American Academy of Pediatrics backs female circumcision - Page 4

Of course the foreskin has a function.

Acutally, it has many:

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html

It does?? Shall I quote myself? "I agree that female circumcision is horribly barbaric. I agree this nick is useless and traumatic."

It seems to be the lesser of the two evils, sure. That doesn't mean it's not WRONG.




You DON'T??? I'm extremely glad you're not a medical doctor!!

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publication...596169_eng.pdf

Even the WHO who as you mentioned is not against circumcision at all mentions there is possibly a function:

There is debate about the role of the foreskin, with possible functions including keeping the glans moist (92), protecting the developing penis in utero (73), or enhancing sexual pleasure due to the presence of nerve receptors (93). The foreskin is part of our phylogenetic heritage; non-human primates, including our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, have
prepuces that partially or completely cover the glans penis (94).




First, I like this dictionary better:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amputate

Main Entry: am·pu·tate
Pronunciation: \\ˈam-pyə-ˌtāt\\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): am·pu·tat·ed; am·pu·tat·ing
Etymology: Latin amputatus, past participle of amputare, from am-, amb- around + putare to cut, prune — more at ambi-
Date: 1612
: to remove by or as if by cutting; especially : to cut (as a limb) from the body


Yup, to remove by cutting or to cut from the body.

And then, just in case:

circumcising

Main Entry: cir·cum·cise
Pronunciation: \\ˈsər-kəm-ˌsīz\\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cir·cum·cised; cir·cum·cis·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin circumcisus, past participle of circumcidere, from circum- + caedere to cut
Date: 13th century
1 : to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the prepuce of (a female)
2 : to cut off all or part of the external genitalia and especially the clitoris and labia minora of (a female)

Therefore, to remove the foreskin by cutting it from the body is amputation.


Secondly, I like how you completely and conveniently ignored the actual argument at hand.



Again, to quote myself: I agree that female circumcision is horribly barbaric. I agree this nick is useless and traumatic.

With your analogy, I wouldn't be beating my wife a lot or a little. Rather, if someone was going to be hit by a bus, would it be better to body slam them out of the way. Maybe break their arm or something, but it's better than breaking their back as being hit by a bus would do.


Is it? You think being verbally and mentally abused is less than being physically abused? THAT is an entirely different topic.

As my above analogy... Would I do something that might break someone's arm to save them from breaking their back? I wouldn't OPT to break someone's arm. I'd much rather the freakin' bus driver pay attention and not try to hit that person. I'd feel bad about breaking the person's arm. But if it prevented a broken back, it might be worth it.

Ideally, I would LOVE to prevent all genital "alterations" that aren't medically necessary being imposed on others. Until someone can get to the parents that are brainwashed in to thinking it's ok and stop them, MAYBE this is a good step down.






Definitely! Though the others are pretty, uh, questionable too. UTIs are easy to prevent and treat. The STDs like HIV and HPV are easy to prevent with simple smarts, cautions, and / or condoms. Which REALLY makes it funny that you should say "health triumphs sex everytime". Well then why not make the healthy decision to use a condom while having sex?? Why remove the foreskin for health reasons rather than use a condom for health reasons??

Circumcision have negative side effects, condoms do not. Circumcision can, while very rare, I admit, cause DEATH. Why risk death when a simple little piece of rubber with no side effects can do the same thing??

I don't need to post links, I am not disagreeing with the links you've posted. It's true- there are medical benefits, but IMO, they outweigh the costs because the foreskin DOES have a significant function, and to take it away is simply not worth it. And, these risks do get smaller with better hygiene and safer sex like someone else mentioned.

I wonder what function the clitoris has, other than sexual stimulation. Cindy?

(And yes, I say the above w/sarcasm.)

Cindy--during this discussion, you've stressed that male neonatal circumcision is ok b/c it's done when the boy is only days old and is unlikely to remember it. So, does that mean you'd be okay with female circumcision if done the same way? I mean, the girl wouldn't remember it, and I'm at a loss as to what function (other than sexual stimulation, which you don't think is a big enough issue--for boys at least) the clitoris serves.

Here's a side by side comparison of FGM and MGM

http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

None of the supposed "benefits" of MGM outweigh the risks of this unnecessary cosmetic surgery. None of the "benefits" makes genital cutting on a non-consenting minor okay.

And again I will say-women have many, MANY more folds and nooks and crannies in their genital region for smegma and general 'dirt' to get caught up in. Removing a woman's labia or clitoral hood would remove some of those folds, and therefore, make the woman 'cleaner.' If this isn't a good enough reason to cut little girls, then it's certainly not a good enough reason to cut our little boys.

We're not talking about ALL MEN. We're talking about one's own son. Is it so hard to try to teach your own son how to clean himself and practice safe sex?? Not "just" use condoms- I specially listed safe sex.

What kind of come back are you looking for? The medical benefits are minimal in that they only REDUCE, not remove the risks. And, for that matter, there are other reliable sources out there (like those I quoted) that state there only MIGHT be medical benefits. Some of those studies are in question.

You say the benefit of preventing mutilation is not worth it, that it's like allowing a little abuse.

And yet, the medical benefit for doing this to a boy is that it might make sex safer if he chooses not to take other precautions. And that's worth it. Even though you say sex isn't as important as health. But the only benefits to this procedure is so he can have unprotected sex and a REDUCED risk of STDs. Oh, and doesn't have to clean himself as well.

Prevent mutilation = not worth it. Allow risky sex to be less risky = worth it.

This is the equation I don't understand.

In my mind, both are questionable. As I said, I can understand AAP's logic that this procedure may save a few girls. I can understand how male circumcision can save a few boys. I don't really like either option- the nick or the removal of the foreskin. And yet I can see the pros and cons to both.

You REALLY can't see? In that case, I think I am also done repeating myself. Unless someone else comes in and wants to further the discussion- I love a good debate like this!

So if we are done, thank you all, I've enjoyed the healthy debate!

I haven't seen the need to add anything to the conversation for a while, but I was just thinking....one of the links ckblv put up said that male circumcision has "only" a 3% complication rate. If 75% of men currently in the U.S. are circumcised (sources vary but that seems to be the general idea), than that means there are about 4.5 million American guys out there with damage caused by circumcision. I'm sure the extent of the damage varies but I've seen some horrific pics. That seems like an awfully high risk to me, especially for an elective procedure.

And I imagine that if you were related to one of those guys you might not be so cavalier about the risks.

Glad to hear it!