Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Male circumcision is a good thing

Page 5 of 9 [ 143 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

06 Sep 2012, 5:09 pm

Cultus_Diabolus wrote:
wrong, when parents abuse there children cps takes them away to protect them from there parents. society has always put the protection of children as a high priority, even against there parents. the well being of children comes before the desires of parents in our society.

in 1997 our society decided female genital mutilation was child abuse and the parents desires came second to the well being of the child, now we need to give that protection to the boys.


But for all your vocal protestation, you have yet to demonstrate that infant male circumcision constitutes abuse. Repeating your claim does not make it so.

If you can demonstrate that the risk of harm is sufficient to outweigh the factors that might otherwise incline parents to consent to this procedure, I would be happy to see it. But so far all I have seen are ad personam arguments that are nothing better than anecdotal.


_________________
--James


Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

06 Sep 2012, 5:27 pm

There are cases of infant circumcision gone wrong*. There are cases of men trying to regrow some sort of foreskin, of having issues.

But this is a matter of ethics. As far as I can tell, those arguing against - including myself - are doing so because it violates the right to bodily integrity of the child.

What definition of 'abuse' are you working with that would not cover infant male circumcision? It is the removal of a functioning, useful body part from someone who has not consented. If you don't think that is wrong, so be it.

*That is, even more wrong than it already is.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Sep 2012, 9:01 pm

Hopper wrote:

What definition of 'abuse' are you working with that would not cover infant male circumcision? It is the removal of a functioning, useful body part from someone who has not consented. If you don't think that is wrong, so be it.

.


That "functioning body part" can possibly lead to cancer of the glans penis and an increased probability of STD. Circumcision removes the Curse of Smegma.

ruveyn



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

06 Sep 2012, 9:12 pm

A man is more likely to get breast cancer than penile cancer. Condoms are the solution to preventing STDs, not mutilation. Smegma is natural lubricant.



Last edited by RushKing on 06 Sep 2012, 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Sep 2012, 9:18 pm

Hopper wrote:
There are cases of infant circumcision gone wrong*. There are cases of men trying to regrow some sort of foreskin, of having issues.
.


Any medical procedure can go wrong in a small number of cases.

Jews have been doing infant male circumcision for 3200 years. It has not led to their extinction.

ruveyn



Mike_Garrick
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Aug 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 254

07 Sep 2012, 1:46 am

ruveyn wrote:
Hopper wrote:

What definition of 'abuse' are you working with that would not cover infant male circumcision? It is the removal of a functioning, useful body part from someone who has not consented. If you don't think that is wrong, so be it.

.


That "functioning body part" can possibly lead to cancer of the glans penis and an increased probability of STD. Circumcision removes the Curse of Smegma.

ruveyn

What the hell is with you and smegma?
Let me let you in on a little secret, there is no smegma curse.
Unless and I'm being literal here, unless you shower once ever two weeks and don't clean under the skin you will NEVER see a trace of smegma.
FFS sake, is smegma like the Jewish boogeyman or something?


ruveyn wrote:
Hopper wrote:
There are cases of infant circumcision gone wrong*. There are cases of men trying to regrow some sort of foreskin, of having issues.
.


Any medical procedure can go wrong in a small number of cases.

Jews have been doing infant male circumcision for 3200 years. It has not led to their extinction.

ruveyn

It has however led to 3000 years of old men sucking an infants dick until it bleeds, apparently.
Which is creepy to be honest.



Cultus_Diabolus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 682
Location: usa

07 Sep 2012, 3:06 am

visagrunt wrote:
Cultus_Diabolus wrote:
wrong, when parents abuse there children cps takes them away to protect them from there parents. society has always put the protection of children as a high priority, even against there parents. the well being of children comes before the desires of parents in our society.

in 1997 our society decided female genital mutilation was child abuse and the parents desires came second to the well being of the child, now we need to give that protection to the boys.


But for all your vocal protestation, you have yet to demonstrate that infant male circumcision constitutes abuse. Repeating your claim does not make it so.

If you can demonstrate that the risk of harm is sufficient to outweigh the factors that might otherwise incline parents to consent to this procedure, I would be happy to see it. But so far all I have seen are ad personam arguments that are nothing better than anecdotal.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinoma_of_the_penis
pretty f*****g rare, dont want aids were a condom. and you remove a huge part of your dick for that tinny benefit. ya its child abuse. if you cant see that i dont know what to tell you.

and does physical pleasure not mean any thing to you, cause you lose about half of the physical pleasure from your dick when you get mutilated. there more than life than reducing a extremely rare cancer. pleasure is the spice of life. if i was giving the choice of penal cancer at 30 or half the physical pleasure from sex and masturbation, id say bring on the cancer.


_________________
Kill a man and you?re a murderer. Kill many and you?re a hero. Kill them all you?re favored by the gods. ?or dangerously unbalanced-


Last edited by Cultus_Diabolus on 07 Sep 2012, 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Cultus_Diabolus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 682
Location: usa

07 Sep 2012, 3:14 am

Mike_Garrick wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Hopper wrote:

What definition of 'abuse' are you working with that would not cover infant male circumcision? It is the removal of a functioning, useful body part from someone who has not consented. If you don't think that is wrong, so be it.

.


That "functioning body part" can possibly lead to cancer of the glans penis and an increased probability of STD. Circumcision removes the Curse of Smegma.

ruveyn

What the hell is with you and smegma?
Let me let you in on a little secret, there is no smegma curse.
Unless and I'm being literal here, unless you shower once ever two weeks and don't clean under the skin you will NEVER see a trace of smegma.
FFS sake, is smegma like the Jewish boogeyman or something?


ruveyn wrote:
Hopper wrote:
There are cases of infant circumcision gone wrong*. There are cases of men trying to regrow some sort of foreskin, of having issues.
.


Any medical procedure can go wrong in a small number of cases.

Jews have been doing infant male circumcision for 3200 years. It has not led to their extinction.

ruveyn

It has however led to 3000 years of old men sucking an infants dick until it bleeds, apparently.
Which is creepy to be honest.


id call that 3000 years of mutilating a childs dick than molesting said child, im sorry but there no reason for some old f**k to be giving a baby a blow job in tell it bleeds.


_________________
Kill a man and you?re a murderer. Kill many and you?re a hero. Kill them all you?re favored by the gods. ?or dangerously unbalanced-


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Sep 2012, 7:36 am

Cultus_Diabolus wrote:

id call that 3000 years of mutilating a childs dick than molesting said child, im sorry but there no reason for some old f**k to be giving a baby a blow job in tell it bleeds.


Modern Mohels do not do that anymore. That is a rather distasteful European custom. I have been to dozens of brit mihla's and no such thing was done at any of them. The Mohels practiced surgical cleanliness (hand washing, rubber gloves and the sprinkling of anti biotic powder). The blood was sopped up by a gem free absorbant pad.

Jews caught onto to the germ theory as soon as Pasteur brought it forth.

ruveyn



Mike_Garrick
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Aug 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 254

07 Sep 2012, 7:41 am

ruveyn wrote:
Modern Mohels do not do that anymore. That is a rather distasteful European custom. I have been to dozens of brit mihla's and no such thing was done at any of them. The Mohels practiced surgical cleanliness (hand washing, rubber gloves and the sprinkling of anti biotic powder). The blood was sopped up by a gem free absorbant pad.

Jews caught onto to the germ theory as soon as Pasteur brought it forth.

ruveyn


I think you'll find we've taken that into account.

ruveyn wrote:
Jews have been doing infant male circumcision for 3200 years. It has not led to their extinction.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

07 Sep 2012, 1:00 pm

Cultus_Diabolus wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinoma_of_the_penis
pretty f***ing rare, dont want aids were a condom. and you remove a huge part of your dick for that tinny benefit. ya its child abuse. if you cant see that i dont know what to tell you.

and does physical pleasure not mean any thing to you, cause you lose about half of the physical pleasure from your dick when you get mutilated. there more than life than reducing a extremely rare cancer. pleasure is the spice of life. if i was giving the choice of penal cancer at 30 or half the physical pleasure from sex and masturbation, id say bring on the cancer.


1) I've already acknowledged that it's rare. Remember, I'm not the one trumpeting these findings as a justification for routine neonatal circumcision. I'm the one saying that the evidence shows marginal benefit and marginal risk, so there's no reason to take the decision out of the hands of parents.

2) The foreskin isn't, "a huge part of your dick." Hyperbole does not make your argument stronger.

3) There is no evidence to demonstrate your claim that neonatal circumcision leads to a loss of physical sensation or sexual satisfaction. The medical literature is, at best, ambiguous, if not downright contradictory.

You seem to be taking an absolutist position that neonatal circumcision is always wrong. I'm taking a moderate position that says we can't determine the question one way or another. It seems to me (and this is probably my own biases speaking) that mine is the more reasoned and the more reasonable position.


_________________
--James


Cultus_Diabolus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 682
Location: usa

07 Sep 2012, 11:41 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Cultus_Diabolus wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinoma_of_the_penis
pretty f***ing rare, dont want aids were a condom. and you remove a huge part of your dick for that tinny benefit. ya its child abuse. if you cant see that i dont know what to tell you.

and does physical pleasure not mean any thing to you, cause you lose about half of the physical pleasure from your dick when you get mutilated. there more than life than reducing a extremely rare cancer. pleasure is the spice of life. if i was giving the choice of penal cancer at 30 or half the physical pleasure from sex and masturbation, id say bring on the cancer.


1) I've already acknowledged that it's rare. Remember, I'm not the one trumpeting these findings as a justification for routine neonatal circumcision. I'm the one saying that the evidence shows marginal benefit and marginal risk, so there's no reason to take the decision out of the hands of parents.

2) The foreskin isn't, "a huge part of your dick." Hyperbole does not make your argument stronger.

3) There is no evidence to demonstrate your claim that neonatal circumcision leads to a loss of physical sensation or sexual satisfaction. The medical literature is, at best, ambiguous, if not downright contradictory.

You seem to be taking an absolutist position that neonatal circumcision is always wrong. I'm taking a moderate position that says we can't determine the question one way or another. It seems to me (and this is probably my own biases speaking) that mine is the more reasoned and the more reasonable position.


1, fair, small chance of getting major dick damage beyond the intent, for small chance of not getting cancer, 2 actually you do lose a lot of skin from it, 3 i already linked a study about how it reduces physical pleasure. if scientific studies are not enough to convince you of that. well i guess you just cant be convinced.


_________________
Kill a man and you?re a murderer. Kill many and you?re a hero. Kill them all you?re favored by the gods. ?or dangerously unbalanced-


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

08 Sep 2012, 6:30 am

visagrunt wrote:
Cultus_Diabolus wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinoma_of_the_penis
pretty f***ing rare, dont want aids were a condom. and you remove a huge part of your dick for that tinny benefit. ya its child abuse. if you cant see that i dont know what to tell you.

and does physical pleasure not mean any thing to you, cause you lose about half of the physical pleasure from your dick when you get mutilated. there more than life than reducing a extremely rare cancer. pleasure is the spice of life. if i was giving the choice of penal cancer at 30 or half the physical pleasure from sex and masturbation, id say bring on the cancer.


1) I've already acknowledged that it's rare. Remember, I'm not the one trumpeting these findings as a justification for routine neonatal circumcision. I'm the one saying that the evidence shows marginal benefit and marginal risk, so there's no reason to take the decision out of the hands of parents.

2) The foreskin isn't, "a huge part of your dick." Hyperbole does not make your argument stronger.

3) There is no evidence to demonstrate your claim that neonatal circumcision leads to a loss of physical sensation or sexual satisfaction. The medical literature is, at best, ambiguous, if not downright contradictory.

You seem to be taking an absolutist position that neonatal circumcision is always wrong. I'm taking a moderate position that says we can't determine the question one way or another. It seems to me (and this is probably my own biases speaking) that mine is the more reasoned and the more reasonable position.


can we agree that you cut awya more than halfa million functioning nerve cells?

can we then agree that by one of your(flawed) objective measures it does lend itself to "loss of sensitivity", in reality the subjective experience proabably doesnt hinge around these nerve cells, but do they have an effect, most definately.

so as you said yourself, while it doesnt actually tell us how the subjective experience is for a person it does give us an objective measure


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Cultus_Diabolus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 682
Location: usa

08 Sep 2012, 9:37 pm

Oodain wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Cultus_Diabolus wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinoma_of_the_penis
pretty f***ing rare, dont want aids were a condom. and you remove a huge part of your dick for that tinny benefit. ya its child abuse. if you cant see that i dont know what to tell you.

and does physical pleasure not mean any thing to you, cause you lose about half of the physical pleasure from your dick when you get mutilated. there more than life than reducing a extremely rare cancer. pleasure is the spice of life. if i was giving the choice of penal cancer at 30 or half the physical pleasure from sex and masturbation, id say bring on the cancer.


1) I've already acknowledged that it's rare. Remember, I'm not the one trumpeting these findings as a justification for routine neonatal circumcision. I'm the one saying that the evidence shows marginal benefit and marginal risk, so there's no reason to take the decision out of the hands of parents.

2) The foreskin isn't, "a huge part of your dick." Hyperbole does not make your argument stronger.

3) There is no evidence to demonstrate your claim that neonatal circumcision leads to a loss of physical sensation or sexual satisfaction. The medical literature is, at best, ambiguous, if not downright contradictory.

You seem to be taking an absolutist position that neonatal circumcision is always wrong. I'm taking a moderate position that says we can't determine the question one way or another. It seems to me (and this is probably my own biases speaking) that mine is the more reasoned and the more reasonable position.


can we agree that you cut awya more than halfa million functioning nerve cells?

can we then agree that by one of your(flawed) objective measures it does lend itself to "loss of sensitivity", in reality the subjective experience proabably doesnt hinge around these nerve cells, but do they have an effect, most definately.

so as you said yourself, while it doesnt actually tell us how the subjective experience is for a person it does give us an objective measure


nerve sensitivity is not subjective, i gave you the numbers. if you cant rap your head around the fact we can measure the sensitivity of nerves. well go back to being afraid of the rapture. cause it seems science and facts can not convince you.

one can say i rather have the small reduction for cancer, and the decent reduction from aids if they plan on f*****g alot of dirty people with out protection and the fashion statement at that cost. but that's a choice for a person to make as an adult, not to be forced on as a kid. i want my foreskin but i cant have it, im glad you like having mutilated genitals more power to you, but if you were not cut at birth and still wanted it nothing would stop you now, i on the other hand i have bin robed of my choice. and my parents agree in hind site it was a bad idea.

it is my penis, i should have the right do what i want to do with it. crazy concept, my body my choice.


_________________
Kill a man and you?re a murderer. Kill many and you?re a hero. Kill them all you?re favored by the gods. ?or dangerously unbalanced-


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Sep 2012, 9:48 pm

Cultus_Diabolus wrote:

nerve sensitivity is not subjective, i gave you the numbers. if you cant rap your head around the fact we can measure the sensitivity of nerves. well go back to being afraid of the rapture. cause it seems science and facts can not convince you.



The number of neural discharges does not equate to the subjective judgement of pleasure. Pleasure does not happen in our skin. It happens in our brains.

ruveyn



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 111
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

08 Sep 2012, 9:56 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Quote:
I hope you are as equally opposed to having the earlobes of little girls pierced to put ear rings into.


I for one am.

But then it's a false analogy. The foreskin is an integral part of the penis, and the penis is an integral part of being male, of the male psyche, and once gone it cannot be got back. The earlobe is not integral in the same way, and it is pierced (and can heal), not removed. Closer, but still not there, is to ask what would be the reaction if someone decided to start removing their children's earlobes?


And god forbid! Clipping their fingernails and toenails. And cutting their hair! What an outrage!

My foreskin was never part of my psyche. With my tool devoid of the cursed flap that provides a dwelling place for smegma and germs I (with my wife's help) managed to produce 4 children and 5 grandchildren. At no point did my psyche get into a snit with me.

This worship of intactness borders on heathen idolatry.

A person without his tonsils is better off (less chance of infection) and a person without his vermiform appendix is better off. Unfortunately there is no way of removing these items that is as medically safe as circumcision.

ruveyn


Oh, I get it.....you're being facetious.
I thought you were being serious for a moment.
LOL....good one! :lol: :lol: :lol: