Circumcision - is it right? Should it be forced on men?

A little bit OT but relevantly OT I think:

It's not important to start comparing it to FGM. There is something in human nature [and I know many dont believe in human nature] that niggles at us to start competing for who suffers the most.

THis should not be the case here. Whatever the case abotu FGM, male circumcision or MGM if you want to call it that, should be redressed in its own right regardless of the case of FGM.

Short Answer - No.

Longer Anwser - Definately Not.

There should be no reason to change anything on someone elses body, just on a whim, or because "convention" determines it to be preferred.

Some people find it more satisfying to be cut...

Some people find it more comfortable to remain uncut...

But it should be a desicion made by the person themselves to get cut or remain uncut (Unless you're Jewish).

Dravokivich wrote: »

Short Answer - No.

Longer Anwser - Definately Not.

There should be no reason to change anything on someone elses body, just on a whim, or because "convention" determines it to be preferred.

Some people find it more satisfying to be cut...

Some people find it more comfortable to remain uncut...

But it should be a desicion made by the person themselves to get cut or remain uncut (Unless you're Jewish).

Sorry, but why do religious beliefs get to superscede preventing uneccesary cruelties performed on infant boys? They shouldnt be allowed either.

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's not important to start comparing it to FGM. There is something in human nature [and I know many dont believe in human nature] that niggles at us to start competing for who suffers the most.

I think there is some confusion still as to why I made the comparison.

I have never suggested that FGM and male circumcision are the same thing, and I really don't care to enter a suffering competition - I'm not that Catholic. I think it fair to say that FGM is far more extreme as it is (apparently) a complete removal of the clitoris, which would be akin to a complete removal of the penis, not simply the foreskin.

However the popular view is that, because we cannot (are almost not allowed to) compare them, male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable automatic medical policy with no downsides or dangers. And this is a flawed and false perception.

Calling male circumcision MGM catches the attention of those who sleepily accept this popular view, and once you have their attention you can argue your case with far greater impact.

After all, where do you think the term FGM came from? It used to be called female circumcision only a few years ago.

Dravokivich wrote: »

But it should be a desicion made by the person themselves to get cut or remain uncut (Unless you're Jewish).

If you accept such procedures on the basis of faith, then you can't then really argue that FGM should be treated differently.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sorry, but why do religious beliefs get to superscede preventing uneccesary cruelties performed on infant boys? They shouldnt be allowed either.

I'm not saying it should. It's a part of their way and I don't want anyone to confuse my idea's as something to be imposed upon them, while they aren't imposing their idea's on me.

d'Oracle wrote: »

I prefer it, the few and possibly desperate women who have witnessed it liked it. My good lady likes it.

Thats fine. And I'm glad everyone mentioned likes it.

But by god, you've missed the point! Just because ladies prefer it doesn't mean we should inflict it wholesale on infants.

Its a LOT cleaner for a start.

Rubbish excuse. If I removed my finger nails it could be cleaner, however, I could just wash myself.

Also I'd like to point out that the posted definition of mutilate does nothing to back up your point. It implies a negative result.

I don't really care what it "implies". Did you read the link I added? Mutilate has a definite meaning:
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
Like it or not, a circumcised penis has been mutilated.

And my logic does not extend to FGM.

Sure it can. If we as a society decide in the western world that "female circumcision" (FGM) is fashionable, and we surgically roll it out wholesale...

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not saying it should. It's a part of their way and I don't want anyone to confuse my idea's as something to be imposed upon them, while they aren't imposing their idea's on me.

I disagree. I think we should be imposing our ideas when it comes to things like this. It's a barbaric procedure.

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not saying it should. It's a part of their way and I don't want anyone to confuse my idea's as something to be imposed upon them, while they aren't imposing their idea's on me.

No, but they're sure as shit are imposing their idea's on him - that poor infant whos about to have a razor took to his penis!

metrovelvet wrote: »

I disagree. I think we should be imposing our ideas when it comes to things like this. It's a barbaric procedure.

Imposing your idea's only makes other people want to fight for theirs more no matter how wrong you think they are.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you accept such procedures on the basis of faith, then you can't then really argue that FGM should be treated differently.

Within the quote you took from my post, I made a comment that people should choose for themselve's.

(Unless you're Jewish)

Was a reference to them not having the choice available.

Dravokivich wrote: »

Within the quote you took from my post, I made a comment that people should choose for themselve's.

Was a reference to them not having the choice available.

Yes, I understood; you stated that people should choose for themselves, unless as in the case of religious tradition, it is imposed upon a minor by the decision of his parents. Or her parents, because then the same applies to FGM.

