Talk About Marriage banner

1 - 20 of 101 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
45 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I think non-medical circumcision should become outright illegal. it is a disgusting barbaric practice. what do you guys think? In civilised countries like Sweden less then 0.1 percent of male babies are circumcised.

what do you guys think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,964 Posts
I think it’s fine. I understand why people choose not to get their kids circumcised and I understand why they do. I’ve seen so many circumcisions in my life, from newborns to toddlers, to teens and elderly.
Watching newborns get it... doesn’t seem that barbaric to me honestly. Then when they get older, they do it under anesthesia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,525 Posts
Personally, I do not support routine infant circumcision. At all. If it needs to be done for a legitimate medical issue, then fine but even then most are not actually needed.

I use to support it and wanted my son's to be circumcised. My wife refused to have it done. Eventually I came around and I'm glad they were kept intact.

Their body, their choice.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,034 Posts
Current policies, pediatricians ask the family as this is a private decision that has no real medical ramifications. So, don’t know why it would be made illegal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
839 Posts
As I see it - The wider question is this

Are children the possessions of adults - to treat with the same degree of respect as pets or toys or are they potential adults who will be able to give, or not, informed consent when they reach an appropriate age.

Put it another way - should adults be able to insist that minors are tattooed? What if the tat is political, racist or sexist? On their forehead?

IMO - if it ain't necessary let them make their own informed decision in due course.

I was christened (aged 3 weeks in 1947). My godparents made promises on my behalf about my future beliefs. The clear intent was that I was bound to honour those promises. Fortunately I realised the commitment was invalid and was not, as was the intent, inhibited in considering the evidence and using reason to decide for myself. Full disclosure - Some years later the CofE amended the rite, presumably in recognition that the immorality it had imposed for centuries was now a negative recruitment method.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
44,251 Posts
Male genital mutilation should be seen through the same lens as for the women.
I disagree with this.

Male circumcision means to remove the fore skin on a male's penis.

There is also female circumcision which is to remove a small amount of skin on the clitoris.

Female genital multination “any procedure that involves partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” It leaves only a small hole for drainage and penis entry. When a baby is born, the woman has to be cut open and then sewn closed again after the birth. The idea is so that women cannot orgasm and enjoy sex. That way it might prevent them from cheating.

This was a normal practice in many tribes when I lived in Africa. The woman who was our maid suffered this. And to make it even worse, her husband who traveled often had even the hole sewn shut when he traveled. When he returned home, she was taken back to the woman in the village who did this barbaric stuff and she was cut back open. This happened over and over and over again to her.

Male genital mutilation would be to cut off the penis and the nuts.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,034 Posts
As I see it - The wider question is this

Are children the possessions of adults - to treat with the same degree of respect as pets or toys or are they potential adults who will be able to give, or not, informed consent when they reach an appropriate age.

Put it another way - should adults be able to insist that minors are tattooed? What if the tat is political, racist or sexist? On their forehead?

IMO - if it ain't necessary let them make their own informed decision in due course.

I was christened (aged 3 weeks in 1947). My godparents made promises on my behalf about my future beliefs. The clear intent was that I was bound to honour those promises. Fortunately I realised the commitment was invalid and was not, as was the intent, inhibited in considering the evidence and using reason to decide for myself. Full disclosure - Some years later the CofE amended the rite, presumably in recognition that the immorality it had imposed for centuries was now a negative recruitment method.
I recognize policies may be different in some countries. Males circumcisions (that is the removal of the prepuce) does not carry the same implications as does tattoos, etc. There are no clear medial issues associated with circumcisions.

In the US, to make something illegal on an issue like this would not be a low hanging fruit.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,034 Posts
You say tomato, I say mutilation.

Which parts of your genitals can we surgically remove that you would NOT call mutilation?
Male prepuce is truly vestigial tissue, so not quite the same as the prepuce associated with the female anatomy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
839 Posts
I recognize policies may be different in some countries. Males circumcisions (that is the removal of the prepuce) does not carry the same implications as does tattoos, etc. There are no clear medial issues associated with circumcisions.

In the US, to make something illegal on an issue like this would not be a low hanging fruit.
Are you suggesting that you consider permanently altering the physical appearance of another human being without their informed consent is OK?

Without clear medical justification - Never, always or just in certain (please specify) situations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,864 Posts
Male prepuce is truly vestigial tissue, so not quite the same as the prepuce associated with the female anatomy.
Don't care. I did not equate the tissue, just the practice of cutting up and/or off body parts for no purpose.

What's being defended here is little more than institutionalized barbarism flying under the cover of religion. If you want the small prophylactic effect against AIDS as an adult, have it done as an adult.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,034 Posts
Are you suggesting that you consider permanently altering the physical appearance of another human being without their informed consent is OK?

Without clear medical justification - Never, always or just in certain (please specify) situations.
Medical justification? There is not medical implication associated with the removal of male prepuce. No scientific evidence suggests it affects a male as they move forward in life. As I said, maybe this can be done easily in some countries, but in the US this would never be a low hanging fruit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
839 Posts
Male prepuce is truly vestigial tissue, so not quite the same as the prepuce associated with the female anatomy.
It is widely claimed that both male and female genital mutilation have consequences for the victims' ability fully to enjoy a normal sex life.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,034 Posts
Don't care. I did not equate the tissue, just the practice of cutting up and/or off body parts for no purpose.

What's being defended here is little more than institutionalized barbarism flying under the cover of religion. If you want the small prophylactic effect against AIDS as an adult, have it done as an adult.
But you have to consider the medial/science issue. True there is no purpose one way or another... no scientific issue associated with those circumcised and those not.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,034 Posts
It is widely claimed that both male and female genital mutilation have consequences for the victims' ability fully to enjoy a normal sex life.
You cannot equate the two... male prepuce is truly vestigial, whereas female prepuce is not. If you circumcise a male there is no scientific indication it affects a males sexual satisfaction. This is not true with females.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
44,251 Posts
You say tomato, I say mutilation.

Which parts of your genitals can we surgically remove that you would NOT call mutilation?
To start with ..... I think it should be left up to a man to decide as an adult. So I'm not arguing for it.

If you cannot see the difference between cutting of some skin and the removal of the external female genitalia.... and you don't see the difference between a one time procedure and a procedure that makes it so that a woman has to be cut open and sewed back together down there many times in her life...….. then :oops:

For the vast majority of males who have been circumcised it has no impact at all on his life or sex life. Studies have been done in which they ask men who were circumcised as adults and almost all report that they cannot tell any difference.

On the other hand all women who have had FGM have the pleasure of a good sex life stolen from them in a brutal manner. Also many of them end up with horrible infections that cause life-long health problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,864 Posts
But you have to consider the medial/science issue. True there is no purpose one way or another... no scientific issue associated with those circumcised and those not.
There's no purpose for that little toe hanging off the outside of your foot either. Shall we start removing them at birth? There's no purpose for that appendix you're smuggling around in your abdomen.

Can we set the bar a little higher than utility? I doubt you are suggesting that any medical procedure on an infant is justifiable as long as it causes no long lasting harm or that the affected body part serves no purpose.
 
1 - 20 of 101 Posts
Top