Circumcision is not just a relgious issue or even a preference. Sometimes, like in my case, it is a medical issue.
Now this makes me wonder...
jedi, did you lump me into the camp that thinks circumcision is morally wrong?
I don't think morals really come into it, I'd rather avoid the procedure because foreskin is fun, but I'd change my general stance if my son required it for some reason.
Circumcision is not just a relgious issue or even a preference. Sometimes, like in my case, it is a medical issue.
Now this makes me wonder...
jedi, did you lump me into the camp that thinks circumcision is morally wrong?
I don't think morals really come into it, I'd rather avoid the procedure because foreskin is fun, but I'd change my general stance if my son required it for some reason.
No. If it appeared that way, I'm sorry. I can completely understand your point. I even agree with most of it. That's why I was very specific with very minor clefts like my sons that may have had no actual impact on his life other than looks/self-esteem.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
So the fairly common condition where the glans are 50-300% larger thus increasing your chances of infection, including STDs, and a host of other ailments isn't necessary?
It would be incorrect to claim it is never necessary, but preemptive surgery is not how we usually do things.
People report a loss of sensation? Were these people circumsized during adult life? Doubtful...
Doubtful? You just gave an example of how this could happen. Uncircumcised people end up with phimosis, get a circumcision to treat it, they report worse sexual function.
To me this discussion is as offensive as calling someone who had a medically necessary abortion a murderer.
My parents would have given me a routine circumcision if it weren't for me being born prematurely.
How many kids are going to have to deal with constant infection from a medical issue because their parents thought circumcision was mutilation?
And when the doctor tells them, "you will have to otherwise you're looking at a lifetime of infection and possible loss of function," that kid will have to remember that experience. Whereas if their parents didn't leap to conclusions (of which im convinced religion has made its influence) and think circumcision is mutilation, that boy would never have to remember that INCREDIBLY unpleasant experience.
So the fairly common condition where the glans are 50-300% larger thus increasing your chances of infection, including STDs, and a host of other ailments isn't necessary?
It would be incorrect to claim it is never necessary, but preemptive surgery is not how we usually do things.
People report a loss of sensation? Were these people circumsized during adult life? Doubtful...
Doubtful? You just gave an example of how this could happen. Uncircumcised people end up with phimosis, get a circumcision to treat it, they report worse sexual function.
Sexual function or sensation? Just trying to clarify.
I think it's a given that with less area(skin) to feel something that circumcised people have less sensation than those who are not. I'm no expert on nerves/sensation in the *****, but I can't imagine it's much different in that facet han other parts of the body.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
I gave an example, MYSELF, of how this could happen. Did you ignore the part where I said that this was at a young age. Because this was before puberty, there is no difference in sexual function. Performing the operation before puberty has a profoundly different set of side-effects than after puberty.
So scientific claims that there is a loss of sensation are ignoring some of the facts. The age of the person isn't being taken into account.
For instance, it is completely reasonable to say (and scientifically unprovable either way) that circumcision after puberty causes a loss of sensation. Claims that a child being circumcized has a loss of sensation are scientifically unprovable.
So if you want to say that there is a loss of sensation from circumcision, fine. But make a note, the evidence that supports this is terribly skewed because its based on adults (who could correctly report a lack of sensation), and not children (who could not).
There are many physiological changes that occur during puberty. Saying that because there is nerves that get cut off at an incredibly early stage of life causes a loss of sensation is unfounded, and unprovable.
No. If it appeared that way, I'm sorry. I can completely understand your point. I even agree with most of it. That's why I was very specific with very minor clefts like my sons that may have had no actual impact on his life other than looks/self-esteem.
You know, I think I was kind of beating around the bush while sticking to talking points. Summed up, the ***** and face merit very different forms of consideration.
I generally consider self-esteem a tangible benefit when talking about defects of the face. Minor flaws can easily turn into esteem boosts and unique identity quirks. But it can be tricky to gauge the minor cases to be unimportant or not on a child.
The ***** though, I'd just go for function. I don't think anyone who matters will care what it looks like. Unless you've got a Cthulhu thing going on.
