• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is circumcision moral?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
moonbogg said:
This is real simple. There are countless people who haven't been circumcised and they have no medical issues because of that. It isn't necessary to do it. If you cut someone and it isn't necessary, then its wrong. OK? Remember that. Cutting people for no reason is wrong yesterday, today and forever.
Click to expand...

But that argument can be reversed. There have been people that didn't get circumcised and DID have problems. Right?
 
DaveStall said:
But that argument can be reversed. There have been people that didn't get circumcised and DID have problems. Right?
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. Know who they are? Women. UTIs are far more common in women than they have ever been in men, yet circumcision of women is outlawed. Why is that?
An argument can be made that women are more likely to avoid UTIs if they are circumcised, yet no one dare mutilate a woman's private parts, yet we have no issue mutilating a defenseless baby boy's genitalia?
Germany tried in 2012 to ban circumcision, and rightfully so. It passed. It was outlawed, but later repealed. The law caved under the weight of religious lunatics (muslims and jews primarily) who went absolutely nuts trying to defend their "right" to saw away at the penis of young boys as outlined in their religious books.
 
moonbogg said:
Absolutely correct. Know who they are? Women. UTIs are far more common in women than they have ever been in men, yet circumcision of women is outlawed. Why is that?
An argument can be made that women are more likely to avoid UTIs if they are circumcised, yet no one dare mutilate a woman's private parts, yet we have no issue mutilating a defenseless baby boy's genitalia?
Germany tried in 2012 to ban circumcision, and rightfully so. It passed. It was outlawed, but later repealed. The law caved under the weight of religious lunatics (muslims and jews primarily) who went absolutely nuts trying to defend their "right" to saw away at the penis of young boys as outlined in their religious books.
Click to expand...

The entire argument isn't based on UTIs though. There are other benefits as well.

Also, I don't believe female circumcision has any correlation to UTIs.
 
DaveStall said:
The entire argument isn't based on UTIs though. There are other benefits as well.

Also, I don't believe female circumcision has any correlation to UTIs.
Click to expand...

An additional main "benefit" that is claimed is reduced chances of HIV infection. Therefore, lets cut the kids penis off just incase he decides to be sexually promiscuous. Sound logical to me. Actually, its garbage. HIV is also shown to be more common in gay men who are promiscuous, yet gay marriage is being legalized everywhere and is on the fast track to being equal to traditional marriages. The HIV argument for genital mutilation fails, as does all other arguments for it.
Female circumcision is said to reduce foul odor of the vagina and to reduce infections within the vagina. That is Muslim wisdom right there and makes about as much sense as the defenses for male circumcision. Considering the roots of these justifications are all religious, the nonsense should not surprise anyone coming at this from any angle. And I quote from islamqa.info

"The secretions of the labia minora accumulate in uncircumcised women and turn rancid, so they develop an unpleasant odour which may lead to infections of the vagina or urethra. I have seen many cases of sickness caused by the lack of circumcision.

Circumcision reduces excessive sensitivity of the clitoris which may cause it to increase in size to 3 centimeters when aroused, which is very annoying to the husband, especially at the time of intercourse.

Another benefit of circumcision is that it prevents stimulation of the clitoris which makes it grow large in such a manner that it causes pain.

Circumcision prevents spasms of the clitoris which are a kind of inflammation.

Circumcision reduces excessive sexual desire."

There you go. Justification for female mutilation. So, lets get to it. I'm all for sawing away at the hood of our baby girls. After all, women want equality, right? Give it to them. Equal rights to be circumcised against their knowledge and will.
 
Last edited:
Islamqa.info is a medical website? Is that really your source?

**Edit **

Has anyone here been arguing in favor of male circumcision from a religious viewpoint? I don't get the shift from discussing male circumcision to Islamic religious views on female procedures that are completely different. If the only valid reason for male circumcision were religious I would reject the practice with no other thought. I've never seen a valid medical reasoning in favor of removing a girl's clitoris (save for some type of diagnosed cancer perhaps).

I don't think the Mayo clinic (and any other medical sources) are giving reasons for circumcision for religious reasons.
 
Last edited:
I've wrestled with this, to me its not required for sanitation but you can say it deters cancer that's extremely rare. Circumcision is not like the female version at all, if I had a son I'd have it done mainly because women prefer the look more.
 
alzan said:
Natural is one way, it's not the only way.

Possibly. It's also possible you chose the term "mutilation in order to elicit an emotional response.

Parents who choose circumcision for their male offspring do so because they believe they're acting in the child's best interest and there's nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

And you used the " It is for the children " to elicit an emotional response. so we are even.

Why chop something off that is natural and intended to be there? Teach the kid to wash and it isn't a problem.
 
sandorski said:
Parents who circumcise Girls do it because they think it's in her best interest as well.
Click to expand...

There is some of that although there's the tradition/cultural aspect, especially in African and ME countries.

pcgeek11 said:
And you used the " It is for the children " to elicit an emotional response. so we are even.

Why chop something off that is natural and intended to be there? Teach the kid to wash and it isn't a problem.
Click to expand...

Actually I said it was possible for you to have chosen that word in order to elicit an emotional response; never said you did. And it was "parents who choose circumcision..."; that's not a "it's for the children" response at all.
 
Last edited:
Fanatical Meat said:
I've wrestled with this, to me its not required for sanitation but you can say it deters cancer that's extremely rare. Circumcision is not like the female version at all, if I had a son I'd have it done mainly because women prefer the look more.
Click to expand...
in some countries men prefer the look of girls who underwent circumcision. You are using the same exact argument that Islamqa.info used.
Your son can have his foreskin removed on his own when he's older if he so desires.
Besides, when your son will be older, what will be the % of latinos in your area? They don't do it.

DaveStall said:
Has anyone here been arguing in favor of male circumcision from a religious viewpoint? I don't get the shift from discussing male circumcision to Islamic religious views on female procedures that are completely different. If the only valid reason for male circumcision were religious I would reject the practice with no other thought.

I don't think the Mayo clinic (and any other medical sources) are giving reasons for circumcision for religious reasons.
Click to expand...

Take all circumcised populations. Remove muslims and jews as they use religious reasons. Remove africans following ancient rites of initiation (religion, or tradition? Difficult to say) and philippines rites.
Who's left?
Americans and South Koreans.
South Koreans circumcise because american military doctors promoted the procedure and since the americans do it, it's inherently good.
So they do not matter.

Only americans are left.
The origins are religious: anti-masturbation efforts and strong presence of Judaism. Now those reasons aren't present anymore, and people do it because they were circumcised themselves.
Much like some women actually push their daughters towards FGM.

So the reasons why circumcision is prevalent are mostly religious in their origins.

The medical sources are subjected to cultural bias and there is a difference between Europe and the US regarding how useful circumcision is deemed vis-à-vis the disadvantages and risks.
Only anglo-saxons pushed the practice (although now only the US are left in the field). It can't be explained by science or there would be an international consensus.
 
Murloc said:
in some countries men prefer the look of girls who underwent circumcision. You are using the same exact argument that Islamqa.info used.
Your son can have his foreskin removed on his own when he's older if he so desires.
Besides, when your son will be older, what will be the % of latinos in your area? They don't do it.
Click to expand...

You sure about that? Out of curiosity I asked the two Mexican born engineers in my office and they are both circumcised. They say it is common in at least their part of Mexico. One had a son about a year ago and he was circumcised as well.

**Edit **

Was only one of two. Misunderstanding.


The medical sources are subjected to cultural bias and there is a difference between Europe and the US regarding how useful circumcision is deemed vis-à-vis the disadvantages and risks.
Only anglo-saxons pushed the practice (although now only the US are left in the field). It can't be explained by science or there would be an international consensus.
Click to expand...

I haven't read any European opinions on the matter honestly. I'm not sure I care all that much as the US leads the world in the medical realm, and institutions such as the Mayo clinic are even at the top of that. If there is cultural bias in their findings (such as cancer rates and other health issues) then someone is going to have to provide hard evidence of that. How does cultural bias affect the rates of certain types of cancer when comparing circumcised and non-circumcised individuals? The quick answer is that it doesn't.

What I don't know is how many problems arise from performing circumcision. It could very well be that the procedure is more risky than the benefits, but I haven't been able to find any real numbers on that.
 
Last edited:
well the one about latinos I read about in wikipedia.

DaveStall said:
I haven't read any European opinions on the matter honestly. I'm not sure I care all that much as the US leads the world in the medical realm, and institutions such as the Mayo clinic are even at the top of that. If there is cultural bias in their findings (such as cancer rates and other health issues) then someone is going to have to provide hard evidence of that. How does cultural bias affect the rates of certain types of cancer when comparing circumcised and non-circumcised individuals? The quick answer is that it doesn't.

What I don't know is how many problems arise from performing circumcision. It could very well be that the procedure is more risky than the benefits, but I haven't been able to find any real numbers on that.
Click to expand...
The benefits regarding AIDS and that small chance of cancer on your penis are not disputed, but it's disputed whether it's worth it.
You can't quantify the risk of lower sensitivity and the moral problem of neonatal circumcision and compare it to the risk of cancer or the risk of AIDS if you don't use a condom etc.
It ends up being an ideological choice.
 
Murloc said:
well the one about latinos I read about in wikipedia.


The benefits regarding AIDS and that small chance of cancer on your penis are not disputed, but it's disputed whether it's worth it.
You can't quantify the risk of lower sensitivity and the moral problem of neonatal circumcision and compare it to the risk of cancer or the risk of AIDS if you don't use a condom etc.
It ends up being an ideological choice.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. :thumbsup:
 
Europe is very shy about cutting at their baby boys. The blue represents 0-20% of men receiving genital cutting. At least 80% of men in these blue regions have not been cut or altered with regard to their genitalia.



If genital mutilation were important to the health of the human body, you would think that modern countries in Europe would have caught on by now. I understand that just because many people don't do it, doesn't prove anything, but the lack of medical issues of Europe's young men should be very telling on this matter. You would think infections would be rampant and HIV would be a huge problem in Europe with all that foreskin flopping around the continent, but HIV in Europe is less of an issue as it is right here in the good old US of circumcised A.

EDIT: Also, regarding HIV infection rates. They are affected by drug use amongst other things. HIV among drug users is a big problem and that has nothing to do with the completeness of their man parts.
 
Last edited:
Here are some good reasons not to.

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/horror/horror.shtml

Can you say amputation.

http://books.google.de/books?id=7fA...ow many accidents during circumcision&f=false

http://iinformedparenting.blogspot.de/2010/09/more-baby-boys-die-in-us-from.html

New Study Estimates Neonatal Circumcision Death Rate Higher Than Suffocation and Auto Accidents

How many children die each year as a result of circumcision in the US hasn't been recorded or even considered important by any medical establishment. A new study published last week in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.

To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 neonatal boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision.
 
Linked articles all point to several issues, chief of which is doctors/hospital staff need to treat circs just as they would open-heart surgery.

Parents need to consider not only their reasons for circ/not circ but also the risks associated with either. As low as the after risks may be for circ/not circ'd they are still risks. Better information will lead to better decisions.

Unfortunately a lot of appeals to emotion in the articles as well.
 
Circumcision follows the same moral rules as any medical intervention. If there's an acute indication that it is beneficial (i.e. fimosis) and the risks are deemed acceptable, sure go ahead.
Without indiciation, and given the risks, it is willful mutilation.

I think the only reason the law has been repealed in Germany, was because the alternative was people taking the knife to their boys outside the well-controlled environment where this is usually performed, and the risk for those boys involved skyrocketed, much as when abortion is illegal, the risk of an abortion increases.

Having been circumcised at age six, I can also say that I can not recommend this to anyone else. Masturbation is awkward, erections too tight, and probably slightly smaller than they would be of there was more skin in the area. Also, as with any amputation, there's the odd feeling of incompleteness and lack of wholeness.

I'm pretty sure you could reduce the interdigital fungal infections in everyone if you were to cut off the fourth toes at birth, with little side effects - we barely use our toes anyway. You could make it the small toe for girls, so they could wear prettier shoes. It would be about the same level of barbarism, with similar gains and disadvantages. I'd still miss my toes.
 
Victorian Gray said:
Snip a bit of foreskin = cutting it off?

Interesting perspective.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the first time "cutting it off" has come up in this thread. We are simply talking about circumcision and not removal of the entire organ right? If it is the later then I can see people being upset!

I honestly never knew there was this group of men out there lamenting their lost foreskins. Still, how do you miss something you never had any memory of?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top