Male Genital Mutilation

[Pedersen]

I recommend watching the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on circumcision.

Perhaps you could at least summarize what they said?

In female circumcision, don't they also sew up the female parts after, or is that just scaremongering? They don't do that in the case of male circumcision.

That depends on the type of FGM that is done. The most extreme types do, but there is at least one type that is a direct corollary to male circumcision.

the CDC only has US data-not worldwide directly from the CDC

I stand corrected. So, change the numbers a bit. It is now 1 in 10 men, assuming that all HPV carriers are male. If it's only 1/2, then it's about 1 in 20. Of course, there is something else I find interesting:

thus far there is no diagnostic test that can accurately determine whether a man is carrying an HPV infection.

So, you would advocate mutilating every male to provide an uncertain amount of benefit to reduce transmission of a virus that cannot even be detected in the men?

I do hope, then, that you would advocate female circumcision, as this has a benefit in reduction of HIV transmission (by 50%). Or did you refuse to answer that question deliberately?

Guardasil is only for those under 27 years of age-age of highest diagnosis for cervical cancer-48

Dang. Too bad. I guess that, unlike most vaccines, once you turn 27, it stops working for you.

Wait, you didn't mean that? Then how is it relevant? Gardasil has proven benefits right now. It can be used right now to protect people, and usage of the vaccine can allow us to not mutilate people for the benefit of others.

Now, I would hope that you would agree that a man should be as able to decide what happens to his body as a woman should. You do believe that people should be able to decide what happens with their own bodies, don't you?

[Lachrymose]

Perhaps you could at least summarize what they said?

Well, it's honestly kind of hard for me to summarize for some reason.

I did find a streaming video of it on Liveleak:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=416_1218124584

I'm assuming it's legal. If not, feel free to remove the link.

I do warn you that it's full of language, and it shows an actual circumcision as well as adult males who want to "restore" their foreskin.

In a way, they're trying to be unbiased about circumcision but they lean very strongly towards being anticircumcision.

[Rapscallion]

Dunno. All I know is what was in the post to be honest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis

Warning - contains a knob picture.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Tsk tsk tsk... Mr Pedersen, shame on you...

Now, I would hope that you would agree that a man should be as able to decide what happens to his body as a woman should. You do believe that people should be able to decide what happens with their own bodies, don't you?

Appealing to emotion..... (unless it was sarcasm?? I know you get sarcastic, but this didn't seem like it).

Tonsils... no, wasn't doing a direct comparison, just bringing up the silliness of it. Yes, now they tend to leave tonsils in, wasn't always the case (I'm one of the few ppl around who has all their bits - no cut-out, me!! All teeth too!)

More to the point...all those stats and figures and stuff leads me to 1 conclusion - and it's not the one you lot have been arguing. It's about safe sex! Doesn't matter if you've been cut or not, you choose to practice unsafe sex you put yourself (and others) at risk.

So... do you therefore cut off every new-born boy's foreskin on the presumption that in later life a) medicine hasn't worked out a way to stop all those infections and viruses, and/or b) the presumption that said male will use barrier protection when they have sex 15+ years later??

[Rapscallion]

Seems to me that it's getting harder to move for all the breast cancer charities out there. Damned common, that thing, apparently - shouldn't we cut off all breast tissue from female babies shortly after birth when the child is still fast to heal? Similar sort of logic involved for some of the arguments.

I'm against the above, though - would ruin the view.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

Raps,

Prophylactic masectomies/hysterectomies are becoming more and more common. They have a genetic test you can take, to see if you have the gene that causes breast cancer (having the gene doesn't mean you'll get it, not having the gene doesn't mean you're safe from it). Women who have the gene will sometimes just go ahead and lop them off and have reconstruction done.

I don't care how high my risk is, I'm not doing anything to mine until I have to.

[Pedersen]

Appealing to emotion..... (unless it was sarcasm?? I know you get sarcastic, but this didn't seem like it).

Actually, it was, and it was serious. This debate, to me, is not just about statistics. It's about real people who find themselves unable to control what happens with their bodies. They find out that someone made a decision to change their body, and they had no choice in the matter.

Something that hasn't been said until now: I, too, am circumcised. Now, every so often, I find myself thinking about it, and very sad over it. I don't blame my parents, not much. When I was born, this is what was done. It was the normal thing to have happen.

But I still find myself wondering the various "what if" questions: When I'm older, I'm more likely to experience impotency. How do I manage to tell my wife that yes, I still love her and find her attractive, and actually have her believe me? Right now: I know there is some amount of sensation lost. I am unable to imagine this sensation. It's like someone having their eyes cut out at birth. You can't tell them what sight is like. You can't tell them what they are missing. And they're unable to experience it for themselves.

And on and on and on. And I find it depressing in the extreme that there are people who believe that I should have to live with that, while females are protected from that sort of worry by force of law, all based on some statistics that only show that high risk behavior places their partner at risk.

And now, it actually is making me angry. I want someone to tell me why it is that girls receive this protection, girls have the ability to choose what happens to their bodies (at least in this instance, I'm not interested in arguing about abortion, and will thoroughly beandip anyone who tries to bring it into this thread). but guys are denied this same protection and choice.

And all I'm seeing so far is a bad statistical justification. So, yes, I want an answer to that question.

Tonsils... no, wasn't doing a direct comparison, just bringing up the silliness of it. Yes, now they tend to leave tonsils in, wasn't always the case (I'm one of the few ppl around who has all their bits - no cut-out, me!! All teeth too!)

Actually, I'm one of those who had their tonsils removed. In addition, adenoid was removed, and tubes put in ears. And I am thoroughly grateful that it was done. Why? Because I'm one of the people who needed it done. The number of ear and throat infections that I got before having this done was extreme (many per year, frequently erupting in the middle of the night and sending me to the ER). So, I knew very much what was being done, and why, and was grateful when it was done.

More to the point...all those stats and figures and stuff leads me to 1 conclusion - and it's not the one you lot have been arguing. It's about safe sex! Doesn't matter if you've been cut or not, you choose to practice unsafe sex you put yourself (and others) at risk.

A much more succinct way of at least one of the points I was trying to make. Thanks

Prophylactic masectomies/hysterectomies are becoming more and more common. They have a genetic test you can take, to see if you have the gene that causes breast cancer (having the gene doesn't mean you'll get it, not having the gene doesn't mean you're safe from it). Women who have the gene will sometimes just go ahead and lop them off and have reconstruction done.

I don't care how high my risk is, I'm not doing anything to mine until I have to.

And therein lies my single biggest issue with it. Women get to choose. Men get to have the choice made for us. WHY?

[Rapscallion]

That was pretty much my point. They're done when a risk is proven, not as a (paid) matter of course.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

I understand and agree mostly with all those against unneccessary surgeries for non-consenting babies. But I just don't consider circumcision a big enough deal to get worked up over.
Personal freedom for parents is far more important, in my opinion, than any possible tiny risks for a baby.
We allow so much more destructive actions because of parental freeedom, that I just can't understand why anyone would get so worked up over this one.

[anriana]

But is female circumcision that bad? With the limited knowledge I have on the topic I think it is wrong, but with us asking about male circumcision and a large number of people (as is apparent by the large number of males who are circumsized), maybe it could be asked if maybe that isn't the way to go and should be done on females as well. Just playing devils advocate.

FGM

1)Can take away the ability to orgasm
2)Is usually done in an unsterile environment and with unsterile tools such as rocks
3)Can cause fistulas between the rectum and vagina or bladder and vagina, meaning the woman leaks urine or feces out of her vagina all the time
4)Can greatly raise the chance of dying in childbirth

In female circumcision, don't they also sew up the female parts after, or is that just scaremongering? They don't do that in the case of male circumcision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_...categorization

It depends. There are several different types of FGM. If just the clitoris is removed, then the genitalia usually aren't sewn together, but if the labia are removed, then they may be.

[Slytovhand]

Personal freedom for parents is far more important, in my opinion, than any possible tiny risks for a baby.

Ah Flyn... that's exactly why I started my thread on Rights of kids vs Rights of parents.... please, I'd like your thoughts there...

[Rapscallion]

Thinking about it, the HIV argument is bollocks. HIV started to spread properly back in the eighties, if memory serves. Circumcision was done for generations before that was really known about, so it's a retrofitted argument, not a reason it was started in the first place.

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

so it's a retrofitted argument, not a reason it was started in the first place.

Rapscallion

what's wrong with a retrofitted argument? It might not be the original reason, but it could still be reason to continue. (though I'll agree it's bollocks because it can be more effectively prevented by using a condom).

[Rapscallion]

It's like religious fundamentalists using new finds in science to back their fairy tale claims. "Whoa! HIV virus smaller than the gaps between molecules of latex? Means that my particular religious text was right about contraception being undivine."

Besides, as P&T showed, there is more than one study done on that claim, and the other refutes the allegation.

Rapscallion

[Pedersen]

I have to toss in some scenarios for people to consider.

Consider this one: A male, 25 years old (and if that's not old enough, put his chronological age past the age of majority for your country), lies in a coma. No prospect of ever coming out of it. Before entering into the coma, he had (for whatever reason) signed a medical power of attorney. His parents are the ones in charge of his body because of it. He's been in the coma for some years now, too. Suddenly his parents find religion, and their newfound religion demands that all males be circumcised. They ask their doctor to arrange it. Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

Same male, but not in a coma. All other circumstances the same. The doctor asks the male if he consents to this, and the reply is "No, I do not consent." Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

Same male, but not in a coma. All other circumstances the same. The doctor asks the male if he consents to this, and the reply is "My parents have the final say." Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

Same male, but now pre-age of majority, but only barely. Let's say he's 17 (in the USA). Same request. Doctor asks male if he consents to this, and the reply is "No, I do not conset." Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

Now, noticeably younger. Let's say the male is 12. Same request. Doctor asks male if he consents to this, and the reply is "No, I do not consent." Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

Still younger: 5. All circumstances the same. Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

Still younger: newborn, less than 30 days old. Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

I want answers before I post what I expect the answers to be. Thoughts anyone?