Is circumcision genital mutilation?

[borrofburi]

Yes, but the finger removed is NOT functional. See what I'm getting at?

Yes but the foreskin removed is NOT functional. I really don't see what you're getting at, unless you're trying to claim the foreskin has no purpose, in which case read freedom o speech's posts.

Yet it's still a personal preference. I could say I prefer being an atheist over being a Muslim because one seems more rational and reasonable, and even though I've never been a Muslim, I can infer from what I know of the Muslim faith that I'd prefer being an atheist.

First, it's much easier to extrapolate to understand what it'd be like to be muslim, however this is not so for sensations you have simply never had, such as the flavor of chocolate (e.g. how would you explain the flavor of salt to someone who had never tasted salt before?) or nerves you've never had. Second, I am not certain you *can* completely discount being a muslim; more precisely, sure, I agree that current-you would rather not be a muslim, but in some alternate universe where you grew up muslim I imagine muslim-you might be saying similar things about atheist-you (socialization is powerful).

In much the same way, a person may not have had the opportunity to know what it's like to be uncircumcised, but they can still infer that they'd prefer it based on what they know of it - such as the difference in how they look.

And I think that unfair, for of course he likes how it looks, it's what he knows, it's what he thinks of when he thinks of "my penis", he simply knows nothing else.

 

[Giliell]

You can't really define circumcision in terms of ethical or non-ethical. It's a personal decision.

Only if made by the person whose genitals are concerned

My husband is grateful for being circumcised as an infant, because he feels it looks better and feels better, and he was too young to remember it.

So what?
How does that relate to any sons he might ever have? He cannot know whether they'd prefer it. And they still could have done it if they wanted it as adults

He intends on having it done if we ever have a son. Growing up in a culture where circumcision is the norm, I can't honestly say I have strong feelings either way.

Ehm, that is no argument.
Just because things are normal they're not right.

I would rather NOT circumcise my children,

Good!

but I'm not going to feel like a bad person or I've seriously harmed my child if I allow it to happen.

Not so good
Did you watch the video by Freedom0f5peech?
Think of your clitoris and imagine that your son will never experience the pleasure you get from it.

@Freedom0f5peech
Thanx for the video. It really showed again why it should be outlawed and never done to innocent babies without medical need.

 

[freedom0f5peech]

You can't really define circumcision in terms of ethical or non-ethical.

We certainly can. We can have arguments about whether the practice is ethical or not, and we can use the terms with good reason. This is an issue of human rights, and any such issue is a key topic for ethical discussion. To say it's not sounds more like a dismissal, rather than a well thought out argument.

It's a personal decision.

I could not possibly agree with you more!
I only hope you mean that just as you say it... as an authoritatively forceful (and irreversible) amputation is quite the opposite of any definition of a personal decision.

My husband is grateful for being circumcised as an infant

I'm hardly shocked. I've spoken with numerous circumcised women who say they are glad their clitoris was removed. When something was forced upon you, and you have no choice to go back and reverse it, the easiest psychological response is to convince yourself you're better off without what was removed from you (regardless of the fact that it's the most pleasurable part of the human anatomy).

because he feels it looks better

Whatever someone is used to will usually look best to them (unless they are in denial). Many Americans prefer the look of a circumcised penis, because they grew up only knowing that look... while European's only know intact, and if they see a circumcised penis they usually think it looks crippled.

The fact remains that this isn't a logical argument in favor of mutilating an unwilling child.

and feels better

It does? To who?

BJU International 99 (4), 864-869 (British Journal of Urology International,
Volume 99 Issue 4 Page 864 - April 2007)

"Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. Sorrells and others enlisted 159 men from the San Francisco Bay area, 91 of them circumcised, and conducted touch-sensitivity tests, using instruments that press with calibrated hairs, on 11 or 17 different places on their penises. The men could not see where they were being touched."

"The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis."

Notice that red and purple is more sensitive than blue, green and yellow

Notice that the areas removed in circumcision are the most sensative

Notice that the areas removed in circumcision are the most sensative
Notice that red and purple is more sensitive than blue, green and yellow

Notice that red and purple is more sensitive than blue, green and yellow

Notice that red and purple is more sensitive than blue, green and yellow

and he was too young to remember it.

