Male Circumcision

[Jazzy]

I recently read an article in my local newspaper regarding male circumcision. Male circumcision for religious and cultural purposes is one thing, but I'm not talking about those circumstances in this thread.



There are opinions for and against circumcision:



Opinions for

It is said to reduce the transmission and acquisition of sexually transmitted diseases.

It has been shown to decrease transmission of the HIV virus that causes AIDS

Reduces the male acquisition of the herpes virus

Reduces the transmission of human papillomavirus, the cause of genital warts in men

Aesthetically looks better



Opinions against

They are unnecessary and look unnatural

They do not markedly affect the health of men

It's a procedure that should be banned

It is a mutilating procedure



Debate questions

1. Are you for or against circumcision?

2. Do you feel male circumcision is a mutilating procedure? Why or why not?

3. Do you think a circumcised male looks unnatural?

4. Do you think the parents of infant boys are the ones who should make the decision or do you think it should be up to the male when he gets old enough to decide for himself?



Discuss.....

 

[DrLeftover]

It's up to the parents of the newborn.

 

[Jazzy]

It's up to the parents of the newborn.

Well, that did answer one of the debate questions.

 

[DrLeftover]

For me to answer the others would raise the specter of Female Genital Mutilation, (incorrectly called 'female circumcision') as practiced in Africa and parts of the Middle East (and has nothing to do with the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad), which is beyond the scope of your post.

 

[Jazzy]

I don't see how the first three debate questions have anything to do with Female Genital Mutilation. Perhaps you can explain how they do?

 

[DrLeftover]

(now removing all religious arguments from said discussion.. ... ... ok, let's see what we have left)



Both are a (usually) medically unnecessary procedure done to a child for no other reason than the parents wishes.



Both have some 'old wives tales' grade mythos to them that has been long since debunked but is still out in the wild doing its damage.



And both are often done, at least outside Western countries, by people with no medical training whatsoever. And yes FGM is still done in the US and the UK by doctors and nurse practioners even though it is illegal for them to do so.



Will that do for a start?



Oh, for those that DON'T know....



[quote]Female Genital Mutilation, Female Circumcision



Incorrectly referred to as Female Circumcision the barbaric practice includes the removal of the exterior Female sex Organs of girls ranging in age from birth to their first Menstrual period. The conditions are often filthy, resulting in death from massive infections or uncontrolled bleeding, or horrible scarring if the girl lives. In either case, she will never fully enjoy sex for the rest of her life, which is the admitted purpose of the procedure in most of these cultures. What is worse, it is usually the women of the family, tribe, Mosque or village which insist the girl be cut. Infibulation (which see) is related practice.



The practice is common in many Afrikan countries, 60% of the girls born on the continent are still being cut, as well as numerous other Islamic regions although it has spread with both populations to Western countries and is now being done in the US and the UK where it is illegal. In spite of its prevalence in Afrika, most Black Activists in the USA ignore the issue including the majority of our celebrity spokesmen (Jesse and Al included) who also ignore the ongoing slavery of black Christians by black Muslims in several Afrikan countries. The term Pharaonic Circumcision is sometimes applied to the most severe (and most lethal) form of the practice to give it some sort of historical validity, the term is a Lie, see more at: Pharaonic Circumcision.



The practice HAS NOTHING to do with Islam, it is not mandated by either the Prophet or the Qua'ran, and is not required by anything other than a tradition which serves no purpose other than to harm women.



The male equivalent would not be the traditional removal of the foreskin but would more accurately be represented by the amputation of approximately half of the length of the penis. Leaving enough to be technically functional but removing most of the enjoyment of the sex act for the man. See: Emasculate. Compare: Subincision.



The clitoris can now be surgically rebuilt for most women who have been cut with some good success. See: www.clitoraid.org

[/quote]



From The Glossary. As the site it is on is adults only the link will not be posted in this thread

 

[Jazzy]

Thank you for the history lesson on FGM. This thread, however, is regarding only MALE circumcision. With that now clarified, do you care to answer the first three debate questions?

 

[DrLeftover]

By your command

- Cylon Centurian, Battlestar: GALACTIA the original series

Debate questions

1. Are you for or against circumcision?

2. Do you feel male circumcision is a mutilating procedure? Why or why not?

3. Do you think a circumcised male looks unnatural?

4. Do you think the parents of infant boys are the ones who should make the decision or do you think it should be up to the male when he gets old enough to decide for himself?

