Mass circumcision in the Philippines

[flitzerbiest]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110507/ap_ ... BpbmVjaQ--

How nice, they contacted the people at the Guinness Book of World Records. I don't have a copy--does anyone know the current record for child mutilation?

Theists: do you circumcise your children and why? Given that the medical argument for circumcision has been thoroughly debunked, what is the justification?

Question for debate: is it ethical to circumcise children under any circumstances other than medical necessity?

[Deadclown]

I find it very distasteful. Speaking as an individual who was circumcised soon after birth, I resent it being done when I was completely incapable of giving informed consent. I have heard that some people have it done to their children for purely appearances sake. If adults wish to remove their foreskin, then more power to them. There are all sorts of body modifications that people perform for varied reasons that I would not get myself. However, forcing them upon a child is disgusting.

Not only have the 'benefits' been debunked, but it has also been shown to lower sexual pleasure. This is due to the exposure of the head of the penis to constant stimulation and thus a desensitization. That, of course, is an uncomfortable fact for most circumcised males to face, as nobody wants to admit such things.

The only situation where I can see it at all being justifiable, is as stated in the article, when these people are going to do it to their children anyway, and use non-doctors with crude methods. Even then the effort would be better put towards trying to educate them and end the practice altogether.

[Goat]

Not only have the 'benefits' been debunked, but it has also been shown to lower sexual pleasure. This is due to the exposure of the head of the penis to constant stimulation and thus a desensitization. That, of course, is an uncomfortable fact for most circumcised males to face, as nobody wants to admit such things.

.

It appears that the claim that 'circumcision has been shown to lower sexual pleasure' is a myth

http://sexuality.about.com/od/malesexua ... cised2.htm

[Question Everything]

Question for debate: is it ethical to circumcise children under any circumstances other than medical necessity?

Absolutely not. Adults can do whatever they want with their own bodies. Children can't make the decisions adults do, and should not have those decisions forced on them unless it is a medical necessity.

How our society allows this barbaric practice is beyond me. Another example of religion being rammed down our throats.

[Deadclown]

http://sexuality.about.com/od/malesexua ... cised2.htm

Physical sensitivity refers to the observable ways your body responds to external stimulation. Sexual pleasure and sexual satisfaction refers to the way you subjectively experience that stimulation. Sexual pleasure includes physical psychological, emotional, and at times spiritual experiences.

So does circumcision make sex better, worse, or the same? It’s reasonable to assume that being circumcised would play some part in how you experience sex, but I’d like to propose that there are probably other factors that have a larger impact on the quality of sex you’re having and how much pleasure you and/or your partners get from that sex.

The article is hardly conclusive. Even the author of it says that he just believes that there are larger factors that contribute to it. Even if the effect is minimal, does that make it alright? I do agree with it in the idea that there are a lot of factors contributing to overall sexual satisfaction versus physical sensation. I certainly was not saying that circumcised men are incapable of sexual satisfaction. Even if the idea is proven to be a baseless myth, and no more damaging to physical sensation than a nose piercing, performing it on a child who is unable to give informed consent is still morally wrong.

[Goat]

http://sexuality.about.com/od/malesexua ... cised2.htm

Physical sensitivity refers to the observable ways your body responds to external stimulation. Sexual pleasure and sexual satisfaction refers to the way you subjectively experience that stimulation. Sexual pleasure includes physical psychological, emotional, and at times spiritual experiences.

So does circumcision make sex better, worse, or the same? It’s reasonable to assume that being circumcised would play some part in how you experience sex, but I’d like to propose that there are probably other factors that have a larger impact on the quality of sex you’re having and how much pleasure you and/or your partners get from that sex.

The article is hardly conclusive. Even the author of it says that he just believes that there are larger factors that contribute to it. Even if the effect is minimal, does that make it alright? I do agree with it in the idea that there are a lot of factors contributing to overall sexual satisfaction versus physical sensation. I certainly was not saying that circumcised men are incapable of sexual satisfaction. Even if the idea is proven to be a baseless myth, and no more damaging to physical sensation than a nose piercing, performing it on a child who is unable to give informed consent is still morally wrong.

No, but it does show your claim is much overblown..

And, I totally disagree that it is morally wrong. There are many things that adults make choices for their children about, because the child is too young to give consent.

The article shows that it does no harm. For you to make a moral judgment on another culture for an action that can not be shown to cause harm is hypocritical and obnoxious.

You are taking your prejudice and trying to force your morality down others throats, and you are very much exaggerating the evidence to the point of it being manufactured to try to enforce your moral view on others.

[Deadclown]

The article you cited, links to another article by the same author. I will include a quote from it...

http://sexuality.about.com/od/malesexua ... cised1.htm

Few would argue that circumcision changes physical sensitivity in the penis. By definition, circumcision is the cutting away of the foreskin, a part of the body that is rich with nerve endings. Circumcision also impacts the structure of the penis, and has a corresponding impact on penile sensation.

Again, the articles are hardly conclusive evidence. The author states that obviously there is a difference. Whether it is a negative impact to overall sexual satisfaction is the matter that he debates. The author argues that other issues contribute more to overall sexual satisfaction, which I agree with completely.

And, I totally disagree that it is morally wrong. There are many things that adults make choices for their children about, because the child is too young to give consent.

This is true. If the circumcision was for some reason necessary or beneficial to the child's health then this would be a justifiable position. Instead it is a procedure performed either for appearances or because of tradition. I would find it just as distasteful for a parent to subject their toddler to nose job so that they are prettier.

The article shows that it does no harm.

The article shows nothing of the sort. It presents multiple disagreeing results and the author offers an opinion wherein he admits that it probably has an affect. He argues (not contrary to my point) that it is not the most important factor in overall sexual contentment. There are many obvious factors that lead to this including the partner, emotions, and even condoms.

There is also of course the possibility that the surgery could go wrong. For example, as the article in the opening post cites... non-medical professionals performing the surgery in a rural setting put the child at risk. Any time you cut on a child you are obviously causing harm. Even in the best of conditions things can still go wrong. In fact, here are some examples (second link is references). Although I warn that the links contains graphic imagery (NSFW).

http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Botch-refs.html

For you to make a moral judgment on another culture for an action that can not be shown to cause harm is hypocritical and obnoxious.

If we do not make judgments and share opinions, then what is the point of an ethical debate? You say that I have failed to show that it causes harm, when the opening post article even mentions that the reason they are performing the mass circumcisions is because they will otherwise be done poorly. Although it does not go into detail, it is easy to imagine how a child's penis could become infected from improper practices. To think that there are never complications that arise from circumcisions or that it never causes harm is naive. Even if it is only painful, that is causing harm. You should have to argue that it benefits the child to be worthwhile. Please explain to me why it is more ethical to inflict unnecessary harm on a child?

You are taking your prejudice and trying to force your morality down others throats, and you are very much exaggerating the evidence to the point of it being manufactured to try to enforce your moral view on others.

How am I forcing my morality down anyone's throat? I am offering my opinion. I am not going to the Philippines and forcing people to not circumcise their children. Am I forcing anyone to not circumcise their child? I also think it is wrong to make women wear burkas, and will be happy to explain why. That can be argued to be far less harmful than circumcision.

As far as exaggerating, allow me to present some evidence supporting my point. This link also contains graphic imagery of the male genitalia.

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

The results and conclusion of the study being...

Skin and mucosa sufficient to cover the penile shaft was frequently missing from the circumcised penis. Missing tissue included a band of ridged mucosa located at the junction of true penile skin with smooth preputial mucosa. This ridged band contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa and exhibits features of specialized sensory mucosa.

The amount of tissue loss estimated in the present study is more than most parents envisage from pre-operative counseling. Circumcision also ablates junctional mucosa that appears to be an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis.

[Guest]

Adults can do whatever they want with their own bodies. Children can't make the decisions adults do, and should not have those decisions forced on them unless it is a medical necessity.

So, take children away from adults?

[Deadclown]

Adults can do whatever they want with their own bodies. Children can't make the decisions adults do, and should not have those decisions forced on them unless it is a medical necessity.

So, take children away from adults?

That is an extremely over the top measure and I am sure not what anyone would want. I am sure these parents think they are doing the right thing. Mine certainly did. How about instead we seek to educate people and minimize the harm?

[Goat]

Adults can do whatever they want with their own bodies. Children can't make the decisions adults do, and should not have those decisions forced on them unless it is a medical necessity.

So, take children away from adults?

That is an extremely over the top measure and I am sure not what anyone would want. I am sure these parents think they are doing the right thing. Mine certainly did. How about instead we seek to educate people and minimize the harm?

Or maybe.. it is you who should be educated! You seem to think you know all the answers on this.

How about this.. if you think it is wrong, don't circumcise your sons.