Male Genitalia Mutilation

[Myles]

Could you back that up please? Not trying to be rude or anything, just seems like if that's true (it very well could be, I don't regularly research adult circumcision) there should be some good research you can use to back it up.

Sure: https://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2490/10/2 (look under 'discussion'). There are also tables referencing researchers that that page leads to.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So you're going to let the parents exercise their religion on a baby, even if it has no significant purpose and may actually harm it (maybe, maybe not, I don't know, doesn't matter)? Even if the baby has no choice in the matter, even though it's the baby's own body? Aren't you republicans the ones trying to save babies? Or does it not matter after they're born?

I'm not even sure how much you know about circumcision, and you definitely don't have any firsthand experience of what it's like. But at least try to think about it from a male's perspective.

Male circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years on billions of people without major physical, emotional, or spiritual harm. The procedure has also been made safer as medical technology modernized. Given the fact that complications are extremely rare, it is completely unnecessary and quite antisemetic to ban male circumcision.

 

[Legobricks]

Nice to see this thread re-opened. I wasn't sure what to say in an appeal for that...


I'm probably playing into the 'appeal to nature' somewhat (and possible fallacy thereof), but I really don't think we would've been given/evolved genitalia with multiple layers just for us to cut them away.

Frankly, If I had been a circumcised male, I would be offended to be circumcised and would undergo reconstructive surgery. It's less damaging overall to only leave the potential to undergo such surgery once at most, ergo, people should not be circumcised as infants but make that decision should they so wish later...

The problem here is that the procedure is riskier the older the person is. By the time they reach adulthood, it's pretty dangerous.

... even if this is the case.

Furthermore, aren't a lot of people in favour of infant circumcision also in favour of the notions of general decency about not forcing their values and opinions onto others? If so, they'd be incredibly indecent by they own standards to circumcise other people, even if they 'own' them because they're their children, these people are going to grow up into self-omniscient individuals eventually.

If nothing else I could liken it to be removal of lower eyelids as 'superfluous', which of course isn't a nice thought, so why shouldn't circumcision also invoke disgust? Culture of course, that's the only reason either would be done, a strange remnant of ancient ways of living...

That's my input; good day folks.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

A child under the age of 18 is under the complete legal ward of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s). Every parent presses their opinions and beliefs on their children as they raise them. This includes what religion to bring them up as. When the kid hits the magic age of 18, they are free to convert over the objections of their patents. Until then, they're SOL.

The argument that "religion cannot be used to justify a crime" is invalid because male circumcision is not a crime.

 

[Legobricks]

The argument that "religion cannot be used to justify a crime" is invalid because male circumcision is not a crime.

That wasn't strictly my argument, I know it's not illegal (ie. a crime) and I'm not only against religious motives for circumcision. My take on the matter is much the same as twocows'.

A child under the age of 18 is under the complete legal ward of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s). Every parent presses their opinions and beliefs on their children as they raise them. This includes what religion to bring them up as. When the kid hits the magic age of 18, they are free to convert over the objections of their patents. Until then, they're SOL.

You're right, but this isn't just enculturation — it's physical alteration for no life-necessitating reason, which I personally 'draw the line' before.

 

[Dawn]

it's physical alteration for no life-necessitating reason

You realize the people that do these things see it differently from you. They see it as very necessary. Or are we just going to start dismissing religion as flat out irrelevant to life now? I certainly hope not, but it seems like we're borderline already there.

 

[Myles]

This relates to this discussion because even religiously, honestly, there's no religious law that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong and consider the rest of this point moot) saying that circumcision has to be performed as a baby.

For Jewish people:

12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

As I mentioned earlier Christians aren't even suppose to have to according to Galatians 5:2. I don't know a lot about Islam.

 

[Legobricks]

You realize the people that do these things see it differently from you. They see it as very necessary. Or are we just going to start dismissing religion as flat out irrelevant to life now? I certainly hope not, but it seems like we're borderline already there.

I simply find it the lesser of two evils to disrespect religion/custom than to actually remove bits from people.
The state of the physical form is the only objective thing we can all agree on, you either have a foreskin or you do not; but the condition of the spiritual form which religion tends to is something humans fail to agree unanimously upon. Given these two aspects to use as standards for everyone, I would pick the physical, objectively observable one. Logical is all my thinking is; I am not evil, only decisive.

I'll say this so to avoid potential misunderstanding: I don't want for circumcision in general to be illegal, only infant circumcision from which there is no consent of the individual undergoing the change.

 

[Black Ice]

A child under the age of 18 is under the complete legal ward of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s). Every parent presses their opinions and beliefs on their children as they raise them. This includes what religion to bring them up as. When the kid hits the magic age of 18, they are free to convert over the objections of their patents. Until then, they're SOL.

When it turns 18, its dick will already have been mutilated by its parents. There is no turning back. Even if there were an option, it would cost money. Unnecessary money.

I don't understand why you would be against abortion but for circumcision. The baby has the right to life but not to his body? And the mother didn't have the right to her own body during pregnancy but now she can mess with the baby's body without permission?

The argument that "religion cannot be used to justify a crime" is invalid because male circumcision is not a crime.

This is a very circular argument. Revise?

You're not even answering all the other questions you've been asked. Selective arguing isn't going to prove your point. If you can't even argue your own side, why argue at all?

You realize the people that do these things see it differently from you. They see it as very necessary. Or are we just going to start dismissing religion as flat out irrelevant to life now? I certainly hope not, but it seems like we're borderline already there.

It's medically unnecessary. That has been proven. The religious benefits of circumcision have not been proven. We should go with what is proven.

If we wanted to play the religion card, there are a myriad of things I could pull from the bible that even you would instantly reject. Oh, and there's even a verse that states circumcision isn't necessary. So there goes that for the Christians. And Jews apparently.

 

[Dawn]

I don't understand why you would be against abortion but for circumcision. The baby has the right to life but not to his body? And the mother didn't have the right to her own body during pregnancy but now she can mess with the baby's body without permission?

Oh hey look, you're attacking the integrity of the debater and not her argument!

This is a very circular argument. Revise?

Doesn't look like a circular argument. Looks like Loz successfully pointed out the flaw in a comparison.

Selective arguing isn't going to prove your point.

Neither is pointing out selective arguing. Because as it turns out selective arguing doesn't disprove her point either, making this pointless.

It's medically unnecessary. That has been proven. The religious benefits of circumcision have not been proven. We should go with what is proven.

Right. We've now traversed into the realm of disregarding religion based on the fact that you don't believe in that religion... I'm just going to wait for you to have the gall to pretend that's okay before I point out why it's not.

there are a myriad of things I could pull from the bible that even you would instantly reject. Oh, and there's even a verse that states circumcision isn't necessary. So there goes that for the Christians. And Jews apparently.

Nice straw man. When did I claim anything regarding the bible, or Christianity, or Judaism for that matter? You don't even know my religion, and for that matter I have no intention of enlightening you until it becomes relevant.

I simply find it the lesser of two evils to disrespect religion/custom than to actually remove bits from people.
The state of the physical form is the only objective thing we can all agree on, you either have a foreskin or you do not; but the condition of the spiritual form which religion tends to is something humans fail to agree unanimously upon. Given these two aspects to use as standards for everyone, I would pick the physical, objectively observable one. Logical is all my thinking is; I am not evil, only decisive.

I'll say this so to avoid potential misunderstanding: I don't want for circumcision in general to be illegal, only infant circumcision from which there is no consent of the individual undergoing the change.

I find that to be a respectable conclusion. I myself feel like I need more time to think about this before coming to a conclusion myself.

 

[Legobricks]

I find that to be a respectable conclusion.

I'm glad to hear that.

If we could all please calm down though...

 

[Myles]

I'll point out the circular reasoning: the argument is that circumcision should not be a crime, because it is required in religious beliefs. This is then justified because although some religious beliefs are crimes, it's because they are crimes; which this isn't. Again they are crimes despite religious beliefs because they are crimes.

 

[Black Ice]

Oh hey look, you're attacking the integrity of the debater and not her argument!

I'm trying to understand why she thinks infant circumcision is okay. Aside from "it's the parent's choice," I don't think I have my answer. And I don't think that's a legitimate argument, so I want a clearer explanation of her reasoning. How am I attacking her integrity?

Doesn't look like a circular argument. Looks like Loz successfully pointed out the flaw in a comparison.

See post above.

The sentence makes sense only to the point that infant circumcision is not a crime.

Right. We've now traversed into the realm of disregarding religion based on the fact that you don't believe in that religion... I'm just going to wait for you to have the gall to pretend that's okay before I point out why it's not.

I am not anti-religious nor anti-circumcision. I am simply stating that infant circumcision is not proven to be beneficial. And why is the kid's choice in his own body being disregarded again? Once he becomes an adult, maybe he can choose his own religion and what to do with his own body.

Nice straw man. When did I claim anything regarding the bible, or Christianity, or Judaism for that matter? You don't even know my religion, and for that matter I have no intention of enlightening you until it becomes relevant.

It was a general statement, not aimed specifically at you. And you're right, your religion will probably not be relevant at all.

Maybe some religions want it. What if the baby doesn't? What if the kid grows up into another religion? His circumcision could potentially be pointless, harmful (psychologically, at least), and against his will. This is all I've been saying the entire time.

I am not claiming anyone's religion to be irrelevant. But this is a baby's body we are talking about. I just can't understand why "the parent wants it that way" is proper justification.

I find that to be a respectable conclusion. I myself feel like I need more time to think about this before coming to a conclusion myself.

Funny, that quote is basically the same as what I've been saying.

 

[icomeanon6]

Personally, I have had no problems with my "mutilated" penis. I don't hold it against my parents in any way, and going by what I've read I would seriously consider having it done on my own hypothetical son.

There is actually statistical and reasonable evidence that circumcision could help guard against some STDs, such as herpes, HIV, etc. Because of the way the foreskin operates during sexual intercourse (it slides back), the area that on a circumcised penis would be the visible tip is exposed. The difference is that on a circumcised penis this area has become hardened, like the exterior of the foreskin or the rest of your body normally is. This makes it less susceptible to viruses entering the cells. Also, when the foreskin returns to its normal position it can trap viral cells inside and keep them in an environment where replication is easier.

I don't think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that the practice is dangerous enough to warrant a ban. In my mind any significant medical reasons against circumcision would trump religious reasons, but as it stands right now circumcision appears to be benign in most ways and surprisingly helpful in one, so I'd say it should be up to the parents and their doctors.

EDIT:

(To tell you the truth, the only lasting harm that I've observed from circumcision is that point in a boy's life when he asks his parents what circumcision is. There's a few minutes of raw horror and feeling sick, but after that it's like 'Hey, whatever.')

 

[Legobricks]

Personally, I have had no problems with my "mutilated" penis. I don't hold it against my parents in any way, and going by what I've read I would seriously consider having it done on my own hypothetical son.

There is actually statistical and reasonable evidence that circumcision could help guard against some STDs, such as herpes, HIV, etc. Because of the way the foreskin operates during sexual intercourse (it slides back), the area that on a circumcised penis would be the visible tip is exposed. The difference is that on a circumcised penis this area has become hardened, like the exterior of the foreskin or the rest of your body normally is. This makes it less susceptible to viruses entering the cells. Also, when the foreskin returns to its normal position it can trap viral cells inside and keep them in an environment where replication is easier.

I don't think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that the practice is dangerous enough to warrant a ban. In my mind any significant medical reasons against circumcision would trump religious reasons, but as it stands right now circumcision appears to be benign in most ways and surprisingly helpful in one, so I'd say it should be up to the parents and their doctors.

EDIT:

(To tell you the truth, the only lasting harm that I've observed from circumcision is that point in a boy's life when he asks his parents what circumcision is. There's a few minutes of raw horror and feeling sick, but after that it's like 'Hey, whatever.')

I can think of a number of possible sexual drawbacks that I don't think would be entirely appropriate to detail here. Nothing terribly profound but they bother me enough.
In any case, since your point in favour of it only matters if your hypothetical son is having sex, I don't see why you might have it done to him rather than let him decide upon the matter for himself at the sort of age he'd begin to do so...

 

[Dawn]

There is actually statistical and reasonable evidence that circumcision could help guard against some STDs, such as herpes, HIV, etc.

Let me just point out that if you're in the position that you're relying on not having a foreskin to not catch an STD you're pretty screwed either way as far as chances go. It matters that little at that point.

 

[icomeanon6]

In any case, since your point in favour of it only matters if your hypothetical son is having sex, I don't see why you might have it done to him rather than let him decide upon the matter for himself at the sort of age he'd begin to do so...

Because infant circumcision is quick, easy, and the infant forgets it before you can say "Boy, I'm glad this kid's having it done now, because if he had it done as a teenager or young adult it would be much more complicated and it would stick in his memory as an incredibly painful experience." (Not literally that quick, but you get the idea.) Infancy is the only stage where I would even consider circumcision. And I'm not dead-set on the idea, either. It's on the table, that's all.

EDIT:

Let me just point out that if you're in the position that you're relying on not having a foreskin to not catch an STD you're pretty screwed either way as far as chances go. It matters that little at that point.

Who said anything about "relying" on it? It's just a statistical nudge in the right direction.

Seriously people, circumcision isn't all that big of an issue. It's a simple procedure with a few possible but unsubstantiated drawbacks, and a few possible but only moderately substantiated benefits, but is nonetheless very culturally charged. To me, that says "up to the parents" all over it.

 

[Oryx]

Seriously people, circumcision isn't all that big of an issue. It's a simple procedure with a few possible but unsubstantiated drawbacks, and a few possible but only moderately substantiated benefits, but is nonetheless very culturally charged. To me, that says "up to the parents" all over it.

I'm glad that you have no problem being circumcised, but this applies to more than just you. Just as there are millions of people fine with it like you, there are also millions of people that wish their parents hadn't done that to them. It's very nice that the drawbacks don't matter to you, but it matters to other people so just because you're fine with it doesn't mean that it should necessarily stay the way it is.

If it was something that the child could change in the future and it would no longer physically affect them, I would agree. Sending people to Mass every Sunday, baptizing a baby, those things don't physically change a child and can be decided against once they become an adult. However, once the child is circumcised, that's it. They can't reverse it, they can't decide as an adult that they would no longer like to be circumcised and fix it. This kind of serious decision shouldn't be done without the child's consent.

 

[Dawn]

Who said anything about "relying" on it? It's just a statistical nudge in the right direction.

The lives of everyone using it depends on its reliability. It's kind of important. <___>

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

I'm trying to understand why she thinks infant circumcision is okay. Aside from "it's the parent's choice," I don't think I have my answer. And I don't think that's a legitimate argument, so I want a clearer explanation of her reasoning. How am I attacking her integrity?

Let's not play word games. The comparison of her views on abortion to her views on this topic had no place in this debate. That was a veiled accusation of hypocrisy if I've ever seen one.

The sentence makes sense only to the point that infant circumcision is not a crime.

And how does that make it wrong?

I am not anti-religious nor anti-circumcision.

I didn't technically accuse you of either. I did however accuse you of disregarding religion on the basis that you don't believe it (Because it hasn't been proven) based on the below quote.

It's medically unnecessary. That has been proven. The religious benefits of circumcision have not been proven. We should go with what is proven

So then, what does this mean if it doesn't mean that? By all means, clarify.

 

[-ty-]

Because infant circumcision is quick, easy, and the infant forgets it before you can say "Boy, I'm glad this kid's having it done now, because if he had it done as a teenager or young adult it would be much more complicated and it would stick in his memory as an incredibly painful experience." (Not literally that quick, but you get the idea.) Infancy is the only stage where I would even consider circumcision. And I'm not dead-set on the idea, either. It's on the table, that's all.

EDIT:

Who said anything about "relying" on it? It's just a statistical nudge in the right direction.

Seriously people, circumcision isn't all that big of an issue. It's a simple procedure with a few possible but unsubstantiated drawbacks, and a few possible but only moderately substantiated benefits, but is nonetheless very culturally charged. To me, that says "up to the parents" all over it.

MGM BILL
"Studies linking male circumcision and AIDS are conflicting. Two studies completed in 2006 in Kenya and Uganda concluded that male circumcision had a 48% - 53% protective effect against HIV over a 14 month period, and an earlier published Auvert Study (criticized for having methodology flaws and overly optimistic conclusions) found that circumcision reduced HIV transmission in South African men by 63% over a period of 21 months. The multi-country Mishra study concluded that circumcision may actually increase transmission of the AIDS virus, however, which is what many earlier studies found. The Brewer Study published in March 2007, also concluded that circumcision in Kenya, Lesotho, and Tanzania increases the transmission of AIDS, and the Connolly study published in November 2008 found that circumcised men in South Africa are just as likely to be HIV-positive as uncircumcised men."

"The United States has one of the highest rates of male circumcision and also one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the developed world, suggesting that circumcision is not helping. Conversely, Finland and Japan have some of the lowest rates of circumcision and also some of the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS. In Australia, the AFAO has now concluded that male circumcision has no role in the Australian HIV epidemic."

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.