Circumcision

Optional? So, the child has no choice in getting a body part mutilated, but it's ok for religious and cultural reasons? It sounds more like a biased opinion rather than one of not caring. I'm not hating on religion or culture, but I'm of the mind set that things that will physically alter one's body, need to be their choice when they can understand the consequences. Sure, circumcision is needed at times, but my main thing is that there's no point in taking away potential future pleasure for the sake of what the parents believe, before the child is even old enough to understand or have a say so.

"But it's my religion", that argument pretty much lines up with the cultural relativism argument. How can you honestly say someone who cuts the clitoris off a baby girl is on par with someone who finds that disgusting and immoral? If there was a religion that had a practice of cutting the head off every 3rd child, would you still say that's just their religious belief and that it should be respected? I'm sorry to hear you were circumcised without any consent on your part. Human rights should trump religious rights. Genital mutilation of children should be a crime.

I thought this subject sounded familiar. http://maiotaku.com/mytopics/561/mytopics/13671

Rob... Duh... Just trying to refresh an old topic. However, I forgot it was I who started that thread and I was a tad lazy on looking for it. Meh... It can be combined I suppose. Thanks though, at least that doesn't take away from the topic.

Tsk.... For shame and touche. But, I owned up to it once it was pointed out. However, all I ask is that this doesn't become another derailed thread. I'd rather it just be forgotten and burried if that's the case.

Lol the thread was posted 2 years ago(?). I think it's fair to resurrect it at this point. Lots of people have been and gone at this point.

Aside from religion there are "potential" benefits from circumcision. The question, like with anything, is whether those benefits outweigh the harm. This is one of those things where the medical community can seem pretty shady. On their website, the WHO says, "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%." And while they do admit that this "only provides partial protection," they do not divulge that this "60%" can be considered a rather negligible effect. There is however, a more noticeable effect on urinary tract infections and external penile infections which are associated with higher risk for penile cancer. But, these typically are not life threatening infections. The CDC suggests that overall, circumcision is cost-effective in its prevention of HIV, urinary tract infections, penile infections, and penile cancer. However, the study they refer to does not consider physical mutilation as a "cost." Then again, we do all sorts of things to babies that are painful and alters their bodies for the sake of both health and body image. There are other things that, if we did them to older people, especially without consent, would be considered torture. However, these are mainly things that have a more concrete effect on the future health of the baby. And many of these are for therapy rather than for prevention as it would be in the case of circumcision. And notably on penile cancer, the HPV vaccine can decrease the risk for that, and that risk is already really low compared to other cancers.