Forums → WEPR → Circumcision banned
| 139 | 43436 |
- 139 Replies
I still don't think that it is mutilation. FGM might be, but then again, if I remember right, it is still a little different from circumcision.
Health benefits are fudged and I would be willing to bet likely don't exist or at the very least can be circumvented through other less evasive means. Both male circumcision and FGM have religious backing for doing it so I don't see that as being a reason to allow one but not the other when you're essentially doing the same **** thing.
Health benefits exist to people who can't keep the area clean. I say that you just make them both legal. I'm really lazy right now and I have a massive headache so I'm just going to copy and paste right now...sorry for my lack of good arguing.
There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.
Medical male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV by approximately 60%.
Since 2007, WHO and UNAIDS have recommended voluntary medical male circumcision as an additional important strategy for HIV prevention, particularly in settings with high HIV prevalence and low levels of male circumcision, where the public health benefits will be maximized. Fourteen countries in eastern and southern Africa with this profile have initiated programmes to expand male circumcision.
Medical male circumcision offers excellent value for money in such settings. It saves costs by averting new HIV infections and reducing the number of people needing HIV treatment and care.
A one-time intervention, medical male circumcision provides men life-long partial protection against HIV as well as other sexually transmitted infections. It should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package of services and be used in conjunction with other methods of prevention, such as female and male condoms.
Now I'm not saying that you shouldn't use condoms or some sort of birth control that prevents STDs, but I am just going to say that there are those people who won't and will more easily spread diseases. If there is any way to prevent the spread of HIV, then we should at least give it a shot.
If there is any way to prevent the spread of HIV, then we should at least give it a shot.
Using an extreme example, you could just have everyone in the world die. Complete and total elimination of HIV. Let's give it a shot?
Just because something has a beneficial aspect or possible preemptive purpose doesn't justify the action. All parts have to be considered.
I still don't think that it is mutilation.
How so? It is the permanent changing of another person's body without their consent.
FGM might be, but then again, if I remember right, it is still a little different from circumcision.
Not really.
so I'm just going to copy and paste right now...sorry for my lack of good arguing.
You might want to take a look at the link I posted on page 9. It refutes the validity of these studies. Those who were circumcised also received free medical care and safe sex education. That alone could account for the decrease in HIV transmission in that group.
Also the 60% number is not accurate at all. "While the absolute reduction of HIV transmission associated with male circumcision across the three female-to-male trails was only 1.3%, relative reduction was reported as 60%, but, after correction for lead-time bias, averaged 49%." -From the link posted on page 9.
So it would seem they pulled the 60% number out of their circumcision.
I chuckled at that too. We can go to hell together.
I guess I'm the third one going to hell. I am a horrible, awful person.
Secondly with abortion we aren't just dealing with a case arguing for the rights of the child but also that of the right of the mothers body and for her to have say over her body. With circumcision the issues that would put personhood into question are largely past for the child and the child is now outside the mothers body so that we no longer have to consider the right for the mother to have control over her own body. It becomes solely the question of the rights of the child to have control over their own body.
Yes, but in this case they are almost identical. That baby, while unborn, has rights too. You can't deny that child rights. If you are going to say that there is a need for laws preventing circumcision, there need to be laws preventing abortion. That child has a right to live. If the mother doesn't want the child, she can always give it up for adoption. She doesn't have to slay it.
With circumcision, while you may not agree, it should at least be legal. I don't see a single reason why it shouldn't be illegal. It should be the parent's choice. I still don't see why you have such a problem, especially if it is something that is a) minor and b) sometimes culturally necessary. You should just make it legal and let people decide, much like abortion.
If you are going to say that there is a need for laws preventing circumcision, there need to be laws preventing abortion.
Abortion isn't the same as circumcision. A fetus is parasitic upon the mother's body and is not yet capable of sustaining life on its own. It is not fully developed, and doesn't even have a functioning brain at the point where it's legal to have abortions. Basically, until the point which the fetus (or baby if someone is planning on taking the "you're trying to make it less personal by calling it a fetus" argument" can survive outside the womb, it's the equivalent of a tumor.
With circumcision, while you may not agree, it should at least be legal
I don't think many people are arguing for it to be completely illegal. What we're saying is that it shouldn't be performed on someone who cannot possibly object to the permanent change which it will inflict. There really isn't a reason to do it when they are that young, and if a reason occurs (like whatever problems you mentioned) then it can be done if it's necessary.
I don't see a single reason why it shouldn't be illegal.
I'll assume you meant legal.
Why should it be allowed? You're making a permanent change to someone else's body without their consent, before they even have the ability to object.
It should be the parent's choice
No. If the parent wanted to have their child with a 3 inch long scar on their leg, would it be okay if they had a doctor make a cut and stitch it right back up?
especially if it is something that is a) minor
If it's minor it can wait until the child can decide for themselves.
b) sometimes culturally necessary.
"Cultural necessity" is bull, plain and simple. The majority isn't always right, or the best way. Just because its apart of the culture isn't a reason to allow it.
You should just make it legal and let people decide, much like abortion.
Yes, it should be legal. And yes, let people decide. Namely, the people in question, the ones being circumcised.
Abortion and circumcision? No, not the same. Abortions are usually done because there are complications, the mother is at risk, or the child will be seriously impaired.
A pregnancy affects and changes a womans life far more dramatically than anything related to circumcision will ever do, so saying she should 'just' carry out the child is ridiculous from every aspect, including sentimental issues.
Medical circumcisions are done because there are complications with the foreskin, but those complications aren't life-threatening. The operation is just fixing the patients life quality.
I think ritual circumcision can be best compared to body modifications like ugly implants and the like (in fact in wikipedia circumcision is listed as a body modification). Thus it should be legal, but you have to agree no doctor will perform a percing on a baby only because the parents want to. Body modifications are widely legal (I think) as long as someone wishes to do that to his/her own body.
IMO the only good argument against the ban is what 314d1 mentioned, that circumcisions formerly performed in clean environments will now be performed by amateurs, highly raising the risks of complications. But whether this is true or not mostly depends on how exactly circumcisions are regulated in a specific religion, especially the age at which it should be done/is usually done. And I know not enough about that to judge the impact on this..
Children should not be property. Children are their own people with their own thoughts and feelings. Most will grow up to be productive members of society. They are human, and shouldn't be treated as anything less. The reason parents take responsibility is because as children they are likly inexperienced and incapable of making good choices. It's only temporary.
What do you call the fruits of my labor? Until the child claims self-ownership, a concept you are obviously unfamiliar with, then you do not know enough about property to be speaking fondly of it. They are temporary property, yes. If a child runs away, he must be returned to his parents by the authorities, much like slaves were. Children are slaves. They have been for thousands of years. 18 is not the age when everyone claims self-ownership. It is different for everyone.
My land has grass, insects, and fertilizer. It is a mini-world filled with great things, just like children. Ownership of another CAN be voluntary. Currently, there are laws dictating what kind of pesticide I can use on MY land, on my crops. I completely disagree. I purchased it from a man who homesteaded the land and it lawfully mine, yet I cannot spray my crops with pesticide? It's insane. More people should view children as property. They are humans, but they are also property.
What do you call the fruits of my labor?
If that labor happens to be sex, human beings.
Until the child claims self-ownership, a concept you are obviously unfamiliar with, then you do not know enough about property to be speaking fondly of it.
Since apparently you have to claim ownership of yourself, and it is not an inherent right? Kind of like how you have to go down to the court house and get your "Unmurderable" card, since you have to be approved for your life to be your own. Right?
They are temporary property, yes.
By what definition of property?
If a child runs away, he must be returned to his parents by the authorities, much like slaves were.
Your logic is insane. Soldiers solute their superiors, and soldiers solute dead soldiers. So logically, dead soldiers must rank higher then normal soldiers!
You are right in that slaves and children are both brought to someone if they have run away. The major difference is the reason they are brought back. Slaves where brought back to work, for the good of the slave owner. Children are taken home for their own good, or away from home for their own good if signs of abuse show.
Children are slaves. They have been for thousands of years.
You would have thought they would have grown up by then...
In the past, children where often used to work difficult jobs, like in farm work, in great numbers. It was considered an OK thing to do. But like you keep mentioning, slavery was also done in massive numbers. So logically, slavery should be allowed?
My land has grass, insects, and fertilizer. It is a mini-world filled with great things, just like children.
Please, get your "Great things" out of children. I am not sure what you are supposed to be saying here, but it can not end well.
Ownership of another CAN be voluntary.
It can. But not when they are to young to be able to consent to things, the age where this law would take effect. So this would be irrelevant.
Currently, there are laws dictating what kind of pesticide I can use on MY land, on my crops. I completely disagree. I purchased it from a man who homesteaded the land and it lawfully mine, yet I cannot spray my crops with pesticide? It's insane.
The laws against pesticides on YOUR land are to defend OUR health. I don't care if you want to spray your land with arsenic, as long as it does not effect another human being. Logically, you spreading poisons on the plants can effect another human in many ways, it could be dangerous on the plants, it could run into the water and poison the river, that is why there is a law against it. Probably, you sound an angry old man sitting on his porch and complaining about how the govermen' is trying to kill us all.
You have a right to swing your fist however you like. That right ends at someone else's face.
More people should view children as property.
Why? Because you, some random lunatic, believes so? How would this benefit anyone?
They are humans, but they are also property.
Last I checked, it is illegal for humans to be property in America. For someone who claims to like all their own freedom, you sure do not hesitate to take it from someone else.
They are temporary property, yes. If a child runs away, he must be returned to his parents by the authorities, much like slaves were. Children are slaves. They have been for thousands of years. 18 is not the age when everyone claims self-ownership. It is different for everyone.
Children aren't slaves. We have child labor laws to stop abuse of children. We have laws that prevent you from damaging your own children, and we have laws that make it illegal to neglect your children. They aren't your property. They are living humans whose rights are lowered, because at their mental state they most likly would not be able to handle certain rights. It is a parent's job to raise a child, protect it, and let it develop it's mental state so that by the time it is 18 and classified as an adult it is trusted to make it's own descisions.
