Male Circumcision and Bodily Autonomy

A few days ago I was reading about a proposed ban (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/19/male.circumcision.sf/index.html)on circumcisions for infant boys in San Francisco. It's not on the ballot yet but the proposed penalty is up to 1 year in jail and a $1000 dollar fine. It is unclear as to whether or not the doctor or the parents or both would be penalized. This ban would also include ritual circumcisions in religious ceremonies, Judaism being the most prominent. Last year a ban on infant circumcisions (http://www.crownheights.info/index.php?itemid=24606) was put on the ballot in Massachussuetts although it had no sponsers and never passed committee.

There are alot of issues all wrapped up in this debate the primary one being that of bodily autonomy so I'll begin my questions there.

1. Do you think that circumcision is a a choice that should be made only by the man when he is old enough to give his consent?

2. Does any such ban on circumcision infringe on the rights of the parents to choose for their child?

3. Would a ban on religious circumcisions be considered an infringement of Freedom of Religion?

4. If you live outside the US is circumcision legislated? Why or why not?

General questions about circumcision:

1. Circumcision has been on the decline (although to what degree is unclear) in the US. Why do you think this is?

2. The general concensus is that a circumcision is not medically necessary although it does provide some health benefits.

3. Opponents of circumcision say that the procedure is nothing more than genital mutilation done out vanity and force of habit. Do you agree or disagree?

1. Do you think that circumcision is a a choice that should be made only by the man when he is old enough to give his consent?
Yes. But mainly because circumcision isn't medically necessary, so.. as far as I am concerned there is no reason to chop of a boys foreskin other than the fact that it's deemed necessary by a certain culture.

2. Does any such ban on circumcision infringe on the rights of the parents to choose for their child?
I suppose so, but imo a childs rights trump that of the parents.

3. Would a ban on religious circumcisions be considered an infringement of Freedom of Religion?
Yes, but just like in question 2, I believe that the rights of the child trump that of religion.

4. If you live outside the US is circumcision legislated? Why or why not?
I don't really know. I don't believe it is, but circumcision isn't socially acceptable here. At least I don't know anyone who has been circumcised or had their child circumcised.

General questions about circumcision:

1. Circumcision has been on the decline (although to what degree is unclear) in the US. Why do you think this is?
Awareness I guess. People often socialize only with people like themselves. Thanks to the internet people's horizons broaden.

2. The general concensus is that a circumcision is not medically necessary although it does provide some health benefits.
I believe those health benefits are being questioned. Let's face it... circumcision barely exists in the biggest part of the western world, is there really such a big difference between our health and America's health? And do those differences really justify circumcision??

3. Opponents of circumcision say that the procedure is nothing more than genital mutilation done out vanity and force of habit. Do you agree or disagree?
I agree, even though it's less "bad" as female genital mutilation.

Yes. But mainly because circumcision isn't medically necessary, so.. as far as I am concerned there is no reason to chop of a boys foreskin other than the fact that it's deemed necessary by a certain culture.
I like to differ. Circumcision can be medically necessary. For example in cases like phimosis, which causes the boy inconvenience and sometimes pain. It can result in an infection. There are other methods, but circumcision is one of them.

I agree with it for medical reasons, like above, but not for religious reasons.

I like to differ. Circumcision can be medically necessary. For example in cases like phimosis, which causes the boy inconvenience and sometimes pain. It can result in an infection. There are other methods, but circumcision is one of them.

I agree with it for medical reasons, like above, but not for religious reasons.

You are right, for some children it is medically necessary, but for most children (I don't know the statistics) it just isn't. So just to be a bit more specific, only in cases where it is medically necessary. Otherwise... no.

When our son was born (or rather before), my wife and I had a lot of discussion regarding circumcision. The research we did indicated that medically there are some benefits, such as less risk of infection. But those benefits are pretty small (for example, circumcised Marines returning from Guadacanal in WW2 had a lower rate of infection than uncircumcised, but that's not a situation that many men will find themselves in).

