US: Florida boy's circumcision spurs lengthy legal battle, protests

[James Yayo]

To mutilate:

to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts.

to injure severely or disfigure, especially by cutting off tissue or body parts.

[Jingthing]

Doubling down on the dumb, huh?

[James Yayo]

"Actually, it's a legitimate medical procedure."

If there is a legitimate medical issue, and other options such as incising havn't been successful and the immediate health of the patient is at risk.

As is mutilating the body by amputating a leg or any other limb or digit when there is a medical issue and the immediate health of the patient is at risk.

Edited January 20, 2015 by James Yayo

[Jingthing]

"Actually, it's a legitimate medical procedure."

If there is a legitimate medical issue, and other options such as incising havn't been successful and the immediate health of the patient is at risk.

Such as HIV prevention:

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

[James Yayo]

Doubling down on the dumb, huh?

If all you have in your arsenal (on this topic) is intended insults, then I would refrain from posting. You would come across as smarter.

[Jarearn]

I am certainly glad my parents didn't decide to cut me. It is my hope that this little boy be allowed to keep his penis intact, and that it be made a crime to cut young boys without their informed adult consent. If there is a real medical problem there may be a reason, but that is also debatable as there are often many different options in medicine, and many of the modern medical practices, like chemotherapy for instance, mostly do more harm than good when there are other more sensible options available, albeit ones that don't enrich big pharmaceutical companies and the medical establishment. There are cases where young boys and babies lose their entire penis or even their lives due to circumcision. It is not worth that risk for any disease prevention that might happen later in life. Proper hygiene is a much better choice in my opinion.

[James Yayo]

"Actually, it's a legitimate medical procedure."

If there is a legitimate medical issue, and other options such as incising havn't been successful and the immediate health of the patient is at risk.

Such as HIV prevention:

HIV isn't an immediate risk.

Educating your child would be a far better option. Circumcising as HIV prevention = you failing as a parent.

Edited January 20, 2015 by James Yayo

[Jingthing]

Doubling down on the dumb, huh?

If all you have in your arsenal (on this topic) is intended insults, then I would refrain from posting. You would come across as smarter.

Nice try.

Trying to irrationally inflame your position on this issue with the loaded term MUTILATION is a cheap trick. Rational people aren't persuaded by that. Basically, you're not fooling anyone ... you are presenting an EXTREMIST anti-circumcision agenda and it does not pass the smell test. The truth of the issue is actually a lot more nuanced ... there are reasonable reasons for GOOD parents to decide to do the cut on their baby boys and also there are reasonable reasons not to cut. Your agenda presenting this as good vs. evil is totally bogus. You talk about religious fanatics. Funny ... it is your extremist position that is the FANATICAL one and massively INTOLERANT on the question of male circumcision.

Parents deciding to cut or not cut are both making good decisions if done after RATIONALLY considering the pros and cons of the choice.

If it is only done solely based on religious tradition. that is of course less about rationality, but there it's a freedom of religion thing.

The argument not to ever cut babies and give the adults a choice SOUNDS reasonable but it is not that reasonable. The reason is that doing the procedure to babies is indeed the ideal time to do it, and yes very few adults will do it later, not so much because they think it's a bad idea but because of fear of pain and inconvenience. So if you don't do it while a baby, you've missed the chance to do it at the ideal time forever.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Jingthing

[Doc46]

They agreed , now they don't What a load of wasted money They both need Brain surgery to get things rite,,To cut or not to cut only benefit easier to clean and some say they can last longer with SEX because if cut the Knob loses a bit of sensitivity,,

As for the age this is done ,,the younger the better,,,,But I have seen Adults being cut,,They say,,,Bit bloody painful for a while .,

[James Yayo]

I am certainly glad my parents didn't decide to cut me. It is my hope that this little boy be allowed to keep his penis intact, and that it be made a crime to cut young boys without their informed adult consent. If there is a real medical problem there may be a reason, but that is also debatable as there are often many different options in medicine

Straight common sense.

Well done.

[James Yayo]

Doubling down on the dumb, huh?

If all you have in your arsenal (on this topic) is intended insults, then I would refrain from posting. You would come across as smarter.

Nice try.

