Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 04:15 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
Today at 10:06 AM

Satanic verses
Yesterday at 09:10 PM

Painted pious ladies
Yesterday at 07:36 PM

Climate catastrophe, sinn...
Yesterday at 03:08 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
September 20, 2019, 09:30 PM

Kashmir endgame
September 19, 2019, 02:15 PM

Blasphemy Case of Junaid...
September 19, 2019, 12:57 PM

The Cult of Social Justic...
September 18, 2019, 03:50 PM

The Battle for British Is...
September 17, 2019, 06:28 PM

Muslim heritage?
September 17, 2019, 06:04 PM

Scientists and .............
by akay
September 17, 2019, 06:22 AM

Theme Changer

 Poll

  • Question: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned. Do you agree?
  • Yes. - 64 (79%)
  • No. - 17 (21%)
  • Total Voters: 81

 Topic: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.

 (Read 33327 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 5 6 78 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #180 - February 16, 2013, 02:56 PM

    ^ i'm sorry you had to go through that strangestdude!

    i also voted yes..
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #181 - February 16, 2013, 09:19 PM

    Thanks Ness.  Cry
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #182 - February 16, 2013, 11:11 PM

     far away hug
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #183 - February 19, 2013, 06:50 PM

    I'm with asbie on this. I don't think male circumcision and FGM are analogous; one is definitely much worse than the other.
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #184 - February 19, 2013, 07:10 PM

    It's one thing to think it, another thing to explain why.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #185 - February 19, 2013, 07:20 PM

    Most forms of FGM are severely damaging and involve removal of the clitoris; as is obvious it is very difficult for a woman to orgasm without a clitoris. FGM also often involves extensive cutting of the labia and stitching up the area so there is only a tiny little hole, which is to be forced open once she is ready for sexual intercourse, after scar tissue has developed. FGM is the punishment that keeps on giving; a woman will be susceptible to all kinds of infections and complications for the rest of her life due to it. The same simply cannot be said for male circumcision; there's a reason why FGM is a crime in all civilized societies.
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #186 - February 19, 2013, 07:53 PM

    Sure, extreme categories have worse medical implications. The different categories of FGM are entirely different procedures, carrying their own implications. But there are still extreme medical implications from male circumcision. I don't think you can get anymore extreme than death.

    There is certainly a disanalogy in lasting effects for survivors, depending on which category we are comparing. But is it a morally relevant disanalogy? Does this alleviate any of the wrongness of invasive, destructive, unnecessary, non-consensual, permanent physical alteration of children, whatever form that might take?

    I don't find it very persuasive. They are often done for the same reasons, justified for the same reasons, normalised for the same reasons. There is pretty much absolute symmetry in inflicting both. And the sooner people face that fact, the sooner we can make both illegal on the same grounds.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #187 - February 20, 2013, 09:21 AM

    I usually judge how “wrong” something is by how harmful it is, and how “good” a law or idea is based on how much harm can be reduced by it; based on that male circumcision doesn’t quite compare to FGM. I also don’t think much good will come from criminalizing infant male circumcision; Muslims are NOT going to give it up and I already know of a few girls who’ve been “cut” overseas despite the fact that FGM is only mildly endorsed by Islam. Male circumcision is a lot more entrenched and it’ll just move from a safe, sanitary hospital environment to razor blades, kitchen knives and Third World countries, and consequently much higher rates of death and complications.
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #188 - February 20, 2013, 05:38 PM

    Al-Alethia, I understand your opinion that male genital mutilation is less bad than female genital mutilation from a physical standpoint (I disagree, but again, it's an opinion). However, when you compare the two not for their physical severity but rather as human rights violations, then it is clear there is absolutely no difference.  They are both invasive, permanent, and done without consent.

    I also don’t think much good will come from criminalizing infant male circumcision; Muslims are NOT going to give it up ... and it’ll just move from a safe, sanitary hospital environment to razor blades, kitchen knives and Third World countries, and consequently much higher rates of death and complications.

    Funny, those are the exact reasons I used to argue that female circumcision should be legalized and regulated. A ban won't -- and doesn't -- stop it, so better to make it safer for the children. Of course, I would prefer to see both practices done away with altogether, but I think the best way to achieve that is through education.

    In that mind, if anyone cares to learn more about a movement advocating genital integrity for both sexes, I'll leave this link here: http://www.circumstitions.com/

    I hear the rains, I see the fire, I feel the flame. It doesn't change the faces I want to blame for the shame I'm feeling.
    But the winds of change will blow again. And we're the lucky ones who travel on towards the sun.

    Can you hear it calling you?
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #189 - February 20, 2013, 07:00 PM

    I usually judge how “wrong” something is by how harmful it is, and how “good” a law or idea is based on how much harm can be reduced by it; based on that male circumcision doesn’t quite compare to FGM.

    We have several forms of ritual female genital mutilation under the umbrella term Female Genital Mutilation. Under these broad terms, FGM has substantial weight and is rightfully and broadly condemned. We could just as easily do the same with ritual male genital mutilation, though. We could include subincision and other forms of ritual male genital mutilation and put them under the umbrella term Male Genital Mutilation. If we are going to insist on having a broad definition for one, let's have the same for the other.

    When we compare like for like fairly in this way, the analogy is no longer even an analogy. We are literally just dividing genital mutilation into two gender categories, a simple division between the gender of the victim, both categories containing extreme and lasting abuse. In fact, why the binary gender divide at all? It seems like an arbitrary and unimportant distinction to me. It's all barbarism to me. All condemned by me. British law should transcend the two-class gender divide of foreign nations and not kowtow to cultural and moral relativism. Genital mutilation of children is indefensible. It's obscene even in lesser forms.

    You could argue that gender categorisation is useful for focussed and specialised activism, outreach groups, etc. But beyond that, we should be operating on sound principle. The law should be gender and culture blind as far as it is possible. This would not restrict activism, it would empower it. Relativism can be exploited. It can be a rationalisation for inaction. It can manifest as favouritism and discrimination.

    I also don’t think much good will come from criminalizing infant male circumcision; Muslims are NOT going to give it up and I already know of a few girls who’ve been “cut” overseas despite the fact that FGM is only mildly endorsed by Islam. Male circumcision is a lot more entrenched and it’ll just move from a safe, sanitary hospital environment to razor blades, kitchen knives and Third World countries, and consequently much higher rates of death and complications.

    That something is widespread or entrenched is not a good reason to not push for changes in law or enforcement of existing law. You could say that about so many things too. From petty driving offences to domestic abuse. If it was criminalised, Muslims would HAVE to give it up or face the law. It wouldn't vanish overnight, but it would have a form of chilling effect that would be the beginning of lasting change.

    And the reason why girls have been taken abroad and cut is because they can be. Because authorities are too morally craven to enforce existing laws, to push for convictions, to install simple methods of detection, routine check ups and focussed education in problem demographics, and so on. It's not the simplest thing in the world. It's certainly harder than making excuses and doing nothing. It would require action effort and funding. But it's not rocket surgery either. It's completely doable.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #190 - February 22, 2013, 01:42 AM

    @AlAlethia

    And in this thread StrangestDude mentioned how circumcision damaged him physically.

    By saying that male genital mutilation is not as bad you are unintentionally belittling the damage done to individuals who had to go through male circumcision.



    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #191 - February 22, 2013, 04:50 AM

    Not trying to belittle anyone's suffering here, but he didn't have to get circumcised. He elected to have it done.

    Also, to call male infant circumcision a human rights violation, just because it's non consensual seems like a misrepresentation to me. Many non consensual medical procedures are done to infants because it's the most convenient time to do so. And an infant can't give consent, so consent seems rather a non-issue for me when it comes to medical decisions a parent makes for a child.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #192 - February 22, 2013, 06:34 AM

    We have several forms of ritual female genital mutilation under the umbrella term Female Genital Mutilation. Under these broad terms, FGM has substantial weight and is rightfully and broadly condemned. We could just as easily do the same with ritual male genital mutilation, though. We could include subincision and other forms of ritual male genital mutilation and put them under the umbrella term Male Genital Mutilation. If we are going to insist on having a broad definition for one, let's have the same for the other.


    Okay but how common and where exactly in the world do this "subincision" and "other forms of ritual male genital mutilation" occur? The mildest form of FGM involves removing part of the clitoris and it's not even the most common or widespread form of FGM. MGM usually refers to circumcision (the removal of the foreskin) and I don't think any other form of MGM is practiced in the West or widely in any society for that matter. I'm sure there are other forms of genital mutilation out there in the world (there are all kinds of mutilation out there) but generally the more severe (and more common) forms of FGM are a lot more invasive and damaging than than the most common form of MGM (foreskin removal), which is the only form that would be relevant to legislators in the West. 

    I believe Type I FGM involves removal of the clitoral hood, and doesn't result in much damage, and that's probably the form of FGM most analogous to male circumcision. Infibulation and the other types aren't in the same league as male circumcision when it comes to seriously damaging mutilation that has consequences that last a lifetime. 

    Virtually all the men in my family are circumcised and I've never heard of any problems, the same cannot be said for the few girls I know who've been mutilated. 

    @The Dark Rebel
    He opted to have it done as an adult so it wasn't exactly "non-consensual". 
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #193 - February 22, 2013, 02:19 PM


    Also, to call male infant circumcision a human rights violation, just because it's non consensual seems like a misrepresentation to me. Many non consensual medical procedures are done to infants because it's the most convenient time to do so. And an infant can't give consent, so consent seems rather a non-issue for me when it comes to medical decisions a parent makes for a child.


    It's a human rights violation for two reasons.

     - It prevents the child from being able to decide which parts (if any) of his own body should be permanently removed.

     - It carries the risk of complications which can have a negative impact of the health of the child. And unnecessarily putting an infant at risk is a human rights violation.

    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #194 - February 22, 2013, 05:13 PM

    Also, to call male infant circumcision a human rights violation, just because it's non consensual seems like a misrepresentation to me. Many non consensual medical procedures are done to infants because it's the most convenient time to do so. And an infant can't give consent, so consent seems rather a non-issue for me when it comes to medical decisions a parent makes for a child.


    Are those procedures that you speak of medically warranted? Because there is a big difference between operating on an infant to correct a health issue and doing it for the sake of your tradition. Would you be OK with parents tattooing their infant?

    Have you heard the good news? There is no God!
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #195 - February 23, 2013, 05:01 AM

    If a particular culture were to tattoo children, would we seriously consider banning it?

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #196 - February 23, 2013, 07:35 AM

    I don't think tattoos are a close enough analogy. How about this: would you be ok with parents ripping off their baby's fingernails without anesthesia, and then cauterizing the nail beds?

    I hear the rains, I see the fire, I feel the flame. It doesn't change the faces I want to blame for the shame I'm feeling.
    But the winds of change will blow again. And we're the lucky ones who travel on towards the sun.

    Can you hear it calling you?
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #197 - February 23, 2013, 09:34 AM

    For me, I'm more concerned whether parents were told about effects of circumcision, pros and cons by the practitioner, are they informed of the latest finding on circumcision, no bias involved based on faith whatsoever.
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #198 - February 23, 2013, 11:40 PM

    If a particular culture were to tattoo children, would we seriously consider banning it?


    Of course. Even though it's less severe.

    The baby shouldn't have to live with a permanent mark on his skin that he doesn't like just because his parents chose to tattoo him. 


    Performing circumcision also has the probability  of leaving a portion of the baby's penis numb which would reduce sexual pleasure. 

    If strangestdude had that complication than it is quite likely that it would happen to other babies undergoing the process. 

    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #199 - February 24, 2013, 05:43 AM

    If a particular culture were to tattoo children, would we seriously consider banning it?


    You bet I would.

    Have you heard the good news? There is no God!
  • Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #200 - February 25, 2013, 06:09 PM

    Okay but how common and where exactly in the world do this "subincision" and "other forms of ritual male genital mutilation" occur?  

    I explain my thoughts on the frequency in the next part of my post.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #201 - February 25, 2013, 06:10 PM

    If a particular culture were to tattoo children, would we seriously consider banning it?

    This question doesn't make sense. There are already nations that have a culture of tattooing children. I have no way of banning things in other nations. If I did have some kind of say in the workings of other nations, absolutely and unequivocally I would call to ban it. Just like I'd like to ban a million other things that happen around the world if I could.

    Tattooing children is illegal in the nation I live in, thank fuck. And the legal status is entirely irrelevant to me anyway. If I was ever in the presence of someone who had tattooed their child, you can forget about expecting me to exercise diplomacy or legal and democratic process. At the very least, I'd be spending a night in the cells for assault.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #202 - February 25, 2013, 06:59 PM

    Not trying to belittle anyone's suffering here, but he didn't have to get circumcised. He elected to have it done.


    I agree. My point of talking about it was to show that complications can and do occur, and it's unnecessary.

    Why take the risk of permanently damaging your own child when it's unnecessary?

    I can't understand why a parent would take that risk. (if they aren't religious)
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #203 - March 06, 2013, 03:40 AM

    To all those who take the 500 different types of female circumscision and say ITS OBVIOUSLY WORSE THAN MALE - of course it's worse if when you say female you mean everything and when you say male you don't include stuff like this.
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #204 - March 06, 2013, 03:45 AM

    This thread is about penile circumcision not penile subincision.


    BTW did ur christian parents get you circumcised ?

    Just wondering how common circumcision is among the North American Christian community...


    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #205 - March 06, 2013, 04:11 AM

    7 pages? Again? I'm gonna read them when I have time and then I will explain to Ishina that it is quite ridiculous to be so progressive as to insist on equality of penis and vagina.

    "That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger" (The Koran 69:40)
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #206 - March 06, 2013, 04:15 AM

    This argument can be summed up as follows.


    Don't chop off body parts that aint yours !

    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #207 - March 06, 2013, 04:59 AM

    This thread is about penile circumcision not penile subincision.


    People love to use male genital mutilation synonymously.

    BTW did ur christian parents get you circumcised ?


    I dunno if this was directed to me but if so then no because my parent's aren't Christian.
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #208 - March 06, 2013, 07:54 AM

    To all those who take the 500 different types of female circumscision and say ITS OBVIOUSLY WORSE THAN MALE - of course it's worse if when you say female you mean everything and when you say male you don't include stuff like...

    We don’t include stuff like subincision because where the frak does that happen and how often does it happen? All 4 types of FGM happen in Africa, Europe, Asia, North America, Australia and the Middle East; FGM (in all its forms) is usually performed on underage girls with razor blades, bits of glass, knives, etc in an unsanitary environment. This thread is about circumcision and not subincision because the latter is extremely rare and virtually non-existent in Western countries (adults choosing to have it done notwithstanding) hence irrelevant to Western legislators. The only widespread form of male ritual genital mutilation is circumcision (removal of the foreskin), which is not analogous to 3 out of the 4 forms of FGM. In fact, the least severe form of FGM (removal of the clitoral hood) is analogous to circumcision.
  • Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
     Reply #209 - March 06, 2013, 08:58 AM

    But yet removal of the clitoral hood is still illegal.
  • Previous page 1 ... 5 6 78 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »