Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

I recently read the comments section over at another website I frequent and one member brought up the point that if male infant circumcision is accepted, then why couldn't female infant sewing be allowed if the parents decide on that treatment for their daughter?

The argument seemed pretty convincing - unlike male circumcision, female sewing is in fact easily reversible, all you need do is cut the stitches on the wedding night and the female is back to normal and perfectly intact.

So, would those who advocate a parent's right to circumcise their male infant also support female sewing? What about an analogous procedure of female cutting - I believe it's Type A1 of female circumcision.

Why is one accepted by many religious individuals - especially in the West, but the other widely rejected? Certainly Type A1 female genital cutting is no different than routine Western male circumcision. So, logically, if male infant circumcision is allowed, female sewing/Type 1 circumcision should as well.

But then again, with all these slippery slopes these procedures create - why not genital sewing? why not something else? and so on... - and all the rather weak arguments pro infant circumcision advocates have, perhaps the most logical and ethical solution is to ban all non-medical genital cuttings/procedures on infants?

Good question.

For me Islam doesn't condone genital sewing, and I think it is an illogical, unnecessary cultural practice and I'm opposed to it.

I find it strange that you think it is somehow logical though. What a strange mind you have.

(See, eh - it is easy to answer questions and not be afraid to state one's beliefs. Your evasion when it comes to actual Biblical commandments stands in stark contrast).

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:...perhaps the most logical and ethical solution is to ban all non-medical genital cuttings/procedures on infants?

Yes, that is the logical and ethical solution.

For Jews and Muslims, male circumcision is seen as logical and a commandment from God. In Islam, circumcision is not mentioned in the Quran, but it was a teaching/instruction of the Prophet.

I do understand the anti-circumcision argument that an infant has no choice in the matter, and indeed have talked to people who have been circumcised in later life - some out of choice, some out of cultural practice (eg some African tribes). On balance, the evidence I've seen shows the circumcision does no harm and is best done as per Jewish and Muslim custom on new borns (best for the male child).

Note that some doctors routinely advocated circumcisions for new borns - eg Australia, IIRC - and not for religious grounds.

The fact that there is evidence for the beneficial effects of circumcision, is enough for me to view the Biblical and Islamic commandment to be logical. It would be illogical if it was on balance a harmful procedure.

Cheers,
Shafique

The medical reasons for neonatal circumcision are extremely flimsy. Bathing frequently is the logical solution to keeping a p.enis healthy and infection-free, not cutting off the foreskin. Some babies have died or been disfigured after botched circumcisions.

There are many things from ancient religious texts that should be obsolete because of a modern way of living. Now that personal hygiene is better, there is no need for routine neonatal circumcision.

Well, then we have to agree to disagree. I don't think Jews and Muslims cite medical reasons as the primary reason for male circumcision - the primary reason is religious. As I stated, the fact that there is a medical benefit (and complications are few and far between) - I think it is a custom that doesn't offend logic.

In short, I'd say the logic is that the benefits outweigh the downsides.

Cheers,
Shafique

What offends logic more than a God creating a body part in the first place that then must be cut off after birth or during adolescence? Seems cruel and pointless to me.

I think it makes sense in an evolutionary sense - we have vestigial appendages, eg the appendix and what remains of a tail - and indeed wisdom teeth.

I think at some time in the evolutionary past a foreskin may have proferred some benefit that outweighed the downsides of having one. At the stage of human development where this minor surgery could be reliably carried out, man had evolved to wearing clothes/undergarments which made the advantage of a foreskin redundant, and indeed may have resulted in the disadvantages outweighing the good.

It is not, obviously, such an encumberance that it does absolute harm - but it also is something that we can do without, and removing it (like say wisdom teeth) profers more benefits than not removing it.

Thus, I would not view having a foreskin which can be removed as cruel or pointless.

But that's just my view.

(BTW - the above is just what occured to me when you asked the question - it is only my personal view that I thought of just now.)

Cheers,
Shafique

Interesting perspective! Still, from what I have read about the foreskin. there are very few disadvantages to having one, clothing or not.

I find it strange that you think it is somehow logical though. What a strange mind you have.

You find basic logic strange? If one is legal then so should the other.

There's no significant difference between sewing and circumcision to say one should be outlawed but one is ok.

That's basic logic and that's why your views are so illogical.

and removing it (like say wisdom teeth) profers more benefits than not removing it.

That's a nice lie you need to tell others. With semi-frequent hygiene practices, there are no benefits to removing the foreskin. It's also interesting that male circumcision was initially introduced in the US in the 19th century as a way of decreasing male sexual sensitivity, so there are clearly disadvantages to being circumcised.

What offends logic more than a God creating a body part in the first place that then must be cut off after birth or during adolescence? Seems cruel and pointless to me.

That would be a very dumb idea since foreskin helps prevent infections for diaper wearing infants.

kanelli wrote:Interesting perspective! Still, from what I have read about the foreskin. there are very few disadvantages to having one, clothing or not.

I agree - I just gave you that perspective in light of the 'cruel and pointless' remark. The more I think of it, Wisdom Teeth are a good example of vestigial organs/parts of the body which had a useful part to pay in the evolutionary past, but now can cause harm to many if not extracted (not all, but some).

The disadvantages of a foreskin may be few - but they do exist. The advantages of circumcision may also be few, but they exist too.

So - for me it does make sense that God ordained circumcision at a time in man's evolution where it had a physical and a spiritual/ritual significance.

Fasting is a ritual that we carry out for primarily spiritual benefits and as a sign of obedience to God. It has peripheral health benefits (if fasting is done properly and one doesn't over eat) - but they are side effects.

Anyway - I respect the alternative view that routine circumcision may be wrong. Jews and Muslims do have a logic for continuing the practice though - it may be a logic you don't agree with, but I hope you'll agree that for me it is logical.

Cheers,
Shafique

Then we go back to the OP and ask why genital sewing/Type 1 female circumcision also can't be legal if male circumcision is.

Logically you allow others if male infant circumcision is allowed. I'm still not sure of the argument for why performing an unnecessary operation on infants in the name of religion is 'logical'.

What are the benefits of female circumcision or genital sewing? Do they outweigh the harm/dangers?

Does any scripture say God asks this of the believers in that scripture?

If not, why would it be logical to endorse that act?

I presume you don't object to Jews and Muslim saying that for them it is logical for male circumcision to be carried out as a matter of course?

Cheers,
Shafique

What are the benefits of female circumcision or genital sewing?

The exact same with male infant circumcision - ie., there are none.

Does any scripture say God asks this of the believers in that scripture?

Suddenly your understanding of logic becomes clearer. When you say 'logic', you don't mean what everyone else has in mind when they use the word. Your 'logic' is religious fundamentalism - "it's logical because it's in the Koran".

But I'm curious, why are you limiting this to what scriptures say? Why can't parents decide to sew their daughters up (in a way that does not have adverse health effects) if they just really want it done?

Why should society agree with you that an unnecessary procedure on an infant should be done just because there are no net health benefits? Doctors aren't removing the appendixes of all infants

What happens if a new religion is created tomorrow which says these procedures should be done?

Do you not think of these things?

This goes a long way in explaining why your views are so foreign and, in fact, illogical.

You don't appear to think anything through and stop at a point as soon as it agrees with what Islam teaches. That must be how the mind of a religious fundamentalist works.

Also, to correct your previous claim, I clearly never said that genital sewing is logical. I said that *if* you believe male infant circumcision is logical, *then* you must also agree that female infant sewing should be done too.

Since I opposed male infant genital cutting in the OP, I also oppose female infant genital sewing. Again, that was quite clear. And that's based on actual logic.

I'm amazed I needed to explain this part and I was even more amazed that you yet again misread what I wrote - again, you clearly are not very logical.

Because quite simply sewing or female genital MUTILATION is pretty horrific. No being women, how would you know the consequences of this? FGM is basically done so women cannot enjoy s.e.x and get no pleasure from it. It's extremely harmful to a woman and can cause all sorts of problems.

Sewing is hardly hygienic is it and completely unnecessary and the point of it is what? Once again 'man's need to control women and deny them enjoyment.

With circumcision, I do believe that it's cleaner and prevents certain problems and afterall it is only excess skin, that men do not need.

I don't think you can even compare the two.

Because quite simply sewing or female genital MUTILATION is pretty horrific.

How is Type I female circumcision more horrific than male?

How are a few stitches worse than cutting - at least stitching is reversible where cutting isn't.

I'm curious, is your opposition to female procedures based on your views on men and women in society - that it's more acceptable to perform unnecessary procedures on guys because of gender roles and masculinity than it is about a level headed look at how these types of procedures are actually so different?

It's extremely harmful to a woman and can cause all sorts of problems.

I hope you're actually aware of what Type I female circumcision actually is - it's the analogous procedure to male circumcision - the removal to partial removal of the clitoral hood. If it is painful or desensitizing for females, then it is just as much for males - and clearly, since male circumcision was adopted in the US for that reason, there does seem to be some evidence that both male and female (Type 1) circumcision have that effect.

Sewing is hardly hygienic is it and completely unnecessary and the point of it is what? Once again 'man's need to control women and deny them enjoyment.

That's what being discussed if you read the thread. Apparently, the 'point' of male circumcision is that Muslims believe their religion tells them to perform a procedure on infants. So I don't know how to answer your question than to say there is no point for either practice. Duh.

With circumcision, I do believe that it's cleaner and prevents certain problems and afterall it is only excess skin, that men do not need.

Go learn basic anatomy and come back to explain to me the difference between foreskin and the clitoral hood.

As far as cleanliness goes, basic hygienic practices cancel out any reason to have the procedure done. Everyone in the West has access to running water on a semi regular basis. And nothing you said explains why the procedure needs to be done on people who cannot give their consent.

I don't think you can even compare the two.

I think you should read up on the terms being discussed and read the posts in a thread before commenting.

I do believe that it's cleaner and prevents certain problems

Hold on a minute.

You 'do believe'?

So you're not even sure but your default belief is that it's ok to cut male infants?

Do you have any idea, based on everything you previously said about female circumcision, how incredibly dumb your comment is?

So eh, in summary, you are calling Jews and Muslims 'dumb' for believing that God was wise and had a good reason to require males to be circumcised.

I've detailed why it is logical for us - primarily it is because God asked us to do it, and secondly because the advantages are there, and the disadvantages are few.

You asked why it is not therefore logical to condone female circumcision. I answered that directly - it doesn't meet the criteria above - certainly not the primary one.

Now, if God himself (as you believe Jesus is God) was circumcised - is it not strange that you are arguing that God was wrong or dumb to have had the procedure done on Himself? (I presume you believe that God could have prevented His circumcision if he was wrong).

Cheers,
Shafique

I've detailed why it is logical for us - primarily it is because God asked us to do it

That's not a 'logical' reason for why society should perform unnecessary procedures on infants. I think that's obvious and doesn't need an explanation.

Did a five year old take over your computer?

We're going back to what I said about how religious fundamentalists like yourself think. I'm well aware that *you* believe this should be done because of bronze age commands but we're talking about what secular societies should allow.

and secondly because the advantages are there, and the disadvantages are few.

There are no clear medical advantages for routine circumcision in modern society.

And you have not explained why genital cutting cannot wait until the time when the person going through the procedure is mature enough to decide on his own if the benefits outweigh any risk.

Clearly given how few elective circumcisions there are, most adult males are of the opinion that these alleged 'benefits' are not worth a painful operation.

I answered that directly - it doesn't meet the criteria above - certainly not the primary one.

Wait...what is this criteria again? The non-existent medical benefits to male circumcision or that female cutting is not prescribed in two religions?

You do realize not everyone accepts your primary reason that things should be done because what scripture says. Modern society does not function that way.

(and I'm amazed this needs an explanation)

Now, if God himself (as you believe Jesus is God) was circumcised - is it not strange that you are arguing that God was wrong or dumb to have had the procedure done on Himself? (I presume you believe that God could have prevented His circumcision if he was wrong).

Jesus was also baptized. Do you Muslims believe in baptism?

Jesus was also crucified. Do you want to be crucified?

Seriously, I could go on and on with examples illustrating how your line of thinking is unbelievably stupid.

It's a moot point. No one besides you and other religious crazies would use scripture as 'proofs' for how society should operate. Again, your thinking isn't logical, it's religious fanaticism.

This thread is not about Baptism or crucifixion. I've detailed the secondary reason for Muslims and Jews to routinely circumcise males - that there are some advantages and the disadvantages are fewer. Your problem is that this view is shared by many doctors who DO recommend routine circumcision. I am not an advocate of it being compulsory, but rather it should be indeed be a valid parental choice.

My question TO YOU was related to the logic of someone who believes God was circumcised taking a stance that circumcision is dumb.

Cheers,
Shafique

Sorry, unlike Jesus' baptism, was the circumcision voluntary?



Anyways, you're free to use scripture as 'proofs' for why routine circumcision should be practiced in secular states.

I figure most will ignore such reasoning and even those who support infant circumcision have never used your arguments.

Thanks for allowing me to use scripture for the primary reason for circumcision. Are you going to steadfastly ignore that the secondary reasons make the decision logical?

Now, explain to me again why YOU believe God was circumcised, and are arguing here that Muslims and Jews are dumb for allowing it to be done.

Surely God would/could have stopped Himself from being circumcised if it was really 'dumb'.

Please explain your logic.

Cheers,
Shafique

Are you against ear piercing infants?

No medical benefit there (there's no medical benefit for male circumcision, but you've chosen to ignore that).

If you do not oppose ear piercing infants, then on what grounds can you say it's not ok to perform type 1 female circumcision on infants or genital sewing?

You know, this is basic logic, after all.

Sorry if I didn't see an explanation for why the 'secondary explanations' required a needless procedure to be done on infants to make it logical - as opposed to people of age getting it done.

Then of course we go back to why parents who want their daughters sewn/cut for cultural/religious reasons can't have the operation done as long as there is no severe adverse effect to sewing/cutting infants.

Surely God would/could have stopped Himself from being circumcised if it was really 'dumb'.

In your world, I'm sure that makes sense.

Surely God must have also stopped anyone from telling Jesus something wrong because that would be really dumb for Jesus to hear something that's incorrect.

Surely God must have prevented anyone from serving Jesus bad food....

Surely God must have provided Jesus with donkeys or wine whenever Jesus needed donkeys and wine....

Sorry, I'm not sure you explained your logic clearly for opposing a procedure that you believe God underwent Himself. Please run that by me again. You do believe God was circumcised, but you still think that Jews and Muslims are dumb for doing this.

Is this just another one of your illogical beliefs?


I explained quite patiently that the secondary reason Jews and Muslims do male circumcision shows that it is NOT pointless or without benefit. The clear logic is that God asked Muslims and Jews to perform this procedure that additionally conveys some advantages and few disadvantages.

Just because you don't agree that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages doesn't make the procedure pointless.

Cheers,
Shafique

You do believe God was circumcised, but you still think that Jews and Muslims are dumb for doing this.

I do believe Jesus was served bad food. I also believe God did not prevent Jesus from being served bad food. And I also believe that I would not want to be served bad food even in light of the above two statements being true.

Is that so hard to understand?

Is this just another one of your illogical beliefs?

Sure, whatever you need to tell yourself.

Just because you don't agree that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages doesn't make the procedure pointless.

Sorry, how is it more or less pointless than female genital sewing or cutting?

You do realize that 'because God says so' is not a logical argument, right?

I'm not asking about Jesus and food.

I'm asking for YOUR logic concerning God being circumcised, and then calling Muslim and Jews 'dumb' for carrying out this procedure.

Your non-answer is indeed unfathomable as an answer to this question. (And trying your best to ignore that we do have logical primary AND secondary reasons for circumcision is getting tiresome.)

Cheers,
Shafique

Your non-answer is indeed unfathomable as an answer to this question. (And trying your best to ignore that we do have logical primary AND secondary reasons for circumcision is getting tiresome.)

I explained why religious reasons for circumcising infants in a secular society are irrelevant. Your explanation does not explain WHY HOSPITALS SHOULD PERFORM THE PROCEDURE. It only addresses why parents would want the cutting done.

That was one of the dumbest and poorly crafted arguments I've read in favor of circumcision. Even pro-infant circumcision advocates have never expressed why hospitals should cut male infants for those reasons.

But what's interesting is that you concede non-Jewish/Muslim families who opt to have their infant sons circumcised do not have a 'logical' primary reason for the genital cutting - yet you've said you do not support female infant genital cutting or sewing for that reason.

So why can parents who are not religious have their infant sons circumcised but parents with infant girls cannot have their daughters cut or sewn?

You're still avoiding the question posed to you (by so blatantly moving goal posts, it is not funny).

I'm asking for YOUR logic concerning God being circumcised, and then calling Muslim and Jews 'dumb' for carrying out this procedure.

I refer you to my, Chocs etc previous answers concerning genital sewing and male circumcision. The arguments and answers haven't changed.

Your squirming is getting unbearable to behold. Why don't you just answer the question?

Cheers,
Shafique

I have answered the question and parodied the ridiculousness of your point.

The bottom line is there is no *logical* reason to say female cutting (Type 1 female circumcision) or sewing should not be allowed if male circumcision is.

Now you're imagining you answered the question? C'mon eh, this excuse would embarrass all your friends.

We've already given you the logic behind why we don't agree with your view.

What you haven't done is explain why you think it is dumb for Jews and Muslims to be circumcised when you believe God Himself was circumcised. Where is your logic on this point? (Talking about food or baptism is not answering the question).

Cheers,
Shafique

Is allah circumcised?