Trying to irrationally inflame your position on this issue with the loaded term MUTILATION is a cheap trick. Rational people aren't persuaded by that. Basically, you're not fooling anyone ... you are presenting an EXTREMIST anti-circumcision agenda and it does not pass the smell test. The truth of the issue is actually a lot more nuanced ... there are reasonable reasons for GOOD parents to decide to do the cut on their baby boys and also there are reasonable reasons not to cut. Your agenda presenting this as good vs. evil is totally bogus. You talk about religious fanatics. Funny ... it is your extremist position that is the FANATICAL one and massively INTOLERANT on the question of male circumcision.

Parents deciding to cut or not cut are both making good decisions if done after RATIONALLY considering the pros and cons of the choice.

If it is only done solely based on religious tradition. that is of course less about rationality, but there it's a freedom of religion thing.

The argument not to ever cut babies and give the adults a choice SOUNDS reasonable but it is not that reasonable. The reason is that doing the procedure to babies is indeed the ideal time to do it, and yes very few adults will do it later, not so much because they think it's a bad idea but because of fear of pain and inconvenience. So if you don't do it while a baby, you've missed the chance to do it at the ideal time forever.

You are wrong on every point.

Paragraph 1. Irreversible mutilation is a perfectly apt term for what it is. It is irreversibly mutilating their body without their consent.

The only view that matters is that of the person that is or isn't being irreversibly mutilated. Without their personal consent (or medical condition) it should be illegal and a human right's abuse.

Paragraph 2. It should not be the choice of the parents, deciding to RATIONALY irreversibly mutilate their child and massively diminish their sex life. It should be the choice of the person, and the choice of the doctor if there is an immediate medical condition that hasn't been rectified with other methods. It should be a complete last resort.

Paragraph 3. There are likely many reasons why adults don't go up for circumcising without there being a medical condition. That is their choice. Respect their choice, respect their need to consent to forever robbing them of a full sex life and respect that robbing them of this choice and irreversibly mutilating them without their consent without medical condition is a human rights abuse. Can parents legally have their adult sons circumcised without their consent? No. Should they legally be able to do so before they become an adult and there is no medical condition to contend with? No, of course not.

Edited January 20, 2015 by James Yayo

[Jingthing]

I am certainly glad my parents didn't decide to cut me. It is my hope that this little boy be allowed to keep his penis intact, and that it be made a crime to cut young boys without their informed adult consent. If there is a real medical problem there may be a reason, but that is also debatable as there are often many different options in medicine

Straight common sense.

Well done.

It may seem that way but you'll find the overwhelming vast majority of men who had it done as babies are JUST AS HAPPY about the condition of their penises as those who are uncut! When it is needed for uncut men for later medical reasons, circumcision is usually the ONLY option.

[Jingthing]

Doubling down on the dumb, huh?

If all you have in your arsenal (on this topic) is intended insults, then I would refrain from posting. You would come across as smarter.

Nice try.

Trying to irrationally inflame your position on this issue with the loaded term MUTILATION is a cheap trick. Rational people aren't persuaded by that. Basically, you're not fooling anyone ... you are presenting an EXTREMIST anti-circumcision agenda and it does not pass the smell test. The truth of the issue is actually a lot more nuanced ... there are reasonable reasons for GOOD parents to decide to do the cut on their baby boys and also there are reasonable reasons not to cut. Your agenda presenting this as good vs. evil is totally bogus. You talk about religious fanatics. Funny ... it is your extremist position that is the FANATICAL one and massively INTOLERANT on the question of male circumcision.

Parents deciding to cut or not cut are both making good decisions if done after RATIONALLY considering the pros and cons of the choice.

If it is only done solely based on religious tradition. that is of course less about rationality, but there it's a freedom of religion thing.

The argument not to ever cut babies and give the adults a choice SOUNDS reasonable but it is not that reasonable. The reason is that doing the procedure to babies is indeed the ideal time to do it, and yes very few adults will do it later, not so much because they think it's a bad idea but because of fear of pain and inconvenience. So if you don't do it while a baby, you've missed the chance to do it at the ideal time forever.

You are wrong on every point.

Paragraph 1. Irreversible mutilation is a perfectly apt term for what it is. It is irreversibly mutilating their body without their consent.

The only view that matters is that of the person that is or isn't being irreversibly mutilated. Without their personal consent (or medical condition) it should be illegal and a human right's abuse.

