Should female circumcision be legal in the US?

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sure, if adult females or adult males want to mutilate their genitals, of course they should be allowed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that parent's shouldn't be able to have their children circumcised? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just interested in your viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they should be able to, but I don't understand how people take my stance on this but are then pro-choice.

FWIW, I don't think male circumcision is a big deal and my view that parents shouldn't be able to take frivolous actions like that is mostly principle based.

[/ QUOTE ].

This is my viewpoint (I don't think parents should be allowed to circumcise their children, but I support abortion rights). In fact, I think that infanticide should be acceptable, although there is little to no call for it with today's medical technology. I think that parents should be able to decide whether or not they want to raise their child; if they choose not to raise the child, they can abort the fetus. If they choose to raise the child, then they have no right to make irreparable decisions about that child's body.

The crux of my view is that I don't regard a newborn child or fetus as a person -- it can't talk, communicate, fend for itself, etc. That infant or fetus has no rights, unless its parents choose to give it rights by taking on the obligation to care for it. Once the parents make that decision, then the child or fetus has all the rights of a person, and no one -- not even the parents that gave him those rights -- can make irreparable decisions like circumcision for him.

For what it's worth, I don't think that male circumcision is a trivial matter. I think my foreskin is worth well over 50k to me.

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Male circumcision is an ancient practice and generally accepted one that offers some salutary health benefits.

Female circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever aside from inflicting pain and humiliation on its victims (it's a fairly common practice with young girls in certain parts of Africa)

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I'm glad your Catholic teachers taught you well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Male circumcision is an ancient practice and generally accepted one that offers some salutary health benefits.

Female circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever aside from inflicting pain and humiliation on its victims (it's a fairly common practice with young girls in certain parts of Africa)

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I'm glad your Catholic teachers taught you well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not see his views on these two things as obviously biased? I mean clearly, female circumcision to some is an ancient practice and generally one that offers some salutary health benefits.

And to some, like me, male circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever.

[qwnu]

Report: Male circumcision cuts AIDS risk

EDIT: story says the results have not been published, but they were published in The Lancet earlier this year. Another summary from WebMD here.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
Report: Male circumcision cuts AIDS risk

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Can't people make decisions like circumcision when they become sexually active? Why does it have to be done at birth when the infant has no choice in the matter?

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Male circumcision is an ancient practice and generally accepted one that offers some salutary health benefits.

Female circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever aside from inflicting pain and humiliation on its victims (it's a fairly common practice with young girls in certain parts of Africa)

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I'm glad your Catholic teachers taught you well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not see his views on these two things as obviously biased? I mean clearly, female circumcision to some is an ancient practice and generally one that offers some salutary health benefits.

And to some, like me, male circumcision is outright genital mutilation that serves no purpose whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but this a matter of the degree of the mutilation taking place, with the female mutilation by any rational investigation, much, much worse. And, what 'salutary health benefits' are there in the female mutilation, not 'claimed' benefits, real clinically proven benefits?

Further, how is his argument in any way related to the Catholic Church?

[tame_deuces]

Well, female circumcision and male circumcision are not directly comparable. There are however different types of female circumcision.

The ones most widely referred too when debating it is excision and infibulation - removing the foreskin is not analogous to these procedures, cutting of the forehead would be.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Report: Male circumcision cuts AIDS risk

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Can't people make decisions like circumcision when they become sexually active? Why does it have to be done at birth when the infant has no choice in the matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad it was done before I could remember it.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Report: Male circumcision cuts AIDS risk

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Can't people make decisions like circumcision when they become sexually active? Why does it have to be done at birth when the infant has no choice in the matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad it was done before I could remember it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think it was necessary?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]

Male circumcision most likely has positive (physical) side-effects.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is practically impossible to ever determine, I'm interested to hear what you mean by this. I assume you mean the decreased HIV/cancer risks or something?