13 year old forced to have circumcision

---

In reply to: This looks like one of those situations where someone who has moved from one culture to the other is so insistent on keeping the old culture that he goes further than people are now doing in his old homeland. It often happens that old customs are continued by expatriates that have died out in the homeland, and with more strictness than they ever had there.Circumcision is indeed part of the Muslim religion, but no anaesthesia is not necessarily part of it, nor need it be "high and tight". Assuming this boy was in the West, he could have refused the procedure - indeed the urologist could still be sued if he failed to give consent. However, the result would have been estrangement from his father and (probably) his religion. The family is of the Muslim culture but does not practice the Muslim faith and the son has never received any religious instruction in any faith. This happened in the USA. He now hates his father and refused to allow him to witness the circumcision. The family finally did permit the use of pain killers. The link I have to where he posted this story, and about five pages of posts, is to another site. May I post the link?

In reply to: I will be 14 in March. family is of Muslim faith and our faith requires circumcision. really? not of muslim faith...well maybe the cut and paste messed something up.

In reply to: In reply to: I will be 14 in March. family is of Muslim faith and our faith requires circumcision.really? not of muslim faith...well maybe the cut and paste messed something up. My cut and paste works fine. I said they do not practice the faith. Here is another cut and paste from the information on the other site: In reply to: My family's faith by nature is Muslim, However I dont see in any of our days or years that we have ever really practiced any of the relegion. So in many ways this is a bafflement to me. In this culture that I know nothing about males are to be circumcised before they enter puberty.

i have to agree with no1 on this one. A male circumcision is relatively better in the shape that the male still retains feeling is his gland. where as they remove the clitoris itself in some cases. They even give it a different name for f**ks sake. FGM, female genital mutalation, as opposed to female circumcision.

I see no problem if you want to post the link, Nazgul.

So, even though circumcision in the case of the 13-year-old is not as bad as a clitoridectomy (excision of the clitoris), the boy didn't want it. How about if the parents just broke his leg instead? Maybe that would be a sufficient covenant with God.Forcing a 13-year-old to have a circumcision (i.e., unwanted, unnecessary surgery) is abusive any way you look at it. But when religion comes into play, logic flies out the window.

it's not just a covenant with God, it's a passage from childhood to manhood. You can not despise something from another culture purely based on what you think is right or wrong.

In reply to:You can not despise something from another culture purely based on what you think is right or wrong.Then I can't despise female genital mutilation, or lynching, since at different times and places, they are culturally accepted? Are there no absolute bounds to behavior, because everything is relative? If circumcision is a part of my culture, am I allowed to have a problem with it? Are you totally cool with Sharia law?There are a lot of traditions that are just plain stupid. Performing an unneeded surgery (with its inherent risks) when there's no medical indication for it is one of those. The fact that there's evidence that it has an adverse effect on sensation makes it that much worse.(For what it's worth, I was circumcised in a traditional ritual. I was unable to defend myself as an infant.)

In reply to: I see no problem if you want to post the link, Nazgul. Thanks. I wasn't sure if you welcomed off site links. 13 year old forced to undergo circumcision 13 Year old forced to undergo circumcision - another thread from different site

Lynching? lol are you just throwing out what ever you feel like? Taking a life based on color, is a lot different than take foreskin.

off site links are fine as long as they perform to a "medical nature", they give "required information" to a question or topic.

In reply to:Lynching? lol are you just throwing out what ever you feel like? Taking a life based on color, is a lot different than take foreskin.Slapping me silly is a lot different than shooting me in the head, but they're both bad. Many people think circumcision, especially if forced, is a problem. It's not as bad as a clitoridectomy, but it's still bad.I'm trying to make the point that just because something is traditional, it doesn't mean it's acceptable by modern civilized standards.If you thought I was saying that circumcision is morally equivalent to lynching, then you missed the point.

Clitoridotomy is no worse than male circumcision. All the different kinds of female circumcision have been grouped together when in actuality, they are very different. A Type I female circumcision, known as clitoridotomy, is the removal of the clitoral hood. The clitoral hood is homologous with the male foreskin. It covers the clitoris in the same way that the foreskin covers the glans. I agree that the other types of female circumcision are mutiliations (stitching up the vagina, excising the clitoris etc.). But clitoridotomy is no worse than male circumcision.

ok i see your point(s) but what's so unacceptable about male circumcision? other than the fact that YOU think it's unnecessary? Forget about the fact that this specific boy did not want it done. To Nazgul, has this specific boy suffered ANY more after all has healed, and time has elapsed?

In reply to:Forget about the fact that this specific boy did not want it done.That is the key issue in the 13-year-olds's case.But there is also the risk of surgical complications (from a medically unnecessary procedure, no less). And there is good evidence that circumcision diminishes sensitivity.It would certainly be difficult to make the case that it increases sensitivity.

You're nitpicking a bit here. I was going by the everyday-dictionary definition of clitoridotomy. I made it clear that I was discussing the surgical excision of the clitoris. And as far as I know, the medical definition matches the dictionary definition. What is your source of information?Anyway, you've succeeded in completly missing the point.

i'm just gonna ask one more question, then i'm going to stop with this...there are risks of complications in all surgeries...you know this, i know you know this. Do you advise people to stop all types of unnecessary procedures simply because of the fact that "complications" may occur? to name a few, getting tonsils removed, a woman having her "tubes tied", a person having their adnoids taken out...all because of the chance of complication? I'm willing to bet that the parents, more specifically the father, went through the same thing...of course he did. Why would a parent who, according to Nazgul, doesn't really practice the muslim faith, knows the amount of sensitivity loss that is inherent in such a procedure - still have his son go through it? Or perhaps there is a reason it is done before puberty? Maybe the amount of sensitivity that is lost, is not as much as people think it may be? ok, i'm finished.

In reply to:Do you advise people to stop all types of unnecessary procedures simply because of the fact that "complications" may occur?Unnecessary surgery should not be perfomed without the receiver giving their informed consent. Would it be ethical for a girl's parents to force their daughter to have a boob job?If someone wants a circumcision, they should be free to get it, as long as it's with their informed consent. Same with other forms of plastic surgery.And who gets an unnecessary tonsilectomy these days?In reply to:Maybe the amount of sensitivity that is lost, is not as much as people think it may be?How do you know? And why risk it? As I said, it certainly can't be shown to increase sensitivity.Do you really think you've made a good case for why the 13-year-old should have been forced into a circumcision?

I don't know...that's why i posed it as a question. How can you be so sure yourself, as you are so firmly against it. You said you yourself had it done when you were an infant. Should you yourself have a thread dedicated to you because you sure didn't give consent. Besides, if you read the messages on these boards, the sensitivity question gets mixed reviews. How can you pass, "you lose so much sentivity" as fact when there are those who clearly dissprove it?

In reply to:How can you be so sure yourself, as you are so firmly against it.I'm not sure. That's the point! As you said, it gets mixed reviews from the people who post here, who are not research scientists. Have you actually read about the subject beyond what's posted here? There is strong evidence that the glans loses sensitivity when the foreskin is removed, and that the foreskin itself is sensitive. Do I need to do your research for you and cite articles and papers? Or do we just flush the science, because the bible is all we need?So, even if there's debate, why take a chance with the unnecessary procedure that circumcision is? Are you a gambler?If you're a fundamentalist, anything I say about evolution might be pointless, but I'll try. There's a good chance that the foreskin serves some purpose if it evolved to be there. Or do you think God is playing a game (I'll put it there, you cut it off.)?