Paragraph 2. It should not be the choice of the parents, deciding to RATIONALY irreversibly mutilate their child and massively diminish their sex life. It should be the choice of the person, and the choice of the doctor if there is an immediate medical condition that hasn't been rectified with other methods. It should be a complete last resort.

Paragraph 3. There are likely many reasons why adults don't go up for circumcising without their being a medical condition. That is their choice. Respect their choice, and respect that robbing them of this choice and irreversibly mutilating them without their consent without medical condition is a human rights abuse. Can parents legally have their adult sons circumcised without their consent? No. Should they legally be able to do so before they become an adult and there is no medical condition to contend with? No.

Our basic difference is that for you this is a black and white issue.

For me, it is a grey area.

We'll never agree on any of this so keep on with your crusade. I find it obnoxious and intolerant but I respect your right to try to change laws while HOPING you fail miserably.

BTW, I've already said I wouldn't want them to do this on a four year old as if it was going to be done in childhood, it should have been done when he was a baby. See ... grey areas ... it's really not rocket science.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Jingthing

[Briggsy]

Might as well clip his ears while they're at it. For health reasons of course. (Reduced rates of skin cancer)

[Seastallion]

A four year old will be psychologically hurt for his whole life.

Probably already is in a different way.

I say, if you like circumcision, you will love clitoris hood peals........ Cut cut cut, idiots.

Rubbish. I spent many years in a country where every boy gets circumcised, and they do it when when they are anywhere from 6 to 9 years old in the belief that small children are too weak to resist infection and pain..

I am not aware of anyone suffering continued trauma....mainly, I suppose, because if you are told you are traumatised, you may end up traumatised, but if you are told, "This is normal, be a man", then you will just accept it.

[Jingthing]

Might as well clip his ears while they're at it. For health reasons of course. (Reduced rates of skin cancer)

You just made that up, didn't you?

[ggold]

I don't know how my sex life could be any more full and proper than it is now with no foreskin.

Imagine your fingers with your finger tips removed.

The sensors in your finger tips are the same sensors as in a male's foreskin.

You could still pick things up, and enjoy picking them up, but the sensation has been robbed and diminished forever (in two different places with circumcision- the most sensitive part of the body has been removed, and the sensation from likely the second, has been numbed forever)

If the operation leaves a small trace of foreskin, this is where circumcised men say they get the most stimulation and sensation from.

Maybe it is more about being in control of you're ejaculation, and pleasuring you're partner than coming too soon!

You don't actually know much about the topic at hand (so to speak).

Perhaps it's time to stop posting on it.

Really? Maybe I hit a nerve! so to speak

[smotherb]

Idiots. Both of them. Too much money and time and nothing better to do than keeping their private little jihad going full steam.

Let the boy grow up and he can decide as an adult if wants his foreskin removed, or not. And then he should take it and slap his parents in the face with it. Idiots.

I'll wager few adult men would opt for circumcision.

[maidee]

for all the god lovers... overhere or in USA

if god did not intend you to have foreskin, why would he have giving it in the first place ?

[Ulysses G.]

if god did not intend you to have foreskin, why would he have giving it in the first place ?

I don't know, but I wish that he had made me circumcised with a really huge member instead.

[Jingthing]

for all the god lovers... overhere or in USA

if god did not intend you to have foreskin, why would he have giving it in the first place ?

God doesn't need to have anything to do with this discussion.

Refer to the WHO suggestion of circumcision for heterosexual HIV prevention.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Jingthing

[sanuk711]

He wore a "Children Never Forget Trauma" T-shirt ….

Don't remember a thing.

(And the wife says it's really cute this way).

........And I guess she would know................

[I Like Thai]

People who do it for religious reasons, are they saying God made a mistake in his creation of man and it's up to mere humans to fix his mistake ?

[Briggsy]

I suspect that this has become a battle to be won in the war between the mother and the father and neither is really that bothered about whether the child's foreskin remains attached or not.

[BlueSkyCowboy]

Idiots. Both of them. Too much money and time and nothing better to do than keeping their private little jihad going full steam.

Let the boy grow up and he can decide as an adult if wants his foreskin removed, or not. And then he should take it and slap his parents in the face with it. Idiots.

I agree on the idiots. As long as a boy can pull the foreskin way back, great. If he can not, it is a problem for hygene

[Briggsy]

Good job our resident paediatrician, Blue Sky Cowboy, is here to advise on the case.

[James Yayo]

I am certainly glad my parents didn't decide to cut me. It is my hope that this little boy be allowed to keep his penis intact, and that it be made a crime to cut young boys without their informed adult consent. If there is a real medical problem there may be a reason, but that is also debatable as there are often many different options in medicine

Straight common sense.

Well done.

It may seem that way but you'll find the overwhelming vast majority of men who had it done as babies are JUST AS HAPPY about the condition of their penises as those who are uncut!

There are endless numbers of foreskin restoration clinics, groups, devices etc.... It is a massive business because these men were mutilated, diminishing their sex life forever, and although they can never experience normal sexual sensations, they want to try to undo the horrid mutilation that was done to them without their consent.

Just type 'foreskin restoration devices' or 'foreskin restoration clinic' into google to see the extent of the damage that these mutilations have done to men.

[James Yayo]

If all you have in your arsenal (on this topic) is intended insults, then I would refrain from posting. You would come across as smarter.

Nice try.

Trying to irrationally inflame your position on this issue with the loaded term MUTILATION is a cheap trick. Rational people aren't persuaded by that. Basically, you're not fooling anyone ... you are presenting an EXTREMIST anti-circumcision agenda and it does not pass the smell test. The truth of the issue is actually a lot more nuanced ... there are reasonable reasons for GOOD parents to decide to do the cut on their baby boys and also there are reasonable reasons not to cut. Your agenda presenting this as good vs. evil is totally bogus. You talk about religious fanatics. Funny ... it is your extremist position that is the FANATICAL one and massively INTOLERANT on the question of male circumcision.

Parents deciding to cut or not cut are both making good decisions if done after RATIONALLY considering the pros and cons of the choice.

If it is only done solely based on religious tradition. that is of course less about rationality, but there it's a freedom of religion thing.

The argument not to ever cut babies and give the adults a choice SOUNDS reasonable but it is not that reasonable. The reason is that doing the procedure to babies is indeed the ideal time to do it, and yes very few adults will do it later, not so much because they think it's a bad idea but because of fear of pain and inconvenience. So if you don't do it while a baby, you've missed the chance to do it at the ideal time forever.

You are wrong on every point.

Paragraph 1. Irreversible mutilation is a perfectly apt term for what it is. It is irreversibly mutilating their body without their consent.

The only view that matters is that of the person that is or isn't being irreversibly mutilated. Without their personal consent (or medical condition) it should be illegal and a human right's abuse.

Paragraph 2. It should not be the choice of the parents, deciding to RATIONALY irreversibly mutilate their child and massively diminish their sex life. It should be the choice of the person, and the choice of the doctor if there is an immediate medical condition that hasn't been rectified with other methods. It should be a complete last resort.

Paragraph 3. There are likely many reasons why adults don't go up for circumcising without their being a medical condition. That is their choice. Respect their choice, and respect that robbing them of this choice and irreversibly mutilating them without their consent without medical condition is a human rights abuse. Can parents legally have their adult sons circumcised without their consent? No. Should they legally be able to do so before they become an adult and there is no medical condition to contend with? No.

Our basic difference is that for you this is a black and white issue.

For me, it is a grey area.

We'll never agree on any of this so keep on with your crusade. I find it obnoxious and intolerant but I respect your right to try to change laws while HOPING you fail miserably.

BTW, I've already said I wouldn't want them to do this on a four year old as if it was going to be done in childhood, it should have been done when he was a baby. See ... grey areas ... it's really not rocket science.

Your grey area - mutilating infants compared to mutilating children - is non-existent. The issue is it simply being done without consent, not at what age.

Edited January 20, 2015 by James Yayo

[James Yayo]

Might as well clip his ears while they're at it. For health reasons of course. (Reduced rates of skin cancer)

And remove his toenails lest they get ingrown.

Removing a boy's testicles before puberty ensures that he will never go bald. No one likes a slaphead, out with the splicer and bullock clippers.

[tw25rw]

As someone who wasn't done, I just find the idea of cutting off one of the most sensitive parts of the body horrific, regardless of any perceived benefits.