Acceptable risks for girls but not boys?
Find a Conversation
|Fri, 07-23-2010 - 6:05pm|
It seems whenever the evidence for circumcision is produced, it always talks about rate of occurrence of certain health problems in circ'd males vs. uncirc'd males. It proposes that there are reduced risks for circ'd males, okay. It however never broaches the question of why the rate of occurrences in the uncirc'd males are unacceptable risks. It seems (at least to me) we should build some type of comparable baseline for what is deemed acceptable and not acceptable for society by comparing the rate of occurrences of the same health problems to females since females are treated by less invasive measures. I suppose you can argue that the supposed recourse of male circumcision nulls the comparison, but how do we know what effects different types of female circumcisions (if done in proper facilities with better trained physicians) can have? Do we really have reliable statistical samples to show us what reduction in infection risk some type of female circumcision can or can't provide? Are we even going to look into the possibility? Somehow I doubt it.
Why are there different standards in what is acceptable with infection risks with females than there is with males? Why are there different standards in what is acceptable hygiene difficulty with females than there is with males?
Why is the uncirc'd penis an open Petri dish of infections and a hygiene problem waiting to happen, but the uncirc'd vulva isn't? Why do males need these potential problems preempted but females don't?
I don't think pro-circ'ers who espouse these supposedly increased health risks from having an uncirc'd penis would really care if they didn't already have an unrelated desire for boys to be circumcised.
Edited 7/23/2010 6:09 pm ET by markh85