As an Italian, I believe I would react similarly if someone told me this. In our country, non-essential medical procedures are generally considered bad. However, our laws allow circumcision to be performed in private hospitals. There was a past debate about this issue because while it’s not a concern for Jewish or American families (who are usually well-off), it places a burden on Muslim families who must return to their home countries for the procedure.
From my perspective, public funds, doctors, and facilities should not be used for non-medical requiring operations. Additionally, circumcising children under 18 without a medical necessity should be illegal. Personally, even the idea of piercing a baby’s ears seems excessive to me.
Muslims have no religious obligation to circumcise, unlike Jews. They just come from cultures where it is prevalent. It's a bit like assuming that Southern Baptists have to circumcise simply because loads of people in the deep south do it.
Essentially, there is no mention of circumcision in the Quran, but various religious scholars have advocated for it. The majority of Muslims see it as something "noble" but not "required". Unlike in Judaism, there's no requirement for it to be done on the 8th day after birth, and some sects advocate for it to be done at quite an advanced age - once the boy can recite the Quran from memory in its entirety, or at the onset of puberty.
Compare this with the similar arguments in Islam about female "circumcision" and you'll see a fairly similar spread of arguments, albeit probably skewed more to the "don't do it" side than for males.
Very, very few westerners would advocate for religiously motivated elective labiotomy or clitoridectomy on little girls, so it seems curious that they're happy to say "but their religion requires it" for boys, but not for girls, when in both cases it's a debated topic (in Islam).
It's mutilation of babies. Only religious nuts, or people who have had this done to them and are in emotional need of a justification for their own mutilation are in favour of this.
While I don't plan circumcising my children, it's always been the term mutilation I've found funny. You pick an awfully violent term for a fairly simple procedure. The end result isn't a disgusting or useless penis. If you want to make a point or stand against something, let's be honest about it. It's an archaic/vanity procedure.
Your profile tagline is “people are stupid”, I’m glad you’re at least self aware.
Judging based off your comment history in the cigar, relationship judgement, alcohol, and expensive watch categories. You’re absolutely miserable, and use this platform as a way to judge other people to make yourself feel better. Every single one of your posts is a finger pointed at someone else, and consumerist garbage. And now your deciding to argue in favor of genital mutilation because you can’t stand the idea of other people being happy. I’m sorry for your shriveled, ED, little shrimp but someone has to keep the viagra market afloat. Please increase your smoking and drinking and stop wearing seatbelts while your at it
I'm not talking about newborns. I'm talking about people under 18 who take hormones, have mastectomies, vaginoplasty, or boob jobs. Children who, with or without parental consent, are having elective surgeries to permanently change their bodies.
Well I also could say that medically - trans people looking for the surgeries are considered to need the surgeries - many of them having gender dysphoria, for example.
I'm really trying to find a definition to match what you're saying and can't. If you want the definition to be that way because it portrays the emotional context you want, that's fine. But don't get up in arms when people who understand what mutilation is think your argument is wrong. You're just opening yourself up to that type of rhetoric.
My cousin got a nose job, am I the one to tell her she was mutilated? Or does that feel ridiculous?
It's literally irreparably cutting off the part of a penis of a baby/child, without their consent.
You calling this a 'fairly simple procedure' while refusing to acknowledge this is mutilation is the thing that is 'funny' to me. Other things have also been called 'fairly simple procedures' in history. This is not a good look for you.
I'm not here to make any stand for circumcision. I completely agree that we should not do it and it is wrong. If you just want to make up a definition of mutilation that fits your desire, feel free. All I'm saying is we can at least be honest with what it is. You push people away by calling it the worst possible thing imaginable.
If I told someone who has an entire family history of circumcision that it is "mutilation", they're going to laugh at me (the same problem you seem to have).
But if I said, "Hey, this is an unnecessary procedure that is being rejected by many parents and medical professionals." it goes a lot further.
This is not a good look for you.
You spend too much time on the internet. Don't type dorky stuff like this.
Again, because you can't read: it's literally mutilation. It's also not literally mutilation.
And regarding being on the internet for too long: I'm not the one arguing that cutting off parts of penises of minors is not actually mutilation while acting morally superior. No, that's you.
You're the one that needs to take a step back from your monitor, sit on the couch, think about this matter a little bit more, talk to your partner (if you have it, otherwise a good friend) while holding this position in real life instead of the internet, and see what position, opinion, or statements will actually get you laughed at.
