"circumcision not mutilation"

[share a book]

I have no issues with male circumcision, ds is not circumcised but may need to be for medical reasons in the future, I have never seen an uncircumcised male penis other than ds's. But would never dream of circumcisions on a female. I think it's horrible.

IMO. It's a personal choice, But do people who are against circumcision have issues if it's needed medically?

I do not know anyone who is against a necessary medical procedure. Take tonsils for instance. Many people have their child's tonsils out when they are still young, but they only do so if needed. If a kid has never had a problem with them, they would not be taken out.

[Opinionated]

But do you want to try and sway opinions of those who are thinking about circing or do you just want ppl who have already made that choice (or required circ for a medical reason) to feel horrible about it?

I truly believe that the best way to influence ppl who have yet to make the choice is with facts and not ugly, guilt-inducing words.

To be honest, anyone who is considering a routine circ is not likely to be swayed by language. If they find the evidence from the pro side convincing, language won't make one bit of difference. As for medically required circ, every single anti circer on this site makes an exception for that when it is not the first response but only considered after other options have been exhausted. No anti circer has ever suggested that there isn't, on the rare occasion a need for the procedure, just that it is unnecessary for routine or cultural reasons.

You find it an ugly guilt inducing word, however I think it is an ugly procedure, and parents who choose this without a clear medical reason should feel guilty for putting their children through that and removing their childrens bodily autonomy.

[JohnC]

I have no issues with male circumcision ... But would never dream of circumcisions on a female. I think it's horrible.

This is a rather clear statement of the double-standard I was trying to highlight in the first place.

[Father]

This is a rather clear statement of the double-standard I was trying to highlight in the first place.

No John. You have just rudely mis-quoted daysta112. Would you like to explain why you removed the middle part of her statement? Is it the unfortunate truth that sometimes a circumcision is actually required?

[~Bec~]

No John. You have just rudely mis-quoted daysta112. Would you like to explain why you removed the middle part of her statement? Is it the unfortunate truth that sometimes a circumcision is actually required?

John C has used an ellipsis - a standard English convention that denotes some text has been deliberately omitted. Hardly "rudely mis-quoting". I do not wish to speak for John C, he is more than capable of doing that himself, however, I think it a fair assumption that the quote was shorted to highlight the point he was trying to make, namely the double standard of male and female circ.

In relation to your second point, I have never read anything by John C or any other anti-ric person on the hub or anywhere else that does not acknowledge that there are some medical circumstances where circ is required and no person in their right mind would lobby for such a procedure to be denied in those circumstances. People who are anti-circ are anti-RIC (routine infant circumsicion), ie, where an infant is circ'd in the absense of a specific medical circumstances.

[Opinionated]

He knows both of those already Bec, he just likes to act all indignant and offended.

[JohnC]

Would you like to explain why you removed the middle part of her statement?

Sure. It wasn't relevant to the point I was making -- and I certainly did not distort the meaning or intention of the post.

The issue I was raising in my original post is why we treat infant genital cutting differently between boys and girls. There does not seem to be a good answer for this, apart from cultural blindness. The Indonesians are at least consistent, since they support the circumcision of both boys and girls (for cultural/religious reasons).

It seems to me ethically incoherent to oppose all genital cutting of girls but arguing for (as you do) routine infant circumcision of boys.

Is it the unfortunate truth that sometimes a circumcision is actually required?

Yep, but far less frequently than many seem to imagine. European medical circ rates are generally in the 1-3% range for boys under 15 years. And medically indicated procedures are in any case irrelevant to the issue of routine/ritual circumcision.

[Father]

And medically indicated procedures are in any case irrelevant to the issue of routine/ritual circumcision.

No they are not. This is the point that you are missing. There are many health benefits of male circumcision. The RACP lists them. But you just choose to ignore them.
It is your stubbornness of accepting these health benefits that prohibits you from seeing the difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation.
As much as you think you know my motivations better than myself, my boys were not 'ritually' circumcised. They were circumcised for the medical benefits that male circumcisions provide.

If you would like to draw the conclusion that male circumcision is the same as FGM, can you please provide me with scientific data that shows health benefits from FGM?

[moggy]

Father, to answer your questiion :

Stallings RY, Karugendo E (2005) Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: For better or for worse? [poster] 3rd International AIDS Society Conference; 2005 24 July–27 July; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. International AIDS Society. Available: http://www.hiv-knowledge.org/iasmaps/i10​.htm. Accessed 13 December 2005 .

Can you post any scientific studies that refute this ? If you can't, then we have to conclude, that as things stand, female circumcision significantly reduces a woman's chances of contracting AIDS.

[Father]

Your link did not work Moggy.
I would like to read that. Where did you read it?