I think one of the things that we far too often overlook in this country is that fact that genital mutilation of newborn boys is common practice, if not standard. Why isn't there more of a cry against this? Do the benefits of circumcision (if any, and I don't see any valid argument that there are any) outweigh the cost and mutilation of a boy?

Of course circumcision isn't the only genital mutilation in the world, but it's the only type in practice in the United States. Female genital mutilation is just as barbaric, if not more so. Americans, and Europeans in general, ban female genital mutilation of babies, but why the hypocrisy in not doing the same for males?

Tags: Christianity, God, Judaism, circumcision, clitoral, covenant, genital, mutilation

Views: 1864

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"some say adult circumcision is a Catholic plot to render sex unpleasant for men..."

There is no evidence for that, in fact
"...the amputation of any part of the human body is never legal, except when the entire body cannot be saved from destruction by any other method." - Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58)

"From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way." - Pope Pius XII

" Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law." - Catechism of the Catholic Church (Item 2297: Respect for bodily integrity)

- but you'd never know that in the US, nor the Philippines, where the Knights of Columbus, among others, involve themselves in "Operation Tuli" - seasonal mass circumcisions of pre-pubescent boys.
Every girl is a Human and every human has a right to enjoy his/her body then why some crap peoples think that a girl should not enjoy sex........till she got married erase all barriers from your mind only then you will become a pure atheist.....

circumcision does not offer any benifit nor to boy not to girls but for boys it is little benificial becouse it protects from infections...and creates no differecse in the panis size be coz in circumcision ther do not cot the fore skin they just make it wide so the internal oils does not infect it. even as it is happen in infancy so when the boy gets older his penis become the same

 

Okay so first you say "circumcision does not offer any benefit to boys or girls", and then in the same sentence you say "but for boys it is a little beneficial". Circumcision does not protect from infections. I can make the case that it actually increases vulnerability to infections! In any case, if we are going to circumcise boys because we think it offers some protection against UTIs and STDs then why not circumcise our girls as well? After all if the penis is so easily infected then what about the vagina?!

 

Circumcision, by definition, creates a difference in penis size as it is an amputation of part of the penis (and a very significant part at that!). And circumcision, again by definition, does involve cutting the foreskin.

The problem I have with the idea that it prevents STD's, is the AIDS rate in places were all boys and girls get sexually mutilated, subsaharan east africa. Where they've been circumcised since before Judaism was invented. That alone should be enough to disprove that idea.
Male genital mutilation was originally introduced in the US to stop boys from masturbating- IE, to cut down on their sexual pleasure. As far as the hygiene- firstly, it's just not true.. but also, cutting off a part of a baby's genitals to stop him from maybe getting an infection later is like cutting off a baby girl's breast tissue to keep her from getting breast cancer later. Infections are easily treated if a baby does get one and isn't worth losing over 20,000 nerve endings and enduring horrifying pain. By every definition of mutilation, circumcision is it.
>As far as the hygiene- firstly, it's just not true..

You don't say?

...and to think, I trusted the CDC with all their stupid research, numbers and facts.
^^ I trusted the CDC ^^

You trust YOURSELF to ignore all the stuff on the very page you linked that describes risks and drawbacks.

NOT ONE national medical association of doctors on earth (not even Israel's) endorses routine circumcision. Some roundly condemn it. Australia/NZ and The Netherlands have issued revised policy statements since all the headline news about supposed HIV risk reduction and they still say there is no justification for routine circumcision.

Regarding hygiene, the AAP says: "Leave it alone. Clean only what is seen." Sounds like male hygiene is as simple as female hygiene.
I didn't address the moral issue or ignore the risks and drawbacks.

My point was simply regarding the hygiene, if you consider health concerns part of hygiene as I do then the statement is not so easily dismissed : "The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men,..", "neonatal circumcision to be highly cost-effective, considering the estimated number of averted cases of infant urinary tract infection and lifetime incidence of HIV infection, penile cancer, balanoposthitis, and phimosis", "Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men"...

But you are correct "complication rates range from 0.2% to 2.0% [1, 14, 15]. The most common complications in the United States are minor bleeding and local infection".

The Bottom line (according to me): If I'm raising a kid in say the US then I'll skip the circumcision but if I'm raising a kid in a poor African village, then by all means YES to circumcision!
You miss my point. It's really like saying hang-nails are significantly more likely in the non-defingered. Whatever the supposed threat, it's trivial and can be addressed other ways.
No, it's not like the made up word you just used. That is a false analogy and nonsensical.

These research studies are comparing circumcised men to uncircumcised men and providing the benefits and drawbacks for each.
Refer to my post of 23 May 2010, where I warn about the dangers of accepting the results of certain kinds of research study.

SOME COMMENTS ON NON-NEUTRALITY AND POTENTIAL BIAS
............ for example
“The AAFP Commission on Science has reviewed the literature regarding neonatal circumcision”.
The authors of this review are not named.
Who were they? Were the men on this commission circumcised or not?
Their circumcision status should, even now, be made clear.
It may be that most of the men on this commission had themselves been circumcised. (The national average is about 8 in 10 for American males). This is enough to suggest that there would be unintended, unacceptable, bias in the review.

Moreover, the report ends with
“The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends physicians discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son.”

But if most of these family physicians are circumcised men, then the advice given would probably not be sincerely neutral.
If no American physician was circumcised, advice to parents and guardians would surely differ from the present situation.
The article Daniel cites appears to me to be biased. One example: the alleged role of "lack of circumcision" (the terminology alone being biased) in transmission of HPV. HPV doesn't even require penetration for transmission. How could foreskin increase the HPV infection? The data is correlational and cultural differences could easily explain that effect and most of other results presented in the article.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service