4 ms·

No. Full stop. Just as with female genital mutilation, male genital mutilation should be banned. For religious purposes this proposal should fit: https://www.g

No. Full stop. Just as with female genital mutilation, male genital mutilation should be banned. For religious purposes this proposal should fit: https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/fgm-compromise-nick-western-countries-429250%3Famp%3D1 https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/fgm-compromise-n... That is a nick, not full mutilation.

EGreg 10y ago
That nick is the equivalent of male circumcision and is practiced by the Bohras, an Islamic sect. It makes a tiny incision for girls in the foreskin covering the clitoris and it is not clear that this reduces sexual pleasure in the future. It is very far from FGM which removes the clitoris etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawoodi_Bohra https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawoodi_Bohra We have hundreds of years of data on Jewish males and how they fare after this operation at 8 days old, and it is not at all clear that they are medically or psychologically worse off than without it. The fact that it is considered a requirement in the Jewish religion for membership in the Jewish people plays a major role in the phychological well being of the child and adult, and as the parent comment has said this needs to be considered!
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Thank you for pointing out that the FGM nick actually has lasting effects. I was not aware of that, and it's not something that I support. > The fact that it is considered a requirement in the Jewish religion for membership in the Jewish people plays a major role in the phychological well being of the child and adult, and as the parent comment has said this needs to be considered! And it should be. It should be considered just like stoning is considered, and thrown out as against modern principles (in most places, sadly not all). It should be considered, just like homosexuality should not have you burned at the stake. This is no different. I recognize that this is not a light decision, but it is a brutal act (with non 0% chances of horrible things going wrong) that has no physiological need.
  - jquery 10y ago
    Exaggerate much? This is why the anti-circ crowd isn't taken seriously. Can you point to comparative sexual studies where men circumcised as adults for non-health reasons suffer from great psychological and physical harm, as would be expected from a brutal act similar to being burned at the stake or being stoned? Most studies of circumcision show no harm, some slight benefits, or some slight harm.
pugio 10y ago
That's not an argument, it's an assertion, one that does not address any points made above.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Yes, I make the assertion that all people, including defenseless babies, should be free from harm. Now, the nick I leave as a compromise, b/c I do understand that this is a fundamental requirement of the religion as it is followed. This allows for religious practice to be followed with out mutilating the child.
  - pugio 10y ago
    A nick is harm. Either you compromise your morals or you don't. If you do make allowances for other concerns (ie. religious practice), then you're debating degree, not kind. Also, while a nick _may_ work for certain religions, it serves zero purpose for Judaic circumcision, and would actually be forbidden as unnecessary harm.

EGreg 10y ago

That nick is the equivalent of male circumcision and is practiced by the Bohras, an Islamic sect. It makes a tiny incision for girls in the foreskin covering the clitoris and it is not clear that this reduces sexual pleasure in the future. It is very far from FGM which removes the clitoris etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawoodi_Bohra https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawoodi_Bohra We have hundreds of years of data on Jewish males and how they fare after this operation at 8 days old, and it is not at all clear that they are medically or psychologically worse off than without it. The fact that it is considered a requirement in the Jewish religion for membership in the Jewish people plays a major role in the phychological well being of the child and adult, and as the parent comment has said this needs to be considered!

bluejekyll 10y ago
Thank you for pointing out that the FGM nick actually has lasting effects. I was not aware of that, and it's not something that I support. > The fact that it is considered a requirement in the Jewish religion for membership in the Jewish people plays a major role in the phychological well being of the child and adult, and as the parent comment has said this needs to be considered! And it should be. It should be considered just like stoning is considered, and thrown out as against modern principles (in most places, sadly not all). It should be considered, just like homosexuality should not have you burned at the stake. This is no different. I recognize that this is not a light decision, but it is a brutal act (with non 0% chances of horrible things going wrong) that has no physiological need.
- jquery 10y ago
  Exaggerate much? This is why the anti-circ crowd isn't taken seriously. Can you point to comparative sexual studies where men circumcised as adults for non-health reasons suffer from great psychological and physical harm, as would be expected from a brutal act similar to being burned at the stake or being stoned? Most studies of circumcision show no harm, some slight benefits, or some slight harm.

pugio 10y ago

That's not an argument, it's an assertion, one that does not address any points made above.

bluejekyll 10y ago
Yes, I make the assertion that all people, including defenseless babies, should be free from harm. Now, the nick I leave as a compromise, b/c I do understand that this is a fundamental requirement of the religion as it is followed. This allows for religious practice to be followed with out mutilating the child.
- pugio 10y ago
  A nick is harm. Either you compromise your morals or you don't. If you do make allowances for other concerns (ie. religious practice), then you're debating degree, not kind. Also, while a nick _may_ work for certain religions, it serves zero purpose for Judaic circumcision, and would actually be forbidden as unnecessary harm.