Male and Female Circumcision Debate

[Gopher]

All right guys, here would like to have a nice and civil debate on the topic of Circumcision. The main focus being the comparison of Male circumcision to Female Circumcision.

My argument is if you would have your son circumcised, why wouldn't you have your daughter circumcised?

Id like to get your guys points of view on this topic, please keep things civil, ill try to keep up with your responses.

For those that don't know female circumcision is a tradition carried out in some African and Middle Eastern cultures, it varies in intensity, the most common operation being the removal of some or all of a females clitoral hood. The links below can explain the topic more.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

[hockeyfan]

Male circumcision is something I'm against, same as female. Both r very painful. Both r risky procedures. However male is part if more religious beliefs. It is also known to stop (limit) the spread of diseases.

[Elysium]

With all due respect, how is that a valid argument? Circumcision for females is potentially fatal and from what I know, it's intended to deprive them of sexual pleasure. I don't know the health benefits and/or risks regarding male circumcision, but I'm sure as hell betting it's nothing like female circumcision.

And, if you'd continue reading that Wikipedia article on female genital mutilation...
The health effects depend on the procedure but can include recurrent infections, chronic pain, cysts, infertility, complications during childbirth and fatal bleeding.
The practice is an ethnic marker, rooted in gender inequality, ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics, and attempts to control women's sexuality.
There has been an international effort since the 1970s to eradicate the practice, culminating in a unanimous vote in 2012 by the United Nations General Assembly to take all necessary steps to end it. It has been outlawed in most of the countries in which it occurs, but the laws are poorly enforced.

...versus male circumcision...
The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering neonatal circumcision as having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks to viewing it as having no benefit and significant risks. No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure.
A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis of studies done on sexually active men in Africa found that circumcision reduces the infection rate of HIV among heterosexual men by 38–66% over a period of 24 months.
A 2010 review of literature worldwide found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a median complication rate of 1.5% for newborns and 6% for older children, with few severe complications. Bleeding, infection and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited. Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.

Can you see why these two aren't comparable? If you're going to circumcise a child, I think it much better that a male be circumcised than a female. I am not for or against circumcision in general here, mind you, but I don't think your argument is valid:
My argument is if you would have your son circumcised, why wouldn't you have your daughter circumcised?
In short, you wouldn't have your daughter circumcised as well because there are a lot more risks involved, it's illegal, and it's intended to "control women's sexuality."

[TapDancer]

With all due respect, how is that a valid argument? Circumcision for females is potentially fatal and from what I know, it's intended to deprive them of sexual pleasure. I don't know the health benefits and/or risks regarding male circumcision, but I'm sure as hell betting it's nothing like female circumcision.

And, if you'd continue reading that Wikipedia article on female genital mutilation...




...versus male circumcision...




Can you see why these two aren't comparable? If you're going to circumcise a child, I think it much better that a male be circumcised than a female. I am not for or against circumcision in general here, mind you, but I don't think your argument is valid:

In short, you wouldn't have your daughter circumcised as well because there are a lot more risks involved, it's illegal, and it's intended to "control women's sexuality."

I have to agree. I am not for circumcision for any gender, but female circumcision is without a doubt dangerous and a form of mutilation.

[johndoe1112]

male yes for one its looks better and is fairly safe and female no because you never hear a man saying how bad getting circumcised is but women from other countries say it is awful

[DerBear]

I think there is obviously a huge difference between male and female circumcision manly the fact that female version involves disfiguring or removal of the genital areas which isn't right.

[AlexOnToast]

Well both are a form of genital mutilation, and both go against the child's rights, but I dont think it is fair to say they are equal. Circumcision may remove important pleasure nerves and desensitize the glans, but female circumcision is really only done purely towards oppressing the female. I completely disagree with both but female circumcision is a fare more brutal procedure

[DerBear]

Technically in most countries parents until a specific age do have legal medical rights over their children.

[AlexOnToast]

Technically in most countries parents until a specific age do have legal medical rights over their children.

Legally yes, but morally It's not right. If it was a procedure that was necessary to the child health, then obviously the parents are the ones who are to make choices, but for something like circumcision, which is essentially purely cosmetic, it should be left up to the person tho choose what his body looks like.

[DerBear]

Legally yes, but morally It's not right. If it was a procedure that was necessary to the child health, then obviously the parents are the ones who are to make choices, but for something like circumcision, which is essentially purely cosmetic, it should be left up to the person tho choose what his body looks like.

It really depends if you're passionate about the topic of male circumcision. Let's ignore female because quite frankly that is mutilation and has somehow dubbed the title of circumcision I mean even those articles linked use the term mutilation rather than circumcision

Now male circumcision isn't really a problem if done at birth because the child doesn't really know what pain is. I mean they won't ever remember it. Now if someone was forced to at the age of 3+ then yes that would be out of line in my opinion.

I think many who have had it done don't feel violated or mutilated when done at birth because they can't remember it and some even think it looks better and is more hygienic to an extent.

