Off Topic Circumcision

The NHS doesn't fund ritual circumcision so your tax won't be spent on it.

 

FGM is not carried out with the intent of hurting the child. Remember 70+ plus of parents have this carried out on their daughters in some African states, in others it's closer to 90%. So, by your logic, in some countries 90% of parents set out to inflict suffering on their child intentionally? It doesn't add up mate. It's a medieval cultural or religious practise, it is barbaric but they are not actually doing it with the intention of inflicting harm, that's an entirely illogical and incorrect assessment. That is not how parents i general see their children with obvious exceptions but with numbers that high the "intentional harm" claim doesn't stack up.

We are not talking medical cases tho.

The question is still the same, how, morally and ethically is FGM any different from Circumcision when it is to serve religious or cultural custom?

Getting bogged down in the actual procedure and which is physically worse or which is more morally repugnant is probably pointless. IMO it's time people stopped mutilating their kids in pointless rituals.

 

Is piecing little baby girls ears mutilation. Is infant scarification mutilation? All are cultural practices.

 

Cool beans, I wasn't sure to be honest.
And I also agree that piercing a childs ears should also be made illegal.
No one should allowed piercings until they are 16 or 18 in my view.
I dont see why its any different to tattoos.

 

I know, I know, it's wikipedia, but this is what it says on male circumcision:

Adverse effects

Neonatal circumcision is generally safe when done by an experienced practitioner.[61] The most common acute complications are bleeding, infection and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin.[5][20] These complications occur in less than one percent of procedures, and constitute the vast majority of all acute circumcision complications in the United States.[20] Minor complications are reported to occur in three percent of procedures.[61] A specific complication rate is difficult to determine due to scant data on complications and inconsistencies in their classification.[5] Complication rates are greater when the procedure is performed by an inexperienced operator, in unsterile conditions, or when the child is at an older age.[19] Significant acute complications happen rarely,[5][19] occurring in about 1 in 500 newborn procedures in the United States.[5] Severe to catastrophic complications are sufficiently rare that they are reported only as individual case reports.[5] The death rate due to circumcision is estimated at 1 in every 500,000 neonatal procedures conducted within the United States.[20] Other possible complications include concealed penis, skin bridges, urethral fistulas, and meatal stenosis.[62] These complications may be avoided with proper technique, and are most often treatable without requiring a hospital visit.[62] The circumcision procedure may carry the risks of heightened pain response for newborns and dissatisfaction with the result.[32]

Sexual effects

Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction.[21][63] A 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis found that circumcision did not appear to adversely affect sexual desire, pain with intercourse, premature ejaculation, time to ejaculation, erectile dysfunction or difficulties with orgasm.[64] Another 2013 systematic review found that the highest-quality studies reported no adverse effects of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, sensation or satisfaction.[22] A 2014 literature review found that there are significant gaps in the current literature on male and female sexual health that need to be addressed for the literature to be applicable to North American populations.[65] A 2010 Royal Australasian College of Physicians viewpoint mentions that the effects of circumcision on sexual sensation are not clear.[66] Royal Dutch Medical Association's 2010 viewpoint mentions that "complications in the area of sexuality" have been reported.[67]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Adverse_effects

 

Yes religion all over it, and those that follow the religion will adhere to it's customs. It's a tradition\custom that has been followed for a long long time, the instigators believed in this barbarity but the followers do it out of custom while the instigators of said barbarity are long dead. This is how these things survive. Now today it is "the done thing", just like circumcision actually, and the original reasons I would say are meangingless in terms of differentiating the two as both are age old barbaric practises that involve cutting lumps off children for no good reason.

 

So it's really a just religion bashing thread then without consideration of hygiene or disease.

I'm out.

 

How does circumcision prevent AIDS and STIs?? That's a bullshit myth

As long as a kid is taught to wash properly downstairs, roll it back and give it a proper hosedown under the hood, there's no issue with having a foreskin and hygiene

FGM is a more severe process than a boy's circumcision, plus the problem with FGM is with the unsanitary and rudimentary health care conditions in a lot of the impoverished African communities where they are performed. FGM really is akin to full-on butchery though, whereas for boys it's more like a quick go on the meat slicer at the back of the shop

But I think both are very sick and it should be up to the individual kid/young adult human to decide if they want any modifications performed, not there ****ing brainwashed, brutalising elders

 

Whether the intention is to hurt or not doesn't matter - it does hurt them and there's no way on earth it would ever not hurt, so to perform the practise intentionally, is to hurt intentionally as far as I'm concerned. But I do see your explanation of it as well, I just don't agree.

The very worst part of it, as if the cutting wasn't bad enough, is the intense psychological damage caused by FGM - that just doesn't exist for circumcision.

 

And for women:

Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is the ritual removal of some or all of the external female genitalia. Typically carried out by a traditional circumciser using a blade or razor (with or without anaesthesia), FGM is concentrated in 27 African countries, Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan, and found elsewhere in Asia, the Middle East, and among diaspora communities around the world.[7] The age at which it is conducted varies from days after birth to puberty; in half the countries for which national figures are available, most girls are cut before the age of five.[5]

The procedures differ according to the ethnic group. They include removal of the clitoral hood and clitoral glans (the visible part of the clitoris), removal of the inner labia and, in the most severe form (known as infibulation), removal of the inner and outer labia and closure of the vulva. In this last procedure, a small hole is left for the passage of urine and menstrual fluid, and the vagina is opened for intercourse and opened further for childbirth. Health effects depend on the procedure, but can include recurrent infections, chronic pain, cysts, an inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth and fatal bleeding.[8] There are no known health benefits.[9]

The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics. It is usually initiated and carried out by women, who see it as a source of honour, and who fear that failing to have their daughters and granddaughters cut will expose the girls to social exclusion.[10] Over 130 million women and girls have experienced FGM in the 29 countries in which it is concentrated.[4] The United Nations Population Fund estimates that 20 percent of affected women have been infibulated, a practice found largely in northeast Africa, particularly Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia and northern Sudan.[11][12]

 

Was male circumcision not seen as a good hygienic practice years back? I know some of my family had it done in Ireland in the 40s. Though I'm sure others on here will have a better idea of that!

 

Complications
Short-term and late
FGM can cause serious adverse consequences to girls' and women's physical and emotional health.[58] It has no known health benefits.[9] The short-term and late complications depend on the type of FGM, whether the practitioner had medical training, and whether she used antibiotics and unsterilized or surgical single-use instruments. In the case of Type III, other factors include how small a hole was left for the passage of urine and menstrual blood, whether surgical thread was used instead of agave or acacia thorns, and whether the procedure was performed more than once (for example, to close an opening regarded as too wide or re-open one too small).[8]

Short-term complications can include fatal bleeding, anaemia, acute urinary retention, urinary infection, wound infection, septicaemia, tetanus, gangrene, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease) and endometritis.[58][60][8] It is not known how many girls and women die as a result of the practice, because complications may not be recognized or reported.[61][62] The practitioners' use of shared instruments is thought to aid the transmission of hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV, although no epidemiological studies have shown this.[62]

Late complications vary depending on the type of FGM.[8] They include the formation of scars and keloids that lead to strictures and obstruction, epidermoid cysts that may become infected, and neuroma formation (growth of nerve tissue) involving nerves that supplied the clitoris.[63][64] An infibulated girl may be left with an opening as small as 2–3 mm, which can cause prolonged, drop-by-drop urination, pain while urinating, and a feeling of needing to urinate all the time. Urine may collect underneath the scar, leaving the area under the skin constantly wet, which can lead to infection and the formation of small stones. The opening is larger in women who are sexually active or have given birth by vaginal delivery, but the urethra opening may still be obstructed by scar tissue. Vesicovaginal or rectovaginal fistulae can develop (holes that allow urine or faeces to seep into the vagina).[8][65] This and other damage to the urethra and bladder can lead to infections and incontinence, pain during sexual intercourse and infertility.[63]

Painful periods are common because of the obstruction to the menstrual flow, and blood can stagnate in the vagina and uterus. Complete obstruction of the vagina can result in hematocolpos and hematometra (where the vagina and uterus fill with menstrual blood).[8] The swelling of the abdomen that results from the collection of fluid, together with the lack of menstruation, can lead to suspicion of pregnancy. Physician Asma El Dareer reported in 1979 that a young girl in Sudan with this condition was killed by her family.[66]

 

Pregnancy, childbirth

FGM may place women at higher risk of problems during pregnancy and childbirth, which are more common with the more extensive FGM procedures.[8] Infibulated women may try to make childbirth easier by eating less during pregnancy to reduce the baby's size.[68] In women with vesicovaginal or rectovaginal fistulae, it is difficult to obtain clear urine samples as part of prenatal care, making the diagnosis of conditions such as pre-eclampsia harder.[63] Cervical evaluation during labour may be impeded and labour prolonged or obstructed. Third-degree laceration (tears), anal-sphincter damage and emergency caesarean section are more common in infibulated women.[8][69]

Neonatal mortality is increased. The WHO estimated in 2006 that an additional 10–20 babies die per 1,000 deliveries as a result of FGM. The estimate was based on a study conducted on 28,393 women attending delivery wards at 28 obstetric centres in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan. In those settings all types of FGM were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby: 15 percent higher for Type I, 32 percent for Type II and 55 percent for Type III. The reasons for this were unclear, but may be connected to genital and urinary-tract infections and the presence of scar tissue. The researchers wrote that FGM was associated with an increased risk to the mother of damage to the perineum and excessive blood loss, as well as a need to resuscitate the baby, and stillbirth, perhaps because of a long second stage of labour.[70]

Psychological effects, sexual function

According to a 2015 systematic review there is little high-quality information available on the psychological effects of FGM. Several small studies have concluded that women with FGM suffer from anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.[62] Feelings of shame and betrayal can develop when women leave the culture that practises FGM and learn that their condition is not the norm, but within the practising culture they may view their FGM with pride, because for them it signifies beauty, respect for tradition, chastity and hygiene.[8]

Studies on sexual function have also been small.[62] A 2013 meta-analysis of 15 studies involving 12,671 women from seven countries concluded that women with FGM were twice as likely to report no sexual desire and 52 percent more likely to report dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse). One third reported reduced sexual feelings.[71


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Complications

 

then wash ya dirty feckers!!

 

Here's a question then. If one is as bad as the other why are there no high profile international campaigns to ban male circumcision when there appear to be loads to ban FGM. "It's a Jewish conspiracy" is not a valid response

 

Yeah it was mate and then most saw sense and started to call it out for the bullshit myth it is

 

The loss of a foreskin has no tangible negative effect on the recipient.

The loss of a clitoris denies a female sexual gratification for their lifetime.

The parents know this, they know that what they are doing is going to ensure that their daughter is being denied. Whatever the cutural or religious drivers are for this practice they still make the decision to have their child mutilated knowing the detrimental effect it will have, so therefore they are knowingly harming their child, it's a simple fact.

Blanketing the 2 together doesn't do aynthing for the cause of bringing to an end the barbaric act of FGM, in fact it dilutes it.

I've no idea what your agenda is here, but I suspect it's disingenuous.

 

Thanks for that - thought that was the case.

 

I know of men who had it done [in this country] as children [years back] because it was thought to be good hygiene and just done routinely to all baby boys, no religion involved.

 

Israel has nuclear weapons.