And when the doctor tells them, "you will have to otherwise you're looking at a lifetime of infection and possible loss of function," that kid will have to remember that experience. Whereas if their parents didn't leap to conclusions (of which im convinced religion has made its influence) and think circumcision is mutilation, that boy would never have to remember that INCREDIBLY unpleasant experience.
First of all "a lifetime of infection?" Try not to be so hyperbolic in your posts attacking hyperbole.
Second, and I brought this up earlier, the "they won't remember it" argument? How dare you just flippantly dismiss potential suffering of an infant just because they "won't remember it?"
So the fairly common condition where the glans are 50-300% larger thus increasing your chances of infection, including STDs, and a host of other ailments isn't necessary?
I didn't realize infants needed to worry about STDs and yes it isn't necessary, do you even know what necessary means? I feel like your trying to troll me here.
People report a loss of sensation? Were these people circumsized during adult life? Doubtful...
I think you mean a LACK of sensation. This is where all of the claims of risk seem dubious to me. Either someone has it or they don't. There is no scientific basis for saying that their is a lack of sensation, only that there is a lack of nerve endings. You cannot say without certainty that someone has a loss of sensation. Did this scientific report interview babies to determine if there is a loss of sensation?
No, most adults that get snipped report some loss of sensitivity. The link i provided in the previous post has citations and legit studies that back this up.
But, bottom line it's an unnecessary procedure that should be left up to the person in which the body part belongs too, period. It shouldn't be up to the parent.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
@zaph
" How dare you just flippantly dismiss potential suffering of an infant just because they "won't remember it?" "
How dare I? Seriously, you don't get it.
I REMEMBER. IT SUCKS. VERY BAD.
If you're going to get a circumcision, get it done as an infant. If you wait until its possible to remember, it is a REALLY crappy experience. I'm not dismissing suffering of an infant. Im dismissing the idea of "letting the person make their own decision"
Im saying allowing a person to make that decision isn't providing a choice, its denying them.
When you have passed puberty, complications increase. The risk increases.
So if it comes down to medical necessity, would you rather your child not have to live with that memory, or would you rather have them remember it, AND have possible side-effects that only/mostly occur in late in life circumcision?
For instance, it is completely reasonable to say (and scientifically unprovable either way) that circumcision after puberty causes a loss of sensation. Claims that a child being circumcized has a loss of sensation are scientifically unprovable.
So if you want to say that there is a loss of sensation from circumcision, fine. But make a note, the evidence that supports this is terribly skewed because its based on adults (who could correctly report a lack of sensation), and not children (who could not).
I was under the impression zaph was discussing adult function. Which can be proved one way or another, regardless of the time of circumcision.
Now, I haven't read the link someone supplied earlier about loss of function but the basis for the experiment would just need to be something like this.
Get circumcised and uncircumcised guys. Poke their penises with things and gauge reactions. You can gauge them both by their description as well as with neural sensors.
Test enough guys and you'll put together a general trend for what sensation each group feels, both from a neural chart and subject's perception point of view.
Yes, a lifetime of infection. Its not hyperbole, its fact. Funny that you think my personal experience is hyperbole, but whatever.
@commons
You really don't seem to understand the difference between pre-puberty circumcision and post-puberty circumcision.
Okay fine, adults who get circumcised report a loss of sensation. What about children?
Can children report a loss of sensation? No. They can't. The word loss implies that it was once there, and is no longer there. This post is about a child getting circumcized. Any data that says a child can have a LOSS of sensation is being dishonest.
They may have a lack of sensation (btw, i don't), but there is a difference. Saying that they are the same is also dishonest.
There is no control to your study. You could only say with certainty that they feel sensation, not to the levels of which they feel it. The only way to know for sure is a subject having the experience of both situations. Which is only possible with post-puberty circumcision.
Can children report a loss of sensation? No. They can't. The word loss implies that it was once there, and is no longer there. This post is about a child getting circumcized. Any data that says a child can have a LOSS of sensation is being dishonest.
Are you saying children don't have nerves in the penises? Or are you saying something else? The former is false, the latter could be a communication misunderstanding.