That may be true, but I fail to see how that could legitimize such an act. For example, we shouldn't ignore the human rights violation of date rape if a ruffie was slipped into the victims drink so they don't remember the rape.

He intends on having it done if we ever have a son.

No doubt, only to legitimize what was done to him. There is no other reason to hurt a child in this way. After all, what is a greater sign of acceptance of what was done to him than to have it done to his child, right? To him, this is a way of saying "my manhood is good"... and for him to not have it done to his son, he likely feels it would be like saying "my manhood is crippled".

What he should be doing is the best for his son, and not himself.
Sadly, even most parents are more concerned about themselves much of the time.

Growing up in a culture where circumcision is the norm, I can't honestly say I have strong feelings either way.

Circumcision is only slightly the norm in America. It's not as "normal" as you might think.

This is from 2004 (the rates have dropped since then)...

As you can see, if you live on the west coast, circumcision is rare. Across the world, circumcision is only at about 15-20%... most men are intact (not circumcised). So, you'd be setting up your son to be the norm only in a small area (assuming he will live there his entire life, also regardless of the fact that rates are dropping continuously).

I would rather NOT circumcise my children,

I'm glad to hear that.

but I'm not going to feel like a bad person or I've seriously harmed my child if I allow it to happen.

Maybe you wouldn't, but I'd never be able to live with myself again.

That would be an adequate analogy - if we were discussing the full removal of the penis. A circumcised penis is still functional, and can still feel - though to a lesser degree.

A circumcised clitoris doesn't remove the ability to engage in sexual activity. The vagina is still functional (as a whole). I'm afraid your argument here works the same for both sexes.

Yes, but the finger removed is NOT functional. See what I'm getting at?

The foreskin removed is not functional. The clitoris removed is not functional.

If you are trying to say that removing the foreskin isn't like removing the penis... then all I have to say is that removing the finger isn't like removing the hand.

Yet it's still a personal preference.
[...]
In much the same way, a person may not have had the opportunity to know what it's like to be uncircumcised, but they can still infer that they'd prefer it based on what they know of it - such as the difference in how they look.

Personally (and I'm stepping outside of the logical, ethical, and scientific discussion just for a moment here)...

I find the idea of anyone claiming aloud a preference for amputated genitalia (without it simply being some kind of professedly odd fetish) to be a disgusting and repulsive suggestion.

i.e., just imagine how you might feel if you heard a man say he preferred the look of women without a clitoris?

Anyone should be aloud to claim such a preference... but nothing can stop me from feeling sick to my stomach (and sometimes losing my ability to eat for the rest of the day) after hearing such kinds of professed preferences. It's not much better or worse than hearing someone claim sexual preference for small children, regarding the emotional reaction this gives me.

.
..

I hope I might have added something to the discussion that is food for thought.

.
..

 

[TheFearmonger]

Well, our friend Freedom0f5peech has convinced me. His impassioned argument has made me decide to side with him and his "factual evidence", and all that. That's for the thought food, dude! :mrgreen:

 

[FearsEdge]

freedom0f5peech did say it all. He covered the ethical problems involved in circumcision quite well.
I would never have the procedure done on my child, unless it was medically necessary. If they want it done later in life that is there choice. I wholeheartedly agree with freedom0f5peech that the idea that so many people use their personal preference of a mutilated penis as a justification to amputate functional tissue from an infant is quite disturbing to me.

I can add my personal experience here. Stop reading if you don't want to hear about my penis, or other similar topics.


As far as an intact penis being a problem with women, my own anecdotal experience suggests that it is not an issue. I will confess I have not been with many women, but it has never been a problem, especially since I practice good hygiene. I have heard(on the Penn and Teller Bullshit to be particular) that the foreskin can help in stimulating one's partner, which my own experience confirms, at least to me.

The question of lost sensitivity is a given to me, since I am not cut. While someone who is cut and has lost sensitivity cannot experience my position, it is quite easy for me to simulate theirs. When my foreskin is pulled back and my glans rubs my underwear without the protection of the foreskin, it bothers me to the extent that I have to fix it right away. It occurs to me that men who have had it done are walking around with this happening all the time, and I imagine they would have to be used to it. Not to mention the erogenous sensitivity of the foreskin itself.

