At this point, if I had a baby boy I possibly/probably would have him circumcised*, but if anyone suggested that I circumcise a baby girl, I would be horrified. [*Having said that, that's my initial feeling, if the situation actually arose, I would do much more reading and find out more information about the pros and cons before making a final decision.]
I don't know why I make that illogical distinction in my mind, male circumcision is okay whereas FGM is abhorrent. I guess I have been swayed by arguments about health and hygiene. I don't think those are supported in the case of FGM whereas there is scientific evidence to suggest that male circumcision is beneficial (latest reports suggest that it may help spread of HIV).
As for mutilating breasts at birth to prevent breast cancer, that's a good comparison to the penile circumcision case in some respects, because the diseases and problems being prevented by male circumcision would occur later in life and not in infancy. Likewise breast cancer. But in other respects, it's not a similar enough scenario.
It was in the news in the UK recently -- if I recall this correctly -- that a couple have been given the go ahead to select and implant only those embryos that aren't affected by the BRCA1 gene (which causes or is a factor causing breast cancer). This is arguably one step away from offering pre-natal testing and abortion. Lots of women carriers of BRCA1 in adulthood choose mastectomies as a preventative measure if they find out they are carriers of the gene. However, this is not without risk. Because I think (again all this is vague recollection), women who have these preventative mastectomies go on to have a higher risk of suffering other cancers, affecting their ovaries or womb. This is probably related in some way to the hormones.
I don't think that circumcision has been proven to increase risks of other cancers in men in the way that mastectomies have been proven to increase risks of other cancers in women.
Also, isn't it a bit different in that women are often defined by their breasts, it's partly what distinguishes their form from the male, they use their breasts to feed infants, breasts are so much more integral to society's idea of what is a woman than a foreskin is to society's idea of what is a man.
NB: All the mentions I've made to increased risk of cancer and health and hygiene issues are vague recollections of stuff I've read and watched, don't take them as 100 per cent accurate.
I'm a bit conflicted about this issue myself.
At this point, if I had a baby boy I possibly/probably would have him circumcised*, but if anyone suggested that I circumcise a baby girl, I would be horrified. [*Having said that, that's my initial feeling, if the situation actually arose, I would do much more reading and find out more information about the pros and cons before making a final decision.]
I don't know why I make that illogical distinction in my mind, male circumcision is okay whereas FGM is abhorrent. I guess I have been swayed by arguments about health and hygiene. I don't think those are supported in the case of FGM whereas there is scientific evidence to suggest that male circumcision is beneficial (latest reports suggest that it may help spread of HIV).
As for mutilating breasts at birth to prevent breast cancer, that's a good comparison to the penile circumcision case in some respects, because the diseases and problems being prevented by male circumcision would occur later in life and not in infancy. Likewise breast cancer. But in other respects, it's not a similar enough scenario.
It was in the news in the UK recently -- if I recall this correctly -- that a couple have been given the go ahead to select and implant only those embryos that aren't affected by the BRCA1 gene (which causes or is a factor causing breast cancer). This is arguably one step away from offering pre-natal testing and abortion. Lots of women carriers of BRCA1 in adulthood choose mastectomies as a preventative measure if they find out they are carriers of the gene. However, this is not without risk. Because I think (again all this is vague recollection), women who have these preventative mastectomies go on to have a higher risk of suffering other cancers, affecting their ovaries or womb. This is probably related in some way to the hormones.
I don't think that circumcision has been proven to increase risks of other cancers in men in the way that mastectomies have been proven to increase risks of other cancers in women.
Also, isn't it a bit different in that women are often defined by their breasts, it's partly what distinguishes their form from the male, they use their breasts to feed infants, breasts are so much more integral to society's idea of what is a woman than a foreskin is to society's idea of what is a man.
NB: All the mentions I've made to increased risk of cancer and health and hygiene issues are vague recollections of stuff I've read and watched, don't take them as 100 per cent accurate.