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?

Views: 3607

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That is just a big hot pile of manure. Canadian and European babies DO NOT have higher rates of UTIs or VD or any of the excuses of pro-mutilation lobbies. Furthermore, for anyone to say that there is no loss of sexual function is completely ridiculous. It was the main purpose of circumcision in the first place and as a female who's had sex with many of circumcised condition and intact males, I can say beyond the shadow of a doubt that I never again want to have circumcised sex. But of course most religious and circumcised males will swear up and down and under oath that their lacking of a body part does not impede their sexual performance. They are deluded.

Hello. Thanks for your comment. May I ask where you come from and if you have any sons?

That report is not only absurdly biased, it's grossly inaccurate.  

77% of the present prevalence of circumcision among adults.  The present infant circumcision rate is 55%.  

Most of the world does not circumcise.  Non-cutting countries have demonstrably better health outcomes that the US.  The US HIV incidence is three times that seen in Europe, where circumcision is rare.  

Ah Ruth,

this is getting me started again. I have written a lot on this--but this time I'll be quick.

Who writes these reports?

Circumcision has been so widespread in the USA, and for so long, that when a new report comes out its writers are just another lot of medical doctors who had had the chop when young when they could not complain.

Homo has been around for millions of years--forever advancing.

Homo sapiens has been on Earth for some 200,000 years. Nature led to a perfect penis that we boys get born with.

These god-fearing doctors think they can improve on Nature--or improve on what their mythical god provided. If boys are taught cleanliness--or learn it for themselves--they don't get any 'adverse medical condition'.  

Try asking the writers of this report what their religion is.

Try asking them, were they cut when young?

Try funding a report by atheist doctors who were never circumcised. The result will be different.

I rest my case. 

I AM!   DAMN GLAD I AM!

AND ANY KID OF MINE WOULD BE!

PEROD!

END OF STORY!

I guess you like to circumcise your periods too.

Me thinks the laddy doth protest too much...

THAT THE BEST YOU HAVE CHILD?

AND LIKE I CARE WHAT YOU THINK!

Why? How do you come to that conclusion? 

Let us, for a moment, consider a hypothetical situation whereas circumcision was never declared a religiously necessary practice as it was thousands of years ago.  Fast forward to the 21st century.  When male infants get a urinary tract infection, or teenagers contract a sexually transmitted disease, would the practitioners of modern medicine advocate cutting off the foreskin as a sensible remedy?  I really doubt it.  

In our current era where the highest level of personal hygiene is not only routine but is available to the most people ever, circumcision is not a rational option as preventative medical care. 

The fact that the prepuce is common to almost all mammals, male and female, and has been for millions of years does add weight to the notion of its utility. This is especially true considering the male genitals are the instrument of reproduction and hence the evolutionary process. Besides, the functions of the foreskin are obvious to anyone who seriously considers the subject, and they have been written about for thousands of years.

For your information, the appendix has a known immunological function wikipedia and wisdom teeth present no problem in races that have not been subject to poor diet.

 prepuce?

I didn't know there was an option when my sons were born 50 years ago. It wasn't even presented as an option. I didn't even ask if there were options or what the justification was for the procedures. 

As I understand it now, it was to differentiate god's accepted men, all others were "other". All these years and it is still practiced! and for what reason? I saw a film of a rabbi biting off the foreskin and almost vomited. How could any person, man or woman, bite off a piece of tissue of a newborn? How could any person take such an action unless religion dictated it. Of course Hitchens had a lot to say about it. In this clip, starting at about 3:00 Hitchens has his say  

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service