 

[freedom0f5peech]

I have heard(on the Penn and Teller Bullshit to be particular) that the foreskin can help in stimulating one's partner, which my own experience confirms, at least to me.

Intact males "can be" (and often are) better at pleasing their female partners in vaginal coitus (I put "can be" in quotations because everyone is different, and this is in no way saying that a circumcised man is bad at sex. That would be a gross oversimplification, this dynamic is far too complex to ever suggest such nonsense), but it's for somewhat different reasons than Penn and Teller hypothesize in their episode on circumcision. There may be other factors (which are yet to be clearly demonstrated beyond hypothesis), but the clear and well established observation is that an intact male doesn't require (on average) as much pressure based force during coitus to achieve satisfactory stimulation. i.e., because the intact male has all of his fine touch nerve receptors (Meissners Corpuscles, which are genitally located almost exclusively in the prepuce, a.k.a. the foreskin), he can feel more precisely what is happening during vaginal coitus, and doesn't require the common need for tight pressure to achieve stimulation. For this reason it's easier for him to know if he is being too rough, or not positioned correctly.

There are several nerve types on the penis, but the 3 most abundant are Meissners Corpuscles, Pacinian Corpuscles, and Free Nerves.
Each of these nerve types can sense several types of sensations.
Let's start by listing the primary sensations of each.

Meissners Corpuscles: Fine Touch
Pacinian Corpuscles: Pressure & Vibration
Free Nerve Endings: Pain

more details below...

MEISSNERS CORPUSCLES (wiki):
Meissner's corpuscles (or tactile corpuscles) are a type of mechanoreceptor. They are a type of nerve endings in the skin that are responsible for sensitivity to light touch. They are rapidly adaptive receptors, and are distributed throughout the skin, but concentrated in areas especially sensitive to light touch, such as the fingertips, palms, soles, lips, tongue, face and the male and female prepuce (foreskin). They are concentrated in areas of the body denoted as erogenous zones, which also include the breast and nape. On the male penis, Meissner's Corpuscles are primarily located on the prepuce (foreskin) and frenulum (a small fold of tissue that connects the Ridged Band of the prepuce/foreskin to the shaft of the penis).

PACINIAN CORPUSCLES (wiki):
Pacinian corpuscles are a type of mechanoreceptor. They are nerve endings in the skin, responsible for sensitivity to pain and pressure. Pacinian corpuscles detect gross pressure changes and vibrations and are rapidly adapting (phasic) receptors. These corpuscles are especially susceptible to vibrations. Pacinian corpuscles cause action potentials when the skin is rapidly indented but not when the pressure is steady, due to the layers of connective tissue that cover the nerve ending. On the male penis, pacinian corpuscles are most concentrated (and exclusive to other types) on the shaft of the penis.

FREE NERVE ENDINGS (wiki):
A free nerve ending (FNE) is an unspecialized, afferent nerve ending, meaning it brings information from the body's periphery toward the brain. They function as Cutaneous Receptors and are essentially used by vertebrates to detect pain. Free nerve endings are unencapsulated and have no complex sensory structures, unlike those found in Meissner's or Pacinian corpuscles. Free nerve endings can also detect temperature, mechanical stimuli (touch, pressure, stretch) or pain (nociception). They are the most common type of nerve ending found across most of the bodies surface. On the male penis, free nerve endings are primarily located on the glans (head of the penis).

comparisons...

Feelings of touch (from a stroke across the skin) are generated from Meissner's Corpuscles, which are primarily located just beneath the epidermis within the dermal papillae. Meissner's corpuscles do not detect pain, only touch. Mostly located on the foreskin.

Feelings of deep pressure (from a poke, for instance) are generated from Pacinian Corpuscles, which are located deeper in the dermis. Mostly located on the shaft.

Feelings of pain (from a cut, for example) are generated from Free Nerve Endings, which penetrate the epidermis and end in the stratum granulosum. Mostly located on the glans (penis head).

The question of lost sensitivity is a given to me, since I am not cut. While someone who is cut and has lost sensitivity cannot experience my position, it is quite easy for me to simulate theirs.