On the other hand, there's also some indications that uncircumcised sex is more enjoyable. So on net we decided to not circumcise. Our pediatrician did not encourage us to go either way, saying only that it was mostly done for cosmetic reasons.

My impression is that it is done mostly for traditional reasons: I suspect that circumcision became popular hundreds of years ago for religious reasons, out of respect for the Old Testament requirement for circumcision. And even though Christianity (and Judaism) is declining in the U.S. today, circumcision is still the traditional thing to do. My personal conclusion is that it's not a bad thing to do, but there is no compelling reason to do it.

1. Do you think that circumcision is a a choice that should be made only by the man when he is old enough to give his consent?

Yes. I'm not comfortable with parents permanently altering their children's bodies unless it's medically necessary. It's a personal decision, and if a man wants to be circumcised, it's something he can seek out when he's old enough to want it.

2. Does any such ban on circumcision infringe on the rights of the parents to choose for their child?

That's a difficult thing. Parent's shouldn't have carte blanche freedom to do whatever they want to their kids. But at the same time, the decision whether or not to have an infant circumcised is something that a lot of people see as being fairly low consequence. I'm not sure.

3. Would a ban on religious circumcisions be considered an infringement of Freedom of Religion?


I have a lot of respect for Judaism, in particular. And I strongly believe in religious freedom. But I don't think religion should excuse traditions and actions that we would otherwise be uncomfortable with. And I think part of religious freedom is holding everyone to the same standards. Ultimately, the effect is the same regardless of whether or not the parents have religious motivations, and I'm not comfortable with religion being used as a motivation to alter a child's body without their consent. That said, I do have sympathy for parents who do want to circumcise for faith-based reasons.

1. Circumcision has been on the decline (although to what degree is unclear) in the US. Why do you think this is?

It's possible people are becoming more conscientious of letting the child make his own choice, or that people are more inclined to give the issue serious consideration and not do things "just because." I could be wrong on this, but I get the sense that it's becoming more and more common for parents to want to get second opinions on things and make their own decisions about childbirth and caring for their infants.

And also, trends just change.

2. The general concensus is that a circumcision is not medically necessary although it does provide some health benefits.

Apparently there are some demonstrated health benefits, such as less risk of contracting HIV. However, they're benefits, not guarantees. Millions of uncircumcised men do just fine, and I can't buy that circumcision trumps good hygiene and habits.

Ultimately, it still comes down to individual choice, just like a lot of things. Just because something has potential benefits doesn't mean it's the right choice for everyone.

3. Opponents of circumcision say that the procedure is nothing more than genital mutilation done out vanity and force of habit. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree. Though, I wouldn't compare it directly to some other forms of genital mutilation, since male circumcision generally does not cause medical harm or make a fulfilling sex life impossible.

1. Do you think that circumcision is a a choice that should be made only by the man when he is old enough to give his consent?

Yes, I do. We have no such tradition here - almost nobody is circumcised, as a child or as an adult. I haven't heard about any problems, health-related or other, ensuing from that. I believe it's something a man should decide for himself, because it's his body. I believe the same thing about piercing someone's ears, incidentally.

1. Do you think that circumcision is a a choice that should be made only by the man when he is old enough to give his consent?

Yes. There are certain things that parents are obliged to force on babies, because they have been shown to have a clear benefit both to the individual and to society (vaccinations for instance). From what I understand, the jury is still out as to the general benefits of circumcision. Because it is so unnecessary, I think it is something a man should decide for himself as an adult.

2. Does any such ban on circumcision infringe on the rights of the parents to choose for their child?

No, there are limits to parents' rights.

3. Would a ban on religious circumcisions be considered an infringement of Freedom of Religion?

There are many religious and cultural practices that are illegal in the US, i.e. polygamy, honor killings, female circumcision etc.. There are limits to every constitutional right.

