Is Religious Male Circumcision Still Denied In Taiwan Hospitals?

[Charlie Jack]

Christians and followers of other religions that approve of circumcision ...

You don't seem to know much about Christianity, do you?

Some Christian groups approve of it, some allow it, and to some it's a non-issue.

I was circumcised, but it's a non-issue to me. I don't have a strong opinion about it one way or the other, not because I don't care at all, but more likely because my various emotional and cognitive "vector quantities" seem to have more or less canceled each other out, so that I don't exactly know how to have an opinion about it.

But St. Paul seems to have had a very strong opinion about it:

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. . . . You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. . . . For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. . . . You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? . . . As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

--Galatians 5:1-12 (NIV)

[Omniloquacious]

How many of the male posters against circumcision are circumcised?

First, I must re-emphasize that I am not against circumcision (and can't recall reading any posts in this thread by anyone who is), but simply object to the circumcision of babies or small children when it is not a medical necessity.

But to answer your question: I have no idea whether or not I was circumcised. I don’t have a foreskin, and have sometimes wondered if it might have been snipped off before I was old enough to know anything about it. But though my mum had some Jewish blood in her, she was a staunch member of the Church of England, and I very much doubt that either of my parents would have wanted to have their sons circumcised. Alas, it’s too late to ask them about it, since they’ve already taken the answer to their graves in a quiet little village churchyard in Suffolk.

Actually, until this discussion piqued my curiosity, I had no idea at all what an adult foreskin might look like, having never in my life looked closely at other men’s dicks, in the flesh or in pictures. So I Googled some pictures to find out, and was quite surprised by what I saw. Very strange, indeed! I must say, I much prefer the look of my own little fellow. I also learnt that a small minority of grown men naturally have no foreskin, which leads me to assume that's the most likely reason for the lack of a sack on the end of my knob.

Anyway, regardless of whether I was snipped or not, I still would never dream of having a son of mine snipped, and would frown on anyone having that done to their own son, and on any medical practitioner who would do it for them. But I absolutely don’t care a hoot whether or not any fellow decides for himself to have the snip once he’s old enough to make his own decision about it.

And Fortigurn, old chap, I don’t know where you get a definition of “mutilate” that's so narrow as to exclude the cutting off of part of the genitals, but here are some standard definitions that most certainly apply to circumcision:

To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

To injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts

And as one of many examples in law, in Young v Central of Georgia Railway, Justice Candler of the Supreme Court of Georgia wrote that the term mutilate means:

... to retrench, remove, expunge, or delete an essential or material part of, so as to render incomplete or imperfect …

I don't see how you could argue that the foreskin is not an essential or at least material part of a boy's little willy, and that the act of circumcision does indeed excise or remove it.

[Hamletintaiwan]

I really don't get what you are referring to here.My poor English grammar? Or your poor performance making sense of a poorly formulated sentence?

I'm referring to the fact that you questioned what you called 'all those supposedly scientific studies'. You're not competent to make such judgments.

I read the scientific study.

Once again I read the study.
Maybe you are right and I am not in the position to make the judgement about what is and what is not considered a scientific study.
Let me point out some of the flaws in these studies anyhow though.

One study was conducted in Lesotho. Correct me if I am wrong.

About 40% of the population live below the international poverty line of US $1.25 a day

I question how many men participating in this study had to run a mile to the next waterhole?


Different study I was referring to.

A total of 3,274 uncircumcised men, aged 18–24 y, were randomized to a control or an intervention group with follow-up visits at months 3, 12, and 21. Male circumcision was offered to the intervention group immediately after randomization

Now you might not spot the problem here but I call it a big flaw.
First of all, truly random does not exist and if you know a way so my pc can generate random, tell me right away since I am going to run to the patent office with it.
But this is not the biggest problem with it. The main problem is that circumcision was offered to them after 'randomization' therefore the intervention group was not random instead these people made a conscious decision to be circumcised.

Male circumcision was offered

How did they offer it? Referring to arguments I often hear from pro baby circumcision groups that it is so much more stressful, distress and painful at adulthood, these individuals needed some convincing.
Health benefit education? I conclude maybe jump to conclusion that these people were more considerate than the rest of the participants.

After circumcision, these men needed to take extra care of their penis. Could this necessity have spilled over throughout the rest of the study? Have these men looked more often and more carefully at their penis from then on, or at least for an extended period of time?

aged 18–24 y

While the non-circumcised men had all the chances getting infected with some other disease which are considered the gateway for HIV not the foreskin, the circumcised men were out of the game for some time holding their butchered penises.

When controlling for behavioural factors, including sexual behaviour that increased slightly in the intervention group, condom use, and health-seeking behaviour, the protection was of 61% (95% CI: 34%–77%).

This is where it gets murky.
Who conducted the study? As you see in this thread this topic is highly emotionally charged. Therefore, who evaluated the results, pro- or contra circumcision personal? Maybe ET?

Last not least. I have no doubt that cleaning a circumcised penis is easier but since I have running water in my house and take a shower twice a day, this benefit does not account for much any-longer.
Also not the foreskin causes HIV infection. Sexual transmitted diseases and other infection open a gateway for the HIV viruses to enter the blood stream.
It also would help allot if the medical community called hepatitis B and HIV a blood transmitted disease (BTD) and not an STD.

[TheGingerMan]

Everything you mentioned are duties and not decisions. It is your bloody duty to wipe you kid's arse , feed him and send him to school. Give him up for adoption if you don't want to do any of those things. We don't betroth them at age 3 because we want them to grow up and make that decision, ditto with paying his college tuition fee in an engineer's course. we want them to grow up and choose what to to be proficient in.

It's also a parent's responsibility to raise their kids morally and teach them ethics. For some of us, that is done in our religious traditions and that's where it's going to stay whether those who disagree like it or not.

The question the OP raised is based on religious freedom. Recognizing another person's freedom doesn't mean a thing unless it's something you personally disagree with. That's where the real test of freedom begins. Just because you don't personally approve of it doesn't mean it's wrong for everyone else.

I agree, but what if one chooses to raise one's kids in mind that morale and ethic have quite nothing to do with ANY damn religion?
Farg all that noise.
There is NO way in Hades that I would allow such obvious obfuscation in my domain. Bleat on your trumpet all you want, but no gilded tomorrow will forever forgive one for idol worship.

[Zla'od]

Religious freedom is a red herring. You think all religious practices should be protected? You underestimate the inventiveness of sectarian leaders at thinking of commandments that promise to offend you enough that you cry out for their suppression. My religion commands nudism, for example. (Or are we limiting ourselves to the major, recognized religions?)