D H
Sep 6 ยท Last update 21 days ago.

Is male circumcision wrong?

Male circumcision is socially, medically, geographically, and ethically divisive, being a universal norm in some cultures and a rarity in others. Circumcision is usually carried out on infants and consists of the removal of the foreskin from the penis; it has a long history in human civilisation going as far back as Ancient Egypt, and is cited as having medical and social significance in cultures where it is practiced. However some have questioned the ethical and medical validity of the practice, questioning medical findings and arguing it raises questions surrounding consent and human rights. Female circumcision is near universally recognised as genital mutilation and therefore wrong, do we need to start recognising male circumcision in the same regard? Is male circumcision abusive, hygienic, or an important tradition?
Stats of Viewpoints
Yes, it is also genital mutilation
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Viewpoints
Add New Viewpoint

Yes, it is also genital mutilation

The main health benefits purported by circumcision advocates are lower rates of HIV (Human Immuno-deficiency Virus) and UTI (urinary tract infection), however the studies that back these claims up have been criticised for numerous methodology and bias problems. Proponents also claim it is more hygienic, however this is negated through education of proper hygiene practices such as daily washing, and UTI's are commonly experienced by women and just treated with antibiotics. Other than that the culture of circumcision is justified either religiously or aesthetically, however this raises ethical questions, should religions be allowed to conduct, what is essentially, body modification? Should parents?

Should this not instead be a human right for the individual to decide when they are old enough to understand what aesthetic or religious body modifications they want made to their own body? Studies have demonstrated that circumcision removes one of the most sensitive parts of the penis, something that is rarely considered by medical studies, treating babies like animals, using traumatising and dubious control methods for questionable societal health gains. Although female genital mutilation is clearly much worse, male circumcision should still be seen as what it is - genital mutilation. This issue has been debunked, it is just waiting for half the world to catch up.

medium.com/@gnbays/the-accepted-mutilation-af9b602ca841 pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
D H
Sep 8
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
Should this not instead be a human right for the individual to decide when they are old enough to understand what aesthetic or religious body modifications they want made to their own body? Studies have demonstrated that circumcision removes one of the most sensitive parts of the penis, something that is rarely considered by medical studies, treating babies like animals, using traumatising and dubious control methods for questionable societal health gains. Although female genital mutilation is clearly much worse, male circumcision should still be seen as what it is - genital mutilation. This issue has been debunked, it is just waiting for half the world to catch up.
Translate