Court stops circumcision.

Well I guess if you're happy to go around with gaps where your teeth used to be, and consider that perfectly fine, all power to you. I rather think that in any case, the decision to have your teeth removed or a bit of your penis chopped off lies with the person. Not all people are as bold as yourself!

Medical removal of teethes is not mutilation.

this is your opinion, I don't understand why I am not allowed to exercise my own. Nobody is telling you to circumcise your kid, and quite frankly, I could care less.

I don't see it as damage to the body..I'm in denial because you do? Lol

Well yeah, circumcision has been occurring in my family for many years. I was actually present at my nephews circumcision, and he was absolutely fine. This is probably why I see it as no biggie.

Of course this subjective and based on my personal views and experience but whose opinions aren't?

No. Not only are there no real health benefits to this procedure, there would be an increased risk of breast abscesses/cysts/breast cancer and issues with breastfeeding. It doesn't matter how carefully this procedure is carried out, those risks are still very prominent whereas male circumcision conducted in a clean and sterile environment by a health care professional will hugely minimise the risk of any complication - any kind of complication is extremely rare.

Lowered incidence of STDs are not the only potential benefits as I have clearly demonstrated.

Ah so that's the reason for the confirmation bias, it wasn't about health benefits at all, understandable but a little dishonest.

If we can show you some health benefits of FGM no matter how small and insignificant and outweighed by the negatives would you be happy to have a daughter circumcised if your partner wanted it?

Cos

It prevents unpleasant odours which result from foulsecretions beneath the prepuce.

It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections

It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system.

In the book on Traditions that affect the health of women and children, which was published by the World Health Organization in 1979 it says:

With regard to the type of female circumcision which involves removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, which is similar to male circumcision, no harmful health effects have been noted.

No. Not only are there no real health benefits to this procedure,

You told me that you were not claiming reduced STD risk as a benefit!

As I suggested (and you appeared to agree with) claiming such a thing as a benefit would likely lead to higher infection risk as people assume that circumcision is an effective alternative to condoms (whereas the actual risk reduction is negligible). The higher STD incidence in the US, where circumcision is commonplace, seems to bear this out.

So it would seem that in the real world, being circumcised may well actually increase the risk of STDs!

But there are no real heath benefits to circumcision, according to the the likes of the NHS and Medicaid.
It is only religionists and apologists who claim that there is.

There aren't any known benefits to FGM.

In either scenario, the child does not have a say in the procedure and in both cases the child's body is being altered. Both have benefits and risks but neither one is worth the child having to endure the pain. If you are altering someone's body unnecessarily then that individual should have a say in whether or not they want it done. Thus, it is far more logical for the parents to wait until the individual is old enough to decide for themselves.

Are you a Muslim?

Everyone forms opinions from personal views, family upbring/socialisation or experience
I know about circumcision because it's been in my family for years.

Source?

The sole purpose of the clitoris is for pleasure. There are more nerve endings in the clitoris alone than there are in the entire penis. So to remove it would mean that the woman would likely feel nothing during sex, or feel severe discomfort - imagine someone cutting off your entire dick, or at least most of it.

That's fine any everything but if that's what you base your opinion on then its very dishonest to claim you've based your opinion on health benefits.



Some book from 1979 by the looks of it, still it beats some book from 1966 for the no loss of sensitivity from male circumcision claim.



1.It's not claiming anything about removing the clitoris, only the clitoral prepuce.

2. I don't need to imagine someone cutting off part of my dick, I've experienced it and would never wish it on any child.

mutilate: to damage something severely, especially by violently removing a part.(CED)
Nope, medical removal of foreskin is not mutilation.

What are the benefits to breast flattening? They definitely don't outweigh the risks whereas a procedure like circumcision has small benefits and small risks. That's why I think it should be the parents decision.

No I'm not a Muslim.

Those of the medical profession. The NHS has a formal position that "routine circumcision brings no identifiable medical benefits that could justify the quantifiable risks".

Medical removal of teethes is not mutilation. Some people do it to insert implants.
The use of the word "mutilation " is an attempt to replace medical conclusions. It presents the parents as evil persons, who intentionally inflict severe damage to their children.

There are social benefits that I mentioned previously. For instance, it allows a woman to continue with her education and decreases the likelihood of her being sexually harassed/raped as in those cultures having breasts implies you are sexually active or ready for such activities. Both breast flattening and male circumcision are unnecessary procedures which you have, to an extent, acknowledged by stated that the benefits and risks are minimal. If an individual’s body is unnecessarily being altered, then that individual (not the parents) should be the one deciding whether or not it is altered. Therefore, it should not be happening to young children.

I’ll just throw in this quote because it's so relevant:

Thus, children should not be having part of their body chopped off just because it's a cultural practice.

What? That definition fits circumcision exactly!

to damage something - the penis is damaged, because it no longer has the foreskin

severely, - the damage is irreversable and fundamentally alters the apprarance and operation of the penis

especially by violently removing a part. - the foreskin is removed by cutting with a sharp blade (if you applied the same action to a stranger's face, you would be prosecuted for violent assault).

Ouch!

OED
damage: Physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something
So, severe damage = "severe physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something".
Could you provide solid medical proof that male circumcision is "severe physical harm that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of something"?

I haven't referred to any social benefits of circumcision. The risks of breast flattening largely outweigh the health benefits, seeing as there aren't any.

This is your opinion. Nobody is telling you to circumcise your son.