More people should view children as property. They are humans, but they are also property.
Why should we do that to humans? I just don't understand how this helps the child. It seems crazy to me that we treat humans like animals. Slavery was unfair before, and it's still unfair now. No matter the age, no one should be considered sub-human and no one should be considered a slave, or property.
it is an unnecessary surgery on a vital part of the human body
Oddly ironic quote coming from an a sexual. Also ironic coming from someone who believes asexuality is not abnormal but, what did you call it? oh right, indifferent. just kind of hard to see how that member is vital, yet sex itself is not... feel free to elaborate.
Circumcision is highly personal, spiritual and, most importantly it is a choice. Do i believe that it should be made for you? No, but it really isn't fair to say if it is right or wrong at all, by anyone. I found out about this one from asking some folks, (35 of my closest friends, 20 male, 10 cut and 10 uncut and 15 female, pretty sure none of them are circumcised). Only 30 percent of the snipped males felt any remorse, 20 percent of them didn't care either way, and the other 50 felt it was a positive when showed pictures of what an un-cut looked like. The un-cut males were a bit opposite, 40 percent thought it was a positive, 30 percent didn't care and another 40 percent of the elephantesque membered men thought they would change if they could, which i took, seeing as though they can change it, as viewing it as a negative. The primary reasoning for their dislike was difficulty, or more difficulty in cleaning, and developing a funny smell (not sure if funny haha) after only hours of hard work or 1 day without a shower. All of this was quite informative, until i got to the girls, a whopping 70 percent of whom felt that being cut was a major positive, looked better, (cover your eyes kiddies) felt better, and was cleaner. i have no idea the ratio of who has seen or felt what or did this or that, really didn't want to know, and i felt it may be illegal to show them pictures of that sort of thing. 20 percent said it wouldn't make a difference, and only 10 percent found the look attractive at all. All in all, i still think it should be chosen, who the heck cares if someone wants to cut off a useless piece of skin, or leave it alone, for religious, cosmetic, or any reason. It's theirs and theirs alone. I hope it was informative, and if it's not too much trouble could someone tell me if it is necessary to include names of survey participants? for legal reasons.
reaperbackinaction
Only 30 percent of the snipped males felt any remorse,
Only? A full 1 in 3 wish that it hadn't happened. That's very significant.
could someone tell me if it is necessary to include names of survey participants?
It's not.
More people should view children as property. They are humans, but they are also property.
Hmmmmm, there is some truth in this. Say, for instance, a child goes a......candy shop. He grabs all the candy he wants and stuffs his face. Does the owner get mad at the kid. Probably. But most of his anger will go to the parent with the child because it's is their responsibility to control their child, which in a twisted sense, is their property. They must take care of it, feed it, clothe it, shelter it, and overall do everything until the child is old enough to take care of itself. Parents say that a child is "mine", doesn't that tie in property?, which may not be the best word to describe it. Whatever the kid does falls on the parent until they are no longer a minor, and under law, their "own person" so to speak.
Hmmmmm, there is some truth in this. Say, for instance, a child goes a......candy shop. He grabs all the candy he wants and stuffs his face. Does the owner get mad at the kid. Probably. But most of his anger will go to the parent with the child because it's is their responsibility to control their child, which in a twisted sense, is their property. They must take care of it, feed it, clothe it, shelter it, and overall do everything until the child is old enough to take care of itself. Parents say that a child is "mine", doesn't that tie in property?, which may not be the best word to describe it. Whatever the kid does falls on the parent until they are no longer a minor, and under law, their "own person" so to speak.
to elaborate even more. in the same instance, the parents are financially responsible to pay the owner of the candy shop as well. however much like property a child is though, i still feel that any decision pertaining to the childs physical body is his or her own decision.
also, one more quick thought on this issue. There are rare cases in children in which a baby is born with both genitalia and the parent(s) are asked to choose the gender of their child. in some cases non decision could be dangerous. what about that?
Only 30 percent of the snipped males felt any remorse
I don't understand what the remorse is for really. Is it because they couldn't make the choice themselves? They feel less a man without a foreskin? Or do they believe that the foreskin is healthier than no foreskin? Pertaining to this, they were saying on a radio show that some men now are feeling that a foreskin is needed to be a full man because of the influence of porn and how most of the men, if not all, are uncircumcised. Percentage of men that claim this reason is probably quite low anyway.(Radio show was Loveline, in case anyone wants a name)
What's done is done, as long as you take care of your body the way you are supposed to, there is not a significant chance either option is going to lead to anything serious at all, assuming the doctors don't make any mistakes, then that is an issue of whether the doctors should be sued and held completely accountable for any accidents that happen during any operation. And I wouldn't be all that shocked if some law was passed concerning that.
Are the fat kids of the world going to blame their parents for taking them to fast food and feeding them fatty thing, therefore outlawing anything that could lead to obesity. Because that is a much bigger issue than circumcision.
Oh, and that last post should be "goes to a......"
You must be logged in to post a reply!