Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[RootsBooster]

lol, you're right, I'm definitely not circumcised ... and as women are being put forward as major 'beneficiaries' of this practice I think I'm entitled to have an opinion. Don't you?

 

Well me and Mel are both examples of cut and uncut, you could compare us and have an opinion during the next forum meet maybe? All done in the best possible taste of course

[rubydazzler]

Well me and Mel are both examples of cut and uncut, you could compare us and have an opinion during the next forum meet maybe? All done in the best possible taste of course

erm ... how could any girl refuse such an offer!

 

But my decision was made quite a while ago now ... so no need for your very noble offer, although I'm sure the other guys appreciate your willingness to sacrifice yourselves so impetuously!

[RootsBooster]

erm ... how could any girl refuse such an offer!

 

But my decision was made quite a while ago now ... so no need for your very noble offer, although I'm sure the other guys appreciate your willingness to sacrifice yourselves so impetuously!

 

Always at your service m'lady

*curtsies/bows/moonwalks off*

[quisquose]

You've come this far, and you actually don't know? Your categorisation of it as a "body part" misses the fact that the foreskin is a small part of a much larger organ, a small part that is not essential for anything.

 

50% of the surface area + 20,000 nerve endings just a "small part of a much larger organ"?

 

I don't think so, but if you find it reassuring then keep hold of that thought.

 

Not essential?

 

Well my foreskin gives me pleasure, but it's no more essential than a finger I suppose. My avatar is proof of that.

 

Let's assume for the moment it's completely harmless and in many ways beneficial, simply for the sake of argument. I think we can rule out that it is invariably deadly or invariably results in serious consequences, unless you disagree?

 

Should religious families be prevented from having their male children circumcised?

 

I'd rather not assume, but rely on evidence.

 

I think FGM is for another thread. It's not comparable for obvious reasons.

 

Why not? What are these obvious reasons?

 

MGM covers a whole range of procedures from a token cut, through circumcision (removal of prepuce), to subincise, where not just the foreskin, but most of the length of the penis is cut, opening up the urethra.

 

FGM covers a whole range of procedures from a token cut, through circumcision (removal of prepuce), to complete removal of the clitoris.

 

If you justify male circumcision for religious reasons, then it is hypocrisy to condemn female circumcision for religious reasons.

 

I prefer to avoid cognitive dissonance, and simply condemn both.

[rubydazzler]

Ah, now here's something that might explain why it can be better to keep your bits ...

http://sexperienceuk.channel4.com/questions/do-you-have-to-have-sex-or-foreplay-differently-if-a-boy-is-circumsized

and I'm sure I've seen a vid somewhere about how the foreskin helps the whole process along ... *goes off to have another poke around*

 

oops, erm, maybe could have phrased that better ..

Edited June 22, 2012 by rubydazzler

[melthebell]

Ah, now here's something that might explain why it's better to keep your bits ...

http://sexperienceuk.channel4.com/questions/do-you-have-to-have-sex-or-foreplay-differently-if-a-boy-is-circumsized

and I'm sure I've seen a vid somewhere about how the foreskin helps the whole process along ... *goes off to have another poke around*

 

oops, erm, maybe could have phrased that better ..

*thinks* your enjoying this subject a little too much now

[rubydazzler]

*thinks* your enjoying this subject a little too much now

There are so many sites devoted to it - who knew! Amazing!!

 

I now know far too much about it, just going to wash my mind out. L8rz!

[evildrneil]

The victim is unwilling.

 

To be unwilling you have to be aware of and understand what's going on - are you going to claim that an 8 day old child is aware of and understand what is happening? A child that age can not be willing or unwilling to have a medical procedure just unaware of what is happening to him.

[Phanerothyme]

No, that;'s why I asked

OK, Just establishing whether the safety or consequences are an issue for you, or whether it's just the consent issue.

Like your earlobes or toenails.

If it's a part of your body, it's a body part.

Sure. Toenails aren't living tissue, but I get what you mean.

 

Obviously, if it's COMPLETELY HARMLESS then you can rule out that it is invariably deadly or invariably results in serious consequences. But it's not, and that's not my argument anyway.

OK I think I UNDERSTAND and probably WILL IN THE FUTURE even if you DON'T USE capital letters for selected WORDS you want to EMPHASISE.

Why would anyone assume that it is in MANY ways beneficial? How many can you think of?

One would use that as a working assumption to isolate arguments from one another, it's sort of standard practice when debating and discussing things because it helps to tease out individual arguments which are often lumped together as some kind of whole.

 

In my opinion they should be prevented from FORCING it upon children. I have no problem with circumcision, as long as the recipient is willing.

Fair enough. On a scale of 0 - 10, where 0 is a neutral act and 10 represents an act of brutal, terminal violence, where would you rate circumcision?

 

Do you think they should be allowed to force it upon children?

I don't actually have any strong opinions on the matter.

Although this is not part of my argument, there are various techniques of FGM, one is very comparible so maybe it should be in this thread. You could say that any health reasons are for another thread as this one is about religious circumcision, where health benefits are never mentioned in any holy books or "covenants"

 

I think it's a matter of balancing religious freedom against harm to the individual. If circumcision is invariably harmful then there might be a case for banning it, but if it's the case that there are risks than can be minimised or eliminated altogether, and there's no lasting significant harm, then I don't think there can be a case.

 

50% of the surface area + 20,000 nerve endings just a "small part of a much larger organ"?

 

I don't think so, but if you find it reassuring then keep hold of that thought.

Your foreskin may be 50% of your external appearance, but in most human men the foreskin represents about 0.2% of the total surface area of the skin. I can't really offer you any reassurance either, sorry.

Well my foreskin gives me pleasure, but it's no more essential than a finger I suppose. My avatar is proof of that.

Quite, even though you have eight fingers and only one foreskin. I'd argue that a foreskin is even less essential than that,

I'd rather not assume, but rely on evidence.

You must assume. I'm not sure what evidence you're referring to, but you are assuming its reliable.

 

And it's impossible to debate anything meaningfully if you're not able to hold an assumption temporarily in order to elucidate a particular argument or piece of data.

 

I thought everyone understood this?

[evildrneil]

As a human rights issue, their person is not secure. If I was forced to have a surgical procedure now, without my consent, for the reason that somebody else believed it is what their God wanted, then it would be a violation. There is no reason why that isn't true with a parent and a child.

 

No-one is "forcing" someone to have a surgical procedure without their consent. The parents of the child are choosing to have a surgical procedure done that they believe to be in the child's best interest. An operation which is incidentally very minor and according to up to date medical evidence quite beneficial.

 

Chopping off a finger would be a minor surgical procedure, but it would still be cruel and degrading.

 

How is a minor surgical procedure carried out in the proper way in any way cruel or degrading?

 

Yet they are forced into having their genitalia branded into that religion and community before they are old enough to consent.

 

Their genitalia is not "branded" into a religion. Circumcision is a common paediatric procedure and not a strictly Jewish process. You have to be circumcised to be a Jewish but being circumcised doesn't not make you a Jewish.