Where People & Piggies Thrive

Newbie or Guinea Guru? Popcorn in!

Register for free to enjoy the full benefits.
Find out more about the NEW, drastically improved site and forum!

Register

How does this person compare circumcision of infant boys and tail docking in dogs?

sophistacavy

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Posts
868
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
868
I saw this ad on my local craigslist: Wanted: Male, Red Doberman Pinscher Puppy

So, I emailed this person, and told them about the horrors of tail docking and ear cropping, and of all cosmetic surgery on animals in general. I actually just provided her/him with a link to a page on this topic by IDA. So, s/he emailed me back, saying thanks for the info, but s/he doesn't feel that tail docking in dogs is any worse than circumcision (sp?) in infant boys.....can someone figure out how the two correlate?? :confused:

Some people are so weird. Just plain strange....
 

guineapigluver1

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Posts
1,686
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
1,686
They don't. Circumcision is to help prevent problems. Tail docking, ear cropping or anything else like so on dogs does nothing to help them. It's all just for appearance.
 

sophistacavy

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Posts
868
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
868
I know that, and thats what bothers me, but I honestly am not even sure of the complete details of what is involved in a circumcision of an infant boy...I don't even know if we're allowed to say that on here.
 

tehdoc809

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Posts
395
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
395
I am actually going to agree with the man, it is no worse than circumcision in male infants. The only thing is I am against male circumcision unless there is a medical condition linked to it. Therefore I am also against tail docking.. still both are horrible to just do for aesthetic purpose.
 

sophistacavy

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Posts
868
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
868
I am actually going to agree with the man, it is no worse than circumcision in male infants. The only thing is I am against male circumcision unless there is a medical condition linked to it. Therefore I am also against tail docking.. still both are horrible to just do for aesthetic purpose.

Wow. You could never be more far from wrong. Maybe you were misinformed, but tail docking involves amputation of the dog's tail. A circumcision does not involve amputation of any kind. It simply removes the foreskin, which does prevent problems, like guineapigluver1 said. It is done for cleanliness, and to prevent cancer. Tail docking a dog does not prevent cancer, and it does not improve cleanliness. If it were no worse than circumcision, then circumcision would be amputating something (you know what), which would be absolutely ludicrous.
 

tehdoc809

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Posts
395
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
395
I'm very aware of what tail docking is, I am not misinformed, but it seems you have been. Neither cleanliness or cancer prevention comes from circumcision, the American Cancer Society says that themselves. So really, male circumcision should come to personal preference, made by the male when he is old enough, not when he is an infant with no say in the matter. Just like a dog has no say in whether or not he tail is amputated. Both are morally wrong unless there are medical reasons behind them.
 

Paula

Pigaholic Extraordinaire
Cavy Slave
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Posts
6,110
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
6,110
Yeah, there's no comparison. I can see that circumcision in little boys has some health benefit, but chopping the tail off of a dog doesn't do anything but make him/her look a certain way, and it's not acceptable in my book. Unless there's an infection in the tail or ears that can't be remedied any other way than amputation, it shouldn't be done. Simple as that. But, there are always going to be people who think it's ok.
 

PiggieMamaKelly

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Posts
1,631
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
1,631
The idea that there are any health benefits to be gained from circumcision has been de-bunked by medical professionals years ago. An uncircumcised male is not any "less clean" than a circumcised one. All that is required is that the area be kept clean and healthy.

The American Academy of Pediatrics' current position statement on circumcision is that non-therapeutic circumcision is NOT RECOMMENDED. The American Medical Association agrees and has issued similar statements. In fact, non-therapeutic circumcision is not recommended by any national medical association in the world. As has been mentioned, the American Cancer Society has stated that the belief that circumcision prevents cancer is "mistaken".

In most cases, circumcision (like tail docking) is purely cosmetic.
 

FemaleCheetah

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Posts
89
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
89
Circumcision in baby boys is purely cosmetic. There are ZERO health benefits from it. It is strictly a cultural thing or religion based. Either way I completely disagree with it. The foreskin is there for a reason just like dogs have tails and ears for a reason. I would never ever remove any part of an animal or human unless it was medically necessary. People can be so cruel! Stating that they love their child or pet and then do something so cruel as to mutilate them. It is so disgusting!
 

cielo

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Posts
90
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
90
Circumcision in baby boys is purely cosmetic. There are ZERO health benefits from it. It is strictly a cultural thing or religion based. Either way I completely disagree with it. The foreskin is there for a reason just like dogs have tails and ears for a reason. I would never ever remove any part of an animal or human unless it was medically necessary. People can be so cruel! Stating that they love their child or pet and then do something so cruel as to mutilate them. It is so disgusting!

The circumcision is not purelly cosmetic. It has the benefit of cleanness and not future possible infections because they are not taking care properly. Unless you spend 18 yrs remembering your kid to clean it and a lot of years doing it yourself. Good Luck trying to touch your 13 or 14 yrs old kid to check how well he is taking care of that part. Do you know that it can get stuck there and you'll have to pull it out without any anestethia?

Also, it is a torture how they unstick it in babies. I think is is as bad as just cutting the skin out... I saw my baby nephew suffering because of that. It didn't get loose until one day they just pull it completlly out. He even bleed a little, no less than if he got the circumcision. It took 2 people to hold him down and one to pull it, I am talking when he was like 5 mo:eek: ...

As far as tail, and ears surgeries it is only breed related, there is no bennefit added to it. I don't think is a comparable thing. Still I bet those people that do it will gladly undergo a cosmetic surgery...LoL!!!
 

Adorable

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
May 29, 2007
Posts
242
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
242
It took 2 people to hold him down and one to pull it, I am talking when he was like 5 mo:eek: ...

You aren’t supposed to pull it out. Most complications are from misinformed people (including the medical community) NOT leaving it alone to occur naturally. Cleaning is not really an issue either because umm… that part of a boy’s body tends to get plenty of attention in the shower during puberty.

Typically, foreskins and animal parts are just fine left as nature intended.
 

Tarot

Active Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Posts
30
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
30
From nocirc.org

Doctors in the English-speaking countries started circumcising babies in the mid-1800s "to prevent masturbation," which was blamed for causing many diseases, including epilepsy, tuberculosis, and insanity. Other reasons have been given since then, but all of them, including the claim that circumcision prevents cancer of the penis, cancer of the cervix, and venereal diseases, have been disproven. We now know that the foreskin is a normal, sensitive, functional part of the body.
 

FemaleCheetah

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Posts
89
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
89
Well my son is 17 months old and hasn't had anything wrong with his boy parts at all. I NEVER touch it! Except of course to wash him in the bath and during diaper changes. I had a pediatrician tell me to start "pulling" the skin back but I totally disagree with this and never ever do it. A lot of people wind up injuring their kids by messing with the skin, its there for a reason! Do NOT remove it! Especially in infants, it is there to protect from infection and to keep urine and feces out. The foreskin serves a purpose!

and YES IT IS PURELY COSMETIC! There are absolutely ZERO medical reasons to have it done. It is for looks not health and its disgusting that people would even consider doing this to their children.
 

Susan9608

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
3,381
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
3,381
A lot of insurance companies have actually started to refuse coverage for circumcision, based on the fact that it is now considered a cosmetic procedure, rather than a medical one.

So I totally see the point - tail docking/ear clipping in dogs is no worse than circumcision (no better, either). Both are purely cosmetic and very painful to undergo.
 

Deenanicole08

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Posts
500
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
500
Circumcision is cosmedic. I'm not against it though, it doesn't matter to me either way just like infant ear piercing doesnt. But it serves no medical purpose like some others have already said. It also is NOT recommended to pull back the forskin during infancy of uncircumsized boys, it can injur them and cause painful scaring that will last throughout their life. It also does not require any special cleaning attention other than regular showering/bathing.

MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Penis care (uncircumcised)
 

Susan9608

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
3,381
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
3,381
Just a note on this:
it doesn't matter to me either way just like infant ear piercing doesnt

Earrings on infants are a choking hazard, which should be a huge safety concern for anyone contemplating subjecting their infant to this.

Also, circumcision is much more painful and traumatic than ear piercing. It's actually a minor surgical procedure, although one done without anesthesia and minimal pain control afterwards.
 

tehdoc809

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Posts
395
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
395
So I totally see the point - tail docking/ear clipping in dogs is no worse than circumcision (no better, either). Both are purely cosmetic and very painful to undergo.

Thank you!

And to everyone else that is up-to-date on circumcision.
 

LadyMorrgian

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Posts
61
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
61
I am going to put my two cents in and say that I personally feel that the two issues are unrelated.

I am having a baby boy in June and he will will be undergoing a circumcision for more than one reason. I do not think this is the correct place to get into those reasons.

To FemaleCheetah: Regardless of your personal beliefs is it necessary to imply that parents who circumsize condone mutaltion?

Docking a tail is like cutting off a leg, many animals use their tails for ballence, including dogs. Try walking with out a leg.

Removeing forskin, well that serves a purpous in my opinon, as I said I have my reasons.
 

daftscotslass

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
May 25, 2005
Posts
3,091
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
3,091
Docking a tail is like cutting off a leg, many animals use their tails for ballence, including dogs. Try walking with out a leg.

Removeing forskin, well that serves a purpous in my opinon, as I said I have my reasons.

Funnily enough the foreskin has a purpose too, given that several million years of evolution put it there. Personal or religious belief, fine, but it has been repeatedly scientifically and medically proven that there is no benefit to the child to have it removed.

I can absolutely see the parallels between the two.
 

Adorable

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
May 29, 2007
Posts
242
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
242
Now that it’s been established BOTH procedures are for cosmetic reasons, can everyone agree that the reasoning behind either might come from a place of misinformation and not just inhumanity? So, instead of being horrified by one or the other and the comparison, how about getting truly educated and spreading the word on both issues?

Humans and animals deserve the same respect (I think) so cutting off body parts for unnecessary reasons is exactly the same to me.
 

Similar threads

seagirl96
Replies
2
Views
603
seagirl96
seagirl96
frillint
Replies
35
Views
3K
frillint
frillint
pandaloki
Replies
2
Views
753
pandaloki
pandaloki
DocDolittle
Replies
3
Views
7K
Marlania
Marlania
Top