Lets ban circumcision (male too)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

"Hello Doctor! I'd like a painful little operation of dubious medical value that will leave me with diminished sexual sensitivity for the rest of my life! The chicks really dig it! Yes, I have semen backed up as far as my throat. How did you guess?"

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Maybe, but I still think I'm right.

You always think you're right.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
However, there are other non-medical arguments that would not allow it to be rendered pointless.

All which are a matter of opinion, of choice. That person should be the one to make the choice if it looks better or not, or if they prefer it. Not their parents.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Ted Striker:



Castration?

You read me right. I assume you have the sense to at least recognize castration of a child would be immoral?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
"Hello Doctor! I'd like a painful little operation of dubious medical value that will leave me with diminished sexual sensitivity for the rest of my life! The chicks really dig it! Yes, I have semen backed up as far as my throat. How did you guess?"

You seem to be taking this very personally.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I'll assume you dont know the historical background, but I wouldnt have used that phrase in this particular discussion.

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy of staying someone believes something nasty/cruel/silly in order to make their other opinions seem less valid.

Saying "didn't you believe this ...." is poisoning the well, as Whaleboy did.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The definition of natural as without outiside stimulus is culturally bound. Its "natural" to be parented, even from an Aristotelian point of view, and certainly from a Jewish and Muslim point of view. We extend parenting also to physical changes.

As for FGM, that is different because of real loss of significant functionality.

Actually in most forms of FGM fertility is not impaired. More nerve endings are permenently destroyed in circumcison of males than in most FGM. So why do you accept male circumcision while recognizing that FGM is unacceptable for children?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drogue

Natural:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/natural

Not some culturally biased thing, natural is in accordance with nature, without artificial intervention. Circumcision is artificial intervention.

"relating to or concerning nature"

Circular definition - what is the "nature" of man. To some, its simply our physical state at birth, in a "state of nature". To Judaism and Islam the nature of man is to follow the path of G-d. To live without it is "unnatural" IE contradictory to the nature of man, the potential implanted within man at birth.

I am NOT here to convince anyone of the above - I aint proselytizing - but merely showing that the definition of nature youve presented is culturally bound. I realize that when their is a loss of real functionality - IE FGM, the state must take sides. In a situation in which there is disagreement, and in which the change is harmless, the state should not intervene, and allow the parents to decide.

[Whaleboy]

Yes, but comparable to having a part of your body removed with a scalpel, since that's what it is. Not exactly painless.

Yet, I have described it as having neglible pain.

No

What was it you once said? Something about negative reinforcement of a certain behaviour?

Wow, poisoning the well today aren't we?

Where the well is sprouting fallacies, inconsistencies and uncharacteristically flawed assuptions, I may as well merely accelerate the process

Has anyone here ever been told he'll need to have surgery before the lady (or gentleman) making the request condescends to allow them in their knickers?

If that did occur, did you willing become their *****?

Conceded, it's happened before

A piece of skin that denotes the religion you were born into.

Is this a question of that piece of skin or your militant atheism? It is the parents right to bring up the child with an education of their religion and a statement of that childs past, what they do with that is their business but circumcision is no barrier to them doing so.

Functionality doesn't exist anymore, since people shower. Maybe in the 19th century you'd have a point. And it's just as conspicuous as some brandings, depending on where you put it. Say a branding of the penis, since that's closest.

Less risk of STI, less risk of premature ejaculation, easier to keep clean (more hygienic like for like than uncut given same hygiene for both)

They prefer what they're used to seeing. Girls (and gay guys) in Canada prefer uncut, since most people are uncut...

Canada lacks chutzpah!

Speak for yourself. I like women to look like women, not pubescent girls.

I'll spare you the lecture on pubic hair growth shame:

Circumcision is artificial intervention.

Just like IVF, heart surgery, Caesarian. Artificial vs natural means absolutely nothing, you of all people I'd have thought to be the first proponent of that!

Says who?

Plato, Aristotle, Montaigne, Kant, Mill (Sr), Kierkgaarde, yourself

"Hello Doctor! I'd like a painful little operation of dubious medical value that will leave me with diminished sexual sensitivity for the rest of my life! The chicks really dig it! Yes, I have semen backed up as far as my throat. How did you guess?"

"He can screw me for 40% longer than he can, give me less risk of STI, and has that alluring Semitic charm"

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy of staying someone believes something nasty/cruel/silly in order to make their other opinions seem less valid.

It wasn't nasty/cruel/silly, it was an argument you have previously advocated that is inconsistent with your present construct.

Actually in most forms of FGM fertility is not impaired. More nerve endings are permenently destroyed in circumcison of males than in most FGM. So why do you accept male circumcision while recognizing that FGM is unacceptable for children?

It's laughable that you'd seek to compare them. Are you aware of the effects of female circumcision?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I love circumcision threads. They always include the following sentiments.

Uncircumcised male- "How dare you suggest I get no sex and my foreskin contains a mature Brie!"

Circumcised male- "How dare you suggest my parents abused me!"

Anyone ever dashed out to get cut after reading one?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Actually in most forms of FGM fertility is not impaired. More nerve endings are permenently destroyed in circumcison of males than in most FGM. So why do you accept male circumcision while recognizing that FGM is unacceptable for children?

I wasnt speaking of fertility wrt FGM, but ability to receive sexual pleasure, which is notably reduced in FGM, which IIUC makes orgasm impossible.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


parents violate their childrens privacy all the time, in much more serious ways. Youre privileging something you call "bodily integrity" - which as far as I can tell is nothing more than a fetish of your particular culture.

Ahh, but the privacy i was refering to having violated was the permanent physical expression of that violated privacy. When someone is raped the crime isn't just the discomfort of the moment or the risk of catching disease or pregnancy. the real crime is this permanent intimate violation of ones privacy. With FGM or circumcision the victim gets a permanent physical reminder on their own body of this violation. I sure as hell wasn't refering to the parents observation of their childrens privates.

[Whaleboy]

Uncircumcised male- "How dare you suggest I get no sex and my foreskin contains a mature Brie!"

Circumcised male- "How dare you suggest my parents abused me!"

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


No, no


It has always been several girls at a time that I asked, and none that I was involved with. I didn't tell them if I was cut or not.

I simply asked them which they preferred.

Sorry guys but they like the cut unit, just in the same way they prefer you to trim your Bavarian forest. It just looks alot cleaner.

like I said it depends on where they are from. Try your informal poll in a variety of settings.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I am NOT here to convince anyone of the above - I aint proselytizing - but merely showing that the definition of nature youve presented is culturally bound. I realize that when their is a loss of real functionality - IE FGM, the state must take sides. In a situation in which there is disagreement, and in which the change is harmless, the state should not intervene, and allow the parents to decide.

It reduces sensitivity. Since it is sensitivity that causes you to be able to procreate, it affects an important function. As well as simple pleasure. Like FGM, but to a much less degree, it reduces your ability to orgasm.