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: 2185

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The mother has a majority vote when it comes to what is done to her child. And there is definitely a female benefit to being uncut. The foreskin aids in facilitation sexual intercourse. It makes a huge difference once you've tried it :) So do have 'some' body understanding.
>> I'm a girl and don't know what I'm talking about

Nope, wrong. You are wise and he is ignorant. YOU have a prepuce and you know how good it feels to rub it. He has none and is left with only friction-based modes of stimulation; nothing like what a foreskin allows. He has no idea what he's missing.

The onle person whose judgement is tops here is the one person who will have to live with the outcome. But of the other family, an intact mom is a close second.
I agree that the bf has no idea what he is missing, but I would strongly urge that it is not in his interests to be told. My husband is cut and happy with his penis but if he had all the information I have now then he might begin to feel like many of the guys here...robbed, mutilated, victimised, and that isn't going to make him feel good at all. The only reason to *really* spell it out to a cut guy would be on the birth of his first son if he was pushing for circumcision but until such a day comes I'd suggest anyone do as I do with my guy and let him remain blissfully ignorant.
Your bf knows what it's like to be circumcised, but not what it's like to have a complete penis. So if he gets to decide, it's not just the blind leading the blind, it's the blind blinding the sighted.
Nice turn of phrase you have there Hugh.
Your boyfriend was probably circumcised shortly after birth and has had no experience of intact genitals. He doesn't know what he's missing and the fact that he feels VERY strongly in favour of circumcision should be a dead giveaway that he has serious insecurity issues in this area.
You're absolutely on the mark. It's also true that women who get breast reduction surgery drastically reduce their risk of breast cancer !!!!!!!!!!! :) Of course, if you remove the cells, there are less cells left to go cancerous!

It's just one of the many misleading statistics cancer prevention groups push. Frankly, from where I stand, we'd be better fighting cancer through eliminating toxins from our lifestyle. Cancers are a panacea for drug companies. So much money to be made. Bigpharm has no financial reason to cure cancer, it's much more profitable to 'manage' cancer.
Circumcision of males represents a "surgical vaccine" against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, and can be pain-free. Although it can be performed at any age, the ideal time is infancy. The benefits vastly outweigh risks.

http://www.circinfo.net/

From personal experience in a doctor's office where I assisted in a number of circumcisions, there is a largely pragmatic aspect to parent's decision to have their children circumscribed. The foreskin retains fluids post coitus and this increases exposure time to possibly infectious agents. The male urethra is a small target, so this is pretty easy to visualize. You get infections when the mucous membrane of the urethra is penetrated by an organism.

I grew up in church and had an intellectual interest in scripture. Most of the ancient sexual ethics were found alongside dicta to prevent other sorts of diseases. We find the passages difficult to relate to in this era with all of its contraceptives, but because the Jews were a very tribal group disease was prone to spread. The various rules for sex had good reasoning and were handed down by community authorities. It makes sense then that perhaps an ancient Jew -we'll call him Abraham- had a scientific revelation as to the practicality of removing the foreskin and passed it of as a religious rite like the rest of the sexual ethics.
Someone else forgot to read the thread before posting...

While it's true circumcision lowers the risk of some diseases, the diseases are not at all dangerous and the complication rate is about the same as the risk of infection. As a result, there's no medical organization in the world that promotes routine infant circumcision for medical reasons.
I had read the post, but due credence isn't being given to the evidence. I invite people to visit the link I included. The tendency in the conversation seems to be there is evidence but it's inconclusive. The website is a database for the answers to all of the questions that are being treated in this forum.
I have read through the site, and basically, nowhere does it (or you) address the criticism I made - that the diseases circumcision is meant to prevent are generally easily treatable, that the complication rate is roughly the same as the rate of the diseases it's meant to prevent, and that there's no professional medical organization in the world that promotes RIC.

The main problem with the website you posted is that it's a pro-circ propaganda site - notice that there's no place in the entire site that discusses the main reasons why people are anti-RIC (that is, that there are no clear benefits and that it ought to be the man's choice, not his parents). Nowhere in the entire site does it even set the supposed benefits side-by-side with the costs. When it does give actual numbers, they cite studies that are biased in favor of circumcision.

It's not that we think that the evidence is inconclusive, it's that it's been studied and there's no net medical benefit.

To my brief, unaddressed criticisms I made before, I'll add that for things like STDs, a far better solution is not to cut off the most sensitive parts of men's genitalia without their permission, but to 1) not sleep around and 2) if you do, use a condom. In other words, lifestyle is by far the more operative variable, not circumcision.

The rate of infection by various diseases before age 18 is virtually nil. Granted, the complication rate from circumcisions is also small - but this only underlines my basic point that circumcision is not a medical decision, but a personal one.

In short, we've read stuff like your site over and over again and while it's not completely bogus, it's blatantly biased and you're going to have to give us something better.

And also, I'd recommend that you not tell us circumcision is good because it's in the Bible. That sort of reasoning isn't so effective here.
Hi Eric,

It could be me, but nowhere on the website that you linked to can I find anything about whether or not RIC is a violation upon the basic human rights of the infant.

Earlier in this topic, I wrote:
When done on a person under the age of consent, infant circumcision is a violation upon their rights. Nobody should be allowed to remove a part of the body of an infant because of any ethical or societal value. The removed part has a function and it does effect the infant during his whole life. This is a decision that should be made by the adult that has to live with the consequences, not by anybody else.

Also quite important since you mention the medical benefits of RIC:

Gliktch wrote
... back to the 'medical benefit' rebuttal that's been covered several times; since removal of breast tissue can demonstrably lead to a reduction in the rate of breast cancer in adulthood, should this procedure thus be performed on infants?

I'm really looking forward to your explanation why RIC is not a violation upon the basic human rights of the infant. And whether or not you would approve of involuntary breast tissue removal for infant girls.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service