Is circumcision genital mutilation?

[borrofburi]

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?

That's precisely her point: she hates the pain her children suffer during vaccination, but at least *that* procedure has strong medical reasons, unlike routine infant circumcision.

 

[freedom0f5peech]

Eidolon,
About 25 (general) errors in one post (technically many more).
you are about to make a World Record here!

Prepare for a reply filled with solid logic and well sourced, published, peer reviewed scientific articles"¦
(instead of fallacious opinions based on appeals to preferences, etc"¦)

Well, I haven't really wanted to comment on this discussion because it tends to be irrelevant to world being

Irrelevant? We are talking about an extreme human rights violation that consists of sexual mutilation upon children that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives
(those lost nerve endings can never been regained).

Humanities ethical standards may be subjective, but we do share the same ethical standards (for the most part), and you are making an exception without logical rational"¦
if you don't get that now, you soon well.
(read on)

Who gives a shit about whether or not the excess skin on someone's junk is intact or not.

This has nothing to do with condemning or praising someone's genital status.
I agree, who gives a **** who is intact or cut.
It has everything to do with protecting the rights of the individual from abuse.
(even more so with something this extremely perverse and twisted)

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.

I am glad you did voice your ignorance so I can correct you (below)"¦

Firstly, I want to address the fact that a comparison between male and female circumcision is not valid.

That is a gross over simplification. Some comparisons between different types are not very valid, but many (most) are. The basic premise, which is that circumcision is a human rights violation based on sexual mutilation and amputation to reduce pleasure in both male and female circumcision makes it immediately valid on almost every conceivable level. i.e., unless you initially give more rights to women, this proposition is fallaciously flawed and disturbing.

I made a video about this very topic here to help people understand the differences and similarities in great detail, instead of making bold and fallacious assumptions.
Click Here To Watch

Why you ask? Simple. Male and female genitalia are completely different.

Both male and female genitalia have embryonic equivalences stemming from the same embryonic parts.
You are trying much too hard to separate the two, as if males and females are of a different species or something
(bordering on extreme sexism, considering how rights are made more unequal with your position here).

Keep reading"¦

(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

Are you under the impression that male circumcision was not devised for the same reason?


Rabbi Ben Maimon (Moses Maimonides, 1135-1204 AD):
"The Reason for circumcision is to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. Violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and diminishes the pleasure is indubitable."

Modern History Of Circumcision (the last 150 years):
http://www.cirp.org/library/history/
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision


JUST SOME OF HISTORICAL REASONS FOR CIRCUMCISION TO REDUCE PLEASURE (in only the last 100 years, with more time I can give you many more)
(to reduce pleasure is why it was popularized and medicalized"¦ if you don't believe me, look into it):

Dr. Claude-Francois Lallemand promotes circumcision to cure them from nocturnal seminal emissions (i.e. wet dreams).
[Des Pertes Seminales Involontaires. Jeune 1836 (1):463-7; 1839 (2):70-162; 1842 (3):266-7, 280-9]1845: Circumcision prevents masturbation

John Harvey Kellogg promotes circumcision as punishment for boys to discourage them from masturbating.
[Treatment for Self-abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young, Burlington, Iowa, F. Segner & Co. (1888) p. 107]1891: The foreskin conduces to masturbation

P.C. Remondino (MD) promotes that circumcising blacks will help prevent them from raping whites.
[Negro rapes and their social problems. National Popular Review 1894 Jan;4(1):3-6]1900: Circumcision is needed to desensitize the penis

Dr. Ernest G. Mark notes that the "pleasurable sensations that are elicited from the extremely sensitive inner lining of the foreskin encourage a child to masturbate", which is why he recommends circumcision since it "lessens the sensitiveness of the organ".
[Circumcision. American Practitioner and News 1901 Feb 15;31(4):122-6]1935: Circumcision promotes chastity

Allan F. Guttmacher (MD) promotes mass circumcision as a means of blunting male sexual sensitivity.
[Should the baby be circumcised? Parents Magazine 1941 Sept;16(9):26,76-8]

Dr. Morris Fishbein calls for circumcision to prevent nervousness and of course also masturbation.
[Sex hygiene. Modern Home Medical Adviser. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co: 1969 pp 90, 119]

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).

