88 replies to this topic

[Boges]

So which is it, people who are against circumcision are antisemites, or it actually has nothing to do with religion? I reduces senstivity of the glans, not sure how that enhances sexual feeling. If you find an uncircumcised penis difficult to clean you probably ride the short bus to school. What are the drawbacks: http://www.examiner....-could-go-wrong Or you could call up David Reimer in Winnipeg, and ask him. No, wait, you can't, because he finally committed suicide. As for the memory, we carry memories in our body we have no conscious awareness of. Doesn't mean they don't affect us.

The religious reason is the reason no reasonable government will ban it. But people don't always do it because of religion.

You're a bit to fixated on people getting their wang snipped.

If it was that large a public health issue then it would be banned because it's, you know, a public health issue. Not because people think it violates the human rights of infants.

Do you have statistics that suggest how often circumcisions go wrong? 1%? 5%? 10%? Not an insignificant percentage of the population of men are circumcised so there'd be some record of a problem with having it done over the pas 5,000 years people have been doing it.

[kraychik]

I back that too

This is great, you've essentially taken every position possible in the span of one page in this thread. Initially you supported banning the practise of circumcision, then said it's no big deal and would support continuing the protection of parents' freedoms to make that choice, and then said you're comfortable not having any position on the matter one way or the other. You've essentially become a political pretzel on this. It's hilarious.

[kraychik]

I don't remember the event.

Nobody does. Canuckistani's statement about people retaining memories they're unaware of is absurd. I want to see these circumcised men who are marching for a restriction on this practise because they want foreskin. Until then, it's pretty obvious that this is just more uninvited leftist self-aggrandizement where this guy purports to be the vanguard of victims who never requested his advocacy. It's actually funny.

[g_bambino]

The religious reason is the reason no reasonable government will ban it. But people don't always do it because of religion.

If it was that large a public health issue then it would be banned because it's, you know, a public health issue. Not because people think it violates the human rights of infants.

Do you have statistics that suggest how often circumcisions go wrong? 1%? 5%? 10%? Not an insignificant percentage of the population of men are circumcised so there'd be some record of a problem with having it done over the pas 5,000 years people have been doing it.

What kind of logic is that? The professional surgical removal of a finger for cosmetic or religious "reasons" wouldn't, in itself, be a public health issue; it could be done to millions of children with as much risk to their health as a circumcision. But nobody opts to have it done to their children and no reasonable government would allow it. So, why is the removal of the foreskin a-okay? Oh, right, because "it looks better", "I had it done, so my kid should too," and "the Bible says to".

[Boges]

What kind of logic is that? The professional surgical removal of a finger for cosmetic or religious "reasons" wouldn't, in itself, be a public health issue; it could be done to millions of children with as much risk to their health as a circumcision. But nobody opts to have it done to their children and no reasonable government would allow it. So, why is the removal of the foreskin a-okay? Oh, right, because "it looks better", "I had it done, so my kid should too," and "the Bible says to".

So you're comparing someone's finger to a about a centimeter of penis skin.

[Peeves]

Another issue for the equation.

I see by far many young girls (mostly)with piercings today then a generation or so past.

I'm sure the parents are making that decision to allow. Since the 'kid' isn't old enough to make the decision, why is that so much different than a circumcision?

I know of at least one 14 year old that had a nose job, and I'm reading where some teens are having breast enhancement. Why then the fuss on circumcision?

[Boges]

Another issue for the equation.

I see by far many young girls (mostly)with piercings today then a generation or so past.

I'm sure the parents are making that decision to allow. Since the 'kid' isn't old enough to make the decision, why is that so much different than a circumcision?

I know of at least one 14 year old that had a nose job, and I'm reading where some teens are having breast enhancement. Why then the fuss on circumcision?

Yeah but the holes in the piercing can go away and the precious foreskin can never come back. blah blah.

[Peeves]

Yeah but the holes in the piercing can go away and the precious foreskin can never come back. blah blah.

While well and good your response dos not address the moral/ethical/legal question.

[g_bambino]

So you're comparing someone's finger to a about a centimeter of penis skin.

Good observation skills! Now, how about demonstrating your skill at logically defending your argument.

[Boges]

Good observation skills! Now, how about demonstrating your skill at logically defending your argument.

Circumcision isn't medically necessary but it's an aesthetics procedure that parents choose to have performed on their male children for a variety of reasons.

Many children get the procedure done and it's not something the child will ever remember and the child will never miss something he had for a few days. There are benefits to having it done or people wouldn't do it.

I've never been given a study that shows a large number of people that are outraged they've had circumcision nor have they had massive medical problems from getting it. There are just a handful of people that want to get in the business of religious groups and control the rights of parents.

Since you don't really "need it", in Canada, in shouldn't be part of Public Healthcare. Then again Canada has flirted with offering sex-change operations on the taxpayer's dime.

But to ban it is a pretty extremist view considering the likely negative side effects of circumcision are negligible and the number of parents that choose to have the procedure done for their child is sizable.

As said earlier, in this thread, it's akin to abortion, when it was illegal. Jews and Muslims aren't going to stop the procedure because it's illegal so you push the practice underground where it then may become a public health problem.

The idea of criminalizing a procedure that's been done for thousands of years without much complaint is concerning to me.

Edited by Boges, 13 July 2012 - 09:22 AM.

[kraychik]

Good observation skills! Now, how about demonstrating your skill at logically defending your argument.

Perhaps you can support your moral posturing on behalf of these victimised boys by showing us the troves of circumcised adult men who want their foreskins back and now feel that they have been violated? Not in my entire life have a met a circumcised man who wishes that benevolent leftists like yourself would have sounded the alarm about malicious circumcisions when they were infants, to spare them for the horrors of genital mutilation.

Your self-aggrandisement as you pretend to be an advocate for people who don't want you speaking on their behalf is hilarious. Leftists like you make this forum entertaining.

Thank you for you verbal virtuosity.

[g_bambino]

Circumcision isn't medically necessary but it's an aesthetics procedure that parents choose to have performed on their male children for a variety of reasons.

Whether or not it's been done for thousands of years is irrelevant; the length of time the practice has been carried out doesn't in itself justify the practice. Nor does the procedure's proven minimum of risk to an individual's overall health. What's being scrutinised is the reason why the specific act of cutting off the foreskin is performed. It can be medically necessary, but yes, all one is otherwise left with are religious and/or aesthetic reasons; subjective benefits. The same could well be used to "justify" the removal of, say, the end of the left digitus minimus. Or, let's consider the equally (perhaps more) applicable meatotomy, or a penile subincision (note: NSFW). The latter is also a millennia old practice, proven (by how long its been used alone) to be of about as much risk to anyone's health as circumcision, and isn't (as far as I know) a criminal act. So, would you consider it to be acceptable for parents who were advocates of body modification, who thought the results of meatotomies or subincisions are aesthetically pleasing, to have either of those procedures carried out on their infant sons, in the same way circumcision is? Because, I'm certain no doctor would oblige, even though they will cut a foreskin off for the same "reasons".
[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino, 13 July 2012 - 10:31 AM.

[bleeding heart]

Since you don't really "need it", in Canada, in shouldn't be part of Public Healthcare. Then again Canada has flirted with offering sex-change operations on the taxpayer's dime.

It has been argued that this is a very profound mental health issue, cutting to the bone, as it were, of a person's actual identity.

[g_bambino]

Perhaps you can support your moral posturing on behalf of these victimised boys by showing us the troves of circumcised adult men who want their foreskins back and now feel that they have been violated? Not in my entire life have a met a circumcised man who wishes that benevolent leftists like yourself would have sounded the alarm about malicious circumcisions when they were infants, to spare them for the horrors of genital mutilation.

Your self-aggrandisement as you pretend to be an advocate for people who don't want you speaking on their behalf is hilarious. Leftists like you make this forum entertaining.

Thank you for you verbal virtuosity.

You appear to have confused me with someone else.
[ed.: c/e]

Edited by g_bambino, 13 July 2012 - 10:27 AM.

[Boges]

Whether or not it's been done for thousands of years is irrelevant; the length of time the practice has been carried out doesn't in itself justify the practice. Nor does the procedure's proven minimum of risk to an individual's overall health. What's being scrutinised is the reason why the specific act of cutting off the foreskin is performed. It can be medically necessary, but yes, all one is otherwise left with are religious and/or aesthetic reasons; subjective benefits. The same could well be used to "justify" the removal of, say, the end of the left digitus minimus. Or, let's consider the equally (perhaps more) applicable meatotomy, or a penile subincision. The latter is also a millennia old practice, proven (by how long its been used alone) to be of about as much risk to anyone's health as circumcision, and isn't (as far as I know) a criminal act. So, would you consider it to be acceptable for parents who were advocates of body modification, who thought the results of meatotomies or subincisions are aesthetically pleasing, to have either of those procedures carried out on their sons, in the same way circumcision is? Because, I'm certain no doctor would oblige, even though they will cut a foreskin off for the same "reasons".

Drop a NSFW on that link please.

From the brief second I saw that pic before clicking the X button that looked like half the penis being cut from tip to base. That's not, in anyway, comparable to circumcision.

You can be dogmatic about the idea of alternating a child's body with his consent but I think reasonable people can agree that circumcision doesn't greatly cause an adverse effect on the person's future as opposed to that horrific link you posted. If it was something people did "just cuz" then only Jewish people would do it because it's said to be done in the Bible. Many more people have it done other than Jews.

Edited by Boges, 13 July 2012 - 10:30 AM.