I think one of the things that we far too often overlook in this country is that fact that genital mutilation of newborn boys is common practice, if not standard. Why isn't there more of a cry against this? Do the benefits of circumcision (if any, and I don't see any valid argument that there are any) outweigh the cost and mutilation of a boy?

Of course circumcision isn't the only genital mutilation in the world, but it's the only type in practice in the United States. Female genital mutilation is just as barbaric, if not more so. Americans, and Europeans in general, ban female genital mutilation of babies, but why the hypocrisy in not doing the same for males?

Tags: Christianity, God, Judaism, circumcision, clitoral, covenant, genital, mutilation

Views: 2316

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Even if every word published by Bailey, Gray, et al were true,.. for me personally, no I would not trust circumcision to protect me, and since condoms are needed anyway, I wouldn't bother to amputate the most exquisitely pleasure-receptive part of my body.

And if Bailey, Gray, et al are not lying then my circumcision would endanger my female partner if I was HIV+ and have no effect if I was HIV-.

And if I was a social planner I would not recommend circumcision for anyone. Condoms are far more effective and cost-effective.

I certainly wouldn't stand for anyone making the circumcision decision for minors or coercing service men to be cut.
Take the money it would cost to circumcise your kids and use it to create a condom fund.

You know... help em get off their feet.

Even if there were huge advantages of circumcision I would still argue that it's a decision that should be made by the person himself when of age of consent.

It's a ridiculous practice that should be abolished. Religion or culture is no excuse for mutilation.
>>Even if there were huge advantages of circumcision I would still argue that it's a decision that should be made by the person himself when of age of consent.

So if someone is unable to get the other side of the story and being propagandized that circumcision is good for them, then is it still that person's decision? Because that is the scenario in Africa.

If male circumcision was supported as being highly effective for what?
I got the raw numbers from the original papers, and put them up in tabular form together at http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html#3

You are committing the fallacy of Appeal to Authority. There have been some scandals within WHO, it is not infallible. Circumcision is not "religious based" (except the ritual, of course). The bad reasons for doing it are hydra-headed, and HIV is only the latest of them. There isn't a conspiracy (any more than a beehive is a conspiracy), but powerful forces at work (distributed - lots of circumcised men each wanting to defend circumcision) to promote circumcision come what may. The decision to promote it was made at a meeting at Monteaux, Switzerland in April 2007, but nobody who wasn't there seems to know who was there. Some of the key movers and shakers are known to have vested interests in promoting circumcision - they were doing so long before the AIDS claims.
Simple. At the time of the circumcision the child is still under the parents' authority. The parents have final say. It should be made illegal until a proper age of consent, but as of now religion is just too strong. People like false hope.
Well at least you're not saying "Parents must make many decisions for their children..."

I point out again and again that this decision is unique. There is no other normal, healthy, non-renewable, functional body part that parents may have cut off a baby boy without pressing medical need (why the anomaly?), and no such part at all of baby girls - in fact the most nearly corresponding part of girls gets special legal protection (why the double standard?).

Your point about religion is a good one. Circumcision could be cut by 97% if the only ones allowed were religious, but that would involve a test of religion, which is unacceptable. (And/or lots of people would claim their Christianity requires it, which is nonsense.) And it would also fray the human rights issue, implying some babies have fewer human rights than others, by virtue of their parents' religion.

@ Anthony CIRCUMCISION VS PHIMOSIS (started new thread as old one ran out of replies :)


After reading your many posts, something has dawned on me, ... I dated a young man in the Caribbean who had phimosis, and so read up on it quite a bit.


It now dawns on me that in a "christian" nation, where masturbation is considered wrong, phimosis must be an awfully common condition, much more so than in the rest of the population. I think it's quite possible that all the "problems" that circumcised men defend circumcision for (infections, catheter, cleansing, etc) actually are possibly not due to non-circumcision but to phimosis due to clinical non-masturbation! This would go a long way in explaining a great deal of these anecdocdotal 'intact' problem males...


It seems to me that in a nation where religion and lack of sex education are endemic, phimosis, especially low grade ones, would be assumed to be 'normal' by a large swath of the population, making them ASSUME that they have foreskin problems, when in fact they had childhood behavioral problems. Just as religious people think it's normal for young ladies to have flaps of membrane ("hymen") covering the vagina opening. It's not, it's approximately 1/2000. Many cases of young women who bleed their first time is indicative of lack of sex ed from parents and lack of childhood play.


Normal foreskins move properly, untrained (lack of playing with it) foreskins can cause problems.


This is a fine example of why the attitude of "as long as you keep your religion to yourself, I don't care what you think" does NOT work. There are practically no decisions which are entirely private. All these supposedly private decisions have impacts on society at large.


All male children should see this video




That you know of... of course, since you don't know what it's like to be the way nature made you, really, you simply don't know.

~ TNT666


Same goes for being cut.  You won't know what it's like till it's done to you. 

sorry but no, that kind of argument does not work both ways.


The response is as ridiculous as a one-eyed man defending his lack of an eye to a 2-eyed man, saying "my life is just as great as yours, you aren't missing an eye you don't know". Simply is not rational. You're the one missing a part, not he. A one-eyed man has reduce vision capacity and has no grounds to defend that line on.

Sorry to break it to you but that bit of skin isn't as vital to survival as an eye is. I haven't lose anything but extra nerve endings. It's not like I've lost depth perception. In fact you've no idea what it's like for me sexually and would only be making an assumption about the nature of it.

You guys need to quit making that flap of skin sound like a vitally important organ to the human body. Because it simply isn't one. So next time try to come up with an example that is more apt instead of appealing to a piece of skin on the penis as a major sensory organ. It is at most a minor one that isn't vital to survival. A more apt comparison would be an equivalent removal of skin somewhere else along the human body.


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service