You think the concept of male circumcision is different? Male circumcision was devised by the anti-sexual-pleasure cult of Judaism (of which Christianity and Islam is born from).
All three of these religions have been anti sexual pleasure from the very beginning (and continuing today).
(look at the history I posted above)

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.

This is nothing more than what this disgusting practice has evolved into over the last 3 thousand years.

Outside of America, Isrial, or Muslim countries, circumcision doesn't exist.
(male circumcision is considered a disgusting mutilation to most of the world)

The other 85% of the planet that doesn't perform this grotesque sexual mutilation on children, and thinks that a circumcised penis looks crippled.
i.e., unless you have grown up used to looking at a mutilated member, it's no different than seeing someone with their arms hacked off... etc.
(not aesthetically pleasing at all!)

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.

Sorry, but I will be presenting studies for you (above & below).
If you can't deal with them, then it's your own personal prerogative to ignore the facts if you wish to do so.

However, it doesn't remove enough to make the dick completely desensitized.

True, it does not remove ALL sensation... only about 75-90% of the sensations, and virtually all fine-touch sensation, as almost all fine touch nerve receptors (Meissners Corpuslces) are located in the foreskin. But this is no different than female circumcision, because circumcised women can still have pleasure and orgasm (studies below).


Female circumcision does not reduce sexual activity
"Circumcised women experience sexual arousal and orgasm as frequently as uncircumcised women, according to a study in Nigeria."
24 September 2002
NewScientist news service
Emma Young

Pleasure and Orgasm in Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C). 1: J Sex Med. 2007 Nov;4(6):1666-78.
Group of 137 women, affected by different types of female circumcision.
86% have orgasms
69.23% always have orgasms
91.23% of the younger women have orgasms
14 out of 15 infibulated report orgasms
Infibulated women showed the same desire, arousal, & satisfaction
No differences observed between circumcised and not regarding pain
PMID: 17970975 [PubMed - for MEDLINE]


Of course female circumcision affects pleasure and sensitivity, but you can see the same logic (with similar studies used to produce the same results) used for both female and male circumcision"¦ which is the point.

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 in fact, useful.

Maybe, if that was in fact true, but...

"There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, & ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men.
However, there was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure & sexual enjoyment after circumcision, due to loss of nerve endings."
Williams N, Kapila L. Complications of circumcision. Brit J Surg 80:1231-6.</SIZE>
Kim D, Pang M. Effect of male circumcision on sexuality. BJU Int 2006 doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x</URL><i></i>

Now, the idea of making it look better simply stems from the fact that an uncircumcised penis looks like some old geezers neck.

Wow... <sarcasm> what a great scientific and logical argument you have here </sarcasm>
Your anecdotal preference is based purely on your culture, and is anything but what the majority of the intact (uncircumcised, 85%) world thinks (outside of America, Isrial, and Muslim countries).

Why a girl would fnd that attractive in the first place, I have no idea.

Maybe because our species has evolved to be attracted to sex and sexual organs? A great many women are very attracted to the intact penis (as should be the case evolutionarily). It's only in twisted cultures that have changed the norm where you'll find women who prefer a mutilated member. You'll find the same thing with men in cultures who are used to circumcised women (they are disgusted at the very sight of a vagina that has skin beyond a tight small opening).

So, to solve this, they cut off the excess skin and bam!

Yes, they mutilate the genitals of children to continue what was done to them.
No different than Muslim mothers insisting that their daughters are circumcised.
(no, it's not the men who insist on this most, it is the mothers)

No more turkey neck dick.

