NationStates Jolt Archive

Morally speaking, I mean. Not physically speaking.

I'm saying both are equally bad.

Damn, I totally voted male by accident.

Damn, I totally voted male by accident.

Well, at least votes aren't public.

I would say "female circumcision," but then I saw the "morally, not physically" part.

So, I would have to say "don't know."

Female. A circumcised male can still have a healthy sex life. A circumcised woman has been harmed more grievously because it endangers her health and ruins her enjoyment of sex. Since female circumcision has greater negative effects on the victim's life it's more morally wrong.

How the hell do you circumcise a female?

The physical aspect of female circumcision makes it morally worse: putting someone through lifelong pain=morally bad.

I voted "female," but I'm biased.

I would say "female circumcision," but then I saw the "morally, not physically" part.

So, I would have to say "don't know."

Really? As I understand it, male circumcision is done because of a deal made with God, because He chose a certain desert tribe as His people, whereas female circumcision is done because men think that women are shameless nymphomaniacal sluts who can't keep their legs closed for more than five minutes at a time, and so their genital have to be mutilated to keep them from having sex all the time. What's to choose?

morally they are both the same amount of wrong, if forced on someone without their consent.

physically female is worse than male according to everything I have read, although I am biased because I likes my girl parts.

Damn, I totally voted male by accident.

that makes 2 of us. Female is way worse.

One cannot determine the moral issues with either without looking at the motivation behind it. Quite a few parents have been convinced to circumcise their sons for health benefits. Female circumcision, on the other hand, is generally carried out for the express purpose of limiting or wiping out any pleasure she will ever get from sex. I think we can all agree that the former, even if misled or wrong about the health benefits, were acting in a more moral manner.

If the health benefits of male circumcision are real and significant (I've seen evidence of the former but not of the latter), then one might argue that it would be immoral not to have a son circumcised, just as one might argue that it would be immoral not to seek out other forms of preventative medicine. However, from what I've seen, the only reason for circumcision as preventative medicine is poor hygiene or lack of safe sexual practices. I would thus argue that it is a much better (and more moral) choice for parents to teach their son proper hygiene and not to make him think that his penis is an "icky" part of his body that he shouldn't touch - even to clean it, rather than to have him circumcised so they don't have to worry about it.

morally they are both the same amount of wrong, if forced on someone without their consent.

physically female is worse than male according to everything I have read, although I am biased because I likes my girl parts.

So, Smunkee, not to pry, but if they are morally equally bad, why did you vote female?

How the hell do you circumcise a female?

Remove labia and clitoris. Usually just the clitoral hood though.

Remove labia and clitoris.

And sew up what's left, except for a little hole so she can pee. Gah.

It depends, there's more than one form of female circumcision.
Removing the entire clitoris or whatever is obviously pretty horrific, on a par with lopping the glans off a male when circumcising. Sometimes it's just removing/cutting the clitoral hood, so pretty similar to a male circumcision; obviously I don't know how much discomfort that would cause, whether it would be permanent or temporary. But from my point of view (uncircumcised male) even normal male circumcision sounds pretty unpleasant...

Remove labia and clitoris. Usually just the clitoral hood though.

Ahh. Well that sucks.

So, Smunkee, not to pry, but if they are morally equally bad, why did you vote female?

I voted both are equally bad.

Maybe you should have made the poll public?

I voted both are equally bad.

Maybe you should have made the poll public?

Oh. You voted after you posted, didn't you? 'Cause I was reading your post and saw only one vote for "both".

Morally speaking, I mean. Not physically speaking.

I'm saying both are equally bad.

It's a stupid question. It's like asking "Is my stabbing you with a needle in the arm or stabbing you in the gut with a sword worse morally." Obviously female circumcision is worse. You are in fact hurting the movement to end mandatory male circumcision by implying that the two are in any way equal.

Oh. You voted after you posted, didn't you? 'Cause I was reading your post and saw only one vote for "both".

;)

Smunkee...on the post in the other thread where you pointed out differences in practices...

If tomorrow female genital mutilation was as acceptable as male circumcision, you can bet it would be done in hygenic conditions, under anasthesia, and by competent medical professionals. There is nothing about the procedure itself that would automatically lead to pain later on, trouble with birthing, infection, etc etc etc. Cut a guy's foreskin off with a rusty knife in a mud hut, and they'd be facing a lot more trouble too.

That women undergo this unecessary procedure, for the most part, in situations by far more dangrous than men, says something about the way in which the socities practicing circumcision view males and females. There are all sort of cultural connotations to circumcision that vary depending on the sex of the 'patient', that's obvious.

So it's common, and accepted, to do this to men, because it is generally done under more humane circumstances...but for the most part the decision is still cultural, not medical. It isn't acceptable for it to be done to women (at least here) because we don't have that cultural notion. Seems a bizarre double standard.

Smunkee...on the post in the other thread where you pointed out differences in practices...

If tomorrow female genital mutilation was as acceptable as male circumcision, you can bet it would be done in hygenic conditions, under anasthesia, and by competent medical professionals. There is nothing about the procedure itself that would automatically lead to pain later on, trouble with birthing, infection, etc etc etc. Cut a guy's foreskin off with a rusty knife in a mud hut, and they'd be facing a lot more trouble too.

That women undergo this unecessary procedure, for the most part, in situations by far more dangrous than men, says something about the way in which the socities practicing circumcision view males and females. There are all sort of cultural connotations to circumcision that vary depending on the sex of the 'patient', that's obvious.

So it's common, and accepted, to do this to men, because it is generally done under more humane circumstances...but for the most part the decision is still cultural, not medical. It isn't acceptable for it to be done to women (at least here) because we don't have that cultural notion. Seems a bizarre double standard.

Even done under the most humane and sterile conditions, female circumcision would leave a woman completely unable to feel pleasure from sex. Comparing that to what happens to men, who become slightly less sensitive, is just stupid.

My opinion:

Both are bad. Female circumcision is barbaric and is purely about control of women. I have a female friend (Malaysian) who is circumcised. She has had her labia minora and a good portion of her clitoris removed. She says she enjoys sex because she knows her husband is enjoying it and that helps make her feel loved, but not oral sex as it does nothing for her except make her feel self concious. She has, to her knowlege, never had an orgasm. She has had two children, both boys, both times labour was hard on her, very painful and a lot of bleeding from a tear each time.

Yes it's unusual for such a woman to be so open about such things but they are very liberal in their views (she and her husband) although she has told me that most women in her country would not be this way, she just doesn't see things quite the same way and trusts me as we have been friends for years.

Physically? Male. Otherwise: Equal.

Smunkee...on the post in the other thread where you pointed out differences in practices...

If tomorrow female genital mutilation was as acceptable as male circumcision, you can bet it would be done in hygenic conditions, under anasthesia, and by competent medical professionals. There is nothing about the procedure itself that would automatically lead to pain later on, trouble with birthing, infection, etc etc etc. Cut a guy's foreskin off with a rusty knife in a mud hut, and they'd be facing a lot more trouble too.

That women undergo this unecessary procedure, for the most part, in situations by far more dangrous than men, says something about the way in which the socities practicing circumcision view males and females. There are all sort of cultural connotations to circumcision that vary depending on the sex of the 'patient', that's obvious.

So it's common, and accepted, to do this to men, because it is generally done under more humane circumstances...but for the most part the decision is still cultural, not medical. It isn't acceptable for it to be done to women (at least here) because we don't have that cultural notion. Seems a bizarre double standard.

I think I said twice on the other thread and at least once here, that I don't find either to be acceptable.

I do think that female circumcision is worse.....part of it is the conditions it's done in and part of it is that it's so much more extreme that even if it was done "hygienically" I think women would still be very limited sexually by it, but I am probably biased because I know the sensation and sensitivity of my own body more than I ever will know the same about a penis.

why can't we all leave each others genitals alone? :rolleyes:

why can't we all leave each others genitals alone? :rolleyes:

That's only for nuns and priests, man.

In my above post I said it was about control of women and forgot to say why - A woman who gets little to no pleasure out of sex is going to be less likely to "stray" at least I believe that's the mentality behind it.

Female, because the relevant question IS the degree of physical harm.

I think I said twice on the other thread and at least once here, that I don't find either to be acceptable. I know that, not saying you do.

I do think that female circumcision is worse.....part of it is the conditions it's done in and part of it is that it's so much more extreme that even if it was done "hygienically" I think women would still be very limited sexually by it, but I am probably biased because I know the sensation and sensitivity of my own body more than I ever will know the same about a penis. Gah, no doubt.

I think the only thing we could really compare, under hygenic surgical circumstances, would be the least invasive form of female circumcision (removing the hood of the clitoris) with what is generally done in male circumcisions. Going more extreme, on either side of that, is...well, extreme. Which is why I think these things tend to be done in huts by people who are not medically trained.

He's saying female circumcision is worse, because it's physically more harmful.

Female, because the relevant question IS the degree of physical harm.

Oh for sure. As it stands, female circumcision is many, many times worse.

That's only for nuns and priests, man.

lol i meant with knives

-Cookesland

I think the only thing we could really compare, under hygenic surgical circumstances, would be the least invasive form of female circumcision (removing the hood of the clitoris) with what is generally done in male circumcisions. Going more extreme, on either side of that, is...well, extreme. Which is why I think these things tend to be done in huts by people who are not medically trained.
I think they know exactly what they are doing....medical training or not.

Even done under the most humane and sterile conditions, female circumcision would leave a woman completely unable to feel pleasure from sex. Comparing that to what happens to men, who become slightly less sensitive, is just stupid.

Plenty of women with a fully functioning clitoris receive little pleasure from sex. And not having a clit does not mean one is totally unable to feel pleasure from sex.

What I am imagining here, is if things had been turned around...if female circumcision had become acceptable, and male circumcision not. I have no doubt, this conversation would focus on the unsanitary and inhumane conditions men would likely undergo during circumcision, and little attention paid to what women would undergo in nice, sterilized medical circumstances. No doubt we'd justify the practice in some cultural manner, and try to back it up with shaky health evidence, just as we do for men...and I suspect the procedure undergone by women would be minimal compared to that undergone by men.

I'm not comparing the two practices as they now stand. FGM is clearly the worse, hands down. But there is a LOT of support out there for male circumcision that is almost entirely culturally based, and to me, that's as silly as reason as is used in supporting female circumcision. Underneath the particular circumstances in which both happen, is culture, not medicine.

Male circumcision ain't all that bad, as it prevents... Smegma!

It's a stupid question. It's like asking "Is my stabbing you with a needle in the arm or stabbing you in the gut with a sword worse morally." Obviously female circumcision is worse. You are in fact hurting the movement to end mandatory male circumcision by implying that the two are in any way equal.

Umm...Mandatory male circumcision doesn't exist in any civilized country. (That I know of)

Male circumcision ain't all that bad, as it prevents... Smegma!

So does washing...

I think they know exactly what they are doing....medical training or not.

Of course they do. The whole point is to deprive women of pleasure, the dirty whores.

Well actually, I doubt that's what the majority of practicioners actually tell themselves. In fact, it is often justified along the lines of honour, and social acceptance. These people don't go around thinking they are bad for what they do, they feel completely justified. Our view on this must seem bizarre.

Fuck them, they need to stop. But we should definately be questioning why so many of US think it's okay to mutilate males...if our only reaon is...'it's not as bad as what those freaks do to girls'...then we need to revisit the issue.

Again...I know you don't support either Smunkee.

Male circumcision prevents magma or whatever it is, female circumcision prevents them cheating. So both are okay.

Male circumcision ain't all that bad, as it prevents... Smegma!

Okay yeah, noticed that in the other thread...what the heck does it mean? :D

Okay yeah, noticed that in the other thread...what the heck does it mean? :D

It's the technical term for "cock cheese", and also from where the general-purpose semi-expletive "smeg" derives.

Edit: (Bloody timewarps!)
Male circumcision prevents magma or whatever it is, female circumcision prevents them cheating. So both are okay.
Rofl! :D

Male circumcision ain't all that bad, as it prevents... Smegma!

...smegma?

Umm...Mandatory male circumcision doesn't exist in any civilized country. (That I know of)

Never forced...but for a long time (here in Canada) it wasn't exactly optional either. It was simply done when the male child was born, unless the parents refused beforehand.

Now they charge for the procedure, so more people tend to opt out than when it was simply done as a matter of course.

Male circumcision prevents magma or whatever it is, female circumcision prevents them cheating. So both are okay.

:p http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/geology/images/batholith.sp.gif

Even if you think both are bad, if you think both are equally bad, you're an idiot.

Here is a summary of which male and female genital parts develop from the same embryonic parts (as embryos start off unisex). Thank you, Female Physiology class.

Clitoris - Glans Penis (the head, the fireman's helmit, etc.)

Clitoral hood - Foreskin

Inner and outer Labia - Skin on sides of the penis and the scrotum.

Ovaries - Testecles

As you can see, to do something to the male genitals that is equal to female genital mutilation, you'd have to cut off the entire head of the penis and also somehow the skin on the sides and the scrotum. Male circumcision is only really the quivalent of removing the clitoral hood. Might still be bad, but not nearly as bad as FGM. Not to mention there is no male equivalent of sowing the vaginal opening shut, as is sometimes done in FGM.

