Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[KWED]

to participate in a cultural and religious practice

Presumably you also approve of female circumcision when carried out as part of a cultural or religious tradition?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, you are misrepresenting my point. I referred to a study on women's responses to questions about sexual gratification from intercourse. Your study dealt mostly with preference, which is influenced greatly by culture and expectation. The study I referred to showed women gained more sexual gratification though intercourse with an intact rather than circumcised penis.

It was mostly the US and Africa. In the US there is an obvious cultural bias. A similar study done in the UK would show a clear preference for intact penises as circumcision is a cultural oddity and considered somewhat bizarre. I read an article in the BMJ criticising the African studies because of the strong influence of religious groups promoting dubious or false benefits of circumcision.

But even if all women preferred circumcised penises, that is no justification or validation.
What if all men preferred women with no labia majora?

Your supposed study does not appear to exist. You never linked it. Also one study is not very convincing. The way that questions are asked can control the results one gets. Which is why the study I linked was superior. It was the result of a group of studies.

And you are still mistaken. I never used that study to justify circumcision for babies. I was objecting to the poor arguments that you were using. The problem with circumcision of infants is that it is a choice that they cannot undo. One can always get a circumcision as an adult if one really wants one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I changed my wording a bit and found an interesting result in whether women prefer uncut to cut men. I tried to push it towards the uncut side. Doing that I found that various sources would use different sources depending on which group they are usually addressing. Articles aimed at men were much more likely to advocate uncut. This one was more thorough than most and had the answer "it depends". There are advantages and disadvantages to both:

Shape Magazine: Diet, fitness and beauty features, with an online community.

 

[KWED]

Your supposed study does not appear to exist. You never linked it.

https://www.i2researchhub.org/wp-co...he sexual enjoyment of the female partner.pdf

Also one study is not very convincing. The way that questions are asked can control the results one gets. Which is why the study I linked was superior. It was the result of a group of studies.

But as I pointed out, those studies suffered from bias and flaw, so it works both ways. There also seems to be some confirmation bias in the study you cited, with statements like "The findings add to the already well-established health benefits favoring MC" in the conclusion (the NHS refuses to carry out non-medical circumcision because there are no appreciable health benefits.)
It also criticised the study from Denmark for having a low number of participants (over 1000) but made no such criticism of the Mexican study which had only 19 participants. The difference? Have a guess.

So the conclusion here is that in such a subjective, emotive and culturally varied issue, we can find studies to suit any agenda, depending on where you look and how selective you are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

https://www.i2researchhub.org/wp-content/uploads/storage/U3SR6H9A/The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner.pdf

But as I pointed out, those studies suffered from bias and flaw, so it works both ways. There also seems to be some confirmation bias in the study you cited, with statements like "The findings add to the already well-established health benefits favoring MC" in the conclusion (the NHS refuses to carry out non-medical circumcision because there are no appreciable health benefits.)
It also criticised the study from Denmark for having a low number of participants (over 1000) but made no such criticism of the Mexican study which had only 19 participants. The difference? Have a guess.

So the conclusion here is that in such a subjective, emotive and culturally varied issue, we can find studies to suit any agenda, depending on where you look and how selective you are.

I would have to look at that. I doubt if they did not like the Danish study just because that it went against circumcision.. And I see that my last link did not work. Which is a pity since it went into a bit more detail than other studies did. Frankly it looks as if the claims are a bit dubious from both sides.

 

[Revoltingest]

to participate in a cultural and religious practice

That's what FGM is to its fans.
Is it also acceptable for the reason you gave?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would have to look at that. I doubt if they did not like the Danish study just because that it went against circumcision.. And I see that my last link did not work. Which is a pity since it went into a bit more detail than other studies did. Frankly it looks as if the claims are a bit dubious from both sides.

While the question of lasting impacts of circumcision is important, I don't think it's necessary for a conclusion on whether infant circumcision is good or bad.

I think both sides can agree that infant circumcision inflicts pain on the baby. Why isn't that enough reason not to do it?

If someone were to give a baby a good hard smack, that probably wouldn't cause lasting physical damage, but this fact wouldn't make the smack somehow not abuse.

IMO, any time we're inflicting pain on an infant, the benefit should outweigh the harm. Long-lasting physical harm would be on the "don'tdo it" side of the scale, but let's not pretend that it's the only thing on the "don't do it" side.

 

[Sand Dancer]

So you can last longer...

IMO, quality is better than quantity.

 

[Revoltingest]

IMO, quality is better than quantity.

Another jab at my post count, eh.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Another jab at my post count, eh.

You are rare in having an equal dose of quality and quantity.

 

[Sheldon]

You know California just passed a bill that allows you to kill a baby up to 28 days after birth?

I did not, in fact I'm pretty dubious that you are telling the truth, especially since you have been relentlessly dishonest in describing an insentient embryo, blastocyst and foetus as babies; and of course because having been confronted with that dishonesty, you are now spinning the discourse away using a bizarre unevidenced red herring.

 

[Sheldon]

You are seriously suggesting that killing a fully functional child is a basic human right?

Well let's take a look at my post you quoted and see.

You have bodily autonomy don't you? Why should you have the right to take that away from women?

So no then, I never remotely said any such thing, just another idiotic and duplicitous misrepresentation. Again one wonders what you hope to gain, beyond trolling of course? If you want your arguments to have any credence, then relentless duplicity is not going to help.

 

[Sheldon]

Lots of babies are aborted after 21 weeks... babies that young have survived birth.

So you're just going to repeat this red herring, without addressing the fact that late term abortions are extremely rare, and no doctor would perform one unless there was a serious risk to the pregnant woman's health?

You seem to have left debate behind now, and are simply trolling those who don't share your opinion.

 

[Sheldon]

Hi is explanation doesn't match reality.

A flat unevidenced denial of the facts, not very compelling. We'll try a picture, perhaps it'll be easier for you to understand?

 

[Sheldon]

So you are admitting that I am correct and many legally aborted babies could survive. Interesting.

 

[Sheldon]

to participate in a cultural and religious practice

Willingly? A baby? Even a small child would not be able to give fully informed consent. Why would it matter if it was left up to the individual? If you're right they will still choose to "participate in a cultural and religious practice" no?

 

[Sheldon]

Not really. Nowhere in the bill is the crime of homicide or manslaughter removed. It is to prevent the malicious prosecution of women who have a stillbirth or whose baby dies soon after birth through pregnancy related complications.
Of course jousting by your track record, you will simply ignore this and continue to insist that California allows women to kill their children for 28 days after birth.

There you go again, with your pesky facts, and your la-di-da rational explanations.

Fish in a barrel...

 

[dybmh]

That's what FGM is to its fans.
Is it also acceptable for the reason you gave?

I don't know enough about FGM to say for sure; but, IF it's done as an infant and it has the same outcome as circumcision, then yes I think it's acceptable.

 

[dybmh]

I'm not saying that we should have been "created perfect" (although I don't see why not). Just seems a bit odd though, having to have parts of your body surgically removed in order to "improve". One would think "improvement" was a spiritual struggle.

The spiritual struggle is for the parents. It's not easy to see and hear your child in pain. But the parents does it hoping the child will appreciate it later in life.

And if angels are perfect, how come Lucifer, Azazel, and the other fallen angels?

In general, fallen angels are myth and legend in Judaism. It differs from Christianity in this regard.

I think any data would be affected by the reasons mentioned, but it would be interesting to see what it looks like anyway. A lot will depend on social culture and religiosity. I can't see many observant Jewish men regretting it, but it may well be different amongst the secular or apostatised. And even then it would probably be very different in the US (where circumcision is still the social norm) and the UK (where it is unheard of outside of some religious groups).

Yes, I agree.

 

[dybmh]

Presumably you also approve of female circumcision when carried out as part of a cultural or religious tradition?

IF the circumcision is done as an infant and has the same outcome, then yes I would approve.