As a doctor, will you practice genital mutilation?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

We've won the battle but we've also won the war. Darn.

If you count boring everyone to death and being the last one standing a victory....
Anyway, suncrush and joe if you're unhappy about being circumcised, there are stretching methods to grow it back you know.... There's also reconstructive surgery if you feel like you've been cheated of something you deem important.

Originally Posted by serenade

If you count boring everyone to death and being the last one standing a victory....
Anyway, suncrush and joe if you're unhappy about being circumcised, there are stretching methods to grow it back you know.... There's also reconstructive surgery if you feel like you've been cheated of something you deem important.

You keep coming back for more, so contrary to being bored, you seem to be actually enjoying having your arguments repeatedly demolished. You should've just quit while you were behind and had no arguments remaining; now you're just making yourself seem pouty and juvenile.

No, I just think that somewhere in your little world you think you've demolished my argument through effectively crapping more straw than I can enjoy.
Anyway, I'm not being juvenile nor pouty, I'm simply stating a fact. If you two dislike your circumcisions then it can be reversed.

Originally Posted by serenade

No, I just think that somewhere in your little world you think you've demolished my argument through effectively crapping more straw than I can enjoy.
Anyway, I'm not being juvenile nor pouty, I'm simply stating a fact. If you two dislike your circumcisions then it can be reversed.

And somewhere in your little world, you are still pretending to yourself that you are actually have valid arguments left but are merely choosing not to use them Also, I'm looking at my own penis right now and wondering why you assumed I am circumcised. Benefit of the doubt, but I certainly hope that assumption is not a pouty last-ditch attempt to insinuate that our arguments don't stand on their own (again, keep pretending) and/or are exaggerated due to feeling victimized. As I've shown in this thread, I don't need to be a victim of female genital mutilation to effectively argue against it, and the same for male. "Assumptions make asses out of u", and all that...kind of like your outright lie that FGM isn't legal anywhere. At this point you're just embarrassing yourself in front of everyone who reads this thread.

Male circumcision=penis still works
FGM=female external genitalia do NOT still work
All that means the two are not the same thing. Men can still have an orgasm if they are circumcised, women who are mutilated cannot. There is a miniscule medical benefit to male circumcision, there is significant medical harm in FGM (look it up).
They are both unnecessary, however one is done as serenade has said repeatedly ONLY to cause pain to women when they have sex. It is a form of life-long torture used originally by northern tribes in Africa to prevent women (who in their eyes are worth less than the goat) from having pleasurable sex (again look it up). Since I know that circumcised men still get plenty o fun from their penises your argument that they are the same is INVALID.
However, I will likely do neither procedure (would never ever ever do FGM), and no I would not mutilate a child's ear or any other body part because of a religious ceremony...

read the thread. there are many forms of fgm and what you said is not true for some of them. that has been the basis for this entire discussion and the reason why those simplistic distinctions you said do not hold true.

How does this thread have 2 pages of responses?

Tell that to the Somali women who are seen by my friend.

Originally Posted by SBB2016

Male circumcision=penis still works
FGM=female external genitalia do NOT still work
All that means the two are not the same thing. Men can still have an orgasm if they are circumcised, women who are mutilated cannot. There is a miniscule medical benefit to male circumcision, there is significant medical harm in FGM (look it up).
They are both unnecessary, however one is done as serenade has said repeatedly ONLY to cause pain to women when they have sex. It is a form of life-long torture used originally by northern tribes in Africa to prevent women (who in their eyes are worth less than the goat) from having pleasurable sex (again look it up). Since I know that circumcised men still get plenty o fun from their penises your argument that they are the same is INVALID.
However, I will likely do neither procedure (would never ever ever do FGM), and no I would not mutilate a child's ear or any other body part because of a religious ceremony...

They are both bad and this isn't a pissing contest--which the females would lose, because some forms of FGM are so bad that the women can barely urinate--about which is worse, although no one in this entire thread has minimized how horrible type I-III FGM are. Those are horrible. But my arguments are not invalid. Note that there are forms of female mutilation that do not necessarily affect ability to achieve orgasm, and also that the only dubious benefits of male circumcisions that are not medically indicated occur when the person is a sexually active adult, so why not let them choose the procedure for themselves? Circumcised males have reduced sexual pleasure, so the religious mutilation is in fact similarly harmful for them, even if it isn't as "bad" in that regard as some forms of female mutilation--but again, it's not a contest about which is worse; they are both bad. Also, do you know that in some parts of Africa, FGM is performed on the mistaken tribal belief that the clitoris will harm the baby during childbirth if it touches it? There is no malicious intent in that, no objectification or opression of women, no intent to prevent women from enjoying sex. It's just another stupid belief that the parents have and the child gets mutilated because of it. To summarize, the relevant arguments have already been provided in this thread, including but not limited to:

Originally Posted by Joe the Plumber

I think a comparison is possible...Docs will remove the entire foreskin of the penis yet they won't even prick the clitoris? How does that makes sense?

Originally Posted by Suncrusher

...despite not having exactly the same historical origins, the most basic and essential motivation between male and female genital mutilation is the same: desire to permanently mark one human being based on religious beliefs of another human being...You personally feel the two cannot be compared, but you have been utterly unable to provide any argument for this other than male mutilation having a possible utility millenia ago and that you, coming from the culture/country that you do (and in total ignorance of the reverse argument being made by members of other cultures and countries) feel the motivations for female mutilation reveal a higher degree of malicious intent or are otherwise incomparable...

Yes, there are differences between male and female genital mutilation, but at heart they are they same and there is no sound philosophical basis for being willing to perform one medical procedure cosmetically on a non-consenting child due to the religious beliefs OF THE PARENTS but not the other procedure. That is what this thread is about and no protestations of topical irrelevance by you will change that...such a pandering position has repeatedly been found to be philosophically untenable by pediatrician groups across the country...

ok thanks. I'm not trying to be snippy (pun definitely intended) because I know we both came to the same conclusion about performing circumcisions, but how we get there is important.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and countless other medical organizations around the world have either recommended against or discouraged neonatal circumcision for well over a decade. The American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Urological Association also do not support neonatal circumcision in absence of other medical complications.

Nearly all of the western world outside of the US has largely abandoned neonatal circumcision, with most European countries having rates at 5% or less. Sweden has enacted laws restricting it, because most see it as equivalent to female mutilation or assault in the absence of medical necessity.

The American Academy of Pediatrics: "Existing scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association: "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence."

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia: "Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."

The Canadian Paediatric Society: "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed. The Society does not recommend circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians will no longer perform circumcisions."

...

Originally Posted by Suncrusher

We don't live in a desert, we live in the 21st century United States. People don't have trouble cleaning their dicks, unless you have something you'd like to share with us? Ask any adult male if he appreciates that his parents circumcised him because it saved him 2 seconds of time per shower and you will get a gigantic eye roll. Do you want to have sand in your johnson...More like do you want to have the most sensitive part of your dick cut off because your parents have marked your body according to the religious ideas of superstitious primitives? If you share those religious ideas when you grow up, then get the procedure done at that time. Body mutilation is not something a human should get to electively choose for any other human but themself.

Do enough male genital exams and you'll find that even in this 21st century US there are many men who have had poor hygiene for so long that retracting their foreskin is painful and in some cases requiring a urology consult due to the amount of discharge and filth.

Originally Posted by michaelrack

Aren't most circumsions done by surgeons ( uro?)??

Circumcisions are typically performed by FM or OB on infants. Urology takes care of circs on older kids or those in which revision is needed or requested.

As far as the OP's original desire to avoid doing it altogether....it's possible if you do not get into a specialty in which circs are required. This eliminates Urology, FM, OB and in some cases Peds, too.