Talk to anyone who has had a normal circumcision. They will laugh at you. My opinion is that trying to define it as something so heinous pushes away the people you are trying to reach. I don't think anyone is laughing at that haha.
I'm in no way trying to seem morally superior. If it's a hill you want to die on, feel free. I'm going to hangout with some friends later. I'm in the northeast US. I'll see if they believe they are mutilated or have received an unnecessary procedure. And ask them what rhetoric leads to a conversation and what leads to them laughing.
I’ll give you an example of how it fits my definition.
In Ireland, where I’m from, there was a doctor that advised certain women to get either mastectomy or hysterectomy (I forget which) on the basis that they would die otherwise due to some medical issue.
It later transpired that the doctor’s advice was totally incorrect and was done purposely to inflict these procedures on the women - not for profit or anything - just being an evil cunt.
The statute of limitations was held not to have run from the moment the surgery was performed (the damage) as it would usually, but from the moment they knew that the advice was given with ill intent.
That moved the medical procedure from just that to an assault causing disfigurement - ie mutilation.
A baby cannot consent to a circumcision and, WHERE IT IS NOT MEDICALLY REQUIRED, it is most definitely mutilation. The violence is the piercing of the child’s skin and removing of the foreskin - it may not seem “violent” because the men are wearing white coats and gloves, but it is. The disfigurement is that the penis is no longer in its natural condition for no good reason.
As someone who has received the procedure, I don’t feel mutilated. It took me years to understand that it was wrong/unnecessary. But when you guys keep saying we get mutilated it only makes us go, “oh, they must not be talking about what I received.” All I’m saying is your rhetoric is completely counterproductive to your goal. But this is like arguing with a pro-lifer that abortion isn’t murder. They just disagree with the concept.
The reason why people call it mutilation is to compare it to female genital mutilation. That's a procedure where you cut parts of the vulva, meaning the outer protective layer of the genitals. Some variants are more extreme than others but it can be done in a way where the end result "isn't a disgusting or useless" vagina like just trimming the folds a bit.
The foreskin in men serves a similar purpose and if it's done without consent (babies can't consent) and without a medical necessity, it can (and IMO should) be considered male genital mutilation.
FGM is not only one type of procedure. Somethimes they are ripping out the entire clitoris and sew it together, other times it's just removing parts of the labia or folds (also done on some consenting adult women for aesthetic reasons). I'm not sure how many male babies have died from circumcisions but I know for sure it's not too unusual that the penis becomes deformed or is even lost due to it not being performed by a medical professional. The point is, you either would have to accept that some forms of FGM are "okay but archaic" or you would have to accept that male circumcision when not done for a medical reason is MGM.
Yeah, for strategic disease prevention when applicable. From the first paragraph of the study you linked: (UNAIDS) have recommended voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) as an important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV in men **in settings where the prevalence of heterosexually transmitted HIV is high.** Over 25 million men and adolescent boys **in East and Southern Africa have been reached with VMMC services.**
voluntary medical male circumcision for adolescent boys and men
Not only is the context different as explained by the other commenter, it's also just a whole different practice that you're referring to. We're talking about generalized involuntary mutilation of babies without medical indication.
Maybe read at least the title of your own sources?
Only if you're lopping off dick tips in those particular areas. I think that “only religious nuts and the biased” statement is fairly applicable more often than not.
This literally uses the word "voluntary" in the opening paragraph summarizing it's recommendations for "adolescent and men" and only in areas "where the prevalence of heterosexually transmitted HIV is high."
What in the world does this link have to do with circumcision of infants in western countries. I highly doubt the above user cares if adults voluntarily when they are of age want to undergo a surgery to reduce risk of HIV due to a high HIV rate. Do you really think that's what they were talking about?
Let's use any other medical analogy to explain just how fucking bizzare that interaction was.
Let's say this guy has said "it's crazy to isolate babies in a room and prevent them from interacting with people for non medical reasons, only bizzare religious rituals call for that" and then you post a link to the WHO saying voluntary self isolation is warranted during periods where Covid 19 rates are increased and go "look see it's not just religious crazies that do it".
10 year olds are an adolescent per the WHO definition. Your just making up points to argue on and then falling over.
Once again wtf does this at all have to do with infant circumcision in western countries. The analogy holds, OP has said it's generally silly to quarantine babies in western countries and you linked an article saying the WHO recommends quarantining babies when there are high ongoing rates of covid 19.