1. Circumcision has been on the decline (although to what degree is unclear) in the US. Why do you think this is?

Probably because it is becoming increasingly clear that it is not medically necessary. Also, many circumcisions are done for religious reasons, and society is becoming increasingly secular.

2. The general concensus is that a circumcision is not medically necessary although it does provide some health benefits.

Which is why it should be up to the individual as to whether or not he wants to be circumcised.

3. Opponents of circumcision say that the procedure is nothing more than genital mutilation done out vanity and force of habit. Do you agree or disagree?

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say it is genital mutilation, I think that is too overblown a term. I do think it is an unnecessary procedure that an informed adult should decide for himself.

1. Do you think that circumcision is a a choice that should be made only by the man when he is old enough to give his consent?

It's a tricky one, especially where religious groups are concerned. I seem to remember that the Old Testament says it has to be done when the child is very young (7 days old? I can't remember) and it does seem like a massive infringement on religious rights to ban it.

But, then again, is this any different than e.g. giving children who have been raised Jehovah's Witness blood transfusions against their parents' wishes if it will save their life or other cases where the State intervenes if the parents' religious views are not thought to be in the child's best interests?

As an aside, a distant family member by marriage converted to Judaism as an adult and said that circumcision is far more painful if you have it done then, which could be an argument for letting people circumcise their sons when they're babies (although, then again, maybe it hurts as much when you're a baby, but the baby can't tell you...).

I think that makes my answer a Don't Know.

Circumcising babies (except for religious or specific medical reasons) has never been common practice in the UK. I remember an American boyfriend about 20 years ago being amazed at this and arguing that the UK's custom was insanitary and weird, so it's quite odd that this debate is taking place in the US now. Times change.

Circumcision is not necessary unless a doctor says it is. A parent who has their child circumcised when it isn't medically necessary should be arrested, charged with genital mutilation, and the child taken away. There are no medical benefits to circumcision; boys just need to learn to clean it properly. Studies also show that sexual gratification is decreased among those who are circumcised. It's funny, really, that society finds female genital mutilation to be terrible, but it's perfectly acceptable when done to males.

Circumcision is not necessary unless a doctor says it is. A parent who has their child circumcised when it isn't medically necessary should be arrested, charged with genital mutilation, and the child taken away. There are no medical benefits to circumcision; boys just need to learn to clean it properly. Studies also show that sexual gratification is decreased among those who are circumcised. It's funny, really, that society finds female genital mutilation to be terrible, but it's perfectly acceptable when done to males.

I don't think non-consensual circumcision is acceptable. However, female genital mutilation has far greater negative effects (like complete loss of ability to experience sexual pleasure, pain during intercourse for the rest of a woman's life and the like) and this is why it's condemned more.

A parent who has their child circumcised when it isn't medically necessary should be arrested, charged with genital mutilation, and the child taken away.

Parents' rights trump your opinion.
Tell me you're not equating religious observance with child abuse...

Studies also show that sexual gratification is decreased among those who are circumcised.

Risk Assessment (http://men.webmd.com/guide/circumcision-decision-weighing-risks-benefits)
The link doesn't support your "studies" wherever and whatever those may have been..

In studies published in the past decade, the removal of the foreskin provided a 50% reduction in HIV transmission, a threefold reduction in human papillomavirus (HPV) infections in female partners of circumcised men (HPV can cause cervical cancer), and lower rates of syphilis and chlamydia, which causes sterility and is the main sexually transmitted disease among teenagers. Circumcised infants were also roughly 10 times less likely to suffer urinary tract infections and the high fevers associated with them. And circumcision virtually eliminates serious penile cancers, which invade about 1 in 100,000 uncircumcised men.

The evidence from Africa of circumcision’s potential role in AIDS prevention led the New York City Health Department in April to begin considering outreach programs to promote circumcision among gay adult men and drug addicts.

Some foes of circumcision claim that it diminishes sexual pleasure. That’s impossible to disprove, since a clipped boy will never know what it would have felt like to have a foreskin. But it seems bogus. Are two-thirds of us missing the joy of sex? I think not. Surveys of men circumcised as adults found no difference in their sex lives.