1. I have no opinion.

2. Has been answered to at least some degree, see above.

3. The penis has been surgically altered, how can it look natural afterward?

4. That was my first post in the thread.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

1. I'm for it, because personally I do think it's a lot healthier and cleaner.

2. Depending on who's doing the circumcision it does border on mutilation.

3. I don't think it looks unnatural at all.

4. The parents should make the decision. Usually it's not a decision based on preference but on necessity. There are complications that can occur if a child isn't circumcised.

 

[DrLeftover]

I'm waiting for She Who Is Sovereign to answer.

 

[Evil Eye]

1. I don't really care.

2. Not really.

3. No.

4. I do think it should be up to the guy himself (unless there's some sort of medical reason). After all, you might not want that sort of religious implication.

 

[DrLeftover]

...After all, you might not want that sort of religious implication.

(Pardon the injection of religious debunking under the flag of dispelling ignorance)



Contrary to widespread opinion....



Removal of the Foreskin for religious reasons is not just done under Jewish Law. It is also widely practiced under various Islamic traditions and several Christian sects outside of the US and Europe as a rite after the birth of a male up to about one year of age. Sometimes as part of a ceremony where the infant is named or recognized by the 'church'.



In a few cases, it is done when the boy reaches puberty. (another similarity with the female version already discussed)



(we now resume the thread already in progress)

 

[Evil Eye]

-snip-

I know this (thought about saying something), but that doesn't matter. Others might not (obviously, given your response). Truth doesn't matter, perception is key.

 

[DrLeftover]

You are correct of course Evil, but there are those that think if a man is circumsized and is not an up front Christian, then he must be a Jew.

 

[Evil Eye]

And that's exactly the sort of thing someone may want to avoid. Hence my opinion that it should be the person's own choice.

Though I have to wonder how many people are actually going to see it...

 

[DrLeftover]

I could happen here, under the flag of Public Health, especially if the Feds are running the Health Care system, they could take the parents out of the equation.



to wit: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...ould-circumcision-become-public-health-policy



But it really depends on the country.



I can easily envision a regime that would do so outside of the US.



In Egypt, the Islamic Brotherhood has been known to grab unescorted women off the street to perform virginity tests on them, and if they didn't pass... ... well, bad things happened.



I have not read where the Taliban did the same sort of thing to men, although they did even worse to women that didn't meet their expectations, including shooting them, but I would not have put it past them since they had also beaten men with rifle butts if they suspected he had trimmed his beard.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

IMO, the penis will be cleaned no matter if It's circumcised or not if you keep it clean and washed, if not then of course things will happen down under... Actually, I thought with the extra skin covering the head would be safer, as it acts as a shield?

That is true, but I would think it'd more of a hassle when it's uncircumcised. Of course constant cleaning would be necessary as bacteria can constantly form after urinating, etc.



Another complication that can occur from being uncircumcised is having painful erections. I know people become circumcised later on in life because of that reason.

 

[Dennis]

1. For circumcision.

2. I don't feel, and neither is it a mutilation process. Mutilation is disfiguring through violence. Violence is defined as an action intended to hurt, injure, or kill. Neither of which are the reason circumcisions are done.

3. The majority of men ARE circumcised, so i think everyone has already gotten used to it

4. It's up to the parents...

 

[spleenbegone]

Debate questions

1. Are you for or against circumcision?

2. Do you feel male circumcision is a mutilating procedure? Why or why not?

3. Do you think a circumcised male looks unnatural?

4. Do you think the parents of infant boys are the ones who should make the decision or do you think it should be up to the male when he gets old enough to decide for himself?

1. I'm against it. Most of the studies on it have not included enough samples to really prove anything. We've evolved with it, it's probably not hurting anything.

2. I suppose any time you have less parts than when you started, it's mutilating.

3. As a man in intact dangly bits (more then you ever wanted to know about me) it looks unnatural. I'm sure it looks plenty natural to a person who has lived with it their entire life though.

4.I'm torn on this. If it is to be done, I suppose it being done as an infant is best, but I support the right of choice, so I dunno.

 

[DrLeftover]

I'm STILL waiting for She Who Is Sovereign to answer.