Demonising circumcision - a win for human rights, or loss for medicine/religion?

The debate over male circumcision – the removal of the excess foreskin in males for religious, cultural or health reasons - is increasingly under fire around the world. Viewed by some as a natural method for improving hygiene and preventing disease, by others as a mandatory and non-negotiable religious rite, and still others as abuse and an attack on basic human rights.

It is also more often being compared to female genital mutilation, a cruel practice which is almost universally condemned by people around the world.

So is the trend of criticising this age-old practice a victory for human rights, or a loss for medicine and religion?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...use-body-rights-medical-hygiene-a9011896.html

A way for the insurance company to not have to pay for it.

And yet governments will shell out millions for all types of vaccines, many of which are demonstrably of no use to most (e.g. Hep B).

Islam teaches circumcision for young Muslim males. For that reason alone and in that it appears Europe is conceding quite often to Islam's tenets, I doubt very much circumcision will ever be prohibited in that region.
Nor in America for that matter. For as many as contend circumcision is a bad thing, there are those who will argue it is a matter of hygiene.

If it were prohibited in those areas where Islam is in large population it would matter little. Devotees would proceed regardless because their oath is only to the will of Allah.
This is why in American politics we are remiss in voting for any self described Muslim to hold public office. Or, immigrate legally for that matter. Any oath they take is under the caption of Taqiya and as such is invalid on its face according to that identity.
Female circumcision is also in practice in Islam. That is barbaric and is outlawed in many civilized socieities. It is standard in orthodox Islam.

I've read the numbers are falling, though (even in America). I think there was an attempt to ban it in California some years ago, but the vote didn't pass. But if people start comparing circumcision to Female Genital Mutilation (which is barbaric), I think in years to come, it might risk being banned.

That seems wise. I didn't realise this.

I agree. But I think it's a danger that circumcision is now often claimed to be the male equivalent of FGM, and people may start believing the propaganda.

As we know, just because a practice is prohibited by man's law it does not mean those dedicated to God's law will concede unto man's.
In the worldly way of thinking this is true too. As we recollect in America's history and the law of Prohibition. That then gave rise to criminal organization that insured those with a taste for illegal spirits would be able to imbibe regardless of the law prohibiting manufacture and sale.
Even in the sub-culture of prisons this model proves true when cigarettes were banned in most American prisons. Now, cigarettes though added to the contraband list are of higher value than any street drug.
It's the model of the child's will. If a child is told they cannot, a child will often desperately want to. It's the temptation factor. NO! Why not? Because! But why? There must be a reason something not clearly lethal, as in , NO, don't jump off the roof of that 12 story building, is kept away from the rest of us. Let's see....


People will always do what they want to do. Though I think if someone goes to a search engine IMAGES tab and enters the search criteria, excision of labia majora and minora, so as to see that end result they'll maybe realize that the FGM is not only barbaric it poses horrific health issues for the rest of that woman's life.

Foreskin and Labia's are all for the protection of the capacity to reproduce. And every species, in order to survive , must follow that model of reproduction of its self in order to continue the line of that species.

And yet Muslims seem to reproduce at a phenomenal rate, despite their barbaric treatment of their women.

Barbaric treatment meaning FGM, in case that wasn't clear.

I just see it as a loss for proper hygiene. But then again I'm not sure. But if there can still be proper hygiene with the foreskin still intact, then circumcision isn't necessary then. To each their own.

I agree, but it seems to me there is a campaign focusing on equating circumcision with female genital mutilation. And FGM is rightly banned in many countries, with some slower to come around due to high Muslim populations.

So either the focus seems to be on (ultimately) banning circumcision, or perhaps even permitting FGM, which would be a terrible outcome for females.

Male circumcision sometimes a necessary medical need for it. As far as religion goes it was a sign of the covenant between God and His people. This is no longer necessary our new covenant sign is the seal of the Holy Spirit.

Female circumcision, never commanded or expected by God, barbaric mutilation, not necessary and man made.

If I googled foreskin/circumcision /female genital mutilation I wonder what would come up?

If you check it is likely happening in non-Muslim nations, like Europe. It is purposeful.

Unfortunately, you would get all sorts of information, some true, some false, some you just don't want to see or read.

It was before that FGM was universally condemned, while circumcision was seen as a religious/medical issue, but it's getting more popular to claim the two are the same. To me, it seems to follow this trend of trying to make out man and woman are the same - not different things of the same worth, but actually the same things, which I disagree with.

FGM is all about men dominating women and wanting more pleasure.
Sorry I don’t know of any other polite way of putting it.

It causes untold suffering, just a simple thing like passing water causes
problems, repeated UTIs, pain, difficulty with sex and severe difficulties giving
birth, recurrent infections, scarring to name a few.

Why should women have to go through all that just so men can have more
pleasure.



https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation

I think this might be a feminist lie. I don't know any man that thinks that mutilating female genitalia will somehow bring him more pleasure. The documentaries I've seen on FGM always show grisled old women performing the procedure (no men), but circumcision, whether for health or religious reasons, is quite often performed by women and men. If anything, I think FGM is more about Islam or other religions demeaning women (similar to slavery), but I think it's wrong to put the blame for this on men.

True, but again, I don't think a wife without a clitoris would bring her husband more pleasure. In general, I believe males prefer that their wives enjoy sex - damaging female genitalia runs contrary to that preference.

I don't know a whole lot about FGM, but as with most things pertaining to male-female relations, it's not a simple matter of "men do things to women; women have things done to them". Or put another way, "men act; women are acted upon".

Yes it is women who carry it out. But it’s out of tradition and also families worry men won’t want to marry women if they have not had FGM.

Often it’s the fathers who insist the children must be mutilated, again out of tradition, part they want to be able to marry off their daughters and part family pride.

Mothers tend to go along or have the same thinking - though often don’t have a choice. The old women who carry it out are trying to earn a living.

WOW...I sincerely didn't expect to learn of an entirely new thing. I expected this to be a thread about male circumcision


I haven't looked into it (nor really want to but alas I cannot now "unknow" the existence of such a practice) so possibly could we keep it to a minimum and focus on male circumcision? It doesn't seem relevant to the discussion as it is illegal in most places and is considered genital mutilation by the World health organization.


I have a lot of thoughts on the issue personally, but maybe not for the internet.

I will say that every new parent should look into it pretty thoroughly, the thing about infections is overstated. If you only bathed once a month I can see how this would be an issue, but with daily washing it really isn't a good argument.

Dumbest comment I've seen all week