Difference between revisions of "Male genital mutilation"

From Wiki 4 Men
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 10: Line 10:
   
 
Proponents of FGM use the same arguments as proponents of MGM. Contrary to what is often claimed the most common form of FGM is less severe than male circumcision. The argument that FGM is intrinsically worse doesn't fly.
  
Proponents of FGM use the same arguments as proponents of MGM. Contrary to what is often claimed the most common form of FGM is less severe than male circumcision. The argument that FGM is intrinsically worse doesn't fly.
  +
  +
=== Queensland, Australia ===
  +
  +
<blockquote>"In 1993, a non-binding research paper of the Queensland Law Reform Commission (Circumcision of Male Infants) concluded that "On a strict interpretation of the assault provisions of the Queensland Criminal Code, routine circumcision of a male infant could be regarded as a criminal act", and that doctors who perform circumcision on male infants may be liable to civil claims by that child at a later date.[20] No prosecutions have occurred in Queensland, and circumcisions continue to be performed."<ref>http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/QLRC/09.html</ref></blockquote>
   
 
=== Finland ===
  
=== Finland ===

Revision as of 13:38, 31 July 2019

Male genital mutilation (MGM) involves the removal or alternation of male genitals as part of a religious or social custom, on a man or boy that does not, or cannot consent to the procedure. MRAs object to all forms of genital mutilation. The procedure commonly known as circumcision is a form of MGM and remains legal in all nations today.

Circumcision

The rights of the individual are paramount. Circumcision is a violation of the boy's rights over his own body.

There are now many non-surgical alternatives to circumcision and even if they fail there are now also less invasive surgical alternatives. In the 21st century corrective circumcision is very rarely needed. In Alex's case the article notes that in the UK non-surgical options would have been attempted while the Canadian doctor went straight to circumcision.

There is strong evidence (elevated cortisol levels for an extended period, permanent changes in infant behaviour) that circumcision is traumatic for the infant.

Proponents of FGM use the same arguments as proponents of MGM. Contrary to what is often claimed the most common form of FGM is less severe than male circumcision. The argument that FGM is intrinsically worse doesn't fly.

Queensland, Australia

"In 1993, a non-binding research paper of the Queensland Law Reform Commission (Circumcision of Male Infants) concluded that "On a strict interpretation of the assault provisions of the Queensland Criminal Code, routine circumcision of a male infant could be regarded as a criminal act", and that doctors who perform circumcision on male infants may be liable to civil claims by that child at a later date.[20] No prosecutions have occurred in Queensland, and circumcisions continue to be performed."[1]

Finland

The neonatal circumcision rate in Finland is zero. The rate of circumcision later in life is 1 in 16667.[2]. This puts an upper bound on the number of medically necessary circumcisions at 0.006% There is no reason to be believe that Finnish men are less susceptible to foreskin related problems than other men (not even environmental temperatures) so we may reasonable conclude that no more than 0.006% of men will need a circumcision in their life if their foreskin is not removed without their consent.

See Also

External Links

References

  1. ↑ http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/QLRC/09.html
  2. ↑ http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/denniston/
Retrieved from "https://wiki4men.com/w/index.php?title=Male_genital_mutilation&oldid=5585"