The ethics are pretty controversial, I'd say, in that there are various valid arguments on both sides. Controversial enough that your absolutes don't apply generally. Does the orthodox Jew who gets circumcised as an adult also get to choose to go back in time to grow up as an accepted member of his cultural and faith community? Maybe when you invent a time machine we can talk more about the subject of individual choice?
Those sorts of issues are just as important and valid as your concerns about the lack of a foreskin. That's why we don't have laws requiring or banning the procedure. We allow competent people to decide for themselves. Since babies are not able to decide for themselves, their parents have to.
If it were my child, I would leave them intact and let them decide as adults. Someone else might make a different decision based on their culture, religion, life experience, etc. That's perfectly ethical within the boundaries of the professional practice of medicine everywhere that I'm aware of. As a matter of personal ethics, that's a personal matter.
Oh, and by the way, yes, it sounds pretty damned fanatical to compare parents choosing circumcision for their sons to ranchers branding their cattle.
Maybe one of the best intellectual posts on this site. People here seem to think that it's their opinion which should be dominate.
WE LIVE IN A WORLD OF ALMOST 7 BILLION PEOPLE. Although I am Christian, I am HIGHLY involved in Jewish culture living in the Highland Park, Illinois area. The practice is important to them and I have yet to meet one of them who laments about it.
Some of you radicals want to outlaw it, which impedes their religion. I am AGAINST it happening at birth, but I am 1 of 7 billion people. Religion is important and Jews feel circumcision is important for their covenant with God... so I guess your views about foreskin power are more important.
If you were fully understand what taken from us by circumcision I don't believe either of you would accept the above. I am glad that you both agree that you yourselves would not circumcise your own male child.
First, in regards to those of the Jewish faith. Not all Jewish people believe in circumcision, there are those that are enlightened.
Index (link to Jewish anti-circumcision website)
I personally know of at least 3 Jewish restorers. I believe I even saw a post from one on this site.
If it were my child, I would leave them intact and let them decide as adults. Someone else might make a different decision based on their culture, religion, life experience, etc. That's perfectly ethical within the boundaries of the professional practice of medicine everywhere that I'm aware of. As a matter of personal ethics, that's a personal matter.
I agree that is legal but do not agree it is ethical. It is a complicated issue and the main reason it is so complicated is the associated religious implications. Those implications contribute to the lack of proper legal controls in this matter (along with the fact that circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years and not to mention the legal issues that would be created by making it illegal).
The fact is that not only is the foreskin on most infants healthy tissue, it has been proven by Dr John Taylor's study that it is highly erogenous tissue. In fact, he concluded that the foreskin is the primary erogenous tissue, not the glans (though obviously the glans does play a significant role). Also, the glans is a mucous membrane similar to the eyes, tissue in the mouth etc. It is not designed to be constantly exposed - it loses its membrane properties in order to protect itself from its now harsh environment.
If you there was a religious group that believed in removing eyelids - would you think this was acceptable because this is their belief. I am not sure of the full consequences of such a thing but the eyeballs would toughen up, vision would be probably impaired (how much???).
Perhaps this is an extreme comparison but it is still analogous. The glans is compromised by circumcision. Circumcision removes HIGHLY erogenous tissue.
Both of you are young and do not yet know the full consequences of your parents decision (assuming circumcised). When I was younger I also didn't think there was a significant difference. However, as I aged the passion in my sex life with my wife started slowly to diminish. It satisfied my libido but it was no longer such a big deal - why lack of intensity of orgasms, even lack of orgasms (not ejaculation, not ED etc). My wife thought it was her, I thought it was part of the normal aging process.
I happened to see a television show on the topic of circumcision - I became curious and researched the subject and found out about foreskin restoration. It was the best thing that could have happened to me - definitely rejuvenated my sex life - the passion is back and better then ever. (BTW I am in my 40's but am in excellent shape - biological age is probably at least 10 years less than my actual age).
One of Dr John Taylor's remarks was that the glans stimulate the highly erogenous foreskin (rather than the other way around). Now that I have more skin and can experience the gliding motion to at least some extent I can feel this - it feels really, really good.
Through restoration sites I have had numerous private communications with various people (intact and circumcised and restoring). The purpose was primarily investigative to determine what people actually felt as orgasms. Probably not scientific enough for some people but good enough for me. There is much variation in for both intact and circumcised guys but overall was quite obvious that intact guys are more likely to have more intense orgasms and more likely to have whole body orgasms.
I know with 100% certainty that circumcision reduces the ability for reaching the full potential of our sexual experiences. The significance of the reduction varies from individual to individual. From my own experience and that of many other similar aged restorers confirms that the reduction of sexual pleasure worsens with age.
As we age there is obviously a lot of factors that affect both circumcised and intact men. But think about it. When faced with decreasing testosterone, clogged blood vessels, hardening arteries, growing prostrate glands etc. we need as much erogenous tissue as possible to help stimulate. Circumcised guys have had the most erogenous part of their penis amputated and the remaining glans is severely compromised due to exposure - not even really mucous membrane since it has lost its mucosal properties. I strongly believe that circumcised men will have greater sexual performance challenges as they age.
If you go to a public gym to workout - ever see the penises of older circumcised men - glans greyish/purplish --- not very healthy looking. I have seen this and also older intact men with skin pulled back - still pink and healthy. I know for damn sure that I am not going to let that happen to me - I will continue my restoration no matter what!
Believe me, circumcision damages the penis. I don't care what is legal, what various religious groups believe in. It is simply WRONG! You may be able to turn a blind eye and say parents have the right to choose and is a matter of personal ethics but I can't. Most parents are not educated on the subject and are not making informed decisions. Most circumcised guys in child bearing years have probably not yet noticed the decline in performance and are not aware that they have already been limited in capacity.
Yes, no doubt, there are other important issues in the world but personally I cringe whenever I hear about a newborn that has been circumcised---- because I know exactly what it means for him and it is so unnecessary.
Men tend to be complacent on male issues. More men die of prostrate cancer then women die of breast cancer. There are very few fund raisers for prostrate cancer but how many do you see for breast cancer.
We don't need complacency on this we need people to speak out against it.