Do you think parents should be able to impose such measures based on faith alone?

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sorry, but why do religious beliefs get to superscede preventing uneccesary cruelties performed on infant boys? They shouldnt be allowed either.

Funny enough the original Jewish circumcision was far less invasive a procedure(just the tip). Much less tissue was removed. Some writings discuss just drawing blood with a thorn. no removal of tissue. Written evidence for this comes from the greeks. Way back in the day Jewish men would compete in the greek games. The greeks and the romans who followed considered the exposed glans to be beyond the pale*, so jewish men would roll their foreskin forward to cover it. This shows they had enough skin to do so. The Jewish religious hierarchy who disapproved of such games in the first place then changed the procedure to remove so much tissue that rolling it forward was no longer an option and then made this change a religious duty. Two birds one stone.

Zulu wrote:

But by god, you've missed the point! Just because ladies prefer it doesn't mean we should inflict it wholesale on infants.

Indeed so. In fact there's another cultural similarity with the more radical FGM. The men in such cultures prefer it, prefer the look of it and consider the woman "cleaner".

As an aside on FGM, the least invasive kind just removes the foreskin/clitoral hood. Basically a comparative procedure to male circumcision and I reckon the vast majority of men and women would take rightfull issue with that. Though smegma can build up under the clitoral hood too so would arguably be "cleaner".

*one of the most talked about and contentious issues for the early christian church was circumcision. The romans and greeks they were trying to ocnvert were having none of it and if the early church fathers not backed down I suspect we would have heard a lot less of christianity.

Also - circumcision for Jews is performed at a briss [sp?]. But circumcision allowances extend outside of that to hospitals offerring it freely as a choice to all parents, jewish or not.

Now, Im all for freedom of religion [ahem], but I kind of stop at Santa Ria pracitioners leaving parts of chickens all over the streets for municipal garbage collectors to have to clean up. Sure chop up all the chickens you want, but dont leave the city to clean it up.

I sure as hell think freedom of religion has to stop when it comes to the endagerment of a minor's body, including the refusal of blood transfusions for JWs or circumcision for Jews and Muslims. They have their own countries set up where they can practise what they want in their own religions to their heart's content. If the UN chooses not to protect those children of those nations, so be it.

But why the rest of the west has to accommodate this and make it appear normal or sanctioned by medicine is just not OK.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, I understood; you stated that people should choose for themselves, unless as in the case of religious tradition, it is imposed upon a minor by the decision of his parents. Or her parents, because then the same applies to FGM.

Topic title referes to "Should it be forced on men?"

The Corinthian wrote: »

Do you think parents should be able to impose such measures based on faith alone?

If they do what they do based on thier "faith", they believe they are right as it's what their faith expects them to do.

I don't agree with thier faith. Doesn't mean I'm going to bash them for the choice they made based on it. Or anything within a foreign culture, that remains domestic within that foreign culture...

I'd be against it all out if this was to be rolled out as standard practise here, as then it would become a domestic issue that I would have a say in.

Dravokivich wrote: »

I don't agree with thier faith. Doesn't mean I'm going to bash them for the choice they made based on it. Or anything within a foreign culture, that remains domestic within that foreign culture...

So, say if the one religion decided that another needed extermination, according to their faith, you'd be ok with that so long as it happend within their domestic borders (and not ours)?

Zulu wrote: »

So, say if the one religion decided that another needed extermination, according to their faith, you'd be ok with that so long as it happend within their domestic borders (and not ours)?

I wouldn't be ok with it, but would recognise it as a domestic issue that has to be dealt with domestically.

Are you dragging me onto something else here?

Can't wait too see what else pops up...

Dravokivich wrote: »

I wouldn't be ok with it, but would recognise it as a domestic issue that has to be dealt with domestically.

Are you dragging me onto something else here?

Can't wait too see what else pops up...

By permitting it in our law, our medicine, and our philosophy we are allowing these faiths to impose their beliefs on us, and as a result our humanity is compromised when we protect some infant boys and not others.

.

Dravokivich wrote: »

I wouldn't be ok with it, but would recognise it as a domestic issue that has to be dealt with domestically.

Fair enough.

Are you dragging me onto something else here?

No I just wanted to see how far you'd let that go. Alot of people would be against it, but would rather that action to prevent it (I'd be one of those).

metrovelvet wrote: »

By permitting it in our law, our medicine, and our philosophy we are allowing these faiths to impose their beliefs on us, and as a result our humanity is compromised when we protect some infant boys and not others.

.

1) Circumcision is not mandatory in Ireland, how is it being imposed on us?

2) As I mentioned before, anything anywhere else is a domestic issue for them to deal with.