Umm...Mandatory male circumcision doesn't exist in any civilized country. (That I know of)

It's still common practice in the US. Although the instances are declining. I think it's something like 60% of newborns are not being circumcised now (or maybe it's 60% are). Either way it's on the decline as people are educated about it.

Okay yeah, noticed that in the other thread...what the heck does it mean? :D

I'd probably be banned if I linked to the wikipedia article, it's that disgusting.

If tomorrow female genital mutilation was as acceptable as male circumcision, you can bet it would be done in hygenic conditions, under anasthesia, and by competent medical professionals. There is nothing about the procedure itself that would automatically lead to pain later on, trouble with birthing, infection, etc etc etc. Cut a guy's foreskin off with a rusty knife in a mud hut, and they'd be facing a lot more trouble too.

Why are you so determined to ignore the relevant anatomical differences between the two practices? Do you really need them to be physically equivalent to make your point?

Female circumcision very, very rarely involves simply the removal of the clitoral hood (which would be the closest equivalent to removal of the foreskin). Even that would expose the clitoris itself, which has a much higher concentration of nerve bundles than the exposed portions of the penis. Most often, the entire clitoris is removed. On top of that, the labia are quite often removed. Even if it were done under anesthesia and in sterile conditions, this would constitute more physical harm than removal of the foreskin. Removal of the foreskin may dull male sexual pleasure - as the skin is keratinized. Removal of the clitoris removes all sexual pleasure that would be derived from it. On top of that, removal of the labia leaves the vagina and urethra more exposed, which would be likely to lead to more frequent infections throughout the woman's life, not simply as a direct result of the procedure.

Yes, if male circumcision were not carried out under more sterile conditions, we'd be likely to see more complications from it. However, those complications would still be largely confined to direct infections from the procedure itself, while female circumcision would lead to more indirect complications, simply as a matter of the differences in anatomy (which you seem hell-bent on ignoring).

So it's common, and accepted, to do this to men, because it is generally done under more humane circumstances...but for the most part the decision is still cultural, not medical.

This really isn't true. Most circumcisions, at least in the past couple of generations, have been carried out for medical reasons. Now, there is certainly disagreement as to whether or not there are true medical benefits - and I've seen nothing to convince me that the benefits are at all significant in a society where men are taught proper hygiene and safe sexual practices - but the medical community was telling parents that it was a medically necessary procedure (in the US, anyways).

Now, there are certainly those who do (and have for generation upon generation) practiced male circumcision for religious reasons, but those who still do are a pretty small proportion of the population.


Edit: I see where you acceded that female circumcision is worse later in the thread, but I typed all this out so I'm not deleting it!

Never forced...but for a long time (here in Canada) it wasn't exactly optional either. It was simply done when the male child was born, unless the parents refused beforehand.

It isn't as if the child gets much of a choice, though.

Female circumcision is worse, and using the term "circumcision" to refer to it is erroneous.

It sucks the life out of a woman.

Female circumcision is worse, and using the term "circumcision" to refer to it is erroneous.

It sucks the life out of a woman.

Well said.

Umm...Mandatory male circumcision doesn't exist in any civilized country. (That I know of)

It's still common practice in the US. Although the instances are declining. I think it's something like 60% of newborns are not being circumcised now (or maybe it's 60% are). Either way it's on the decline as people are educated about it.

Even if you think both are bad, if you think both are equally bad, you're an idiot.


What great, reasoned argument. And notice all of your arguments are physical, while we are clearly referring to moral implications.

One cannot determine the moral issues with either without looking at the motivation behind it. Quite a few parents have been convinced to circumcise their sons for health benefits. Female circumcision, on the other hand, is generally carried out for the express purpose of limiting or wiping out any pleasure she will ever get from sex. I think we can all agree that the former, even if misled or wrong about the health benefits, were acting in a more moral manner.


Here's the problem I have with this analysis, Dem. You are applying our morality to both situations, and judging them on that. So, to us, parents having their sons circumcised because of health benefits, real or not, is moral, so this is okay for us. More questionable when the reasons are cultural, but let's skim that part.

Now we turn around and apply our morality to female circumcision and say, it's not a valid aim to seek to reduce female pleasure, therefore immoral.

However, why is female pleasure intended to be reduced in these cultures? It goes deep into the position of women within these societies. There are many (cultural judgment here, but I have to say misguided) beliefs about maintaining a woman's honour in this way, and there are many very valid (to them), and moral justifications for the practice according to that society's particular morality.

It's too subjective, is the problem. They can look at us, and things we consider to be moral, and think these practices abominations. Not engaging in FGM is considered to be highly immoral for some people. Looking at the motivation from one cultural perspective only, simply emphasises our rightness to ourselves, but will do nothing to stop the practice.

Not saying we shouldn't censure the practice. I just don't think that because people subjectively believe what they are doing is moral, that a thing should be judged by that alone. We don't really have any true 'objective' morality, but we should try to work with that concept anyway. So...just because to us, our motivations are pure, doesn't mean we are right...and just because they think their motivations are pure, certainly doesn't make them right. Both practices, objectively, are unecessary, and generally non-consensual, which in and of itself should mean that it should be left up to the individual to choose it or not.

Anyway, just seems a better way to deal with it than getting mired in subjective concepts of morality. Hmmm, now that's cleared up (for me at least) think I'll take a nap :D

What great, reasoned argument. And notice all of your arguments are physical, while we are clearly referring to moral implications.

Okay, well, male circumcision is done for the noble purpose of preventing or at least reducing the chance that a man will contract a disease. What is female circumcision done for? Anyone?

It isn't as if the child gets much of a choice, though.

Of course not. This hasn't been seen as a decision the child gets to make...though that is clearly changing.

What great, reasoned argument. And notice all of your arguments are physical, while we are clearly referring to moral implications.

I think that most people around here have this moral scale

immoral----------neutral----------moral

and they plot points on the chart, so something can be morally worse than something else.

I have no scale, it's more like multiple choice

a)moral
b)immoral

;)

How the hell do you circumcise a female?
You've never heard of female genital mutilation?

And sew up what's left, except for a little hole so she can pee. Gah.
It's sick.

Fuck them, they need to stop. But we should definately be questioning why so many of US think it's okay to mutilate males...if our only reaon is...'it's not as bad as what those freaks do to girls'...then we need to revisit the issue.
Does anyone in the civilised world do it, other than very religious Jews?

Here's the problem I have with this analysis, Dem. You are applying our morality to both situations, and judging them on that. So, to us, parents having their sons circumcised because of health benefits, real or not, is moral, so this is okay for us. More questionable when the reasons are cultural, but let's skim that part.

Now we turn around and apply our morality to female circumcision and say, it's not a valid aim to seek to reduce female pleasure, therefore immoral.

However, why is female pleasure intended to be reduced in these cultures? It goes deep into the position of women within these societies. There are many (cultural judgment here, but I have to say misguided) beliefs about maintaining a woman's honour in this way, and there are many very valid (to them), and moral justifications for the practice according to that society's particular morality.

It's too subjective, is the problem. They can look at us, and things we consider to be moral, and think these practices abominations. Not engaging in FGM is considered to be highly immoral for some people. Looking at the motivation from one cultural perspective only, simply emphasises our rightness to ourselves, but will do nothing to stop the practice.

Not saying we shouldn't censure the practice. I just don't think that because people subjectively believe what they are doing is moral, that a thing should be judged by that alone. We don't really have any true 'objective' morality, but we should try to work with that concept anyway. So...just because to us, our motivations are pure, doesn't mean we are right...and just because they think their motivations are pure, certainly doesn't make them right. Both practices, objectively, are unecessary, and generally non-consensual, which in and of itself should mean that it should be left up to the individual to choose it or not.

But it's not left up to the individual, Neesika. Can you imagine anyone volunteering for female circumcision as it's routinely practiced? What you have are young girls forcibly mutilated. There's really no equivalence to what's done to them and why and what happens, and why, in male circumcision.

And notice all of your arguments are physical, while we are clearly referring to moral implications.

Yeah... and if the physical harm is greater, then the immorality of the act is similarly greater.

Punching somebody and shooting somebody are not morally equivalent either, even if both are immoral in ordinary circumstances.

Edit: I see where you acceded that female circumcision is worse later in the thread, but I typed all this out so I'm not deleting it!

Hahaha, no problem. To me, it's pretty damn obvious that supporting FGM in any way is nuts, and trying to say they are equal in practice is also stupid. Taking those facts as givens, I'm just working with what is left...the concept itself. Otherwise I'd have nothing to do :D

But it's not left up to the individual, Neesika. Can you imagine anyone volunteering for female circumcision as it's routinely practiced? What you have are young girls forcibly mutilated. There's really no equivalence to what's done to them and why and what happens, and why, in male circumcision.

Of course it's not left up to the individual. Even when people 'give consent' it's not necessarily free, or informed. Hence...the practice of male and female circumcision should be stopped completely, until people at large are completely informed on the matter. If people still want to go out and cut up their genitals at that point, power to 'em. Can't see it ever catching on though.

And the one making the decision must only be the person undergoing the procedure.

Point is...no reason to leave it up to subjective morality...except of course the concept of free and informed consent is a moral one...but better the higher standard as an objective one...

Does anyone in the civilised world do it, other than very religious Jews?

Unless the population of Canada is almost entirely Jewish, then yes. Until the last few decades, the vast majority of male children underwent this procedure, including my own brothers...and we aren't Jewish. It simply was what one did, when one had a boy.

why can't we all leave each others genitals alone? :rolleyes:
ROFL!!! Love that!! I am sigging it!!

Does anyone in the civilised world do it, other than very religious Jews?

Lots of not-so-religious Jews do it too, and in the US it's done fairly regularly even to non-Jews.

Of course not. This hasn't been seen as a decision the child gets to make...though that is clearly changing.

I just think it's a little misleading to speak of the procedure being "mandatory" and "optional" when for the only person whose choice really matters, the child, it's never optional (at least when done soon after birth.)

and they plot points on the chart, so something can be morally worse than something else.

Leaving aside the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the scale, the phrasing of the question - "which is worse?" - presupposes such a scale.

I just think it's a little misleading to speak of the procedure being "mandatory" and "optional" when for the only person whose choice really matters, the child, it's never optional (at least when done soon after birth.)


Yes, but 'mandatory' suggests that it is done, all the time, regardless of parental consent.

Even with the child not being given the right to consent or not, it does not follow that the operation WILL happen.

Here's the problem I have with this analysis, Dem. You are applying our morality to both situations, and judging them on that.

The question was whether or not I find them to be moral. Shouldn't I apply my own morality in that situation?

It's too subjective, is the problem. They can look at us, and things we consider to be moral, and think these practices abominations. Not engaging in FGM is considered to be highly immoral for some people. Looking at the motivation from one cultural perspective only, simply emphasises our rightness to ourselves, but will do nothing to stop the practice.

The only thing that can work to stop the practice is to convince those who would practice it of at least some of our outlook on morality. Of course, to do that, we have to have it defined in the first place.

I know their motivation, and it utterly disgusts me.

Not saying we shouldn't censure the practice. I just don't think that because people subjectively believe what they are doing is moral, that a thing should be judged by that alone.

It isn't a matter of whether people "subjectively believe what they are doing is moral." It is a matter of what their motivations are, and whether or not they are moral. In a world where morals are subjective, that means I can only judge it based on my outlook on morality. I think that preventative medicine is a good thing, and when parents are in no position to research it for themselves (as many in past generations were), then listening to their doctors was the most moral thing they could do. Did they make the wrong choice? Yes, I think so, but I also have more information.

We don't really have any true 'objective' morality, but we should try to work with that concept anyway. So...just because to us, our motivations are pure, doesn't mean we are right...and just because they think their motivations are pure, certainly doesn't make them right.

No, but if their motivations are pure, that makes them more moral than those whose motivations are not.

Let's look at two scenarios:
1 - I get drunk ask hell and decide to drive anyways because I don't want to pay cab fare. I get in an accident in which another person dies.

2 - I have an injured person in my car who I think will die if I don't get them to the hospital quickly. In my haste to get them there, I get into an accident in which another person dies.

In which scenario was I acting in a more moral manner? The result is the same no matter what - somebody died. But in the second scenario, I was trying to help someone. In the first, I was being irresponsible and putting others at risk for my own convenience. I would say, without question, that the second action is more moral, even though from a completely outside standpoint, the bad result is the same.

A person who is told by a doctor that an infant will be more likely to get infections or have complications that could lead to removal of the penis if they do not get the boy circumcised may be wrong in their decision to do it. But their decision is not morally equivalent to someone who decides to do so because their little boy might masturbate less (another reasoning I have heard).

Both practices, objectively, are unecessary, and generally non-consensual, which in and of itself should mean that it should be left up to the individual to choose it or not.

Indeed.

Anyway, just seems a better way to deal with it than getting mired in subjective concepts of morality. Hmmm, now that's cleared up (for me at least) think I'll take a nap :D

:confused: The OP specifically asked about morality.

No, but if their motivations are pure, that makes them more moral than those whose motivations are not.

Right. Then the people cutting women's genitals are pure, and moral according to their own standards.

Point is, we shouldn't be using their standards, or ours.

Yes, the OP asked about morality. You jumped to subjective morality. Just saying that it is a clumsy way to go about it.

Not to mention there is no male equivalent of sowing the vaginal opening shut, as is sometimes done in FGM.

