21–30 of 207 posts
We tried this in San Francisco and it gets dragged into some crazy anti-religious fight. It's about the rights of the baby, not about some religion's outdated beliefs. Children should be free of mutilation, regardless of their religion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found a big exception to your blanket statements: 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 consi…
I'm sure there are a lot of physical mutilations we could make to people that would reduce the chances of various diseases. Nonetheless, I think there's a moral issue in slicing up children (or adults) for this reason. Do our bodies belong to ourselves, to the government, to someone's god, or to the people around us? Not that I'm saying you're advocating it; just continuing the train of thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. That we tolerate genital mutilation of infants and that many people think it's OK/normal just illustrates how powerful the forces of convention are in swaying our views/beliefs. Genital mutilation is part of the general trend of subjugating children and depriving them of rights. Just because we've banned child labor in the US does not mean we've gone far enough.
Do does that mean all circumcised males are brainwashed and were all subjugated and deprived of rights as children?
No but the parents who did it may have been.
> subjugated and deprived of rights as children
Those who were mutilated without giving consent were harmed in a way that could be significant. I certainly would not consent to it as an adult.
It's genital mutilation. There's no medical reason [1]. Yes, having a foreskin means you need to clean it regularly (or your caregiver if you're a baby). And then there are disgusting things like this [2]: > In a practice that takes place during a ceremony known as the bris, a circumcision practitioner, or mohel, removes the foreskin from the baby's penis, and with his mouth sucks the blood from the incision to clean…
I found a big exception to your blanket statements: 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 consi…
Saying there is evidence is not the same as evidence. AFAIK, this study was debunked because the result was not causal - it was that different class/cultural patterns among the sub-populations of the country were responsible, not the circumcision. But, there was already a massive stream of funding (Bill Gates included) for adult circumcision based on that faulty reasoning, and now it's too late to turn the ship around.
Should we also ban the piercing of infant ears?
But your comparison is flawed, because pierced ear holes, if not filled, will easily heal over time, while the circumcision is non-reversible (foreskin will never grow back).
This is one of those topics where people have extremely strong opinions, yet the vast majority of people affected by this practice (circumcised males) have no opinion or even a favorable opinion of their circumcision.
Should we also ban the piercing of infant ears?
Why the hell would someone pierce an infant's ears???
Should we also ban the piercing of infant ears?