There is no control to your study. You could only say with certainty that they feel sensation, not to the levels of which they feel it. The only way to know for sure is a subject having the experience of both situations. Which is only possible with post-puberty circumcision.
Uncircumcised men are unaltered, forming the control group for circumcised men.
Then an upwards or downwards trend in sensation and neural response would be the the change from control.
And we have the tools to measure the level of neural response from stimuli.
No. If it appeared that way, I'm sorry. I can completely understand your point. I even agree with most of it. That's why I was very specific with very minor clefts like my sons that may have had no actual impact on his life other than looks/self-esteem.
You know, I think I was kind of beating around the bush while sticking to talking points. Summed up, the ***** and face merit very different forms of consideration.
I generally consider self-esteem a tangible benefit when talking about defects of the face. Minor flaws can easily turn into esteem boosts and unique identity quirks. But it can be tricky to gauge the minor cases to be unimportant or not on a child.
The ***** though, I'd just go for function. I don't think anyone who matters will care what it looks like. Unless you've got a Cthulhu thing going on.
That's my point though. We'll "understand" altering the face so they aren't made fun of but if we do the same alteration on the *****, it's "mutilation" to some. Not necessarily you.
I guess my point is simply that circumcision isn't mutilation anymore than a face lift is. I can't say if it's wrong or right. Like I said before I did it to two kids but wouldn't even attempt it on a third unless my wife really wanted it or it was medically necessary. I'm actually neutral on the subject but am against the "mutilation, torture and brutality" argument, which I don't believe you personally ever made.
Edit: for everyone saying let the kid decide: let me worry about my kids, thanks. You worry about yours. Otherwise you can call my six-year old for reimbursement when him and his buddies think its funny to throw rocks at your windows. It's a legal procedure, that parents can opt for muh like an amniocentesis. It isn't mutilation and it isn't brutality. You just don't like it. Fine. No need to demonise those who do.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
Since I see now reason to do it, religious or otherwise, I would not do it. I might even oppose it, or refuse to have children with a woman who wanted to do it. Not sure about the last one, but I really don't see the point at the moment.
My question is why? There is no evidence that in first world countries circumcision makes any difference in health. This is an old practice followed by the jews, and it shows why religion was important in our past. Just the same as not eating pork because they didn't understand why it made people sick.
Logic > Everything else.
So hell no. I was not, and neither was my father before me. As a parent you need to be responsible and teach your son proper cleaning of his areas just like you would a daughter. Doing anything else is kust the easy way out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
How many kids are going to have to deal with constant infection from a medical issue because their parents thought circumcision was mutilation?
I don't know, how many?
I'm not trying to be flippant here as obviously your experiences have left their mark on you, but I would like to know just how prevalent these issues are amongst uncircumcised boys. I'd honestly never heard of circumcisions performed out of medical necessity and I hadn't considered it as a factor in this discussion.
Also, what precisely is the medical issue at play here? Is circumcision the only option to deal with it?
If anyone is being judgemental its you. Do you think raging in this thread is making your argument convincing? Do you think I'm going to drive my kids to the hospital after reading your rantings? Hell no. You may have had a crappy experience with your foreskin, but honestly I really don't care. Tough luck for you.
For the one "you" posting in this thread, there are "many" others who's health hasn't been an issue. Its clear you're a circumcisian fanatic as you have taken from your experience a philosophy of "cut, no matter what". Others could go through a similar bad experience and say 'wow, circumcisian is painful, I'm not doing that to my kids" or "I got unlucky I was born 2 months early with a thick foreskin" or "gee I wish my parents circumsized me at 2 months old"
My boys were born full term with normal foreskins, I'll take my chances thanks.
I was not being judgemental. If I was raging, (caps does not mean raging), it was because someone was trying to guilt me ("how dare you?").
You don't know of any examples of enlarged glans, have you ever considered that this is a pretty private issue that most people dont like to talk about. My wife, who I told about this discussion last night, had no idea that I ever had the issue. Yes, circumcision is the only way to deal with it. Some cases (where the glans are on the 50% increase side) may be dealt with vigorous cleaning, but others (where the glans are considerably larger) your option is circumcision or a lifetime of infection/worse.
Saying there is no medical necessity is ignoring medical experts.
I don't expect someone to change their behavior because of my experience. I just want them to understand that calling it mutilation is BS. I should hope you don't drive your kids to the hospital and get them circumcised. You clearly have no read what I said. Because you've already passed the point where they won't remember. If you were to do so for a reason that was not medical, THAT would be torture.
@redwood
You call my example hyperbole, yet you have no idea of the statistics on this issue. Also, a baby cannot communicate a loss of sensation. That doesn't mean that they have no nerve endings.
So the fairly common condition where the glans are 50-300% larger thus increasing your chances of infection, including STDs, and a host of other ailments isn't necessary?
It would be incorrect to claim it is never necessary, but preemptive surgery is not how we usually do things.
Why is that not usually how we do things? I would assume that it's because surgery is typically extremely expensive and has risks. If however there were cheap low risk ways to perform some surgeries would people not have their infants do it? I'll go back to my tonsillitis hypothetical. If having tonsils removed became a quick $200 procedure that could easily be performed on infants would parents have it done so they dont have to worry about the risks of tonsillitis later? How about having an appendix removed? Would these preventative surgeries be barbaric?
Another question for the "the child should be able to make that decision" crowd: If a child is born with an extra finger would it be barbaric to have it removed when they are infants? Or should those parents wait until the child is 5 and starts asking why they have more fingers than everyone else and they are getting teased in school?
My parents wanted me to be circumsized, but I was born almost two months early, so the doctors could not do the procedure.
When I was four the doctors discovered that I had a fairly common condition where the foreskin was thicker than it is supposed to be. If left untreated I would have lost all sensation. There was also the probability that I would have a constant battle with infection.
This condition can be treated without cutting off the foreskin. The foreskin can be loosened (which from what I've read is something that should happen anyway with proper cleaning). Unless there was something particular to your foreskin that prevented this from being a possible treatment then you didn't need the proceedure at all.
Note: I'm not an expert in the field loosening foreskin. I could be wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I'll go back to my tonsillitis hypothetical. If having tonsils removed became a quick $200 procedure that could easily be performed on infants would parents have it done so they dont have to worry about the risks of tonsillitis later? How about having an appendix removed? Would these preventative surgeries be barbaric?
Barbaric acts can justifiably be performed for medical reasons. Take amputating a limb - not often questioned when it's deemed a medical necessity, but barbaric outside that context.
Another question for the "the child should be able to make that decision" crowd: If a child is born with an extra finger would it be barbaric to have it removed when they are infants? Or should those parents wait until the child is 5 and starts asking why they have more fingers than everyone else and they are getting teased in school?
Again, these aren't equivalent situations. Visible deformities can cause not insignificant psychological issues (which you allude to when you refer to teasing, but it can go deeper than that), addressing the deformity with surgery alleviates that. Having a foreskin is not a visible deformity and in all likelihood will result in no psychological affects at all.
jedi, did you lump me into the camp that thinks circumcision is morally wrong?
I don't think morals really come into it, I'd rather avoid the procedure because foreskin is fun, but I'd change my general stance if my son required it for some reason.
Moderator Help Desk
Sales Thread
No. If it appeared that way, I'm sorry. I can completely understand your point. I even agree with most of it. That's why I was very specific with very minor clefts like my sons that may have had no actual impact on his life other than looks/self-esteem.
My parents would have given me a routine circumcision if it weren't for me being born prematurely.
How many kids are going to have to deal with constant infection from a medical issue because their parents thought circumcision was mutilation?
And when the doctor tells them, "you will have to otherwise you're looking at a lifetime of infection and possible loss of function," that kid will have to remember that experience. Whereas if their parents didn't leap to conclusions (of which im convinced religion has made its influence) and think circumcision is mutilation, that boy would never have to remember that INCREDIBLY unpleasant experience.
Sexual function or sensation? Just trying to clarify.
I think it's a given that with less area(skin) to feel something that circumcised people have less sensation than those who are not. I'm no expert on nerves/sensation in the *****, but I can't imagine it's much different in that facet han other parts of the body.
I gave an example, MYSELF, of how this could happen. Did you ignore the part where I said that this was at a young age. Because this was before puberty, there is no difference in sexual function. Performing the operation before puberty has a profoundly different set of side-effects than after puberty.
So scientific claims that there is a loss of sensation are ignoring some of the facts. The age of the person isn't being taken into account.
For instance, it is completely reasonable to say (and scientifically unprovable either way) that circumcision after puberty causes a loss of sensation. Claims that a child being circumcized has a loss of sensation are scientifically unprovable.
So if you want to say that there is a loss of sensation from circumcision, fine. But make a note, the evidence that supports this is terribly skewed because its based on adults (who could correctly report a lack of sensation), and not children (who could not).
I generally consider self-esteem a tangible benefit when talking about defects of the face. Minor flaws can easily turn into esteem boosts and unique identity quirks. But it can be tricky to gauge the minor cases to be unimportant or not on a child.
The ***** though, I'd just go for function. I don't think anyone who matters will care what it looks like. Unless you've got a Cthulhu thing going on.
Moderator Help Desk
Sales Thread
Second, and I brought this up earlier, the "they won't remember it" argument? How dare you just flippantly dismiss potential suffering of an infant just because they "won't remember it?"
I didn't realize infants needed to worry about STDs and yes it isn't necessary, do you even know what necessary means? I feel like your trying to troll me here.
No, most adults that get snipped report some loss of sensitivity. The link i provided in the previous post has citations and legit studies that back this up.
But, bottom line it's an unnecessary procedure that should be left up to the person in which the body part belongs too, period. It shouldn't be up to the parent.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
" How dare you just flippantly dismiss potential suffering of an infant just because they "won't remember it?" "
How dare I? Seriously, you don't get it.
I REMEMBER. IT SUCKS. VERY BAD.
If you're going to get a circumcision, get it done as an infant. If you wait until its possible to remember, it is a REALLY crappy experience. I'm not dismissing suffering of an infant. Im dismissing the idea of "letting the person make their own decision"
Im saying allowing a person to make that decision isn't providing a choice, its denying them.
When you have passed puberty, complications increase. The risk increases.
So if it comes down to medical necessity, would you rather your child not have to live with that memory, or would you rather have them remember it, AND have possible side-effects that only/mostly occur in late in life circumcision?
Now, I haven't read the link someone supplied earlier about loss of function but the basis for the experiment would just need to be something like this.
Get circumcised and uncircumcised guys. Poke their penises with things and gauge reactions. You can gauge them both by their description as well as with neural sensors.
Test enough guys and you'll put together a general trend for what sensation each group feels, both from a neural chart and subject's perception point of view.
Moderator Help Desk
Sales Thread
@commons
You really don't seem to understand the difference between pre-puberty circumcision and post-puberty circumcision.
Okay fine, adults who get circumcised report a loss of sensation. What about children?
Can children report a loss of sensation? No. They can't. The word loss implies that it was once there, and is no longer there. This post is about a child getting circumcized. Any data that says a child can have a LOSS of sensation is being dishonest.
They may have a lack of sensation (btw, i don't), but there is a difference. Saying that they are the same is also dishonest.
There is no control to your study. You could only say with certainty that they feel sensation, not to the levels of which they feel it. The only way to know for sure is a subject having the experience of both situations. Which is only possible with post-puberty circumcision.
Are you saying children don't have nerves in the penises? Or are you saying something else? The former is false, the latter could be a communication misunderstanding. Uncircumcised men are unaltered, forming the control group for circumcised men.
Then an upwards or downwards trend in sensation and neural response would be the the change from control.
And we have the tools to measure the level of neural response from stimuli.
Moderator Help Desk
Sales Thread
That's my point though. We'll "understand" altering the face so they aren't made fun of but if we do the same alteration on the *****, it's "mutilation" to some. Not necessarily you.
I guess my point is simply that circumcision isn't mutilation anymore than a face lift is. I can't say if it's wrong or right. Like I said before I did it to two kids but wouldn't even attempt it on a third unless my wife really wanted it or it was medically necessary. I'm actually neutral on the subject but am against the "mutilation, torture and brutality" argument, which I don't believe you personally ever made.
