Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You may not understand, but you do agree foreskin exists by design (intentional), right?
Ah, I see where you are going with this. I think my views on God and evolution would take this discussion way, way off track. I could answer you, but you'd rebut it, and then I'd explain, and you'd respond ... that's a debate for the Religion forum, or maybe Controversy.
Ah, I see where you are going with this. I think my views on God and evolution would take this discussion way, way off track. I could answer you, but you'd rebut it, and then I'd explain, and you'd respond ... that's a debate for the Religion forum, or maybe Controversy.
Thanks for clarifying.
Virtually every topic in "Great Debates" would fit in another forum. So I don't see a point in avoiding discussion this subject here (and especially now after many posts I've seen from you).
Circumcision has little to do beyond religious beliefs anyway. How else would one explain its proliferation in countries with large Muslim and/or Jewish population (except America). So, it should be okay to debate based on religious grounds. I actually knew your argument was more along religious grounds than along scientific (evolution).
Or, may be you don't have answers to the questions I asked.
You may not understand, but you do agree foreskin exists by design (intentional), right? No?
No, I do not. I believe we evolved, and I don't believe that evolution is a sentient entity that intends anything. I do believe in God and that we were created (as part of a universe that was created), so if you are asking me if I think God intended men to have a foreskin, my answer is that I don't know. I don't think God made us in His image; that is, I don't think God is man-shaped or vice versa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Do eye lids serve a purpose? Does the fold over clitoris serve a purpose?
Yes, they have a use, but I don't know about purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Or do you think it won't matter if the fold were removed?
It seems obvious that removing someone's eyelids would be a bad idea. I've read that removing the clitoral hood results in continual pain and sensitivity; I don't know any women to whom this has been done. I do know countless circumcized men and have not heard this kind of reaction. Certainly most of them don't seem to mind. Perhaps there are circumcized American women out there who are glad they had the procedure, but I haven't heard of any.
If you are waiting for the big "AHA! You're a hypocrite!" moment, can I just save you some time and say, "Yeah, probably"?
...In my opinion, circumcision is a barbaric custom no different than the female cicumcision practiced in some parts of the world....
Wow! there is alot of back and forth in this thread and I just usually read to get a grasp of other peoples thoughts....but that statment Floors me " No Different" a male circumcision does not enable any sensations, does not enable a man to produce healthy children....Babies die, most need to be resuscitated just to live. The complications increase in postpartum. I have to disagree strongly with that portion of your statement. A man can still fully be a man and reproduce without danger if circumcised. IT IS VERY DIFFERENT for a Woman! I doubt if you find one resource to say different.
Wow! there is alot of back and forth in this thread and I just usually read to get a grasp of other peoples thoughts....but that statment Floors me " No Different" a male circumcision does not enable any sensations, does not enable a man to produce healthy children....Babies die, most need to be resuscitated just to live. The complications increase in postpartum. I have to disagree strongly with that portion of your statement. A man can still fully be a man and reproduce without danger if circumcised. IT IS VERY DIFFERENT for a Woman! I doubt if you find one resource to say different.
They both mutilate the genitals... There are different degrees of circumcisions. Some nut job might want to cut off the head of the penis, (some people here argue that, that would be the parents right to make that choice ) that would line up with some of the female genital mutilation happening around the world.
I was pointing out the fact that removing the foreskin is analogous to removing the hood of the clitoris. They are both forms of genital mutilation.
Understood....however, have you heard of the hood being the Only thing removed on women? Just wondering, I thought it has always been more commonly known that the clitoris is either partially or completely removed. That starts to get into types and all. If I have the wrong information then I agree with you. However, I haven't been able to find anything stating that it's common for JUST the hood to be removed. Or if the Heads of the males were getting diced. Again, I would agree to them being analogous. But, haven't heard of that Purposely happening as part of the male procedure. Yes they are both forms of mutilation, but very different.
I just know that one argument that people throw out in defense of the woman procedure is that it is the same as the males (which is widely accepted). It has been analyzed and debated to educate people the dangers and life led after a FGM. Only because if they tackle circumcision as a whole they would get no where. But taking on the most dangerous type first is a way to influence change. If the common thought was that they are "no different and that just the hood is removed" it would hinder the people that have the same stance as you but are dedicated not to just have an opinion. But to influence change by education. I like to respect that. I do understand what is meant by your statement. But everyone that may read it might not be as bright as you are and not realize the general principle of your statement. They may take the words and run with them in away that was not intended. Which can't be controlled by you nor I. So I thought to just throw in this other side so they can hesitate if only for a second.
Understood....however, have you heard of the hood being the Only thing removed on women? Just wondering, I thought it has always been more commonly known that the clitoris is either partially or completely removed. That starts to get into types and all. If I have the wrong information then I agree with you. However, I haven't been able to find anything stating that it's common for JUST the hood to be removed. Or if the Heads of the males were getting diced. Again, I would agree to them being analogous. But, haven't heard of that Purposely happening as part of the male procedure. Yes they are both forms of mutilation, but very different.
I just know that one argument that people throw out in defense of the woman procedure is that it is the same as the males (which is widely accepted). It has been analyzed and debated to educate people the dangers and life led after a FGM. Only because if they tackle circumcision as a whole they would get no where. But taking on the most dangerous type first is a way to influence change. If the common thought was that they are "no different and that just the hood is removed" it would hinder the people that have the same stance as you but are dedicated not to just have an opinion. But to influence change by education. I like to respect that. I do understand what is meant by your statement. But everyone that may read it might not be as bright as you are and not realize the general principle of your statement. They may take the words and run with them in away that was not intended. Which can't be controlled by you nor I. So I thought to just throw in this other side so they can hesitate if only for a second.
I wont dignify Omaha Rocks' post with a response. He seems to be on some sort of crusade to ge me banned. It has not worked and it will not, mostly because I am not in violation of the TOS (even though he somehow seems to be sure that I am). Very strange indeed.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand.....
It seems to me that any removal of tissue associated with the genitals would be considered mutilation. Mostly because any and all parts of the genitals have a highly specialized function. You are correct in stating that there are various types of female circumcision that are practiced, i.e. removal of the labia, removal of the clitoris, or just removal of the hood; as opposed to the only procedure practiced on males, which is the removal of the foreskin. I would agree that the removal of the clitoris has much more devastating effects than just the removal of the clitoral hood (analogous to the removal of the male foreskin), but the essence of all the aforementioned procedures are the same: genital mutilation.
MUTILATE ~ (verb) to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
I would like to point out that circumcision almost completely removes the risk of penile cancer which almost always results in the loss of the penis.
Circumcision saves at least as many as it loses.
The idea that circumcision prevented penile cancer was an idea raised by a doctor in the 1930's whose agenda was to promote circumcision. He said that the smegma produced by an uncircumcised penis was a carcinogen. He also thought that circumcision prevented epilepsy and masturbation.
The link between uncircumcised men and penile cancer has been subsequently disproved scientifically. Also, all one needs to do is look at statistics: In the countries where the majority of men are uncircumcised the rates of penile cancer are just about equal to those countries where the majority of men are circumcised.
Actually, there are more deaths anually due to complications from circumcision than there are from penile cancer.
Also, the American Cancer Society has oficially stated that it does not endorse routine circumcision as an effective means to prevent genital cancers.
Last edited by NEWARK MAGIC; 10-03-2009 at 10:13 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
a male circumcision does not enable any sensations, does not enable a man to produce healthy children....Babies die, most need to be resuscitated just to live. The complications increase in postpartum. I have to disagree strongly with that portion of your statement. A man can still fully be a man and reproduce without danger if circumcised. IT IS VERY DIFFERENT for a Woman! I doubt if you find one resource to say different.
) that would line up with some of the female genital mutilation happening around the world.