Circumcision

[Aradia]

None, just like if they cut off my earlobes when I was a baby. That would've done no real damage to my life either. Or if they gave me a tattoo as a baby.



Not in those words. "It's normal, it's just what's done to newborn boys." A most horrible reason for anything.

Good to know that you have the final say in what is or is not a horrible reason to do something.

 

[Woden84]

Circumcision has some benefits, albeit minor ones.

And double mastectomies have would have quite a huge benefit.

Tattoos have no benefits whatsoever and suggests the parent is doing it because it's a fashion statement or think it's funny.

You've never heard "the baby should look like his father"? Or all the times on this very thread where people have mentioned whether women prefer the look of cut or uncut? How is this not a fashion statement?

Jewish circumcision however is done as a dedication to their religion and is not taken lightly. Besides, tattoo removing is highly painful.

Putting a baby (that may or may not grow up to be religious) through a religious ritual that they can not consent to seem to be taking it extremely lightly. It seems, to me, that they should only give them to people who are serious about becoming Jewish. That would seem to me to be taking it seriously.

 

[Veritas]

So if I give my infant daughter a double mastectomy so she doesn't have to worry about breast cancer, you'd support me?

How do you know she's going to get breast cancer?

I have never heard of a circumcision being reversed, and even if there were a way it would involve very expensive plastic surgery.

I've read a few pages of this discussion and I can't believe how strongly you are defending this archaic and barbaric behavior. Female circumcision is illegal in our country for a reason--it is an irreversible process done to children before they can consent that mutilates their bodies beyond repair, prevents sexual pleasure in the future, and can cause medical complications. Why male circumcision isn't similarly illegal (or requires informed consent) is a mystery to me. A parent is not allowed to break a child's finger because they believe 'god' told them to--that would be child abuse. Why should they be allowed to cut off part of their genitalia instead?

How about what is done to a person's body should be decided by that person alone? Measures taken to save a child's life aside, all elective procedures can and should wait until that child is old enough to make their own decision--and then that decision should be respected.

The assertion that circumcision has medical benefits is dubious. During sex the foreskin is stretched taught and there is little difference between a circumcised or uncircumcised penis--STIs are spread by unsafe sexual behavior, not having an uncircumcised wang. But this is only the latest in a long history of pseudo-medical reasons for circumcision. Why? Because when a doctor circumcises a baby boy, he bills the parents. $200+ for a five minute procedure.

Circumcision does only one thing for sure: It lessens a man's future ability to enjoy sex by removing the protective sheath of skin that would have kept him more sensitive and capable of pleasure. There is no good reason to inflict this permanent alteration on a baby.

Please educate yourself before making such statements. Obviously, all the world's major health bodies are on the same page with regard to the health benefits of circumcision. They've done numerous studies and they are in agreement. Here's a link to the CDC about the benefits, results, low complication rates and differences in satisfaction levels.

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS

mu·ti·late (my

t

l-

t

)tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates 1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Removing a piece of skin is to mutilate. by definition, you are wrong.
When done for purely religious reasons this is wrong.

(btw, why does god want us to hack babies foreskins off?)






You assume wrongly. While in the womb I think the fetus is the "property" of its mother since it generally requires the mother to survive although as the fetus grows older this idea becomes more and more muddled.

My logic is the same however. Nobody should decide for the baby if it should have its foreskin removed in the same way nobody should decide for the mother if she should have a abortion. Its all about people forcing their viewpoint on others, in this case religious (ie, God wants this foreskin removed, God doesn't want you to murder this baby)

I find all of this "muddled thinking".

There are more than one types of female circumcision. The type that removes a bit of the labia but does not touch the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is very much on par with male circumcision, both are done purely for religious or cultural reasons.

Granted this type of female circumcision is only accounts for 2%* of all female circumcisions.

Would you still call this female circumcision mutilation? If so, why would you not do the same for male circumcision?

*This is what I remember it to be. I could easily be wrong here.

The vast majority of male procedure are done in a medical setting under hygenic conditions. Not so for females. A typical FGM procedure begins with her being held down by several people in a dirt hut or other residence. Unlike infants, she is usually 5-15 years old. Hygenic measures are rarely taken including simple handwashing and no type of anasthetic is used. The method of cutting usually involves a old rusted razor blade or jagged edge of broken bottle. As opposed to a "clean" cut, a sawing motion is used to cut the entire genital area off (remember, this area has more nerve endings than almost anyplace else on her body). Next, some type of crude "suturing" is done with something like catgut or common thread. The girl is sewn up from top to bottom with only a very small hole remaining for urine and menstual blood to flow. Aside from the terror, trauma and agony she suffers, bleeding to death is common as is from infections. For the rest of her life she is afflicted with urinary incontinence, constant infections, bleeding and agony during intercourse and must be cut open for every childbirth and then sewn back up.

You have to draw a line somewhere. I draw that line at birth for reasons I have already explained. It may not be perfect but it is necessary.

Completely arbitrary and lacking in any medical/scientific backing.

We can at least agree that after birth a baby inherits rights that all humans should be entitled to, such as being able to decide if anybody should take a knife to your genitals because they think God will appreciate the sentiment.

Many circumcisions done in the world (most in the Western world) are not done for religious reasons but for health reasons.

Because they like foreskin, are just pieces of skin may I cut off your children's earlobes? Or yours? Providing operation goes well there won't be any permanent "damage" and you'll have nothing to complain about. Or what about your labia minora? just flaps of skin eh? What say you?

Comparing labia to a tiny piece of foreskin is absurd! Besides, it would serve no health or hygiene purpose to remove it. Check out what the WHO has to say about that:

WHO | Female genital mutilation

No health benefits, only harm

FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls' and women's bodies.
Immediate complications can include severe pain, shock, haemorrhage (bleeding), tetanus or sepsis (bacterial infection), urine retention, open sores in the genital region and injury to nearby genital tissue.
Long-term consequences can include:

• recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections;
• cysts;
• infertility;
• an increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths;
• the need for later surgeries. For example, the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening (type 3 above) needs to be cut open later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth. Sometimes it is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing and repeated both immediate and long-term risks.

So whereas there have been numerous health benefits attached to male circumcision to the extent that grown men gladly and volutarily go through it, there are NO health benefits to completely removing a females genitals and no woman would happily submit to it.

And guys, let's talk about WHY females are mutilated shall we? It's most often done to make a girl marriagable since men in those culture do NOT want the female to experience pleasure so that she'll stay faithful to her husband. If they make sex painful, she'll have no reason to seek it out with someone else. Further, men as a whole expect their brides to be virgins at marriage. The reverse of course, is not the case. It's really all about dominating and controlling women. Male circumcision is about health and hygiene, not dominating and controlling men.

 

[yasic]

True, some tribes do use tattoos but this usually occurs at a later age - usually during their teenage years. I'd also add that religious reasons far outweigh fashion statements. Religious rituals show a dedication to something or someone greater than yourself; a few are deliberately made painful to show how much they are willing to sacrifice. Fashion on the other hand is something we personally like and serves no greater purpose than looking good.

How does this make it good. If anything, as a Christian, you have to agree that all but one of the rituals is based either on a silly delusion at best or from direct evil at worst. Is a permanent ritual based on a delusion really better than a (perhaps misguided or crude) artistic expression?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

You've never heard "the baby should look like his father"? Or all the times on this very thread where people have mentioned whether women prefer the look of cut or uncut? How is this not a fashion statement?

I remember a comment like that but personally I don't see the point either.

Putting a baby (that may or may not grow up to be religious) through a religious ritual that they can not consent to seem to be taking it extremely lightly. It seems, to me, that they should only give them to people who are serious about becoming Jewish. That would seem to me to be taking it seriously.

(I'm not clear on the details so don't take my word for it) The Jewish religion is one of the few which can actually be inherited. Seemingly circumcision is a reflection of this.

Is a permanent ritual based on a delusion really better than a (perhaps misguided or crude) artistic expression?