Edit: for everyone saying let the kid decide: let me worry about my kids, thanks. You worry about yours. Otherwise you can call my six-year old for reimbursement when him and his buddies think its funny to throw rocks at your windows. It's a legal procedure, that parents can opt for muh like an amniocentesis. It isn't mutilation and it isn't brutality. You just don't like it. Fine. No need to demonise those who do.
And I agree completely that circumcision is not mutilation.
Moderator Help Desk
Sales Thread
Logic > Everything else.
So hell no. I was not, and neither was my father before me. As a parent you need to be responsible and teach your son proper cleaning of his areas just like you would a daughter. Doing anything else is kust the easy way out.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
I don't know, how many?
I'm not trying to be flippant here as obviously your experiences have left their mark on you, but I would like to know just how prevalent these issues are amongst uncircumcised boys. I'd honestly never heard of circumcisions performed out of medical necessity and I hadn't considered it as a factor in this discussion.
Also, what precisely is the medical issue at play here? Is circumcision the only option to deal with it?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
If anyone is being judgemental its you. Do you think raging in this thread is making your argument convincing? Do you think I'm going to drive my kids to the hospital after reading your rantings? Hell no. You may have had a crappy experience with your foreskin, but honestly I really don't care. Tough luck for you.
For the one "you" posting in this thread, there are "many" others who's health hasn't been an issue. Its clear you're a circumcisian fanatic as you have taken from your experience a philosophy of "cut, no matter what". Others could go through a similar bad experience and say 'wow, circumcisian is painful, I'm not doing that to my kids" or "I got unlucky I was born 2 months early with a thick foreskin" or "gee I wish my parents circumsized me at 2 months old"
My boys were born full term with normal foreskins, I'll take my chances thanks.
You don't know of any examples of enlarged glans, have you ever considered that this is a pretty private issue that most people dont like to talk about. My wife, who I told about this discussion last night, had no idea that I ever had the issue. Yes, circumcision is the only way to deal with it. Some cases (where the glans are on the 50% increase side) may be dealt with vigorous cleaning, but others (where the glans are considerably larger) your option is circumcision or a lifetime of infection/worse.
Saying there is no medical necessity is ignoring medical experts.
I don't expect someone to change their behavior because of my experience. I just want them to understand that calling it mutilation is BS. I should hope you don't drive your kids to the hospital and get them circumcised. You clearly have no read what I said. Because you've already passed the point where they won't remember. If you were to do so for a reason that was not medical, THAT would be torture.
@redwood
You call my example hyperbole, yet you have no idea of the statistics on this issue. Also, a baby cannot communicate a loss of sensation. That doesn't mean that they have no nerve endings.
Why is that not usually how we do things? I would assume that it's because surgery is typically extremely expensive and has risks. If however there were cheap low risk ways to perform some surgeries would people not have their infants do it? I'll go back to my tonsillitis hypothetical. If having tonsils removed became a quick $200 procedure that could easily be performed on infants would parents have it done so they dont have to worry about the risks of tonsillitis later? How about having an appendix removed? Would these preventative surgeries be barbaric?
Another question for the "the child should be able to make that decision" crowd: If a child is born with an extra finger would it be barbaric to have it removed when they are infants? Or should those parents wait until the child is 5 and starts asking why they have more fingers than everyone else and they are getting teased in school?
This condition can be treated without cutting off the foreskin. The foreskin can be loosened (which from what I've read is something that should happen anyway with proper cleaning). Unless there was something particular to your foreskin that prevented this from being a possible treatment then you didn't need the proceedure at all.
Note: I'm not an expert in the field loosening foreskin. I could be wrong.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Barbaric acts can justifiably be performed for medical reasons. Take amputating a limb - not often questioned when it's deemed a medical necessity, but barbaric outside that context.
Again, these aren't equivalent situations. Visible deformities can cause not insignificant psychological issues (which you allude to when you refer to teasing, but it can go deeper than that), addressing the deformity with surgery alleviates that. Having a foreskin is not a visible deformity and in all likelihood will result in no psychological affects at all.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains