

[herkimer snow]

Circumcision is not done for the good of the baby (or the future adult). It is done for the good of the parents. They are the ones that have to be happy about it. The baby, could he choose, would not elect to have it done. Few of those babies, grown to age 18, would choose to have it done then. Parents who think they "own" their children and are making these unnecessary decisions are scary. But they know what they think and it is pointless to consider they would ever change.

 

[helgaleena]

I have to wonder if circumcision was ever performed without parents giving any type of consent. You'd think that when you check in, you'd fill forms and there would be a check box for circumcision (or one to NOT perform circumcision).

It is quite possible that parents just signed a whole slew of forms without reading. But I doubt that the lawyers would have allowed hospitals to circumcise without having some signature from parents authorizing it.

I seem to recall that about the same time my son was born, a Hindu family on the east coast was suing a hospital for circumcising their child without their consent, as it was against their personal beliefs. How much did they sue for? About an inch and a half, the father joked. Sorry I do not recall more details. Our son was not circumcised because of my husband's religious beliefs, and mine. They did ask, in '92...

 

[SirConcis]

If parents did not sign consent (or check the box for circumcision) and the hospital circumcised their son, that would be grounds for a lawsuit. But if parents quickly signed on the dotted line every page of a "birthing contract" without reading them, and they find their son was circumcised, they may end up being responsible for having signed all these paper without reading them.

If you are allergic to brocoli, and order a meal at a restaurant without asking if it contains brocoli, and you see the meal served with brocoli, whose fault is it ?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Circumcision is not done for the good of the baby (or the future adult). It is done for the good of the parents. They are the ones that have to be happy about it. The baby, could he choose, would not elect to have it done. Few of those babies, grown to age 18, would choose to have it done then. Parents who think they "own" their children and are making these unnecessary decisions are scary. But they know what they think and it is pointless to consider they would ever change.

Bolded is the line of propaganda that you cannot factually prove.
There are too many people who have undergone circumcision as an infant that not only live perfectly healthy lives, but don't even care that it was done in the first place. Feel free to believe what you wish, but don't make up fictional facts to support it.

Also, there's a difference between ownership and being held responsible. The words "responsible" and "ownership" are not synonymous, so the interchanging of the two is vehemently disingenuous of you. I'd appreciate if you would be a little more honest with your assessments and refrain from using fear mongered rhetoric to get your point across. Regardless of your horrible twists of statements, the fact still remains that parents are responsible for the well being of the children they bring into this world. That means they should be allowed to pursue any legal means to ensure that if they choose to. End of story.

As for this continued argument that insinuates that babies know what they want, I suggest you answer the following: If you put your infant in front of two glasses, one filled with milk and the other filled with bleach that has been heavily sugared down, would they be able to know the difference, without any parental supervision or input, to not drink the bleach and only drink the milk? If so, then you can worry about whether or not they can make decisions on their own. If not, then stop acting so intellectually dishonest when referring to a "baby's rights".

 

[unknown_rican]

Seems like Circumcision isn't as cracked up as everyone assumes.

 

[unknown_rican]

Circumcision is not done for the good of the baby (or the future adult). It is done for the good of the parents. They are the ones that have to be happy about it. The baby, could he choose, would not elect to have it done. Few of those babies, grown to age 18, would choose to have it done then. Parents who think they "own" their children and are making these unnecessary decisions are scary. But they know what they think and it is pointless to consider they would ever change.

Interesting point.

 

[Snozzle]

Ignoring the fact that the reason why anyone here is uncircumcised is because the choice was made available to your parents to do it or not.

No, for anyone in a non-English-speaking developed country - such as any in Europe or Scandinavia - or any man under about 30-40 in a Commonwealth country, there is no "reason they were uncircumcised". That's the way they were born, that's the way they are. No such choice was ever made available to their parents. And that's how it should be. (There may be enlightened hospitals in the US where that is the case too. It would be good to hear of any. There are almost certainly midwives and doulas who don't offer it.)

Yet you have no problem denying that same choice or trying to make others feel guilty about their own if they don't align with your obsessions.

The only valid choice denied is when a man was circumcised at any age without his consent - the choice to decide for himself how much of his own genitals he may keep. It's nobody else's business.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

No, for anyone in a non-English-speaking developed country - such as any in Europe or Scandinavia - or any man under about 30-40 in a Commonwealth country, there is no "reason they were uncircumcised".

There's always a reason or a motivation for an action. Stop with the red herrings. We don't have people going around hospitals randomly going around to baby boys and cutting foreskins off like a herd of obsessed zombies looking indiscriminately for brains. You're making this sound like a rejected plot line from "A Nightmare On Elm Street". Although I don't have the statistical chart to prove it, I'm sure most doctors that go against a parent's wishes to circumcise their infant son is done by accident and not through some bigoted ideology or vengeful perversion.

That's the way they were born, that's the way they are. No such choice was ever made available to their parents. And that's how it should be.