(My emphasis) 'Delusion'? It's only considered a delusion to you because you're an atheist. Equally I could argue that a pro-choice atheist is delusional because they judge personhood on physical development i.e. having no nervous system means you cannot feel pain, therefore abortion is not wrong.

 

[Woden84]

Good to know that you have the final say in what is or is not a horrible reason to do something.

That reason is basically a circular argument. "I'm doing it because it's normal, it's normal because people do it." So yes, I'm fairly confident in saying that logical fallacies are not good reasons for anything.

 

[OGM]

What happens if the religion calls for removing earlobes or a clitoral hood?

 

[selfinflikted]

I feel that a lot of religious *followers* and *leaders* might be extremely close to evil, but not the religions themselves.

Yes, I feel the same way. That is pretty much what I meant to say.

... and I'm a part of (albeit inactive these days) the body mod subculture -- within which there is a distinct subset of people in the modern primitive movement. I see the issue of circumcision as more than simply a question of choice, or perceived health benefits; I see it as also being a sociological/anthropological issue.

Then, that explains it.

(FYI: I have nothing against most any kind of body mod stuff, as long as consent is given, which is exactly what is missing from infant circumcision.)

 

[yasic]

How do you know she's going to get breast cancer?

This is in response to people who say they do it for health reasons, namely prevention of HIV.

The vast majority of male procedure are done in a medical setting under hygenic conditions. Not so for females. A typical FGM procedure begins with her being held down by several people in a dirt hut or other residence. Unlike infants, she is usually 5-15 years old. Hygenic measures are rarely taken including simple handwashing and no type of anasthetic is used. The method of cutting usually involves a old rusted razor blade or jagged edge of broken bottle. As opposed to a "clean" cut, a sawing motion is used to cut the entire genital area off (remember, this area has more nerve endings than almost anyplace else on her body). Next, some type of crude "suturing" is done with something like catgut or common thread. The girl is sewn up from top to bottom with only a very small hole remaining for urine and menstual blood to flow. Aside from the terror, trauma and agony she suffers, bleeding to death is common as is from infections. For the rest of her life she is afflicted with urinary incontinence, constant infections, bleeding and agony during intercourse and must be cut open for every childbirth and then sewn back up.

Would you support the minority of cases of female circumcision that are done in a sterile medical facility with a medical expert and drugs to ease pain?

Many circumcisions done in the world (most in the Western world) are not done for religious reasons but for health reasons.

Citation needed

So whereas there have been numerous health benefits attached to male circumcision to the extent that grown men gladly and volutarily go through it, there are NO health benefits to completely removing a females genitals and no woman would happily submit to it.

The said benefits apply to sexually active men. Why not let them choose to have the circumcision when the time comes rather than forcing it on them.

Male circumcision is about health and hygiene, not dominating and controlling men.

No, it is usually about forcing religious or cultural viewpoints on children. In a minority of circumstances it is about control or coping with the issues of the parents, or about health and hygiene.

 

[Ayersy]

Not all of us. I personally use the foreskin itself. Clipping and holding down the foreskin tight is a painless an easy way to hold it. I can thus touch in the morning without getting out of bed or even taking off the blanket to expose myself to the cold, and have a 100% guarantee of no mess. I then head to my bathroom for my usual morning toiletries without missing a beat. No need to worry about people finding used tissues when they visit, no chance of 'slippage' and getting my bed or computer desk dirty, etc.

I'm uncut, too, and this just sounds.... weird. Haha, can't imagine doing that myself. I normally just use a tissue or something, though occasionally there is mess. If CSI came into my room with one of those UV light things, it'd look like a camo pattern on my bed... Totally worth it, though.

 

[Aradia]

What happens if the religion calls for removing earlobes or a clitoral hood?

I find it amusing that these sorts of things keep coming up, when there are plenty of ritual body modifications and rites of passage that are actually *performed* that could be mentioned.

 

[yasic]

(My emphasis) 'Delusion'? It's only considered a delusion to you because you're an atheist. Equally I could argue that a pro-choice atheist is delusional because they judge personhood on physical development i.e. having no nervous system means you cannot feel pain, therefore abortion is not wrong.

As a christian, do you believe that you god is the only god, or do you believe that Allah and Yahweh (without Jesus), also exist?

If so, then anyone who does a religious circumcision for a god other than your own is doing it as a practice to a false god.

Do you disagree?

 

[Veritas]

The effect of having a part of my body chopped off for no good reason without my consent isn't negative enough?

So they chopped off your penis?

I'm going to alter my argument slightly: lets' imagine just as an example that it's perfectly natural for some men to be born without foreskins. It's not a deformity, it's just someone you either have or you don't (like having either brown or blue eyes). Would we consider not having a foreskin to be a major disadvantage? Would we demand surgery for these unfortunate people? I doubt it.

I don't intent to sound cruel but I get the feeling that a lot of the people here arguing against circumcision do so because it wasn't their choice, not because having a foreskin is so important.

Good point. Just shows that they are arguing to argue.

Why remove a perfectly functional piece of tissue if has not been found to be diseased or defective? Fortunately, most technologically advanced countries do not engage in this practice. In countries where it is more of a choice; very few men actually have it done when they are old enough to make the decision.

If foreskins were so problematic, you would think elective adult circumsions would be much more prevalent. But they are not... Why do you suppose that is?

Functional? You mean to habor bacteria and viruses?

 

[OGM]

...most technologically advanced countries do not engage in this practice. In countries where it is more of a choice; very few men actually have it done when they are old enough to make the decision.

If foreskins were so problematic, you would think elective adult circumsions would be much more prevalent in advanced nations. But they are... Why do you suppose that is?

I noticed no one what to answer this question.

 

[OGM]

Functional? You mean to habor bacteria and viruses?

No, fortunately not nearly as much bacteria and viruses as a labia...

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

As a christian, do you believe that you god is the only god, or do you believe that Allah and Yahweh (without Jesus), also exist?

If so, then anyone who does a religious circumcision for a god other than your own is doing it as a practice to a false god.

Do you disagree?

Sorry to ignore your question but this thread isn't about my own personal opinion, it's about - as you put it - "forcing religious beliefs on infants". If selfinflikted's opinion is anything to go by his circumcision had no influence on his (lack of) religious beliefs. Having no foreskin doesn't automatically make them believe in God, so saying they're 'forcing their beliefs' on them is a bit redundant.

 

[selfinflikted]

I have noticed, I think, that all but ONE poster in this thread who gives a dissenting opinion on circumcision are males. All the ladies seem to be saying "So what, it's not like they chopped off your whole member or something. Life goes on."

I find this interesting.

 

[Aradia]

Then, that explains it.

(FYI: I have nothing against most any kind of body mod stuff, as long as consent is given, which is exactly what is missing from infant circumcision.)

How do you define "consent"? There are expectations in numerous cultures that at a certain age, one will go through a (potentially painful) rite of passage. It's not a matter of "consent", it's an expectation. You *will* do it. Because you're supposed to. At what point is it not ok to force western cultural values on others?

 

[selfinflikted]

Sorry to ignore your question but this thread isn't about my own personal opinion, it's about - as you put it - "forcing religious beliefs on infants". If selfinflikted's opinion is anything to go by his circumcision had no influence on his (lack of) religious beliefs. Having no foreskin doesn't automatically make them believe in God, so saying they're 'forcing their beliefs' on them is a bit redundant.

No, it really isn't. Like I said before, though I'm an atheist now, each time I look at myself naked I am reminded of my parents' religion being forced on me.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

All the ladies seem to be saying "So what, it's not like they chopped off your whole member or something. Life goes on."

I find this interesting.

I posted several long (and rather indignant) comments on why this is: anatomical differences and the cultural reasons behind it. Sorry I'm too lazy to re-write them.

No, it really isn't.

"It"? Could you clarify?

Like I said before, though I'm an atheist now, each time I look at myself naked I am reminded of my parents' religion being forced on me.

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