(June 10, 2011 at 11:37 pm)Jax Wrote:(June 10, 2011 at 5:36 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: I hate it, it should be banned. Anyone who thinks genital mutilation Is ok in the 21st century is a neandathol.
I really think you need to learn what gentital mutilation actually is.
Circumcision isn't actually genital mutilation you know... It's just removing extra skin on the penis.
So what? What if people suffer from phimosis, are you going to like them suffer through it their whole life if circumcision was banned?
No one is advocating banning circumcision when medically indicated.
The statement that it's "just removing extra skin" is the same justification used for FGM.
The fact is that this piece of "extra skin", as you put it, contains 90% of the nerve endings in the penis.
Removing it will make sex less pleasurable, and may make it difficult to get an erection come
middle-age or later.
The skin on the end of the penis is a mucus membrane. It is supposed to be kept moist. A circumcised
penis dries out - causing it irritation until the nerves "get used to it". This irritation would be similar to
what you'd feel if your nose or mouth dried out completely.
In some cases, when the circumcision is done "high and tight", it makes erections difficult and painful
throughout life.
In more rare instances, there are complications or accidents that happen with the circumcision. The most
severe of these is death from either blood loss or infection. The next most severe complication is
accidental amputation of the baby boy's penis. They can be botched in ways that it disfigures the child
Regardless of the prevalence of these risks, is it wise to expose an infant to any needless risk?
Is it ever right to perform cosmetic surgery on an unconsenting person? If they want to be circumcised
after they are of legal age, that would be okay, so long as the person were informed of the risks and
consequences.
Call it what you like, but it is unnecessary cutting - mutilation - of a healthy body part.
Beth