[AlexOnToast]

It really depends if you're passionate about the topic of male circumcision. Let's ignore female because quite frankly that is mutilation and has somehow dubbed the title of circumcision I mean even those articles linked use the term mutilation rather than circumcision

Now male circumcision isn't really a problem if done at birth because the child doesn't really know what pain is. I mean they won't ever remember it. Now if someone was forced to at the age of 3+ then yes that would be out of line in my opinion.

I think many who have had it done don't feel violated or mutilated when done at birth because they can't remember it and some even think it looks better and is more hygienic to an extent.

I agree, female "circumcision" really shouldnt be called that at all. Plain and simple, it's mutilation in a particularly horrendous way.
As to the point about pain, just because pain wont be remembered doesnt make it right. By that logic a lot of bad things could be justified :/

And while I can understand people not feeling bad about it, that doesnt mean it should continue to happen to the next generation. Does a person not have the right to the they were born with? If he chooses to have circumcision done when he is old enough to do so, then that's fine, it's completely his choice and he has every right to do so. But giving a child no choice in the matter is really the same thing as tattooing a child.

[ImCoolBeans]

In an earlier time period circumcision makes perfect sense. Hygiene was not great, medicine was not anywhere near as advanced as it is now, and if left unclean and gross under the foreskin over time you can get bad infections/have other issues. But today that isn't really the case, most people shower daily, and if they don't they keep themselves cleaner than people did over a hundred years ago, and medicine is phenomenal and only keeps advancing, so there isn't really much of a point to it anymore. It's still around because of tradition and I guess some people think it might look better cosmetically. I think it's unnecessary and if I ever have a son I doubt I'll have it done for him, or for a daughter for that matter too.

[sqishy]

In an earlier time period circumcision makes perfect sense. Hygiene was not great, medicine was not anywhere near as advanced as it is now, and if left unclean and gross under the foreskin over time you can get bad infections/have other issues. But today that isn't really the case, most people shower daily, and if they don't they keep themselves cleaner than people did over a hundred years ago, and medicine is phenomenal and only keeps advancing, so there isn't really much of a point to it anymore. It's still around because of tradition and I guess some people think it might look better cosmetically. I think it's unnecessary and if I ever have a son I doubt I'll have it done for him, or for a daughter for that matter too.

Indeed. I agree.

[AlexOnToast]

In an earlier time period circumcision makes perfect sense. Hygiene was not great, medicine was not anywhere near as advanced as it is now, and if left unclean and gross under the foreskin over time you can get bad infections/have other issues. But today that isn't really the case, most people shower daily, and if they don't they keep themselves cleaner than people did over a hundred years ago, and medicine is phenomenal and only keeps advancing, so there isn't really much of a point to it anymore. It's still around because of tradition and I guess some people think it might look better cosmetically. I think it's unnecessary and if I ever have a son I doubt I'll have it done for him, or for a daughter for that matter too.

Well said.
I read somewhere that it became prevalent for two reasons.
1) sex education was poor at best back then, and boy's werent taught to wash themselves properly, so infections were more common and it was thought to be a good idea to remove it entirely
2) masturbation was commonly thought of as wrong in many ways, and it was believed (wrongfully) that circumcision prevented it.

As for the "It can help reduce STD's" argument.. surely safe sex methods are a far better option?

[Vlerchan]

Technically in most countries parents until a specific age do have legal medical rights over their children.Here's the real question: Do you (plural; not you in particular) believe that parents should have the (legal) right to sign their children up for non-urgent and/or cosmetic medical procedures?

I say: no.

[Tarannosaurus]

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is actually a huge problem and a ton of human right organisations such as Unicef are doing there utmost to get rid of it. It has absolutely no health benefits and has birth immediate and long term complications.
(quote from Wikipedia - has sources)
Immediate complications include fatal bleeding, acute urinary retention, urinary infection, wound infection, septicemia, tetanus and transmission of hepatitis or HIV if instruments are non-sterile or reused.[11] It is not known how many girls and women die from the procedure; few records are kept, complications may not be recognized, and fatalities are rarely reported.[65]
Late complications vary depending on the type of FGM performed.[11] The formation of scars and keloids can lead to strictures, obstruction or fistula formation of the urinary and genital tracts. Urinary tract sequelae include damage to urethra and bladder with infections and incontinence. Genital tract sequelae include vaginal and pelvic infections, painful periods, pain during sexual intercourse and infertility. [66] Complete obstruction of the vagina results in hematocolpos and hematometra.[11] Other complications include epidermoid cysts that may become infected, neuroma formation, typically involving nerves that supplied the clitoris, and pelvic pain.[67]

It hugely increases the dangers involved with pregnancy/child birth. I'm not as familiar with male circumcision but if it causes similar problems then I am against both of them. If people want to circumcise themselves, fine. But children should not be circumcised and I don't agree with parents choosing for them.

[Stronk Serb]

Male circumsision is not nedded amymore. Hygiene has growm, so there is no need for it. And there never was and never will be need for female circumsision.

[Gopher]

I am liking the discussion here, good points all round. I agree that female genital mutilation is in a different scale and is a cultural tradition that many frown upon for its resulting dis figuration and harm done. What I don't understand is how everyone seems to shrug off male circumcision as normal practice, it is in face genital mutilation by definition. And where did circumcision originate? Cultural tradition. Food for thought.

[DerBear]

I am liking the discussion here, good points all round. I agree that female genital mutilation is in a different scale and is a cultural tradition that many frown upon for its resulting dis figuration and harm done. What I don't understand is how everyone seems to shrug off male circumcision as normal practice, it is in face genital mutilation by definition. And where did circumcision originate? Cultural tradition. Food for thought.

The difference being between male and female is the female version isn't done medically or safely and is done through religion purposes that are generally harmful.

Male circumcision isn't genital mutilation because it is done safely. Well apart from tribes and some undeveloped societies but that by the by.

Here's the real question: Do you (plural; not you in particular) believe that parents should have the (legal) right to sign their children up for non-urgent and/or cosmetic medical procedures?

I say: no.

Personally before the age that the child can make a decision yes. Personally Male circumcision rights and wrongs don't bother me because I live in the UK and it doesn't really bother me to hear others being put through it at birth. My understanding is that in a country like America it is traditional and we all know America takes its time in dissolving out of date traditions. One day this tradition will be a thing of the past.

[JacobBower]

For males I think its a good thing but for females it is nothing more than torture. For males there are reasons for it and for females there are none. In my opinion, circumcision for females its just a sick thing that sick people do to take away the females pleasure. The main difference is that after a male is circumcised, they can still feel down there; however when a female is circumcised, all feelings are gone.

[CabbageMedul]

Male circumcision is something I'm against, same as female. Both r very painful. Both r risky procedures. However male is part if more religious beliefs. It is also known to stop (limit) the spread of diseases.

It is believed to decrease the spread of disease. This is not true, it's a myth.
In fact, I'm sure it's the other way around. I'm just making a logical assumption, and based on medical facts circumcision actually increases the chance of diseases and whatnot.

Well said.
I read somewhere that it became prevalent for two reasons.
1) sex education was poor at best back then, and boy's werent taught to wash themselves properly, so infections were more common and it was thought to be a good idea to remove it entirely
2) masturbation was commonly thought of as wrong in many ways, and it was believed (wrongfully) that circumcision prevented it.

As for the "It can help reduce STD's" argument.. surely safe sex methods are a far better option?

The foreskin actually makes you less vulnerable to STDs. That's what I've read, and even heard from my own doctor. It makes perfect logic sense as well.

With no foreskin, the head of the penis dries out, gets roughed up, etc.
When you think about it, it has no benefit at all. If anything, it ruins everything, although that is just my opinion.

Please do not double post. -Cygnus David

[Saint of Sinners]

I wouldn't have either 'circumcised'.

Female genital mutilation is wrong on a whole other level. Not even going there. Just no. I don't think I need to explain why I'm strongly against it.

Male circumcision on the other hand, is in more of a gray area. Plenty of people see nothing wrong with it, some people simply accept that it's part of their tradition, while others view a circumcised penis as more attractive. Others claim various health benefits that are said to come from circumcision. Well, after some browsing through the forum archives, most supporters of circumcision say they support it for five reasons, namely
1. Health Benefits
2. Pleasure
3. Looks
4. Cleanliness
5. Tradition

Let's examine these points one by one (Oh gosh i sound like my teacher)

Health Benefits
Well, Wikipedia says that the evidence for preventing diseases is rather shaky and inconclusive. It might help against some infections, but it might cause complications as well. So it's a tie.

Pleasure
Well, the foreskin retracts during sex, so I don't see why there would be a difference. If any, circumcision should have less pleasure, as the tip of the foreskin is a known erogenous zone.

Looks
Well, once again with the help of a forum search, majority of the replies, both male and female, either have no preferences or prefer it to be natural (uncut).

Cleanliness
Well, I don't see a problem with that. In this age of modern hygiene practices, I don't see cleanliness as a valid point. In fact, Circumcision eliminates Smegma, which looks gross, but helps keep the glans moist and may even contain anti-basterial enzymes.

Tradition
This is a tricky topic. Well, if they view carrying on this tradition as more important than not interfering with your child's natural body, then it's their choice.

Personally, circumcision for non-medical reasons is just unnecessary. There are no clear-cut benefits and I don't feel a parent has the right to modify a child's body without his consent.

[abc983055235235231a]

Haven't read the entire thread.

A lot of people try to defend circumcision by saying things like "The kid won't even remember the pain". If that's so significant, then why is it wrong for me to go out and dropkick infants over fences? Surely they won't remember the pain.

All (forced) circumcision is bad. If a person wants to get circumcised, they can wait until they are the age of majority.

[stacy1203]

I did some reading about female circumcision because I wasn't very familiar with it and I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS BS!!!. Like Alex said - its totally a mutilation, even the idea of it sounds horrific! It's like sacrificial rituals - something only a primitive culture would do to satisfy some stupid beliefs emerged from ignorance and prejudice and whatnot. TOTALLY WRONG!

[Vlerchan]

Personally before the age that the child can make a decision, yes.So, let me get this straight: due to a temporary and impermanent incapacitation to make his/her own decisions, to quite possibly refuse, on the behalf of the child, the parents or legal guardians should be allowed to make permanent physical-alterations to said child?

Is there a reason that you'd support not waiting a few years and allowing the child choose what he wants to happen to his own body?

[Lovelife090994]

I don't like the idea of circumcision. Now I know that when a male is circumcised that the benefit of cleanliness and at times pleasure is a possiblity but not certain. The female circumcision is a fate I would never bring to any female. I feel both are a little extreme. I know some faiths like Judaism require it for males and that some tribes have females circumcised. That is a cultural thing which I cannot touch on being far older than I and maybe even my beliefs. I don't like it though. I really hate the idea of female circumcision. Talk about inhumane, sick, wrong, and just plain anti-female of all species to just try and remove and or cover most if not all of the female genatilia.

In an earlier time period circumcision makes perfect sense. Hygiene was not great, medicine was not anywhere near as advanced as it is now, and if left unclean and gross under the foreskin over time you can get bad infections/have other issues. But today that isn't really the case, most people shower daily, and if they don't they keep themselves cleaner than people did over a hundred years ago, and medicine is phenomenal and only keeps advancing, so there isn't really much of a point to it anymore. It's still around because of tradition and I guess some people think it might look better cosmetically. I think it's unnecessary and if I ever have a son I doubt I'll have it done for him, or for a daughter for that matter too.

Back then as in centuries past, circumcision would have been a good preventative, yes that is true. What you said is true and in a way circumcision today is today unnecessary although many still do so be it to their children or to themselves later.

So, let me get this straight: due to a temporary and impermanent incapacitation to make his/her own decisions, to quite possibly refuse, on the behalf of the child, the parents or legal guardians should be allowed to make permanent physical-alterations to said child?

Is there a reason that you'd support not waiting a few years and allowing the child choose what he wants to happen to his own body?

Same could be said to those who pierce their daughter's ears. Because on the male side, circumcision is more linked to tradition and it is not viewed as lowly as female gentital mutilation some would want their son to be circumcised, especially if the father is.

[DerBear]

So, let me get this straight: due to a temporary and impermanent incapacitation to make his/her own decisions, to quite possibly refuse, on the behalf of the child, the parents or legal guardians should be allowed to make permanent physical-alterations to said child?

Is there a reason that you'd support not waiting a few years and allowing the child choose what he wants to happen to his own body?

I can't be fudged arguing the toss any more. I've said what I've said and I'm done.

I've said why its done and its upon ones own morals and points of view to agree or disagree with that.

I have nothing more to debate as I said in my last post.

[Vlerchan]

Same could be said to those who pierce their daughter's ears.
I never said it couldn't.

I'd find piercings to fall under non-urgent and/or cosmetic procedures, too.

Because on the male side, circumcision is more linked to tradition and [...] some would want their son to be circumcised, especially if the father is.
And?

Shouldn't it be up to the child-in-question to adopt such traditions as opposed to having them forced on him?

I've said why its done [...]

I didn't ask why it was done. I understand why its done.

I asked if you agree with the continuance of such a practice - parents having the right to have their child circumcised, or force any other cosmetic procedure on them for that matter, without the agreement of said child.

Though I suppose if you you're done ...

[Lovelife090994]

I never said it couldn't.

I'd find piercings to fall under non-urgent and/or cosmetic procedures, too.


And?

Shouldn't it be up to the child-in-question to adopt such traditions as opposed to having them forced on him?


These traditions are done not long after the son is born and because of that, that boy would have lived circumcised and saw no wrong in it. It can be a cultural thing and I have no right to stop or change that. Now to your attitude, I will not argue with you.

[Vlerchan]

snip.

You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat:

"Shouldn't it be up to the child-in-question to adopt such traditions as opposed to having them forced on him?"

Whether or not the child-in-question comes to embrace or reject the tradition in the future is irrelevant to the question-at-hand.

Now to your attitude, I will not argue with you.
What attitude? If you men my willingness to criticise your opinion: that is sorta the sole function of this entire subforum; providing a platform for debate; facilitating (intelligent) arguments.

[PinkFloyd]

Female - removes all feeling, potentially fatal, illegal

Male - doesn't remove feeling, not fatal, legal

I'm against both without consent, but it's clear that female circumcision is far, far worse. Oh, and female circumcision is the type of this that happens in tribes in Uganda and NOT in modern medicine. Male is very much a modern thing. Female is fucked up. Male is not.

[Lovelife090994]

You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat:

"Shouldn't it be up to the child-in-question to adopt such traditions as opposed to having them forced on him?"

Whether or not the child-in-question comes to embrace or reject the tradition in the future is irrelevant to the question-at-hand.


What attitude? If you men my willingness to criticise your opinion: that is sorta the sole function of this entire subforum; providing a platform for debate; facilitating (intelligent) arguments.

Let's see, ineptitude, arrogance, blindness, rudeness, lack of frugaility, and a lot of vulgarity? Did I miss something? Or do you really lack hobbies to where you need to argue online to a person you will never meet? If you read my statement a second time or thrice since you didn't read it fully like I'd expect one to then you will see that I answered your question. You do not ask something, get a response, and then have a problem with what was asked. You do not dictate one's answer to your criteria because then your question was never a question. It's like asking if one likes this or that but they can not say that he or she likes a certain thing you mentioned as restricted.

[Harry Smith]

Let's see, ineptitude, arrogance, blindness, rudeness, lack of frugaility, and a lot of vulgarity? Did I miss something? Or do you really lack hobbies to where you need to argue online to a person you wll never meet?

why do you always do that? Whenever anyone questions your belief in a respectable way you immediately retreat behind the claim that they're being rude and aggressive towards you. There isn't a single swear word in the statement you quoted- I don't understand how that's vulgar then?

The whole 'you need a life' argument is pretty crap because it's pretty hypocritical to complain about someone debating on a debate forum when that is what you are doing yourself. This is a massive Ad homenin and shows your failure to actually debate an idea,something shown in many other threads.

On the actual topic I'm strongly against both M&F circumcision unless consent is given, that's assuming the female one is the medical type

[Vlerchan]

snip.

Explaining that circumcision is a cultural-thing and stating that you've no right to interfere does not answer my question, which was: "Shouldn't it be up to the child-in-question to adopt such traditions as opposed to having them forced on him?"

It's either 'yes' or 'no'. Anything else is just dodging.

[Human]

I don't agree with circumcision for any gender...

Edit:
By that I mean without consent and as a child. I think if the child is over about 13 it should be okay as by then he would be going through puberty and any problems with the foreskin would be apparent. However I don't see any medical benefits of female circumcision, so it should not be allowed, and male circumcision only allowed with consent.

[Lovelife090994]

why do you always do that? Whenever anyone questions your belief in a respectable way you immediately retreat behind the claim that they're being rude and aggressive towards you. There isn't a single swear word in the statement you quoted- I don't understand how that's vulgar then?

The whole 'you need a life' argument is pretty crap because it's pretty hypocritical to complain about someone debating on a debate forum when that is what you are doing yourself. This is a massive Ad homenin and shows your failure to actually debate an idea,something shown in many other threads.

On the actual topic I'm strongly against both M&F circumcision unless consent is given, that's assuming the female one is the medical type

I just love how you like to butt in only to be quite bothersome and unneeded. This relates to me why? I hate repeating myself and asking to change an answer I have already given in truth. A debate is where two opinions are given but neither are to be changed or shot down by asinine comments. Honestly, here no one debates but argues, and me being so less than keen on either may be why you think it so to come at me and others.

Explaining that circumcision is a cultural-thing and stating that you've no right to interfere does not answer my question, which was: "Shouldn't it be up to the child-in-question to adopt such traditions as opposed to having them forced on him?"

It's either 'yes' or 'no'. Anything else is just dodging.

If you would read my posts I said no to female circumcision, yes to male if that male either A, wants it, or B, had it done at a young age before te ability to determine whichever yes or no was. In short if a father wants his son circumcised let him, it is the decision between the parent and their beliefs, not mine.

Please do not double post, next time use the "edit" or "multi" functions. -Cygnus David

[Vlerchan]

If you would read my posts I said [...] yes to male if that male either A, wants it, or B, had it done at a young age before te ability to determine whichever yes or no was.
You never said that: all I gathered from your posts was that you were reluctant to interfere in others cultures and traditions which isn't really the same. If I'm wrong I'll ask you now to direct me to the relevant passage in which the above was stated.

In short if a father wants his son circumcised let him, it is the decision between the parent and their beliefs, not mine.Ok. That's a close enough an answer. So: you believe that parents ought have the legal right to force traditions on their children as opposed to the child voluntarily adopting then himself. Yes? I think so.

Next question: why is it that you believe that the child's right to decide what happens to his own body be denied to him? Shouldn't the childs right to control over its own body trump any tradition?

[Lovelife090994]

You never said that: all I gathered from your posts was that you were reluctant to interfere in others cultures and traditions which isn't really the same. If I'm wrong I'll ask you now to direct me to the relevant passage in which the above was stated.

Ok. That's a close enough an answer. So: you believe that parents ought have the legal right to force traditions on their children as opposed to the child voluntarily adopting then himself. Yes? I think so.

Next question: why is it that you believe that the child's right to decide what happens to his own body be denied to him? Shouldn't the childs right to control over its own body trump any tradition?


Yes a child deserves rights but I think you are forgeting a major fact to most mae circumsion. Well two, one is that circumsion is usually from traditions be it religious or not, and two it is done immediately after the son is born so again that child would have grown up all their life cut. Male circumsion is not life threatening like female circumsicion is. Plus who am I to interfere with a parent's wishes?
To beliefs, you are raised with the beliefs from your parents rather you accept them or not. A child may grow up in a home that has strong religious beliefs and the child ends up being non-religious or finding another faith to choose. That does not change where they grew up. That's the problem of circumcision, it is tied to cultures and beliefs and you can't change that.

[Vlerchan]

[/...] one is that circumsion is usually from traditions be it religious or not[/...]The fact that something is a tradition makes no differences if what you are committing is a human rights abuse - i.e., infringing on the child's right to Security Of Person.. The child has not accepted the tradition - being incapable at such a tender age - and it's therefore wrong to impose it on him.

There used to be a pseudo-Christian cult in Ireland who had a tradition of paedophilic relations between its adult and child members. They were rightly shut down.

and two it is done immediately after the son is born so again that child would have grown up all their life cut.
Whether the child comes to embrace or reject the tradition has no bearing on the subject. The fact of the matter is: on imposing the tradition on the child you've infringed on some rather basic human rights.

To beliefs, you are raised with the beliefs from your parents rather you accept them or not.You'll find that there's a rather large difference between reading a child a parable from the bible and circumcising that very same child.

[Lovelife090994]

The fact that something is a tradition makes no differences if what you are committing is a human rights abuse - i.e., infringing on the child's right to Security Of Person.. The child has not accepted the tradition - being incapable at such a tender age - and it's therefore wrong to impose it on him.

There used to be a pseudo-Christian cult in Ireland who had a tradition of paedophilic relations between its adult and child members. They were rightly shut down.


Whether the child comes to embrace or reject the tradition has no bearing on the subject. The fact of the matter is: on imposing the tradition on the child you've infringed on some rather basic human rights.

You'll find that there's a rather large difference between reading a child a parable from the bible and circumcising that very same child.

And? Do you think that just because a false-branch of Christianity did something horrible that all Christians are terrible. Lay off on the premature judgement. Not every tradition is bad, like holidays for example. It is not infringing on human rights. Have you not seen how many males a circumcised and fine with it? It is not castration or becoming a eunuch by force. Male circumcision is a practice that many have done or do later, it is not necessarily evil as you seem to think. And since you mentioned paedophilia, many paedophiles are not Christian, so saying we all are so is very ignorant indeed. Bearing on a child? Infringing? That's your family! You have moved from circumcision to traditions. Not everyone is circumcised. I am not although I have been considering it lately. And no group is without faults and flaws even yours. So please, try again.

[abc983055235235231a]

I would quote everything you've said, but other people have done a thorough enough job pointing out why you are wrong about everything you have ever thought in your life.

Yes a child deserves rights but I think you are forgeting a major fact to most mae circumsion. Well two, one is that circumsion is usually from traditions be it religious or not, and two it is done immediately after the son is born so again that child would have grown up all their life cut. Male circumsion is not life threatening like female circumsicion is. Plus who am I to interfere with a parent's wishes?
To beliefs, you are raised with the beliefs from your parents rather you accept them or not. A child may grow up in a home that has strong religious beliefs and the child ends up being non-religious or finding another faith to choose. That does not change where they grew up. That's the problem of circumcision, it is tied to cultures and beliefs and you can't change that.
Male circumcision is actually life threatening to a certain extent. In performing the procedure itself, you risk infection, which can sometimes be fatal. This risk obviously does not exist when children are not circumcised. There are also other complications which can occur as a result of circumcision, which possibly result in death. So it's not really appropriate to say "male circumcision isn't life threatening". Maybe not to the same extent as female circumcision, but it is still more life threatening than non-circumcision.

If circumcision is a part of my religion/culture, then surely I can choose to be circumcised later in my life.

Also, I think you said in one of your other posts that male circumcision doesn't remove sensation from the penis. It actually does though... Not entirely, but it does reduce it.


And? Do you think that just because a false-branch of Christianity did something horrible that all Christians are terrible. Lay off on the premature judgement. Not every tradition is bad, like holidays for example. It is not infringing on human rights. Have you not seen how many males a circumcised and fine with it? It is not castration or becoming a eunuch by force. Male circumcision is a practice that many have done or do later, it is not necessarily evil as you seem to think. And since you mentioned paedophilia, many paedophiles are not Christian, so saying we all are so is very ignorant indeed. Bearing on a child? Infringing? That's your family! You have moved from circumcision to traditions. Not everyone is circumcised. I am not although I have been considering it lately. And no group is without faults and flaws even yours. So please, try again.
.....You actually just equated bodily mutilation with holidays. You just equated a procedure which infringes in the rights of the child as a human being, causes the child unnecessary pain, and has severe health risks, with celebrating holidays. I don't really care if many people are fine with being circumcised. I welcome people to be happily circumcised. I just welcome them to be happily circumcised once they are of the age of majority, and of their own accord.

[Lovelife090994]

I would quote everything you've said, but other people have done a thorough enough job pointing out why you are wrong about everything you have ever thought in your life.