Schoen and others, such as Harvard medical anthropologist Daniel Halperin, PhD, say the evidence that circumcision prevents HIV transmission has been solid since the late 1980s.
But the medical community has been skeptical until recently, and the most convincing studies emerged after the AAP statement.

Early this year, three trials in which Kenyan and Ugandan men were randomly selected to receive circumcision were halted when it became clear that circumcision helped prevent transmission of HIV. Men who got it were about half as likely to get infected. “A 50% reduction is about the same as some vaccines,” says Schoen. Final vindication came in March of this year when the United Nations World Health Organization announced that male circumcision should be added to the list of interventions that can help prevent the disease.
It appears that circumcision helps fight AIDS because the foreskin is particularly susceptible to attack by HIV. It often develops cracks or tears that can be infected by viruses. And diseases such as syphilis and chancroid, a bacterial infection more common in uncircumcised men, can provide a gateway for HIV.



It seems the benefits outweigh whatever risks there might be.

1. Do you think that circumcision is a a choice that should be made only by the man when he is old enough to give his consent?

Circumcision isn't exactly a choice in my religion/culture. It's done to every male on the seventh day of their birth. It's not something any parent has to make a 'decision' about.

2. Does any such ban on circumcision infringe on the rights of the parents to choose for their child?

Yes, I think so. Besides, if a parent is willing to make this choice for their child, then it's obvious that he doesn't mind the fact that the same choice has been made for him.

3. Would a ban on religious circumcisions be considered an infringement of Freedom of Religion?

Yes, because, from a believer's point of view, a religion isn't likely going to dictate something that would harm its followers, least of all defenseless children. If it doesn't benefit (which it does), then at least it doesn't hurt.

4. If you live outside the US is circumcision legislated? Why or why not?

Definitely legislated, mainly because of religion.

I suppose so, but imo a childs rights trump that of the parents.

Yes, but just like in question 2, I believe that the rights of the child trump that of religion.

A parent who has their child circumcised when it isn't medically necessary should be arrested, charged with genital mutilation, and the child taken away.

May I ask why? It might not be 'medically necessary' but still it doesn't violate the child's rights. At least I don't see how so, as it doesn't harm them, (as far as I'm aware).

Studies also show that sexual gratification is decreased among those who are circumcised.

Maybe. But I don't see how higher 'sexual gratification' is more important / comes before better chances of prevention from horrible diseases, :shrug:.

I'm confused. Why would they care to ban circumcision on infant boys? There has to be a reason they think it's bad enough to do to an infant that it deserves to be illegal. What is it?

Maybe. But I don't see how higher 'sexual gratification' is more important / comes before better chances of prevention from horrible diseases, :shrug:.

And you would have little chance of uterine cancer if your uterus were removed at birth. The chances of your getting that are (I am pretty sure, I did not check the stats) better than of a boy getting any of the diseases that cutting off his foreskin is claimed to be a preventive for. And for the foreskin removal, there is only claimed to be a moderate reduction in likelihood, not a complete preventive. Further, an honest person must be skeptical of the 'studies' pertaining to circumcision, as there have been studies for well over a century with twisted stats or deceptive procedures either designed to or with built-in unconscious bias involved to justify what many people have a very emotional attitude about.

I'm confused. Why would they care to ban circumcision on infant boys? There has to be a reason they think it's bad enough to do to an infant that it deserves to be illegal. What is it?
Generally, cutting off parts of other people's bodies is considered a bad thing. The foreskin is very rarely a problematic part of the body. There are much more effective preventives for the diseases the advocates claim cutting it away prevents. And in Christian theology, having a circumcision for other than acute medical reasons is considered a rejection of the new covenant in Jesus.

No one bothers with links anymore...they just get in the way of having an not-so-well-informed opinion.

WebMd is obviously biased...(wha?)

Circumcision and the Uncircumsized (http://scienceblog.com/13807/circumcision-may-not-impact-sexual-sensation/) no difference in the sack...

Oh wait, that's a science blog article..likely a biased site..

I know! I need to go to an atheist web site!

Closing until people can remember that this isn't the USPD forum.

Reopening. Please don't forget Warning System: HOT ZONES (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=124710).

Parents' rights trump your opinion.
Tell me you're not equating religious observance with child abuse...


If that observance harms or infringes the child's rights it is.

Parents' rights trump your opinion.
Tell me you're not equating religious observance with child abuse...

The two are hardly mutually exclusive. "Religious observance" is anything someone does in the name of practicing their faith. The fact that something is done in the name of religion doesn't make it above criticism.

I'm confused. Why would they care to ban circumcision on infant boys? There has to be a reason they think it's bad enough to do to an infant that it deserves to be illegal. What is it?

While making it illegal is a tricky thing, I'm not comfortable with parents making permanent, unnecessary changes to their children's bodies when the children are too young to have any sort of opinion on the matter. I think that's something to be discouraged, at least.

I had both of my sons circumcised. My ex husband and I had a big discussion about it, and in the end we decided on it. I was a bit nervous about the procedure (what mom wants to see her newborn in pain) but surprisingly neither of my kids even cried during the procedure. It was like nothing to them. The doctors told us how to take care of it, but honestly there was never any pain or discomfort for them (at least that I noticed, they didn't cry or squirm when I changed their diapers).

I pretty much let my ex husband take the lead on that decision, because honestly I don't care either way. I think my ex more wanted the circumcision because he a) felt that it was important for the boys and him to have parts that looked the same so that there weren't awkward questions about why their penises were different during potty training (which ended up being irrelevant anyways since we divorced before that became an issue and I potty trained them alone) and b) he was worried that if it wasn't done early and they decided in the future to get circumcised it would be extremely painful for them.

Around here, at the time of my sons birth, circumcision was pretty commonplace, and I think my ex was thinking more of social factors rather than it being medically necessary. I am not really sure where all the venom is coming from regarding this topic. I don't see it as child abuse, my kids aren't angry that they got circumcised, they aren't holding onto repressed memories of the torture it was to get the procedure. They can't remember it, and I can't imagine that in the future they are going to be ****** off that we chose to get them circumcised. I doubt that they will really care.

If in the future I have another boy, I will have another discussion about circumcision with the baby's father and come to a decision with him. But like I said, I don't care either way, it just doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me, and I think that banning it, although it wouldn't affect me personally, would have a negative impact with a lot of people who choose circumcision based on their beliefs.

A parent who has their child circumcised when it isn't medically necessary should be arrested, charged with genital mutilation, and the child taken away.

To respond to this, no offense but that is a very extreme statement and absolutely ridiculous. A) there is no way that the government could ever go forward with this idea because of the amount of people who would be charged and the amount of kids that would flood the social service system, and B) you actually would support taking children out of loving homes because the parents chose a procedure that you don't agree with? That is a bit harsh. Actually more than a bit.

NickHeartsMat, did you consult a doctor before the circumcisions? Yesterday i was typing up a post that mentioned what you did: one reason the procedure is done is because the father doesn't want to answer inquiries about why he and his kids look different in that department, which I'm sure everyone in this thread can guess what I gave to say about that (it's a poor reason and intellectually lazy).

And yes, I consider the procedure child abuse because the odds of it never taking place if the child was able to make the decision would be lower. This of course assumes that parents had no say in his decision making process. Babies have died because of the unnecessary procedure.

Male Circumcision and Bodily Autonomy
A few days ago I was reading about a proposed ban on circumcisions for infant boys in San Francisco. It's not on the ballot yet but the proposed penalty is up to 1 year in jail and a $1000 dollar fine. It is unclear as to whether or not the doctor or the parents or both would be penalized. This ban would also include ritual circumcisions in religious ceremonies, Judaism being the most prominent. Last year a ban on infant circumcisions was put on the ballot in Massachussuetts although it had no sponsers and never passed committee.

There are alot of issues all wrapped up in this debate the primary one being that of bodily autonomy so I'll begin my questions there.

1. Do you think that circumcision is a a choice that should be made only by the man when he is old enough to give his consent?
Well, if stuff like breast implants is legal, why not?

2. Does any such ban on circumcision infringe on the rights of the parents to choose for their child?
Parents can choose a lot of negative things for their child, and their opinion shouldn't be considered important enough to eventually hurt the child

3. Would a ban on religious circumcisions be considered an infringement of Freedom of Religion?
Theres a lot of things in religion that are illegal, like for example, stoning an adulteress and if it causes harm, then I dont see it as infringing on Freedom of Religion but I don't think they're quite that harmful

General questions about circumcision:

1. Circumcision has been on the decline (although to what degree is unclear) in the US. Why do you think this is?
Well, I feel like a lot of things people used to do out of tradition is on the decline, maybe people just don't think tradition is as important as it should be

2. The general concensus is that a circumcision is not medically necessary although it does provide some health benefits.
I remember it can also cause some health problems as well, and regardless, most of the pros aren't for medical reasons

NickHeartsMat, did you consult a doctor before the circumcisions? Yesterday i was typing up a post that mentioned what you did: one reason the procedure is done is because the father doesn't want to answer inquiries about why he and his kids look different in that department, which I'm sure everyone in this thread can guess what I gave to say about that (it's a poor reason and intellectually lazy).


We actually talked to two doctors plus a couple family members who are doctors. We weighed the decision carefully, but at the end of the day I left the final decision up to my ex husband. We we very well informed about it and honestly I would have objected if all the doctor's hadn't said that there is very minimal pain in that type of procedure for a baby.

1. Do you think that circumcision is a a choice that should be made only by the man when he is old enough to give his consent?
Well, if stuff like breast implants is legal, why not?

In my opinion this is only a viable comparison if breast implants for newborn girls are allowed. Unless I misunderstood your reply...

In my opinion this is only a viable comparison if breast implants for newborn girls are allowed. Unless I misunderstood your reply...

Well, the question was asking about adult men, so I think breast implants is a viable comparison since adult women are allowed to get them.

Well, the question was asking about adult men, so I think breast implants is a viable comparison since adult women are allowed to get them.

I think you misunderstood the question. It presumed that adult men can make the decision - if they are still intact by adulthood - and asked if the circumcision decision should be made ONLY by the person whose body is to be changed when he is old enough to do so. In other words, should parents be prevented from imposing this decision on their sons. I think it is also implied that acute medical need trumps the choice for children, as it would for other acute conditions, like appendicitis.

1. Do you think that circumcision is a a choice that should be made only by the man when he is old enough to give his consent?

No, there are many choices in this world that the parents will make for their children because it is how they want to raise their kids. A vast amount of those choices will be made before a child has the intelligence to make the choice for themselves.

2. Does any such ban on circumcision infringe on the rights of the parents to choose for their child?

Yes

3. Would a ban on religious circumcisions be considered an infringement of Freedom of Religion?

Yes

4. If you live outside the US is circumcision legislated? Why or why not?

NA

General questions about circumcision:

1. Circumcision has been on the decline (although to what degree is unclear) in the US. Why do you think this is?

Our population has become more diverse and much more "naturalistic" over the past decade (referring to USA). Many other cultures do not typically circ their boys (many latinos I know). Also, it has become a little more socially acceptable not to circ in the US.

2. The general concensus is that a circumcision is not medically necessary although it does provide some health benefits.

This is true. As a pediatrician, I can attest to that. The American Academy of Pediatric neither recommends for nor against circumcision. Benefits are mainly cosmetic, but also include a lower risk for urinary tract infections in the first year of life. Circumcised males are also less likely to pass along HPV (the virus that can cause cervical cancer) when they become sexually active (and if they acquire the virus).

