I am very confused about the state of genital mutilation in the West

[Speaker to Animals]

The actual scientists at the The American Academy of Pediatrics determined that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Benefits include:

* Decreased risk of urinary tract infections
* Reduced risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases
* Reduced risk of penile cancer
* Reduced risk of giving partners cervical cancer due to STDs like HPV.

Drawbacks are almost nonexistent, but include pain from circumcision (if you are an adult when you do it), and risk of injury to the penis (if the doctor somehow fucks up the procedure).

https://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions ... rcumcision

Scientists also squash talk about it reducing sensitivity during sex:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/al ... ensitivity

The study that attempted to argue it does do this is mostly lambasted by the scientific community:

https://www.livescience.com/27769-does- ... asure.html


Again: there exists grounds for debate here, but mostly what we see from the anti-circumcision side is thinly-veiled antisemitism (especially from Europeans) and total fake science nonsense. The best they can do when confronted with some basic contradicting facts is to flame people and accuse them of believing "witch doctors" (AKA real scientists).

A better tact would be to come at this from an ethical direction rather than fake science and tantrums.

[Speaker to Animals]

With respect to HIV infection in particular:

July 26, 2005 (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) -- Circumcision may protect against infection with the virus that causes AIDS.

In a study of more than 3,000 young men, those who were circumcised were 65% less likely to be infected with HIV compared with those who were not circumcised.

"Circumcision prevented 6 to 7 out of 10 potential HIV infections," says researcher Bertran Auvert, MD, MPH, professor of public health at the University of Versailles-Saint Quentin in France.

Circumcision was so effective at preventing HIV transmission that the trial was stopped early so that all the young men in the study could be offered the procedure, he tells WebMD.

https://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/200 ... -infection

That's a pretty damned strong reason to not ban male circumcision. It's certainly a lot stronger than the antisemitism and fake science fuckery we have seen in this thread.

I think the only viable avenue one can take to get a ban on the practice with infants and minors is an ethical argument built around autonomy. When you actually look at the evidence, there really doesn't seem to be any scientific reasons to ban the practice at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Speaker to Animals]

World Health Organization:

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

[TheReal_ND]

Straight white males that don't race mix aren't going to get AIDS anyway.

I'm also unsurprised the most heavily circumcised nation on earth is shilling circumsion.

[clubgop]

No science behind this.

More wishful thinking, the science shows that once you cut the foreskin off you lose nerve endings, which reduces sensitivity.

However a bundle of nerves are now fully exposed. A hand full of nerve ending we are talking about. Pull a hair from your head, that is more nerve endings than the damn foreskin. You are very concerned with the sensation of other dudes penises. It's uncomfortable.

[clubgop]

Straight white males that don't race mix aren't going to get AIDS anyway.

I'm also unsurprised the most heavily circumcised nation on earth is shilling circumsion.

Dude relax, women don't reject you because of your dick they reject you because you are a garbarge person.

[TheReal_ND]

I'm not worried about women. I'm more concerned with this blind faith in a practice I'm not sure is necessary. It's also somewhat humiliating considering the historical implications.

[heydaralon]

I have heard that uncircumcised men are more likely to experiment with gay sex. I'm not a doctor but I read a study that proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not judging that sort of behavior, but it has been established by the medical community.

[TheReal_ND]

Gays aren't people. This thread is about people and why the practice of circumsion has such a strong hold on Americans.

Or rather about the moral implications of circumsing newborns. At least that was the original intention. Or rather still why it's not considered genital mutilation.

[Speaker to Animals]

When you dismiss three posts of scientific consensus for why we do it in America and just reiterate your hatred of Jews as your reason for opposing it, I don't think you are ever going to figure out why American doctors recommend it (or the WHO or any other scientific and medical community). In fact, no argument is going to dissuade you because Jews do it, and therefore you hate it.

It's the same thing we deal with Capps and others. They make shit up and just ignore all the scientific research that forms the underlying basis for the practice in the United States. Then they just fixate on irrelevant bullshit and ignore the actual scientific reasons.

An ethical argument can be made against the practice applied to infants. As far as I can see, and obviously as far as the scientific and medical communities have determined, not only does there exist no scientific reason to support banning the practice, but the scientific data strongly supports the practice being spread. So the ethical argument is the ONLY viable argument I have ever seen.

"But I hate the Jews" isn't really an argument.

"But it might make them less sensitive" is proven false.

"It's just like female genital mutilation!!!" is obviously nonsense.


There's no good argument in support of banning the practice in this thread. I mean.. I could easily form one on ethical grounds, but these dummies can't seem to figure even that out.