If only because it already happened...In a sense, anyways. Don't mind me.

I think male circumcision is acceptable for both religious or emergency (Like Africa) reasons. It is mutilation, but it at least has some mildly positive effects and the loss of feeling is negligible. I cannot say the same of Female circumcision.

Right. Then the people cutting women's genitals are pure, and moral according to their own standards.

So? Their motives are disgusting to me. And the question was what I think.

Point is, we shouldn't be using their standards, or ours.

Then we can't discuss morality.

Yes, the OP asked about morality. You jumped to subjective morality. Just saying that it is a clumsy way to go about it.

If there is an objective morality (and I do believe there is), none of us knows precisely what it is. All we have are our own subjective viewpoints, that we hope (if we believe in objective morality) to line up as closely as possible with objective morality.

Leaving aside the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the scale, the phrasing of the question - "which is worse?" - presupposes such a scale.
I was only trying to explain my own answer ;)

What great, reasoned argument. And notice all of your arguments are physical, while we are clearly referring to moral implications.

It is a physical event. Arguing that they're same is like arguing that slapping someone is the same as murder. It's just stupid. The first statement of my post was just an exclamation of astonishment that people could think that these two practices were at all equivalent.

To equate the two shows a rather poor understanding of anatomy, or simply a low opinion of the value of a woman's genitals compared to a man's. Does the fact that I lack a foreskin prevent me from having pleasurable sexual intercourse? No, it does not. Though I would agree that it should have been my own choice rather than that of my parents, I don't envy those with foreskins or feel I'm missing much. Does cutting off a woman's clitoris and her labia and then sowing her vagina shut prevent her from experiencing pleasurable intercourse? The answer to this should be obvious.

If only because it already happened...In a sense, anyways. Don't mind me.

Lol, it's not really the same though... It's not like anyone's going to try to penetrate us where a vagina would have been. Or at least I should hope not.

So? Their motives are disgusting to me. And the question was what I think.



Then we can't discuss morality.



If there is an objective morality (and I do believe there is), none of us knows precisely what it is. All we have are our own subjective viewpoints, that we hope (if we believe in objective morality) to line up as closely as possible with objective morality.

I'm saying there is no point in wandering off into our own subjective viewpoints on this.

On it's face, the practice is wrong because it is an unecessary physical alteration done without consent...free, and informed consent of the individual undergoing the alteration.

It isn't less wrong because it is done with the notion that it is more hygenic. It's still non-consensual and unecessary, barring the situations where medical necessity IS a real issue.

It isn't less wrong because some people think it guarantees a woman's purity to engage in FGM. Dress it up in cultural beliefs, justify it or not, it's still wrong, period, for males and females.

The way in which it is carried out goes only to the damage it causes...not to the underlying wrongness of the procedure. Clearly FGM is more damaging, but no more WRONG because of the damage. Just like a rape involving physical harm is no more wrong that a rape that involves no physical harm. One is more damaging than the other, but that's a different issue. You can comment on the disgusting nature of the procedure all you want, and that's fine...but what you are ultimately objecting to is that it is unecessary, and forced.

The problem is, if you leave it up to Western morality verus 'THEIR' morality, then it becomes an issue of cultural imperialism etc etc blah blah blah. Discussing morality in this situation is of limited use except if the focus is (as it has been) entirely on the process.

You can justify opposing it much more strongly if you can convince people that regardless of the process, or various cultural/moral reasons for it, that there is an objective basis for opposing it ABSENT these subjective cultural/moral reasons.

My point with all of this, is that it is entirely possible for FGM to be carried out cleanly, with minimal intrusion, and as little after effects as possible. It isn't...but it certainly could be. That should make absolutely NO difference in us saying that the practice is still wrong. If our focus is entirely on the brutality of FGM as it is generally practiced, or the 'motivations' for doing it, we are mixing up the issue somewhat. No...you can't 'clean up the process' and have it be morally right. Why? Because objectively, the lack of consent to an unecessary procedure is wrong, even if carried out in the most humane manner possible.

Yes yes, I know the OP was about 'which is worse' going to process and motivation. But in the other thread (from whence this came), it was drifting into issues of wrongness which I wanted to explore.

Because objectively, the lack of consent to an unecessary procedure is wrong, even if carried out in the most humane manner possible.

I agree that the wrongness of the act is not contingent on its brutality, but the focus on the brutality is envertheless justified; the question for us is not so much "should we do it?" because we don't, but "what should we do about it?", and there a relatively harmless (even if unnecessary and non-consensual) procedure should not attract as much attention as more serious human rights violations.

I'm saying there is no point in wandering off into our own subjective viewpoints on this.

On it's face, the practice is wrong because it is an unecessary physical alteration done without consent...free, and informed consent of the individual undergoing the alteration.

That is your own subjective viewpoint. You have decided what you consider "necessary". Those who practice it would argue that keeping a woman chaste is "necessary. You have decided that consent should be necessary. Those who are doing would say that society can decide.

You are being no less subjective than I am. You are just more convinced of your own viewpoints than you are of mine. Your moral viewpoints are so ingrained in your head that you have declared them "objective," when they are no more or less based in subjective ideas than those of anyone else.

It isn't less wrong because it is done with the notion that it is more hygenic. It's still non-consensual and unecessary, barring the situations where medical necessity IS a real issue.

We weren't discussing wrong, howeer. We were discussing moral. The two are similar, but not equivalent. A person can do something that is completely moral, but because they are mistaken, be doing something wrong.

If a doctor diagnoses a young child with cancer and urges the parents to start the child on chemotherapy, those parents are acting morally if they agree to the treatment. If the diagnosis is incorrect, what they are doing is wrong, but it is not immoral.

It isn't less wrong because some people think it guarantees a woman's purity to engage in FGM. Dress it up in cultural beliefs, justify it or not, it's still wrong, period, for males and females.

But you don't think the determination of "necessary" and the requirement of informed consent are cultural beliefs?

You can comment on the disgusting nature of the procedure all you want, and that's fine...but what you are ultimately objecting to is that it is unecessary, and forced.

...and the motivations behind it.

The problem is, if you leave it up to Western morality verus 'THEIR' morality, then it becomes an issue of cultural imperialism etc etc blah blah blah. Discussing morality in this situation is of limited use except if the focus is (as it has been) entirely on the process.

One cannot discuss morality based entirely on the process. Is killing moral or immoral? That is an unanswerable question. You need to know why the killing is being carried out to determine the answer.

You can justify opposing it much more strongly if you can convince people that regardless of the process, or various cultural/moral reasons for it, that there is an objective basis for opposing it ABSENT these subjective cultural/moral reasons.

What objective basis?

And what if current medical science has missed substantial and significant advantages to circumcision? Would that automatically make you an immoral person for opposing it? Or would it simply mean that you were uninformed, but acting as morally as you could with the information you had?

Because objectively, the lack of consent to an unecessary procedure is wrong, even if carried out in the most humane manner possible.


Why does your viewpoint get the label "objective", while every other viewpoint is "subjective"?

What is "objective" about you declaring the procedure unnecessary, but subjective about someone else saying that it is necessary? What is "objective" about you requiring consent, while someone else might argue that the parents should do what they think is best for the child and be labeled by you as subjective?

You are confusing "objectivity" with "What Neesika thinks is right." The axioms that underly your moral stances are no more or less objective than those that might underlie another's.

Morally speaking, I mean. Not physically speaking.

I'm saying both are equally bad.

Female "circumcision" is really just mutilation to prevent them from achieving pleasure during sex. It's cruel.

Male circumcision doesn't have that effect, and saying it is just as bad as female genital mutilation is the kind of whining thing males seem to do when feeling insecure about their penis.

How the hell do you circumcise a female?

Oh damn, I forgot the name of it.. But.. there is a documentary about it.

On a moral level, neither is bad.

On a moral level, neither is bad.
how can you say that? I guess, really neither is bad if the party consents, but I don't know who would consent to either....really.

Umm...Mandatory male circumcision doesn't exist in any civilized country. (That I know of)

It does in some state laws.

how can you say that? I guess, really neither is bad if the party consents, but I don't know who would consent to either....really.

Male converts to Judaism have been consenting to circumcision for generations. Personally, I don't agree with the Jewish custom of infant circumcision (as the infant is too young to choose the religion for himself), but those who do choose Judaism generally choose to be circumcised (if it hasn't already been done).

In fact, according to the Old Testament, God required men to circumcise their sons and slaves for generations as a sign of their religion - consent or not.

It does in some state laws.

What state laws?

how can you say that? I guess, really neither is bad if the party consents, but I don't know who would consent to either....really.

Well, in the areas that female circumcisions take place in, they have different morals, right?

But of course, by own morals, it is bad to do it, and to add to it that they don't want it done..

I watched a documentary on it, and those girls were terrified, and guess what they said later on? They will have their daughters circumcised.



.. I'm sorry, did I get any point across with this post?

I watched a documentary on it, and those girls were terrified, and guess what they said later on? They will have their daughters circumcised.
Habitus.

Well, in the areas that female circumcisions take place in, they have different morals, right?

But of course, by own morals, it is bad to do it, and to add to it that they don't want it done..

I watched a documentary on it, and those girls were terrified, and guess what they said later on? They will have their daughters circumcised.



.. I'm sorry, did I get any point across with this post?

I don't play the whole "it's moral because they are different" thing.....if something is wrong it's wrong.

Male converts to Judaism have been consenting to circumcision for generations. Personally, I don't agree with the Jewish custom of infant circumcision (as the infant is too young to choose the religion for himself), but those who do choose Judaism generally choose to be circumcised (if it hasn't already been done).

In fact, according to the Old Testament, God required men to circumcise their sons and slaves for generations as a sign of their religion - consent or not.

yeah, I know, I was just saying............

Unless the population of Canada is almost entirely Jewish, then yes. Until the last few decades, the vast majority of male children underwent this procedure, including my own brothers...and we aren't Jewish. It simply was what one did, when one had a boy.
At one point was it medical orthodoxy that circumcision was more hygienic?

I don't play the whole "it's moral because they are different" thing.....if something is wrong it's wrong.

That's quite the feat of circular reasoning.

So you'll be happy to know that male circumcision isn't wrong.

At one point was it medical orthodoxy that circumcision was more hygienic?

Yes. Even now, there are doctors who will tell you that it is practically a necessity (usually older doctors). But the medical community is moving away from suggesting it as a necessity and more towards simply teaching parents how to properly care for their infant and encouraging proper hygiene.

Female circumcision is worse, morally speaking. Cultural relativity on issues of real harm to a person's emotional and physical health should not be considered.

The reason for male circumcision, outside of Judaism, is the health of the individual. I happen to find the practice of male circumcision wrong, merely because I don't like the idea of a person's body parts being interfered with without their informed consent. However, the harm that is caused, and the reasons for the practice are inherently to minimise damage to health and well-being.

On the other hand, female genital mutilation is an abhorrent practice, with repugnant reasoning behind it. It's sole purpose is to dehumanise the female. It is designed to minimise her enjoyment of sex, her feelings of sexual pleasure. It is emotionally harmful, as it prevents her from participating fully in human functions. It contributes to problems with infection later in life.

That is why, to me at least, the practice is morally wrong. And I don't care about being understanding of other cultures or other culturally relativist notions.

whatever.

Good refutation there. I'm definitely convinced female genital mutilation is equivalent to male circumcision now! Oof, suddenly my penis is no longer giving me any pleasure! HALP! ;)

That's quite the feat of circular reasoning.

So you'll be happy to know that male circumcision isn't wrong.

whatever.

Really? As I understand it, male circumcision is done because of a deal made with God, because He chose a certain desert tribe as His people

It's not only practiced by Jews, and it's not only done for religious reasons. Some studies suggest that circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer, as well as HIV transmission.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8473838/

whereas female circumcision is done because men think that women are shameless nymphomaniacal sluts who can't keep their legs closed for more than five minutes at a time, and so their genital have to be mutilated to keep them from having sex all the time. What's to choose?

Other than overgeneralizing about "men", you are spot on. Female genital mutilation--female "circumcision" is a PC euphemism intended to immunize from criticism the savage cultures that practice it--has no medical justification whatsoever, and is done solely to enable backward tribesmen to exert more control over their property, er, their women.

Good refutation there. I'm definitely convinced female genital mutilation is equivalent to male circumcision now! Oof, suddenly my penis is no longer giving me any pleasure! HALP! ;)

I never said they were equivalent, I said they were both equally wrong..... in fact, I think that the reason this thread was started is because of the off topicness in the other thread that started when I said that they were not the same and should not be compared.

In my mind something is either right or wrong, there is no "more wrong" so if it is wrong, it is wrong. I believe it is wrong because I believe it's wrong to perform medical procedures that are unneeded without consent on people.

One being physically worse than the other doesn't really equate to me that one is "less wrong"

you don't have to agree with me, I don't particularly care what you think, hence the "whatever"

Female circumcision is morally worse. The clitoris is cut so the female does not get pleasure from sex therefore will not stray. Cultures are putting a stigma on females that if they have their clitoris intact they will basically grow up to be sluts.

Males get circumcised more for hygene issues. And the process is usually done right after they are born so they have no memories of the pain endured. Not so with female circumcision.

So I think female circumcision is both morally and physically worse. Not to mention emotionally as I would not want to grow up in a society that automatically brands females as sluts. Its degrading.