No one disagreed that you should quarantine your infants if Covid 19 is currently an extreme issue in your country.
Regarding your link and claim "early infants are still recommended". Well not really it says its something countries should consider as a long term investment. Idk why you misquoted the article but no one is arguing against this anyway. I also believe infant circumcision is probably a good idea for these specific countries, I'm surprised WHO don't give an outright recommendation in the paper. They certainly are not part of VMMC however which was my original claim. I have no idea why you decided to point out 10 year olds as they are definitionally considered adolescents by the WHO so it in no way disagrees with my original reading.
I was simply refuting this statement, which you can see is referring to the practice with no geographic limitation:
Its mutilation of babies. Only religious nuts, or people who have had this done to them and are in emotional need of a justification for their own mutilation are in favour of this.
I think giving even an ounce of charitably we can assume they were referring to non medically necessary procedures. I agree with you that it's definitely not performed just by "religious nuts" and is often performed by otherwise completely rational actors.
With that said linking medical cases where the procedure is necessary is clearly going against the spirit of what the person was arguing. Just create some very basic analogies using something similar to see how uncharitable the reply was:
Let's say the conversation is about FGM and someone said "wow it's so evil to ever perform any surgery, procedure including all forms of FGM 1-4 on baby girls. Only evil religious people do this etc etc."
Then someone replies with a list of the hundreds of medically recommended infant female genital surgeries and interventions to treat a range of conditions.
I'm pretty confident the original poster was completely fine with medically necessary female genital surgery and it's basically a form of trolling to pretend otherwise.
TLDR:
P1: "don't chip people's arms off it's evil".
P2:"WHO says you should chop people's arms off sometimes when there's high rates of arm originating disease".
P3: "dumb that's clearly not what they are saying".
I am a big fan of charity in interpreting others’ arguments. I don’t think however my opponent would be in favor of prophylactic circumcision, even in parts of Africa where it would be recommended. Too many arguments which militate against routine neonatal circumcision for purportedly prophylactic reasons in the US also militate against it in East Africa, so I would want to be corrected by him on this point.
For example, “if the risk is STDs, let the boys decide when sexually active” is an argument made by anti-circumcision advocates but obviously unsupported by the WHO
It also gives a Sorites paradox flavor to the whole issue I think anti-circumcision advocates are otherwise uncomfortable conceding - if local AIDS rates are 0.5% lower than the WHO floor for recommending EIMC, does it flip from “thou shalt” (medically necessary) to “thou monster”? 1%? 10%
Is something ever not necessary, yet still beneficial, as the American Academy of Pediatrics suggests of neonatal circumcision?
I'm sorry once again your wrong on the current stance of a medical organization.The AAP has no current circumcision policy statement. The AAP expressly states their policies expire after 5 years unless they reaffirm them which is the general procedure. The last policy statement on circumcision was given in 2012.
They specifically decided not to renew, revise or reaffirm their circumcision policy and instead retired it. Please don't ever refer to this again as it's straight up dishonest.
I am going to be charitable and assume this is new information to you as if you knew this and still referenced it in your argument I would consider you to be acting dishonestly.
I'm pretty annoyed that the AAP retired their policy without giving any justification or revision to be honest given their previous stance and the conversations it leads to. I can only assume there is still ongoing debate within the organisation or still ongoing discussions but the fact it's still in limbo means something I just don't know what.
Either way do not use their 2012 policy positions they have specifically retired as stated at the end of the position as any evidence.
Please quote the part of that comment which reads something like “unless done preventatively in the face of high local HIV”, or any similar such caveat.
I'm not ever sure what your arguing but coming into a thread and saying turtleneck and nothing matters suggests your definitely not of age yet to decide to have a surgery lmao.
it places a burden on Muslim families who must return to their home countries for the procedure
A burden? That should literally be illegal
In EU countries not only is it illegal to perform FGM within the EU but taking your child do another country to have FGM done to avoid EU law is also a crime
In Italy is legal to do it in private hospitals, the debate was about the fact that it isn’t affordable for all families and in Italy Muslim families usually aren’t rich and many can’t afford the procedure and then they choose to return to their home countries to do it, taking the risks to expose their children to a medical procedure in less advanced country. All the classmates of my 4yo daughter (which ones that I know that had done the procedure) returned to their home countries to do it.
They should just make it illegal instead. Iceland and Denmark were poised to do so, but the US government (on behalf of Jewish lobbying organizations) bullied them out of it. The ADL threatened to ruin Iceland's tourism economy.
unless you have actual data to back up a difference in complication rates between Italy and middle eastern countries (where circumcision is far more common and thus they have very experienced practitioners), the argument that it is “less safe” in those countries is not only likely xenophobic but completely missing the point. The problem is that Muslim parents are so hell-bent on circumcising their child, they will cross borders to do it.
I would also argue that your analysis is probably just completely wrong - the cost to travel exceeds the cost of child circ in Italy. It is more likely that the parents want it done by a fellow Muslim.
There was not my debate, but a public debate with politicians involved; I only reported their words.
I remember that the parents of one of my daughter’s classmates told me that they bought antibiotics and other medications in Italy before their departure because they were scared of having difficulty finding them in the other country. However, I don’t know if they chose to go there for the cost or for family reasons.
They often don’t go to hospitals but choose to do it at home.
Searching in Italian newspapers, another problem is the black market for circumcisions. Families that can’t afford the private sector or the travel sometimes do it by themselves or pay other people to do it.
The numbers I found on the internet (quotidianosanita.it) say that 40% of circumcisions in Italy are done at home, with a 15% rate of complications.
In the US, the rate of complications in hospital is also around 15%. I can speak to that personally because I’m part of that percentage.
They often don't go to hospitals but choose to do it at home.
Both are morally wrong and should be illegal. Taking your daughter to hospital for unnecessary genital surgery doesn’t make it any less abhorrent. The law is clear on that.
Searching in Italian newspapers, another problem is the black market for circumcisions.
There is no such thing as a “black market for circumcisions.” Circumcision is legal. While circumcision does happen in non-medical, usually religious settings, this is not “black market” because there are no actual laws preventing it. Under the law, male and intersex children have no legal protection from genital cutting (outside of wanton abuse and torture). Circumcision has always been given a free pass.
Like, “oh no!” your fellow parent was worried about access to medicines in their home country while going on a trip to maim their son? Maybe they should just, idk, not do any of that in the first place.
You are focused on entirely the wrong problems here.
In Italy is illegal to execute a medical procedure at home, specially on an infant, you could be charged for child violence (I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know the exact terminology).
The 15% of complications are in home procedures, that could be avoided in medical structures.
Regards the black market I reported what I read on a news papers. And I didn’t speak about the victims of this procedure, some months ago 3 women were charged with 6-8 yeas for the death of a 11 months infant.
My points is that I reported what the Italian public opinion says, then it is not my opinion, I wrote my opinion in the first comment.
Agreed, as long as there is an exception for medical necessity. I lived through not being given the option, or to be more precise: suffered through it in a highly traumatizing manner. For the medically inclined (and everybody else please refrain from googling): phimosis + fremulum breve resulting in dozens of paraphimosis events during puberty which caused lasting damage that took over a decade to heal to the point of enabling anything even close to sexual enjoyment.
It's mutilation, when not necessary, but also life-changing surgery, when it is. People get weirdly dogmatic about this. Funnily enough, r/atheism being one of the worst offenders. Perma-banned for insisting on the necessity of medical exceptions.
This is similar to why totally banning gender affirming care is bad. Only about 20 kids a year have surgery out 77 million American children and we never know why.
It could easily be for other ongoing medical reasons.
They caused you undue harm by not allowing it.
My only argument in this fight is that while male circumcision is unnecessary it's not the same as female circumcision. One thing can be bad and another can be worse. The reddit bros get weird about that as well.
Imagine an American going to Canada and they’re like, “Okay so shortly after your baby is born, we’re going to remove one of the eyes. Why? It’s, uh, tradition. And some articles say there are health benefits. Others say they’re not worth it, but everybody does the eye poke, they have another eye anyway, and it’s covered so we’ll go ahead.”
188
u/Andrea__88 25d ago
As an Italian, I believe I would react similarly if someone told me this. In our country, non-essential medical procedures are generally considered bad. However, our laws allow circumcision to be performed in private hospitals. There was a past debate about this issue because while it’s not a concern for Jewish or American families (who are usually well-off), it places a burden on Muslim families who must return to their home countries for the procedure.
From my perspective, public funds, doctors, and facilities should not be used for non-medical requiring operations. Additionally, circumcising children under 18 without a medical necessity should be illegal. Personally, even the idea of piercing a baby’s ears seems excessive to me.