3. Opponents of circumcision say that the procedure is nothing more than genital mutilation done out vanity and force of habit. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. The act of genetal mutilation in africa and circumcisions are completely different. There is just no comparison. Most boys sleep through the circs I do.

Disagree. The act of genetal mutilation in africa and circumcisions are completely different. There is just no comparison. Most boys sleep through the circs I do.

There is a comparison. A childs genitals are butchered without proper reason. And a lot of times without anesthesia.

Stang, 1998, found 45% of physicians responding to a survey who circumcise used anaesthesia – most commonly a dorsal penile nerve block – for infant circumcisions. The obstetricians in the sample used anaesthesia less often (25%) than the family practitioners (56%) or pediatricians (71%).

Glass, 1999, stated that Jewish ritual circumcision is so quick that "most mohelim do not routinely use any anaesthesia as they feel there is probably no need in the neonate."

Lander et al. demonstrated that babies circumcised without anesthesia showed behavioral and physiological signs of pain and distress.

I just can't understand why parents would alow someone to do this to their child. With anaesthesia fine... But without anaesthesia???? :no:

There is a comparison. A childs genitals are butchered without proper reason. And a lot of times without anesthesia.

Male circumcision is also unconstitutional. As it is illegal to carry out any non-medical procedures on the genitals of minor females, minor males should have equal protection under the law.

Male circumcision is also unconstitutional. As it is illegal to carry out any non-medical procedures on the genitals of minor females, minor males should have equal protection under the law.

Apparently it's legal in the States. Don't really know why though... If some parent did the same thing to a daughter the country would be too small.

The thing that strikes me as really "funny" here is the fact that a few years ago I found out about a thing called the shopping cart cover. It's to protect babies from all those nasty germs that live on the shopping carts. These people go to whatever length to protect those babies (hence the shopping cart cover) while at the same time they let some doctor butcher their childs genitals without anesthesia. Go figure...

I just can't understand why parents would alow someone to do this to their child. With anaesthesia fine... But without anaesthesia???? :no:When using quotes in a debate, it's generally a good idea to tell where the quotes come from. The last three were not from the post you started with.

When using quotes in a debate, it's generally a good idea to tell where the quotes come from. The last three were not from the post you started with.

Sorry.. you're right. The quotes I used were from Wikipedia.

Apparently it's legal in the States. Don't really know why though... If some parent did the same thing to a daughter the country would be too small.

Actually "doing the same" to a daughter would mean cutting off the hood of the clitoris, not her whole clitoris plus the labia, which is what FGM is.

That said, I'm not in favour of circumcision of minors.

To each his own. I personally will circumcise my sons (When I have children). Only because of a history of problems with the males in my family in this regard. Shame if I were to have my children endure the same.

Actually "doing the same" to a daughter would mean cutting off the hood of the clitoris, not her whole clitoris plus the labia, which is what FGM is.

That said, I'm not in favour of circumcision of minors.

Actually.. I wasn't refering to a specific kind of FGM. Only cutting off the hood of the clitoris is also FGM. Less invasive but still FGM. And no matter how much you cut of, it's all illegal. And rightly so!

There was a recent move to introduce symbolic female circumcision where a symbolic nick would be made on the vulva or hood of the clitoris and nothing would be actually removed. It would have been done under general and only on consenting adults.

This was shouted down as too shocking to contemplate. Yet plastic surgeons are allowed to perform much more drastic surgery for purely cosmetic reasons.

Anyway I fear we may be drifting a bit OT.

And yes, I consider the procedure child abuse because the odds of it never taking place if the child was able to make the decision would be lower. This of course assumes that parents had no say in his decision making process. Babies have died because of the unnecessary procedure.
Your opinion and lack of sources don't amount to law.

There is a comparison. A childs genitals are butchered without proper reason. And a lot of times without anesthesia.
Irellevant to law.