For the most part, yes. The only difference here is that a circumcised glans (head of the penis) is exposed for a long duration, it becomes calloused, which desensitizes the free nerve endings. I don't find this to be a particularly big problem, because free nerves primarily sense pain anyhow, and by callousing them that is reduced. However, this sense of pain is needed for a man to know if he is hurting his partner... i.e., if she is too dry and he thrusts to hard, not only will it hurt her, but he will get the same warning to slow down and work up towards stimulating her. The greater (greatest) loss of circumcision is the prepuce (foreskin) itself, being that it is the primary location to sense fine touch (without it the man may have little to no ability to sense fine touch at all in his genitals, which is tragic and should be treated as a severe loss of primary sensation which results in inability to feel a primary sexual sensation rightly given to you by birth, much like the female clitoris does for the woman).

When my foreskin is pulled back and my glans rubs my underwear without the protection of the foreskin, it bothers me to the extent that I have to fix it right away.

That is a naturally evolved sensation (which you are feeling via the free nerve endings in your glans) that tell you to protect yourself. This sensation is not only beneficial to the protection of your genitals, but to warn you if you are hurting your partner.

It occurs to me that men who have had it done are walking around with this happening all the time, and I imagine they would have to be used to it. Not to mention the erogenous sensitivity of the foreskin itself.

Exactly right.

.
.
.

 

[Sarge084]

Putting a child through such a barbaric process is nothing short of cruelty, and strips the child of his right to choose, fine if they want it done in adulthood, after all, it's no skin of my nose!!

It should a legal requirement that both parents are in attendance at the time of mutilation, then if the screams of the child don't tell you something is wrong,!

Pete

 

[Giliell]

Putting a child through such a barbaric process is nothing short of cruelty, and strips the child of his right to choose, fine if they want it done in adulthood, after all, it's no skin of my nose!!

It should a legal requirement that both parents are in attendance at the time of mutilation, then if the screams of the child don't tell you something is wrong,!

Pete

You know, that's the part I understand the least.
As a mum, it hurts me every time to see the doctor vaccinating my kids, I'd rather cut myself with razorblades every time.
But that's a necessary and beneficial procedure. How can you as a parent make your baby undergo non-necessary medical treatment? Have them taken from you, prepared for surgery, let them harm your innocent, helpless newborn, leaving them with bleeding wounds?

 

[Eidolon]

Well, I haven't really wanted to comment on this discussion because it tends to be irrelevant to world being, Who gives a shit about whether or not the excess skin on someone's junk is intact or not.

But, I've decided to go ahead and give my opinion on a few things because I have nothing better to do at the moment.

Firstly, I want to address the fact that a comparison between male and female circumcision is not valid. Why you ask? Simple. Male and female genitalia are completely different. (aside from the "no shit Sherlock" thoughts currently in your heads, there is a more valid point). The main difference between male and female circumcision, is that female circumcision is done on the grounds of removing sexual stimulation entirely, generally for reasons of oppression (given the idea that a girl incapable of receiving sexual pleasure will not have sex until forced to by whomever she is contracted to marry). Whereas male circumcision is done on the grounds of aesthetics. In short, females are for prevention of sexual desire, males for making it look better. This is why that comparison is invalid.

Now, before you go linking to some site or report about blah blah, touchy feely nerve endings blah blah, decreased sensitivity blah, I want to make it clear that, No shit, I realize that cutting skin off the wiener will remove some of the sensitivity. However, it doesn't remove enough to make the dick completely desensitized. In fact, some may argue that it removes just enough to keep someone from busting a nut before the right time. Frankly, in this case circumcision is completely valid and infact, useful.

Now, the idea of making it look better simply stems from the fact that an uncircumcised penis looks like some old geezers neck. Why a girl would find that attractive in the first place, I have no idea. So, to solve this, they cut off the excess skin and bam! No more turkey neck dick.

Now, I understand that the "choice" should be given to the individual however, I find it rather useless to give them that decision. For one, by the time they are old enough to make that decision, it may infact be too late to have it done safely. The nerve endings would be fully developed, the penis would be much larger and such. If its done shortly after birth, there is only about a half inch of penis and a grand total of .25 square inches of skin to remove, whereas a full grown penis could have 2-16 square inches of skin to remove, thus making the procedure much more dangerous. And since the nerves are fully developed, the loss of sensitivity could be severe. On the other hand, having it done young allows the nerves to continue developement and the loss isn't so great.

Its not done so much on religious grounds anymore as it is for aesthetics, and some moderate medical benefits. Granted, there are studies that go both ways on this, but some do show that a circumcised male is less likely to contract various STDs and such. But this isn't a major factor in the debate as its not a very strong correlation anyways.

So on the question of is it ethical or not, I say this. Yes its ethical, if done in a hospital, by a physician, with anesthesia (though I can't remember anything of it being done to me anyways whether I was numbed or not) and done under the pretense that it will be somewhat beneficial to the male once he is an adult. However, if its done purely on religious grounds, by a rabbi, with non steril instruments, without medical supervision or surgical knowledge, then yes of course its unethical. However, most circumcisions are done in hospitals, safely and with minimal risk.

Anyways, thats just my opinion on the matter.

 

[Giliell]

Now, the idea of making it look better simply stems from the fact that an uncircumcised penis looks like some old geezers neck. Why a girl would find that attractive in the first place, I have no idea. So, to solve this, they cut off the excess skin and bam! No more turkey neck dick.

Apart from the rest of your post having been debunked by previous posters, believe me, your dick doesn't look good whether it has a foreskin or not. I've never met another woman yet who didn't share my opinion.
And honestly, looking at it is not what we want.
To make it plain and simple: whether it's a blow job, a hand job or just plain old sex, it's out of our sight anyway (unless you're really, really shortsighted)

Edit:
On second thoughts: If you want to make it look attractive, try covering it with choclate, there's hardly a girl who doesn't like choclate

 

[Eidolon]

Now, the idea of making it look better simply stems from the fact that an uncircumcised penis looks like some old geezers neck. Why a girl would find that attractive in the first place, I have no idea. So, to solve this, they cut off the excess skin and bam! No more turkey neck dick.

Apart from the rest of your post having been debunked by previous posters, believe me, your dick doesn't look good whether it has a foreskin or not. I've never met another woman yet who didn't share my opinion.
And honestly, looking at it is not what we want.
To make it plain and simple: whether it's a blow job, a hand job or just plain old sex, it's out of our sight anyway (unless you're really, really shortsighted)

Im pretty sure you are generalizing using your own opinion as justification. You can't speak for all women when you say you don't care. Im sure many others do. Just because you don't care, doesn't mean that other women don't as well.

It may be shortsightened, but men are the same way with nipples. Granted, the size of a womans nipples isn't necessarily grounds for ending a relationship or anything, but from my own opinion, small perky nipples are far more appealing than large salami nipples. So, yes the aesthetics to come in to play, just not enough to really give a shit about.

I don't see where anything was "debunked". Points on both sides have been tossed back and forth like a hand grenade hot potato, but no one has really made any progress either way outside of getting pissed off when someone challenges their viewpoint. Evidence on both sides is anecdotal at best, and even the scientific findings don't add much to the debate because in all actuality, who fucking cares?

 

[5810Singer]

@Giliell

There are plenty of women who love looking at penii, and I've been lucky enough to date women who mostly fall into that category.



@Eidolon

What's all this "aesthetic" stuff?

Most non-religious circumcisions are performed on hygienic grounds.
The practice seems to come from desert regions where water is too precious to use for washing, therefore there was a tendency for men to develope infections under the foreskin.
Any man that is uncircumcised will be well aware that you need to pay special attention to keeping that area clean.

But I agree with you about female circumcision, it's in a different league when it comes to disfigurement and loss of quality of life.

 

[Giliell]

as I said: I never met a woman who does like looking at a penis, and none of them are prude.
But since I didn't carry out a scientific survey, yes that evidence is anecdotal.

@Eidlon
FoS has written a lot about the physical similarities between the clitoris and the foreskin.

 

[Eidolon]

What's all this "aesthetic" stuff?

I'm not really referring to traditional reasons for it, just modern which is primarily aesthetics with some mild medical benefits.

But I agree with you about female circumcision, it's in a different league when it comes to disfigurement and loss of quality of life.

Thanks. I kept seeing that argument brought up and no one ever got called on it based on the fact that its done purely for removal of sexual stimulation in a female, vice tradition, aesthetics, hygiene, medical and so on in males. It was a invalid comparison to use in the debate.

 

[Eidolon]

@Eidlon
FoS has written a lot about the physical similarities between the clitoris and the foreskin.

The clitoris is similar in respects to the glans of the penis. The skin is merely the sheath for the extension of it.

A penis is basically an enlarged clitoris, however when the clitoris is removed, its not simply taking off bulk skin, it would be the equivalent of cutting off the glans itself. Unless we are talking about 2 different types of circumcision (ie, removal of the bulk skin around the shaft vs the removal of the glans (helmet)) then the comparison isn't really valid.

 

[borrofburi]

I'm not really referring to traditional reasons for it, just modern which is primarily aesthetics with some mild medical benefits.

You mean like cutting off a finger? I think hands with four fingers look better, and there are mild medical benefits, I mean you can't ever break that finger, there's no chance of an infected hangnail, and most would say it's a benefit in grasping things because you have to pay extra special attention to what you're grabbing.

Now, I understand that the "choice" should be given to the individual however, I find it rather useless to give them that decision. For one, by the time they are old enough to make that decision, it may infact be too late to have it done safely. The nerve endings would be fully developed, the penis would be much larger and such. If its done shortly after birth, there is only about a half inch of penis and a grand total of .25 square inches of skin to remove, whereas a full grown penis could have 2-16 square inches of skin to remove, thus making the procedure much more dangerous. And since the nerves are fully developed, the loss of sensitivity could be severe. On the other hand, having it done young allows the nerves to continue developement and the loss isn't so great.

This argument is extremely weak at best. "I think it looks better and it's easier to do now than to actually give someone a choice over their own body, so I'll force my aesthetic ideals on them". No.

 

[Eidolon]

I'm not really referring to traditional reasons for it, just modern which is primarily aesthetics with some mild medical benefits.

You mean like cutting off a finger? I think hands with four fingers look better, and there are mild medical benefits, I mean you can't ever break that finger, there's no chance of an infected hangnail, and most would say it's a benefit in grasping things because you have to pay extra special attention to what you're grabbing.

Again this is an invalid comparison. Cutting off of a digit is completely different from removal of extra skin from around the penis, in fact the only way you could compare the two would be to say that cutting off of the penis could be similar to cutting off of a finger, however its not about cutting off the dick, merely trimming off extra skin.

Now, I understand that the "choice" should be given to the individual however, I find it rather useless to give them that decision. For one, by the time they are old enough to make that decision, it may infact be too late to have it done safely. The nerve endings would be fully developed, the penis would be much larger and such. If its done shortly after birth, there is only about a half inch of penis and a grand total of .25 square inches of skin to remove, whereas a full grown penis could have 2-16 square inches of skin to remove, thus making the procedure much more dangerous. And since the nerves are fully developed, the loss of sensitivity could be severe. On the other hand, having it done young allows the nerves to continue developement and the loss isn't so great.

This argument is extremely weak at best. "I think it looks better and it's easier to do now than to actually give someone a choice over their own body, so I'll force my aesthetic ideals on them". No.

No, the argument was neutral at best. It was based around the premise that if it was going to be done at all, its better that it be done shortly after birth so that the trauma is minimal and there would be no memory of it.

I came in with a neutral, very very slightly pro circumcision stance in this debate (mainly because I am circumcised and frankly glad for it) and my argument hasn't nessecarily been pro or con, but anti "You should do it for X reason" and "You shouldn't do it for X reason". These kind of arguments boil down to people mainly pushing their opinions on each other and trying to back it up with random google facts, testimony and anecdotes. Frankly, I don't give a shit who does what with which part of whos dick and for what reasons. The only thing I have a problem with is either opinion being forced on someone, or touted as the right way to do anything. In my opinion, as long as the procedure is done in a hospital by a trained physician, I don't see the problem with it. Like wise, I agree that if its done in a traditional sense by some priest in someones living room or shit shack for the purpose of personal belief and without regards to cleanliness or proper medical practices, then yes its unethical.

However, the act of performing a circumcision is not mutilation, nor is it unethical if done correctly, and frankly, both sides of the argument fight for something that is incredibly irrelevant in the world. Its dick skin, who the hell cares who does what with it. Why do people get so upset about it being done or about people not having it done?

 

[borrofburi]

Cutting off of a digit is completely different

A claim without evidence or reasoning to back it up. The earth is 6000 years old, that's a fact [another example of a claim without evidence or reasoning].

It was based around the premise that if it was going to be done at all, its better that it be done shortly after birth so that the trauma is minimal and there would be no memory of it.

And I fundamentally reject that because if it's going to be done at all it should be at the bequest of the person who owns the body it's being done to.

These kind of arguments boil down to people mainly pushing their opinions on each other

Err no, that is precisely what I am against: forcing body modification onto children.

and trying to back it up with random google facts, testimony and anecdotes.

Scientific papers are not "random google facts, testimony, and anecdotes".

Frankly, I don't give a shit who does what with which part of whos dick and for what reasons.

I care very much who does what with whose genitals if there's a lack of informed consent. Indeed, this is why we have molestation and rape laws.

The only thing I have a problem with is either opinion being forced on someone,

I absolutely agree.

In my opinion, as long as the procedure is done in a hospital by a trained physician, I don't see the problem with it.

What? This doesn't make any sense, and again backs up the removal of a finger for aesthetic reasons argument.

However, the act of performing a circumcision is not mutilation,

By definition, it is.

nor is it unethical if done correctly,

Permanent body modification without informed consent is inherently unethical without medical necessity.

and frankly, both sides of the argument fight for something that is incredibly irrelevant in the world.

How so? I see personal control of a person's own body as a basic fundamental right, and can't comprehend that being "irrelevant" anymore than I can comprehend rape being "irrelevant".

Its dick skin, who the hell cares who does what with it.

As I've noted above, I don't care who does what with their own dick skin, I care who does what with *other people's* dick skin without informed consent. Perhaps you don't see infants as people?

Why do people get so upset about it being done or about people not having it done?

I do believe I've answered that question in full.

 

[obsidianavenger]

I came in with a neutral, very very slightly pro circumcision stance in this debate (mainly because I am circumcised and frankly glad for it) and my argument hasn't nessecarily been pro or con, but anti "You should do it for X reason" and "You shouldn't do it for X reason". These kind of arguments boil down to people mainly pushing their opinions on each other and trying to back it up with random google facts, testimony and anecdotes. Frankly, I don't give a shit who does what with which part of whos dick and for what reasons. The only thing I have a problem with is either opinion being forced on someone, or touted as the right way to do anything. In my opinion, as long as the procedure is done in a hospital by a trained physician, I don't see the problem with it. Like wise, I agree that if its done in a traditional sense by some priest in someones living room or shit shack for the purpose of personal belief and without regards to cleanliness or proper medical practices, then yes its unethical.

so people should not push their opinions on each other in a debate, with words, but its ok for parents to push their opinions on their sons in surgery with a knife?

thats rather inconsistent.

you can deny it all you want but circumcision IS mutilation, and its not something that can be undone.

imagine if your parents went and got you tattooed while you were still an infant; imagine further that you hate the tattoo and laser removal is not an option...

would you say its ok for your parents to mutilate you in that way?

i mean really, by your logic, as long as a young girl is raped in a hospital, by a doctor, when she's too young to remember, and doesn't get any diseases from it... its perfectly fine!

its fine that you appreciate that it happened to you. no one is telling you that you should feel violated or anything like that. but not everyone feels the same as you, and to have their body modified before they are old enough to have a say is... not ethical.

 

[freedom0f5peech]

As a mum, it hurts me every time to see the doctor vaccinating my kids, I'd rather cut myself with razorblades every time.
But that's a necessary and beneficial procedure.

Yet male circumcision is no more "necessary" or "beneficial" than female circumcision.
Would you compare that to a vaccination?
How and when did some people start comparing genital amputation to a shot?
WTF!!!

A long reply to Eidolon is up next... stay tuned...

.
.
.