Thread: American Academy of Pediatrics: Benefits of Male Circumcision Outweigh Risks

Well, as I said prior, some may wish to perform the surgery, in spite of the marginal risks for the equally marginal health benefits, or simply down to a religious or cultural conviction. I'm not really for or against the procedure, but I do think these are valid reasons for [male] circumcision, just as there are valid reasons against.

With regards to female circumcision/female genital mutilation, though, I don't know. Whilst there is a strong anti-FGM movement, the main problems seem to be that often it is completely unregulated, performed with nonsterile techniques and without anaesthesia, and can vary in the amount of genitalia removed. If FGM was performed under sterile conditions and anaesthesia, with consent (or parental consent, depending on age), and if it was limited to removal of the clitoral hood, then I can't see how it'd be any different to male circumcision.

Originally Posted by Green Zubat

Well, as I said prior, some may wish to perform the surgery, in spite of the marginal risks for the equally marginal health benefits, or simply down to a religious or cultural conviction. I'm not really for or against the procedure, but I do think these are valid reasons for [male] circumcision, just as there are valid reasons against.

With regards to female circumcision/female genital mutilation, though, I don't know. Whilst there is a strong anti-FGM movement, the main problems seem to be that often it is completely unregulated, performed with nonsterile techniques and without anaesthesia, and can vary in the amount of genitalia removed. If FGM was performed under sterile conditions and anaesthesia, with consent (or parental consent, depending on age), and if it was limited to removal of the clitoral hood, then I can't see how it'd be any different to male circumcision.

The only thing I disagree with in this entire post is the brackets in the second paragraph. Parents do not have a right to choose to do anything they want to their child. Children are not their parents' property. People don't have to have good reasons for doing anything to themselves. Hell, if someone mentally competent wants to have their entire genitalia removed, who am I or anyone else to say they shouldn't? If, however, you are having this done to someone else, you better have a damn good reason for doing it. Circumcision is a more serious procedure than is generally acknowledged, and, as discussed, it is simply true that the tangible benefits are marginal. As has been said in the thread, by myself and others, even worse is the fact that the reason for performing circumcision, an outrageous assault on bodily autonomy, are not actually a balance of harms for the sake of the child, but simply that the parents think foreskins are gross. Even if there are good enough reasons (which I have not seen evidence that there are) that is not one of them, and that is the most common reason of all. If you are taking a decision on your own behalf, no your reasoning doesn't matter and as long as it doesn't harm someone else you should be able to do it, but if you are taking a decision on someone else's behalf, it must be to give them some tangible benefit.