Quote:
Originally Posted by Mykonos
|
Medical malpractice is not just cause for dismissal. From what I hear, most anecdotal evidence favors supporting circumcision as a preventative practice. A friend I had in elementary school was circumcised as a child to stem the flow of urinary tract infections he kept getting. Though I cannot speak to the efficacy of circumcision, I have never had a UTI or STI; whether this makes me the rule or the exception, I do not know. There are definitely advantages to being circumcised, though they are probably not significant enough to warrant its global implementation as a preventative practice.
And I completely agree, but "female circumcision" is a misnomer, especially when the goal is to reduce or eliminate sexual function of the erectile tissue. Calling it "circumcision" is a blanket propaganda tactic to have it accepted in the medical community -- almost no Western doctors will perform the procedure, which has paved the way for some nasty cases of child abuse. While there is no erectile tissue in the foreskin, the removal of part of the clitoris deprives a female of the most sensitive sexual organ of the female body, for which there is NO MEDICAL OR RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATION.
What I would like to know is are there any people who were sexually active prior to circumcision that can reflect on how sex changed for them? These are the only people who can have subjective knowledge of both sides of the argument (objective knowledge, in this situation, is indeterminate).