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

^^ If so much of this data is so well known and widely discredited then why have none of the big name international organizations become aware of it and updated their official recommendations? ^^

HELLO! As I told you earlier, the seminal work on this is the recent update to the Dutch Medical Association's policy on male genital cutting. They updated their official recommendation. Read their bibliography.

The raw numbers from the South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda trials are all over. One place where they've been compiled is http://Circumstitions.com. Just use the Google search box at that site for Africa HIV.

While I've got your ear, where did you see anything by MSF on male circumcision? I can only find tweets with no links.
I read the the DMA's policy (that is also quoted on the circumstitions.com website you just linked). It most definitely supports your position although further details into the recommendation were in Dutch...so I kinda left it at that.

The article linked above has Eric Goemaere suggesting male circumcision as a means to look into due to the severity of the epidemic. MSF does not appear to have an official stance on male circumcision (that I could find), so I take back the MSF reference, sorry...

Honestly, I'm mostly just playing devils advocate to develop a stronger argument for myself but my main point still stands. Why do so many international health organizations support circumcision? It seems as though everyone here should be protesting these stances and asking for a re-evaluation of this issue rather than just debating amongst ourselves.

Note: I hate researching this topic, I keep running along gems like this:
Also in North Sudan, MSF runs a project in Port Sudan, in Red Sea State (RSS), providing reproductive healthcare with a particular focus on pregnant women who have been circumcised. In RSS, an estimated 97.6 percent of women are circumcised, causing serious medical complications for many throughout their lives.
Daniel asked Why do so many international health organizations support circumcision?

Part of the reason may be that many of the physicians involved in such decision-making had received that 'unkindest cut' themselves when they were defenceless babies.
I would like to see such policy-making set by decision-makers none of whom had themselves been circumcised.
True, if any circumcised person were to accept that routine infant circumcision is indeed a unnecessary procedure which is an infringement upon the rights of the infant they would have to accept that they were in fact mutilated by their parents in a very private part of their body.

It's weird to me, some supporters of RIC seem to think of the foreskin as a burden, while other (intact) males think of it as a pleasure.
Then the decisions would still be biased, they just would happen to be biased to your bias.

I hope uncircumcised is the scientifically backed course of action for obvious reasons but if male circumcision was supported as being highly effective with overwhelming evidence then would you consider it or does that not matter?

I think it matters if and how effective such a treatment could be but I can understand arguments that it doesn't matter.
Even if every word published by Bailey, Gray, et al were true,.. for me personally, no I would not trust circumcision to protect me, and since condoms are needed anyway, I wouldn't bother to amputate the most exquisitely pleasure-receptive part of my body.

And if Bailey, Gray, et al are not lying then my circumcision would endanger my female partner if I was HIV+ and have no effect if I was HIV-.

And if I was a social planner I would not recommend circumcision for anyone. Condoms are far more effective and cost-effective.

I certainly wouldn't stand for anyone making the circumcision decision for minors or coercing service men to be cut.
Take the money it would cost to circumcise your kids and use it to create a condom fund.

You know... help em get off their feet.
@Daniel,

Even if there were huge advantages of circumcision I would still argue that it's a decision that should be made by the person himself when of age of consent.

It's a ridiculous practice that should be abolished. Religion or culture is no excuse for mutilation.
>>Even if there were huge advantages of circumcision I would still argue that it's a decision that should be made by the person himself when of age of consent.

So if someone is unable to get the other side of the story and being propagandized that circumcision is good for them, then is it still that person's decision? Because that is the scenario in Africa.

If male circumcision was supported as being highly effective for what?
I got the raw numbers from the original papers, and put them up in tabular form together at http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html#3

You are committing the fallacy of Appeal to Authority. There have been some scandals within WHO, it is not infallible. Circumcision is not "religious based" (except the ritual, of course). The bad reasons for doing it are hydra-headed, and HIV is only the latest of them. There isn't a conspiracy (any more than a beehive is a conspiracy), but powerful forces at work (distributed - lots of circumcised men each wanting to defend circumcision) to promote circumcision come what may. The decision to promote it was made at a meeting at Monteaux, Switzerland in April 2007, but nobody who wasn't there seems to know who was there. Some of the key movers and shakers are known to have vested interests in promoting circumcision - they were doing so long before the AIDS claims.
Simple. At the time of the circumcision the child is still under the parents' authority. The parents have final say. It should be made illegal until a proper age of consent, but as of now religion is just too strong. People like false hope.

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