FGM is an absolutely horrid practice that has been shown, time and again, to do a big chuck of pure harm and no good whatsoever. But what about male circumcision? It decreases the possibility of contacting HIV and HPV and urinary tract infections. If done by an experienced 'mohel', it has few after-effects. What þinkeſt þou?
Frankly, the health aspect is irrelevant. Regardless of whether the slight health boons outweigh the health detriments, the real focus is whether or not it's morally acceptable to mutilate the genitals of newborn children for ill-founded cultural or religious reasons. I'd posit that no, it's not alright to mutilate the genitals of newborn children for ill-founded cultural or religious reasons. If a person, when grown up, wants to willingly undergo circumcision for their own reasons, that's fine with me, just as it's fine with me if that same person wants to get tattoos or piercings or any other sort of body modification.
And to throw in a quick analogy regarding "health benefits"; cutting off earlobes. If you cut off earlobes, the person whose earlobes were removed has an incredibly decreased chance of getting cauliflower ear. Sure, their hearing will diminish (just as circumcision will diminish sexual stimulation), but they can still hear with just the holes. With an experienced surgeon, there's almost no chance of long-term damage (other than the earlobes missing, of course). Maybe you're in a culture where an entrenched religion dictates that all boys and girls have their earlobes ritually removed at the age of 5 months. Do you think it's acceptable that parents are choosing (or being pressured into choosing) to remove their childrens' earlobes?
Or maybe you're in a culture where, upon getting a full set of adult teeth, children are forced into medical comas and their teeth are all removed. They're given dentures instead. Now they have no problems with caries or impacted molars or broken teeth, and they can much more easily wash their dentures than they could floss/brush their teeth. Again, experienced dentists, so no long-term damage. And everybody does this. Is it acceptable to rip out your kid's teeth and replace them with dentures when the kid is unconscious and incapable of protest or defense?
@Grant: ... you win the interwebz, bro! Congratulations!
@Alex: Lol.
"We're having a special on circumcisions - one half off!" - Mel Brooks.
@Alex: I can only imagine! I never got why a traditionally predominantly Christian nation would be so obsessed with circumcision. I'd worry more about sanitation than anaesthesia, though.
@Steve: LOL! I really don't think it's that hard to get your hands on human DNA. Assuming there isn't any DNA in the dead skin cells all around, future scientists need not but obtain a lock of their own hair. (Sorry, I can't find a funny enough pun on the word 'hair'. :'()
I'm against male circumcisions, because future scientists may decide to use the removed penis foreskin for human cloning; and then we would have too many dickheads in this world.
