Circumcision

[Skaloop]

The risk is quite small, not enough to dismiss the practice altogether.

Who cares how small the risk is; it's still greater than zero. The necessity for it is zero. So when weighing the risk and the need, the risk is higher.

Obviously desensitizing is not the same as the inability to feel any pleasure whatsoever - the big difference between male and female circumcision.

So where's the line drawn? At what point is it OK to deprive someone of pleasure to some degree for no good reason?

Only for people who think the unfaithful should be scarred for life.

You mean like circumcised men are scarred for life? Not even for a "good" reason like ensuring fidelity? Female circumcision has a lot more justification than male circumcision, which serves no real purpose.

(Not that I support either, but if we're going to compare them...)

 

[yasic]

Not quite, due to anatomical differences. If male and female circumcisions were the same the girl would only have her clitoral hood removed - which isn't quite so bad. However removing the labia (major or minor) is more like slicing the scrotum, which even I would agree would be more damaging than removing the foreskin.

How is it different? Both just remove bits of tissue equipped with a small sampling of nerve cells.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So, can I cut off you and your childrens earlobes or not?

If we're resorting whining - earlobes no, but there are plenty of other 'leftovers' you are free to eat. Toenails perhaps?

Who cares how small the risk is; it's still greater than zero. The necessity for it is zero. So when weighing the risk and the need, the risk is higher.

Using this argument we should ban ear-piercing (in the UK an adult can allow their children's ears to be pierced from the time they are babies, I don't know if it's different in the US). Circumcision does have a few minor benefits, so the operation is not totally pointless.

So where's the line drawn? At what point is it OK to deprive someone of pleasure to some degree for not good reason?

You should be able to draw the line yourself. For the sake of comparison, in most cases of female circumcision the whole [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is removed - this would be the equivalent of a male having his entire glans cut off. Between removing the foreskin and removing the glans obviously the former is less traumatic.

You mean like circumcised men are scarred for life? Not even for a "good" reason like ensuring fidelity? Female circumcision has a lot more justification than male circumcision, which serves no real purpose.

Again, only for people who think adultery should be physically punished. I personally don't consider it justifiable either, and I doubt anyone here does either.

How is it different? Both just remove bits of tissue equipped with a small sampling of nerve cells.

(See my reply to Skaloop) Don't be daft - this is like comparing an operation for an ingrowing toenail to a lobotomy.

 

[Umaro]

Some people are less sensitive than others - either through nature or nurture. A good circumcision would not completely removing feeling from from the head (which does back to the difference between male and female circumcision).

"Decreased feeling is better than no feeling" is a terrible argument. How about we just leave it how it is so I could have full feeling?

 

[yasic]

If we're resorting whining - earlobes no, but there are plenty of other 'leftovers' you are free to eat. Toenails perhaps?

I find the earlobe argument to be a rather valid one without whining or sarcasm. I don't see why you dismiss it?

(See my reply to Skaloop) Don't be daft - this is like comparing an operation for an ingrowing toenail to a lobotomy.

I am being serious here. If my knowledge of anatomy is lacking I truly and genuinely do with to learn better here. Could you explain to me how cutting part of your labia off is worse than male circumcision or could you at least point me to some references that mention this.

Right now, I honestly cannot see the difference between the two.

 

[Exial]

If we're resorting whining - earlobes no, but there are plenty of other 'leftovers' you are free to eat. Toenails perhaps?

Earlobes or no dice, the Flying Spaghetti Monster commands it. He will not accept your toenails, he wants your earlobes.

Nice of you to ignore my argument anyway.

 

[Skaloop]

Using this argument we should ban ear-piercing (in the UK an adult can allow their children's ears to be pierced from the time they are babies, I don't know if it's different in the US).

Yep. Piercing the ears of an infant shouldn't be allowed. Although the difference between that and circumcision is that piercing does not remove part of the body.

Circumcision does have a few minor benefits, so the operation is not totally pointless.

Those "benefits" can be addressed though a variety of other channels that are simple and easy enough for someone living in a developed country. Circumcision is not necessary to achieve those benefits.

You should be able to draw the line yourself. For the sake of comparison, in most cases of female circumcision the entire [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is removed - this would be the equivalent of a male having his entire glans cut off. Between removing the foreskin and removing the glans obviously the former is less traumatic.

Obviously. But why is the former even considered appropriate? Sure, it's not "as bad" as the latter, but it's still bad.

Again, only for people who think adultery should be physically punished. I personally don't consider it justifiable either, and I doubt anyone here does either.

And there are people who think adultery should be physically punished (as wrong as they are) and are therefore in favour of female circumcision. Because it is believed to help prevent that act. What is the point of male circumcision, again? What behaviours does it prevent? What sins does it counter? Anything? If not, why is it done? Female circumcision originated because it was believed that it prevents infidelity. What is male circumcision supposed to prevent?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I find the earlobe argument to be a rather valid one without whining or sarcasm. I don't see why you dismiss it?

I dismiss it because - as far as I'm aware - Jews don't remove the foreskin for fun or food. Exial makes it sound like they're doing it because they have nothing better to do.

I am being serious here. If my knowledge of anatomy is lacking I truly and genuinely do with to learn better here. Could you explain to me how cutting part of your labia off is worse than male circumcision or could you at least point me to some references that mention this.

Right now, I honestly cannot see the difference between the two.

As you mentioned earlier there are varying degrees of female circumcision - some more damaging than others. The more aggressive form removed the entire [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], which as I said would be the equivalent of a man losing his whole glans. Obviously that would be far more devestating (physically and emotionally) than simply losing the foreskin.

More minor forms (removing part of the labia) are less damaging but still not quite the same as removing the foreskin - again as I said, this would be the equivalent of a girl losing her clitoral hood.

BTW after a quick look I don't see any practice which only removes the labia, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] itself is always taken.

Earlobes or no dice, the Flying Spaghetti Monster commands it. He will not accept your toenails, he wants your earlobes.

Nice of you to ignore my argument anyway.

You're welcome, I'll continue to do so. Your FSM reference is not valid and makes you sound like you're ignoring my posts too.

Skaloop: I've answered Yasic and hopefully they'll answer your points too. The point about ear-piercing is a matter of opinion, I personally find it distasteful rather than immoral.

What is the point of male circumcision, again? What behaviours does it prevent? What sins does it counter? Anything? If not, why is it done? Female circumcision originated because it was believed that it prevents infidelity. What is male circumcision supposed to prevent?

Admittedly I'm not quite sure so I can't answer you. I'm not against circumcision but I'm playing Devil's advocate. You might find a better answer from a Jew.

 

[Exial]

I dismiss it because - as far as I'm aware

You dismiss the argument because you know I am right. My analogy is valid, if cutting off foreskin is just "removing a bit of skin and there should be no complaints" then cutting off your earlobes should be in your view perfectly acceptable because they are "just a bit of skin". Correct? or do you disagree?

I think you made the classic female mistake and completely underestimated how much men actually value their genitals.

Jews don't remove the foreskin for fun or food. Exial makes it sound like they're doing it because they have nothing better to do.

The Jews do it because their religion commands them to.
Does that make it right? No
Is that sufficient justification to remove a babies foreskin? No

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

You dismiss the argument because you know I am right. My analogy is valid, if cutting off foreskin is just "removing a bit of skin and there should be no complaints" then cutting off your earlobes should be in your view perfectly acceptable because they are "just a bit of skin". Correct? or do you disagree?

I think you made the classic female mistake and completely underestimated how much men actually value their genitals.

You are not right, you are smug. While Yasic and Skaloop brought up several valid points, you seem to think circumcision is part of the Evil Jewish Conspiracy to sadistically cut little boys. "Can I eat your kids earlobes?" That's your well-thought-out argument?

And don't worry, we all know how much men value their genitals.

The Jews do it because their religion commands them to.
Does that make it right? No
Is that sufficient justification to remove a babies foreskin? No

That's your opinion and that's fine. In general however Christianity doesn't practice circumcision - you'll probably find a more in-depth point of view here though.

 

[Exial]

You are not right, you are smug. While Yasic and Skaloop brought up several valid points, you seem to think circumcision is part of the Evil Jewish Conspiracy to sadistically cut little boys. "Can I eat your kids earlobes?" That's your well-thought-out argument?

Maybe a little, but your being childish and obtuse now.

cutting off your earlobes should be in your view perfectly acceptable because they are "just a bit of skin". Correct? or do you disagree?

Yes or no?

That's your opinion and that's fine. In general however Christianity doesn't practice circumcision - you'll probably find a more in-depth point of view here though.

Thank you captain obvious

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Maybe a little, but your being childish and obtuse now.
...
Thank you captain obvious .

Pot, meet kettle.

cutting off your earlobes should be in your view perfectly acceptable because they are "just a bit of skin". Correct? or do you disagree? Yes or no?

No. If you had read my posts you would have noticed.

 

[yasic]

I dismiss it because - as far as I'm aware - Jews don't remove the foreskin for fun or food. Exial makes it sound like they're doing it because they have nothing better to do.

So if we found people who for cultural reasons cut of the earlobes of their children to honor their ancestors, you would have no issue if they went to a hospital to have the procedure done?

As you mentioned earlier there are varying degrees of female circumcision - some more damaging than others. The more aggressive form removed the entire [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], which as I said would be the equivalent of a man losing his whole glans. Obviously that would be far more devestating (physically and emotionally) than simply losing the foreskin.

More minor forms (removing part of the labia) are less damaging but still not quite the same as removing the foreskin - again as I said, this would be the equivalent of a girl losing her clitoral hood.

BTW after a quick look I don't see any practice which only removes the labia, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] itself is always taken.

As I said I could easily be wrong here, as this is not something I was well studied in.

The clitoral hood is not quite as bad a foreskin as the foreskin does have other uses as I mentioned, while I am fairly sure the clitoral hood does not? (again I am unsure) Either way, you have no issue if people wish to cut off the clitoral hood of females, right?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So if we found people who for cultural reasons cut of the earlobes of their children to honor their ancestors, you would have no issue if they went to a hospital to have the procedure done?

[My emphasis] No. As with circumcision (I'm vague on the details as well) it should be done with professional surgery, which minimises the damage and pain.

As I said I could easily be wrong here, as this is not something I was well studied in.

Fair enough.

The clitoral hood is not quite as bad a foreskin as the foreskin does have other uses as I mentioned, while I am fairly sure the clitoral hood does not? (again I am unsure) Either way, you have no issue if people wish to cut off the clitoral hood of females, right?

In theory yes. I say 'in theory' because as far as I'm aware no culture practices the exclusive removal of the clitoral hood, perhaps because it's too small to operate on.

 

[Exial]

Pot, meet kettle.

Kettle, meet irony.

No. If you had read my posts you would have noticed.

So why do you consider it wrong to chop of babies earlobes at birth but not chopping off a babies foreskin?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Kattle, meet irony.

You don't seem to have a great understanding of irony.

So why do you consider it wrong to chop of babies earlobes at birth but not chopping off a babies foreskin?

Earlobes were merely an example (I replied to Yasic saying earlobes do not matter much). To be more accurate, my argument was against the idea cutting off a 'little bit of skin' is always acceptable. I say no because it depends on the skin - or rather flesh - itself. Removing the foreskin is less damaging than removing the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], or the glands. I posted that already.

 

[Skaloop]

Removing the foreskin is more damaging than removing the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], or the glands. I posted that already.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to say that it's less damaging.

Even if it is less damaging to remove a foreskin compared to a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], so what? Just because something is the lesser of two evils doesn't make it not evil. Robbing someone is less damaging than killing them, but nobody would use that as an argument as to why robbing people should be allowed.

 

[OGM]

I have a radical idea...Why don't we just wait until the child becomes an adult and have them choose what they want to do with their foreskins?

Most industrialized countries don't routinely circumcise. Many doctors refuse to perform it for ethical reasons unless a known medical defect exist.

Very few men in industrialized countries decide to become circumcised. If circumcision was so necessary; one would think men would be having it performed on them at much higher rates. But when given a choice...men very rarely decide to have it done in industrially advanced nations.

"The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP; September 2010) state that "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."

"The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996 and "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed",[91] and the 2004 information to parents says: 'Circumcision is a "non-therapeutic" procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

"In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision "conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity." They called on doctors to inform caregivers seeking the intervention of the (in their assessment) medical and psychological risks and lack of convincing medical benefits. They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exists for female genital cutting."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-KNMG-204

Please give me your thoughts...

 

[Skaloop]

I have a radical idea...Why don't we just wait until the child becomes an adult and have them choose what they want to do with their foreskins?

Most industrialized countries don't routinely circumcise. Many doctors refuse to perform it for ethical reasons unless a known medical defect exist.

Very few men in industrialized countries decide to become circumcised. If circumcision was so necessary; one would think men would be having it performed on them atmuch higher rates. But when given a choice...men very rarely decide to have it done in industrially advanced nations.

Please give me your thoughts...

If you let boys wait and decide on their own, then circumcision rates will drop to near zero. And then you'll have a whole generation of men with ugly foreskins and penises that look different than their fathers' penises. And we can't allow that!

 

[lux et lex]

Wow...that was 14 pages of a bunch of nothing to get caught up enough to post. I could have just blind posted and I think it would have had the same outcome.

I don't have an opinion on circumcision because I don't have a penis. That said, I do support it when medically necessary (foreskin is too tight, won't retract, etc).

FGM, yeah I'm against that. But these things seem to be apples and oranges to me, but the again, can anyone truly comment if they are because (at least to my knowledge) no one has gone through male circumcision and FGM have they? I would conclude, however, that FGM is about ownership and power, while male circumcision is not.

I don't plan on having kids, but if I did and I had a son, I would defer to his father on whether to circumcise or not.