what do you think about circumcision?
People shouldn't do it at all
11.8% (207)
11.8% (207)
Parents shouldn't do it do their kids. Let them decide when they'er older.
52.9% (928)
52.9% (928)
It's the parents' choice.
17.3% (304)
17.3% (304)
I don't care.
17.2% (302)
17.2% (302)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 24 NEXT
 

Duskflamer:
Saying that parents should not be allowed to get their children circumcised, and should be punished for doing it, is tantamount to religious discrimination. A briss 7 days after a kid is born is part of the Jewish religion. I was raised Jewish and though I don't place much stock in religion, my mom does, and I don't feel any compelling reason to tell her off for "mutilating me at birth" or whatever anti-circumcision people are on about.

According to Judaism, performing the circumcision on a child is part of the rite the ancient Hebrews made with God. Saying that Jews should be punished for the pain involved in performing circumcision is about the same as railing against Christian baptisms for the discomfort of being submerged in water, and the minor chance of drowning. If that sounds ridiculous to you, guess what? Arguing that circumcision shouldn't happen sounds about as ridiculous to me.

It's irrelevant whatever religion the parents are. The child is not of the same religion until you decide that for the child. And that is against basic human rights, I think anyone would agree that it's immoral and wrong to tell a woman that she must cook your food, or tell a child that it's alright to have sex with adults.
Everyone is born atheist, what we become later on is influenced by those around us. Most people never get the choice and are raised to believe certain things in a very rigid way.
But those of us who have maintained our atheistic default state can look at those who practice ancient old beliefs and traditions with skepticism.
I, and many others in the world believe that taking away a part of someone's body is inhumane, regardless of whatever you might believe.
You have the power to make your own choices, not the choices of others. It doesn't matter if it's good for a child to have her teeth removed to avoid infections, it's still wrong to make that choice for them.
Everyone needs to live their own life to the full extent or they will not have lived.

There's a famous quote by a Swedish actor that follows: "If our children never opposed or questioned their parents, we'd still be cavemen.

ravensheart18:

Ultratwinkie:

ravensheart18:

Fair question. I think cultural traditions that unify a people and that have lasted that long are worth continuing unless there is a reason not to continue them. I believe culture itself is something to be valued. As Einstein expressed, we need to keep our traditions as they are who we are and we should not change them just to "fit in".

Einstein hated religion. In fact, he outright called them childish. An argument from tradition is not a valid argument. Ever. This applies most exclusively in America, since its the last place to allow such things.

Go read some more. He called the belief in a personal god a childish understanding. He also said he'd take those that followed such religions above atheists anyday and that it was important for the Jewish people to maintain our traditions and stop trying to "fit in" with others.

Historical status has no bearing on whether something should be allowed. By tradition alone we should allow female circumcision, slavery, and body modification. All of these practices are ancient, yet they are all shunned in a modern world.

I disagree on several fronts. First of all tradition is important. There is value in remembering cultural traditions and passing them on. It is part of the richness of who we are.

Those traditions need only be reconsidered when there is provable harm. FGM and slavery have demonstratable harm. The science is mixed on male circumcision. As I said in my first post in his thread, if that science ever comes down hard on one side, I'd adjust my opinion, but with neutral science I say you continue to do it for religious/cultural reasons but you don't do it for other reasons.

The body modificaiton example you gave made me chuckle a bit...we do allow body modifcation.

Circumcision very clearly hurts and discomforts babies (or anyone else who has it done) for a while after the operation. It might not quite be the end of the world, but I still think it is very wrong.

Lots of things hurt a baby temporarily but are needed. My daughter had a tongue tie, it hurt when they cut it and for a while afterwards. There is some debate on if cutting them is needed or not, but we made a decision for her as her parents, just like with circumision the parents can make a call in the face of mixed evidence.

Vaccinations is not a surgery with clear physical effects. Not to mention vaccinations actually have proven effects, not up in the air.

While I believe in vaccination, its actually not black and white that all vaccinations we give work and are worth the risks. Science is close to neutral on several of them.

Argument from tradition. Logical fallacy. You assume that if we dont cut baby dicks, everything is going to fall apart. That is irrational, along with the religious need for mutilation.

Christopher hitchens said it best.

Circumcision causes harm, and no modern country outside the US does it anymore. Science has disproven 99% of the claims for circumcision. The only thing left is hygeine, which is not an issue in a first world country.

Watch this for facts:

Note: body modifcation in my post is intentional disfigurement like binding the head of a baby to make the head in the same of a pin.

In short, tradition is not a catch all. Identity is more than if you're cut or not, and times change. Deal with it.

Glademaster:

hashtag:

Ultratwinkie:

What if the religion says you have to cut off the ears, would you be alright with that too?
What about the nostrils?
Or how about simple ritual scarring?

Keep knives away from infants if there's no medical reason to cut them.

Ears≠pointless piece of skin on your penis. Just saying.

The penis contains 24,000 nerve endings uncircumcised. The procedure takes away 20,000 nerve endings alone. The female clitoris has 8,000. Medical fact.

Where exactly is it "useless?" because you can live without it? That makes most of your body useless flesh.

I didn't know that. DAMMIT HEALTH CLASS, WHY CAN"T YOU TEACH THESE THINGS???

Kanlic:
The notion that there are so many people against circumcision here is baffling to me. Let me run down a couple of points real quick:

1) Its a hygiene thing. If you are walking around all day with a flap of skin wrapping a moist area all day, it could lead to infection, more so if than you cut it off.

2) If you wait until you are older to get circumcised, there is a sensitivity issue that will plague you for a couple of months. I.E. your penis will hurt by just getting touched, so things like wearing underwear will be painful. Imagine trying to have sex during that period -- not worth it.

3) Assuming you live in a 1st world nation, most penises are circumcised at birth. Chicks these days, especially with our society that is fixated on grooming, aren't used to seeing an uncircumcised penis. It looks weird, to them at least.

It seems like everyone here is clenching onto their enlightenment ideal of everyone having a choice and responsibility to choose on their own, but really who gives a fuck. Once it's done it's done, and the differences in lifestyle are essentially zero. This seems like a non-issue to me, so when I here people crying outrage, what I'm really hearing is people who love to be victims and have an intense hatred for mom and dad.

Just quiet down and find some real issue to worry about like getting a job or using your freshly circumcised penis to make babies. On second thought, never have kids. I don't want any more of you self entitled assholes running around.

1. I assume they lack showers and baths whre you live.

2. Its not going to hurt any less as a child.

3. Assuming every irst world nation is Americayou mean ? Europe is the oppoite. Aso even in America you wouldnt spek for everyone.

I hope you donthve kids either pal, mainly becuase your ignoance will lead to you lopping bits of hem at birth. Idiot.

Kanlic:
1) Its a hygiene thing. If you are walking around all day with a flap of skin wrapping a moist area all day, it could lead to infection, more so if than you cut it off.

Nonsense. That only flies if you were to never take a shower. Besides, how about we just cut off all our limbs then? Those can also infect after all.

And considering you likely used arms and fingers to type your post, all limbs that can infect, you don't even follow your own line of reasoning.

Kanlic:
2) If you wait until you are older to get circumcised, there is a sensitivity issue that will plague you for a couple of months.

All the more reason not to practise genital mutilation at all eh? Besides, it's totally immoral to mutilate a child that has no choice in the matter. It's even immoral to mutilate a child that has seen no other ideas except religious dogma, and pretend it was a free choice.

Kanlic:
3) Assuming you live in a 1st world nation, most penises are circumcised at birth.

Sorry, what? I can see such a thing happening in Israel, but outside of that, needless genital mutilation is not practised at all. Heck, female genital mutilation is even a crime in just about any country. Circumcise a girl here and you're going away for 10-15 years in prison.

Kanlic:
Chicks these days, especially with our society that is fixated on grooming, aren't used to seeing an uncircumcised penis. It looks weird, to them at least.

Again I wonder where you're from that you say that. Such a thing is completely unknown to me. It even sounds outlandish. Why would any woman approve of genital mutilation unless they've been indoctrinated with the religious dogma that pretends it to be a good thing.

Kanlic:
Once it's done it's done, and the differences in lifestyle are essentially zero.

Earlier you said that even wearing underwear was painfull, so you're contradicting yourself here.

Kanlic:
The notion that there are so many people against circumcision here is baffling to me. Let me run down a couple of points real quick:

1) Its a hygiene thing. If you are walking around all day with a flap of skin wrapping a moist area all day, it could lead to infection, more so if than you cut it off.

2) If you wait until you are older to get circumcised, there is a sensitivity issue that will plague you for a couple of months. I.E. your penis will hurt by just getting touched, so things like wearing underwear will be painful. Imagine trying to have sex during that period -- not worth it.

3) Assuming you live in a 1st world nation, most penises are circumcised at birth. Chicks these days, especially with our society that is fixated on grooming, aren't used to seeing an uncircumcised penis. It looks weird, to them at least.

It seems like everyone here is clenching onto their enlightenment ideal of everyone having a choice and responsibility to choose on their own, but really who gives a fuck. Once it's done it's done, and the differences in lifestyle are essentially zero. This seems like a non-issue to me, so when I here people crying outrage, what I'm really hearing is people who love to be victims and have an intense hatred for mom and dad.

Just quiet down and find some real issue to worry about like getting a job or using your freshly circumcised penis to make babies. On second thought, never have kids. I don't want any more of you self entitled assholes running around.

1) The foreskin helps keep it clean and avoid infections, do some research. Following your logic we'd have to remove the armpits too or stitch the labia majora and minora to the thighs on women to expose the vagina and make it dry. The glans is supposed to be somewhat moist to keep a good pH balance. Please name one gland on the human body that's supposed to be dry and sandy.

2) Why would you do it at all if it serves no purpose? No one is doing it at adult age, it's just stupid.

3) One of the very few first world countries that still has circumsizion as a standard procedure is the US. And even there it's becomming less and less common.

Sewora:

this isnt my name:
[quote="Kanlic" post="18.331407.13461319"]The notion that there are so many people against circumcision here is baffling to me. Let me run down a couple of points real quick:

1) Its a hygiene thing. If you are walking around all day with a flap of skin wrapping a moist area all day, it could lead to infection, more so if than you cut it off.

2) If you wait until you are older to get circumcised, there is a sensitivity issue that will plague you for a couple of months. I.E. your penis will hurt by just getting touched, so things like wearing underwear will be painful. Imagine trying to have sex during that period -- not worth it.

3) Assuming you live in a 1st world nation, most penises are circumcised at birth. Chicks these days, especially with our society that is fixated on grooming, aren't used to seeing an uncircumcised penis. It looks weird, to them at least.

It seems like everyone here is clenching onto their enlightenment ideal of everyone having a choice and responsibility to choose on their own, but really who gives a fuck. Once it's done it's done, and the differences in lifestyle are essentially zero. This seems like a non-issue to me, so when I here people crying outrage, what I'm really hearing is people who love to be victims and have an intense hatred for mom and dad.

Just quiet down and find some real issue to worry about like getting a job or using your freshly circumcised penis to make babies. On second thought, never have kids. I don't want any more of you self entitled assholes running around.

1) The foreskin helps keep it clean and avoid infections, do some research. Following your logic we'd have to remove the armpits too or stitch the labia majora and minora to the thighs on women to expose the vagina and make it dry. The glans is supposed to be somewhat moist to keep a good pH balance. Please name one gland on the human body that's supposed to be dry and sandy.

2) Why would you do it at all if it serves no purpose? No one is doing it at adult age, it's just stupid.

3) One of the very few first world countries that still has circumsizion as a standard procedure is the US. And even there it's becomming less and less common.

Just to make this clear, something ppearsto have went wrong. You quoted me, I am against it. Plase dont think those are my words.

this isnt my name:
Just to make this clear, something ppearsto have went wrong. You quoted me, I am against it. Plase dont think those are my words.

Woah, I'm terribly sorry. Thanks for telling me! Pretty severe error on my behalf, hehe. I've rectified it now though.

Where is the option for: I think circumcision is okay, and it should be practiced?

Durgiun:

ravensheart18:

Durgiun:
If I ever have a kid, and the kid is male and if someone tries to cut off a piece of his body I'll hunt down the bastard with a shotgun.

Yes, I saw that comic on Stormfront where the nasty Jew ran around town trying to attack poor white christian babies with a knife to try and turn them Jewish.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that in America it is a common practice, be someone Jewish or not.

It is not uncommon in the US for parents to choose circumcision. However your suggestion that someone might "try to cut off a piece of his body" I've only seen claimed by hate mongers before. It's a silly kind of statement for you to make as no one is cutting anything without your consent and there is a difference between parents authorizing medical procedures than random strangers doing it.

MasTerHacK:
Where is the option for: I think circumcision is okay, and it should be practiced?

Right next to the option that women shouldn't have the right to vote.

We had it done on my son, but only because he requested it. J/K But seriously, I really don't feel like playing "Trend Setter" with my sons penis.

Sewora:
1) The foreskin helps keep it clean and avoid infections, do some research. Following your logic we'd have to remove the armpits too or stitch the labia majora and minora to the thighs on women to expose the vagina and make it dry. The glans is supposed to be somewhat moist to keep a good pH balance. Please name one gland on the human body that's supposed to be dry and sandy.

I agree with you there is no clear medical evidence supporting the need for circumcision for otherwise healthy penises.

But dry and sandy? It's never felt sandy to me lol.

ravensheart18:

Sewora:
1) The foreskin helps keep it clean and avoid infections, do some research. Following your logic we'd have to remove the armpits too or stitch the labia majora and minora to the thighs on women to expose the vagina and make it dry. The glans is supposed to be somewhat moist to keep a good pH balance. Please name one gland on the human body that's supposed to be dry and sandy.

I agree with you there is no clear medical evidence supporting the need for circumcision for otherwise healthy penises.

But dry and sandy? It's never felt sandy to me lol.

Didn't mean it that way. I just think that it's something that should be done both for medical and hygienic reasons.

