(a) Why do you care, (b) why are you asking participants on only one side, and (c) if the debate isn’t entertaining you, there are lots of other things to read, right?
Then you will know that the scientific consensus is that there do exist benefits. The only real debate is whether they are outweighed by the drawbacks.
Blankly denying that there are any benefits is a non-starter.
I deny it. I deny that the scientific consensus is that there are benefits too.
Sorry if someone has thrown up some link on that. Maybe I’ll look for it.
Nah, never mind. Maybe there are benefits. Sure, even ease of washing could be a “benefit.” You’re right, it’s not about whether there are benefits, just whether the drawbacks outweigh them.
I’ll go ahead and assert that there are not going to be any benefits that justify cutting off parts of the genitals.
I’ll just leave you with these claims from an Islamic website about the medical benefits of FGM for you to also consider:
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528
Then there’s THIS gem, from the same site:
That’s right - she’s sure that someday FGM will be justified by it’s medical benefits -* just as male circumcision is now.*
a) just curious
b) I was not aware that I picked people from just one side. I just picked two of the most prolific and most long-lasting posters. My question also applies to the prolific posters on the other “side”, I assure you.
c) Sure, I can read other stuff. Never said I couldn’t.
Finally, though, in reference to point b). The concept of “sides” disturbs me. It seems to imply something I have always suspected about these debates. People’s opinions are not really founded on logic but on deep-seated fears, hatreds and prejudices. For example: “Fucking Germans are trying to complete what they almost finished in the Holocaust” or “Fuckin’ Jews and Muslims cutting up kids to feed their fanatical religious delusions.”
I always have the feeling that arguments like this that go on and on are fought with what appears to be logic and cool reason, but are in fact an exercise in which both sides marshall selective facts and alleged realities in the service of a deep-seated pre-established bigotry.
After all, why do we basically never see a case where one side brings up a fact that makes the other side admit “Okay, that proves you are right and I am wrong.” Scientists often say this when another scientist shows them something that objectively proves their own theory wrong. But how often do you see such a conversion take place in SDMD?
Every debate has “sides”. That’s what makes them “debates”. I don’t read anything into that. I don’t think the existence of sides demonstrates deep-seated bigotry.
The issues which make for good debates are exactly those which do not have obvious factual answers. Which isn’t to say that facts have no place. It is the relative significance of those facts in context which makes for a debate.
As to why we do it - it is to have fun, at least, that’s why I do it. To sharpen the wits. No-one ever states outright that the other guy is right, but a good debate can, over time, change attitudes. Gradually.
Funny thing, but for years, now, I have been told that FGM is not connected to Islam and is not required by the religion. I was repeatedly told it was purely cultural. But the above-quoted web site seems to imply that there is at least a strong religious school of opinion in Islam that not only approves of FGM for religious reasons, but also sees it as recommended by the religion, although even this site admits that female “circumcision” is not directly demanded like male cicumcision is."
The difference is of course that the health benefits of male circumcision are science-based, while those of FGM are not even plausably alleged - this women you quote is simply expressing a religious hope that some may one day be discovered.
I don’t know about you, but to me at least, science-based findings are somewhat more convincing.
Re Naming Ceremonies
I’ve never heard of the concept before. Several statements in the article left me crying for a cite. In my experience, Jews against circumcision are seen as angry, deluded, and Talmudically in error.
Valteron, I get off the fourth of July. I threw on the next two days to get some things done. I must also confess to being something of an insomniac to boot.
There are your schedule answers.
I know it’s also in vogue to write catchy little phrases meant to sound clever to those who already agree with you. I find it more difficult to write with such economy when there are points to be made that did not suddenly rise into being with a few tequila shots freshman year. That’s the ambiance that seems to pertain on the “side” that repeats the word “mutilation” as their sole argument in favor of this ruling.
I should exempt from this contingent those who have actually called on medical evidence. That’s at least a start. But from Post 1 here, it’s been a very heavy lift to call medical evidence against circumcision conclusive.
Others have asked you why you bother to complain that others post differently, more, or at greater length than you, so I’ll leave that alone.
You have at your disposal the ultimate remedy, however: the scroll bar.
Malthus, in most respects I think we are coming from much the same position in this debate. I don’t, personally think that circumcision should be banned. The argument between benefit and harm is so balanced that there is no overwhelming reason to ban what many people see as a defining part of their faith and/or culture. I just object to the idea that the decision of this court is irrational and/or a sign of European/German anti-Semitism.
Up thread I think you make the point that the decision should be made on the scientific evidence. The trouble is that in this - as in many other cases - the evidence is ambiguous. There is no absolute measure of harm v benefit so someone has to make a judgement. In both Europe and the States this means the courts and judges - particularly where the elected politicians refuse to decide or the politicians have established two conflicting “rights”.
The courts are not perfect jovian judges working on pure reason, they reflect the culture and times they work in. Circumcision is actually a case in point. Working from the same set of human rights this German court has come to one conclusion but some years ago British courts reached the opposite conclusion - that if both parents wish it male circumcision is lawful - and this is the position in the UK today. In some areas with large Muslim populations it is even paid for by the NHS even if the reason is purely religious. How a British court would rule now - in 2012 - is in the lap of the gods (Ha!) and dependent on the individual judges making the call.
Everyone thinks their religious beliefs are right and everyone else’s are deluded and in error though.
And the Muslims say the same thing.
But never mind - the point is that you can argue that there are health benefits, but you’re never going to show that they are worth cutting off a perfectly good body part. It’s ridiculous.
Circumcision is an ancient religious ritual that the Victorians decided would stop boys from masturbating, and is now a silly tradition that nobody knows what it’s for but insist on doing simply because they are used to it, and now is in search of a medical justification.
If we were talking about a group that said circumcision was unnecessary and did not claim to be Jews, then you would have a point.
We agree on much, but disagree on what ought to be the proper test for having the courts or the state dictate the decision. In my opinion, where the scientific evidence is ambiguous - in this case and in other cases - the default position ought to be to defer to the choices made by parents and their physicians. I agree there is no absolute measure for harm v. benefit, but in my opinion the decision a parent makes on this issue (or other issues) doesn’t have to be “correct”, only “reasonable” - that is, within the range of decisions that a resonable person could make. Only if the decision is clearly un-reasonable should the courts be involved in criminalizing it.
In the case of the German Court, I find their reasoning on “rights” to be, at least in some instances, provably wrong on its face (at least, according to the media reports). For example, part of the Court’s reasoning was allegedly that circumcision interfered with the right of a child to later change religions if he so chose. This makes no sense, as there is nothing preventing a circumcised person from later changing religions. Circumcision may be a religious requirement of Jews and Muslims, but lack of circumcision isn’t a religious requirement of anyone.
These are reasons why I disagree with the Court’s ruling.
And in your opinion these two claims are equivalent - why?
As the Dude said in The Big Lebowski: “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.” 
And it is of course a perfectly valid opinion. You are entitled to hold it. What you cannot do, I say, is demonstrate any good reason to throw people in jail for acting on the opposite opinion.
Point is, I’m not arguing that anyone should have their kids circumcised. I’m arguing that the procedure should not be criminalized, which is a very different matter.
This, on the other hand, isn’t a valid opinion - its a gross distortion of the rather more complex facts.
We do?
Could you give me some examples, because I’ve never heard them. Besides most of us don’t practice FGM, while we’re required, with exceptions for medical reasons to practice male circumcision.
Anyway, FGM is no more Islamic than it is Christian.
Kindly stop comparing the two – they are two completely different procedures, done for completely different reasons. If you can’t argue against male circumcision without dragging in FGM, then perhaps you need to re-examine your issues.
The vagina/vulva is NOT a penis, they’re NOT the same thing, and stop equating the two of them. Either drop it or start a new thread. Any argument comparing the two is simply ignorant and misogynistic.
(I’m sorry I ever brought it up)
Genital cutting without consent is wrong be it a male or a female and both are genital mutilation. I can dig you not seeing that way, because circumcision is widely accepted, however, if only the “other” i.e. people of color from foreign countries were doing it, then it would be considered as outrageous and as wrong as FGM.
Yes, exactly, it’s because I’m a racist. :rolleyes:
Circumcision is accepted due to culture BECAUSE it’s only a tiny minority of circumcised men who have any belief that it’s affected them in any meaningful way. Most of us (myself included) don’t have any problems whatsoever with any aspect of sexual functioning, and frankly if it were any better I’d be likely to pass out mid-thrust and what’d be the point in that?
I’m 100% convinced that if a minor part of women’s genital anatomy was removed in such a way that it didn’t impede orgasm or sexual function as assessed by the women who’ve had the procedure done, it wouldn’t be considered a big deal, and would be treated in exactly the same way as male circumcision. The fact is, that’s simply not the case, and a great many women who’ve had FGM performed on them DO report feelings of violation and loss of actual sexual function.
…I feel, somehow, that it’s important to remind you that I wouldn’t have my own child circumcised (because it’s a bodily autonomy issue) and I think the routine practice of it is somewhat silly–but I also think the outrage over it is equally silly to the point of being counterproductive. Several of the arguments in this thread boil down to “People like you, Zeriel, feel like they’ve been raped or sexually mutilated, and it’s totally equivalent to FGM. You only disagree because it’s scary brown people who do FGM (thanks, Phil)” Since I feel none of those things regarding my own circumcision, they come across as needlessly hyperbolic and thus dismissible as serious arguments.