<sarcasm> I see you are keeping this conversation rational and without fallacy </sarcasm>... (face-palm)

Now, I understand that the "choice" should be given to the individual however, I find it rather useless to give them that decision.

<sarcasm> No contradictory thinking there </sarcasm>... (head->desk)

For one, by the time they are old enough to make that decision, it may infact be too late to have it done safely.

And why would it need to be done later exactly? The whole point of neonatal circumcision is to force it on the child before he can choose, because no sensible person would want this done to them.

The nerve endings would be fuly developed, the penis would be much larger and such.

Again... no sensible person would want this done to them, so your entire argument here is for forcing it before they can form an opinion.
Does that not remind you of indoctrinated religion at all? Nothing? Not sinking in yet? Why in the hell do you think this procedure was invented?

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 development and the loss isn't so great.

Wow! I don't even need to respond. The obvious failure is so obvious it's about to make my computer screen explode.

Its not done so much on religious grounds anymore as it is for aesthetics

Yes, many religious practices are absorbed into culture. Trust me, I have just as little respect (and just as much disgust) for oppressive cultural thinking. Religions may come, give hate, oppression, and suffering, then leave... however leaving remnants in the culture. This excuses none of the disgusting practices that such religion influenced.

and some moderate medical benefits.

No different than removing one finger will reduce your risk of finger problems by 10%... if you remove two fingers, we reduce finger problems by 20%, and so on.

So on the question of is it ethical or not, I say this. Yes its ethical,

Using any rational scale of ethics, date-rape is more ethical (acceptable, or less damaging) than circumcision. Circumcision is rape... rape with a sharp object, including amputation. If an adult was raped and had part of his (or her) genitals cut off, you'd be disgusted.

Yes, circumcision isn't quite the same... it's worse, because it is rape with a knife with amputation, plus it's done to infants (far beyond any average pedophilia).

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.

Beneficial?

Hey... Look! Even female circumcision shows benefits with the same twisted logic
(even more so than male circumcision)...


Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer.
Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania:
for better or for worse?
(3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment)
International AIDS Society.


Kanki et al. reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes, women who had undergone FGC had a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not.
Kanki P, M'Boup S, Marlink R, et al. "Prevalence and risk determinants of human immunodeficiency virus type 2
(HIV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in west African female prostitutes
Am. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895-907. PMID<i></i>


"Female circumcision results in a reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris"
"Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with women who have been circumcised"
Manners of Welcoming the New Born Child

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.

So you aren't using logic and reason for everything... you are only against abuse "in the name of religion".

However, most circumcisions are done in hospitals, safely and with minimal risk.

Risk of what? Risk of losing sensitivity? 100% of circumcisions reduce sensitivity (on average, they remove 75-90% of the penial nerve endings, and close to 100% of the fine-touch nerve receptors... which are called Meissners Corpuscles).

. . .


Finally, I'll address and correct your misconceptions about how important the male prepuce (foreskin) is with the following study done in 2007.




BJU International 99 (4), 864-869 (British Journal of Urology International,<SIZE size="85">
Volume 99 Issue 4 Page 864 - April 2007)<i></i>

"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 sensitive

Notice that the areas removed in circumcision are the most sensitive
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

 

[freedom0f5peech]

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?

That's precisely her point: she hates the pain her children suffer during vaccination, but at least *that* procedure has strong medical reasons, unlike routine infant circumcision.

It's possible I overlooked her point. Maybe it was simply an example of parental distress... and if so, I apologize if I misrepresented anything.

I hope my point (otherwise) was clear (even if it wasn't directed at the right person).

I'm quite used to people trying to defend circumcision on the grounds of what was done to them (or what they did to their children), so I might easily jump to assume that is the case (however not trying to do so).

If I made an error (in assuming something that is not so), I do greatly and sincerely apologize.

Kind Regards,
F05

.
.
.

 

[nasher168]

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.

What if they do it on religious grounds, but with no greater risk to the child than in a regular circumcision? Is that ethical?

 

[Eidolon]

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.

What if they do it on religious grounds, but with no greater risk to the child than in a regular circumcision? Is that ethical?

If done by a trained physician, it doesn't matter what grounds its done on. The religious reference was mainly the ceremonial procedure done by a rabbi at a brisk which is not very hygienic and infection and complication risks are high.

@ Freedom0f5peech

Im not going to counter your argument, when a post is dissected and cut up like that, its better to not respond as it means the time they put into cutting it up has been effectively wasted. Plus, linking to various things whatever they be isn't argument, its fact pushing. Its not a debate of fact v opinion but opinion v opinion. I could link to a million things myself justifying circumcision and it be just as viable as the stuff you and others have linked to, but since this isn't a debate of fact against fact, it would just be justification of my opinion to counteract the justification of your opinion. This isn't a debate about how heavy a turd is, or something that can be demonstrated, its a debate about whether or not something is ethical, which can't be demonstrated because what is ethical is based on what personal and social norms deem as ethical. What you see as mutilation, others see as practical and warranted. Even if the hygienic benefits are minuscule, the fact that they exist at all can justify a procedure which when done in the proper setting by the proper staff can outweigh the potential risks.

Take for example, braces. Do teeth need to be aligned? No, as long as someone can still eat, crooked teeth are just as functional as straight ones. So if parents forced their kids to get braces, would that be dental mutilation? Braces in most cases are used entirely for aesthetic purposes, in which beauty is defined by an external source ie society norms. Granted, genitals aren't judged by society however, society has dictated what the norm should be.

So are braces mutilation, or is a cosmetic/mildly medically beneficial procedure only considered mutilation if it originated from religious contexts? Frankly, Im beginning to sense that the only thing people have a problem with is if something was spawned from a religious tradition as if absolutely everything religion came up with was somehow inherently bad simply because it was religious in nature.

 

[borrofburi]

Plus, linking to various things whatever they be isn't argument, its fact pushing.

I do believe reasonable folks call that evidence.

Its not a debate of fact v opinion but opinion v opinion.

Only insofar as "rape is unethical" is an opinion.

its a debate about whether or not something is ethical, which can't be demonstrated because what is ethical is based on what personal and social norms deem as ethical.

So? Rape is unethical for humans based on a combination of things. Are you going to enter into a debate where you argue the immorality of rape is "just an opinion" and thus it's ok for parents to rape their children? I'll grant you that ethical standards are in many senses subjective, however rational people develop frameworks based on a few small axioms to determine what is ethical or not based on more than "I don't like it" or "I like it".

What you see as mutilation, others see as practical and warranted.

It is, by definition, mutilation, that some people see that mutilation as aesthetically pleasing, or practical, or warrented, does not change that it is mutilation. Also, that it is mutilation does not necessarily determine if it is "ethical" or not.

Even if the hygienic benefits are minuscule, the fact that they exist at all can justify a procedure which when done in the proper setting by the proper staff can outweigh the potential risks.

Just as cutting off a finger can.

Take for example, braces. Do teeth need to be aligned? No, as long as someone can still eat, crooked teeth are just as functional as straight ones. So if parents forced their kids to get braces, would that be dental mutilation?

Would it be mutilation? By definition, no. Would it be unethical? Maybe. It *can* be undone by the child in their adult life should they so choose they like the way their teeth normally grow better, so that nullifies a lot of it. Crooked teeth also serve no function (and before you go and say the foreskin serves no function, read free o speech's post detailing scientific studies of its use (which, incidentally, are not "opinion")), there can be no argument that braces, in general, *reduce* the function of teeth. For those reasons, I think it's probably an ok thing.

society has dictated what the norm should be.

Which is, increasingly, not to circumcise children.

Frankly, Im beginning to sense that the only thing people have a problem with is if something was spawned from a religious tradition as if absolutely everything religion came up with was somehow inherently bad simply because it was religious in nature.

Then you are quite obviously not listening. Frankly, I'm beginning to sense that you don't even read what I write, as if you already *know* what I think and what I wrote without actually reading any of it.

 

[Eidolon]

Ok first off, circumcision is not rape. Look at the definitions. Quit saying that if I justify circumcision that I also justify rape. They are not the same, inside, outside or or in third person.

Secondly, a finger is not a flap of skin. Cutting off of a finger creates a handicap. Removal of foreskin does nothing at worst (if no complications from the procedure occur that is) and at best at least prevents dick funk from building up between the skin rolls which could create a potential rash problem if someone has been sweating for an extended period of time. Its an invalid statement to say that removing mole is the same as removing an appendage, likewise, removal of foreskin to removal of a digit.

Thirdly its not by definition mutilation, its by surgical definition, Modification. The same as having a mole removed or having a skin roll removed after massive weight loss. Granted the kid has no choice in the matter, but he doesn't have a choice in many things in his early life. Its not up to a 4 day old to decide whats best for his life at the moment or for the future, its his parents.

And finally, even if the rest of worlds society has decided that circumcision is unethical, why in the hell should that have any relevance to what American society has to say about it? Just because the rest of the world decided it not fashionable anymore, doesn't mean that our culture is somehow backwards for it. This whole issue isn't about ethics, its about why doesn't american culture conform to the rest of the world. Frankly, I get tired of seeing that shit.

 

[borrofburi]

Ok first off, circumcision is not rape. Look at the definitions. Quit saying that if I justify circumcision that I also justify rape. They are not the same, inside, outside or or in third person.

I never said any of that, what I am saying is that rape is unethical for similar reasons circumcision is unethical (namely lack of informed consent and lack of medical necessity). Or, more precisely, you agree rape is unethical, why? What is your rational basis for rape being unethical? I posit that either your moral reasoning allows for me to cut off children's ear lobes because I find it aesthetically pleasing, allows me to rape any children I may have, or it does not allow circumcision without special pleading.

Secondly, a finger is not a flap of skin.

Ok, let's cut off ear lobes then.

Removal of foreskin does nothing

This is factually incorrect, hence the scientific studies Fo5 posted. You know, evidence.

Thirdly its not by definition mutilation, its by surgical definition, Modification.

Please posit the difference in your definitions of "multiation" and "modification". I have read several definitions of mutilation, and they all involve disfigurement or removal of parts, which circumcision is whether you find that alteration aesthetically pleasing or not. No definition of mutilation I've found says "altering something to be aesthetically unpleasing, so if you think it looks good it's not mutilation".

The same as having a mole removed or having a skin roll removed after massive weight loss. Granted the kid has no choice in the matter, but he doesn't have a choice in many things in his early life.

Most of early life choices are non-permanent or medically necessary or given some approximation of informed consent, this is neither.

And finally, even if the rest of worlds society has decided that circumcision is unethical, why in the hell should that have any relevance to what American society has to say about it?

It's a sign that there's something we are obviously not seeing. But you misunderstood me, I meant that even in america the majority of new children are not circumcised, so society as a whole is determining that intact is the standard, your argumentum ad populum fails not only as a logical fallacy, but also as one that relies on the false assumption that it IS populum. And don't forget YOU brought up, and I quote, "society has dictated what the norm should be", I was simply continuing on the thought and pointing out that society as a whole is dictating the norm is uncircumcised; perhaps I should have pointed out that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy instead of pointing out that even if it weren't a fallacy your premise is false.

This whole issue isn't about ethics, its about why doesn't american culture conform to the rest of the world. Frankly, I get tired of seeing that shit.

Bullshit. I find your projection of words and feelings onto me to be an intellectual failure.

 

[5810Singer]

Just because the rest of the world decided it not fashionable anymore, doesn't mean that our culture is somehow backwards for it. This whole issue isn't about ethics, its about why doesn't american culture conform to the rest of the world. Frankly, I get tired of seeing that shit.

