Circumcision

[Skaloop]

Did it ocurr to you that women have a reason for wanting a man to be cut? I realize it doesn't mean anything to you, but for over 95% of the male population, it should. I don't want to have STD's including HPV which leads to cervical cancer transmitted to me. Gee, how selfish of me.

All of which can be transmitted regardless of the status of the foreskin. Responsible sexual practices are far more effective at preventing the transmission of STDs than circumcision.

 

[yasic]

Another very good point! Admittedly I'm very confused about some of the opinions mentioned on this thread:

• It's not OK to remove a piece of skin from a newborn (because he cannot consent to any changes of his body) but it's OK to end the life of a foetus (because it's the 'property' of the mother).
• It's not OK for Jews to force their religious beliefs on an infant (because the infant has no concept of religion) but it's OK for atheists to decide how theists should act (because religion is a delusion and atheists know they're right).

What is it about birth which suddenly makes the foetus / baby a person? My own rather cynical answer is that a foetus cannot scream or cry when it is being removed, but a baby having it's foreskin cut off can. Then again many of them scream and cry when they're being vaccinated too.

This isn't the thread for this but ...

- A fetus has no mind, the thing that makes us valuable, and hence is not a person. A baby (or fetus past 21 weeks) does have a mind and is hence a person a deserves rights. To me I do not see any scientific backing to "A fetus deserves personhood rights" that does not also apply to "A sperm deserves personhood rights".

- Nobody should be forced into any kind of permanent body alterations for religious reasons until they can consent to them. A parent should be able to choose to raise their child in any religion they wish as long as they do not permanently harm the child, be this by denying medical attention in favor of prayer, or by doing barbaric operations like circumcisions.

 

[Veritas]

Then you did not read the replies that show that people like myself would in fact view it as a disadvantage, and that myself and many other men would fight or pay large amount of money to keep our foreskins intact.

Don't underestimate just how much a penis means to a man, and I don't say this as a joke.

Oh believe me, we women don't. We know all about the glorification of the phallus....aka the Center of the Universe. In all cutures of all time, it is THE symbol of power, domination, control and superiority. We females are well aware of just how inferior we and our genitals are. Any pleasure a woman may experience is secondary and of no import to the male, who derives his entire identity through his genitals. That's why men have vasectomies at half the rate women have tubals in spite of the fact that a tubal is way more invasive. It's why men fight tooth and nail to prevent any law that would require sex predators from being castrated. It's why men usually have fewer problems with abortion since it doesn't involve their precious organ. In short, no sharp objects should be allowed anywhere near a man's holy and sacred member. Yada, yada, yada.

 

[yasic]

Oh believe me, we women don't. We know all about the glorification of the phallus....aka the Center of the Universe. In all cutures of all time, it is THE symbol of power, domination, control and superiority. We females are well aware of just how inferior we and our genitals are. Any pleasure a woman may experience is secondary and of no import to the male, who derives his entire identity through his genitals. That's why men have vasectomies at half the rate women have tubals in spite of the fact that a tubal is way more invasive. It's why men fight tooth and nail to prevent any law that would require sex predators from being castrated. It's why men usually have fewer problems with abortion since it doesn't involve their precious organ. In short, no sharp objects should be allowed anywhere near a man's holy and sacred member. Yada, yada, yada.

Sarcasm aside, any comment made similar to "So what, it's only foreskin" Shows a clear misunderstanding of the feelings of men.

Sure it is not right to oppress or belittle one sex over another, but does the fact that it has historically been done so give right to women to sneer down on the emotions and needs of men, including those who actively fight for womens rights?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Oh believe me, we women don't. We know all about the glorification of the phallus....aka the Center of the Universe. In all cutures of all time, it is THE symbol of power, domination, control and superiority. We females are well aware of just how inferior we and our genitals are. Any pleasure a woman may experience is secondary and of no import to the male, who derives his entire identity through his genitals. That's why men have vasectomies at half the rate women have tubals in spite of the fact that a tubal is way more invasive. It's why men fight tooth and nail to prevent any law that would require sex predators from being castrated. It's why men usually have fewer problems with abortion since it doesn't involve their precious organ. In short, no sharp objects should be allowed anywhere near a man's holy and sacred member. Yada, yada, yada.

It's fought for the same reason we fight against severing the hands of thieves, or plucking out the eyes of adulterers. It has nothing to do with some imaginary penis-worship - we oppose it because it's unnecessarily cruel and vindictively barbaric.

 

[Veritas]

All of which can be transmitted regardless of the status of the foreskin. Responsible sexual practices are far more effective at preventing the transmission of STDs than circumcision.

Except men don't want to use them.

So the issue of circumcision ultimately revolves around women in your viewpoint? I find this very telling.

Not entirely, no. But as usual, a lot of men don't even care how what they do impacts women.

Solution: don't have sex. Problem solved

Not giving it up and I don't need to.

A woman can "transmit" both BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer genes to her daughters. Would you advicate removing her daughters breast to prevent a future cancer since it occurance maybe much more likely?

How about a hysterectomy is a genetic link has been established?

This is absurd and you know it. How many more bizzare ideas can you come up with?

 

[Veritas]

It's fought for the same reason we fight against severing the hands of thieves, or plucking out the eyes of adulterers. It has nothing to do with some imaginary penis-worship - we oppose it because it's unnecessarily cruel and vindictively barbaric.

 

[Rebekka]

Not according to surveys. 95% of all prostitutes in the UK prefer men cut. I would assume they have a lot of experience in the matter.

"Most non-American women" is not the same as "95% of all prostitutes in the UK".

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The foetus is not yet human, or, at least, not human enough to be granted human rights. A newborn, however, is.

A fetus has no mind, the thing that makes us valuable, and hence is not a person. A baby (or fetus past 21 weeks) does have a mind and is hence a person a deserves rights. To me I do not see any scientific backing to "A fetus deserves personhood rights" that does not also apply to "A sperm deserves personhood rights".

I don't want to turn this into another debate over abortion, there are plenty of those already, but I'll say no human has the right to choose to end the life of another human based on how developed it is. For the sake a clarity, a human life begins at conception.

Nobody should be forced into any kind of permanent body alterations for religious reasons until they can consent to them. A parent should be able to choose to raise their child in any religion they wish as long as they do not permanently harm the child, be this by denying medical attention in favor of prayer, or by doing barbaric operations like circumcisions.

My point over 'forcing beliefs' on someone was about why it's OK to force atheistic beliefs on people ("Circumcision is wrong") but it's not OK to force religious beliefs on them. And circumcisions are not 'barbaric' - we've already established there aren't a great deal of differences between cut and uncut men. It doesn't automatically make them believe in God either.

It's fought for the same reason we fight against severing the hands of thieves, or plucking out the eyes of adulterers. It has nothing to do with some imaginary penis-worship - we oppose it because it's unnecessarily cruel and vindictively barbaric.

Oh cut the dramatics. Do you honestly think losing a small amount of skin is the same as losing an entire hand?

 

[yasic]

Except men don't want to use them.

The find men who do. I for instance often insist with any new sexual partner that we both get a screening of the most common STD's, HIV included before we engage in sexual acts that risk spread.

Not entirely, no. But as usual, a lot of men don't even care how what they do impacts women.

How many permanent operations did you do to yourself that benefit men but harm yourself?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Brilliant retort

 

[Veritas]

Sarcasm aside, any comment made similar to "So what, it's only foreskin" Shows a clear misunderstanding of the feelings of men.

Sure it is not right to oppress or belittle one sex over another, but does the fact that it has historically been done so give right to women to sneer down on the emotions and needs of men, including those who actively fight for womens rights?

 

[Skaloop]

Except men don't want to use them.

At which point you inform them that they cannot have sexual relations with you unless they do.

Not entirely, no. But as usual, a lot of men don't even care how what they do impacts women.

Sort of like how you don't even care about how circumcision impacts men?

Not giving it up and I don't need to.

Ditto men and their foreskins.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't want to turn this into another debate over abortion, there are plenty of those already, but I'll say no human has the right to choose to end the life of another human based on how developed it is. For the sake a clarity, a human life begins at conception.

A premise not all agree on. But that's for another thread

My point over 'forcing beliefs' on someone was about why it's OK to force atheistic beliefs on people ("Circumcision is wrong") but it's not OK to force religious beliefs on them. And circumcisions are not 'barbaric' - we've already established there aren't a great deal of differences between cut and uncut men. It's doesn't automatically make them believe in God either.

First, "Circumcision is wrong" is not an atheistic belief. Not all atheists hold that, and many theists do.
Second, the whole point of the circumcision debate is its morality - it is most certainly not established that involuntary circumcision is not barbaric. Whether or not there are major differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men is utterly irrelevant - even if the only difference was the presence or absence of a piece of skin, that still doesn't avoid the issue of consent and bodily mutilation.

 

[Veritas]

The find men who do. I for instance often insist with any new sexual partner that we both get a screening of the most common STD's, HIV included before we engage in sexual acts that risk spread.



How many permanent operations did you do to yourself that benefit men but harm yourself?

Fortunately, I don't need a boob job.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ditto men and their foreskins.

 

[yasic]

I don't want to turn this into another debate over abortion, there are plenty of those already, but I'll say no human has the right to choose to end the life of another human based on how developed it is. For the sake a clarity, a human life begins at conception.

Sigh, here we go with the stupid abortion thing. I will not continue beyond this post in this thread on this topic.

A fertilized egg, an implanted fertilized egg, and an unfertilized egg are all living stages of human life. Each is more advanced and as arbitrary as the last. So no, human life does not begin at conception, earliest human life begins at sperm/egg

My point over 'forcing beliefs' on someone was about why it's OK to force atheistic beliefs on people ("Circumcision is wrong") but it's not OK to force religious beliefs on them. And circumcisions are not 'barbaric' - we've already established there aren't a great deal of differences between cut and uncut men. It's doesn't automatically make them believe in God either.

The idea that circumcision is wrong is no more atheistic than the belief that rape is wrong. Both are based on the idea that people have a right to their body which should not be ignored for the purposes of cultural or religious beliefs, or for personal pleasure of another.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The idea that circumcision is wrong is no more atheistic than the belief that rape is wrong. Both are based on the idea that people have a right to their body which should not be ignored for the purposes of cultural or religious beliefs, or for personal pleasure of another.

First, "Circumcision is wrong" is not an atheistic belief. Not all atheists hold that, and many theists do.

True, but most of the people here complaining about circumcison do so because they don't think religious beliefs are valid.

Whether or not there are major differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men is utterly irrelevant - even if the only difference was the presence or absence of a piece of skin, that still doesn't avoid the issue of consent and bodily mutilation.

On the contrary, the very fact there it doesn't affect men to a great extent (as there are few differences between cut and uncut men) showes that it doesn't qualify as 'mutilation'. Having a foreskin or not is about as damaging as having blue eyes insted of brown ones.

A fertilized egg, an implanted fertilized egg, and an unfertilized egg are all living stages of human life. Each is more advanced and as arbitrary as the last. So no, human life does not begin at conception, earliest human life begins at sperm/egg

Left to their own devices neither a sperm or egg will become a new life. Only when they get together, when fertillization occurs, does new life start. But again, that's a different topic.

 

[Aradia]

Consent, in it's simplest form = agreement, imo. I didn't agree to anything at that age. I couldn't have.

Ok, I can go with that.

And I take issue with that. It's... barbaric, imo.

Says who? You? Presumably, they do not believe it's barbaric. So how do we know which opinion is "correct"? Have you read any sociological/anthropological studies on these barbaric rites of passage?

That's a good question, and my honest answer is I don't know. I do think, however, circumcision should be a procedure that requires consent. Of course, you know that - I've maintained that sentiment throughout the thread.

Then it seems to be a pretty arbitrary decision. Seeing as how this is an Ethics forum -- how do we determine whether a "barbaric" act is moral or immoral? How do we determine whether pushing our cultural values on another culture is moral or immoral? =D (Yay philosophy!)

 

[selfinflikted]

Does your lack of foreskin somehow make you doubt your atheist beliefs? Would you be more of an unbeliever if you still had it?

Barring the "atheistic beliefs" comment, of course not

Don't underestimate just how much a penis means to a man, and I don't say this as a joke.

QFT.

I think it clearly demonstrates that men are overly obsessed with their penises.

Again, QFT.

Did it ocurr to you that women have a reason for wanting a man to be cut? I realize it doesn't mean anything to you, but for over 95% of the male population, it should. I don't want to have STD's including HPV which leads to cervical cancer transmitted to me. Gee, how selfish of me.

Really? Sheesh. This thread makes me sad. Whether circumcised or not, transmission of STI's/STD's is still possible. Why would you not just want to use a condom, like normal people? Besides, your want for allegedly "safer" sex does not trump our want to not have pieces of our genitalia severed. NO. IT. DOES. NOT.