In my mind something is either right or wrong, there is no "more wrong" so if it is wrong, it is wrong.

I find it hard to believe that you really think in such black and white terms, Smunk.

Do you really think, for instance, that telling a friend that she looks good when she doesn't (ie. lying to her to keep from hurting her feelings) is the moral equivalent of murdering her?

I find it hard to believe that you really think in such black and white terms, Smunk.

Do you really think, for instance, that telling a friend that she looks good when she doesn't (ie. lying to her to keep from hurting her feelings) is the moral equivalent of murdering her?

they have different long term consequences in this life, but in the big picture wrong is wrong.

they have different long term consequences in this life, but in the big picture wrong is wrong.

And what to do if the only actions you can take are "wrong"? Such situations can occur in life. Are all of them equally bad because "wrong is wrong", or should you use some sort of criteria to determine which course of action to take?

And who determines whether or not an action is "wrong"?

Speaking as a jewish male, I hardly consider something done when I was not old enough to feel it, let alone remember it, and is done to a great many newborns as a matter of course, and has health and hygene benefits without any real negatives as "immoral".

Speaking as a jewish male, I hardly consider something done when I was not old enough to feel it, let alone remember it, and is done to a great many newborns as a matter of course, and has health and hygene benefits without any real negatives as "immoral".

The problem here is that the health and hygiene benefits only exist if you have poor hygiene habits and don't practice safe sex. If parents are worried about health and hygiene, wouldn't it be better to teach a young boy to properly clean himself and, before he becomes sexually active, to teach him about safe sex?

Also, there is no such thing as "not old enough to feel it." An infant does feel pain when circumcised without anesthetic.

When it comes right down to it, it is a wholly unnecessary procedure. Sure, you may not be suffering any long-term ill effects from it, but that, in and of itself, doesn't make it acceptable. Piercing a young girl's ears during infancy means that she will not remember it and this is done to a great many infants as a matter of course. There are no real negatives - less negatives than with circumcision, in fact. But it is still a completely unnecessary alteration of a child's body.

But it is still a completely unnecessary alteration of a child's body.

I'm sure a lot of jews would disagree. But it's nice that you can speak for what is and is not necessary for someone elses culture.

Would you like to weigh in on baptism, communion, and weddings now? I'm sure many folks would like you to tell them how their cultural practices are completely unnecessary.

Female. Male circumcision does have some health benefits and is justifiable from that angle (although it should be voluntary), but female circumcision has no health benefits whatsoever and does nothing but inflict permanent pain and suffering, or even death, on the women it is inflicted on.

Female. Male circumcision does have some health benefits and is justifiable from that angle (although it should be voluntary), but female circumcision has no health benefits whatsoever and does nothing but inflict permanent pain and suffering, or even death, on the women it is inflicted on.

Pretend I said the same thing, I agree totally anyway. ;)

And what to do if the only actions you can take are "wrong"? Such situations can occur in life. Are all of them equally bad because "wrong is wrong", or should you use some sort of criteria to determine which course of action to take?

And who determines whether or not an action is "wrong"?

there are those situations yes, and it's one of those things that you would have to decide for yourself and accept the consequences of your actions.

as for who determines what's "wrong" that's a question I can't answer.

Neither is more worse than the other. Circumcision is circumcision no matter which sex its performed on. You're taking away a natural part of the genitalia, the act is completely unnecessary.

Neither is more worse than the other. Circumcision is circumcision no matter which sex its performed on. You're taking away a natural part of the genitalia, the act is completely unnecessary.

For men, there are some health benefits, but for women, none. That's why I think male circumcision should be voluntary...but female should be totally outlawed wherever it's practiced.

Female by far is the worst.

You can argue the value or lack there of for male circumcision.

You can't really offer any arguments of value for the female.

For men, there are some health benefits

I believe it is much more complex than that.

Neither is more worse than the other. Circumcision is circumcision no matter which sex its performed on. You're taking away a natural part of the genitalia, the act is completely unnecessary.

For men, there are some health benefits, but for women, none. That's why I think male circumcision should be voluntary...but female should be totally outlawed wherever it's practiced.

Neither is more worse than the other. Circumcision is circumcision no matter which sex its performed on. You're taking away a natural part of the genitalia, the act is completely unnecessary.

You can argue both are wrong.

But you can not maintain the argument that neither is WORSE than the other.

Clearly, one form of circumcision causes much more damage than the other.

That's why I think male circumcision should be voluntary

For whom?

Should the parents get to choose (in which case it's hardly "voluntary") or the children?

For whom?

Should the parents get to choose (in which case it's hardly "voluntary") or the children?

I'd prefer the children, but obviously there are some definite problems with doing that.

I'm sure a lot of jews would disagree.

So? Are you honestly going to say that if a person's religious beliefs make him or her think that a certain action is necessary, no one else has the right to interfere?

Does this extend to stoning adulterers and bombing abortion clinics?

I'd prefer the children, but obviously there are some definite problems with doing that.

I'm with you. The problem with all the stuff like this is that you have to wait a very long time for the child to be able to make a proper decision.

FGM makes male circumcision looks like clipping your toenails.

there are some definite problems with doing that.

Circumcision doesn't have to be done immediately after birth. You can wait.

So? Are you honestly going to say that if a person's religious beliefs make him or her think that a certain action is necessary, no one else has the right to interfere?

Does this extend to stoning adulterers and bombing abortion clinics?

gee, that would involve harming someone without any benefit to that person, wouldn't it?

Huh, that doesn't really seem like it at all then.

Do try to come up with an analogy that works in this context, then get back to me.

gee, that would involve harming someone without any benefit to that person, wouldn't it?

"Benefit" is subjective.

Who has the right but the child himself to decide whether or not circumcision benefits him?

Do try to come up with an analogy that works in this context

And do try to come up with principles that can't be so easily reduced to absurdity.

"Benefit" is subjective.

Who has the right but the child himself to decide whether or not circumcision benefits him?

So we should let the child decide whether he gets heart surgery? How about a cavity filled?

If benefit is subjective then should we let the child decide everything that happens to him?

And do try to come up with principles that can't be so easily reduced to absurdity.

Says the person who suggests we should get a newborn's permission to give it medical treatment.

After all, benefit is subjective, isn't it?

or is it you don't REALLY believe the line of bullshit you just threw out, and said it before you thought of the logical conclusion to it?

those are medically necessary.

a cavity is a medical necessity? Besides, he didn't say that, he said benefit was subjective. So certainly if it is subjective nothing is NECESSARY. Maybe the 2 day old child may not believe in the benefit of it.

So, if benefit is subjective, should we be asking before doing ANYTHING to that child?

Someone said something about reduction to absurdity.

So we should let the child decide whether he gets heart surgery? How about a cavity filled?
those are medically necessary.

So we should let the child decide whether he gets heart surgery? How about a cavity filled?

No, because we do so under the reasonable expectation that the child, were he fully aware of the implications and possessed of mature cognitive faculties, would prefer to receive heart surgery or to have his cavity filled than not. It remains subjective, but we can make reasonable assumptions about general human preferences in cases where the child is not suited to make the decision for himself due to immaturity and ignorance.

It's far harder to make that argument for circumcision, because the health benefits are comparatively low and because the costs are highly individual (you may not care, but others do)... but actually we need not even introduce it. The health benefits for circumcision mostly manifest only after the child is sexually active, which means we can wait until the child is at least substantially more capable of making the decision for himself than he is as an infant.

Actually, though, all of this is superfluous. I questioned your argument chiefly with regard to the RELIGIOUS reasons for circumcision - and that is, after all, how you justified it. Health reasons, there's an argument to be had there. Religious reasons, sorry, no - that is no excuse.

If benefit is subjective then should we let the child decide everything that happens to him?

No. The child may nevertheless be incapable of knowing what will actually satisfy his subjective preferences.

No, because we do so under the reasonable expectation that the child, were he fully aware of the implications and possessed of mature cognitive faculties, would prefer to receive heart surgery or to have his cavity filled than not. It remains subjective, but we can make reasonable assumptions about general human preferences in cases where the child is not suited to make the decision for himself due to immaturity and ignorance.

It's far harder to make that argument for circumcision, because the health benefits are comparatively low and because the costs are highly individual (you may not care, but others do)... but actually we need not even introduce it. The health benefits for circumcision mostly manifest only after the child is sexually active, which means we can wait until the child is at least substantially more capable of making the decision for himself than he is as an infant.

Actually, though, all of this is superfluous. I questioned your argument chiefly with regard to the RELIGIOUS reasons for circumcision - and that is, after all, how you justified it. Health reasons, there's an argument to be had there. Religious reasons, sorry, no - that is no excuse.

The first part of your argument doesn't mesh with the second. You assume we can make decisions based on what the child MIGHT want to do, and then dismiss the physical health benefits as not enough to make an educated guess, but completely discount the idea that in addition to the health benefits we may also assume that the child would choose to be part of its religion and culture.

So the benefits of getting a cavity filled are enough that we may assume, for the child, without hearing from the child, that IF he were capable of articulating informed consent he would choose to, BUT we can't make a similar assumption about a procedure that has both physical and cultural benefits?

In other words, we can not safely assume that a jew would want to be a jew?

filling a cavity? yes. You can get a life threatening infection if you leave cavities unfilled.

you can get a life threatening infection from an uncircumcized penis if not properly cleaned.

What's your point?

Oh...lemme guess, that we should be teaching our children to properly clean and have good hygene, NOT to have the circumcision.

I question why then it's ok to not teach children good dental care so that they don't get cavities.

So we should NOT have a procedure that can prevent infection, because that infection could be prevented with good hygene, but we CAN allow a...procedre that can prevent infection, even though that infection could have been prevented with good hygene.

a cavity is a medical necessity?
filling a cavity? yes. You can get a life threatening infection if you leave cavities unfilled.

I didn't think of that, but it's a fair enough point.

I am...more sympathetic to allowing it for jews for just that reason. For non jews who do NOT have that part of their culture, I'm not so sure. I fall on the side of "well, it's ok enough" but I am not sure what part of that is my cultural bias as a jew speaking.

The first part of your argument doesn't mesh with the second. You assume we can make decisions based on what the child MIGHT want to do, and then dismiss the physical health benefits as not enough to make an educated guess, but completely discount the idea that in addition to the health benefits we may also assume that the child would choose to be part of its religion and culture.

I didn't think of that, but it's a fair enough point.

my thoughts break down to three questions:

1) is there a cultural weight to do this?
2) is there a lack of general harm as a result of it?
3) is there, in some sense, some benefit for doing it?

those three are weighed against each other, it is a "facts and circumstances" test. We do things without our child's consent, things that permanently alter their body, ALL THE TIME. We weigh the benefit of it, he harm of it, and our reasoning for it. That's how I decie, for myself at least, whether it's an acceptable practice or not.

I am...more sympathetic to allowing it for jews for just that reason. For non jews who do NOT have that part of their culture, I'm not so sure. I fall on the side of "well, it's ok enough" but I am not sure what part of that is my cultural bias as a jew speaking.

My only real antipathy to the procedure is that it was forced on us.

I can see the cultural aspect as legitimate if there is no serious harm, though I'd hope, since traditions are not frozen, that the issue might be revisited to allow individuals to choose to follow that particular tradition or not. But I never could understand why so many WASPs did it as a matter of course here in Canada (and many still do). How is it their culture?

Honestly, I think both are barbaric ways to treat children, unless there are valid an expedient medical reasons for the procedure.

There's no way anybody should have the right to cut off parts of a child's genitals. I don't care if your religion or culture says it's fine. It's not.

If an individual wants it when they're over 18 then sure, but not when they're as young as most circumcisions happen.

you can get a life threatening infection from an uncircumcized penis if not properly cleaned.

What's your point?

Oh...lemme guess, that we should be teaching our children to properly clean and have good hygene, NOT to have the circumcision.

I question why then it's ok to not teach children good dental care so that they don't get cavities.

So we should NOT have a procedure that can prevent infection, because that infection could be prevented with good hygene, but we CAN allow a...procedre that can prevent infection, even though that infection could have been prevented with good hygene.
Any infections a male's foreskin can get, a females labial folds can get as well. Any infections a male's foreskin can get are just as treatable by antibiotics or other such medication as a female's vaginal infections are.

I'm not sure how you voted, do you think we should be circumcising little girls at birth too? Or should we just teach all our children good hygiene (oral and otherwise) and then give them treatment when and if hygiene by itself falls short.

You see circumcision to prevent the possibility of complications is not the same as filling and existing cavity. It's like pulling out a child’s healthy teeth to prevent cavities.

Any infections a male's foreskin can get, a females labial folds can get as well. Any infections a male's foreskin can get are just as treatable by antibiotics or other such medication as a female's vaginal infections are.

I'm not sure how you voted, do you think we should be circumcising little girls at birth too? Or should we just teach all our children good hygiene (oral and otherwise) and then give them treatment when and if hygiene by itself falls short.

You see circumcision to prevent the possibility of complications is not the same as filling and existing cavity. It's like pulling out a child’s healthy teeth to prevent cavities.

I like you, you save me typing.

:cool:

Any infections a male's foreskin can get, a females labial folds can get as well.

You missed the part, obviously, where removing a females labial folds would cause a whole lot more negatives than positives, right?