Male circumcision is actually life threatening to a certain extent. In performing the procedure itself, you risk infection, which can sometimes be fatal. This risk obviously does not exist when children are not circumcised. There are also other complications which can occur as a result of circumcision, which possibly result in death. So it's not really appropriate to say "male circumcision isn't life threatening". Maybe not to the same extent as female circumcision, but it is still more life threatening than non-circumcision.

If circumcision is a part of my religion/culture, then surely I can choose to be circumcised later in my life.

Also, I think you said in one of your other posts that male circumcision doesn't remove sensation from the penis. It actually does though... Not entirely, but it does reduce it.



.....You actually just equated bodily mutilation with holidays. You just equated a procedure which infringes in the rights of the child as a human being, causes the child unnecessary pain, and has severe health risks, with celebrating holidays. I don't really care if many people are fine with being circumcised. I welcome people to be happily circumcised. I just welcome them to be happily circumcised once they are of the age of majority, and of their own accord.

What is with this equating stuff? I am typing. I was listing two or more different scenarios. I just didn't separate it into short paragraphs. No, I did not link mutilation and tradition.

[Vlerchan]

And? Do you think that just because a false-branch of Christianity did something horrible that all Christians are terrible.No.

Not every tradition is bad, like holidays for example.Irrelevant.

It is not infringing on human rights. It is. You're arguing with fact here.

Have you not seen how many males a circumcised and fine with it?Again: irrelevant. Whether the child comes to embrace or reject the tradition has no bearing on the subject. We're discussing how circumcising your unknowing child constitutes as a human rights abuse and not the satisfaction ratio amongst circumcised males.

It is not castration or becoming a eunuch by force. Male circumcision is a practice that many have done or do later, it is not necessarily evil as you seem to think. I'm not arguing that circumcision should be illegalised. I'm arguing that circumcision should be performed at a later age. I'm perfectly fine with people volunteering to undergo the procedure.

And since you mentioned paedophilia, many paedophiles are not Christian, so saying we all are so is very ignorant indeed.Please point me to where I said that all Christians where pedophiles.

Bearing on a child? Infringing? That's your family!Your family can infringe on your rights, too.

You have moved from circumcision to traditions
I haven't.

Not everyone is circumcised. I am not although I have been considering it lately. And no group is without faults and flaws even yours. So please, try again. I don't see the point of this closing passage.

[Lovelife090994]

No.

Irrelevant.


Not sure how. I was bringing up examples.


It is. You're arguing with fact here.


And the fact you are refering to is?


Again: irrelevant. Whether the child comes to embrace or reject the tradition has no bearing on the subject. We're discussing how circumcising your unknowing child constitutes as a human rights abuse and not the satisfaction ratio amongst circumcised males.

How is it irrelevant?


I'm not arguing that circumcision should be illegalised. I'm arguing that circumcision should be performed at a later age. I'm perfectly fine with people volunteering to undergo the procedure.
Yes, maybe but what of those circumcised as kids? What do they sue their parents?




Please point me to where I said that all Christians where pedophiles.

Since you have been linking most of what I am saying, when you used the example of Christians involved in paedophilia and the way it was worded and expressed.


Your family can infringe on your rights, too.

That is true. But I'm not talking about tortured kids where they were held down and hacked to pieces.


I haven't.

You sure about that?


I don't see the point of this closing passage.
I don't see a point to this discussion.

[Vlerchan]

Not sure how. I was bringing up examples.Discussing examples of traditions which are not that or related to the tradition of circumcision holds no relevance in a discussion specifically concerned with the tradition of circumcision.

And the fact you are refering to is?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees one Security of Person - i.e., to security in and control over their body.

How is it irrelevant?
"Whether the child comes to embrace or reject the tradition has no bearing on the subject. We're discussing how circumcising your unknowing child constitutes as a human rights abuse and not the satisfaction ratio amongst circumcised males."

Yes, maybe but what of those circumcised as kids? What do they sue their parents?I suppose they could try.

Since you have been linking most of what I am saying, when you used the example of Christians involved in paedophilia and the way it was worded and expressed."Please point me to where I said that all Christians where pedophiles."

[quote]That is true. But I'm not talking about tortured kids where they were held down and hacked to pieces.The lack of severity as involved in involuntary circumcision as compared to "tortured kids ... held down and hacked to pieces" does not make involuntary circumcision any less of a human rights abuse.

You sure about that?
Please point me to [quote] where I attempted to discuss and/or drag the topic towards other traditions aside from that of circumcision.

[Lovelife090994]

Discussing examples of traditions which are not that or related to the tradition of circumcision holds no relevance in a discussion specifically concerned with the tradition of circumcision.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees one Security of Person - i.e., to security in and control over their body.


"Whether the child comes to embrace or reject the tradition has no bearing on the subject. We're discussing how circumcising your unknowing child constitutes as a human rights abuse and not the satisfaction ratio amongst circumcised males."

I suppose they could try.

