Circumcision

[Speedo]

Just in case anyone doesn't know....

Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin; It's routinely done to infants in the US, and is done to some extent in most other countries.

Female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris; It's generally considered inhumane and is (AFAIK) only done with any frequency in some 3rd world countries.

-Will post opinion later.

 

[NumberTwo]

I really could care less about circumcision . . .

 

[toh6wy]

Male circumcision, even if might not have any positive effects, at least doesn't seem to have any negative effects.
OTOH, I oppose female circumcision - from what I hear, it's only done to make it so a woman doesn't feel any pleasure in sex, because in the 3rd world countries where they do it they feel that women are like slaves and only the man deserves the pleasure. Absolutely disgusting, IMO.

 

[Archer 007]

I dont think either should be done. Doing it to females is torture, and doing it to males is useless.

 

[Adebisi]

I oppose both of course, they are some of the most horrible violations on the rights of the individual.

 

[King Alexander]

First: I won't vote on this. Whatever is your opinion about male circumcision, female circumcision is a crime in any civilized nation(you can call me whatever you want: I don't care). This option should't be on the poll.

Second: where does the foreskin resides?(Oh, never mind...)

Third: that is a religious tradition, so, it has nothing to do with me.

 

[LLXerxes]

This thread is sick.
And I couldn't care less about this.

 

[Guildenstern]

I'm with Adebisi: both are some of the most egregious human rights violations available. No one should have their body modified or parts removed without their consent, except in extreme circumstances where they are incapacitated and they will surely die if something isn't done quickly.

 

[CivCube]

At least with male circumcision, you don't have to clean, ahem, "it".

 

[Gogf]

Male circumcision has religious traditions, and no (at least I think) negative effects. Female circumcision is just torture.

 

[Adebisi]

Glad to see there are others who feel the same way I do...

No one should have their body modified or parts removed without their consent

...and certainly not parts their sexual organs.

At least with male circumcision, you don't have to clean, ahem, "it".

What, you never take showers?

We do not live in a Middle Eastern desert anymore.

 

[Sanaz]

Not sure what's sick about this thread... Anyway, I'm against circumsion in any children. When they are of age, and can make an informed decision, they can do whatever they want. Female "circumcision" is obviously wrong, but even male circumcision is irreversible, if not dangerous or harmful. I may unintentinally inflict emotional scars on my children, but to knowingly inflict physical harm is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Quiet Sound]

Oppose both.

Male circumcision, even if might not have any positive effects, at least doesn't seem to have any negative effects.

I hope you mean it doesn't always have negative effects (other than, of course, nerve loss) rather than saying there are none.

 

[Plotinus]

Circumcision is a horrible thing. The reason it's done routinely in the US is because in the nineteenth century it was widely believed to be an effective way of preventing masturbation (which was widely believed to be a terrible thing). So it was introduced in America and also in Britain and Australia. By the twentieth century, however, the British realised that it was completely useless and stopped it. The Americans and, I think, the Australians still do it. Most Americans seem to think it has benefits in hygiene and that this is why it is done. In fact, of course, it has no benefits, and it is done simply because it always has been done - and the reason it was originally done was erroneous. So there's really not much point.

 

[luiz]

I'm totally against circumcision of children. It's something that affects their bodies, so it can't be made without their consent. Once they are adults, let them decide.

Personally I don't see any religious purpose in doing so. How can that please God?

 

[shadowdude]

I don't think either are necessary for any reason, its just sick.

 

[Stevenpfo]

I've never heard of the religious/masturbation reasons before. There seems to be a lot of negative sentiment towards this procedure ... So here's a link.

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2754/

 

[downtown]

I dont see the problem. having this done to males has no side effects, and can prevent infection while they are young. the procedure in females is tourture, and has no posistive effects.
Where I live, I was under the impression the doctors did it to pretty much everybody unless the parents said no.

 

[Speedo]

I oppose both. In no other circumstances would we condone chopping off a body part for no reason. Male circumcision has the negative effects of reducing sexual pleasure, but most people don't seem so concerned about that... Unless of course you count the baby boys, albeit a relatively small percentage, that lose their penis or have it seriously screwed (and of few of whom die because of it), all due to an entirely unnecessary procedure....

@King Alexander: The point of including female circumcision in the poll was to (a) see if anybody actually supported it and what their reasons were, and (b) because I view it as flat-out hypocrisy to accept one kind and condemn the other.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Male circumcision is harmless. I can see arguing against it for consent-based reasons, but any argument about harmful effects holds no water. There are none.

Female circumcision is another matter altogether. As a practice, it is more analogous to foot-binding than it is to male circumcision. It has no place in a civilized country, and anyone who would be "okay" with the practice needs to look it up and find out what it actually is.