What else to call it? I point you back to my examples of branding and the removal of the outer left ear. I’d call them mutilation and I bet you wouldn’t disagree with me.
It seems like you do
I don’t see anywhere in the quote that circumcision is not mutilation. Of course it is you are forcibly removing body tissue to in order to affect a permanent change. If I removed the clitoral hood of a girl it would be mutilation.
Polygamy is illegal and there is no evidence that is harmful and in any case is between consenting adults.
As for circumcision, the bleeding, pain, removal of skin and potential infections and complications suggest harm. It is, pretty much by definition, harmful.
I bring you back to a previous point. I create a religion that demands I cut off the outer ear of my 2 year old girl (makes me sick to even consider it). Do you consider it mutilation? do you support my right to carry it out?
I would be fascinated to hear what you think and how you come to those conclusions.
Fascinated he? You are hard at work building a big strawman and then ask me to fight it?
If I liken Christian baptism rituals to the drowning of children and then ask you whether you support the drowning of children would you consider that a fair argument?
Your comparison of male circumcision to the cutting off of a child’s ear is nonsensical. And your repeated assertion that I support the “mutilation of children” is a thinly veiled attempt at insult in the same vein as calling a pro-choicer a “baby killer”. If you want to have a debate, give your reasons, preferably back them up with cites and then we’ll talk. If you just want to blow off steam, I’m not interested.
You seriously think that is equivalent to the question I’m asking?
You compare child murder to getting a wet head, I’m comparing the permanent removal of genital tissue to the permanent removal of outer ear tissue. They are very definitely comparable.
You object to the thought of me doing the latter, of course you do. What I would be fascinated in understanding is why you don’t have the same objection to circumcision?
do tell how so?
Judging by your posts it is merely a statement of fact. You support non-consensual, medically unnecessary procedures for purely cosmetic and religious reasons. I don’t. I think it is up to you to explain why you support penis cutting but not a hypothetically equivalent procedure to the labia, clitoris or the outer ear?
If I’m going to insult you I’ll insult you. The use of “mutilation” is intended to jolt you into questioning your position. No problem though, if my choice of words is problematic for you then look above and I’ve softened them up for you. They are now perfectly neutral and factual. Perhaps you’ll address my questions now?
What claims have I made that require a cite? I’ve clearly posed some question for you. You are of course free to answer or not.
While I believe I do not need to be “jolted” into questioning my position … oh, well. You were not intentionally insulting, so fine.
Wikipedia describes mutilation as “an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body”. Since I cannot see how male circumcision degrades function (unlike the removal of the outer ear, which is needed to protect the inner ear) I suppose we are talking about a degradation of appearance. I concede that I cannot fight you on that level, because I have no way of proving that the appearance of a circumcised penis is *not *inferior to that of an uncircumcised one. I assert that the level of aesthetic degradation that may have occured here is at best a minor one - but of course you are free to disagree.
So I’ll have to retract my earlier position to the extent that male circumcision could indeed be called a mutilation, if you view it as an aesthetic impairment. I was taking offense with the term, because it is typically used to describe the infliction of severe functional impairment, which I would neither support nor liken male circumcision to.
Having said that, let me try to explain the reasons for my position by using an example:
Assume that you are the government of Brazil. Somewhere in the jungle there are two native tribes living under your jurisdiction but otherwise separate from the rest of society.
Tribe A has a social custom that involves placing a small tattoo on the chest of each young boy. The ritual is painful and most boy cry as it is performed, but later the tattoo is worn with great pride because it is a symbol of belonging. Not having it would make a boy feel like an outcast.
Tribe B too has a ritual, but they perform it upon girls and it involves binding their feet. Small feet are considered desirable in the tribe and the bound feet later increase a girl’s chance at marriage. However, they also sereverly impair her ability to walk and cause lifelong pain.
If this happened under my jurisdiction, I would interfere with Tribe B but not with Tribe A. Why? I believe the tribes’ ability to live according to their culture is of value and I should interfere with it as little as possible. So in order to decide what to do, I look at the two rituals and try to asses how much lasting harm they do. Only if that lasting harm outweighs the disturbance of their culture, I interfere. Of course, whenever you are balancing goods, you can come to different conclusions as apparently you and I do. But even when you disagree with my eventual decision, I believe it is not hard to see, why I come to different conclusions for the tattoo and the feet-binding.
That’s an issue with education and human behavior, not with circumcision. Exercising is good for you, but exercising and then eating a 2,000 calorie sundae is not. That’s not a reason not to exercise though, it’s a reason to not follow it up with a sundae.
As noted, neonatal circumcision virtually eliminates the risk of penile cancer but only when done neonatally. That said, I doubt anyone is trying to convince you that you have to have anyone circumcised. Therefore, there’ nothing much in it for anyone to change your mind. The OP was written that circumcision should be made illegal – the onus is on people who want to change the status quo to make a convincing argument why it must be changed. So far I’ve just seen a bunch of arguments relying entirely on emotionally laden words like “mutilation” and very little rational assessment.
But is circumcision harmless? There are plenty of nerve endings in the foreskin. While I can imagine that it would be hard to find subjects for an extensive study, those nerves are part of the stimulus. It’s not like they are decorative.
That is a question I would trust the experts with. When both the WHO and the AMA consider it to be a low risk procedure, I believe they know what they are talking about.
In my quote above they proabably were not. But don’t you think, if there was reason to assume that circumcision had the effect of imparing sexual pleasure, they would have at least mentioned it? Is the foreskin somehow vital to sexual stimulation?
An estimated one in three males in the world today are circumcised. Are there any reports that lead you to believe they are having less fun than their long-skinned neighbors?
Hard to prove a lack of something, but it hasn’t been found to be harmful.
Circumcised men lead healthy, happy sex lives. Studies about it suffer from a difficulty in quantifying pleasure and that most men who opt for circumcision in adult life do so because they are suffering from some penile issue. Since you’re fixing a medical issue that warranted surgery, you’re probably not getting a clear picture of the before and after. The few older studies linking increased keratinization in circumcised males to a loss of sexual pleasure have been since discredited.
Why have you moved the discussion to tribes in the jungles of Brazil? Neither you or I have any sway over such autonomous societies. And why have a example of tattooing (which is the exact equivalent of my branding example or the cutting of ears) against foot binding? (to which none of my examples align)
And yet you wish to hold sway over Jews and Muslims. How is that? Do you believe their culture is less entitled to protection than that of a tribe of native indians?
As for the tattooing: If you feel it is equivalent to the examples you gave, suit yourself. I have provided my stance on the tattooing. I suppose I have answered your question then.
So, we’ve got evidence that circumcision provides (minor) health benefits, and does not adversely affect sexual function. I await the evidence that foreskins do something positive for men who have them, something supported scientifically.
If members of the tattooing tribe came to your country or mine, tomorrow and demanded they be allowed to continue their tattooing practice (or equivalent)…you think we should let them? I’m no clearer now on where you’d draw the line than I was at the start. What about branding? ear-slicing? clitoral hood removal? labia cutting? All OK as long as no function is impaired?
No, you’ve very carefully avoided answering it directly and switched discussion away from the developed world democracies we live in to the south American rainforest and a landscape of behaviours and ethics that we don’t necessarily want to emulate.
If you have read my example from the beginning, I was talking about a situation in which said tribe resides in the very country that you hold jurisdiction over. No need for them to move anywhere.
Where do I draw the line? The short version would be: Functional impairment is never allowed. Purely aesthetic changes are not allowed, if there is reason to believe that they will impair the child’s chances at leading a happy and healthy life - so no permanent disfigurement.
Other than that I would allow a procedure that involves low risk and no more than brief pain or discomfort, if said procedure serves an important social or spiritual function for an ethnic or religious group under my jurisdiction.
Your branding and ear-slicing rituals would probably not pass the test for me, but I do not know the religion that requires such and thus I lack the specifics. (Are you cutting off the entire outer ear or just piercing the earlobe?)
Is Brazil not developed or not democratic enough for your tastes?
Why does that matter? in either case function is not removed and there is only mild discomfort that can be mitigated with the only long term effect of the former being a cosmetic change and a reduced incidence of skin cancer.
I notice you also avoid even mentioning the female genital procedures I suggested. Why is that? Those can be hypothetically reduced to an equivalent of male circumcision. Using your existing criteria I hope that any cultural group in your society using such rituals can look forward to your wholehearted support for their rights…yes?
If, during a discussion on circumcision you have to start bringing up tribal practices in the Amazon rainforest to make your point, that should ring alarm bells for you and suggest that your argument is not on the strongest of grounds.
The Brazil example adds nothing to the discussion, I’m not in the least concerned or interested with how tribal practices are undertaken in their own domains. I am interested in whether you’d allow the tattooing or similar cultural practices to continue should any tribe members or cultural group from anywhere, come the States or the UK.
That is a very simple question. Would you allow it to be carried out in your own country?
