And that's what being a parent is.
Let's cut bits off of babies, yes?
- Thread starter Deranged Nasat
- Start date
And that's what being a parent is.
I'm well aware of what female circumcision is. It was quite an issue when I worked in Maternity, since we had a large immigrant population. One of our doctors, in fact, was an expert in the repair of female circumcisions. The large majority of women offered the repair declined it. They didn't want to look different from the other women in their peer group and they felt that circumcised genitalia were "cleaner." It's amazing the lengths that people will go to to rationalize conformity.
There's no problem with outlawing religious practices that injure or disfigure children too young to give consent.
Now that doesn't sound accurate at all.
Then you should already be aware that comparing female genital mutilation and male circumcision is not an appropriate comparison as they are not physically equivalent.
Male circumcision has no long term effects on a male's sexuality. It has no long term effects on a male's quality of life. If the concern is pain for the infant, local anesthesia can be mandated. But calling circumcision either an injury or a disfigurement is disingenuous... the only real long term effect is cosmetic and I'm not aware of any social disadvantage that would come in to play as a result.
If you can show a study or data indicating that there are harmful effects as a result of male circumcision, then I would be more then interested in seeing it... but without proof showing harm, there is not sufficient justification to infringe on the right of people to practice their religion and do what they think is best for their child.
I think cutting off part of a baby's body is rather immoral and just because the baby doesn't remember it is no excuse. That said, I don't get overly worked up about it but if I had a kid (blaergh!) I wouldn't have the fellow circumcised.
It doesn't need to be physically equivalent. It's cutting off a piece of a baby's body.
No, calling the surgical removal of a naturally occurring body part injury and disfigurement is the correct usage of the English language.
Oddly enough, when it comes to surgery, I'm one of those people who thinks there should be documentation of medical necessity, not just lack of documentation of negative outcomes.
Getting a needle poked into your penis doesn't sound very enjoyable either.
^ It is probably not what I would call objective, so I will trust the word of my doctor and parents over a third party, thank you very much.
PREFACE: I don't know you parents and am not saying anything bad at all about these people I don't know.....
Bad, stupid, misguided, even evil people can have children.
"My parents said...." adds ZERO to any medical justification.
And this doctor, who is likely American, Christian and circumsized....
He's certanily objective!!!??!! And wise? But this other site must be biased?
And this doctor is certainly correct?
*snip* (snipped because probably wasn't too nice).
BTW, "*snip*".... no pun intended
Last edited:
No, they're very different. Female Genital Mutilation is designed to pretty much destroy the female's genitals as much as possible as it includes removing the labial folds and the clitoris. It's designed to make sex as experience-less as possible for the female.
Male Circumcision removes a singular piece of skin as either a religious rite or because it's felt that it offers health benefits (and also, to a degree, as a means of gratification control.)
They're very different things with very different purposes behind them. Removing a single flap of skin cannot be compared to the complete and total removal of pretty much every piece of the genitals as possible. After male circumcision the child is left with his equipment still functional and he's still able to experience the pleasures of sex.
Female Genital Mutilation is designed to remove any sexual pleasure whatsoever for the female leaving her genitals as nothing more than a moist slot.
The closest thing for females to male circumcision is the removal of the clitoral hood which pretty much has the same effects as male circumcision but it presents some health drawbacks (it makes it easier to get infections) but some have it done electively as if the hood is too large it can make sex uncomfortable.
Comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation is like comparing getting a finger nail trimmed to cutting off the entire finger.
They aren't the same thing in the slightest and comparing the two to one another is just pure hyperbole.
There's also another issue. To many men, their own penis is a large percentage of their identity. Men who have been circumsized will defend the practice strongly, otherwise, they would be left with thinking there is something wrong with their penis, which will destroy many a fragile male ego.
There cannot be something wrong with my penis, therefore it is good. Must defend the penis to the last!
There cannot be something wrong with my penis, therefore it is good. Must defend the penis to the last!
Circumcision is so wrong on so many levels. One of the many remnants of our barbaric past. I mean what the fuck is wrong with those people? If it didn't belong there it wouldn't be there.
I'm wondering what thinking process went into the creation of this silly tradition. "Hm... what part could we cut off, we definately need to cut something off to show our faith... a finger? Nah, need the finger... an ear? Nah, need to hear well. A piece of the nose? And eye lid? Hey, what about the foreskin, who the hell needs foreskin?"
I'm wondering what thinking process went into the creation of this silly tradition. "Hm... what part could we cut off, we definately need to cut something off to show our faith... a finger? Nah, need the finger... an ear? Nah, need to hear well. A piece of the nose? And eye lid? Hey, what about the foreskin, who the hell needs foreskin?"
That is a great question. Where did the practice come from? I know it was propagated by religion, but someone had to come up with the idea.
Considering my son SLEPT thru his, I see no point to this entire thread.
So your son's experience, assuming its true (and I'm suspect, but have no reason to disbelieve), invalidates all discussion about a possibly questionable medical practice?
If this thread shows anything it's that it's defnitely questionable and not medical.
The term "disfigurement" implicitly means harm, even if the harm is only cosmetic. There are no social consequences in western society for male circumcision, so therefore it is no more "disfigurement" then getting ears pierced, a nose job, etc. So therefore, no, it is most definitely not the correct usage of the word by any valid definition I am aware of.
Oddly enough, when it comes to surgery, I'm one of those people who thinks there should be documentation of medical necessity, not just lack of documentation of negative outcomes.
No, that's not what's going on here. You're advocating the banning of a religious practice and so you need a heck of a better reason then cosmetics. If this or any other religious practice does not do any harm then you have no business infringing on the right of people to practice their own religion. You might as well be trying to ban baptisms.
If you could prove harm, it would be a different story, but no study has ever conclusively shown any real, long term harm from male circumcision. And until you can do that...
Roger Wilco said:
There is this fancy new invention I heard of recently. It lets people administer a drug by applying it directly to the skin which then diffuses into the body. I believe it is called a "cream".
Switch
Captain
I would very much like an explanation for this, people - especially if you're American or Jewish.
Most circumcised males are neither American nor Jewish, but Muslim.
That'd be like criticising China for the death penalty. Doesn't work if one practices it oneself.
Forgetting every other reason out there for a second, that bit they cut off has feeling. I'm glad I can still enjoy it.
I hear that. I can reach orgasm courtesy of foreskin-glans action alone if I feel like it.
Before Islam and Judaism it was - and still is - a male initiation rite practiced by various tribal groups and ethnicities. Tolerance to pain, male bonding, de-feminisation: the usual stuff.
It isn't. The medical justification originates from Victorian-era England, hence the much greater prevalence of circumcision amongst the English-speaking western world than, say, mainland Europe. Even today, circumcision is far less common in Quebec than the rest of Canada.
The UK itself effectively abolished the practice in large part simply by delisting it from the NHS, presumably shortly after doing the same for leech therapy.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
Those were some very well written arguments.
The term "disfigurement" implicitly means harm, even if the harm is only cosmetic. There are no social consequences in western society for male circumcision, so therefore it is no more "disfigurement" then getting ears pierced, a nose job, etc. So therefore, no, it is most definitely not the correct usage of the word by any valid definition I am aware of.
Oddly enough, when it comes to surgery, I'm one of those people who thinks there should be documentation of medical necessity, not just lack of documentation of negative outcomes.
No, that's not what's going on here. You're advocating the banning of a religious practice and so you need a heck of a better reason then cosmetics. If this or any other religious practice does not do any harm then you have no business infringing on the right of people to practice their own religion. You might as well be trying to ban baptisms.
If you could prove harm, it would be a different story, but no study has ever conclusively shown any real, long term harm from male circumcision. And until you can do that...
Roger Wilco said:
There is this fancy new invention I heard of recently. It lets people administer a drug by applying it directly to the skin which then diffuses into the body. I believe it is called a "cream".
That may have sounded sarcastic but it wasn't. Well done!
If analgesic creams are so good they can be used on males capable of giving consent.
No-one has given me a reason why, except for religious ground, non-therapeutic circumcisions cannot be postponed until males are older and able to give consent.
No-one has given me a reason why, except for religious ground, non-therapeutic circumcisions cannot be postponed until males are older and able to give consent.
Which would explain why they are always so aggressive.
