Circumcision

[OGM]

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."

Yes but you better not remove one millimeter from a female's genitals...Because unlike males; females were not born with redundant, nonfunctional, nerve-free tissues.

 

[yasic]

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

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.

 

[Ayersy]

Oh, as for my opinion, I hold religious circumcision to be completely pointless, and also wrong. It serves no purpose but to remove choice from the penis-owner.

If someone wants to be circumcised, it should be their choice, not the choice of someone else.

Religion shouldn't be an excuse to remove other people's body parts without any consent, regardless of how old they are.

Circumcision for medical reasons, I'm obviously fine with.

 

[Skaloop]

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

We don't. But there is a not-insignificant risk that she will.

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

How do you know he's going to get HIV?

Also, breast cancer rates among women are higher than HIV/AIDS rates among men. And in all those cases, removal of the breasts beforehand would have prevented the cancer. Removing the foreskin is only partially effective at preventing HIV transmission. So not only are early mastectomies going to prevent more deaths, they are also more successful at doing so than circumcision.

 

[selfinflikted]

How do you define "consent"?

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

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.

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

At what point is it not ok to force western cultural values on others?

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.

 

[Veritas]

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


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?



Citation needed




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.


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.

How funny! I use loads of links with references to support the facts and you don't use a single one to backup your points.

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

Really? Where did you get that info? You do know that men transmit STD's to women at several times the rate that women do to men, don't you?

Is it easier for a man to transmit HIV to a woman than vice versa?

 

[Aradia]

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.

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

 

[Veritas]

We don't. But there is a not-insignificant risk that she will.



How do you know he's going to get HIV?

Also, breast cancer rates among women are higher than HIV/AIDS rates among men. And in all those cases, removal of the breasts beforehand would have prevented the cancer. Removing the foreskin is only partially effective at preventing HIV transmission. So not only are early mastectomies going to prevent more deaths, they are also more successful at doing so than circumcision.

Can a woman transmit breast cancer to men like men can HIV, herpes, HPV, etc. to women?

 

[OGM]

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.



"It"? Could you clarify?



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

Why don't you think it is extremely rare for men in technologically advanced countries to have themselves circumcised? Virtually all of those countries have national healthcare that covers the cost of medical problems.

When given a choice; no circumsions? Are these men stupid, uncaring about hygiene or what? Why when elective; circumcision is very rarely performed?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is religious circumcision ethical?

Is it right to remove a babies foreskin without consent for religious reasons?

In my view, this is unlawful genital mutilation.

Agreed. No one has the right to unnecessarily surgically alter another person's genitals without their express consent - which a newborn obviously cannot do. Religious views, no matter how strongly held, don't grant this right.

 

[Veritas]

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.

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.

 

[yasic]

How funny! I use loads of links with references to support the facts and you don't use a single one to backup your points.

The vast majority of everything I said in this thread is opinion or ethical in nature. I try to back up most statistics I state. If you wish to contest a claim I made I will be happy to back it up or admit having no foundation on which to make the claim.

I also challenge you to ever show a statistic, that when questioned about, that I did not either support it or admit a flaw on my part.

The sole item I deemed necessary for citation in your post is one that I do not remember your citing. If you did post a link to this particular bit of fact, would you mind linking the post where you did so?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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

Wouldn't you, if someone threatened to chop bits of it off without your permission?

 

[yasic]

Can a woman transmit breast cancer to men like men can HIV, herpes, HPV, etc. to women?

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

 

[Woden84]

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

Well, at least we agree on something

(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.

In reality, this works out to be true for most people regardless of the religion of the parents. Still, I'd just like it if they could hold out on the permanent body mods until the person whose body would be modded can consent to that procedure.

So they chopped off your penis?

A part of my penis isn't a part of my body?

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

Because obviously consent/choice/free-will is completely meaningless.

Functional? You mean to habor bacteria and viruses?

More functional than your earlobes. Surprising that you haven't volunteered to get them chopped of yet.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Solution: don't have sex. Problem solved

 

[OGM]

Can a woman transmit breast cancer to men like men can HIV, herpes, HPV, etc. to women?

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?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

At what point is it not ok to force western cultural values on others?

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).
• It's not OK to circumcise a boy (because it's irreversible and not his choice) but it's OK to choose the child's gender (because ... boys have a social advantage over girls? Surely that's not a good thing.)

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.

 

[Skaloop]

Can a woman transmit breast cancer to men like men can HIV, herpes, HPV, etc. to women?

Nope. So what? Deaths from breast cancer outnumber deaths from HIV/AIDS nearly 4 to 1. If you're going to argue that circumcision for health reasons is acceptable when it addresses a smaller number of people and isn't anywhere near 100% effective, then you should also support mastectomies for health reasons as that would save far more people and has a much higher success rate at doing so.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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).

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

• 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 religious is a delusion and atheists know they're right).

Nope. It's because cutting pieces of another's body without their consent is fundamentally wrong. The sheer fact that this is mandated by religion is irrelevant.

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.

Indeed. You'll notice that birth isn't the limit for abortion - 22 weeks is (give or take international variations). This is the general limit when a foetus is deemed to be sufficiently gestated to be granted human rights. Prior to that, it is not developed enough to have those rights.