Sewora:

MasTerHacK:
Where is the option for: I think circumcision is okay, and it should be practiced?

Right next to the option that women shouldn't have the right to vote.

Adult women are ADULTS and should be able to make their own choices.

Children are NOT adults and shouldn't be able to make all their own choices.

It's not comparable in the least.

ravensheart18:

Sewora:

MasTerHacK:
Where is the option for: I think circumcision is okay, and it should be practiced?

Right next to the option that women shouldn't have the right to vote.

Adult women are ADULTS and should be able to make their own choices.

Children are NOT adults and shouldn't be able to make all their own choices.

It's not comparable in the least.

Yet they cannot decide whether they should have their bodies intact? There is no legal surgery you can do on a child without medical necessity. Only circumcision is a loophole, and only because of "religious doctrine." You try to rationalize it by saying "they don't know, So I will perform unnecessary surgery."

Surgery is not a choice a parent makes, a doctor does. Period.

I'm circumcised and I really don't care

Sholtz:

Bento Box:

Sholtz:
see, the thing is, i'm glad my parents had me circumcised. Uncircumcised penises look horrible and too much like an animals penis. I know we're animals, but that doesn't mean we need to look like them just because it's natural.

I'm glad they had it done early mainly because it's riskier and a lot more painful later in life not to mention you don't remember it when it's done at birth.

also, to Wushu..."circumcision is bullshit, Penn and Teller say so." seriously? ....seriously? You lost all credibility with that line with me. Not because it's Penn and Teller ,I watch them all the time, but; because you apparently have to have someones "say so" to validate your beliefs.

Oh, just fuck you. Honestly?

You think it looks hideous because the norm in America is the cut schlong. You literally have zero context-awareness. If you lived in a place where people didn't slice babies' dicks as a matter of course, you'd look at a cut one and say, "oh god, what is wrong with that dick? It's hideous! It's got a huge chunk missing from it!"

Tell you what -- I think that fingernails are awful-looking. I really think they make us look too much like animals, and frankly I think we should just tear all the finger- and toenails off of children when they're born. I don't want to look like an animal, just because it's natural.

As for his quirk about Penn and Teller, he's specifically alluding to an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit, where they debunked the myths surrounding the alleged benefits of circumcision (most of which are hygenic and just as easily accomplished by washing your dick (or are you morally objected to touching yourself?). He wasn't letting Penn and Teller dictate his beliefs; he was making a cute allusion to a well-done expose on a fairly important issue.

Your reason for cussing at me is? So quick to judgement, someones got a low self image or something. Look you want your nails torn out, that's awesome. I love the idea really just yesterday i was thinking to myself. You know it's weird that we have these reduced claws basically we should either have eagle talons or just lose them entirely. If they weren't there the tender skin underneath wouldn't be tender anymore it would be like any other skin. So they don't really protect anything...no shittin' ya.

One thing i notice is you're so quick to tell me i have zero context for my dislike of the way uncircumcised penises look. Actually, that would well be the case if people walked around nude all day where I was made use to circumcised penis, but ya see we don't walk around naked here. My dislike of uncircumcised penis is due to ONLY to the fact it resembles an animal penis. Like a dogs in it's sheath.

My reason for cursing at you, is that you're being obtuse. Yes, I was quick to judgment -- because your argument was weak, and easy to judge.

This is further demonstrated by your complete inability to recognize the parallel I drew between mutilating children and mutilating children in a different way. You think the foreskin doesn't exist to protect the very sensitive and infection-prone glans and urethra, just as the keratin on our extremities exists for utility and protection?

And you do have zero context -- you yourself bemoaned the aesthetic of non-mutilated penises. That means you've seen them, and you dislike them (unless you have never seen one and just assumed that they looked gross, in which case you have no place to talk about their appearance at all).

The lack of context comes in the form of religious memes and their effect on the society in which you live. You live in a society that mutilates children as a matter of course, and that has warped your perspective into one that looks at an un-mutilated penis and says, "Eww, that looks too much like every other mammalian species on the planet. Gross."

Knight Templar:

overpuce:
I'm glad that my parents chose to have me circumcised. They did it for cleanliness rather than religion (as they are both Buddhists).

In Australia they do not let you have circumcision if you are doing it for such a reason.
It's like cutting off fingertips so they don't have to clean under their nails, it's just not a wise move from a medical standpoint, nevermind the ethics.

As misguided and foolish as that reason is (no offence) it is at least better than doing it for cosmetic reasons.

Sectan:
Plus it's not like a person would remember having this happen to them at such a young age.

Doesn't that argument strike you as a little creapy? It's ok since they won't remember what you did to them?

I don't remember a lot of things when I was younger. I don't remember being fed. Don't remember being bathed...Jesus my parents did a lot of things without asking my permission! I probably didn't want to be naked and bathed, but they did it anyways the sick bastards! Real non-sarcastic question: What are consequences for being circumcised vs not being circumcised? People like to use the word mutilation.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means...

Sholtz:

Bento Box:
[quote="Sholtz" post="18.331407.13457474"]
As for his quirk about Penn and Teller, he's specifically alluding to an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit, where they debunked the myths surrounding the alleged benefits of circumcision (most of which are hygenic and just as easily accomplished by washing your dick (or are you morally objected to touching yourself?). He wasn't letting Penn and Teller dictate his beliefs; he was making a cute allusion to a well-done expose on a fairly important issue.

As for all this, I'm aware of what it's about. Again none of the reasons they debunked are my reasons for backing circumcision. My view is that I hate the way uncircumcised looks, I am glad it was done early in life. If it wasn't i would undergo it as an adult, but the fact it was saves me from the months of raw tenderness and pain it would cause. Whereas i can't remember it, it doesn't hurt me at all, and I have a penis i'm not disgusted of. I don't care whether you prefer yours to be uncircumcised. I don't have to look at yours or anyone elses but mine.

I still don't buy it.

Look: I'm not arguing against circumcision. If you're an adult, and want to get circumcised, that's fine.

I'm arguing against the religious memes and ideals that allow religious parents to mutilate their children. I'm not sure that I've made that clear, and as confrontational as I've been in my last couple responses, I can see where I might be coming across as anti-selective-surgery. I'm not.

I'm against someone else selecting your surgery for you. I'm against the fact that your parents, and not you, decided that it would be a real good idea to get your cock chopped. I go back to my earlier example: would you elect to have your child's fingernails torn off? After all, the skin underneath would eventually toughen up just like the rest of their skin, and they'd forget all about the pain by the time they grew up.

That's a weak excuse. It's no excuse.

Sectan:

Knight Templar:

overpuce:
I'm glad that my parents chose to have me circumcised. They did it for cleanliness rather than religion (as they are both Buddhists).

In Australia they do not let you have circumcision if you are doing it for such a reason.
It's like cutting off fingertips so they don't have to clean under their nails, it's just not a wise move from a medical standpoint, nevermind the ethics.

As misguided and foolish as that reason is (no offence) it is at least better than doing it for cosmetic reasons.

Sectan:
Plus it's not like a person would remember having this happen to them at such a young age.

Doesn't that argument strike you as a little creapy? It's ok since they won't remember what you did to them?

I don't remember a lot of things when I was younger. I don't remember being fed. Don't remember being bathed...Jesus my parents did a lot of things without asking my permission! I probably didn't want to be naked and bathed, but they did it anyways the sick bastards! Anyways what are consequences for being circumcised vs not being circumcised? If there was a legitimate reason against it then I'd see it as wrong, but from my limited medicine knowledge I can't think of any.

Uncircumcised has 24,000 nerves. Circumcision only leaves you with 4,000 left. Females have 8,000. Circumcisions have proven to cause loss of sensitivity, callouses, and even sexual dysfunction. Any "benefit" has been medically disproven long ago. There is no evidence of "lasting longer" either.

Circumcision is a surgery, not something basic that is needed like food or hygiene. No surgery without medical reason is allowed on a child. Its only allowed because outdated religions demand it so.

Sewora:

Oskamunda:
*Snip*

Rule #1: Don't make fake quotes for people (notice how if you click my name, it doesn't take you to a reply that has *snip* in it; I have already stated I have no personal opinion on circumcision). How would you like this?

Sewora:
I think all puppies should be euthanized and eaten. Anyone who disagrees with this philosophy must be lobotomized.

I would think you wouldn't.

Now, in actual response; You people, YEESH. How can you pontificate so vociferously without actually reading anything? I don't justify it, I don't necessarily endorse it, as I have made very clear. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of logic in making it a human rights issue.

Now, seeing as I am clearly being trolled, let's take one last look at logic.

Sewora:
...how can you possibly justify removing it? What exactly is your argument for removing it?

Read my first post...or, if you are too lazy to do that, do a wiki walk, or a plain google search; you will find all of the arguments for and against. You completely ignored my entire post, and proceeded as though I had not stated anything, and then questioned through context my morality at the absence of an argument or justification. Steamroller fallacy, also known as The Republican's Debate.

Sewora:
What gives any parent the right to treat their children like a lump of meat that you can modify according to YOUR desires?

Nothing does. Problem is, your are stating outright that that is the only reason they would do it (they think of their child as meat), and then judge them for their conclusion. Straw Man fallacy, Definist fallacy, Naturalistic fallacy, Falsa Analogia fallacy, Psychologist's fallacy, and Argumentum ad Crudelitatem fallacy.

Sewora:
I think they should add the deathpenalty for circumsizing children in the US. At least then we'd get rid of all these psychotic parents who mutilate their children and then argue that it's so bloody nice because their parents were psychotic too.

So...cutting a bit of flesh off of a penis, one that weighs less than 1g, is wrong, but putting people to death isn't? One would think that if your morals disallowed for "mutilation," they would disallow state-sanctioned killing. Also, demanding that the whole world accept that circumcision is only mutilation, and ascribing a mental disease to those who don't believe the same and then insist that murder is the only fitting punishment for those so obviously afflicted and that the aforementioned mental disease has only a conclusive downward geneological vector...that's...that's...wow. Definist fallacy, Causa et Consequens Circularis fallacy, Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy, Attributio Falsi fallacy, Regression fallacy, Una Causa fallacy, Existential fallacy...I'll just stop there on that one, lest I go through almost all of them...

Sewora:
Yeah, if my parents locked me up in the basement my whole life, I'd probably lock my children up in my basement their whole life and then hop onto the escapist forum and batter others for thinking it's wrong. And fabricate some illusion of how I'm right in treating my children as I please, because they are MINE.

See above for the same fallacies, but mainly the addition of hypocrisy. YOU are the one who "jumped on" and did not read the previous posts, and have been spraying the "IT'S WRONG" foam around on everyone else. You have even gone on to state that there are psychological problems in circumcised men because of some illusion of freedom in choice as an infant and because a piece of your body is gone and "it knows it should be there?"

Sewora:
The psychological issues men can have is not due to the traumatic experience since no one has any real vivid memories from before the age of 3. The depression and psychological issues is due to the realization of the loss of a part of their bodies, and their parents decision to take the freedom of choice away from them.

Do you not realize that you just stated against your argument? If your parents took your choice away from you before you were 3, you wouldn't have any vivid memory of it, let alone have that memory be potent enough to cause you depression...if you look down at your cut penis and feel depressed, I think the nature of the depression is focused on a different measurement...you should try reading some Montaigne.

I could keep going on you and people like you, but it's pointless, as no one is going to read it save for the moderators.

Primary Conclusion: The morality of circumcision is in the air, and no one, logically, can provide an argument for or against it. All decisions regarding circumcision can be justified by any argument or set of experiences. Most importantly, it is not a human rights issue, no more than minimum wage is a human rights issue. If you do it, do it; if not, then not. No circumcision jihad is necessary, and it exists only to provide a growth medium for unnecessary argumentative behavior and bilespeak moral elitism.

Ancillary Conclusion: Sewora=Troll.

Logic, people...logic. USE IT.

Ultratwinkie:

ravensheart18:

Sewora:

Right next to the option that women shouldn't have the right to vote.

Adult women are ADULTS and should be able to make their own choices.

Children are NOT adults and shouldn't be able to make all their own choices.

It's not comparable in the least.

Yet they cannot decide whether they should have their bodies intact? There is no legal surgery you can do on a child without medical necessity.

Incorrect. You can also have various forms of cosmetic surgery done. Breast enlargements, nose jobs, eye lifts, tats, piercings, colligen injections, botox, braces, etc.

An no, an infant has ZERO say in what medical procedures are performed on them.

I love how all the pro-circumsizion people have no sources for their claims, can't back anything they say up with facts and keeps arguing and asking for proof and reason for the benefits of being uncircumsized when we've written numerous posts about it.

Stop reading this forum, visit some of the links we've provided, do some research on your own and stop being so ignorant.

I have foreskin, I can tell you a thousand benefits of having it. I can also just pull it back and experience being circumsized for a day and have it look, smell, act and perform like a circumsized penis and tell you it's no fun at all. How much more proof do you need? Good lord, it's like trying to talk about morality to a taliban.

ravensheart18:
Incorrect. You can also have various forms of cosmetic surgery done. Breast enlargements, nose jobs, eye lifts, tats, piercings, colligen injections, botox, braces, etc.

Woah.. You do those things to infants?

Ultratwinkie:

Sectan:

Knight Templar:

In Australia they do not let you have circumcision if you are doing it for such a reason.
It's like cutting off fingertips so they don't have to clean under their nails, it's just not a wise move from a medical standpoint, nevermind the ethics.

As misguided and foolish as that reason is (no offence) it is at least better than doing it for cosmetic reasons.

Doesn't that argument strike you as a little creapy? It's ok since they won't remember what you did to them?

I don't remember a lot of things when I was younger. I don't remember being fed. Don't remember being bathed...Jesus my parents did a lot of things without asking my permission! I probably didn't want to be naked and bathed, but they did it anyways the sick bastards! Anyways what are consequences for being circumcised vs not being circumcised? If there was a legitimate reason against it then I'd see it as wrong, but from my limited medicine knowledge I can't think of any.

Uncircumcised has 24,000 nerves. Circumcision only leaves you with 4,000 left. Females have 8,000. Circumcisions have proven to cause loss of sensitivity, callouses, and even sexual dysfunction. Any "benefit" has been medically disproven long ago. There is no evidence of "lasting longer" either.

You know your statement contains both errors and contradictions right?

Less sensitivity on a penis would mean less stimulation and thus longer lasting.

Sexual disfunction is almost unheard of.

The medical studies on sensitivity are usually weak scientifically and at best they have mixed messages.

ravensheart18:

Ultratwinkie:

ravensheart18:

Adult women are ADULTS and should be able to make their own choices.

Children are NOT adults and shouldn't be able to make all their own choices.

It's not comparable in the least.

Yet they cannot decide whether they should have their bodies intact? There is no legal surgery you can do on a child without medical necessity.

Incorrect. You can also have various forms of cosmetic surgery done. Breast enlargements, nose jobs, eye lifts, tats, piercings, colligen injections, botox, braces, etc.

An no, an infant has ZERO say in what medical procedures are performed on them.

Yet you support unneeded surgery on a child? Really? You're going to put bigger breasts on a kid? The woman that injected her kid with botox had a shit storm.

Not to mention forcing someone through a surgery they don't need is incredibly unethical. Period.

ravensheart18:
Incorrect. You can also have various forms of cosmetic surgery done. Breast enlargements, nose jobs, eye lifts, tats, piercings, colligen injections, botox, braces, etc.

An no, an infant has ZERO say in what medical procedures are performed on them.

What would you say if the norm somewhere was for parents to force kids to take painful plastic surgeries? If you'd condemn that, you're essentially a hypocrite, because that's essentially what circumcision is, plus the fact that it makes sex less pleasing.

Sewora:

Stop reading this forum, visit some of the links we've provided, do some research on your own and stop being so ignorant.

Good lord, it's like trying to talk about morality to a taliban.

Yes, insults really help your case lol.

ravensheart18:
Incorrect. You can also have various forms of cosmetic surgery done. Breast enlargements, nose jobs, eye lifts, tats, piercings, colligen injections, botox, braces, etc.

Woah.. You do those things to infants?

Actually I do know people who have had tats and piercings done on infants. Cosmetic surgery on toddlers is not at all uncommon in the US (especially on the "beauty pagent" circut, and breast enlargements and reductions are sometimes done on teens.

Ultratwinkie:

ravensheart18:

Ultratwinkie:

Yet they cannot decide whether they should have their bodies intact? There is no legal surgery you can do on a child without medical necessity.

Incorrect. You can also have various forms of cosmetic surgery done. Breast enlargements, nose jobs, eye lifts, tats, piercings, colligen injections, botox, braces, etc.

An no, an infant has ZERO say in what medical procedures are performed on them.

Yet you support unneeded surgery on a child? Really? You're going to put bigger breasts on a kid? The woman that injected her kid with botox had a shit storm.

Not to mention forcing someone through a surgery they don't need is incredibly unethical. Period.

It's legal to do it and it happens. She only got in trouble because she wasn't legally authorized to do it herself.

And I never said I thought those were good things, I was pointing out that the statement that this was the only procedure allowed was wrong. Parents generally have a great deal of legal authority to consent to care on the behalf of their children.

ravensheart18:

Ultratwinkie:

Sectan:

I don't remember a lot of things when I was younger. I don't remember being fed. Don't remember being bathed...Jesus my parents did a lot of things without asking my permission! I probably didn't want to be naked and bathed, but they did it anyways the sick bastards! Anyways what are consequences for being circumcised vs not being circumcised? If there was a legitimate reason against it then I'd see it as wrong, but from my limited medicine knowledge I can't think of any.

Uncircumcised has 24,000 nerves. Circumcision only leaves you with 4,000 left. Females have 8,000. Circumcisions have proven to cause loss of sensitivity, callouses, and even sexual dysfunction. Any "benefit" has been medically disproven long ago. There is no evidence of "lasting longer" either.

You know your statement contains both errors and contradictions right?

Less sensitivity on a penis would mean less stimulation and thus longer lasting.

Sexual disfunction is almost unheard of.

The medical studies on sensitivity are usually weak scientifically and at best they have mixed messages.

Not necessarily. You assume that it creates a dead mass of flesh. That is not always the case, but it does reduce sensitivity. The level of sensitivity does not equal performance, that depends entirely on you.

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/ <-- Has source material for sexual dysfunction. Hardly unheard of.

Circumcision? Why hasn't this caught on yet?
Who wouldn't want to cut off a part of their dick? I can't wait to try this to myself!
The kids at the mall would see me and be like "dude, you cut off your own dick? Wow!", and I'd be like "Nah man, just the tip", and they'd be like "That's the most bad-ass thing I've heard all day, rock on.", and then I'd punch a security guard off a Segway and everyone would cheer because I'm so wicked awesome.

hashtag:
-snip-

Huh. I wasn't aware that my opinion could be wrong, cause you know, it's an opinion. And to clarify some things, I'm not religious, I'm actually against circumcision. However, I cannot stop circumcision, therefore I just figure it's one of *those* religious things. Things I don't understand, things people in another religion would. And in that case, I do believe it should be the parent's choice.
Tell me, when you were a kid did you get to choose your own religion? The answer, I'm guessing, is no. Then what's the difference? When you were a young child, your parents chose your haircuts, they chose where you went to school, what TV shows were appropriate (actually that never took off in my house) and they probably chose circumcision.
I just don't see a difference between doing all of that and circumcision. Maybe it's because I wasn't circumcised? Who knows.

See, that position is one of defeat and submission. It's saying, "well, crazy religious people will do crazy, harmful religious things and there's nothing I can do to stop it."

Horseshit.

No, I didn't choose my religion when I was a kid. I had it chosen for me and that is bad. It's also bad to compare a dickcut to a haircut, or to compare a haircut to crazy-ass religious indoctrination that can fuck up your brain for the rest of your life. I got lucky -- the hypnosis didn't stick. I was a skeptical believer for most of my youth, and I was freed from my dogma more or less completely at the early age of 16, pretty painlessly.

The following will sound like a tangent, but bear with it for a bit.

For most people, the loss of religion is far from painless. For most people escaping it, it involves months or years of inner turmoil because they are told, from as soon as they can understand words, that the worst thing you can possibly do is question the doctrine -- that questioning the doctrine will land you in a lake of fire,where you will be tortured forever. The really lucky ones manage to dispense with that kind of awful, draconian, bogey-man fear-mongering. The one good thing churches certainly do provide is a social structure. They offer support, and if you reject the dogma, you're very likely to lose all that support.

This is where secular support groups come in, and it's where we get to discuss your apparent willingness to cave into religious pressures on society: These support groups are almost always equally about providing a social support structure for secular people and about providing education to people, both religious and secular -- partially to get the word out that they exist, and to let secular people know they aren't alone; but also largely to stamp out crazy religious memes that infect societies. Your argument seems to be, "I can't stop circumcision tomorrow, so I can't stop circumcision." I do not accept this, and neither should you.

Kanlic:

3) Assuming you live in a 1st world nation, most penises are circumcised at birth. Chicks these days, especially with our society that is fixated on grooming, aren't used to seeing an uncircumcised penis. It looks weird, to them at least.

It's not common at al in Western Europe afaik

Naeras:

ravensheart18:
Incorrect. You can also have various forms of cosmetic surgery done. Breast enlargements, nose jobs, eye lifts, tats, piercings, colligen injections, botox, braces, etc.

An no, an infant has ZERO say in what medical procedures are performed on them.

What would you say if the norm somewhere was for parents to force kids to take painful plastic surgeries? If you'd condemn that, you're essentially a hypocrite, because that's essentially what circumcision is, plus the fact that it makes sex less pleasing.

I've held a baby for their circumcision. They cry just about as much as if they have a dirty diaper.

And I'm not a hypocrite if you read what I've repeatedly said in this thread. If there is a cultural/religious imparative and there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm or benefit then its the parent's call and preserving tradition is probably a good thing.

If there is no real reason to do it and the procedure had uncertain science, then better to be safe and don't do it. (And no, your statement on sexual pleasure is not confirmed by the science at the moment)

If there is conclusive evidence of harm that outways any good, don't do it.

That set of steps applies equally to any form of medical procedure on a child (and for that matter, I'd apply that same standard to myself.)

Ultratwinkie:

ravensheart18:

Ultratwinkie:

Uncircumcised has 24,000 nerves. Circumcision only leaves you with 4,000 left. Females have 8,000. Circumcisions have proven to cause loss of sensitivity, callouses, and even sexual dysfunction. Any "benefit" has been medically disproven long ago. There is no evidence of "lasting longer" either.

You know your statement contains both errors and contradictions right?

Less sensitivity on a penis would mean less stimulation and thus longer lasting.

Sexual disfunction is almost unheard of.

The medical studies on sensitivity are usually weak scientifically and at best they have mixed messages.

Not necessarily. You assume that it creates a dead mass of flesh. That is not always the case, but it does reduce sensitivity. The level of sensitivity does not equal performance, that depends entirely on you.

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/ <-- Has source material for sexual dysfunction. Hardly unheard of.

That's an anti-circumcision site. Hardly a surprise which research they choose to site. And to be fair, even on that site they point out that the stuff isn't proven, "some people believe" is a frequently used term.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 24 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked