Circumcision....discuss?
- Thread starter Marathonman
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
G
Guest
Guest
G
Guest
Guest
TumbledLove
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Posts
- 689
TumbledLove said:"Man blames circumcision on brutal killings." (original)
"Man blames circumcision for brutal killings." (edited for the anal types who never make mistakes)
gogonslord
Experienced
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2003
- Posts
- 47
Cheyenne said:
I noted from the beginning that when a man mentioned he held anger and resentment for what was done to him against his will; people proceeded to berate and belittle his emotions, disregarding him. I wonder, under different circumstances, if a female came mentioning her disdain over her circumcision would the responses be any different?
On the point of his anger, it is completely warranted. While anger is never good for one's being, that anger can be fueled into activism. Activisim to do everything you can to educate people on the barbarity of the act of genital mutilations and activism to stop it.
With the advancement of technology and the open availiabilty and spreading of information, many men are finding out what was lost and what was taken away from them. There are a lot of angry men out there and lawyers who will and are taking these claims to court. This will probably be the only way circumcision will end in your culture, through law, because despite all the information given to someone that is circumcised or is a circumciser, it is very difficult for them to accept that they did something wrong to someone they loved or something wrong was done to them by someone that loved them.
To my knowledge, there have been very few studies showing the correlation between genital mutilations and violence. While debateable, it isn't without reason to believe that inflicting a violent procedure on a newborn would make them more prone to be violent. One could see that some of the most violent cultures in history and cultures that exist today were and are cultures that practice(d) genital mutilations.
Freya
gmilf
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Posts
- 42,367
gogonslord said:
Oh, for the love of fucking christ.
Do any of you morons see the total difference between female and male circumcision?
And leave it to the US to have lawsuits over the loss of a bit of skin. You men are so fucking attached to your cocks - and most of you, for no good reason whatsoever.
gogonslord
Experienced
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2003
- Posts
- 47
I'd like to post something that, while superficialy explaining a deep sociological issue, may briefly explain current gender issues and the social issues males face today and why countires around the world have generally banned female circumcision yet no countries(excluding Sweden and Finland) have legally questioned male circumcision.
I once saw someone claim that the only reason why routine and ritual male genital amputation continues in the United States of America is because the victims can't make their resistance known.
Well, no, actually; it's not that simple. Baby girls can't make their resistance known either, but they're protected from this under federal law regardless.
No, there's more to it than just that. And on that topic, here's something I wrote a while back in response to the question:
"HOW could they pass that law and have it apply to only one gender?"
Welcome to Men's Issues. . .which is something that you might want to investigate on your son's behalf.
The short summarized answer to your question is that technology has not advanced sufficiently to allow loosening of the fundamental restrictions of male role socialization.
To expand on that point -- the genuine advances in equality for women in the western industrialized nations over the past couple of generations (as opposed to the false ones) can be attributed to several technological advances: drastically lowered infant mortality, cheap safe effective birth control, and legalized abortion, and also, to a lesser extent, advances in the preprepared foods industry and other areas of traditional women´s responsibilities, such as labor-saving devices in the home.
All these things have afforded the societies of western industrialized nations the ability to relax women's role socialization. 'Equal' opportunities for women are based fundamentally upon these technological advances, which free up the resources necessary to afford women such opportunities.
It is the necessities of biology and fundamental survival which create social role constraints. Women are traditionally directed and restricted to careers in childrearing and homemaking not because of men's lust for power and dominance but because certain facts are obvious to the members of human communities, empirically demonstrating to them that the work of community survival has to be divided up efficiently in order to be accomplished successfully.
Now that women no longer must bear eight or more children to make sure that at least three survive, no longer have to make by hand for entire families the clothing needed to defend against nature's rigors, no longer must expend huge efforts in preparing foodstuffs not only daily but in storage for the rest of the year, and so on and so forth, not to mention the tremendous biological demands caused simply by pregnancy itself, the members of the communities in which they live can afford to allow them to perform other tasks at their choice.
The same is not true for men.
Men still make up the overwhelming majority of those who do the dirty, dangerous, deadly, daily work of civilization´s engines -- mining, logging, construction, sanitation, heavy industry, and so forth and so on. 24 of the 25 worst jobs employ men in 95% to 99% of available positions. And the responsibility for socially endorsed appropriate violence also remains almost exclusively male.
Consider, for example, martial arts training advertisement directed to women. It primarily -- if not indeed exclusively -- focuses on the element of self-defense. But 'self-defense' is categorically not why we train men in violence skills; we train men in violence skills for the defense of others.
And we further indoctrinate men to accept that by generally applying lower standards of applicability of protection and defense to men. The members of a population that are expected and directed to perform the majority of defense and protection by definition receive the least amount of protection and defense themselves. It´s tautologous.
Watch the modern entertainment media with an eye towards whom are accounted the appropriate and justified targets of violence, and it will quickly become obvious to you. Those persons are overwhelmingly men.
We do this because we need a constantly resupplied pool of willing self-sacrificers -- persons who will give up their integrity, health, and lives for the needs of others. Men must be trained from birth to be simultaneously more autonomous and yet less self-serving. Men must be trained to believe that their physical integrity, health, and lives are less valuable than those of others -- those others primarily being women and children.
This is the sort of basic everyday stuff everyone knows on a deep level but never acknowledges consciously and fully. And that fails to happen for pretty much the same reasons that some parents who are complicit in the genital mutilation of their children react negatively to the truth about it. We are all pretty much complicit in the social brutalization of men for the purpose of maintaining a large field of willing self-sacrificers ... specifically, men who will work themselves to exhaustion, illness, injury, and death, to satisfy the needs of others.
Much the same pressures have long been applied to women for precisely the same reason; a community needs well-raised children to survive, and women are the ones who make the babies. It is not because of the demands of power-hungry men; it is simply the empirical exigencies of community survival needs.
We put men at risk because they are the ones that we can afford to lose, in terms of population replacement. We protect women likewise -- because they are the ones that we cannot afford to put at risk, in terms of population replacement. Our technology has changed the latter, but it still has not really changed the former.
But, of course, it is terribly politically incorrect at the moment to point this out -- or to point out that women are equally responsible for the cultural standards and prejudices that restrict both women and men´s opportunities.
Nevertheless, however, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Rules The World. Men and women together made the world our parents, grandparents, and ancestors lived in, with all its prejudices, restrictions, and cultural standards.
In short, we protect and defend men less because the division of labor necessary to our civilization -- and, let's face it, our high standards of luxury -- requires it.
And we train boys (and girls) to value boys' physical integrity, health, and lives less than those of girls in order to make sure that both genders accept that division of labor, submit to its requirements, enforce its dictates, and reward its enactment.
We not only allow but endorse and even reward the general greater brutalization of boys overall in order to make sure that they will grow up willing to do the dirty, dangerous, deadly work. We train them from the cradle to value themselves less, and the needs of others more.
And that's the fundamental reason why we can have a Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act voted into law in direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Social standards -- the general acceptance of such discrimination -- the cultural inertia which resists changes to it -- are far more means to that end of maintaining our high standards of luxury than they are ends in and of themselves.
The bottom line is that little boys are denied their fundamental equal right to genital integrity because we still need them to grow up to become the men who will accept the risks necessary to mining our ores, logging our forests, shoveling our wastes, building our infrastructure, and protecting our lives.
We have a lower standard of protection for boys because we need them to value themselves less than they do the rest of us.
And that's really all there is to it.
And because of that, your little boy is four and half times more likely to kill himself than his female peers -- and six times more likely to kill himself between the ages of 20 and 24 -- and ten times more likely to kill himself after being divorced and deprived of access to his own children.
When a well-trained man is deprived of his children -- who are the primary focus of his socialization and the reward for accepting it -- what does that training tell him?
That he's a worthless waste of resources which are better given to others.
And so he blows his brains out with a bullet.
It is the last service to others that has been left for him to perform.
I once saw someone claim that the only reason why routine and ritual male genital amputation continues in the United States of America is because the victims can't make their resistance known.
Well, no, actually; it's not that simple. Baby girls can't make their resistance known either, but they're protected from this under federal law regardless.
No, there's more to it than just that. And on that topic, here's something I wrote a while back in response to the question:
"HOW could they pass that law and have it apply to only one gender?"
Welcome to Men's Issues. . .which is something that you might want to investigate on your son's behalf.
The short summarized answer to your question is that technology has not advanced sufficiently to allow loosening of the fundamental restrictions of male role socialization.
To expand on that point -- the genuine advances in equality for women in the western industrialized nations over the past couple of generations (as opposed to the false ones) can be attributed to several technological advances: drastically lowered infant mortality, cheap safe effective birth control, and legalized abortion, and also, to a lesser extent, advances in the preprepared foods industry and other areas of traditional women´s responsibilities, such as labor-saving devices in the home.
All these things have afforded the societies of western industrialized nations the ability to relax women's role socialization. 'Equal' opportunities for women are based fundamentally upon these technological advances, which free up the resources necessary to afford women such opportunities.
It is the necessities of biology and fundamental survival which create social role constraints. Women are traditionally directed and restricted to careers in childrearing and homemaking not because of men's lust for power and dominance but because certain facts are obvious to the members of human communities, empirically demonstrating to them that the work of community survival has to be divided up efficiently in order to be accomplished successfully.
Now that women no longer must bear eight or more children to make sure that at least three survive, no longer have to make by hand for entire families the clothing needed to defend against nature's rigors, no longer must expend huge efforts in preparing foodstuffs not only daily but in storage for the rest of the year, and so on and so forth, not to mention the tremendous biological demands caused simply by pregnancy itself, the members of the communities in which they live can afford to allow them to perform other tasks at their choice.
The same is not true for men.
Men still make up the overwhelming majority of those who do the dirty, dangerous, deadly, daily work of civilization´s engines -- mining, logging, construction, sanitation, heavy industry, and so forth and so on. 24 of the 25 worst jobs employ men in 95% to 99% of available positions. And the responsibility for socially endorsed appropriate violence also remains almost exclusively male.
Consider, for example, martial arts training advertisement directed to women. It primarily -- if not indeed exclusively -- focuses on the element of self-defense. But 'self-defense' is categorically not why we train men in violence skills; we train men in violence skills for the defense of others.
And we further indoctrinate men to accept that by generally applying lower standards of applicability of protection and defense to men. The members of a population that are expected and directed to perform the majority of defense and protection by definition receive the least amount of protection and defense themselves. It´s tautologous.
Watch the modern entertainment media with an eye towards whom are accounted the appropriate and justified targets of violence, and it will quickly become obvious to you. Those persons are overwhelmingly men.
We do this because we need a constantly resupplied pool of willing self-sacrificers -- persons who will give up their integrity, health, and lives for the needs of others. Men must be trained from birth to be simultaneously more autonomous and yet less self-serving. Men must be trained to believe that their physical integrity, health, and lives are less valuable than those of others -- those others primarily being women and children.
This is the sort of basic everyday stuff everyone knows on a deep level but never acknowledges consciously and fully. And that fails to happen for pretty much the same reasons that some parents who are complicit in the genital mutilation of their children react negatively to the truth about it. We are all pretty much complicit in the social brutalization of men for the purpose of maintaining a large field of willing self-sacrificers ... specifically, men who will work themselves to exhaustion, illness, injury, and death, to satisfy the needs of others.
Much the same pressures have long been applied to women for precisely the same reason; a community needs well-raised children to survive, and women are the ones who make the babies. It is not because of the demands of power-hungry men; it is simply the empirical exigencies of community survival needs.
We put men at risk because they are the ones that we can afford to lose, in terms of population replacement. We protect women likewise -- because they are the ones that we cannot afford to put at risk, in terms of population replacement. Our technology has changed the latter, but it still has not really changed the former.
But, of course, it is terribly politically incorrect at the moment to point this out -- or to point out that women are equally responsible for the cultural standards and prejudices that restrict both women and men´s opportunities.
Nevertheless, however, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Rules The World. Men and women together made the world our parents, grandparents, and ancestors lived in, with all its prejudices, restrictions, and cultural standards.
In short, we protect and defend men less because the division of labor necessary to our civilization -- and, let's face it, our high standards of luxury -- requires it.
And we train boys (and girls) to value boys' physical integrity, health, and lives less than those of girls in order to make sure that both genders accept that division of labor, submit to its requirements, enforce its dictates, and reward its enactment.
We not only allow but endorse and even reward the general greater brutalization of boys overall in order to make sure that they will grow up willing to do the dirty, dangerous, deadly work. We train them from the cradle to value themselves less, and the needs of others more.
And that's the fundamental reason why we can have a Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act voted into law in direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Social standards -- the general acceptance of such discrimination -- the cultural inertia which resists changes to it -- are far more means to that end of maintaining our high standards of luxury than they are ends in and of themselves.
The bottom line is that little boys are denied their fundamental equal right to genital integrity because we still need them to grow up to become the men who will accept the risks necessary to mining our ores, logging our forests, shoveling our wastes, building our infrastructure, and protecting our lives.
We have a lower standard of protection for boys because we need them to value themselves less than they do the rest of us.
And that's really all there is to it.
And because of that, your little boy is four and half times more likely to kill himself than his female peers -- and six times more likely to kill himself between the ages of 20 and 24 -- and ten times more likely to kill himself after being divorced and deprived of access to his own children.
When a well-trained man is deprived of his children -- who are the primary focus of his socialization and the reward for accepting it -- what does that training tell him?
That he's a worthless waste of resources which are better given to others.
And so he blows his brains out with a bullet.
It is the last service to others that has been left for him to perform.
Last edited:
smartandsexy
Not Dead Yet
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Posts
- 9,005
Cheyenne said:
Yes, but this is done by adults giving informed consent with the knowledge that they have a high probability of developing breast cancer.
Which is completely different to what I was suggesting.
The risk of developing breast cancer for the average woman is far higher than the rates associated with the claimed risks for uncircumcised men - hence if people are so so keen on this type of mass preventative surgery, why would they not be happy for parents to remove their daughter's breast tissue after development?
smartandsexy
Not Dead Yet
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Posts
- 9,005
gogonslord said:
Thank you for some very informative posts. It's always interesting to know the methodological issues associated with the studies cited, but I've not had time to look into them myself, so your post made for very interesting reading.
It's also noticable that none of those in favour of the procedure have responded to this particular post.
G
Guest
Guest
Queersetti
Bastardo Suave
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Posts
- 37,288
Freya said:
I'm sure we all understand by now that straight white American males are the most oppressed people on the planet.
smartandsexy
Not Dead Yet
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Posts
- 9,005
gogonslord said:
I don't have time now, but I want to come back and respond to this later. Some of it I agree with it, but there's a lot I strongly disagree with.
I agree that little boys should have equal protection under the law but I think a lot of your sociological reasoning is flawed.
gogonslord
Experienced
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2003
- Posts
- 47
smartandsexy said:OK, I lied about stepping back.
I think we all recognise there are studies you can cite to support both sides of this debate - but this particular snippet (pun not intended!) just stood out as seeming ludicrous. Are you really telling me that a quarter of uncircumcised men require penile surgery (considering just this problem - presumably there are other issues that would also indicate surgery)? Living in a country where the vast majority of men are uncircumcised, that figure just doesn't ring true to me.
These quotes and statistics come from Dr. Thomas Wiswells' website. This man is known for his avid promotion of circumcision. The entire post which quoted problems of intact antomy was filled with erroneous statistics and outright lies. His UTI study, which I mentioned previously, was intentionally flawed by Wiswell by using premature babies for the intact group anf full-term babies for the circumcised group. As is known, premature babies are more prone to UTI's.
This man was a member of the APP Taskforce on Circumcision, along with other doctors such as Edgaer Schoen and Craig Shoemake, who in their careers have promoted universal circumcision of baby boys. They have also released erroneous studies brimmed with lies. Schoen was removed from the 1998 taskforce because of his hardline stand and outrageous behavior.
The Taskforce has been meeting since the early 1970's and the membership roster has been changing for each of the incarnations. In every single case, the roster has been made up of primarily Jewish doctors ranging from at least 60% to almost 90%.
Edgar Schoen and Thomas Wiswell have some kind of loose alliance with circumcision fetish groups. They leave comments on their sites and they themselves have crafted and designed profesional looking websites that snare in unsophisticated parents-to-be and convince them to circumcise their sons with false information and concoted research. Could it be for their sexual enjoyment?
By the way, Thomas Wiswell is currently being sued for libel.
Last edited:
gogonslord
Experienced
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2003
- Posts
- 47
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cancer?
I'm assuming you are refering to cervical cancer, which has been touted as a means for circumcision brought out by a theory based off of the finding of a low incidence of cervial cancer in Israeli women. This theory is baseless, the low prevalence of homozygous arginine polymorphism is the factor. Not circumcision. it is a factor of genetics.
Even if cervical cancer could be caused by the foreskin(It's not) this is all completely negated by the fact that we now have a vaccine for cervical cancer.
Penile cancer as a reason for circumcsion is one the more absurd claims. Your insistence that lack of hygiene in an intact male is a cause for penile cancer is wrong. Smegma has no carcinogenic properties. The causes of penile cancer are socio-ethnic factors, but the main contributing cause of penile cancer is smoking. HPV is also a large factor.
Now, one only need look at the current statistics of cancer deaths in America and you would note that women are twice as likely to have vulvular/vaginal cancer. So, shall we excise their labia?
The problem with all of this is that it violates medical ethical codes to perform surgery on the notion of "possible" prevention of anything. Would you circumcise 1,000 healthy, normal boys to protect one boy from some obscure irrelevant problem, that either has nothing to do with his foreskin or can be treated otherwise?
zipman7 said:
I'm assuming you are refering to cervical cancer, which has been touted as a means for circumcision brought out by a theory based off of the finding of a low incidence of cervial cancer in Israeli women. This theory is baseless, the low prevalence of homozygous arginine polymorphism is the factor. Not circumcision. it is a factor of genetics.
Even if cervical cancer could be caused by the foreskin(It's not) this is all completely negated by the fact that we now have a vaccine for cervical cancer.
Penile cancer as a reason for circumcsion is one the more absurd claims. Your insistence that lack of hygiene in an intact male is a cause for penile cancer is wrong. Smegma has no carcinogenic properties. The causes of penile cancer are socio-ethnic factors, but the main contributing cause of penile cancer is smoking. HPV is also a large factor.
Now, one only need look at the current statistics of cancer deaths in America and you would note that women are twice as likely to have vulvular/vaginal cancer. So, shall we excise their labia?
The problem with all of this is that it violates medical ethical codes to perform surgery on the notion of "possible" prevention of anything. Would you circumcise 1,000 healthy, normal boys to protect one boy from some obscure irrelevant problem, that either has nothing to do with his foreskin or can be treated otherwise?
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
I posted this a long time ago in the other circumcision thread, but there is a guy in Toronto who campaigns about "getting back his foreskin". There was a documentary about him. He attached weights to his penis skin and wears them around. Anyhow, he's managed to get back a good half-inch of foreskin, which kinda looks weird since it's in-between full-on foreskin and no foreskin.
G
Guest
Guest
Something to think about
Perhaps U.S. doctors are proponents of circumcision because certain people are making lots of money off of it? Just wondering...
On average, an ob/gyn makes $50,000/year just on downtime circumcisions. The hospital pockets another $50,000. Most don't give the
baby painkillers because they fit circumcisions in to holes in their
schedule. When they have some "down time" they do a circumcision and painkillers
take "too much time".
The American Pediatric Association, says circumsion is unneccesary (the Brithish Medical Association also agrees and is considering making parents wait
until the child is three).
Perhaps U.S. doctors are proponents of circumcision because certain people are making lots of money off of it? Just wondering...
On average, an ob/gyn makes $50,000/year just on downtime circumcisions. The hospital pockets another $50,000. Most don't give the
baby painkillers because they fit circumcisions in to holes in their
schedule. When they have some "down time" they do a circumcision and painkillers
take "too much time".
The American Pediatric Association, says circumsion is unneccesary (the Brithish Medical Association also agrees and is considering making parents wait
until the child is three).
Miss Ladybird
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Posts
- 356
The BMA is actually pretty supportive of performing non-therapeutic male circumcision if it is in the best interests of the patient.
It's guidelines state:
"There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues. Indeed, it would be difficult to formulate a policy in the absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention. As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices."
They go on to say:
"It is important that doctors consider the child’s social and cultural circumstances. Where a child is living in a culture in which circumcision is required for all males, the increased acceptance into a family or society that circumcision can confer is considered to be a strong social or cultural benefit. Exclusion may cause harm by, for example, complicating the individual’s search for identity and sense of belonging. Clearly, assessment of such intangible risks and benefits is complex. On a more practical level, some people also argue that it is necessary to consider the effects of a decision not to circumcise. If there is a risk that a child will be circumcised in unhygienic or otherwise unsafe conditions, doctors may consider it better that they carry out the procedure, or refer to another practitioner, rather than allow the child to be put at risk.
"On the other hand, very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure.
"The BMA identifies the following as relevant to an assessment of best interests in relation to non-therapeutic circumcision:
- the patient’s own ascertainable wishes, feelings and values;
- the patient’s ability to understand what is proposed and weigh up the alternatives;
- the patient’s potential to participate in the decision, if provided with additional support or explanations;
- the patient’s physical and emotional needs;
- the risk of harm or suffering for the patient;
- the views of parents and family;
- the implications for the family of performing, and not performing, the procedure;
- relevant information about the patient’s religious or cultural background; and
- the prioritising of options which maximise the patient’s future opportunities and choices.
"The BMA is generally very supportive of allowing parents to make choices on behalf of their children, and believes that neither society nor doctors should interfere unjustifiably in the relationship between parents and their children. It is clear from the list of factors that are relevant to a child’s best interests, however, that parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child."
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2003
It's guidelines state:
"There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues. Indeed, it would be difficult to formulate a policy in the absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention. As a general rule, however, the BMA believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices."
They go on to say:
"It is important that doctors consider the child’s social and cultural circumstances. Where a child is living in a culture in which circumcision is required for all males, the increased acceptance into a family or society that circumcision can confer is considered to be a strong social or cultural benefit. Exclusion may cause harm by, for example, complicating the individual’s search for identity and sense of belonging. Clearly, assessment of such intangible risks and benefits is complex. On a more practical level, some people also argue that it is necessary to consider the effects of a decision not to circumcise. If there is a risk that a child will be circumcised in unhygienic or otherwise unsafe conditions, doctors may consider it better that they carry out the procedure, or refer to another practitioner, rather than allow the child to be put at risk.
"On the other hand, very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure.
"The BMA identifies the following as relevant to an assessment of best interests in relation to non-therapeutic circumcision:
- the patient’s own ascertainable wishes, feelings and values;
- the patient’s ability to understand what is proposed and weigh up the alternatives;
- the patient’s potential to participate in the decision, if provided with additional support or explanations;
- the patient’s physical and emotional needs;
- the risk of harm or suffering for the patient;
- the views of parents and family;
- the implications for the family of performing, and not performing, the procedure;
- relevant information about the patient’s religious or cultural background; and
- the prioritising of options which maximise the patient’s future opportunities and choices.
"The BMA is generally very supportive of allowing parents to make choices on behalf of their children, and believes that neither society nor doctors should interfere unjustifiably in the relationship between parents and their children. It is clear from the list of factors that are relevant to a child’s best interests, however, that parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child."
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2003
Last edited:
TumbledLove
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Posts
- 689
So has this been outlawed yet?
jettvelvet
Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2004
- Posts
- 38
I've had both... I prefer cut.
My son is cut, too... He was 2 days old and slept through it!
My son is cut, too... He was 2 days old and slept through it!
John Doe
Justified Snob
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Posts
- 54,121
Freya said:
And yet others assert that it isn't so totally different.
So if they don't see it, why don't you enlighten them? What is the difference?
I can guess that it's just plain different and we should accept it without question or that women's genitals or right to Person are somehow more valuable or sacred. If not that, then what?
Yes, they are done for different reasons (in males, for religious or medical reasons, in females to oppress), but intent and a $1.75 will get you an espresso. The result is the same.
Last edited:
Similar threads