Male circumcision is also unconstitutional. As it is illegal to carry out any non-medical procedures on the genitals of minor females, minor males should have equal protection under the law.

Nothing in the US Constitution that mentions what you claim. So I can only surmise that you mean some other country's Constitution.

-----------------------

As posted earlier:


Risk Assessment (http://men.webmd.com/guide/circumcision-decision-weighing-risks-benefits)

In studies published in the past decade, the removal of the foreskin provided a 50% reduction in HIV transmission, a threefold reduction in human papillomavirus (HPV) infections in female partners of circumcised men (HPV can cause cervical cancer), and lower rates of syphilis and chlamydia, which causes sterility and is the main sexually transmitted disease among teenagers. Circumcised infants were also roughly 10 times less likely to suffer urinary tract infections and the high fevers associated with them. And circumcision virtually eliminates serious penile cancers, which invade about 1 in 100,000 uncircumcised men.

The evidence from Africa of circumcision’s potential role in AIDS prevention led the New York City Health Department in April to begin considering outreach programs to promote circumcision among gay adult men and drug addicts.

Some foes of circumcision claim that it diminishes sexual pleasure. That’s impossible to disprove, since a clipped boy will never know what it would have felt like to have a foreskin. But it seems bogus. Are two-thirds of us missing the joy of sex? I think not. Surveys of men circumcised as adults found no difference in their sex lives.

Schoen and others, such as Harvard medical anthropologist Daniel Halperin, PhD, say the evidence that circumcision prevents HIV transmission has been solid since the late 1980s.
But the medical community has been skeptical until recently, and the most convincing studies emerged after the AAP statement.

Early this year, three trials in which Kenyan and Ugandan men were randomly selected to receive circumcision were halted when it became clear that circumcision helped prevent transmission of HIV. Men who got it were about half as likely to get infected. “A 50% reduction is about the same as some vaccines,” says Schoen. Final vindication came in March of this year when the United Nations World Health Organization announced that male circumcision should be added to the list of interventions that can help prevent the disease.
It appears that circumcision helps fight AIDS because the foreskin is particularly susceptible to attack by HIV. It often develops cracks or tears that can be infected by viruses. And diseases such as syphilis and chancroid, a bacterial infection more common in uncircumcised men, can provide a gateway for HIV.



I thought child abuse was a banned subject...

Irellevant to law.

Butchering genitals is irrelevant to law. Interesting.

Nothing in the US Constitution that mentions what you claim. So I can only surmise that you mean some other country's Constitution.


If read carefully I said nothing about the Constitution relating directly to the practices of mutilating the genitals of children. I said that there was a blanket ban on unnecessary non-medical procedures on the genitals of young girls. Therefore under the 14th amndment boys should be equally protected as girls.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse.

Butchering genitals is irrelevant to law. Interesting.
Only how you desire to define circumcision is.
A doctor and a lawyer will tell you differently.

If read carefully I said nothing about the Constitution relating directly to the practices of mutilating the genitals of children. I said that there was a blanket ban on unnecessary non-medical procedures on the genitals of young girls. Therefore under the 14th amndment boys should be equally protected as girls.

Your exact words; Male circumcision is also unconstitutional.

Thus an invalid claim.

Your exact words; Male circumcision is also unconstitutional.

Thus an invalid claim.

He explained why he believes that. He mentioned the 14th amendment. Therefore, it is not an invalid claim. It makes logical sense.

Only how you desire to define circumcision is.
A doctor and a lawyer will tell you differently.

Why do you think that is?

Only how you desire to define circumcision is.
A doctor and a lawyer will tell you differently.



Your exact words; Male circumcision is also unconstitutional.

Thus an invalid claim.

He's saying it is unconstitutional to allow male circumcision and at the same time prohibit female circumcision. It is a form of gender discrimination to protect girl-children and not boy-children from this violation of their bodily autonomy.

As you all know, bickering about the the constitution of the US is to be held in the USPD, not here in the DoIMC.

*lock*