I've said I don't agree with it and would oppose it's introduction here. I recognise that for some people in other regions that's how things are. But they need to be against it to change it for themselves.

Dravokivich wrote: »

1) Circumcision is not mandatory in Ireland, how is it being imposed on us?

2) As I mentioned before, anything anywhere else is a domestic issue for them to deal with.

I've said I don't agree with it and would oppose it's introduction here. I recognise that for some people in other regions that's how things are. But they need to be against it to change it for themselves.

While circumcision is not manditory in Ireland do you not think that being pressured into allowing infant boys born to parents of other faiths where the faith itself makes the unneccesary circumcision mandatory is not an imposition in itself?

Also this dicussion as far as I can see is not limited to IReland.

Q: Can anyone in an Irish hospital request a circumcision for a newborn?

Dravokivich wrote: »

Topic title referes to "Should it be forced on men?"

To which you say yes, as long as they are young enough that their parents may impose it for traditional religious beliefs. By the same logic, the same should apply to women, and if not, then your logic when employed on men needs to be revisited.

If they do what they do based on thier "faith", they believe they are right as it's what their faith expects them to do.

But what limits, if any, would you impose?

Male circumcision is ok, but what about female circumcision? Or denying children medical care, such as blood transfusions, based on religious belief?

Does your 'respect' have limits and if so please define them?

metrovelvet wrote: »

While circumcision is not manditory in Ireland do you not think that being pressured into allowing infant boys born to parents of other faiths where the faith itself makes the unneccesary circumcision mandatory is not an imposition in itself?

You are asking me the same question but phrased differently, do you wish me to rephrase my previous anwser?

metrovelvet wrote: »

Q: Can anyone in an Irish hospital request a circumcision for a newborn?

Yes it is available. A friend of mine was circumcised at birth.

The Corinthian wrote: »

To which you say yes, as long as they are young enough that their parents may impose it for traditional religious beliefs. By the same logic, the same should apply to women, and if not, then your logic when employed on men needs to be revisited.

I said No.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But what limits, if any, would you impose?

Male circumcision is ok, but what about female circumcision? Or denying children medical care, such as blood transfusions, based on religious belief?

Does your 'respect' have limits and if so please define them?

My limits... right...

When those who have idea's on faith... push them into society that doesn't reflect that faith... I'd have a problem with it.

A bit jumbled up but...

I'm athiest. I don't want a law / legislation brought in that has a basis from the perspective of a religion, that is benificial for that religion, that has to be adhered to by people, not of that religion.

But would only take stance against it, if it's a domestic issue here.

I can disagree with something happening somewhere else, but don't feel it's in my place to be offended by it or to call them out over it.

Dravokivich wrote: »

When those who have idea's on faith... push them into society that doesn't reflect that faith... I'd have a problem with it.

Then female circumcision is ok as long as it is in a country where it is culturally practiced?

I'm athiest. I don't want a law / legislation brought in that has a basis from the perspective of a religion, that is benificial for that religion, that has to be adhered to by people, not of that religion.

No one has suggested that. Actually, I might suggest we should do the opposite.

But would only take stance against it, if it's a domestic issue here.

Ahh, so you feel that in the two examples I gave earlier, we should mind our own business in the Izevbekhai case and deny asylum from the onset, as female circumcision is not practiced in Ireland, but been aggressive in our prosecution of the Igbinedion case?

I can disagree with something happening somewhere else, but don't feel it's in my place to be offended by it or to call them out over it.

Yeah, but you'd run the risk of being called a hypocrite if you did.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then female circumcision is ok as long as it is in a country where it is culturally practiced?

You're bring in female circumcision on a topic that clearly states male circumcision in the title.

In my opinion, what should be done / should not be down is a domestic issue based on culture.

I think it shouldn't be done.

There's others in other countries based on their culture that think it should be done.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one has suggested that. Actually, I might suggest we should do the opposite.

You asked me for my limits and I gave it to you...

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh, so you feel that in the two examples I gave earlier, we should mind our own business in the Izevbekhai case and deny asylum from the onset, as female circumcision is not practiced in Ireland, but been aggressive in our prosecution of the Igbinedion case?

I would consider Izevbekhai's case to a be a domestic issue.

After reading over the Igbinedion case, I'd consider that to be assualt. He's not a doctor. He should have been prosecuted and found guilty of GBH, Mansluaghter and negligence.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yeah, but you'd run the risk of being called a hypocrite if you did.

Consider me a Hypocrite if you wish.

Edit:

By "I would consider Izevbekhai's case to a be a domestic issue." yes I mean denial of asylum.