Speaking as part of the rest of the world, what I'm tired of seeing is that portion of the US citizenry that seems to need reminding that the rest of the world even exists.

Who says "we" "decided it wasn't fashionable anymore"?
As far as I'm aware many of "us" never found it fashionable in the first place!

Please show me the legions of "anti-US-anti-circumcision" protesters. Please show me the polemical anti-circumcision movies that European/Asian/African/etc, etc, directors have been making in protest against the US government.

What?
There are none?

Maybe that's because "us" in the rest of the world couldn't give a tinker's cuss wether you're circumcised or not,.....we've got bigger fish to fry.

 

[nasher168]

Its not up to a 4 day old to decide whats best for his life at the moment or for the future, its his parents.

And would you consider the idea of removing an area of the body providing much pleasure in later life "best for his life"?

Removal of foreskin does nothing

Evidence please. Freedomof5peech did a great job finding evidence that it does have an effect. If you really wish to make a counter-claim, you will need to find something even better. Otherwise, it is merely a baseless assertion on your part.

 

[Eidolon]

Its not up to a 4 day old to decide whats best for his life at the moment or for the future, its his parents.

And would you consider the idea of removing an area of the body providing much pleasure in later life "best for his life"?

Would you consider his parents choice of school to be detrimental since he would not have the choice on that? What if his parents chose to send him to a public school over a private school when they have the choice of either? If they chose the public school, would they be mutilating his education by not choosing the more quality education of the private school?

What about his diet? If his parents decide to raise him vegan, would that be mutilation of his diet due to lacking of animal proteins and fats. He doesn't have a choice about that, at least in his earliest years. So if his parents decide it would be better for him to not have his meats for whatever reason they find to be adequate, would they be mutilating his nutrition?

What if his parents decide to name him Assface or Dumbshit. He doesn't have a choice in his name and if his parents decide to give him a stupid name, would they be mutilating his self esteem? (it doesn't have to be a sarcastic name, just anything that may get him called a fag or some other insult)

At what point does a parents choice for their son become mutilation? Is it just because the choice to circumcise is physical that its mutilation? And if it has to be only physical, then what would you call it when someone is deprived of meats based on their parents selected ideology, and would you be willing to tell them that their ideology is wrong and harmful to their kids even though evidence for both sides is not convincing either way?

Removal of foreskin does nothing

Evidence please. Freedomof5peech did a great job finding evidence that it does have an effect. If you really wish to make a counter-claim, you will need to find something even better. Otherwise, it is merely a baseless assertion on your part.

If anything, removal of the foreskin makes the penis lower maintenance. Since there isn't a skin flap for funk to get trapped in, and have to be cleaned. A cut penis can be cleaned with one swift pass of soap water. And on that note, not having an area for funk to collect reduces potential odors, rashes, and general nastiness. The advantages of keeping the foreskin, are basically just having more sensitivity and maybe easier to masturbate since the skin would just roll over it instead of needing lube. And since the advantage to a lower maintenance penis has immediate benefits when young since the parents have to change the diapers and clean everything, its better for the parents and offspring for them to take the lower maintenance option since it has an immediate pay off, and just have him use lotion in the future once that benefit has expired.

Im withdrawing from this debate because from reading over all the previous posts, it seems that the gang effect exists on this topic as any one who posts a pro circumcision (or even neutral for that matter) argument is arbitrarily ganged up on with attacks and counter arguments from the anti circumcise individuals, attempting to sway their views as if they were inherently wrong. I originally came in with a mostly neutral argument of "who gives a crap" (albeit sarcastic) and immediately had my position criticized for not being strictly anti circumcise. I have no problem if people circumcise. Its been done for centuries and at least within the last 50 years or so due to medical advances and better techniques, no one has died from it or suffered disfiguring complications (yes there are exceptions of course, don't bother linking to them, I don't give a shit). Their are pros and cons to each side of the argument, and thats why its best left to the parents discretion. They shouldn't be ostracized or accused of mutilating their kid if they decide to have it done because they may see an advantage to the procedure and decide that its best for him. And even if it doesn't have an exceptional advantage, it doesn't have any exceptional disadvantages either. Its simply what you make of it. (just to be clear, Im talking about ones that a done by physicians with proper techniques, not rabbis or witch doctors with razor blades).

 

[borrofburi]

Would you consider his parents choice of school to be detrimental since he would not have the choice on that? What if his parents chose to send him to a public school over a private school when they have the choice of either? If they chose the public school, would they be mutilating his education by not choosing the more quality education of the private school?

What about his diet? If his parents decide to raise him vegan, would that be mutilation of his diet due to lacking of animal proteins and fats. He doesn't have a choice about that, at least in his earliest years. So if his parents decide it would be better for him to not have his meats for whatever reason they find to be adequate, would they be mutilating his nutrition?

What if his parents decide to name him Assface or Dumbshit. He doesn't have a choice in his name and if his parents decide to give him a stupid name, would they be mutilating his self esteem? (it doesn't have to be a sarcastic name, just anything that may get him called a fag or some other insult)

At what point does a parents choice for their son become mutilation? Is it just because the choice to circumcise is physical that its mutilation? And if it has to be only physical, then what would you call it when someone is deprived of meats based on their parents selected ideology, and would you be willing to tell them that their ideology is wrong and harmful to their kids even though evidence for both sides is not convincing either way?

I'm not sure the definition of mutilation extends to "mental" or "emotional" mutilation, I think it really only applies to physical bodies. But anyway, to answer your questions:
-Choice of school: non-permanent and in many senses necessary.
-Diet: non-permanent, and necessary in some form or another
-Name: non-permanent, and necessary in some form or another, though I think we do have laws that would not allow parents to name their children "assface" or "dumbshit", so ironically this example is flawed.
-Circumcision is mutilation by definition, but that does not make it unethical by definition. You seem to be unable to distinguish between a descriptive word and the actual reasoning. Circumcision is unethical because it is permanent and not necessary, not because it's mutilation.

Evidence please. Freedomof5peech did a great job finding evidence that it does have an effect. If you really wish to make a counter-claim, you will need to find something even better. Otherwise, it is merely a baseless assertion on your part.

If anything, removal of the foreskin makes the penis lower maintenance. Since there isn't a skin flap for funk to get trapped in, and have to be cleaned. A cut penis can be cleaned with one swift pass of soap water. And on that note, not having an area for funk to collect reduces potential odors, rashes, and general nastiness.

More opinion and assertion. Perhaps try providing evidence. E.g a scientific study that says intact males are 50% likely to get a major rash in their lifetime and 10% of them are likely to have major complications would be rather convincing. I however doubt you'll find one, because I am fairly certain it's a rare phenomena.

And since the advantage to a lower maintenance penis has immediate benefits when young since the parents have to change the diapers and clean everything,

This was already debunked somewhere earlier in this thread, I could potentially find it if you really think this is a valid argument.

its better for the parents and offspring for them to take the lower maintenance option since it has an immediate pay off, and just have him use lotion in the future once that benefit has expired.

So parental convenience trumps permanent changes without consent? Ok, let's start cutting off ear lobes, and raping children because it's convenient. And if you get them young enough, they won't remember it anyway.

Im withdrawing from this debate because from reading over all the previous posts,

Without ever responding to my previous post, how convenient.

attempting to sway their views as if they were inherently wrong.

That's because we think they are. That's kind of what *unethical* means.

I originally came in with a mostly neutral argument of "who gives a crap" (albeit sarcastic) and immediately had my position criticized for not being strictly anti circumcise.

With reasoning and evidence, that's kind of how these things go. If you were a creationist we would do the same thing, there are some positions that are untenable.

Its been done for centuries

Argument from antiquity? It's a fallacy you know. Slavery was also around for centuries.

no one has ... there are exceptions of course ... I don't give a shit

You seem to misunderstand how this goes. You don't make a broad statement, then acknowledge you are wrong, and then say you don't care so it's true anyway.

Their are pros and cons to each side of the argument, and thats why its best left to the parents discretion.

No. The pros and cons are irrelevant, what is relevant is that it's a permanent non-consental change to the child's body, just as ear lobe removal.

 

[nasher168]

f anything, removal of the foreskin makes the penis lower maintenance. Since there isn't a skin flap for funk to get trapped in, and have to be cleaned.

It doesn't need cleaning much at all. Literally all it takes is just to every now and again peel it back and let the water from the shower wash over it. That's it. You don't need to pick bits out or scrub like with fingernails. You don't even need to do it every time you have a shower. Even if you do just leave it, stuff tends to work it's way out on it's own anyway.
The argument that it requires loads of attention simply doesn't hold up. The attention required is minimal. You might as well argue for the systematic removal of toenails at birth. They require more attention, and they do bugger all except get infected.

 

[scalyblue]

Let's take this pro-circumcision argument it to its logical conclusion. All newborns should get appendectomies, there is only a small amount of tissue to remove, and it might cause trouble later in life. What, you say? Appendicitis isn't really a problem anymore and we shouldn't be doing unnecessary surgery on newborns? No problem, let's stamp that logic out with three thousand years of religious tradition so that all of the indoctrinated do it anyway, we'll make not having a belly scar an ugly, ungodly thing.

What really grinds my gears is that I hear horror stories of US doctors who do it without asking the parents, because it's part of 'standard procedure'

 

[Giliell]

It's possible I overlooked her point. Maybe it was simply an example of parental distress... and if so, I apologize if I misrepresented anything.

I hope my point (otherwise) was clear (even if it wasn't directed at the right person).

I'm quite used to people trying to defend circumcision on the grounds of what was done to them (or what they did to their children), so I might easily jump to assume that is the case (however not trying to do so).

If I made an error (in assuming something that is not so), I do greatly and sincerely apologize.

Kind Regards,
F05

.
.
.

No problem.
I think we quite agree on the topic.
My point was a purely emotional evolutionary instinct point of the urge of a parent to protect their young from any kind of pain or damage.
As a sensible, rational being I can understand the need for vaccination, its huge benefits comapred to its small risks.
But I cannot understand how a parent can let their child be harmed for no better reason than "cosmetics" "tradition" and such nonsense any more than I can understand somebody who smashes a newborn against a wall.
And yes, argument from personal incredulity, I know, but nonetheless a valid one, since we're also emotional beings.

 

[freedom0f5peech]

There has been a few interesting videos on this topic recently
by those in our Atheist Community, and I thought I would share...

by freedom0f5peech (January 08, 2010):
Correcting Stephen Lewis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgoeD8TxBrQ

by ShwaNerd (January 16, 2010):
Male Circumcision = Male Genital Mutilation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNW0_I7C6KA

by tersse (January 16, 2010):
RE: Male Circumcision = Male Genital Mutilation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgewblzjYg

.
.
.

 

[Giliell]

I liked your contend, but not the presentation
Please re-do the reading part without moving over the words, it really hurts the eye, I had to close mine

 

[nasher168]

I agree with Giliell-maybe doing a shot that isn't quite so close and moves slower, so it doesn't require you to constantly move your eyes-mine are genuinely aching a little bit right now after watching that video.

 

[freedom0f5peech]

I couldn't tell what that was going to look like until after it was rendered, because this computer is shite... and it took over an hour to render. Anyhow, that's how that happened.

 

[X-Factor]

If done for religious reasons? Absolutely is mutilation, even if done by a "competent" consenting adult to himself/herself. I was circumsized as a child, though as I recall it was for medical reasons despite VERY religious parents.