Is female circumcision legal? Just the version where the clitoris hood is cut away. It’s illegal in all countries of Europe I believe.
I dunno.
Maybe it’s a good thing, maybe not.
It’s a quandary.
Sometimes I lean one direction,
Sometimes another.
Just thinking about it is complicated.
Any way you decide, there can be drawbacks.
Can we really make a ruling one way or the other.
Kicking the can down the road, is that an option?
Don’t get me wrong:
Everyone has a right to bodily integrity.
Absolutely, we should weigh the rights of all parties involved.
Never doubt my commitment to that.
That said, it’s a pickle.
You can’t be sure you’re really doing the best thing for everyone.
Let’s take a hypothetical:
Every time a foreskin is trimmed, an angel gets its wings.
Reckon that would make it okay?
Heck, it was faddish in the U.S. in the 1970s. Some thought it enhanced sexual sensitivity. Porn stars got the cut.
It’s probably legal for minors in the U.S., but there certainly isn’t much call for it.
Meh, all genitalia is pretty goofy looking if you stop and think about it. But as long as it works, what’s the big deal?
At least this doesn’t look like the return of “he who should not be named” one trick pony dude.
Well if every kid gets circumcised how are two open-minded guys going to be able to experiment with docking?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=docking
Life can be so unfair!
Barbaric as far as I am concerned (and I am ribbed for her pleasure) but outlawing it makes no sense. Education and time will do that. The medical “benefits” are negligible and frankly there seems to be an inherent bias to support ones position one way or the other (the Economist noted that HIV infection actually rose in certain sub-Saharan countries where circumcision is prevalent because of reports that being circumsized protects you from HIV led to massive amounts of unprotected sex).
It’s imposing your religious and cultural desires/biases onto your child. Dressing it up as anything else is intellectually dishonest.
No, there’s legitimate medical benefits. You may call them “negligible”, but multiple medical organizations do not. It’s not dishonest to take their word over that of someone who just wants to huff about how “barbaric” it is.
And how was YOUR pre-circumcision sex?
There can be no doubt that circumcision of male infants plays a major role in some religious belief systems. Outlawing it would significantly impair the right of people to freely exercise thier religion. In order to justify that you would have to demonstrate that the procedure represents a *significant *harm or risk of harm to the child. After looking up the topic in Wikipediait seems to me that you cannot do that:
So if no major medical organization recommends banning the procedure, can it really be that harmful?
FWIW: I am not religious. But I think freedom of religion is a valuable good. Don’t throw it out, just because you feel that what the *other *religion does is “weird”.
Nice <applause>
This baffles me. I don’t think there should be any religious exemption or consideration for the mutilation of children.
If a religion was invented today that mandated the branding of 8 day-old infants would you be OK with that? Or if it mandated the snipping off of the left outer ears of girls at age 2? would that be OK? I mean that one would certainly cut down on the prevalence of certain types of skin cancers so it has both symbolic and preventative purposes right?
If you reach an age at which you can make an informed decision you can do what want with your body, if your religion isn’t important enough to you to have such an “insignificant” procedure then I’d question your commitment.
But I don’t think the religious are open to rational assessment of such matters anyway. If you can make a slam-dunk medical case that circumcision gives significant protection against terminal disease (HPV) that cannot be gained by other methods and that such a procedure has to be done on a non-consensual basis to gain that benefit…I will listen and change my mind. If the religious communities were given opposite evidence of harm and no preventative benefit would they change their mind? I suspect not.
“Mutilation of children”? Well - if you have to resort to that kind of hyperbole to make your case, how strong can that case really be?
I do not support the mutilation of children any more than the next guy. And I suppose neither do the World Health Organisation or the AMA. The simple fact that you care to ignore that male circumcision is not that.
You cannot outlaw a religious procedure on the grounds of that procedure not having a health benefit. You must demonstrate that the procedure is actually harmful. Can you?
Nope. It would significantly impair the “right” of people to force their religion upon helpless other people by impairing their body integrity. It doesn’t prevent anybody from exercising his religion.
If circumcision was mandated only by some animist religion from east Africa or something similar, I’ve no doubt you would get jail sentences for circumcizing your children in western countries.
If I cut a small, not very useful, bit of your skin or body, will you consider I harmed you or will you not complain?
It seems to me the answer to your question is self-evident.
Oh, I am sure it is quite unpleasant. Then again so was being made to go to my first confession when I was nine. (I am an atheist today, but I had a Catholic upbringing.) I dreaded the entire event. I cannot say that I would have preferred a circumcision over it - but I cannot say that I wouldn’t either. My point is that we give parents the authority to make their children part of their religious community even when that involves subjecting them to a certain degree of unpleasantness - as long as it does not get excessive. You may now say that physical pain counts as excessive while psychological stress does not. But then I’d ask you why.
You could also deny that parents should have the right to impart their religious beliefs upon their children, on the grounds of the children not being able to make an informed choice here. But of course such a position would go way beyond outlawing circumcision.
And I have no doubt that if the religions that require circumcision as a religious obligation were not minority religions in your country (and mine) we would not even have this debate.
Sure there is. “Foreskin and seven years ago…”
Oops, that’s the Gettysburg address. Never mind.
mmm
The really fucked up thing is that they are apparently doing it without anaesthesia. Perhaps it goes back to the time when it was thought babies couldn’t feel pain (and even large operations were rutinely done without anaesthesia). But come on, this is the 21st cent.