Infant Male Circumcision is Genital Mutilation without Consent

[Axalon]

I’ll be short…

Anything that involves cutting/slicing pieces off a human body is typically a (very) bad idea – how hard can it be to fathom folks?
No excuses are good enough for any of that idiocy – male or female instances. It is just moronic (I think). Period.

- A

[PointOfViewGun]

I’ll be short…

Anything that involves cutting/slicing pieces off a human body is typically a (very) bad idea – how hard can it be to fathom folks?
No excuses are good enough for any of that idiocy – male or female instances. It is just moronic (I think). Period.

- A

So no nail or hair trimming? Got it.

[enoch]

Come on, Enoch. We all know Basics likes to talk about his religion. But when he makes a post in good faith (no pun intended) about a social issue without bringing up his religious views, we should not turn it into a question of his or anyone else's faith.

We are George. Basics has been doing this a long time and I praised his post. Have you considered the full meaning of your usage of when he makes a post in good faith because way harsher than me getting him back on brand message. This kind of advice is more effective by DM. Allows for a more intimate and likely successful exchange. I can tell you want to go down bailing water with this ship and I admire that in someone whose attachment is so recent.

If your off topic post is a lure to get me off topic. Love it.

Also dude, have you ever noticed basics and I are never logged on at the same time? Ponder.

[Gromovnik]

So no nail or hair trimming? Got it.

OK, science time. Clip your nails, get a haircut, and then flay some skin from your arm (let's say around 2 square centimetres should be enough). What would hurt more? Please share your findings with us.

[PointOfViewGun]

OK, science time. Clip your nails, get a haircut, and then flay some skin from your arm (let's say around 2 square centimetres should be enough). What would hurt more? Please share your findings with us.

Given how deep I cut my nails and whether I had anesthetics for flaying my skins or not, the degree of pain would change. Not sure how that's relevant though to challenging someone's portrayal of an act in absolute terms.

[basics]

The thing is that the question of circumcision is not made without consent. How can a baby give its consent? It's only days old so any consent comes from the parents.

[Gromovnik]

Given how deep I cut my nails and whether I had anesthetics for flaying my skins or not, the degree of pain would change. Not sure how that's relevant though to challenging someone's portrayal of an act in absolute terms.

OK, let's say that the nail clipping was to be done to a degree an average person wold do it, without damaging any surrounding skin and tissue. And no anesthesia for the skin flaying.

[Axalon]

Regarding post:62…

Its (supposed) conclusion is needlessly moronic (I would argue)... After all, most average idiots are able to figure out that cutting hair
or nails (somehow) are hardly comparable (or relevant) to slicing off parts/skin of the human body - it is common sense, even for them.
Especially so, in any thread (and context) that overtly deals with genital mutilations (on males/boys) in the first place…


***

I repeat, anything that entails cutting/slicing stuff off - clearly below the skin on people (male or female) - is moronic, I think. This on
general terms... If it hurts - it is typically a bad idea. If it bleeds - it is typically a bad idea. If it requires anesthesia - it is typically a bad
idea. How hard can it be to fathom?

- A

[PointOfViewGun]

Regarding post:62…

Its (supposed) conclusion is needlessly moronic (I would argue)... After all, most average idiots are able to figure out that cutting hair
or nails (somehow) are hardly comparable (or relevant) to slicing off parts/skin of the human body - it is common sense, even for them.
Especially so, in any thread (and context) that overtly deals with genital mutilations (on males/boys) in the first place…

***

I repeat, anything that entails cutting/slicing stuff off - clearly below the skin on people (male or female) - is moronic, I think. This on
general terms... If it hurts - it is typically a bad idea. If it bleeds - it is typically a bad idea. If it requires anesthesia - it is typically a bad
idea. How hard can it be to fathom?

- A

Yes, its quite moronic to talk in absolute terms as it creates somewhat problematic situations. Do you believe piercing, even ear, should be banned till someone turns 18?

[Axalon]

What part of the (relevant) topic…

"Infant Male Circumcision is Genital Mutilation without Consent"

Didn't you understand? Which part?

- A

[basics]

Axalon,

But it's not without consent as the parents give their consent an eight day old boy not being able to.

[Akar]

You just said the baby cannot give consent, but then you say consent was given...

[Cyclops]

You just said the baby cannot give consent, but then you say consent was given...

As a father I give consent for my son constantly. I give consent to him undertaking things he definitely and unequivocally does not want such as eating soup at school. Parents are fit to make decisions for their children other people do not like such as home-schooling, religious education, and vaccinations. Vaccinations are a whole other kettle of fish: most are mandatory but IIRC there are some voluntary vaccinations in Australia and despite the health benefits offered some parents decline them for their children: this is their choice, not the child's. Likewise the state mandates against children's consent

Mrs Cyclops said he would not be circumcised so we compromised and he was not circumcised. As far as I am concerned the matter is a fashion choice: I am circumcised and feel not trauma or disability: some of my fellow posters have gone out of their way to indicate they find it more attractive in fact (sorry fellas I'm taken).

Obviously it might still be abusive: some victims of abuse adjust and normalise their abuse, maybe I am a perpetrator and perpetuator of abuse? I don't feel like I am and we don't see a pattern of traumatised behaviour among the circumcised to suggest its a traumatic or abusive procedure except in theory.

The principle linking this to FGM is the tricky part, and if I am intellectually honest I guess I means the less traumatic instances of FGM probably pass this test (little or no harm/impairment and long tradition). Infibulation, radical clitoridectomy and other more "extreme" (ah, emotional language, how it simplifies discussions!) cutting is not so much like circumcision as subincision and other more profound penis-chopping, and I have a problem with that. Now I am straying into the region of white privilege and cultural superiority "those barbarous savages and their rituals! oooh!"

[Gromovnik]

So parents should be allowed to cut (or consent to cutting) a part of their child's body?

[basics]

Gromovnik,

It is a parent's duty to do what is best for their child and so in the Jewish religion they follow what was originally commanded by God. Under the New Covenant that practice was no longe essential and so Christians do not follow or need not follow this practice. Why is there such a fuss about this for we find adult humans with animal bones inserted into their noses, elongated ear lobes, studs on the tongue as well as many other places, plastic boobs inserted into themselves and even cover themselves with tatoos and no-one bats an eyelid at that. Why Muslims circumcise girls just so they won't enjoy sex and they think that's a good thing. But then that's humanity for you.

[Gromovnik]

1. All those examples are adults doing some body modification on themselves. I couldn't care less.
2. FGM is horrible and should be illegal everywhere.

[PointOfViewGun]

What part of the (relevant) topic…
"Infant Male Circumcision is Genital Mutilation without Consent"
Didn't you understand? Which part?
- A

I'm not sure how that relates to my question to you. Would you like to explain?

Why Muslims circumcise girls just so they won't enjoy sex and they think that's a good thing. But then that's humanity for you.

Not just Muslims but Catholics too.

[Septentrionalis]

Why Muslims circumcise girls just so they won't enjoy sex and they think that's a good thing. But then that's humanity for you.

I have never come across any indication that FGM is an Islamic practice. You did not say that directly, but that kind of wording is by rule understood that way. Unless I am mistaken, that practice is still being tolerated by a handful of nations in despite of having become Muslims.

My people, that are predominantly Christian, like to get naked in a heated room and beat themselves or each other with bunches of twigs, but I would not go around saying that it is something that Christians do.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I have never come across any indication that FGM is an Islamic practice. You did not say that directly, but that kind of wording is by rule understood that way. Unless I am mistaken, that practice is still being tolerated by a handful of nations in despite of having become Muslims.

My people, that are predominantly Christian, like to get naked in a heated room and beat themselves or each other with bunches of twigs, but I would not go around saying that it is something that Christians do.

In fact its from ancient egyptian or kushite origin:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The practice's origins are unknown. Gerry Mackie has suggested that, because FGM's east-west, north-south distribution in Africa meets in Sudan, infibulation may have begun there with the Meroite civilization (c. 800 BCE – c. 350 CE), before the rise of Islam, to increase confidence in paternity.^[147] According to historian Mary Knight, Spell 1117 (c. 1991–1786 BCE) of the Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts may refer in hieroglyphs to an uncircumcised girl ('m't):

The spell was found on the sarcophagus of Sit-hedjhotep, now in the Egyptian Museum, and dates to Egypt's Middle Kingdom.^[146][z] (Paul F. O'Rourke argues that 'm't probably refers instead to a menstruating woman.)^[148] The proposed circumcision of an Egyptian girl, Tathemis, is also mentioned on a Greek papyrus, from 163 BCE, in the British Museum: "Sometime after this, Nephoris [Tathemis's mother] defrauded me, being anxious that it was time for Tathemis to be circumcised, as is the custom among the Egyptians."^[aa]
The examination of mummies has shown no evidence of FGM. Citing the Australian pathologist Grafton Elliot Smith, who examined hundreds of mummies in the early 20th century, Knight writes that the genital area may resemble Type III because during mummification the skin of the outer labia was pulled toward the anus to cover the pudendal cleft, possibly to prevent sexual violation. It was similarly not possible to determine whether Types I or II had been performed, because soft tissues had deteriorated or been removed by the embalmers.^[150]
The Greek geographer Strabo (c. 64 BCE – c. 23 CE) wrote about FGM after visiting Egypt around 25 BCE: "This is one of the customs most zealously pursued by them [the Egyptians]: to raise every child that is born and to circumcise [peritemnein] the males and excise [ektemnein] the females ..."^{[151][ab][ac]} Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE) also made reference to it: "the Egyptians by the custom of their country circumcise the marriageable youth and maid in the fourteenth (year) of their age, when the male begins to get seed, and the female to have a menstrual flow."^[154] It is mentioned briefly in a work attributed to the Greek physician Galen (129 – c. 200 CE): "When [the clitoris] sticks out to a great extent in their young women, Egyptians consider it appropriate to cut it out."^[ad] Another Greek physician, Aëtius of Amida (mid-5th to mid-6th century CE), offered more detail in book 16 of his Sixteen Books on Medicine, citing the physician Philomenes. The procedure was performed in case the clitoris, or nymphê, grew too large or triggered sexual desire when rubbing against clothing. "On this account, it seemed proper to the Egyptians to remove it before it became greatly enlarged," Aëtius wrote, "especially at that time when the girls were about to be married":

The surgery is performed in this way: Have the girl sit on a chair while a muscled young man standing behind her places his arms below the girl's thighs. Have him separate and steady her legs and whole body. Standing in front and taking hold of the clitoris with a broad-mouthed forceps in his left hand, the surgeon stretches it outward, while with the right hand, he cuts it off at the point next to the pincers of the forceps. It is proper to let a length remain from that cut off, about the size of the membrane that's between the nostrils, so as to take away the excess material only; as I have said, the part to be removed is at that point just above the pincers of the forceps. Because the clitoris is a skinlike structure and stretches out excessively, do not cut off too much, as a urinary fistula may result from cutting such large growths too deeply.^[156]

The genital area was then cleaned with a sponge, frankincense powder and wine or cold water, and wrapped in linen bandages dipped in vinegar, until the seventh day when calamine, rose petals, date pits, or a "genital powder made from baked clay" might be applied.^[157]
Whatever the practice's origins, infibulation became linked to slavery. Mackie cites the Portuguese missionary João dos Santos, who in 1609 wrote of a group near Mogadishu who had a "custome to sew up their Females, especially their slaves being young to make them unable for conception, which makes these slaves sell dearer, both for their chastitie, and for better confidence which their Masters put in them". Thus, Mackie argues, a "practice associated with shameful female slavery came to stand for honor".^[158]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female...tion#Antiquity

So it's not an islamic tradition.

But it is nothing new, that young religions don't abolish older traditions, but legalize them.

Or have you read something in the bible about the christmas tree aka yule symbol or easter eggs as symbol for the fertility goddess Ostara?

[Septentrionalis]

In fact its from ancient egyptian or kushite origin:

Thank you Morty, I was not aware of that. I have read Islamic texts though and nothing there has ever hinted at the practice being recommended, and most Islamic nations do not practice that savagery as far as I know. The text you linked sounds quite horrible. I really hope all that is put behind us as soon as possible, regardless of what may or may not happen to male circumcision.

But it is nothing new, that young religions don't abolish older traditions, but legalize them.

Or have you read something in the bible about the christmas tree aka yule symbol or easter eggs as symbol for the fertility goddess Ostara?

I cannot help but to think why Islamic authorities have not taken a clear stance against the practice, though. They have done so against pagan infanticide in general and female infanticide specifically. They surely could have worked harder to get rid of FGM, and the fact that they did not raises some questions to an outside observer. Maybe someone more learned in Islamic history and theology could explain why that is the case.

I have never read of any of the things you mention in the Bible, and many of our traditions around Christmas (or sauna) are undoubtedly pagan in origin. Of course, they are the kind of traditions that are not as questionable from a Christian ethic point of view. Human sacrifice and gladiator fights were quickly done away with. But having a few extra traditions around celebrating the birth of Christ or the obsession of Finns with bathing and cleanliness were not really worth getting rid of, I suppose.