Should female circumcision be legal in the US?

[qwnu]

[ 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 just countering the view of some that this procedure "serves no purpose whatsoever".

I'm not sure I see how this is radically different from thousands of other decisions that parents make for their children before they are old enough to decide for themselves. Seems comparable in kind (if not in degree) to vaccination - small unmemorable discomfort and small risk in exchange for health benefits. Also consider that with the HIV connection, there are public health considerations in addition to individual health.

Finally, do you really expect this conversation to take place? "Mom, Dad, I'll be 14 next month, and I'm thinking about fooling around with Suzy Johnson. Can we talk about circumcision?"

Note: I am obviously biased. This was done to me and I do not consider myself mutilated.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that it is impossible to quantify the REAL cost of the procedure, and even attempts just to quantify the MONETARY cost of the procedure cast very serious doubts to its efficacy. IOW, your chance of getting HIV as a white male in the US is so low that the couple hundred dollars and the associated direct medical side effects/risks make it a really, really borderline decision. As far as I know, most of the major medical associations have as their official position that it is not necessary but that the decision, since it is influenced by aesthetics and cultural norms, should be left up to the parents. Besides being a little cowardly (IMO) I think this position betrays the fact that we have absolutely NO WAY to accurately measure the costs and risks of this procedure when done on infants. A circumcised man cannot tell you how much pleasure he is missing out on, if any. What if its significant? Then how does the cost/benefit analysis change?

FWIW I was circumcised as a child and I don't really care that much about it. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, but then again its impossible to know. I'm not angry with my parents about it or anything. I just think, in general, its an unnecessary and wasteful procedure that could have very serious potential risks that we cannot ever measure.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]

Finally, do you really expect this conversation to take place? "Mom, Dad, I'll be 14 next month, and I'm thinking about fooling around with Suzy Johnson. Can we talk about circumcision?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, if that is the parents primary reason for wanting the kid to get circumcised. But the kid is going to say "Are you [censored] crazy?!? Get that knife away from my dick!" more or less 100% of the time. What does that say about the practice of circumcision?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was that if it has any physical effects, then they seem to most likely to be positive. I meant to include some 'uncertainty' into the sentence regarding the possible things you mentioned and to illustrate how the procedures are not really comparable at all.

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the difference between claimed and real benefits? Obviously the elders or whatever in Africa says it will prevent the girls from having sex for fun or such. It's clearly still a violation of their rights.

The Catholic remark had to do with his title and avatar.

Vaccinations don't mutilate you. I don't consider circumcision at birth a health treatment. Obviously, a parent can choose that option if there is a health reason for it. Sort of like, obviously a woman can abort if there is a health reason for it.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Finally, do you really expect this conversation to take place? "Mom, Dad, I'll be 14 next month, and I'm thinking about fooling around with Suzy Johnson. Can we talk about circumcision?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, if that is the parents primary reason for wanting the kid to get circumcised. But the kid is going to say "Are you [censored] crazy?!? Get that knife away from my dick!" more or less 100% of the time. What does that say about the practice of circumcision?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it says that, if done, it should be done early. I think it's a tough call, I would ban mutilation and be alright with male circumcision (obviously drawing the line is difficult but I think there are certainly clear cut cases).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was that if it has any physical effects, then they seem to most likely to be positive. I meant to include some 'uncertainty' into the sentence regarding the possible things you mentioned and to illustrate how the procedures are not really comparable at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sexual side effects are most certainly physical. They are also impossible to measure. And just because most circumcised guys would say "Hey I got no complaints" right now isn't any sort of argument for these possible effects being ignored.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Sexual side effects are most certainly physical. They are also impossible to measure. And just because most circumcised guys would say "Hey I got no complaints" right now isn't any sort of argument for these possible effects being ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that not an argument exactly?

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the difference between claimed and real benefits? Obviously the elders or whatever in Africa says it will prevent the girls from having sex for fun or such. It's clearly still a violation of their rights.

The Catholic remark had to do with his title and avatar.

Vaccinations don't mutilate you. I don't consider circumcision at birth a health treatment. Obviously, a parent can choose that option if there is a health reason for it. Sort of like, obviously a woman can abort if there is a health reason for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yea, I guess I agree with you, my only point was that it does not matter to me what the 'elders' of some stone age village think, the two 'procedures' are leagues apart in the amount of mutilating going on. One 'procedure' is objectively cruel and inhuman, the other may be also, but to a lesser degree. One is not just the opposite gender equivalent of the other.

Also, in the avatar he may be using the term catholic in the small 'c' definition of the word, meaning "universal", you know 'universal all star.'

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was that if it has any physical effects, then they seem to most likely to be positive. I meant to include some 'uncertainty' into the sentence regarding the possible things you mentioned and to illustrate how the procedures are not really comparable at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sexual side effects are most certainly physical. They are also impossible to measure. And just because most circumcised guys would say "Hey I got no complaints" right now isn't any sort of argument for these possible effects being ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I stated it does not bother me if male circumcision is legal or illegal, I can see the views of both sides. My point was that it is not comparable to female circumcision (atleast not excision and infibulation).

You might hold up some intellectual arbitrary that says they are the same since they both involve children that have no say in the matter - and to some extent I'd agree in principle.

What I'm saying is that excision and infibulation is more similar to cutting the penis in half than removing the foreskin.