Circumcision.
- Thread starter Carbonox
- 286 comments
- 15,718 views
- 23,800
- Philippines
So would you support the parents' "rights" to cut off their ears or remove a few excess fingers or toes?
Because this is exactly what female circumcision is like. Taking a perfectly functional part of the body and removing it without the person's consent.
Remember, this is not an argument about whether you support circumcision per se... you said you didn't think it was a crime against humanity. Which suggests that you don't think it should be prevented.
Children have the right to their own body. Parents do not have the right to treat a child's body like it is property. They instead have the responsibility of delivering it to the adult who eventually comes out on the other side of childhood reasonably intact.
I know I've said it before, but yes.
Two little girls. No pierced ears between them. Two parents. Three. (Though mine has closed up from underuse...)
- 664
- United Kingdom
- counter345
Not to interject but surely that is exactly what male circumcision is as well? Removal of the foreskin: (taking a perfectly functional part of the body and removing it without the person's consent). I was just surprised as you specifically excluded male circumcision as if it's not a violation of rights as female circumcision.
- 23,800
- Philippines
I am actually not pro-circumcision, male or female. Especially not of young boys. Long ago, earlier in this thread, I did state that I would likely not circumcise my child, if I were to have a male, and that my wife and I had agreed not to pierce our daughters' ears... leaving that decision up to them.
Female circumcision is simply mutilation with no purpose or benefits, which can cause lasting pain and health issues for the poor girl for the rest of her life.
Male circumcision is different. Circumcised males typically don't suffer from anything more than the loss of some sensitive foreskin, and it does have medical benefits... from cancer prevention to protection against bacterial and urinary tract infection. Which makes it hard to classify circumcision of babies as abuse.
The problem is that leaving off circumcision till the child is older turns a relatively easy and benign procedure into a very painful one that's traumatic for kids and which carries the risk of infection and complications. Forcing an older child to undergo it if they are not at risk of disease is barbaric.
- 664
- United Kingdom
- counter345
Both female and male circumcision are both technically mutilation. Both are done with purposes but arguably no benefits.
The only "medical benefits" from foreskin removal has been conducted in areas in sub-Saharan Africa where condoms aren't necessarily widely available. I request evidence for your claims that it reduces cancer or urinary tract infections in sanitary, third-world countries.
Whether it has benefits or not does not validate one over the other. Both are a violation of their respective bodies, male or female. Furthermore, one out of two of these benefits you have posted can simply be discouraged through daily cleansing of the penis.
And just because circumcision is "more painful" at a later age does not give any reason to force it when they firstly do not know what circumcision is, and secondly do not know what they would prefer in the future.
Lawfully, I believe male and female circumcision should be same: outlawed unless there is a requirement for their health (such as phimosis in males), because as there may be a moral or pain difference, legally it's the same thing: mutilation of someone else's body without their permission.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Again, and for the last time, because I'm tired of repeating this... I am not pro-circumcision. In the event that I have a male child, I would not have him circumcised.
I agree, yes, that proper hygiene can prevent any condition treatable/preventable by cicumcision short of phimosis.
I am merely stating that since there are health benefits: (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/otherconditions.html... all the necessary citations are in the footnotes, including those regarding UTIs, HPV, STDs and etcetera), it is very difficult for health organizations to declare non-voluntary circumcision of male infants an unnecessary operation and a crime against humanity.
-
Mind you, vaccinations leave scars, too. Though there's a big difference between one of those and a missing foreskin.
Someday we'll get to the point where circumcision is only performed, like tonsilectomy, on people who really need it. But at this point, tradition is very hard to overcome.
I agree, yes, that proper hygiene can prevent any condition treatable/preventable by cicumcision short of phimosis.
I am merely stating that since there are health benefits: (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/otherconditions.html... all the necessary citations are in the footnotes, including those regarding UTIs, HPV, STDs and etcetera), it is very difficult for health organizations to declare non-voluntary circumcision of male infants an unnecessary operation and a crime against humanity.
-
Mind you, vaccinations leave scars, too. Though there's a big difference between one of those and a missing foreskin.
Someday we'll get to the point where circumcision is only performed, like tonsilectomy, on people who really need it. But at this point, tradition is very hard to overcome.
Danoff
Premium
- 32,987
- Mile High City
You're really not doing yourself any favors by comparing male circumcision (benign) equivalent to female circumcision (barbaric). You just come off looking like you have lost touch with the conversation and reality.
Your argument that they're both "mutilation" could be used to claim that pierced ears is equivalent to removing a baby's eyes for no reason. It's not.
- 664
- United Kingdom
- counter345
The purpose of my argument wasn't to do myself any favours, though. I can compare anything I want, and male and female circumcision are very comparable if you read the rest of my post.
Actually I didn't use the fact that they were both mutilation to argue that they're legally equal. I mentioned that because Niky had stated previously that:
Now, I don't disagree with Niky, however I believe she didn't realise the fact that male circumcision was also mutilation as it seemed he was using it as an argument. This whole 'mutilation' this was not my argument.
Nowhere in my post did I state you were pro-circumcision.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 32,987
- Mile High City
Are you saying that they're not largely equal, or that they are but you have some other argument besides "mutilation" to back that up?
- 664
- United Kingdom
- counter345
- 1,625
- Australia
- GTP_JTV
Interesting read yet doesn't convince me of any real benefit to having circumcision performed on a child. The majority of health benefits appear to be found in sexually active men, and if they're old enough to be sexually active they should be able to make that decision themselves.
Urinary Tract Infections on the other hand are more common in babies, but it tends to run in families* as well. So if there is history of UTI's in the family(even if there is not), medical screening and consultations with a doctor should take place before making an informed decision about circumcision.
*http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Urinary_tract_infections
Last edited:
- 23,800
- Philippines
As I've said, I am against it, but as long as there are benefits (even in the presence of alternatives) and there's no compelling medical reason to ban it, it will be difficult for the practice to be banned. Especially as it is deeply ingrained in our culture.
- 664
- United Kingdom
- counter345
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20733674
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
I'm not sure if "death" or "gender reassignment" and then severe depression, and then death (Famine, Page 1) are both classified as "no compelling medical reason".
- 23,800
- Philippines
One (or a few) botched operation(s) do(es) not a solid case make.
Of course, there is the human rights angle. Actually... I had no knowledge of the legality of circumcision until this line of discussion, but it's nice to see that some countries are banning the cosmetic circumcision of babies, while others are mulling banning it... but it is very likely that cultural inertia and religious lobbying will frustrate any efforts to have it banned in many countries.
In the end, it's really a question of human rights / consent. And until we start adopting laws that state that children have the right to refuse religious indoctrination and rituals (baptism, for example) until they are legal adults, I doubt we'll be able to stop circumcision entirely.
Of course, there is the human rights angle. Actually... I had no knowledge of the legality of circumcision until this line of discussion, but it's nice to see that some countries are banning the cosmetic circumcision of babies, while others are mulling banning it... but it is very likely that cultural inertia and religious lobbying will frustrate any efforts to have it banned in many countries.
In the end, it's really a question of human rights / consent. And until we start adopting laws that state that children have the right to refuse religious indoctrination and rituals (baptism, for example) until they are legal adults, I doubt we'll be able to stop circumcision entirely.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 32,987
- Mile High City
Female should be illegal, with a sentence of something like life in prison.
While male should technically also be illegal, it would be more like a misdemeanor, legal in cases of medical need, and I can see a good argument for legalization in nations with poor health care.
Now your turn to answer my question.
Keef
Premium
- 24,526
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
I think most women in America expect men to be circumcized. I guess it's whatever...once you get that far, who's gonna say no, right? Not that getting circumcized increases a guy's chances of getting action but it lines up better with general expectations.
- 12,123
- Liverpool
- CARBOYXJR
- 17,865
- 509
At the start of the 80's, it was around 65% but has dropped to 55% or something over the past 30 years. The frequency, I suspect, varies by region as well - the South has far more religious types than the West Coast.
Perhaps for teenagers with too much times on their hands... I don't think I've heard anyone's penis be the talk of the town in my life.