Bullshit. Tell that to parents that's given birth to conjoined twins and see how far that gets you? Tell that to the baby who was born with a tumor too dangerously close to the brain? Nature intends a lot of things, both regular and irregular. Shall we deny parents who fall under these categories their choice to make decisions regarding their baby's health and well being to protect your warped views on what is "natural"?

As human beings with the ability to think, we are allowed to come to our own conclusions as to what is best. Since newborns cannot do this, reliance must be left to their parents to decide crucial things. The fact that parents when given the choice are deciding to bypass the procedure should make you happy. If they are informed about their choices and they decide to not circumcise then that's great. But it is ignorant to refuse this choice to other expecting parents with the only real intention being to protect your slanted ideologies. That's the part you somehow don't get or refuse to accept. Regardless, it's out of your control and you can't do anything about it but make people who go against your beliefs to feel "guilty" about their choices like a religious zealot telling a non-believer that they're going to hell for not recognizing their one true god. Forgive me if I'm not phased.

(There may be enlightened hospitals in the US where that is the case too. It would be good to hear of any. There are almost certainly midwives and doulas who don't offer it.)

The enlightenment comes from hospitals and doctors informing expecting parents of the pros and cons of circumcision and giving them informed choices so they can decide whether or not to go through with the procedure.

The only valid choice denied is when a man was circumcised at any age without his consent - the choice to decide for himself how much of his own genitals he may keep. It's nobody else's business

The bigger irony here is that what you propose isn't even a choice since you declare your answer to be the only one. Contradict yourself often?

What's even more telling is the underlaying fear hidden within your actions (and yes, you're just like dxjnorto when it comes to circ threads). Somehow you assume the shallow minded stance that a baby boy that goes under the knife is put at some kind of social disadvantage. As if the majority of jobs and careers in the workforce (outside of porn) are decided based on whether you're not you're circumcised. As if a man's ability to live a happy life and provide the things they need to create & nurture their own family if they chose to will be determined by whether or not they have foreskin. As if a man's ability to have sex when they're older is somehow scarred for life because of it. Sorry, but such projections of self-indulging ethics don't work with me. If anything, that exposes more about your own insecurities than whatever a baby (with proper parenting) would ever be worried about.

 

[mitchymo]

I'd bother to argue some of the points i object to on this thread, but considering they belong to VinylBoy and he won't be able to see them cos he chose to put me on ignore (only after sending a derogatory PM as a way of having the last word), i'll just tell you all that you're all wasting your time debating with this guy.

He is the biggest hypocrit EVER. He does'nt have an interest in debate, he is a provocateur. Cries bullshit, cries bigotry, cries unfactual points being made.

Comparing circumcision to brain tumours as a reason why parents should have the choice to cut their childs foreskin as a responsibility as parents of their childs health. Seriously. How over-reacting is that? Sheesh

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I'd bother to argue some of the points i object to on this thread, but considering they belong to VinylBoy and he won't be able to see them cos he chose to put me on ignore (only after sending a derogatory PM as a way of having the last word), i'll just tell you all that you're all wasting your time debating with this guy.

Actually, someone just PM'd me and said you were talking about me so I'm taking a peek at your latest gaffe now.

He is the biggest hypocrit EVER. He does'nt have an interest in debate, he is a provocateur. Cries bullshit, cries bigotry, cries unfactual points being made.

And where are the untruths that I said in this thread? Can you find any or are you talking out of your ass again?

Comparing circumcision to brain tumours as a reason why parents should have the choice to cut their childs foreskin as a responsibility as parents of their childs health. Seriously. How over-reacting is that? Sheesh

You can shut up now because that is not what I said.
My comment was designed to refute what Snozzle stated about things that are born naturally as well as illustrating reasons why a parent should maintain the right to ultimately choose what they believe to be the best options for their newborn babies within the law. I never compared tumors to circumcision and I was very clear about that so your distortions are not necessary. Also, my view on this beaten to death subject (87 threads and counting, people) has always been on the side of choice. I don't give a damn whether or not parents decide to get their infant boys circumcised. Perhaps I'm being a bit optimistic about things here, but I tend to believe that a real parent will teach the concept of self identity beyond what is or is not between their legs. That's far more important than someone's dick size or whether or not YOU think a kid is going to have better sex in the future.

But if you want to sit here and think that I'm being a hypocrite for standing up for a parent's right to choose, the same way YOUR parents chose to do whatever they did to you after your birth, then so be it. I can't change your beliefs even if there's no substantially factual basis behind it. But I can call you an idiot. And I will. You f***in' idiot.

Now do yourself a favor and go back to that putrid mosque thread and keep preaching about how they're so evil and nasty. At least there you're surrounded by other prejudicial bigots who share your beliefs. And refrain from talking about me on these boards again. I did put you on ignore and haven't muttered your name to anyone since. But let me hear that you're talking shit about me again, OK? Go ahead. Give me another reason to piss you off.