Summations Only

Just as female genital mutilation is outlawed in many places, so should male genital mutilation.Maybe we could take one more tini step out of the dark ages if this starts bubbling up as a human rights issue.If a jewish male wants to slice off skin for religious reasons, let him choose to do so at an age of appropriate consent similar to tattoos and other permanent body modifications.

Nonsense. Of course they can be compared. Both are utterly unnecessary surgical procedures done primarily for religious reasons. (or at least rooted in religious reasons)Science has shown that the hygeine argument is bullshit.As a medical intervention, it does not pass the risk vs. reward test at all. While the vast majority of the time young boys are "fine" afterward, sometimes they are not.There is no reason to do it other than as a brutish old age superstition about making a war god happy.

But not zero. With modern medicine, the risk factor of some female procedures could also be low. So do you think we should allow infant female circumcision if it is done properly to make the risk as low as male circumcision? I don't see anyone who made that claim. How very dismissive of you. If you don't want to provide actual arguments, you are welcome to exit the discussion. You have make it perfectly clear that you stand for the rights of adults to perform genital mutilation on their children as long as the child is a male. Just don't pretend that you have justified it by claiming that we are unnecessarily whining.

But it is not only that. You go further to suggest that because it is not genital mutilation, that is is therefore okay to inflict upon little boys.The claim that it is not genital mutilation is laughable. It is by definition genital mutilation. It is simply a specific kind of genital mutilation that you happen to be okay with, apparently as long as we call it by another word.If using the tools of modern medicine we are able to make female circumcision as "risk free" as male circumcision, would you support allowing that practice?

And so far the arguments for in this thread have mostly been either dismissive or semantic.If not calling it genital mutilation makes you feel better about it then fine. But its not convincing.People know what genitals are.
People know what mutilation means.Redefine all you want...

You are welcome to think that. But your not doing youself any favors in terms of convincing anyone else. You essentially admit that you are making a semantic argument. Amazing. How about removal of the clitoral hood, one of the tamer versions of female circumcision. The one most akin to male circumcision. Would you be okay with that if the risks were the same as male circumcision? What about branding? Would you be okay with parents branding their kids for religious reason? What about slicing off the pads of their fingertips? Okay with you? Neither of those things would leave a kid disfunctional and done properly would be very low risk.What conditions do you have before something, anything is considered child abuse that society has a vested interest in stopping?

Wow, compelling counter point Jon.I understand that some people try to make cases for it on health grounds but there is currently no clear indication in terms of risk-vs-reward in the medical community currently.But I see instead of even going down that road, potentially enjoining an interesting discussion, you would rather go with, "Nu-uh!"Interesting choice.

More playing with words. Most people I know understand branding to be what ranchers do to their cattle, involving hot iron to leave permanent scarring.If there is anyone who legitimatly didn't understand what I meant then I am sorry.Giving a twin a tattoo for the purposes of identification is not the same thing.

And what of the few who HAVE had impaired use, disability, or destruction, or even death as a result?Is it mutilation in that circumstance?An argument may also be made that every circed male has impared use. The parts that are cut off have function. Just because we can get around that loss of function with modernity does not mean that it is not a loss.

Yea. Or a cultural infestation rooted in exactly that.There certainly is not practical or medical reason to do it.To be fair, I could also add that some people may do it out of ignorance, believing that it is a cleanliness issue as is the popular myth.

Sorry, I don't know how you connected the dots of what I wrote to that.I was talking about the definition of 'mutilation'.Some men are in fact mutilated (using Jon's criteria) by their circumcision and and argument can be made that all men are.We make risk versus reward scenarious every day. I let my son play soccer because the reward in terms of physical, emotional, and social development outweighs the risk of a sports injury. There is a purpose.The risk versus reward scenario for circumcision is very clear. There is no reason to do it and the risks are high enough, I argue, that it warrants that even making it permissible is wrong.We widely recognize that female circumcision is wrong and condemn it at the highest levels in our society. Yet there is some strange change in how we view it for males.The why seems pretty obvious. Culture and religion. Yet even that gets challenged by the relativists in this thread.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Well, we can start with the American Academy of Pediatrics.
A quote from: Circumcision Policy Statement | Pediatrics | American Academy of Pediatrics Protection from urinary tract infections is 1% in baby boys unable to clean themselves. I don't think there is any other surgery you would have your child undertake to reduce their chances of getting sick by 1%, for a limited amount of time, when there are simpler and free alternatives.

Questions that once again, have nothing to do with that I was talking about which was the definition of mutilation. Your right. I never said I did. But society does have that right through our democratic processes and I am simply advocating for the position that infant circumcision should be outlawed for all non-medical purposes.Just like how we outlaw smoking in public, driving too fast on our roads, and failing to give children a civil education. WE DO get to decide. I think your analogy is wrong. Both circumcision practices involve the medically unnecessary excision of a human being unable to consent. I cannot connect the dots to the different between taking a ride in a car and being run over. Your just not making any sense.

The political tap dance that the AAP and other groups do around the issue is unfortunate. If they were to take the same stance that we have against female circumcision there would be an outcry and public pressure for them to retract it.Changing minds is a slow processes.If you want to have a cut dick to impress women, I am all for it! You want it pierced, tatooed, split down the middle, go for it! But it should be your choice as consenting individual.

You questioned me and I clarified. Yes.But I don't think cultural naivety based on that very same religion, or just plain ignorance as I described rescues the situation.