Lets ban circumcision (male too)

[Whaleboy]

I see you weren't shy about offering your own little unsolicited theory about why I'm angry about this earlier. Why don't you explain why you yourself now feel the need to direct the most patronising voice possible at me?

Firstly I was speaking in the general context and secondly you're issuing profundities and not backing them up. And if you're being talked down to, it is because you have warranted nothing more.

ou say you're content with your situation and I've even stated that I wouldn't oppose allowing things to work out the same for those in your situation in the future as they did for you. And yet you clearly are bitter at me for not accepting the lot that was dealt to me.

I'm not bitter, I'm angry at lame, pretentious arguments. I take your argument to advocate the denial of the choice, PLEASE, do correct me where I am mistaken!

I don't have a pet theory of my own I like to hear people give their own account of themselves. Perhaps I feel that has more credibility

You speak in the language of a listener but you seem to refuse to listen to the statement that circumcision is harmless. I'm sorry if you had a botched operation, but one does always assume competance and imo a few mishaps do not justify the procedure being denied.

[Whaleboy]

Why would anybody be proud of having skin removed from your manhood?

It makes you less of a man, by definition.

You lose a few grammes of skin cells but you gain so, so much more!

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Awww diddums, poor Geronimo gets friction burns

no. Are you demonstrating your superior credibility now?

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Nothing I have said advocates the denial of that choice and the forceful imposition of circumcision. To have it done by default except where the parents state otherwise still leaves the choice.

It certainly does not! When was the choice made? suppose there is a culture that has arranged marriages at age 12 and a man forces himself on his new 12 year old bride with her parents blessing. did she ever get a choice?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I want that choice open and circumcision to be recommended. As for your last sentence, I find that ironic after I told you the difference between descriptive and prescriptive.

If you're trying to be prescriptive, honesty matters a hell of a lot. Descriptively, fine, but then you wouldn't be trying to tell others that what they are doing is wrong.

there is no irony. I simply recognize that the best judge of what is best for ones healthy body is oneself.

[Whaleboy]

no. Are you demonstrating your superior credibility now?

Do I need to?

It certainly does not! When was the choice made? suppose there is a culture that has arranged marriages at age 12 and a man forces himself on his new 12 year old bride with her parents blessing. did she ever get a choice?

But at that age (newborn) it is the parents choice. Yet again you use a flawed example of someone with self-determination.

there is no irony. I simply recognize that the best judge of what is best for ones healthy body is oneself.

So according to that logic, the age of consent should be reduced to 0, children should be allowed to drink and take drugs and not be made to go to school. Where a child does not have self-determination, parents are responsible for it, and make choices for the child in its interest.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Do I need to?

please do. I value credibility as much as the next guy.

Originally posted by Whaleboy

But at that age (newborn) it is the parents choice. Yet again you use a flawed example of someone with self-determination.



So according to that logic, the age of consent should be reduced to 0, children should be allowed to drink and take drugs and not be made to go to school. Where a child does not have self-determination, parents are responsible for it, and make choices for the child in its interest.

Fortunately most choices unlike circumcision can be postponed so the individual can have decisions temporarily made by their parents and make their own decision when they come of age. What would you think of parents who had their daughter sterlized when she was a child? Would you think that should be legal even if religious practices were explicitly exempted from any legislation to ban it?

[Whaleboy]

please do. I value credibility as much as the next guy.

And here's me thinking you valued the content of an argument, not any superfluous quips therein.

Fortunately most choices unlike circumcision can be postponed so the individual can have decisions temporarily made by their parents and make their own decision when they come of age.

But circumcisions performed years after birth can have nasty side effects.

What would you think of parents who had their daughter sterlized when she was a child? Would you think that should be legal even if religious practices were explicitly exempted from any legislation to ban it?

No, regardless of religion. Like I said I value consistency so religion vs. secular demands are irrelevant, no rules for one not the other. Sterilisation is a measure which has a long term effect, negative shall we say unless specifically requested otherwise. That is not the case with circumcision. My advice to you now would be to summarise your argument in a coherent and logical form, instead of issuing flawed analogy after flawed analogy in an attempt to batter another.

[Asher]

But circumcisions performed years after birth can have nasty side effects.

Either way it's a nasty effect.

[Whaleboy]

I beg to differ

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I beg to differ

/me notes that you are the one that is begging, making you the b*tch.

See what losing your manhood can do to a man?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid


Only public display of them will be banned

a little late on this, but JIHAD!.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


And here's me thinking you valued the content of an argument, not any superfluous quips therein.

handy thing about credibility is it is easily filed away for future reference.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But circumcisions performed years after birth can have nasty side effects.



No, regardless of religion. Like I said I value consistency so religion vs. secular demands are irrelevant, no rules for one not the other. Sterilisation is a measure which has a long term effect, negative shall we say unless specifically requested otherwise. That is not the case with circumcision. My advice to you now would be to summarise your argument in a coherent and logical form, instead of issuing flawed analogy after flawed analogy in an attempt to batter another.

The 'flawed' analogies are useful because they narrow the discussion to the difference between those similar situations where we both agree and those in which we disagree. You appear to have just gone on record as saying that if a measure has long term possibly negative effect which is not specifially requested otherwise then you do not oppose regulation of such measures. Now we can discuss whether or not circumcision is inherently harmless. I'm ready to accept that it isn't inherently harmful even if only because some who undergo it do not object to the results. However to argue that it is inherently harmless is quite a different matter. If even one person is unhappy with the result or if any physiological deficiency can result from a 'successful' circumcision then it would not be intrinsically harmless. circumcision results will vary because the distribution of nerve endings in individuals can vary quite a bit. In some individuals there are more nerve endings in the foreskin than in all the rest of the penis combined. In others it can be quite a bit less. The variation is not unique to the genitals either. Given this uncertainty how can we be certain that the procedure is harmless? You have to be careful how you decide that the procedure is harmless because the same criteria applied to other situations could imply that procedures such as FGM are at least sometimes harmless as well.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I don't buy your "it'll save millions of lives" stuff, Dr. Strangelove. As it is, the majority of American males are circumsized, yet the rates of HIV transmission are appalling in the US comapred to other western countries where the pracrise is not common. In Israel it's the opposite, but that just goes to show that HIV levels probably are not linked so closely to circumcision. There may be some prtoection in it, but I do not think the risk-benefit ratio is as massive as you state.

Americans are more studly than europeans, as everyone knows. Historically this was especially true of American gays. It was said that in the 1980s in the major urban concentration of gays that the average gay had more than 50 sexual contacts/year. This sort of sexual culture was responsible for the wildfire spread of HIV across America. The co-mingling of gay culture and the drug culture then spread the virus to the hetrosexual population.
The risk reduction yield from circumcision is about 50 to 75% according to ongoing studies done by the WHO in Africa.

Plus I do not think giving poorly-trained doctors in third-world states more power to perform essentially un-necessary surgery on children is ever a good thing.

Africa is precisely the place that would benefit most from widespread infant circumcision. There are currently 25 million people infected in Africa. I believe that about 2 to 3 million become infected each year, and the number is growing. Imagine reducing that number by 50 to 75 %. We need to circumcise both adults and kids, and combine that with the use of condoms and a reduction in the rate of casual sex and multiple wives.

[Alexander's Horse]

You seem to have changed your position.

I can say from personal experience that circumcision seems protective for VD.

In fact the practice became common in Australia after WWI and WWII when social diseases caused a lot of casualties amongst troops overseas. In WWI trench warfare in muddy trenches wasn't good for the health downstairs and in WWII fighting in the jungles confirmed the practice of "giving willy a shave" because of the tropical diseases including various nasty crotch rots.

You'll probably laugh at me but it's true - I suspect its also related to the fact senior wartime medicos tended to end up in senior positions in hospitals and health departments after the world wars. They thought nothing of shedding a foreskin.

[monolith94]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


You lose a few grammes of skin cells but you gain so, so much more!

What do you gain? The ability to have a one-night stand that is a little bit safer than someone who's uncut? Congratulations, pervert, you've hit the jackpot.

And the idea that circumcision has anything to do with teenage pregnancy is the whackiest thing I've ever heard.

Having safe sex also reduces the chance of catching AIDS, but you can't FORCE people to have safe sex.

In any case, a ban on circumsicion seems a bit rash. I just hope that, as time goes on, more and more people choose to have their children as nature intended. I do remember hearing that fewer and fewer parents choose to have their children circumcised each year.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
You seem to have changed your position.

I can say from personal experience that circumcision seems protective for VD.

In fact the practice became common in Australia after WWI and WWII when social diseases caused a lot of casualties amongst troops overseas. In WWI trench warfare in muddy trenches wasn't good for the health downstairs and in WWII fighting in the jungles confirmed the practice of "giving willy a shave" because of the tropical diseases including various nasty crotch rots.

You'll probably laugh at me but it's true - I suspect its also related to the fact senior wartime medicos tended to end up in senior positions in hospitals and health departments after the world wars. They thought nothing of shedding a foreskin.

There's a little more scientific evidence supporting the claims now. The earlier studies were mostly badly flawed. OTOH the major study is not yet finished AFAIK. I still believe that monogamy and discouraging casual sex are still the best tactics. I also feel strongly that if you're going to advocate circumcision you ought to be up front about the risks. It offers relative protection, not absolute protection. I believe that in areas like Africa it's mandatory to advocate both approaches: mass circumcision, and monogamy.