"Please point me to [quote] where I said that all Christians where pedophiles."

The lack of severity as involved in involuntary circumcision as compared to "tortured kids ... held down and hacked to pieces" does not make involuntary circumcision any less of a human rights abuse.

Please point me to [quote] where I attempted to discuss and/or drag the topic towards other traditions aside from that of circumcision.


So, by your opinion I should sue my own mother for being more religious than I am and for having had surgery performed on me as a baby? Suing your parents for being circumcised as a newborn is not grounds for sue, the child now an adult is obviouslynot in any medical trouble from the circumcision. Even if there were complications then the parents would have done something about it!

I do not got see where you fail to see what I am saying. You are ignoring all I said!
Calling me irrelevant does not make me so. You say your are one for progress? Why not make progress by literally reading ALL that I write. If I have typos that confuse you then tell me so. If my diction is poor then enlighten me please. I feel this going nowhere and is becoming unbecoming of both of our parts and morals so with this I am ending in.

Have a blessed day. If you wish to continue, message me because this junked up the thread. Why should I have to defend my opinions when I never questioned yours?

[abc983055235235231a]

What is with this equating stuff? I am typing. I was listing two or more different scenarios. I just didn't separate it into short paragraphs. No, I did not link mutilation and tradition.

There's actually a specific term for what you did: drawing an analogue. In doing it, you are asserting that there is an inherent similarity between celebrating holidays and having your children circumcised.

There isn't.
They aren't even remotely similar.

[Lovelife090994]

There's actually a specific term for what you did: drawing an analogue. In doing it, you are asserting that there is an inherent similarity between celebrating holidays and having your children circumcised.

There isn't.
They aren't even remotely similar.

Did I say they are? No. Do I know they are different? Yes.

[abc983055235235231a]

Did I say they are? No. Do I know they are different? Yes.

if
you
didn't
think
that
they
were
comparable
then
why
did
you
even
bring
up
holidays
in
the
first
place
?

[Lovelife090994]

if
you
didn't
think
that
they
were
comparable
then
why
did
you
even
bring
up
holidays
in
the
first
place
?

I was listing an example. Male circumcision when performed right can be either by choice or by tradition. In Jewish culture it the norm for moales to be circumcised. To stop all male circumcision would be to stop an ancient custom that the Jews have performed for millenia. You don't have to like it but I wouldn't try to stop them or tell a Jew that they are wrong if they agree with male circumcision. I mentioned holidays because holidays are also traditions, and you cannot stop them either. You don't have to like them or partake in them but you don't stop all who celebrate it.

[Aajj333]

I really wish I wasnt circumsized and if I have a son I wont cicumcise him.

[Vlerchan]

I'd stopped posting - as requested - though I noticed this and just couldn't let it go:
To stop all male circumcision would be to stop an ancient custom that the Jews have performed for millenia. You don't have to like it but I wouldn't try to stop them or tell a Jew that they are wrong if they agree with male circumcision.

Neither Flexography nor I were arguing to make criminal all male circumcision. We were arguing to make criminal involuntary circumcision - we are both totally fine with individuals deciding themselves to undergo circumcision.

Now that I've started I also feel the need to respond to this:
I do not got see where you fail to see what I am saying. You are ignoring all I said! [...] [not] reading ALL that I write.
Seeing as I responded to almost each individual sentence that you posted I'm finding it hard to believe that you'd claim that I wasn't reading 'ALL' that you wrote. However if I'm not then it's up to you to reclarify (repeat, etc) your points - telling me I missed something and then continuing to not show me what I missed is entirely useless. I'm saying it now for the future - because I'm done here (unless you want to continue yourself).

[equestrian]

I really wish I wasnt circumsized and if I have a son I wont cicumcise him.

I feel the exact opposite way. I wanted to be circumcised (so I had surgery). When I have a son I'm 100% for circumcising him.

[Vlerchan]

I'm assuming you've read my other posts in this thread and understand my position:
When I have a son I'm 100% for circumcising him.
Would you not rather that your son was given a voice in the issue, a choice, as you were?

[Zachary G]

Well both are a form of genital mutilation, and both go against the child's rights, but I dont think it is fair to say they are equal. Circumcision may remove important pleasure nerves and desensitize the glans, but female circumcision is really only done purely towards oppressing the female. I completely disagree with both but female circumcision is a fare more brutal procedure

very well stated, i agree whole heartedly

[ChaseDakoda]

Personally my parents left it up to my twin brother and me to decide to get cut and it would be done put under the knife. Female I see no reason for a curt.

[Babiole]

I support male circumcision for religious or medical reasons. (My best friend is a Muslim and he's circumcised.) I'm against female circumcision in all cases. It's because female circumcision generally does damage to the girl getting it.

Europeans don't really do circumcision. The exceptions are the Muslims (both the native ones and the immigrant ones do it) and the Jews.

[Miserabilia]

If it's for medical purposes I don't care, otherwise I'm completely against both.

[Emerald Dream]

Please do not post in threads with more than two months of inactivity. :locked: