Female circumcision* has health benefits. All girls should get it done. (1 Viewer)

[scourge99]

Islam Question and Answer - Medical benefits of female circumcision

It prevents unpleasant odours which result from foul secretions beneath the prepuce.
It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections
It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system.
In the book on Traditions that affect the health of women and children, which was published by the World Health Organization in 1979 it says:
With regard to the type of female circumcision which involves removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, which is similar to male circumcision, no harmful health effects have been noted.

...

We all know the dimensions of Islam, and that everything in it must be good in all aspects, including health aspects. If the benefits are not apparent now, they will become known in the future, as has happened with regard to male circumcision – the world now knows its benefits and it has become widespread among all nations despite the opposition of some groups.

Female circumcision* has most of the same health benefits as male circumcision. Parents should be sure to get their children, both girls and boys circumcised as soon as possible. And if you are Jewish, Christian, or Muslim then you don't have an excuse not to. No one should allow their children to suffer from infections and problems that are extremely rare.
:roll:

* female circumcision as referred to here is the removal of the prepuce, not the removal of the clitoris.

 

[Gina]

This is a tragic subject. It's shameful that you would make such a post in order to score some kind of point.

 

[scourge99]

This is a tragic subject.

Clitoral removal is tragic. The type of female circumcision mentioned here is not discussing clitoral removal.

Did you not read carefully?

It's shameful that you would make such a post in order to score some kind of point.

What point do you think is being made, exactly?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

This is a tragic subject. It's shameful that you would make such a post in order to score some kind of point.

Shameful that the point even needs to be made in the first place.

 

[scourge99]

Shameful that the point even needs to be made in the first place.

What is shameful is directly attacking a person rather than addressing their arguments on a debate forum.

Apparently you lack the capability to honestly and honorably discuss the similarities (or lack thereof) between the practice of male and female circumcision.

 

[Tashah]

Shameful that the point even needs to be made in the first place.

So too is simply glossing over his agenda.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I think I will need pictures to understand what this really means...

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

What is shameful is directly attacking a person rather than addressing their arguments on a debate forum.

Apparently you lack the capability to honestly and honorably discuss the similarities (or lack thereof) between the practice of male and female circumcision.

So tell us, scourge. If you wanted to discuss this in the context of a medical procedure that is unnecessary, why did you not post this in the Heath Forum? Why in the Philosophy Forum?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

What is shameful is directly attacking a person rather than addressing their arguments on a debate forum.

Who have I attacked? I said that it is shameful in our society that people have to compare male circumcision to female circumcision in order to recognize how disgusting and unwarranted it is.

Apparently you lack the capability to honestly and honorably discuss the similarities (or lack thereof) between the practice of male and female circumcision.

Now who is engaging in personal attacks? You have no call to question my honor.

 

[scourge99]

So tell us, scourge. If you wanted to discuss this in the context of a medical procedure that is unnecessary, why did you not post this in the Health Forum? Why in the Philosophy Forum?

Is it not obvious? In the majority of cases circumcision is performed because of religious beliefs or culture (which came about explicitly from religious belief), not because it is medically necessary. Many modern countries are recognizing that and no longer perform the operation unless requested. Female circumcision is banned in many countries, including our own (though i cant find anything that says if all types are banned on children or just some).

Male circumcision has been touted and vigorously defended on grounds that it has health benefits. Yet, when the same dubious health benefits of female circumcision are put forth, it is scoffed at. Why do you suppose there is a double standard?

Once again, understand that there are several types of female circumcision. The type being discussed is not the removal of the clitoris.

 

[OneMale]

civic vanity will be the death of us all. Let us compare circumcisions to tattoos and each child gets branded the social identitiy of it's parents. Wait that would make them all society's children then.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Is it not obvious? In the majority of cases circumcision is performed because of religious beliefs or culture (which came about explicitly from religious belief), not because it is medically necessary. Many modern countries are recognizing that and no longer perform the operation unless requested. Female circumcision is banned in many countries, including our own (though i cant find anything that says if all types are banned on children or just some).

Male circumcision has been touted and vigorously defended on grounds that it has health benefits. Yet, when the same dubious health benefits of female circumcision are put forth, it is scoffed at. Why do you suppose there is a double standard?

Once again, understand that there are several types of female circumcision. The type being discussed is not the removal of the clitoris.

Then why are you complaining about being called on the fact that your thread is an attack on religion?

 

[Enola]

.............wtf?..........

 

[spud_meister]

Is it not obvious? In the majority of cases circumcision is performed because of religious beliefs or culture (which came about explicitly from religious belief)

:lamo Culture creates religion, not the other way around. Unless you truly believe it's divinely inspired.

 

[the_recruit]

Is it not obvious? In the majority of cases circumcision is performed because of religious beliefs or culture (which came about explicitly from religious belief), not because it is medically necessary. Many modern countries are recognizing that and no longer perform the operation unless requested. Female circumcision is banned in many countries, including our own (though i cant find anything that says if all types are banned on children or just some).

Male circumcision has been touted and vigorously defended on grounds that it has health benefits. Yet, when the same dubious health benefits of female circumcision are put forth, it is scoffed at. Why do you suppose there is a double standard?

But are the same health benefits really being put forth? I mean, a link from allahuakbar.com claiming female circumcision has health benefits is not the same as as providing a study that shows male circumcision can reduce one's risk for HIV infection (in 3rd world countries only, it doesn't appear to have any such effect in modern countries where individuals have access to proper contraceptives and practice safe sex). I mean, the WHO recommends male circumcision as a measure for combating widespread AIDS in African nations. They don't recommend female circumcision.

 

[Ikari]

So tell us, scourge. If you wanted to discuss this in the context of a medical procedure that is unnecessary, why did you not post this in the Heath Forum? Why in the Philosophy Forum?

Why not, everything else gets swept in here. It's slightly related to religion. Male circumcision started in the same light, and while not done by everyone it is in general widely accepted as an ok procedure. This seems to be of the same light, is this a disgusting and immoral process while male circumcision is ok?

 

[Meathead]

I do not have the expertise to agree or disagree with the OP. I do find that knee-jerk reactions because of it being an emotive issue are a bit over the top. Things should be discussed in a logical rather than a 'politically correct' manner.

 

[scourge99]

Then why are you complaining about being called on the fact that your thread is an attack on religion?

I asked you: why is there a double standard for male and female circumcision? Notice that you don't address the topic, my question, or anything reasonably related but instead:
1 you go off-topic. You don't discuss the double standard for circumcision.
2 you ask me a question that contains a personal attack. You personally attack my character by asserting that this thread is just a ruse to bash religion.
3 you ask me a loaded question. You assume that other member's speculations about my motivations and intentions are true.

You are being intentionally dishonest by ignoring the topic of circumcision.
You are being intentionally dishonest by using ad-hominems.
You are being intentionally dishonest by asking loaded questions.

Is your behavior a model that you believe other members and staff should mimic on this forum?
Are you unwilling or unable to discuss the topic of male and female circumcision?
Will you cease making personal accusations and attacks that are off-topic?




To address your off-topic accusation that i am "attacking religion":
Questioning the double standard of male and female circumcision is not an attack on religion. It is an demand to show consistency across the board or to offer an explanation for the perceived inconsistency. Nowhere in this thread is religion in general, called into question.

This topic is religious in nature because circumcision was propagated and continues to be practiced by 2 influential religions: Judaism and Islam.

 

[tessaesque]

With a man I can easily see the "excess" skin that can be removed via circumcision. With a woman, from my limited exposure, there isn't much there to take away, and it seems to me that the risk of damage to the clitoris outweighs any non-proven benefits of the surgery. With male circumcision the benefits have been proven through studies, not just assumption.

My very limited 2 cents...

 

[Dpetty]

I asked you: why is there a double standard for male and female circumcision? Notice that you don't address the topic, my question, or anything reasonably related but instead.

There is no double standard. Your comparing an age old practice that has been in use for thousands of years to a practice that i for one had never even heard of till today. Its a new idea to a lot of people so just because there arent as many circumcisions being performed on female's as there are on males, does not create a double standard. The rate of circumcision in the male population is going DOWN so why would you expect the circumcision in the female population to go up??

With hygiene habits in todays civilized countries being what they are, male circumcision is not necessary outside the religious use. I fail to see how a female would be any different.

 

[Henrin]

Everyone says male circumcision should be done because of the benefits or just go with the religious reason while ignoring the downsides, so why not female circumcision. Seems fair if you ask me.

 

[MaggieD]

Everyone says male circumcision should be done because of the benefits or just go with the religious reason while ignoring the downsides, so why not female circumcision. Seems fair if you ask me.

One of the reasons male circumcision is still done is custom. Parents have to make a decision. Go with customary. Or don't and risk their child being labelled different. And we know what that can do in gym class.

Why not female circumcision? Because it is not customary. The health benefits are not readily recognized by pediatricians. Should they have to do it just because men do? I think not.

 

[Henrin]

With a man I can easily see the "excess" skin that can be removed via circumcision. With a woman, from my limited exposure, there isn't much there to take away, and it seems to me that the risk of damage to the clitoris outweighs any non-proven benefits of the surgery. With male circumcision the benefits have been proven through studies, not just assumption.

My very limited 2 cents...

Did you know that cutting off the skin on the man changes how the penis functions? (I have prove if need be but I will have to PM you it.)
Did you know that it can and does regularly cause the penis to curve.
Did you know that over the live time of the man that is circumcised he will lose some feeling in the head of the penis?

The idea it is excess or its enough is bogus. It is not excess! It is there to run a function.

 

[Henrin]

One of the reasons male circumcision is still done is custom. Parents have to make a decision. Go with customary. Or don't and risk their child being labelled different. And we know what that can do in gym class.

You don't have a decision to cut of parts of your children, custom or not. Was it custom to cut of parts of the woman in the past? Sure it was, but it sure is seen as unacceptable today. Why is it different for men? Why can't it be seen as unacceptable?

Oh, I am not circumcised and I have never been seen as different because of it.

Why not female circumcision? Because it is not customary. The health benefits are not readily recognized by pediatricians. Should they have to do it just because men do? I think not.

Why not? Its the same. Why does it matter if the benefits are recognized or not? Do they exist, yes, so why not. Seems to me both cause change in function and other horrible side effects and both have benefits. Seems the same to me.

 

[MaggieD]

You don't have a decision to cut of parts of your children, custom or not. Was it custom to cut of parts of the woman in the past? Sure it was, but it sure is seen as unacceptable today. Why is it different for men? Why can't it be seen as unacceptable?

You can say one doesn't have the right to make that decision, but the fact is that parents do have that right. It was never custom to circumcise women in the United States of America.

Oh, I am not circumcised and I have never been seen as different because of it.

First thing that comes to mind here is: TMI :rofl

Why not? Its the same. Why does it matter if the benefits are recognized or not? Do they exist, yes, so why not. Seems to me both cause change in function and other horrible side effects and both have benefits. Seems the same to me.

You are being facetious. It is not customary in the United States of America to circumcise women. It is becoming less customary to circumcise men. I don't have any control over customs. They are what they are.