Genital mutilation or religious right?

[kai]

Has anyone in the UK been presented with this "option"? I have four kids 2 ( boys) and no one mentioned it to us.

Though the incidence of male circumcision has decreased from 90% in 1979 to 60% in 1996, it is still the most common surgical operation in the United States. Circumcision rates are much lower for the rest of the industrialized world. In Britain, it is only done for religious practices or to correct a specific medical condition of the penis.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumsision


I wonder---- is it still the most common surgical operation in the United States? and Do you have to pay for it to be done? if so, do you think that because its on the price list, has any bearing on the choice. a quick Google search and i can get it done for £99 apparently?????


what i am getting at is maybe we are not offered it because the NHS wont pay for it, and we would have to go to private medicine where they do what you are willing to pay for.

 

[dawny0826]

Provide some evidence. I cited my source, a report from the Canadian Pediatric Association, that shows the rate of UTI in uncircumcized boys to be very low: A reduction from 2% to, say, 0.2% is a tenfold reduction, which sounds very impressive, but the difference is still only 1.8% of cases.



Neonatal Circumcision Revisited

So one study showed the rate of UTI for uncircumcised infant boys as 4%, another study showed it as 1%. The risk is on the order of magnitude I gave. I suppose if you want, we could take it as 3% (the average of those two studies) rather than the 2% I gave off the top of my head. Still, the rate is very low; UTIs in uncircumcised boys aren't "quite common".

Also, we should keep in mind that there are other viable strategies for reducing UTIs besides circumcision. From the same article:




And with a good, hard smack, you could ice the area afterward, and there wouldn't be any real wound to heal. Would that make it okay?


You may be capable of examining research, but I've actually examined it. Medically, it is needless.


It's no more arrogant than trying to decide a person's religion for him as an infant.


The rational basis for a decision here would be the net benefit - i.e. the benefits minus the risks - which in this case is none at all. When you appeal to the gross benefits as the basis for your decision, you're implicitly saying that the risks aren't playing a role in your decision-making process.


I disagree. I think your comments and arguments have gone well beyond this single point.

I suppose I'm just "well beyond", whatever that means. In my mind, considering my personal experiences and observations of circumcision - where the pain, healing and after effects haven't been an issue, I'd opt for the procedure, IF my consultation with a pediatrician before and after birth was favorable, to avoid unnecessary infections, regardless as to the statistics.

I've been clear as to my reasoning. Think what you want.

 

[gnomon]

I guess no one is going to jump forward and defend female circumcision?

Defend it based on cultural and traditional grounds?

That actually makes me happy.

 

[Koldo]

I suppose I'm just "well beyond", whatever that means. In my mind, considering my personal experiences and observations of circumcision - where the pain, healing and after effects haven't been an issue, I'd opt for the procedure, IF my consultation with a pediatrician before and after birth was favorable, to avoid unnecessary infections, regardless as to the statistics.

I've been clear as to my reasoning. Think what you want.

Can't personal experiences and observations be used to defend even absurd things though? In the past, someone could just as well defend the use of lobotomy with nearly the same argument.

 

[cablescavenger]

The aim of female genital mutilation is the sick idea that women should not enjoy sex, so the clitoris and labia are removed. This does not prevent the man from satisfying and enjoying his sexual desire of course, (nor does circumcision BTW) The men that demand this are subhuman IMO. It is part of the mindset of the worst kind of patriarchy, enforced by men with far less intelligence and compassion than rabid dogs, men who themselves demand the right to all the sexual pleasure they can arrange despite their clearly deluded claims to piety and purity.

To equate FGM with circumcision sounds to me like an attempt to justify or excuse an abominable act of disturbed minds.

I agree with what you say and the sentiment behind it.

I am not sure the aim was to equate them, just query why one was allowable and the other not.

I am not a big fan of social inequality, especially in Law (it tend to stick around for several hundred years). I would rather Law was fair and equal to all and didn't encourage different attitudes to men and womens welfare.

Both of these practices is an assault on a minor with the intended result being permanent physical damage.

To me this is no better than ABH on children and both practices should be illegal.

 

[beenie]

I guess no one is going to jump forward and defend female circumcision?

Defend it based on cultural and traditional grounds?

That actually makes me happy.

Nope.

Makes me happy too.

 

[Kerr]

I guess no one is going to jump forward and defend female circumcision?

Defend it based on cultural and traditional grounds?

That actually makes me happy.

Makes me happy as well.

 

[Godwilling]

I guess no one is going to jump forward and defend female circumcision?

Defend it based on cultural and traditional grounds?

That actually makes me happy.

...and me as well..

 

[839311]

God has commanded us to circumsize all our pets and livestock, so that they can be holy before him. Obey, or God will be displeased!

:bow:

Now where is that:bkcat: of mine...