Male Genitalia Mutilation

[icomeanon6]

Also, if you remove part of the body simply b/c it may prevent a disease later on in life. Who's to say I can not give my daughter a mastectomy, breast tissue removal surgery, in order to prevent breast cancer from ever developing! I don't think parents have a right to do anything unless there is a present health issue like appendicitis.

Yeah, because breasts are totally comparable to the foreskin in terms of importance and impact of removal. Pardon me for saying so, but I think the comparison is laughable.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of contradictory and inconclusive studies on the matter, but the one thing everyone agrees on is that the impacts either way are pretty darn minor. Rule number one when dealing with government involvement in cultural and religious matters is that bans on practices that are significant in various cultures and religions should only be used when there is a pressing moral or medical need to ban them. In these sorts of matters, I wouldn't trust any government that doesn't place the burden of proof on those who are proposing the ban. Yes, circumcision is icky and makes people uncomfortable, but it's of far too little significance outside of cultural matters to warrant government interference.

 

[-ty-]

Yeah, because breasts are totally comparable to the foreskin in terms of importance and impact of removal. Pardon me for saying so, but I think the comparison is laughable.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of contradictory and inconclusive studies on the matter, but the one thing everyone agrees on is that the impacts either way are pretty darn minor. Rule number one when dealing with government involvement in cultural and religious matters is that bans on practices that are significant in various cultures and religions should only be used when there is a pressing moral or medical need to ban them. In these sorts of matters, I wouldn't trust any government that doesn't place the burden of proof on those who are proposing the ban. Yes, circumcision is icky and makes people uncomfortable, but it's of far too little significance outside of cultural matters to warrant government interference.

The comparison used is not laughable. The logic of removing a piece of anatomy is laughable though, especially if there is contradictory evidence that deems it to be unnecessary.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The comparison used is not laughable. The logic of removing a piece of anatomy is laughable though, especially if there is contradictory evidence that deems it to be unnecessary.

Is the procedure grossly harmful to the child? No.
Whether it is necessary or not, what I choose to do with my child is nobody else's business.

 

[icomeanon6]

The comparison used is not laughable. The logic of removing a piece of anatomy is laughable though, especially if there is contradictory evidence that deems it to be unnecessary.

Now this is the kind of talk that really gets on my nerves: the notion that the burden of proof is on the people who are doing something, not on the people making the rules. Part of the foundation of responsible government, and an integral element of the right to privacy I might add, is that an action is legal until there is sufficient reason to make it illegal. The question is not whether the procedure is necessary. As long as it is not seriously harmful, it should be allowed.

 

[Myles]

Quite frankly, there are much better things we can be doing to prevent STDs that make whether one has foreskin irrelevant.

This and this are irrelevant? Even if we have the correct technology to make it irrelevant, if that technology isn't being properly used, then that technology is the thing that's irrelevant. :P

To tell you the truth, my boyfriend doesn't complain about not experiencing pleasure in the sack. Circumcised men's glands in that region adapt.

Not too get to explicit on this forum, I'll just say that that's erroneous and anecdotal evidence isn't a good idea.

 

[Mr. X]

To tell you the truth, my boyfriend doesn't complain about not experiencing pleasure in the sack.

Double negative much?

That said, not the best thing to say on a forum decicated to a show and game series that attract numerous amounts of young children. Nvm, kinda pointless.

 

[Oryx]

Double negative much?

That said, not the best thing to say on a forum decicated to a show and game series that attract numerous amounts of young children. Nvm, kinda pointless.

What she was saying is that her boyfriend doesn't say "it's not as good because I was circumcised", tbh her statement makes sense. I don't think that's a double negative, those are two separate parts. Try separating it out or switching it around ("X is what he doesn't complain about") if you're having trouble understanding. :3

But have to agree with Myles there, anecdotal evidence proves nothing and says nothing. Your boyfriend most likely has never felt the difference, so it's not like he even has an unbiased view. No one is claiming that a circumcised man can never feel anything, they're just claiming that uncircumcised men are more sensitive because they have constant protection, which makes complete sense. I could easily pull out the multiple men I know that feel the opposite, but I don't because the way one man feels about the issue is in no way representative of the majority without some kind of backup proving that the majority actually do agree with him. It's nice your boyfriend feels that way, but hardly relevant to an actual discussion on the merits of prohibition.

 

[-ty-]

Now this is the kind of talk that really gets on my nerves: the notion that the burden of proof is on the people who are doing something, not on the people making the rules. Part of the foundation of responsible government, and an integral element of the right to privacy I might add, is that an action is legal until there is sufficient reason to make it illegal. The question is not whether the procedure is necessary. As long as it is not seriously harmful, it should be allowed.

It is not harmful to have the earlobes, nipples on males, or our small toes removed. They do not have any significant functions. Does that mean that we should take UNNECESSARY surgery to remove them? Might I add, the foreskin does have significant functions.

If you want to be circumcised you should be able to.
If you don't want to be circumcised you should be able to refused to.

I do not want my privacy rights intruded upon. I want to decide what happens to my own body. I am not stomping on an individual's rights, however, those who advocate that circumcision should be exercised by a parent's discretion, are stomping on an individual's rights. Don't say that the parent's individual rights are being taken away by a ban, they would be able to choose to have a foreskin or to not have a foreskin.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

It is not harmful to have the earlobes, nipples on males, or our small toes removed. They do not have any significant functions. Does that mean that we should take UNNECESSARY surgery to remove them? Might I add, the foreskin does have significant functions.

If you want to be circumcised you should be able to.
If you don't want to be circumcised you should be able to refused to.

I do not want my privacy rights intruded upon. I want to decide what happens to my own body. I am not stomping on an individual's rights, however, those who advocate that circumcision should be exercised by a parent's discretion, are stomping on an individual's rights. Don't say that the parent's individual rights are being taken away by a ban, they would be able to choose to have a foreskin or to not have a foreskin.

Sorry, but your side does carry the burden of proof. When you are sued on a free exercise claim, you will be required to justify your circumcision ban by strict scrutiny.

You will need to show:
1) That there is a compelling government interest
2) That your law is narrowly tailored in addressing that interest
3) That your law is the least restrictive means on the free exercise of religion posdible in adressing that interest

Failure to satisfy all three of those requirements means that the ban is unconstitutional.

 

[icomeanon6]

It is not harmful to have the earlobes, nipples on males, or our small toes removed. They do not have any significant functions. Does that mean that we should take UNNECESSARY surgery to remove them? Might I add, the foreskin does have significant functions.

If you want to be circumcised you should be able to.
If you don't want to be circumcised you should be able to refused to.

I do not want my privacy rights intruded upon. I want to decide what happens to my own body. I am not stomping on an individual's rights, however, those who advocate that circumcision should be exercised by a parent's discretion, are stomping on an individual's rights. Don't say that the parent's individual rights are being taken away by a ban, they would be able to choose to have a foreskin or to not have a foreskin.

If you think that removing small toes or nipples (even on males) is comparable to removing the foreskin, whose "significant functions" are so unnoticeable that scientists have to debate about what the dumb thing's for, you need a reality check. And did I step into some bizarre alternate world where parents don't have the right to make decisions about how they raise their children? I do say that a ban on circumcision would infringe on parents' rights as parents. I think it's about time that government stopped trying to downgrade the role of family so much. Families have the right to preserve their cultural heritage and pass it to their children until their children are old enough to make their own decisions, and that doesn't change just because circumcision grosses other people out.

I have no problem if you want to convince families to stop circumcising, but I don't want a government to have such disregard for religious freedom and the basic parental right to make an infant's legitimate medical decisions by banning it.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Actually, I don't think talking about stimulation is inappropriate, since the anti-circumcision side uses it as an argument against circumcision. This entire topic is not safe for kids.

 

[Livewire]

Whether it is necessary or not, what I choose to do with my child is nobody else's business.

And yet, somehow, abortion doesn't apply there? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyway, lets please avoid getting to overtly explicit on here please. I'd rather not close this because it's a little bit PG-13 for some people.

 

[-ty-]

If you think that removing small toes or nipples (even on males) is comparable to removing the foreskin, whose "significant functions" are so unnoticeable that scientists have to debate about what the dumb thing's for, you need a reality check. And did I step into some bizarre alternate world where parents don't have the right to make decisions about how they raise their children? I do say that a ban on circumcision would infringe on parents' rights as parents. I think it's about time that government stopped trying to downgrade the role of family so much. Families have the right to preserve their cultural heritage and pass it to their children until their children are old enough to make their own decisions, and that doesn't change just because circumcision grosses other people out.

I have no problem if you want to convince families to stop circumcising, but I don't want a government to have such disregard for religious freedom and the basic parental right to make an infant's legitimate medical decisions by banning it.

Alright, obviously, there is a bias in the reasoning. You believe that is wrong for parents to be able to amputate the pinky toe (which is not needed for balance at all), nipples on males (not needed), and earlobes (not needed), but it is alright for them to remove foreskin? That's all I am going to say; I don't believe parents should be able to modify a child's body b/c pf their religious beliefs. They should only remove body parts if it is a health threatening condition. With unnecessary surgery comes great risk, and permanent disfigurement, disfigurement in which the child did not choose, but must live with for the rest of their life. I know several people who have had botched circumcisions, including myself. It left scarring and dryness as a result. I know others who have tears in their frenulum, and other who have had growths at the site of incision as the skin tries to repair itself. These results of botched surgeries do affect sexual functions; they cause pain, desensitizing, and discomfort. I, and many others just wanted our anatomies to be intact.

Therefore, this is a compelling state interest. There should not be ANY unnecessary surgeries performed, unless their is consent from the individual, because it puts the patient at unnecessary risk. You should be able to put yourself at that unnecessary risk, but not others. It is medically unethical.

 

[Dawn]

This and this are irrelevant? Even if we have the correct technology to make it irrelevant, if that technology isn't being properly used, then that technology is the thing that's irrelevant. :P

This technology is called a condom. Its effectiveness is very significant. That makes it relevant. The fact that circumcision does not make it any safer for someone already using a condom and the fact that it does almost nothing without one make it irrelivent. Not to mention the fact that it requires surgery, a higher chance of screw ups than protecting against STDs, and the big controversy it comes with.

Also, yeah. Those links are in fact irrelevant, because circumcision isn't really going to do anything to change those numbers.

 

[Myles]

Also, yeah. Those links are in fact irrelevant, because circumcision isn't really going to do anything to change those numbers.

Now that's an argument. It is, however, wrong. NIH and WHO both agree that it will reduce AIDS transmission by 50-60%.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

And yet, somehow, abortion doesn't apply there? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyway, lets please avoid getting to overtly explicit on here please. I'd rather not close this because it's a little bit PG-13 for some people.

Abortion isn't really a free exercise issue. No religion I've heard of requires abortion as part of its most sacred rites of passage.

 

[Luck]

And yet, somehow, abortion doesn't apply there? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I really hope you're just joking around Live :c

If you think that removing small toes or nipples (even on males) is comparable to removing the foreskin, whose "significant functions" are so unnoticeable that scientists have to debate about what the dumb thing's for, you need a reality check. And did I step into some bizarre alternate world where parents don't have the right to make decisions about how they raise their children? I do say that a ban on circumcision would infringe on parents' rights as parents. I think it's about time that government stopped trying to downgrade the role of family so much. Families have the right to preserve their cultural heritage and pass it to their children until their children are old enough to make their own decisions, and that doesn't change just because circumcision grosses other people out.

I have no problem if you want to convince families to stop circumcising, but I don't want a government to have such disregard for religious freedom and the basic parental right to make an infant's legitimate medical decisions by banning it.

It's time to stop posting buddy; I understand where you're coming from, but there very much is something wrong with circumcision; it's awful, and more importantly, doesn't give the child a choice. While parents should decide many things, they shouldn't decide whether they want to mutilate their child's genitalia. Just as an example, here's a link from a simple google search, showing some of the complications of circumcision.

https://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/botch.htm

And yes, the rates are likely skewed, but I can't imagine why you would defend something so impractical and pointless so you can cut something 'useless'(not that you're actually right of course) for the sake of tradition and making sure the big bad government stays out of everyone's lives.



Also, I'm wondering why everyone talks about male circumcision. While female circumcision certainly isn't as popular, it's still a little popular, and it sure as hell isn't less dangerous.

Now that's an argument. It is, however, wrong. NIH and WHO both agree that it will reduce AIDS transmission by 50-60%.

This is where a bit of organizations get mixed. There are other sources that say that there's no noticeable difference in STD rates among circumcised and uncircumcised men, and there are a few that say the opposite. Here's a few links I found.

https://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#doesn't
https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/04/us-aids-circumcision-idUSN0345545120071204
https://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/

Not exactly unbiased, but you can check the sources for yourself, since they have quite a few.

 

[Shining Raichu]

Whether it is necessary or not, what I choose to do with my child is nobody else's business.

Perhaps not, but it is certainly your child's business. Double entendre.

This is something that a parent is unnecessarily inflicting upon a child's body. There is simply no amount of freedom of religion or parental rights arguments that will change that fact.

 

[Myles]

This is where a bit of organizations get mixed. There are other sources that say that there's no noticeable difference in STD rates among circumcised and uncircumcised men, and there are a few that say the opposite. Here's a few links I found.

https://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#doesn't
https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/04/us-aids-circumcision-idUSN0345545120071204
https://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/

Not exactly unbiased, but you can check the sources for yourself, since they have quite a few.

Considering that organisations like NIH and WHO aren't biased and these are that's not good for a start. But let's see:

- The first one seems to discredit a few studies when there have been tons and then just assumes that that counts for all of them. And the reasons for discrediting them are sometimes a bit contrived anyway. It suggests that polygamy and a lack of alcohol consumption are likely to reduce HIV contraction without evidence. Anyway, it doesn't seem to mention the definitive article for what started all this circumcision-HIV link in the first place: Cameron (et al.)'s 1989 Female to male transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1: risk factors for seroconversion in men.
- The second one again ignores Cameron (as well as other studies), but still credits Cameron's article with North American circumcision enthusiasts have further promoted male circumcision with opinion pieces in medical journals. I'm pretty sure Cameron didn't say that in his article. This seems to be outright lying, instantly losing them all credibility.
- The third one doesn't object to NIH or WHO's statements.
- The fourth one wants to pretend that all studies that show that circumcising reduces HIV (e.g. Cameron's article) simply don't exist with lines like this: While the entire body of medical literature gives no clear indication one way or the other whether circumcision protects against STD.

Yeah...

 

[twocows]

Is the procedure grossly harmful to the child? No.
Whether it is necessary or not, what I choose to do with my child is nobody else's business.

That's silly; the government can and should be able to step in in situations of child abuse. I fail to see how circumcision doesn't fall under the banner of child abuse.