I mean, absolutly that would be a nonsensically fucking argument if you didn't take that into account.

Any infections a male's foreskin can get are just as treatable by antibiotics or other such medication as a female's vaginal infections are.

Generally any infections a male's foreskin can et are just as treatable by antibiotics or other such medication as an infected tooth is.


You see circumcision to prevent the possibility of complications is not the same as filling and existing cavity. It's like pulling out a child’s healthy teeth to prevent cavities.

You fill a cavity to PREVENT the POSSIBILITY of an infection, right? A cavity does not NECESSARILY cause infection, but we fill it because it MIGHT cause one.

Why do we fill cavities without a child's consent?

Come back when you can make a real argument.

I like you, you save me typing.

:cool:

so like him you don't really see the difference between "some benefit, no real harm" and "some benefit, lots of harm"?

That explains a lot then.

But let me walk you through this just in case.

Do we ask a child's consent to fill their cavities. No? Why not? Because filling a cavity lessens the possibility of infection, right? That IS what you said.

And circumcision lessens the possibility of infection, right?

But infection due to no circumsicion an be prevented with proper hygene...but then again, so can cavities.

So when you manage to untangle yourself from the clusterfuck of a distinction you've made, lemme know.

From a non-political medical POV

The surgical removal of perfectly healthy tissue can be designated as mutilation.

Let alone when it is often performed under unsanitary conditions!

I can see arguing both are bad, but that they're equally bad? No, to me that's just bullshit. It's like saying assault and a brutal murder are the same. I would rather that my parents had left it up to me to decide later to get circumcised or not, but even without a foreskin, I haven't been rendered incapable of pleasurable sex. For women who have had their genitals mutilated, the pleasure has been totally removed from sex because men think they have no self control, and oftentimes, it is agony instead.

Damn, I totally voted male by accident.
D'OH! Same here. I like having part of my dick chopped off.

although I am biased because I likes my girl parts.I have to agree as that must be a bitch to be cirumsed, when a person is a female, during sex and I cannot even think hom much worse it makes giving birth.

You missed the part, obviously, where removing a females labial folds would cause a whole lot more negatives than positives, right?That is not actually strictly true. Although the female circumcision we hear about most are horrific, and I don't in any way want to take away from that, most of the female circumcision performed were female circumcision is common are very comparable to male circumcision. The confusion for most people is that there are several diferent ways that females can be circumcised. The first, most common and least invasive (but in my opinion no less right) is simple removal of the labial folds either with or without the clitoral hood. This may or may not lead to some decreased sensation but most women circumcised this way report that they still enjoy sex. Next in severity would be the removal of the labia and the entire clitoris. Obviously this would greatly decrease the level of sexual sensation, but it doesn’t necessarily make sex painful. The worst would be removal of all the external genitalia and sewing up of the vagina. This makes sex very painful and is waht people usually think of when they hear about female circ. The world Health orginisation in fact considers type one female circ to be equivalent to male circ.


I mean, absolutly that would be a nonsensically fucking argument if you didn't take that into account.
You sound like you might be afraid that you are going to have to admit that something bad happened to your dick and there is nothing you can do to get it back.


Generally any infections a male's foreskin can et are just as treatable by antibiotics or other such medication as an infected tooth is. this is true




You fill a cavity to PREVENT the POSSIBILITY of an infection, right? A cavity does not NECESSARILY cause infection, but we fill it because it MIGHT cause one.

Why do we fill cavities without a child's consent?

Come back when you can make a real argument.A cavity, by itself is a painful condition that if it gets big enough, can make eating difficult. Cavities are filled to prevent pain, to prevent the cavity growing and spreading, to prevent the loss of the tooth and to prevent infection. A cavity by itself is an unhealthy condition, a foreskin is not by itself unhealthy. Cavities serve no useful function in a healthy human, foreskins serve to protect the head and keep it soft and supple, they serve as a barrier to infection, they add to sexual sensation, they act as a lubricating mechanism luring intercourse. In other words they have a function.

Cavities also become infected at a vastly higher rate than forskins do. In fact to prevent one UIT infection in an intact male, you would have to circumcise something like 1000 baby boys. Of those 1000 boys, 250 of them will suffer complications ranging from alergic reaction to pain meds, exsesive loss of blood, to tight of a circumcision that leads to painful erections later in life, amputation of the penis, infection and death. All to prevent on infection that could have been cleared up with a pill. In fact it's estimated that about 100-150 babies will die in the US each year due to circumcision related complications were as 0 babies die in the US due to complications related to having a forskin.

I like you, you save me typing.

:cool:Thanks

For whom?

Should the parents get to choose (in which case it's hardly "voluntary") or the children?

Children have rights?

I didn't live in a democracy in my parents home.

Did you?

Children have rights?

Yes.

I didn't live in a democracy in my parents home.

Did you?

No. What about it?

I wish I had seen this thread earlier rather than posting in the previous one. *sigh* At any rate, mutilation is mutilation. The rest is irrelevant.

*glances at the poll results* Laughable. Just laughable.

Circumcision doesn't have to be done immediately after birth. You can wait.

No reason why it can't happen after birth.

*glances at the poll results* Laughable. Just laughable.

Agreed. THe fact that 18 people so far believe that male circumcision is as morally bad as female circumcision is indeed laughable.

So? Are you honestly going to say that if a person's religious beliefs make him or her think that a certain action is necessary, no one else has the right to interfere?

Does this extend to stoning adulterers and bombing abortion clinics?

You are right. Children should make their own choices.

Now how many children are going to take their shots even though you tell them it's good for them.

How many will choose to let the dentist drill on their teeth?

Now how many children are going to take their shots even though you tell them it's good for them.

How many will choose to let the dentist drill on their teeth?

Arthais101 already tried that one.

No, because we do so under the reasonable expectation that the child, were he fully aware of the implications and possessed of mature cognitive faculties, would prefer to receive heart surgery or to have his cavity filled than not. It remains subjective, but we can make reasonable assumptions about general human preferences in cases where the child is not suited to make the decision for himself due to immaturity and ignorance.

It's far harder to make that argument for circumcision, because the health benefits are comparatively low and because the costs are highly individual (you may not care, but others do)... but actually we need not even introduce it. The health benefits for circumcision mostly manifest only after the child is sexually active, which means we can wait until the child is at least substantially more capable of making the decision for himself than he is as an infant.

Believe it or not - I do actually think about these things.

"Benefit" is subjective.

Who has the right but the child himself to decide whether or not circumcision benefits him?


Just like a child will willingly take their shots?


And do try to come up with principles that can't be so easily reduced to absurdity.
You should go first. Children don't make the best choices even when you explain it to them.

*snip*

You should really read the thread before replying.

those are medically necessary.

Some religions disagree.

You as a mother would agree that if you gave a child a choice on a shot for rubella. How many would opt not?

Agreed. THe fact that 18 people so far believe that male circumcision is as morally bad as female circumcision is indeed laughable.
I'm hesitant to ask if you're actually serious or if that was sarcasm.

Male circumcision is beneficial, sure.. but what is the benefit with female circumsicion? Circumcision isn't exactly something I've studied or am concerned with, but I've never even heard someone claim female circumcision had medical benefit.. I've only heard of it in the context of certain unpopular African practices.

From a non-political medical POV

The surgical removal of perfectly healthy tissue can be designated as mutilation.

Let alone when it is often performed under unsanitary conditions!

It's a subjective opinion. Baring the obvious reasons of medical necesity; people that have plastic surgery would argue bitterly.

But then again.

Breast reduction surgery is mutilation!

You should really read the thread before replying.

Awww don't want to play? :rolleyes:

I'm hesitant to ask if you're actually serious or if that was sarcasm.

100% serious. The idea that male circumcision, as it is typically performed, is in ANY way comparable, physically or morally, to female circumcision, as it is typically performed, is absolutely laughable.

Yes.

Actually they have limited rights.

Issues of involving medical stuff falls under the command of the parents.


No. What about it?

Think about it.

100% serious. The idea that male circumcision, as it is typically performed, is in ANY way comparable, physically or morally, to female circumcision, as it is typically performed, is absolutely laughable.

I have to agree.. If there's a good counter-argument, I haven't seen it in this thread.

I wish I had seen this thread earlier rather than posting in the previous one. *sigh* At any rate, mutilation is mutilation. The rest is irrelevant.

Interesting. So if I nick your finger with a razor blade, that will be exactly as bad as if I'd sawed off your arm? After all, mutilation is mutilation. The rest is irrelevant, right?

Arthais101 already tried that one.

Believe it or not - I do actually think about these things.

Apples and oranges.

Your examples involve death and great pain and possible infection.

Never mind the fact it distracts from the original question. Then again the question is not a good one.

Ok final comment.

I try to avoid recycled threads which will have no resolution as people are in their own camps.

Female practice should be outlawed there is no conceivable argument for it's value.

Male? There are two camps. Leave it to the families. If boys grow up and decide they were "mutilated" :rolleyes: Then don't do it to your son.

Finally, my buddy had his done at 25. He will tell you the argument of lost sexual pleasure is HIGHLY overrated. He will also tell you his wife had far less "female" problems afterwards. He even joked he all but used a wire brush to clean it.

So have fun with the arguement.

I never said they were equivalent, I said they were both equally wrong.....

Well, that is saying they are equivalent, since neither one is more "wrong," that means they are both the same level of morality. Same thing. And it's a foolish thing. FGM isn't morally equivalent to male circumcision any way you look at it. My penis is functional and I'm circumcised and happy with it and I've never had any problems. Women who have been FGM'd are unable to experience pleasure during sex. There's a huge difference in these.

In my mind something is either right or wrong, there is no "more wrong" so if it is wrong, it is wrong. I believe it is wrong because I believe it's wrong to perform medical procedures that are unneeded without consent on people.

Lying is wrong, yes? So let's say a woman comes running past, screaming and turns left. Then a man with an axe comes along and asks me where she went. You are saying that if I tell him she went right, that is morally equivalent to Hitler gassing millions of people to death?

you don't have to agree with me, I don't particularly care what you think, hence the "whatever"

Yeah, the "whatever" is also what I get when someone has no real argument.

Ok final comment.

I try to avoid recycled threads which will have no resolution as people are in their own camps.

Female practice should be outlawed there is no conceivable argument for it's value.

Male? There are two camps. Leave it to the families. If boys grow up and decide they were "mutilated" :rolleyes: Then don't do it to your son.

Finally, my buddy had his done at 25. He will tell you the argument of lost sexual pleasure is HIGHLY overrated. He will also tell you his wife had far less "female" problems afterwards. He even joked he all but used a wire brush to clean it.

So have fun with the arguement.

Well there you go.

blah blah blah anecdote

Anecdotal evidence is not scientifically acceptable, sorry.

It's the kids choice, not anyone else's. That's why it's immoral. Everything else is irrelevant. Especially the cleanliness argument.

Circumcision does in fact lower the chance of transmitting disease. So does wearing a condom. Or not sleeping around. Or proper hygiene. Wikipedia says that circumcision lowers the probability penile cancer by 0.2%, which... is not much. It's probably accounted for by the amount of tissue removed. The article also states that it lowers the chance of HIV infections by around 50%. Making sure your partner is tested has a 100% success rate. Wearing a condom is about the same. Responsibility > surgery.

Besides, by the time they're old enough to have sex (and thus invoke the cleanliness argument), they're old enough to decide whether or not they want to be circumcised. They have to make the choice for themselves.

Female circumcision might be more radical than the male circumcision, but I still agree with Xero Seven:

Neither is more worse than the other. Circumcision is circumcision no matter which sex its performed on. You're taking away a natural part of the genitalia, the act is completely unnecessary.

You cut of a part of the genitalia – that’s mutilation. And in my book, mutilation is wrong no matter how severe it is, or on who (and how) it’s done.


Children have rights?

I didn't live in a democracy in my parents home.

Did you?

Not a democracy as such, but my parents included me in their decisions – as a way of teaching me responsibility and preparing me to take care of my self...

But anyway – yes, children have rights. You can’t, for example, cut of you child’s arm and say “it’s my right as a parent”. In the same way, you should not be allowed to mutilate your child’s genitalia.

Female circumcision might be more radical than the male circumcision.


When you call it "Female circumciscion," you do an injustice by covering over how horrible and brutal it really is. If you are a man, imagine if someone removed the head of your penis and the skin on both the sides of your penis and your scrotum. That would be the equivalent of female genital mutilation. "More radical" doesn't nearly begin to describe it.

Female. A circumcised male can still have a healthy sex life. A circumcised woman has been harmed more grievously because it endangers her health and ruins her enjoyment of sex. Since female circumcision has greater negative effects on the victim's life it's more morally wrong.

Totally agreed.

When you call it "Female circumciscion," you do an injustice by covering over how horrible and brutal it really is.


And on the same note, to call it "male circumcision" is doing it injustice by not covering how brutal and unnecessary it is.

Both involve changing the genitalia via a surgical procedure. Both have no reason beyond cultural influence. Both are done without the child's concent. And both are either a "circumcision" or a "mutilation"...

Female.

And on the same note, to call it "male circumcision" is doing it injustice by not covering how brutal and unnecessary it is.

Both involve changing the genitalia via a surgical procedure. Both have no reason beyond cultural influence. Both are done without the child's concent. And both are either a "circumcision" or a "mutilation"...

So if someone socks you in the arm it's as bad as if they take that arm right off. Okay. Gotcha.

So if someone socks you in the arm it's as bad as if they take that arm right off. Okay. Gotcha.

False analogy. Male and female mutilation would be more like “if someone cuts your arm off when you’re young and under anaesthetics, it’s as bad as if someone cuts your arm off when you’re five and without using anaesthetics”.

Well, ok… perhaps it would be closer if the male mutilations merely involved cutting of the hand (or perhaps just a few fingers) instead of the whole arm. But the point stands: male mutilation is just as bad as the female version because both involve unnecessary surgery performed without the child’s consent.

How the hell do you circumcise a female?

"Female circumsision" is something of a euphamism. A more accurate term that is gaining ground is "Female Genital Mutilation." "Circumsision" literally means "cut around." Depending on the level of severity a womans genitals are not cut around, they are cut off.

It can be as "mild" as removing the clitoris. Which would be like cutting the head of a man's penis off. Or it can be as severe as removing the labia aswell, and sewing her up so that the guy who eventually buys her as a wife will be confident she is a virgin.

Male mutilation/circumcision has several significant health benefits, iirc, so it's hardly for no practical reason.

False analogy. Male and female mutilation would be more like “if someone cuts your arm off when you’re young and under anaesthetics, it’s as bad as if someone cuts your arm off when you’re five and without using anaesthetics”.

Well, ok… perhaps it would be closer if the male mutilations merely involved cutting of the hand (or perhaps just a few fingers) instead of the whole arm. But the point stands: male mutilation is just as bad as the female version because both involve unnecessary surgery performed without the child’s consent.

I'm totally against male circumsision, to the point that my jewish wife has agreed not to circumsise if we hae a boy.

But I would have to say that cutting the arm off a child without anesthetics at the age of 13 (when most female circumsisions are performed) is worse than removing their tonsils a week after they're born with anesthesia. Yes, they are both unecessary painful operations. But one will not hamper the childs functioning throught their entire life, and causes far less pain.

Punching someone in the face is not as bad as punching them in the face and kicking them in the balls. Stabbing someone in the leg is not as bad as stabbing someone in the leg and then stabbing them in the eye. Male circumsision is not as bad as female circumsision. The physical damage that the operation causes is a big part of what makes it morally wrong. Especially since many who perform male circumsision think that they are doing so for health and hygine reasons, and those who perform female ones know that it is for nothing more than the sake of a tradition. Or in some cases to make others suffer as they have suffered.

Male mutilation/circumcision has several significant health benefits, iirc, so it's hardly for no practical reason.

reputed health benifits. And they are statisticly insignificant.

reputed health benifits. And they are statisticly insignificant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4719409.stm

Apologies for using wikipedia, but...

Several studies have shown that uncircumcised men are at greater risk of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection.[100][101] While most genital HPV strains are considered harmless, some can cause genital warts or cancer although there is a vaccine against most cancer causing strains of HPV. One study found no statistically significant difference between men with foreskins for HPV infection than those who are circumcised, but did note a significantly higher incidence of HPV lesions and urethritis in uncircumcised men.[102]

Studies have found that boys with foreskins tend to have higher rates of various infections and inflammations of the penis than those who are circumcised

Balanitis, an inflammation of the glans penis, has a variety of causes.[113] Some of these, such as anaerobic infection, occur more frequently in uncircumcised men, while others, such as fungal infection, have no statistically significant differences in frequency of occurrence between circumcised and uncircumcised men.

Twelve studies have indicated that neonatal circumcision reduces the occurrence rate of Urinary tract infections in male infants by a factor of about 10.[

Well, that is saying they are equivalent, since neither one is more "wrong," that means they are both the same level of morality. Same thing. And it's a foolish thing. FGM isn't morally equivalent to male circumcision any way you look at it. My penis is functional and I'm circumcised and happy with it and I've never had any problems. Women who have been FGM'd are unable to experience pleasure during sex. There's a huge difference in these.



Lying is wrong, yes? So let's say a woman comes running past, screaming and turns left. Then a man with an axe comes along and asks me where she went. You are saying that if I tell him she went right, that is morally equivalent to Hitler gassing millions of people to death?



Yeah, the "whatever" is also what I get when someone has no real argument.

did you miss my post earlier where I explain that I don't use the "morality scale"?

things are either moral or immoral to me, something can't be "more immoral" than something else.

Physical consequences can be worse, but just because something is worse than something else doesn't make the second thing right.

did you miss my post earlier where I explain that I don't use the "morality scale"?

things are either moral or immoral to me, something can't be "more immoral" than something else.

Physical consequences can be worse, but just because something is worse than something else doesn't make the second thing right.

so because I lied and called in sick today because I didn't want to go out in this weather, I am just as immoral as if I went into work, kidnapped my boss, tortured him for a few hours then shot him in the head?

Just as immoral?

This is nonsensical. how can you say with a straight face that "consequences can be worse" but that doesn't change the immorality level? What determines what is, or is not immoral but for the consequences of it? The whole idea of what is "immoral" is that it causes harm, as such the level of immorality is directly related to the level of harm.

It is illogical in the extreme to admit that consequences by act vary but the immorality remains the same, since the fundamental tenant we as rational human beings use to determine wether an act is, or is not moral is how much it harms someone

so because I lied and called in sick today because I didn't want to go out in this weather, I am just as immoral as if I went into work, kidnapped my boss, tortured him for a few hours then shot him in the head?

Just as immoral?

This is nonsensical. how can you say with a straight face that "consequences can be worse" but that doesn't change the immorality level? What determines what is, or is not immoral but for the consequences of it? The whole idea of what is "immoral" is that it causes harm, as such the level of immorality is directly related to the level of harm.

It is illogical in the extreme to admit that consequences by act vary but the immorality remains the same, since the fundamental tenant we as rational human beings use to determine wether an act is, or is not moral is how much it harms someone

I would say that the fact that it harms someone makes it immoral.

It is illogical in the extreme to admit that consequences by act vary but the immorality remains the same, since the fundamental tenant we as rational human beings use to determine wether an act is, or is not moral is how much it harms someone

People on NSG have irrational absolutist totalitatian oft illogical moral outlooks?

Say it aint so.

Wikipedia says that circumcision lowers the probability penile cancer by 0.2%, which... is not much.

As a guess - is the portion of penile tissue removed in a circumcism approximately 0.2% of the total volume of the penis?

I would say that the fact that it harms someone makes it immoral.

but refuse to recognize that the level of harm determines the level of immorality.

or, to put it another way, it's a useless determination for all practicality. What happens when you are faced with two, and only two options, either would result in harming SOMEONE, one option hurts someone a little bit, the other hurts someone a whole lot (let's say, the benefit you gain from either choice is equal so there is nothing self motivating you to pick one over the other)?

Do you:

a) say "well, either way someone gets hurt so it's immoral, so I might as well flip a coin" and decide randomly?

OR

b) say "I'm going to do the one that causes less harm"

You would choose the one that causes less harm. Of course you would, you're not a monster, and will minimize harm whenever possible. You say "all immoral acts are equally immoral" but are quite capable of choosing which "equally immoral" act to do, if faced with the option. You make a judgement even though based on your morality such a judgement would be impossible. So your moral stance does not in any way really act as a guide for your actions in any way.

If all bad acts are equally immoral, the very nature of immorality becomes meaningless. Morality functions as a guide, as a way of determining our best courses of actions.

Your morality doesn't act as a guide, because it makes it impossible to determine which is the more moral course of action in bad situations (that, in my belief, is the fundamental purpose of morality). Yours exists for you to comfortably judge people as immoral without bothering to take their circumstances into account.

If you are going to create a standard of immorality just so you can deem anyone who does anything you consider in any way "bad" as all equally damnedable well ok, but at least be honest with it.

I prefer my men circumcised.
Relevance? None. Just putting it out there, out of boredom. ;)

but refuse to recognize that the level of harm determines the level of immorality.

or, to put it another way, it's a useless determination for all practicality. What happens when you are faced with two, and only two options, either would result in harming SOMEONE, one option hurts someone a little bit, the other hurts someone a whole lot (let's say, the benefit you gain from either choice is equal so there is nothing self motivating you to pick one over the other)?

Do you:

a) say "well, either way someone gets hurt so it's immoral, so I might as well flip a coin" and decide randomly?

OR

b) say "I'm going to do the one that causes less harm"

You would choose the one that causes less harm. Of course you would, you're not a monster, and will minimize harm whenever possible. You say "all immoral acts are equally immoral" but are quite capable of choosing which "equally immoral" act to do, if faced with the option. You make a judgement even though based on your morality such a judgement would be impossible. So your moral stance does not in any way really act as a guide for your actions in any way.

If all bad acts are equally immoral, the very nature of immorality becomes meaningless. Morality functions as a guide, as a way of determining our best courses of actions.

Your morality doesn't act as a guide, because it makes it impossible to determine which is the more moral course of action in bad situations (that, in my belief, is the fundamental purpose of morality). Yours exists for you to comfortably judge people as immoral without bothering to take their circumstances into account.

If you are going to create a standard of immorality just so you can deem anyone who does anything you consider in any way "bad" as all equally damnedable well ok, but at least be honest with it.

I would choose the one that caused less harm, but they are both equally immoral. One is worse than the other, but they are both wrong.

I would choose the one that caused less harm, but they are both equally immoral. One is worse than the other, but they are both wrong.

here's where I'm getting entirely stuck on your thinking. How can something be "worse" than something else but not "more immoral"?

You are not just using a different scale (or lack thereof) you are using a radically different meaning. That which is worse is, by definition, of greater immorality.

What's wrong with male circumcision?

Compulsory may be bad just because it's compulsory, but it has both small benefits and very small drawbacks. However, being able to pass off as a jew may be not such a small benefit.

What's wrong with male circumcision?

Compulsory may be bad just because it's compulsory, but it has both small benefits and very small drawbacks. However, being able to pass off as a jew may be not such a small benefit.

oh it's of GREAT benefit. Haven't you heard? we rule the world.

In fact, it's very convenient. Though neither a circumcision ensures it, nor you need it - you either have a jewish mind, and are perceived as a jew by your fellows, or you don't, and will be regarded as goyim even with circumcision, a nice yarmulka, meter-long payos and a bag of matzoh.

here's where I'm getting entirely stuck on your thinking. How can something be "worse" than something else but not "more immoral"?

You are not just using a different scale (or lack thereof) you are using a radically different meaning. That which is worse is, by definition, of greater immorality.

immoral-violating principles of right and wrong

I don't see how that leaves a continuum of "variable morality". It's either right or it's wrong.

because it's worthless. It, as I said, allows you to judge people well enough, but it provides virtually no guideance on how you actually live, because, given that you have rendered yourself incapable of determing the level of "wrong", it leaves you unable to actually USE your moral guidance to determine the best course of action.

I use my morality like a compass, you use it to judge.

I use common sense as a compass.

immoral-violating principles of right and wrong

I don't see how that leaves a continuum of "variable morality". It's either right or it's wrong.

because it's worthless. It, as I said, allows you to judge people well enough, but it provides virtually no guideance on how you actually live, because, given that you have rendered yourself incapable of determing the level of "wrong", it leaves you unable to actually USE your moral guidance to determine the best course of action.

I use my morality like a compass, you use it to judge.

immoral-violating principles of right and wrong

I don't see how that leaves a continuum of "variable morality". It's either right or it's wrong.

How does that exclude degrees of wrongness? You can be right, wrong, more wrong or even more wrong.

Take Pain as an easy example.

You are either in Pain or you aren't.

This sure does not mean there are not variable degrees of pain.


Or acidity - something is either acidic or alkali - your litums paper will tell you wether something is an acid or alkali, but it won't help you decide if concentrated nitric acid will do more harm to your skin than lemon juice. Something can easily be more acid or more alkali than another acid or alkali.

How does that exclude degrees of wrongness? You can be right, wrong, more wrong or even more wrong.

Take Pain as an easy example.

You are either in Pain or you aren't.

This sure does not mean there are not variable degrees of pain.

true, but I find people use the "degrees of wrongness" to justify bad behavior, I prefer to see my bad behavior for what it is.

It is wrong for me to hit my child, it is also wrong for me to cut of her finger. Neither is acceptable.

true, but I find people use the "degrees of wrongness" to justify bad behavior, I prefer to see my bad behavior for what it is.

It is wrong for me to hit my child, it is also wrong for me to cut of her finger. Neither is acceptable.

but if you only had the choice to do one, or the other.....

You'd do the one that's less wrong, wouldn't you? You are a rational human being and are PERFECTLY capable of making a determination as to what is less, or more wrong. Even if you want to act as if such a distinction doesn't exist.

We make the choices over the "lesser of two evils" every day, we as humans are forced to do it all the time. You do it all the time, despite your insistance that such a thing doesn't exist.

but if you only had the choice to do one, or the other.....

You'd do the one that's less wrong, wouldn't you? You are a rational human being and are PERFECTLY capable of making a determination as to what is less, or more wrong. Even if you want to act as if such a distinction doesn't exist.

I can decide which is less harmful, not which is less wrong. Both are wrong, there are no degrees of wrongness in my mind, things are either right or wrong.

true, but I find people use the "degrees of wrongness" to justify bad behavior, I prefer to see my bad behavior for what it is.

It is wrong for me to hit my child, it is also wrong for me to cut of her finger. Neither is acceptable.
Would one be more unacceptable? Or is cutting bits off a child morally equal to a clip round the ear?

Also why would you base your application of 'degrees of wrongness' on how other people apply it? I sure as hell don't.

Some people also use immoral vs moral the same way as you do but with different standards to justify appaling actions. Does that mean it is wrong to just judge things based on right and wrong only?

Would one be more unacceptable? Or is cutting bits off a child morally equal to a clip round the ear?

Also why would you base your application of 'degrees of wrongness' on how other people apply it? I sure as hell don't.

Some people also use immoral vs moral the same way as you do but with different standards to justify appaling actions. Does that mean it is wrong to just judge things based on right and wrong only?

neither are acceptable. both are wrong.

Male circumcision is beneficial, sure.. but what is the benefit with female circumsicion? Circumcision isn't exactly something I've studied or am concerned with, but I've never even heard someone claim female circumcision had medical benefit.. I've only heard of it in the context of certain unpopular African practices.
In countries where female circ is common, it's generaly claimed that circed females are cleaner, nicer to look at, look like the other women in their family...sound familier? Studies show that circed women have a slightly lower risk of infection and std's aids ect. Just like circed men.

None of that makes it right.

neither are acceptable. both are wrong.

So - again - why would you base your application of degrees of wrongness on how others would base it?

And if how others base degrees of wrongness is a reason to reject adopting it then why is the application of moral absolutism by others with different goalposts not a reason for rejecting it for your own use?

So - again - why would you base your application of degrees of wrongness on how others would base it?
I don't. Others seem to think I should.

And if how others base degrees of wrongness is a reason to reject adopting it then why is the application of moral absolutism by others with different goalposts not a reason for rejecting it for your own use?

you need to rephrase this for me.

I don't. Others seem to think I should.

You just said:

"true, but I find people use the "degrees of wrongness" to justify bad behavior, I prefer to see my bad behavior for what it is."

Which seems to be you saying that you do not use 'degrees of wrongness' because others use it to justify bad actions.


you need to rephrase this for me.
If you do not use degrees of wrongness because other people use it to justify bad behavior, then given that moral absolutism can equally be used to justify bad behavior (if you use different goalposts) why are the actions of others not a reason to not use moral absolutism.


I really do not believe in all honesty that you believe that all immoral actions are equally immoral - that for example it is equally immoral to knowingly keep 5cents you were overchanged as it is to kidnap a child, rape, torture and mutilate them before killing them and feeding their body to pigs. If you do... Honestly, I think you're a freak.

I can decide which is less harmful, not which is less wrong. Both are wrong, there are no degrees of wrongness in my mind, things are either right or wrong.

I find this, honestly, to be rather silly, because in general, we define what is wrong by the level of harm it causes. To seperate the amount of harm from the concept of wrongness renders the meaning of that word somewhat meaningless.

You just said:

"true, but I find people use the "degrees of wrongness" to justify bad behavior, I prefer to see my bad behavior for what it is."

Which seems to be you saying that you do not use 'degrees of wrongness' because others use it to justify bad actions.


If you do not use degrees of wrongness because other people use it to justify bad behavior, then given that moral absolutism can equally be used to justify bad behavior (if you use different goalposts) why are the actions of others not a reason to not use moral absolutism.
I do the things I do, and believe the things I believe based on my own experience. I don't expect anyone else to understand or agree.


I really do not believe in all honesty that you believe that all immoral actions are equally immoral - that for example it is equally immoral to knowingly keep 5cents you were overchanged as it is to kidnap a child, rape, torture and mutilate them before killing them and feeding their body to pigs. If you do... Honestly, I think you're a freak.

I think you misunderstand my position. Some things cause more harm than others, I don't dispute that.

In countries where female circ is common, it's generaly claimed that circed females are cleaner, nicer to look at, look like the other women in their family...sound familier? Studies show that circed women have a slightly lower risk of infection and std's aids ect. Just like circed men.

It doesn't sound familiar in the slightest, for in the case of female circumcision, whatever small benefit there may be is VASTLY outweighed by negatives.

Not true for men.

In countries where female circ is common, it's generaly claimed that circed females are cleaner, nicer to look at, look like the other women in their family...sound familier? Studies show that circed women have a slightly lower risk of infection and std's aids ect. Just like circed men.

None of that makes it right.
I knew female circumcision could be just as 'justified' under your three part test, Arthais, as male circumcision.

We haven't conducted oodles of studies on the efficacy of female circumcision in terms of preventing infections is all.

I find this, honestly, to be rather silly, because in general, we define what is wrong by the level of harm it causes.

people who have a pre-conventional view of morality do.

To seperate the amount of harm from the concept of wrongness renders the meaning of that word somewhat meaningless.

not in my mind. Actually, rationalizing things by "it's not as bad as" renders the meaning of the word "wrong" meaningless.

people who have a pre-conventional view of morality do.

No, people who understand what the fundamental basis for morality is do.

No, people who understand what the fundamental basis for morality is do.

explain morality to me, please.

I knew female circumcision could be just as 'justified' under your three part test, Arthais, as male circumcision.

We haven't conducted oodles of studies on the efficacy of female circumcision in terms of preventing infections is all.

as I said, no it can not, because while there MAY be some benefits, we have a whole BUNCH of data saying that female circumcision causes significant problems.

Not true for men.

The situation is not in the SLIGHTEST comparable, since even if both men and women receive the same BENEFIT, women receive significant drawbacks men simply do not.

I've already dismissed this arugment as ungrounded about 4 times, I do wish people would read before making me say the same thing all over again.

I do wish people would read before making me say the same thing all over again.

:D me too.

It doesn't sound familiar in the slightest, for in the case of female circumcision, whatever small benefit there may be is VASTLY outweighed by negatives.

Not true for men.

As it stands, one practice is considerably more barbaric than the other.

If we went around circumcising men in the most grotesque manner possible, then clearly the harm would vastly outweigh the benefits.

However, if we in the West became convinced that female circumcision was okay, if done humanely, you can be sure evidence similar to that used in male circumcision would be uncovered showing the slight benefit of preventing infection.

Likely a full clitorectomy would not be done in our hospitals...the least invasive method of removing the hood of the clitoris would probably end up becoming the norm. At that point, one is simply weighing slight harm against possible benefit, just as you've pointed out before. Add in a strong cultural imperative, and tell me again how this does NOT have the possibility to be just as justified and 'okay' as male circumcision? Again, absent the present horrendous way in which FGM is carried out.

By the way, are you only counting physical harm? Because I don't think you are. You have argued that being prevented from practicing male circumcision is a cultural interference. So if we look to harm as also cultural/social, then other factors in female circumcision should be taken into account, such as the social cost of not having a culturally appropriate operation.

not in my mind. Actually, rationalizing things by "it's not as bad as" renders the meaning of the word "wrong" meaningless.

How?

Acidic - pH 6 = Acidic. pH 1 = very acidic.

Pain - pulling out a single hair = minor pain. Drilling a hole in your leg = very painful.

Harm - stubbing your toe = a little harm. getting your arm burned off = a lot of harm.

Wrong - stealing a penny = a little wrong. kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing children = very wong.

All of the above have yes/no responses, and in the 'yes' response all have degrees, which are generally useful. They all have a litmus test, and they all have degrees.

explain morality to me, please.

already have. Morality is a guide. It's a system we use to help us guide our actions, we decide things based on their relative moral value, or lack thereof. We base our decisions on how moral we perceive an action (or inaction) to be. The morality of an act is inherently tied to the harm, or benefits, it causes.

Morallity and harm do not exist seperate from each other, the morality or immorality of an act is DIRECTLY tied to the harm or help it causes.

As such if we define anything that causes in any way harm (and you'd be hard pressed to find an example of something that does not, directly or indirectly, harm SOMEONE) as immoral, then we have no method of using morality as a guide. You can not use morality to guide you to a decision if the extent of your moral analysis is "all of these choices are equally morally bad, therefore I am equally immoral regardless of my choice". Thus in this situation, your morality becomes useless as a guide, you can't use it to, in any way, to help you make a determination as to this sort of circumstance.

That system of morality is, essentially, worthless as a system of morality. As worthless as "I'll flip a coin and if it comes up heads it's moral, and tails it's immoral".

As it stands, one practice is considerably more barbaric than the other.

If we went around circumcising men in the most grotesque manner possible, then clearly the harm would vastly outweigh the benefits.

However, if we in the West became convinced that female circumcision was okay, if done humanely, you can be sure evidence similar to that used in male circumcision would be uncovered showing the slight benefit of preventing infection.

Likely a full clitorectomy would not be done in our hospitals...the least invasive method of removing the hood of the clitoris would probably end up becoming the norm. At that point, one is simply weighing slight harm against possible benefit, just as you've pointed out before. Add in a strong cultural imperative, and tell me again how this does NOT have the possibility to be just as justified and 'okay' as male circumcision? Again, absent the present horrendous way in which FGM is carried out.

I prefer to believe that one is viewed as more humane than the other BECAUSE of the evidence, not the other way around.

Female circumcision has serious consequences. Male circumcision does not. That's factual. Even if cultural pressure convinces us to lie about that fact, it's still a fact.

Again, I would hope to believe that biological facts are not altered by our cultural beliefs.

already have. Morality is a guide. It's a system we use to help us guide our actions, we decide things based on their relative moral value, or lack thereof. We base our decisions on how moral we perceive an action (or inaction) to be. The morality of an act is inherently tied to the harm, or benefits, it causes.

Morallity and harm do not exist seperate from each other, the morality or immorality of an act is DIRECTLY tied to the harm or help it causes.

As such if we define anything that causes in any way harm (and you'd be hard pressed to find an example of something that does not, directly or indirectly, harm SOMEONE) as immoral, then we have no method of using morality as a guide. You can not use morality to guide you to a decision if the extent of your moral analysis is "all of these choices are equally morally bad, therefore I am equally immoral regardless of my choice". Thus in this situation, your morality becomes useless as a guide, you can't use it to, in any way, to help you make a determination as to this sort of circumstance.

That system of morality is, essentially, worthless as a system of morality. As worthless as "I'll flip a coin and if it comes up heads it's moral, and tails it's immoral".
The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development, and are purely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner.

In stage one, individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished. The worse the punishment for the act is, the more 'bad' the act is perceived to be.[12] In addition, there is no recognition that others' points of view are any different from one's own view. This stage may be viewed as a kind of authoritarianism.

Stage two espouses the what's in it for me position, right behavior being defined by what is in one's own best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further one's own interests, such as you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours.[4] In stage two concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect. Lacking a perspective of society in the pre-conventional level, this should not be confused with social contract (stage five), as all actions are performed to serve one's own needs or interests. For the stage two theorist, the perspective of the world is often seen as morally relative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

wow. You are right, that doesn't sound like pre-conventional morality at all :rolleyes:

as I said, no it can not, because while there MAY be some benefits, we have a whole BUNCH of data saying that female circumcision causes significant problems. As it is now practiced. Don't cop out here, there is no doubt it can be done in more sanitary, humane circumstances, with the least amount of actual physical alteration as possible.

Not true for men.

The situation is not in the SLIGHTEST comparable, since even if both men and women receive the same BENEFIT, women receive significant drawbacks men simply do not. Are you sure that removing the hood of the clitoris compared to removing part of the foreskin would have significantly different results? I'm not talking about comparing hacking off the labia with a rusty knife to a neat, surgicical snippage here. Like to like, assuming this was done in the West, as carefully as male circumcisions.

Factor in the social harm of being prevented from practicing a cultural practice, and even if the actual physical harm was SLIGHTLY more pronounced in females than in males, how would you be judging, on this sliding scale of yours, which should be allowed, and which banned?

I've already dismissed this arugment as ungrounded about 4 times, I do wish people would read before making me say the same thing all over again.
I don't think you can accuse me of not reading your posts.

The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development, and are purely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner.

In stage one, individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished. The worse the punishment for the act is, the more 'bad' the act is perceived to be.[12] In addition, there is no recognition that others' points of view are any different from one's own view. This stage may be viewed as a kind of authoritarianism.

Stage two espouses the what's in it for me position, right behavior being defined by what is in one's own best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further one's own interests, such as you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours.[4] In stage two concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect. Lacking a perspective of society in the pre-conventional level, this should not be confused with social contract (stage five), as all actions are performed to serve one's own needs or interests. For the stage two theorist, the perspective of the world is often seen as morally relative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

wow. You are right, that doesn't sound like pre-conventional morality at all :rolleyes:

For the bolded parts, your right, it doesn't. The only part that is even close to what I"m saying is that morality is a scale.

The rest about being relative and self serving is entirely off base. I'll also add that if your debating tactic is to lable anyone who disagrees with you as "unloyal and egocentric" you will find you are not overly successful.

It has nothing to do with egocentric behavior. How the fuck is it egocentric IN THE SLIGHTEST to recognize that punching someone in the arm and shooting someone in the face are different levels of morality. Where's the ego in that.

Really, I suggest you actually THINK about what you're posting before you do it.

I prefer to believe that one is viewed as more humane than the other BECAUSE of the evidence, not the other way around.

Female circumcision has serious consequences. Male circumcision does not. That's factual. Even if cultural pressure convinces us to lie about that fact, it's still a fact.

Again, I would hope to believe that biological facts are not altered by our cultural beliefs.

She is saying if only the less severe forms of female circumcism were carried out, and if it was carried out with the same degree of care as male circumcism.

There are numerous types of female circumcism, and while the mose severe is an horricif act the least severe version is not much worse than the male equivalent.

For the bolded parts, your right, it doesn't. The only part that is even close to what I"m saying is that morality is a scale.

The rest about being relative and self serving is entirely off base. I'll also add that if your debating tactic is to lable anyone who disagrees with you as "unloyal and egocentric" you will find you are not overly successful.

It has nothing to do with egocentric behavior. How the fuck is it egocentric IN THE SLIGHTEST to recognize that punching someone in the arm and shooting someone in the face are different levels of morality. Where's the ego in that.

Really, I suggest you actually THINK about what you're posting before you do it.

I think you need to learn to read. Whatever though, we can quit now, I have seen all I need to.

As it is now practiced. Don't cop out here, there is no doubt it can be done in more sanitary, humane circumstances, with the least amount of actual physical alteration as possible.
Are you sure that removing the hood of the clitoris compared to removing part of the foreskin would have significantly different results? I'm not talking about comparing hacking off the labia with a rusty knife to a neat, surgicical snippage here. Like to like, assuming this was done in the West, as carefully as male circumcisions.

As a simple matter of biology, regardless of how carefully it is done, female circumcision, I believe, DOES CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS. That's the root of it. Even if done with the most clean, sterile enviornments, there is STILL a significantly greater harm, that is simply a matter of biology.

If you wish to abstract to a hypothetical and go "well what if it didn't cause any harm, and still had all the benefits, what then? well??? what then huh? what do you do then?" in some effort to trap me it won't work, for one simple reason. If it caused the same benefits, had the same cultural weight, and had the same lack (or minimization) of harm for females, then I wouldn't have a problem with THAT either.

But that is a hypothetical because, purely by biology, this isn't the case.

As a simple matter of biology, regardless of how carefully it is done, female circumcision, I believe, DOES CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS. That's the root of it. Even if done with the most clean, sterile enviornments, there is STILL a significantly greater harm, that is simply a matter of biology.

For the most extreme versions. For the lesser versions they are comparable to male circumcism. They may or may not do more harm, but they do not do significantly more harm.

She is saying if only the less severe forms of female circumcism were carried out, and if it was carried out with the same degree of care as male circumcism.

There are numerous types of female circumcism, and while the mose severe is an horricif act the least severe version is not much worse than the male equivalent.

and as I've already said before, if it has the same benefits, the same lack of harm (I don't like "not much worse, I need to know HOW worse, in what ways), and the same cultural weight it wouldn't bother me either.

As a simple matter of biology, regardless of how carefully it is done, female circumcision, I believe, DOES CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS. That's the root of it. Even if done with the most clean, sterile enviornments, there is STILL a significantly greater harm, that is simply a matter of biology.

If you wish to abstract to a hypothetical and go "well what if it didn't cause any harm, and still had all the benefits, what then? well??? what then huh? what do you do then?" in some effort to trap me it won't work, for one simple reason. If it caused the same benefits, had the same cultural weight, and had the same lack (or minimization) of harm for females, then I wouldn't have a problem with THAT either.

But that is a hypothetical because, purely by biology, this isn't the case.

My point with this, is not that female circumcision can be made into a lovely little thing we should all be doing, but rather, depite your 'objective' take on male circumcision, your support for it is almost wholly subjective. Even if female circumcision were twice as harmfull as male circumcision (which everyone keeps insisting is hardly harmful at all), and the benefits roughly equal (frankly, negligable, and hardly strong support for EITHER procedure), then culture could turn the tide. If female circumcision was a very important practice, with strong social benefits, then who are you to say, coming from a cultural perspective, that this should not be taken into account, perhaps offsetting the increased harm?

I think you need to learn to read.

I need to read huh? OK, you can tell me if what you quoted did, or did not contain the following passages:

The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development, and are purely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner.

In stage one, individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. ...This stage may be viewed as a kind of authoritarianism.

Stage two espouses the what's in it for me position, right behavior being defined by what is in one's own best interest...In stage two concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect.

Now, please, since I can't read, after you have verified whether or not the passages I have quoted were in the source you provided, you can tell me where anything I said was "concerned with the self" "egocentric" or where I have "espoused the what's in it for me" position.

I'm sure you're far more literate than I, so I will wait right here and see how you back up your position.

I won't assume that you either can provide no basis for your position OR posted a source without actually reading it, so I'll happily wait here for you to validate yourself. It would be quite egocentric to assume you're full of shit, so I'll wait for you to validate it.

So go ahead, I'm right here.

Whatever though, we can quit now, I have seen all I need to.

Of course you have. You've seen yourself make a claim, that claim be refutted utterly, and you having absolutely no counter argument, or the guts to admit you were wrong.

So you can also see yourself walking away pretended to be done with the argument when really you can do nothing to actually back it up.

At least, that's what I'd think if I could read. Thank god for the monkey on my shoulder who does all my paperwork for me.

and as I've already said before, if it has the same benefits, the same lack of harm (I don't like "not much worse, I need to know HOW worse, in what ways), and the same cultural weight it wouldn't bother me either.

Ok, that's essentially what I wanted to know.

and as I've already said before, if it has the same benefits, the same lack of harm (I don't like "not much worse, I need to know HOW worse, in what ways), and the same cultural weight it wouldn't bother me either.

Well - male circumcism has very debateable benefits - if you are in North America medical research finds some benefits, if you are in Europe then it does not - of course this could not have anything at all to do with the North American doctors being largely circumcised compared to their European counterparts...

To me it looks like there are some small benefits to people who have appalingly bad hygiene or who are prepared to stick their penis into someone whose medical state they have no knowlege of without wearing a condom. So pretty minor benefits and they only really apply to people who take crappy care of themselves.

And I suspect the more minor versions of female circumcism are about the same.

My point with this, is not that female circumcision can be made into a lovely little thing we should all be doing, but rather, depite your 'objective' take on male circumcision, your support for it is almost wholly subjective. Even if female circumcision were twice as harmfull as male circumcision (which everyone keeps insisting is hardly harmful at all), and the benefits roughly equal (frankly, negligable, and hardly strong support for EITHER procedure), then culture could turn the tide. If female circumcision was a very important practice, with strong social benefits, then who are you to say, coming from a cultural perspective, that this should not be taken into account, perhaps offsetting the increased harm?

who am I?

A rational human being that doesn't believe in harming someone without their consent, duh.

I don't believe male circumcision causes harm. If I DID, my opinion would be radically different.

But it doesn't, so it isn't.

And if female circumcision also didn't cause harm, my opinion would not be to restrict that practice

But it does, so it is.

doing unnecessary surgery(elective mutilation) on a child is immoral...if they are to be circumcised, as least wait until they're adults so they can make their own decision...

And I suspect the more minor versions of female circumcism are about the same.

no idea. I don't think so from my general knowledge, but that usually involves less than sanitary conditions (I worked on legal asylum claims from women seeking asylum in the US based on fear of this, and the US government views FGM to be serious enough to give legitimate reason to flee your country in fear).

My general knowledge of male circumcision is being jewish, and I think I turned out ok.

Anecdotal evidence is not scientifically acceptable, sorry.

Wow. You sure read in more then what is there.

For one thing, don't be so dismissive of anecdotal arguments. Many discoveries started out that way.


It's the kids choice, not anyone else's. That's why it's immoral. Everything else is irrelevant.

Guess what. That is still your opinion and to other people that is irrelevant.

Especially the cleanliness argument.

It wasn't to my friends wife.

*snipping the blah blah balh*

Considering what has been going on with the Wiki, it's not damning proof. The disease prevention argument has gone both ways. It's not absolute as well.

Besides, by the time they're old enough to have sex (and thus invoke the cleanliness argument), they're old enough to decide whether or not they want to be circumcised. They have to make the choice for themselves.

As you so blissfully attemp to dismiss my friends experience. He speaks a great more then people who think they know the answers (ie the claim of loss of sexual pleasure) as he knows the before and after. Most people only have the perspective from one side.

People see no issue with forcing I mean introducing their children into their Religion and yet think they have no right for deciding circumcision even in the matters of the Jewish tradition.

You think it's wrong and wont cut your son. That's cool.

If I had a son, I will probably "mutilate" him.

I need to read huh? OK, you can tell me if what you quoted did, or did not contain the following passages:



Now, please, since I can't read, after you have verified whether or not the passages I have quoted were in the source you provided, you can tell me where anything I said was "concerned with the self" "egocentric" or where I have "espoused the what's in it for me" position.

I'm sure you're far more literate than I, so I will wait right here and see how you back up your position.

I won't assume that you either can provide no basis for your position OR posted a source without actually reading it, so I'll happily wait here for you to validate yourself. It would be quite egocentric to assume you're full of shit, so I'll wait for you to validate it.

So go ahead, I'm right here.



Of course you have. You've seen yourself make a claim, that claim be refutted utterly, and you having absolutely no counter argument, or the guts to admit you were wrong.

So you can also see yourself walking away pretended to be done with the argument when really you can do nothing to actually back it up.

At least, that's what I'd think if I could read. Thank god for the monkey on my shoulder who does all my paperwork for me.

I might come back when you aren't acting like a toddler.

Not a democracy as such, but my parents included me in their decisions – as a way of teaching me responsibility and preparing me to take care of my self...


At what age?

But anyway – yes, children have rights. You can’t, for example, cut of you child’s arm and say “it’s my right as a parent”. In the same way, you should not be allowed to mutilate your child’s genitalia.

And yet most children don't have the right to decide on Religion for themselves.

They have limited rights. Even in your example, those rights were granted by the adults.

The morality of this situation is deeply rooted in the later complications caused by the base act of mutilation performed in both cases. Quite simply, male circumcision leads to relatively few problems compared to the gross damage done to infant females. Also, removal of the external clitoris reduces the ability to climax, whereas males usually suffer no such problem. That, coupled with other painful and potentially fatal problems such as those created by stitching up most of the vagina, certainly suggests it's an abusive practice. To discuss the morality of circumcision you cannot ignore the biology of it. Therefore, female circumcision is worse in my opinion.

I might come back when you aren't acting like a toddler.

so...you still got nothing huh? To give you a hint, it's not adults that are generally expected to make claims without evidence, and fail to back them up.

So if you want to cast aspersions on to MY attitude go ahead.

You're still the one not actually backing up your claims.

The morality of this situation is deeply rooted in the later complications caused by the base act of mutilation performed in both cases. Quite simply, male circumcision leads to relatively few problems compared to the gross damage done to infant females. Also, removal of the external clitoris reduces the ability to climax, whereas males usually suffer no such problem. That, coupled with other painful and potentially fatal problems such as those created by stitching up most of the vagina, certainly suggests it's an abusive practice. To discuss the morality of circumcision you cannot ignore the biology of it. Therefore, female circumcision is worse in my opinion.

oh no no, haven't you heard? We can't let facts get in the way of it. Lying and rape are equally immoral.

/nonsense

immoral-violating principles of right and wrong

I don't see how that leaves a continuum of "variable morality". It's either right or it's wrong.

The problem with morality arguments is that moral systems have some similarities(ie murder) and yet head out in different directions on others(ie pictures of the Prophet).

The problem is we start deciding one moral code is right and the other is wrong.

And I suspect the more minor versions of female circumcism are about the same.

You might want to read up on FGM. Comparing the two is ludicrous.

Shit why even ask? Of course female is worst, medicaly and moraly.

Heh of course I am biased by my own cultural morlity.

neither are acceptable. both are wrong.

It seems like you are simply using "acceptability" in the place where we are using "morality". Besides the use of different words, is there any practical upshoot to this way of thinking?

Female circumcision is much worse. Even debating this is pointless and border-line offencive.

I agree with the posters who say that the fact that female circumcision is physically worse makes it morally worse: the consequences are worse.

But both are morally bad.

It's definitely not very nice for women, but there is one way that it can seem worse for men.

Consider: for women, the parts that get removed don't even do anything to begin with

The problem with morality arguments is that moral systems have some similarities(ie murder) and yet head out in different directions on others(ie pictures of the Prophet).

The problem is we start deciding one moral code is right and the other is wrong.

I never said that their moral code was wrong, they are the ones calling me things like sick and freak, and so on.

I said that I don't use a scale, not that they shouldn't. I tried to explain why I don't, and they go on and throw fits like children, calling me names, failing to read, and.....whatever.

I don't know about "morals", but the practice of female genital mutilation is obviously/intrinsically worse because it lessens/removes sexual feeling. Morality doesn't come into it.

It's definitely not very nice for women, but there is one way that it can seem worse for men.

Consider: for women, the parts that get removed don't even do anything to begin with

I'm going to restrain myself and assume you're 15 and know nothing about human female genitalia.

It seems like you are simply using "acceptability" in the place where we are using "morality". Besides the use of different words, is there any practical upshoot to this way of thinking?

for me there is, for the general population? apparently not.

doesn't bother me either way.

I was actually willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was tongue and cheek as nobody can be THAT stupid.

Could be. I'm grumpy today. No prisoners.