What you didn't know about circumcision.... (baby, girls, son, husband)

[JustJulia]

Originally Posted by flik_becky

Actually, the term "genital mutilation" is a proper term and is excepted around the world. When we talk about circumcision, we are generally talking about boys. Genital mutilation refers to the act of surgically for either. Since it has been widely accepted as barbaric and actually been outlawed to remove even just skin from a girl, the general term is less commonly used for our current cultural trends, though it is more often for other countries. However, it is the proper term for it. Such differences can be seen in terms such as c-section and cesarean. Two terms meaning the same thing for the same.

The specific meaning of genital mutilation is: The cutting or excision of all or some of the genital organs.

I am sorry that you have been ill informed. I hope this clears that up.

Please don't get smarmy with me. I have done nothing to you except to disagree with you.

The current accepted term is female genital cutting, not female genital mutilation, because mutilation is an emotionally charged word. It's like calling someone who is pro-choice a babykiller. It is not a neutral word. My advice to you, if you honestly want to change people's minds, is to lay off the hysterical language and to speak reasonably. No parent will identify with the word mutilation, as in, "I mutilated my child," and therefore no parent will listen to what you have to say.

Let's look at the word mutilate. From Merriam Webster:

mutilate (transitive verb)
1. to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (the child mutilated the book with his scissors)
2. to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or other essential part: cripple

Because foreskin is neither a limb nor an essential part of the body (millions of boys and men live fine without it), the second definition does not apply. I contend that circumcision-which, by they way, is a perfectly good word, meaning to cut around--does not radically alter a boy or man, nor is he imperfect afterward. If removing a piece of skin renders a boy imperfect, then so does an appendectomy or tonsillectomy. I'd just love to see a bunch of sign-wavers marching around a hospital accusing parents of abdominal mutilation because their kid got appendicitis.

[StarryEyedSurprise]

Originally Posted by JustJulia

Please don't get smarmy with me. I have done nothing to you except to disagree with you.

The current accepted term is female genital cutting, not female genital mutilation, because mutilation is an emotionally charged word. It's like calling someone who is pro-choice a babykiller. It is not a neutral word. My advice to you, if you honestly want to change people's minds, is to lay off the hysterical language and to speak reasonably. No parent will identify with the word mutilation, as in, "I mutilated my child," and therefore no parent will listen to what you have to say.

Let's look at the word mutilate. From Merriam Webster:

mutilate (transitive verb)
1. to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (the child mutilated the book with his scissors)
2. to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or other essential part: cripple

Because foreskin is neither a limb nor an essential part of the body (millions of boys and men live fine without it), the second definition does not apply. I contend that circumcision-which, by they way, is a perfectly good word, meaning to cut around--does not radically alter a boy or man, nor is he imperfect afterward. If removing a piece of skin renders a boy imperfect, then so does an appendectomy or tonsillectomy. I'd just love to see a bunch of sign-wavers marching around a hospital accusing parents of abdominal mutilation because their kid got appendicitis.

Excellent post. I followed the previous Great Debate thread on this - I am having my first child, a son, next March - and honestly, I really don't understand why people feel that calling parents who choose to circ "sexual deviants," "perverts," and "child-mutilators," is going to further their "cause," or whatever you want to call it. It's like throwing paint on someone's mink coat... do you really think you are going to help promote awareness? Maybe you'll be promoting a dislocated jaw and a lawsuit in that case, but really.... if there even are any facts buried in the hatred they spew, it will be immediately dismissed out of hand because of their approach.

[JustJulia]

Originally Posted by StarryEyedSurprise

Excellent post. I followed the previous Great Debate thread on this - I am having my first child, a son, next March - and honestly, I really don't understand why people feel that calling parents who choose to circ "sexual deviants," "perverts," and "child-mutilators," is going to further their "cause," or whatever you want to call it. It's like throwing paint on someone's mink coat... do you really think you are going to help promote awareness? Maybe you'll be promoting a dislocated jaw and a lawsuit in that case, but really.... if there even are any facts buried in the hatred they spew, it will be immediately dismissed out of hand because of their approach.

Thank you, Starry. I think there ARE important facts buried in there that future parents should know.

1. From a health perspective, male circumcision is not an essential surgery.
2. Circumcisions are sometimes botched, and reconstruction or additional surgeries can be painful and expensive.
3. A parent has the right to refuse to circumsise his or her child.
4. If a person is opposed to female genital cutting, which is a very common sentiment especially in the U.S., then that person should examine his or her feelings about male circumcision.

Emotionally charged words like "barbaric" and "mutilate" will turn people off, as will wild accusations that parents who circumcise are perverts or that biomedical companies make trillions of dollars from bits of foreskin.

[flik_becky]

From the Encarta World English Dictionary
mu·ti·late
(past mu·ti·lat·ed, past participle mu·ti·lat·ed, present participle mu·ti·lat·ing, 3rd person present singular mu·ti·lates)
vt
1. remove or destroy body part: to inflict serious injury on a person or animal or part of somebody or something’s body by removing or destroying parts of it
2. ruin something by removing parts: to damage or spoil something such as a piece of writing or a movie by removing important parts of it
3. damage something seriously: to inflict serious damage on something

Of course this much is not made. IF the biomedical companies obtained every single piece of foreskin cut off and grew every single one to 250,000 square feet and sold each square foot for $3000, that is the max gross potential. I said I did not know how much they purchased and how much they made from it and I wasn't going to go do the research to find out where all the foreskins in America are going and how much profit is being made from them.

This might put the terms in a more realistic view from ONE biomedical company.

Another profit-oriented tissue engineering company, Advanced Tissue Sciences (La Jolla, CA), retrieves foreskins from hospitals so one foreskin can create 250,000 square feet of dermis ... [T]he annual market for dermis could be $1 billion to $2 billion. Advanced Tissue Sciences has sold about $1 million worth of cultured dermis to Proctor & Gamble, Helene Curtis, and other such businesses for pre-market testing. Advanced Tissue Science's foreskin-derived merchandise held a $32 million stock offering in the beginning of 1992 (Julie Pitta. Biosynthetics. Forbes 10 May 1993: 170-171). [The 32-page Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc. 1997 Annual Report refers to "fibroblasts" but does not contain the word "foreskin."] MANDATORY CIRCUMCISION FOR US INFANTS? (http://abundanthope.net/pages/article_3546.shtml - broken link)

I'm not debating whether circumcision is right or wrong here. I'm questioning what is going on after the fact.

My questions lie in legality.

Are parents told that their baby's foreskin will be sold? Are they asked if their baby's foreskin may be sold?

Who is the legal owner of a baby's foreskin after it's been cut off?

Is it ethical to cut off a baby's foreskin, charge his parents for the operation, sell his foreskin without telling his parents, and keep the money? Is it legal?

Are other parts of people's bodies being cut off -- or out -- and sold without their knowledge or consent?

If someone cuts part of another person's body off -- or out -- and sells it without obtaining signed legal consent from the person cut, and the person who buys it makes money from it, who does that money rightfully belong to?

The point I was making is that foreskins are big sold for big money. I feel kind of scaried that people have no say, that they are not informed and that they are pushing for required circs, "to prevent Aids." (It really doesn't. As they put it, intact men are at a lower risk for contracting Aids in the US but that risk rises in countries where Aids is a widespread. Well duh.) It also makes me scaried that we are sending people over to Africa to "educate" them on circumcision and to gather up all those foreskins of adult men. It's weird.
I'm just pointing out is that it is shocking that this there are special interests poking their noses in about everyone's son's penises for thor own financial benefit.

[ATX Wahine]

I too read the debate on this topic in the Great Debates forum and there were a few excellent posts made there that well sum-up my own opinion on the subject:

1) It is absolutely nobody else's business what choice a parent makes for their newborn son, and the ad nauseum hysteria from the anti-circumcism crowd is a bit disturbing. People need to make informed choices for themselves and their families, and stop meddling in the lives of others so damned much.

2) Circumcised people do not seem to care one bit if other people choose to circumcize their sons or not. The non-circumcision crowd however seems to think it's their business to assess judgement and scorn upon those who do. For these people, please read #1 one more time.

[skahar]

From the Encarta World English Dictionary
mu·ti·late
(past mu·ti·lat·ed, past participle mu·ti·lat·ed, present participle mu·ti·lat·ing, 3rd person present singular mu·ti·lates)
vt
1. remove or destroy body part: to inflict serious injury on a person or animal or part of somebody or something’s body by removing or destroying parts of it
2. ruin something by removing parts: to damage or spoil something such as a piece of writing or a movie by removing important parts of it
3. damage something seriously: to inflict serious damage on something

Your definition supports what JustJulia said.

[JustJulia]

Originally Posted by flik_becky

From the Encarta World English Dictionary
mu·ti·late
(past mu·ti·lat·ed, past participle mu·ti·lat·ed, present participle mu·ti·lat·ing, 3rd person present singular mu·ti·lates)
vt
1. remove or destroy body part: to inflict serious injury on a person or animal or part of somebody or something’s body by removing or destroying parts of it
2. ruin something by removing parts: to damage or spoil something such as a piece of writing or a movie by removing important parts of it
3. damage something seriously: to inflict serious damage on something

Okay, that works too. Circumsizing a male infant does not destroy his penis or inflict serious damage to it, so none of these definitions is obviously true. "Damage" is certainly debatable, but "destroy" is much less so. It's arguable that circumcision causes decreased penile sensitivity, but the penis is by no means destroyed, ruined, spoiled or seriously damaged.

Originally Posted by flik_becky

My questions lie in legality.

Are parents told that their baby's foreskin will be sold? Are they asked if their baby's foreskin may be sold?

Who is the legal owner of a baby's foreskin after it's been cut off?

Is it ethical to cut off a baby's foreskin, charge his parents for the operation, sell his foreskin without telling his parents, and keep the money? Is it legal?

Are other parts of people's bodies being cut off -- or out -- and sold without their knowledge or consent?

If someone cuts part of another person's body off -- or out -- and sells it without obtaining signed legal consent from the person cut, and the person who buys it makes money from it, who does that money rightfully belong to?

Now these are legitimate questions. I think parents should certainly know whether anything happens to their children's body parts (umbilical cord, foreskin, whatever) other than going in the incinerator. I do agree with that. I like that companies can grow new skin--how wonderful for burn victims and people needing grafts--but very much believe that skin should be donated, not taken without knowledge or consent.

[formercalifornian]

Originally Posted by Nor Cal Wahine

The non-circumcision crowd however seems to think it's their business to assess judgement and scorn upon those who do. For these people, please read #1 one more time.

Oh, please. My son isn't circumcised, and I couldn't care less what you do with your newborn's foreskin.

[ATX Wahine]

Originally Posted by formercalifornian

Oh, please. My son isn't circumcised, and I couldn't care less what you do with your newborn's foreskin.

Awesome! I'm pleased in this case to be corrected.

[livin]

Very interesting thread...
2 be or not 2 be CIRCUMCISED.
I believe its best to be, but that is only my preference...it looks better.