# Efforts to Ban Circumcision Gain Traction in California



## LouDAgreat (Jun 4, 2011)

> SANTA MONICA, Calif. ? When a group of activists proposed banning circumcision in San Francisco last fall, many people simply brushed them aside. Even in that liberal seaside city, it seemed implausible that thousands of people would support an effort to outlaw an ancient ritual that Jews and Muslims believe fulfills a commandment issued by God.
> 
> But last month, the group collected the more than 7,100 signatures needed to get a measure on the fall ballot that would make it illegal to snip the foreskin of a minor within city limits. Now a similar effort is under way in Santa Monica to get such a measure on the ballot for November 2012.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 4, 2011)

They do know it's only an option right? Also like the article said, Muslims and Jews need to do it by their religion, so it may be protected by the first amendment.


----------



## 115 (Jun 4, 2011)

I wonder what will happen to all those who have that medical condition which stops them from being able to pull back their foreskin if this does become illegal


----------



## kazuri (Jun 4, 2011)

> They do know it's only an option right?



You do know its not that theres no option, its that the wrong person has the option...?



> I wonder what will happen to all those who have that medical condition which stops them from being able to pull back their foreskin if this does become illegal



There is a difference in performing medical procedures for no good reasons, and doing it for a good reason.


----------



## hehey (Jun 4, 2011)

ahh those wacky Californians tryng to ban things that dont need banning....


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 4, 2011)

kazuri said:


> You do know its not that theres no option, its that the wrong person has the option...?



But the baby can't exactly choose for them self. Also like the article said, where does this leave the religious folk that require this?


----------



## Gilgamesh (Jun 4, 2011)

Have dealing with your children's diseased cocks


----------



## kazuri (Jun 4, 2011)

> But the baby can't exactly choose for them self.



So that means parents can decide to cut off parts of their body for no legitimate reason...? Removing parts of peoples bodies, especially pleasurable parts, for NO reason, is just unethical.


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 4, 2011)

As a circumcised male, I can say with great honesty that it is not harmful to me in the least. 

These people need to find better things to do.


----------



## kazuri (Jun 4, 2011)

> As a circumcised male, I can say with great honesty that it is not harmful in the least.



Taking away peoples freedom is obviously harmful. Hint: there are countless things I could do to you when you are a baby that if you never found out, it wouldn't be harmful to you in the least. Your reasoning is terrible.

If not having your genitals cut up isnt a human right, fuck america.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 4, 2011)

kazuri said:


> So that means parents can decide to cut off parts of their body for no legitimate reason...? Removing parts of peoples bodies, especially pleasurable parts, for NO reason, is just unethical.



But it's not exactly the 'mutilation' that it's being painted as and honestly I don't see as a big deal. Besides, it does help reduce certain types of infections. So it's not like there's no good reason for it.


----------



## kazuri (Jun 4, 2011)

> But it's not exactly the 'mutilation'



Yes it is.



> Besides, it does help reduce certain types of infections.



Debatable, and irrelevant. I could think of hundreds of thing we could force people to do to help make their lives better in countless ways, even ways to reduce certain types of infections. Doesn't mean it's right.


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 4, 2011)

kazuri said:


> Taking away peoples freedom is obviously harmful.


I know, right? People should be free to rape whomever they please. People should be free to kill others at will. People should be free to loot and plunder stores at a whim.

Damn this nation for taking away our freedoms.



> If not having your genitals cut up isnt a human right, fuck america.


Circumcision let me not worry about getting infections under the foreskin as a child. It isn't necessary, but it isn't anything to get worked up over.


----------



## kazuri (Jun 4, 2011)

> It isn't necessary, but it isn't anything to get worked up over.



It's supposed to be illegal to consent to fuck till youre 18 in the first place, and obviously if 18 is the age of maturity to be able to consent, this would be the age you could decide to mutilate ur penis. 

So the disease thing is clearly a non-issue.

(I bet if that studys data is skewed just by waiting to test them long after they are 18, anyway. But it's true I have not checked.)


----------



## wibisana (Jun 4, 2011)

as I know and experienced it not actually cut the penis. LOL
it just cut the skin that covered the "head" not cut off but cut vertically and then open it. and sew it. 

btw I do it in 6th grade. and does so many kids in here. it is believed that a baby have "that", the penis will not grow much. LOL


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 4, 2011)

kazuri said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Debatable, and irrelevant. I could think of hundreds of thing we could force people to do to help make their lives better in countless ways, even ways to reduce certain types of infections. Doesn't mean it's right.



Removing a simple piece of foreskin hardly qualifies as mutilation.

You said they're removing it 'for NO reason', doing it to prevent infections is relevant.

Also then how is preventing others who want their sons circumcised, for religious reasons or not, any better? Is this not limiting their rights to do so?


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 4, 2011)

kazuri said:


> It's supposed to be illegal to consent to fuck till youre 18 in the first place, and obviously if 18 is the age of maturity to be able to consent, this would be the age you could decide to mutilate ur penis.


I didn't consent to having my umbilical cord severed at birth. I didn't consent to being vaccinated as a child. Hell, I didn't consent to being conceived and born. 

Circumcision is not life-threatening, nor is it even harmful to the child. I honestly don't see why you're up in a huff over this.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 4, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> I know, right? People should be free to rape whomever they please. People should be free to kill others at will. People should be free to loot and plunder stores at a whim.
> 
> Damn this nation for taking away our freedoms.



As long as you don't get caught your free to do what you want.



> Circumcision let me not worry about getting infections under the foreskin as a child. It isn't necessary, but it isn't anything to get worked up over.


I heard getting that shit cut increases pleasure.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 4, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> I heard getting that shit cut increases pleasure.



In all fairness it's the other way around, it decreases sensitivity but makes you last longer.


----------



## wibisana (Jun 4, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> I heard getting that shit cut increases pleasure.



it is believed so.
because I never experienced "that" before my shit cut LOL


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 4, 2011)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> In all fairness it's the other way around, it decreases sensitivity but makes you last longer.



Then Im glad I've got my fucking skin.
Doesn't it become dangerous to cut at a certain age? Veins chilling up on my piece. As the only babies I've had to take care of were all female I have no idea if a baby male has viens in his foreskin so just incase I'll ask...do babies have viens yet or do they settle in later?


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 4, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> Then Im glad I've got my fucking skin.
> Doesn't it become dangerous to cut at a certain age? Veins chilling up on my piece. As the only babies I've had to take care of were all female I have no idea if a baby male has viens in his foreskin so just incase I'll ask...do babies have viens yet or do they settle in later?



I think the older you are the worst it is to preform, but not exactly dangerous.

They are there I believe, not too sure though. They do it when you're a baby because you won't remember how much it hurt when it happened and so it can help protect against infections right away.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 4, 2011)

You won't hear me complaining.

Good riddance to a medically unnecessary and barbaric practice.


----------



## KuzuRyuSen (Jun 4, 2011)

You know, in my country, circumcision is a practice made as preparation for a boy's coming of age.


----------



## Crowned Clown (Jun 5, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> As a circumcised male, I can say with great honesty that it is not harmful to me in the least.
> 
> These people need to find better things to do.



Agreed, I am doing fine and am not harmed physically nor mentally. The doctor at the end said it best to the wife.


----------



## reddogs52 (Jun 5, 2011)

It's just an option. Why do people care so much? It looks more like people are just trying to find something to feel important about. There aren't any studies that 100% verify either circumcision is bad or good. Christ, can't these people do something else with their time? Maybe use their funds (if any) to help local schools out or some shit.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Jun 5, 2011)

Thank god they are putting a stop to this barbaric practice. Next they should invent a time machine so I can go back and stop those bastards from cutting McFly up.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> They do know it's only an option right? Also like the article said, Muslims and Jews need to do it by their religion, so it may be protected by the first amendment.



Some people "need to" cut the clitoris off of little girls because of their religion, is that protected by the first amendment? Fuck no, religious freedom ends where any other right or freedom starts. In this case, the right of the child not to have unnecessary surgery performed on it.



reddogs52 said:


> It's just an option. Why do people care so much? It looks more like people are just trying to find something to feel important about. There aren't any studies that 100% verify either circumcision is bad or good. Christ, can't these people do something else with their time? Maybe use their funds (if any) to help local schools out or some shit.



It is a violation of the rights of the child. I'm really tired of the shitty argument "there are worse things in the world, therefore we must ignore all smaller injustices that happen".


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 5, 2011)

I love how this kind of shit is a big deal in California, that's why that state has a failed economy and is begging for people to support it in commercials.


----------



## Soldaun (Jun 5, 2011)

I want to know how circumsizing a baby is considered mutilation.  I am a circumsized male and looking at my penis, I don't even see scarring from the procedure and if not been told about circumcision would have believed I was born that way.  I honestly do not see why people are so up in flames about the whole debate, there shouldn't even be a debate TBH.  To be 100% honest, the economy is a significantly larger debate, probably the only god damn debate that should be going on in America right now, and anything that affects it.  Circumcision is so far fucking back on the burners I'm surprised anyone would bring it up.  Bringing that up is a lot like the woman I know who bring up random shit when they know they're losing a fight.

Seriosuly, being mad over circumcision?  It's on of those things that should just be filtered out of your mind, so right when you think of it, just shut your mouth.  Just shut it!


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Soldaun said:


> I want to know how circumsizing a baby is considered mutilation.  I am a circumsized male and looking at my penis, I don't even see scarring from the procedure and if not been told about circumcision would have believed I was born that way.  I honestly do not see why people are so up in flames about the whole debate, there shouldn't even be a debate TBH.  To be 100% honest, the economy is a significantly larger debate, probably the only god damn debate that should be going on in America right now, and anything that affects it.  Circumcision is so far fucking back on the burners I'm surprised anyone would bring it up.
> 
> Seriosuly, being mad over circumcision?  It's on of those things that should just be filtered out of your mind, so right when you think of it, just shut your mouth.  Just shut it!



What you're saying is there are genocides happening in the world, so everything else should be ignored and every other injustice tolerated? If not, then shut up with that goddamn argument of "herpderp we have economy and other bad things, so nevermind other injustices".

Cutting off a part of a human's body that cannot regenerate is mutilation, there's no discussion here. You can use euphemisms all you want, but biologically it's mutilating the infant's penis for no good reason.


----------



## Soldaun (Jun 5, 2011)

Attacking me is not a good way to win a debate, it generally makes you look less credible, just ask anyone on Fox News.  Now, when speaking about the Economy being the only debate to be relevent was for lack of better words a figure of speech, not to mention when typing it, I was referencing domestic issues, and not foreign ones.  Plus Foreign issues are more or less up to (correct me if I'm wrong) the department of defense, and would only be acted upon because of public opinion.  Since theres more Americans not complaining about it than there are, nothing is being done.

Now, I believe Genocide is a horrible thing, but the United States should *NOT* be telling other countries what to do without first fixing whats the most fucked up with ours.  It's like telling your neighbor advice when your just as fucked up.

Now lets get to your last part.  Mutilation is taking it a bit far, your not permanetly disfiguring the baby *(Hell, I like how my penis looks, having foreskin looks funny, I don't want my dick looking like it came out of an 80's porn flick)* or preventing him use of his genitals.

I understand the preference of how your penis looks (foreskin or none) is on a person by person basis, but I'm not going to make my kid go through the pain as an adult when doing it as a baby was so much simplier, and any anger towards me about him not liking the look of his penis would go away after 5 minutes.  Now lets looks at the medical benefits, such as less chance of contracting STD's.  Yeah I don't care what you think I'm going to circumsize my son when I have one.

Also bringing up Genocide is exactly what I meant when woman will think of and bring up anything they can when they are losing a debate, just look at most couples getting into a fight and she starts losing.  Please just stay on topic!

Anyway, I'm going to bed, 2:44 A.M.

Final Thought:  Saufsoldat, pick and choose your battles, this is a life long lesson you should carry with you always.  Is circumcision such a big evil it is imperative for you to fix it?  Is this the one thing above all others you want to correct, because theres only so many things in your life time that you can fix, is this worth fixing above all else, because we both know you can't fix it all while your alive.  I disagree with you, but I can even tell that this debate is of such small importance that having it isn't really worth having.  You brought up Genocide and said but this is out there, why not fix it.  Genocide is worth stopping, and should be on top of the priority list, then why are you wasting your breath fixing such a small issue, when larger fish are still in the pond?  Pick and choose your battles everywhere you go.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Soldaun said:


> Attacking me is not a good way to win a debate, it generally makes you look less credible, just ask anyone on Fox News.  Now, when speaking about the Economy being the only debate to be relevent was for lack of better words a figure of speech, not to mention when typing it, I was referencing domestic issues, and not foreign ones.  Plus Foreign issues are more or less up to (correct me if I'm wrong) the department of defense, and would only be acted upon because of public opinion.  Since theres more Americans not complaining about it than there are, nothing is being done.
> 
> Now, I believe Genocide is a horrible thing, but the United States should *NOT* be telling other countries what to do without first fixing whats the most fucked up with ours.  It's like telling your neighbor advice when your just as fucked up.



 I just kept going the path you suggested. That we must only ever concentrate on the biggest evil there is and ignore everything else until it's taken care of.



> Now lets get to your last part.  Mutilation is taking it a bit far, your not permanetly disfiguring the baby *(Hell, I like how my penis looks, having foreskin looks funny, I don't want my dick looking like it came out of an 80's porn flick)* or preventing him use of his genitals.



It doesn't matter what it looks like, you are disfiguring a part of the body permanently, it will never be able to recover the parts that were lost. That is the very definition of mutilation.



> I understand the preference of how your penis looks (foreskin or none) is on a person by person basis, but I'm not going to make my kid go through the pain as an adult when doing it as a baby was so much simplier, and any anger towards me about him not liking the look of his penis would go away after 5 minutes.



So if I think a girl should have big titties, I can give my infant daughter breast implants? I'm not going to make her go through the pain as an adult when doing it as a baby is so much simpler, right?

This is not about what anybody thinks a penis should look like, this is about an infant received unnecessary surgery that permanently mutilates a part of his body. It's like giving your baby tattoos or removing his hair permanently. You simply have no right to do that (ethically speaking).



> Now lets looks at the medical benefits, such as less chance of contracting STD's.



Which is marginal at best. In Africa where condoms are unavailable or frowned upon, this might make sense, but in the western world where body hygiene and condoms are normal things, this won't do much good.



> Yeah I don't care what you think I'm going to circumsize my son when I have one.



Alright, I'm going to cut off my son's little toe when I have one.



> Also bringing up Genocide is exactly what I meant when woman will think of and bring up anything they can when they are losing a debate, just look at most couples getting into a fight and she starts losing.  Please just stay on topic!
> 
> Anyway, I'm going to bed, 2:44 A.M.
> 
> Final Thought:  Saufsoldat, pick and choose your battles, this is a life long lesson you should carry with you always.  Is circumcision such a big evil it is imperative for you to fix it?  Is this the one thing above all others you want to correct, because theres only so many things in your life time that you can fix, is this worth fixing above all else, because we both know you can't fix it all while your alive.  I disagree with you, but I can even tell that this debate is of such small importance that having it isn't really worth having.  You brought up Genocide and said but this is out there, why not fix it.  Genocide is worth stopping, and should be on top of the priority list, then why are you wasting your breath fixing such a small issue, when larger fish are still in the pond?  Pick and choose your battles everywhere you go.



Blah blah, big injustice going on therefore ignore all other injustice, blah blah.

Broken record, go play it where people actually fall for logical fallacies.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 5, 2011)

Soldaun, you're a baby mutilator and your penis probably looks horrible. You're just used to it, and to girls pretending they kind of like it because they don't think they can score a real, full penis. Like mine.

Seriously though, it's not all that important. But why circumcise people anyway? It's a medical procedure with no utility whatsoever.


----------



## zuul (Jun 5, 2011)

Good news.

I don't care if it motivated by religious BS or not. A sexual mutilation on an innocent unwilling child is still a nasty thing. Let's they get that once they are adult if they want it.

The studies about STD are controversial. The reason why this sort of abomination has been promoted amongst non  religious people was to discourage masturbation not the pseudo hygienic BS they made up latter on to justify it.

You will probabely find plenty of Egyptian women who would say that they don't suffer one bit from their excised vaginas and that it looks prettier that way. Thus forcing that sort of mutilation on their own daughters


----------



## Casyle (Jun 5, 2011)

> Although precise numbers are not known,* several studies have indicated that circumcision rates have been declining in the United States for the past several years* and now range from 30 percent to 50 percent of all male infants.



Good, and hopefully it will continue to decline.

What really pisses me off about circumcision is why it's done outside of the Jewish community. Just like the reason my parents had me circimcised, the biggest single reason I regularly see for circimcusion is because daddy is circumcised, and wants his boy to look like him. Lovely, freaking lovely. At least they don't pretend they're doing for some bullshit increased health reason.


----------



## zuul (Jun 5, 2011)

Casyle said:


> Good, and hopefully it will continue to decline.
> 
> What really pisses me off about circumcision is why it's done outside of the Jewish community. Just like the reason my parents had me circimcised, the biggest single reason I regularly see for circimcusion is because daddy is circumcised, and wants his boy to look like him. Lovely, freaking lovely. At least they don't pretend they're doing for some bullshit increased health reason.



I read somewhere it's actually feminists who are fighting the most against it. Which is pretty sad.

Apparently they came to the conclusion it would be pretty hypocrite and inconsistent to oppose female genital mutilation without questioning the male one too.

For daddy to oppose it, he would have to admit there is something wrong about his sacro saint penis. 

Good thing the rate is finally dropping.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jun 5, 2011)

If an adult decides, he wants a circumcision, fair enough, but parents shouldn't have the right to mutilate their children's bodies and to force their religion on them like this. The kids are not their properties and they have rights. To me, this is grievous bodily harm.
When the child is grown up, he can still get the circumcision if he wants, but he can't get his foreskin back that easily.


----------



## Yachiru (Jun 5, 2011)

Eru Lawliet said:


> If an adult decides, he wants a circumcision, fair enough, but parents shouldn't have the right to mutilate their children's bodies and to force their religion on them like this. The kids are not their properties and they have rights. To me, this is grievous bodily harm.
> When the child is grown up, he can still get the circumcision if he wants, but he can't get his foreskin back that easily.



Pretty much this. It's the small injustices that count, people. Definitely a step to give children rights, as children aren't considered citizens in America (see the Utah brainwash incident)


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> They do know it's only an option right? Also like the article said, Muslims and Jews need to do it by their religion, so it may be protected by the first amendment.



As someone said, that right doesn't extend to females and female circumcision.



115 said:


> I wonder what will happen to all those who have that medical condition which stops them from being able to pull back their foreskin if this does become illegal



Phimosis has a million different treatments. The most successful and common treatment for phimosis is puberty and masturbation. If that doesn't work, there's a variety of topical and mechanical treatments from a doctor that help. If that still fails, which is never does, there's a medical surgery that correct it without destroying the function of the foreskin.



Darth Sidious said:


> Have dealing with your children's diseased cocks



Yes, because evolution designed the foreskin to increase vulnerability to diseases to make sure that all the mammals died.



Coteaz said:


> As a circumcised male, I can say with great honesty that it is not harmful to me in the least.
> 
> These people need to find better things to do.



Invalid argument: "As a circumcised female, I can say with great honesty that it is not harmful to me in the least."



Brotha Yasuji said:


> But it's not exactly the 'mutilation' that it's being painted as and honestly I don't see as a big deal. Besides, it does help reduce certain types of infections. So it's not like there's no good reason for it.



While I'm on the fence about the term "mutilation" because parents do it in good intention, while the surgeons (who are usually not doctors) don't. Circumcision doesn't provide any protection against any infections. It doesn't help prevent any STD, and circumcision makes a infant UTI 100% likely. So in that department, it increases the chance of infection. And why wouldn't it? You just make a large wound in an area covered with fecal matter and urine with an individual without a powered active immune response. And, you removed the anti-bacterial and anti-viral features of the penis.



Coteaz said:


> Circumcision let me not worry about getting infections under the foreskin as a child. It isn't necessary, but it isn't anything to get worked up over.



I've already mentioned above about infections, but you should know that uncircumcised people don't worry about infections under the foreskin, because they are very rare and very treatable. Why don't you cut off your eyelid to prevent infection under the eyelid? The functions of the eyelid and foreskin are practically identical, and if mother nature supposedly fucked up the function of one, why not the other.



wibisana said:


> as I know and experienced it not actually cut the penis. LOL
> it just cut the skin that covered the "head" not cut off but cut vertically and then open it. and sew it.
> 
> btw I do it in 6th grade. and does so many kids in here. it is believed that a baby have "that", the penis will not grow much. LOL



Actually, the reverse. Because the foreskin is long enough to facilitate the an adult erection, and circumcision removes ~80% of the skin, when the male enters puberty, there will be insufficient skin. Because of the tension of the erection, this will promote mitosis to expand skin growth to facilitate a circumcised adult erection. So during puberty, the circumcised penis will tend to be shorter, but after puberty, they'll be no size difference. Again, why would Nature make a complex organ on all the mammals if it's such a fuck-up?



Brotha Yasuji said:


> Removing a simple piece of foreskin hardly qualifies as mutilation.
> You said they're removing it 'for NO reason', doing it to prevent infections is relevant.
> Also then how is preventing others who want their sons circumcised, for religious reasons or not, any better? Is this not limiting their rights to do so?



Well, since the foreskin isn't skin but actually a complex organ with functions and purposes, it's not exactly "simple." And since preventing infections is bullshit, it's not relevant. And the reason to prevent parents from circumcised their sons is the same reason we prevent parents from circumcised their females, giving their infants tattoos, or forcing them to get any other unneeded cosmetic surgery. 
Because these are permanent, it permanently shifts the rights of control of your body from you (as an adult) to your parents, who are can be convinced by asshole surgeons who want money to pay for their new cars.



Coteaz said:


> I didn't consent to having my umbilical cord severed at birth. I didn't consent to being vaccinated as a child. Hell, I didn't consent to being conceived and born.
> 
> Circumcision is not life-threatening, nor is it even harmful to the child. I honestly don't see why you're up in a huff over this.



Female circumcision isn't life-threatening either. Nor are removing your eyelids. And yes, it is harmful to the child. I wrote an entire college thesis on the topic. Just because something isn't "life-threatening" doesn't mean you should do it. Why don't you remove your eye-lids? Practically every excuse to not remove your eyelids can be used in the argument to not circumcise.



Brotha Yasuji said:


> I think the older you are the worst it is to preform, but not exactly dangerous.
> 
> They are there I believe, not too sure though. They do it when you're a baby because you won't remember how much it hurt when it happened and so it can help protect against infections right away.



It's safer to circumcise an adult because the adult has an immune system to fight the infection that follows, can have pain killer, has a workable amount of skin for an erection, and, most importantly, *it's their fucking choice.* And as I've said, circumcision doesn't protect against infections.



reddogs52 said:


> It's just an option. Why do people care so much? It looks more like people are just trying to find something to feel important about. There aren't any studies that 100% verify either circumcision is bad or good. Christ, can't these people do something else with their time? Maybe use their funds (if any) to help local schools out or some shit.



True it that not _one _study shows it., but the overwhelming world-wide medical community unanimously agrees that circumcision isn't beneficial in any way, and/or is detrimental to one's health.



Soldaun said:


> I want to know how circumsizing a baby is considered mutilation.  I am a circumsized male and looking at my penis, I don't even see scarring from the procedure and if not been told about circumcision would have believed I was born that way.  I honestly do not see why people are so up in flames about the whole debate, there shouldn't even be a debate TBH.  To be 100% honest, the economy is a significantly larger debate, probably the only god damn debate that should be going on in America right now, and anything that affects it.  Circumcision is so far fucking back on the burners I'm surprised anyone would bring it up.  Bringing that up is a lot like the woman I know who bring up random shit when they know they're losing a fight.
> 
> Seriosuly, being mad over circumcision?  It's on of those things that should just be filtered out of your mind, so right when you think of it, just shut your mouth.  Just shut it!



This is a ridiculous argument. *If there was one thing to worry about in this country, it's where people, who are usually not doctors, can permanently remove a functional organ from you, without your consent, solely for money and it be legal.* I see all the reason for circumcision to be illegal and I'm a med student who wrote page after page about the issue.

Let's just dive into a fantasy world where circumcision wasn't harmful. Why should infant male circumcision still be legal? How could it be legal? In a society where you can't remove your infant's eyelids, give them tattoos, or any other unneeded cosmetic surgery, how could it be legal? You know what the people say about those? "That's not your body to choose what to do with it!" Exactly my conclusion. Even in a fantasy world where 3 HIV studies weren't biased and were truthful and determined that circumcision helped fight HIV, that's still not an argument to validly use in America. Hello folks! If you don't want HIV, get your mate tested or use a condom. That's the only way. The idea that circumcision prevents this is a made-up bullshit fairytale just to convince you why it was done by other people it was done to. 

What this really boils down to is humans, again, trying to take control of Nature because Nature doesn't cooperate with bullshit human agendas. Circumcision came from a fuck-up who thought masturbation caused heart attacks and child abuse. He tried to control the sexual urge and failed, why? Because Mother N. is a bitch who doesn't give a shit what you want. In the 1950's when people stopped villianizing masturbation, a new excuse was needed: It prevents UTI's and looks fashionable. Yet it causes UTI's, and even if it didn't, UTI's are the most common infection anyways. Again, Mother N. doesn't give a shit what you want. Same story with HIV, "Oh, I was circumcised to protect against that."
It's just humans trying to ascend over Nature. And look how well it's going! It's going just as well as every other time humanity has tried to do that.


----------



## Nemesis (Jun 5, 2011)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> They do know it's only an option right? Also like the article said, Muslims and Jews need to do it by their religion, so it may be protected by the first amendment.



Maybe they should use their brains for a minute and ask themselves this.  "Why would god/Allah give humans body parts which he wants cut away?  Surely if he wanted them gone he would not have placed them on a human to begin with."


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Jun 5, 2011)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> They do know it's only an option right? Also like the article said, Muslims and Jews need to do it by their religion, so it may be protected by the first amendment.


Generic satanists don't have the right to cut up babies for religious purposes. I think you might be wrong there.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 5, 2011)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> They do know it's only an option right? Also like the article said, Muslims and Jews need to do it by their religion, so it may be protected by the first amendment.



My religion states that I have to cut off the ears from any female child of mine. Still protected by the first amendment?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

It's an idiotic issue to dwell on. Leave it to the parents to decide on that.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> *Female circumcision isn't life-threatening either*. *Nor are removing your eyelids*. And yes, it is harmful to the child. *I wrote an entire college thesis on the topic*. Just because something isn't "life-threatening" doesn't mean you should do it. Why don't you remove your eye-lids? Practically every excuse to not remove your eyelids can be used in the argument to not circumcise.



Are you retarded?

Both open the door to massive infection.  I mean, wow dude.  Please read up on the methods on how they do this and whom they do it to.

What was your grade for this college thesis btw?  Anything lower than a B- accounts as bullshit.



Seto Kaiba said:


> It's an idiotic issue to dwell on. Leave it to the parents to decide on that.



This.

I love all these people harping on the choice-wank.  It's like parents should never be parents.  Ever.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> This.
> 
> I love all these people harping on the choice-wank.  It's like parents should never be parents.  Ever.



I think there's a tiny greyzone between "never let parents decide anything" and "let them mutilate their children for life".


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I think there's a tiny greyzone between "never let parents decide anything" and "let them mutilate their children for life".



Sorry if I adopt Coteaz's stance of, "It happened to me, I'm not traumatized and it seemed to work out for the better since my dick works in both bodily function and FUCKING, nor am I spiteful to my parents for deciding what they thought was better for me and not something extreme like removing my fucking arm.  Please STFU."

As one, I speak better than most who speak against it since it never harmed me nor anyone else I know that has, be they Jew, Muslim, or whatever.  It's a fucking California hoopla over nothing.

People here get so strung up on personal choice, might as well do away with ages of consent while we're at it amirite Grrblt, since 10 year olds obviously know the consequences of their actions since we should give them unlimited freedom of choice?  It's the same stupid mentality that allows things like the Constitution to become abused.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jun 5, 2011)

Is there any correlation between dick size and circumcision?


----------



## impersonal (Jun 5, 2011)

zuul said:


> Good news.
> 
> I don't care if it motivated by religious BS or not. A sexual mutilation on an innocent unwilling child is still a nasty thing. Let's they get that once they are adult if they want it.
> 
> ...


Damn. I never even realized. But yes, indeed. Circumcized males need lube; non-circumcized can enjoy themselves just fine without. And here I was thinking there was no justification whatsoever for the practice...  It all makes sense now.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

"Virginity checks" in Egypt, and we're dealing with a measure made in a state that can barely afford anything?



I'm done here.


----------



## zuul (Jun 5, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Is there any correlation between dick size and circumcision?



Maybe. If I remember well the USA with its huge majority of circumcized dicks scored pretty low on dick sizes despite a important black population. 

Let's be farfetched.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I think there's a tiny greyzone between "never let parents decide anything" and "let them mutilate their children for life".



It isn't mutilation. Male circumcision does not remove an essential part of the penis, nor does it affect its ability to function properly. This is again, an idiotic issue to dwell on.




zuul said:


> Good news.
> 
> I don't care if it motivated by religious BS or not. A sexual mutilation on an innocent unwilling child is still a nasty thing. Let's they get that once they are adult if they want it.
> 
> ...



To compare male circumcision to what happens with female circumcision is idiotic. Again, male circumcision does not affect the penis' ability to function properly in contrast to female circumcision, in which part of the clitoris is snipped off and DOES affect sex drive and ability to function.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Sorry if I adopt Coteaz's stance of, "It happened to me, I'm not traumatized and it seemed to work out for the better since my dick works in both bodily function and FUCKING, nor am I spiteful to my parents for deciding what they thought was better for me and not something extreme like removing my fucking arm.  Please STFU."
> 
> As one, I speak better than most who speak against it since it never harmed me nor anyone else I know that has, be they Jew, Muslim, or whatever.  It's a fucking California hoopla over nothing.
> 
> People here get so strung up on personal choice, might as well do away with ages of consent while we're at it amirite Grrblt, since 10 year olds obviously know the consequences of their actions since we should give them unlimited freedom of choice?  It's the same stupid mentality that allows things like the Constitution to become abused.



It doesn't matter whether they think it's alright in the end. I've been circumcized at the age of four, I don't have a problem with it, but that doesn't give me the right to say "I don't have problem with it, so nobody can". 

Most of the women who had their genitals mutilated as children don't think that there's anything wrong with them, does that make it alright for them to cut their daughters' clits off? Fuck no, this is not about how people turn out in the end, it's about the right of a human being to not have his body violated.

Children are not the propertry of their parents, the parents have temporary custody of the child and teach them the rules of society. They're supposed to keep the child from harm - not harm him - until he can look out for himself and by that age, he should expect to find his body intact, not mutilated.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It isn't mutilation. Male circumcision does not remove an essential part of the penis, nor does it affect its ability to function properly. This is again, an idiotic issue to dwell on.



It removes the part necessary for dry masturbation [as well as some penile protection, but well, that's another problem...]. Some say that it also reduces sexual pleasure and orgasm intensity, as the foreskin is very sensitive. This is clearly one of the primary functions of the penis.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Are you retarded?
> 
> Both open the door to massive infection.  I mean, wow dude.  Please read up on the methods on how they do this and whom they do it to.
> 
> What was your grade for this college thesis btw?  Anything lower than a B- accounts as bullshit.



I was referring to circumcision in America. Here, if a female got circumcised, it'd be in a hospital, like males. Performed by a medical technician, so while there is a chance of death, like all surgeries, it's pretty low. As for the circumcision done in Africa... I think we all know how well that goes over.

In places where circumcising females is legal, practically everything is life-threatening. As yes, both do open to door to infection, but if they were circumcised in America, the danger of that infection is low. And don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting circumcision if it's done here, I'm just being honest.

Speaking of honest. I got an A.



Seto Kaiba said:


> It isn't mutilation. Male circumcision does not remove an essential part of the penis, nor does it affect its ability to function properly. This is again, an idiotic issue to dwell on.



What do you mean by "essential?" The eyelids aren't essential for the eyes to work.  And you haven't done an ounce of academic research to say "nor does it affect its ability to function."
Without even copy'ing my thesis, I can refute this claim: Why would Evolution develop a complex organ if it had no purpose? And if you cite the appendix, then you should just leave this thread. Obviously, the foreskin provided a benefit to the species, otherwise it wouldn't have been selected for.

If you say the foreskin is not essential for the penis, then you should also be perfectly capable of saying the eyelid is not essential for the eye. Both organs (Eyelid and foreskin) have the exact same functions for both organs (eye and penis).


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It isn't mutilation. Male circumcision does not remove an essential part of the penis, nor does it affect its ability to function properly. This is again, an idiotic issue to dwell on.



Give me your definition of mutilation, please.

Cutting off the little toe doesn't remove any essential functions of your foot nor does it affect its ability to function properly.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> It removes the part necessary for dry masturbation [as well as some penile protection, but well, that's another problem...]



No it doesn't.


----------



## zuul (Jun 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It isn't mutilation. Male circumcision does not remove an essential part of the penis, nor does it affect its ability to function properly. This is again, an idiotic issue to dwell on.



It removes a huge chunks of the part of the penis that is the more sensitive. I'll say it is going to make one sexual life less enjoyable -like female excision-.
Let's also add the fact that the lack of foreskin create disagreable friction in the vagina of the sexual partner.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No it doesn't.



Yes it does. Circumcized males use lubricant. Uncircumcized ones don't. Why do you contradict people, without argument, when you don't know what you're talking about? It's not even the first time. You've got a bad attitude here, M. Kaiba.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Give me your definition of mutilation, please.
> 
> Cutting off the little toe doesn't remove any essential functions of your foot nor does it affect its ability to function properly.





> 1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
> 2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably
> 3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.



Male circumcision does none of this. To call it 'mutilation' is misleading, and dwelling on this issue is idiotic. If you wanna argue the necessity of it fine, but then that all goes back to the point it should be left up to the parents.



impersonal said:


> Yes it does. Circumcized males use lubricant. Uncircumcized ones don't.



I don't use lubricant, and never have. No it doesn't. Circumcision doesn't effect the penis' ability to function, once again.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Sorry I should've been out of this before, but impersonal, I'm circumcized and NEVER needed lube to masturbate.  Lube just makes anything easier...look at sex.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I don't use lubricant, and never have. No it doesn't. Circumcision doesn't effect the penis' ability to function, once again.


Tons of circumcized people do, and no uncircumcized people do. Besides, circumcision *a*ffects the penis' ability to function by reducing sexual pleasure (and penile protection). If you remove tons of nerve endings, it's likely to have an effect.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> What do you mean by "essential?" The eyelids aren't essential for the eyes to work.  And you haven't done an ounce of academic research to say "nor does it affect its ability to function."
> Without even copy'ing my thesis, I can refute this claim: Why would Evolution develop a complex organ if it had no purpose? And if you cite the appendix, then you should just leave this thread. Obviously, the foreskin provided a benefit to the species, otherwise it wouldn't have been selected for.
> 
> If you say the foreskin is not essential for the penis, then you should also be perfectly capable of saying the eyelid is not essential for the eye. Both organs (Eyelid and foreskin) have the exact same functions for both organs (eye and penis).


I'm waiting Seto.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Male circumcision does none of this. To call it 'mutilation' is misleading, and dwelling on this issue is idiotic. If you wanna argue the necessity of it fine, but then that all goes back to the point it should be left up to the parents.



Actually, circumcision fits all those definitions.  You literally just used a definition against yourself.

And now, riddle me this. Why should it be the parents choice and not the individuals?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Male circumcision does none of this. To call it 'mutilation' is misleading, and dwelling on this issue is idiotic. If you wanna argue the necessity of it fine, but then that all goes back to the point it should be left up to the parents.



This describes male circumcision:

2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably

The foreskin that was cut off can never be restored, the penis is damaged irreparably. I'm not arguing necessity, I'm arguing for a child's right of self-determination in choices that will affect him for the rest of his life.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Tons of people do. Circumcision *a*ffects the penis' ability to function by reducing sexual pleasure (and penile protection).



Again, it doesn't. I'm not sure if you're intentionally playing ignorant here...but whatever. Tons of circumcised males need it all the same. Also, there's no hard evidence to prove that it adversely affects the penis' ability to function sexually or vice-versa. It is, and should remain, personal preference that should be left up to the parents. As many studies have shown that circumcised males get as much pleasure from sexual activity as those that aren't, and that they last longer too. That doesn't support what you wanna believe so I expect you to deny that.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

I'd like to ask people who argue for the parents' right to circumcise their child, would it be alright for parents to cut off their child's little toe? It's practically vestigial and serves less functions than the foreskin.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

*Seto, respond or concede defeat.*


Toroxus said:


> Without even copy'ing my thesis, I can refute this claim: Why would Evolution develop a complex organ if it had no purpose? And if you cite the appendix, then you should just leave this thread. Obviously, the foreskin provided a benefit to the species, otherwise it wouldn't have been selected for.
> 
> If you say the foreskin is not essential for the penis, then you should also be perfectly capable of saying the eyelid is not essential for the eye. Both organs (Eyelid and foreskin) have the exact same functions for both organs (eye and penis).





Toroxus said:


> And now, riddle me this. Why should it be the parents choice and not the individuals?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jun 5, 2011)

I was circumcised but it was necessary in my case.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> I'm waiting Seto.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That was an idiotic example. The eyelids are entirely necessary for the eyes to continue functioning properly or else, they will dry out and/or be affected by the debris in the air moreso than they already are. Eyelids serve an essential function to provide lubrication to the eyes that they themselves cannot provide. You're supposed to be the one in the medical field here IIRC, and you don't seem to know that simple fact.

Also, I provided a definition already. Which male circumcision does not fall under.

If a male can always have his foreskin restored if he doesn't want to. It's a practice of personal preference, and it the parents wanna do it, that should be their choice. If they don't want to, it should be their choice. Either way, it's not affecting the penis' ability to function.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> I was circumcised but it was necessary in my case.



In b4 someone cites this as a reason for routine infant circumcision.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Again, it doesn't. I'm not sure if you're intentionally playing ignorant here...but whatever. Tons of circumcised males need it all the same.



Circumcized masturbation can be painful or otherwise unpleasant. Uncircumcized masturbation isn't. Uncircumcized males do not use lube in 99% of cases. This is common knowledge. Only someone extremely stupid, ignorant, and/or hypocritical would pretend otherwise.

But I'm arguing against someone who can present a definition, and what the definition applies to... and still not see that he is arguing against himself. You have _issues_, SK. And I'm not talking about your penis.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus, we have an appendix.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I'd like to ask people who argue for the parents' right to circumcise their child, would it be alright for parents to cut off their child's little toe? It's practically vestigial and serves less functions than the foreskin.



Toes allow for proper foot grip and balance in walking/running.



Does a foreskin allow for basic motor function?  Please don't say something that fucking stupid like a pinky toe being vestigial.  God damn it dude.

Hyping self-determination in children is why they're so fucked up and undisciplined to begin with, because parents are becoming so afraid to actually make a decision based upon their best interest in raising the child.

This kumbaya shit is getting tiresome.  Pretty soon parents won't be able to make ANY decisions such as schooling or influence and we might as well just rid them of their titles...since all they seem to be are glorified nannies, right?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jun 5, 2011)

I was circumcised when I was 8 or 10 year old. It was necessary in my case. I understand now that it was necessary but as a kid, I didn't liked it.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I'd like to ask people who argue for the parents' right to circumcise their child, would it be alright for parents to cut off their child's little toe? It's practically vestigial and serves less functions than the foreskin.



All your toes help maintain balance.



impersonal said:


> Circumcized masturbation can be painful or otherwise unpleasant. Uncircumcized masturbation isn't. Uncircumcized males do not use lube in 99% of cases. Only someone extremely stupid and ignorant would pretend otherwise.



Among varying cases, just as foreskin can become cumbersome too when it comes to functioning sexually or otherwise. It's extremely stupid and ignorant to keep going in the claim in the face of many examples that show otherwise, and with the fact that there is no solid evidence on adverse or beneficial effects of circumcision when it comes to the functioning of a penis, sexually or otherwise.



> But I'm arguing against someone who can present a definition, and what the definition applies to... and still not see that he is arguing against himself. You have issues, SK.



The definition doesn't apply to this issue. It doesn't remove an essential part, nor does it effect the penis' ability to function. It isn't mutilation.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Sorry I should've been out of this before, but impersonal, I'm circumcized and NEVER needed lube to masturbate.  Lube just makes anything easier...look at sex.



Lube is often preferred by circumcized males, while uncircumcized males don't even see the point. Lube does not even make masturbation easier for an uncircumcized male.

I mean, I don't understand how you guys can still be pretending this isn't true. Look at who buys wanking lube. Hint: it's circumcized males. That does not mean ALL of them do. I never wrote that. But it does show that this is an important difference between circumcized and uncircumcized men.


----------



## Savior (Jun 5, 2011)

Why are people making such a big deal over something like this which is harmless and should be left to the discretion of a baby's parents. I know nobody who is circumcised who has ever had an issue with it..


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Lube is often preferred by circumcized males, while uncircumcized males don't even see the point. Lube does not even make masturbation easier for an uncircumcized male.



Do you have testimonials or something?

I'm sorry, I know practically no one that has to rely on lube for proper masturbation be they circumcised or not.  But again, it's like comparing an electric screwdriver to a manual one.  One is just making the process easier.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The eyelids are entirely necessary for the eyes to continue functioning properly or else, they will dry out and/or be affected by the debris in the air. Eyelids serve an essential function to provide lubrication to the eyes that they themselves cannot provide. You're supposed to be the one in the medical field here and you don't know that simple fact.


Oh, I'm in the medical field. And everything you said was correct, and let me just amend it so it's still correct:


> The foreskin is entirely necessary for the penis to continue functioning properly or else, it will dry out and/or be affected by the debris in the area. The foreskin serve an essential function to provide lubrication to the penis that they themselves cannot provide.


The foreskin has more functions than lubrication, protection, and cleaning. So to that end, it's more essential to the penis than the eyelids are to the eyes.



> If a male can always have his foreskin restored if he doesn't want to. It's a practice of personal preference, and it the parents wanna do it, that should be their choice. If they don't want to, it should be their choice. Either way, it's not affecting the penis' ability to function.


Foreskin restoration does not restore the foreskin, it expands the growth of penile skin to act like one. You can never replace the nerve cells that were in the foreskin. But why should a male even have to choose foreskin restoration? IT'S HIS BODY SINCE THE DAY HE WAS BORN, not someone else's. *No one else has rights to your body but you. And any other way is dangerous and fucked-up.*
1. If a pair of parents wanted to give their newborn a full body tattoo, would you agree with them? 
2. If a pair of parents wanted to give their newborn a sex change, would you agree with them?



Seto Kaiba said:


> with the fact that there is no solid evidence on adverse or beneficial effects of circumcision when it comes to the functioning of a penis, sexually or otherwise.



Lrn2AcademicResearch.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

The relativist in me is going bonkers.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Lube is often preferred by circumcized males, while uncircumcized males don't even see the point. Lube does not make masturbation easier for an uncircumcized male.



This is idiotic. Lube is something of personal preference that both circumcised and uncircumcised males use. In the case of sexual intercourse, it really doesn't matter either way in the case of a female partner, whom cannot produce sufficient vaginal lubricant, or in homosexual intercourse to reduce damage to the anus. A male already produces his own form of natural lubricant when excited anyways, that stuff people like to call "pre-cum". The ability for a male to produce that isn't effect by whether or not he has a foreskin.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Oh, I'm in the medical field. And everything you said was correct, and let me just amend it so it's still correct:
> 
> The foreskin has more functions than lubrication, protection, and cleaning. So to that end, it's more essential to the penis than the eyelids are to the eyes.



Did you get your education from Devry or something? The foreskin has no bearing on the dryness or moisture of a human males penis. Your amendments were idiotic. 



> Foreskin restoration does not restore the foreskin, it expands the growth of penile skin to act like one. You can never replace the nerve cells that were in the foreskin. But why should a male even have to choose foreskin restoration? IT'S HIS BODY SINCE THE DAY HE WAS BORN, not someone else's.



His body and being is in the trust of his parent(s) or guardian(s) until he comes of legal age. It really has no bearing on any function of the penis, so again, it's really a non-issue.



> *No one else has rights to your body but you. And any other way is dangerous and fucked-up.*
> 1. If a pair of parents wanted to give their newborn a full body tattoo, would you agree with them?
> 2. If a pair of parents wanted to give their newborn a sex change, would you agree with them?



I don't expect much from you, but I see otherwise intelligent people strawmanning like crazy. Those two situations aren't the issue, and really aren't comparable, so I won't even bother.



> Lrn2AcademicResearch.



Devry English?


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> This is idiotic. Lube is something of personal preference that both circumcised and uncircumcised males use. In the case of sexual intercourse, it really doesn't matter either way in the case of a female partner, whom cannot produce sufficient vaginal lubricant, or in homosexual intercourse to reduce damage to the anus. A male already produces his own form of natural lubricant when excited anyways, that stuff people like to call "pre-cum". The ability for a male to produce that isn't effect by whether or not he has a foreskin.



This just might be the dumbest example I've heard in this thread.  So because one organ does one function, another organ that does that same function isn't needed? Do I really need to cite a similar example?

Edit: Never mind. This is the dumbest:


Seto Kaiba said:


> Did you get your education from Devry or something? The foreskin has no bearing on the dryness or moisture of a human males penis. Your amendments were idiotic.
> 
> His body and being is in the trust of his parent(s) or guardian(s) until he comes of legal age. It really has no bearing on any function of the penis, so again, it's really a non-issue.
> 
> ...



Time to get serious. Cite a national or international medical organization that agrees with what you're claiming. Oh, and don't bother even looking at the BMA, the APedA, or the IMA, because I'll cite them later.
 is a collection of the current statements by the med organizations. Feel free to attempt to find what you need.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> This just might be the dumbest example I've heard in this thread.  So because one organ does one function, another organ that does that same function isn't needed? Do I really need to cite a similar example?



You've got to be the worst medical student ever. The skin is an organ technically, but foreskin is not an essential part of the penis.


----------



## Vergil (Jun 5, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> I didn't consent to having my umbilical cord severed at birth. I didn't consent to being vaccinated as a child. Hell, I didn't consent to being conceived and born.
> 
> Circumcision is not life-threatening, nor is it even harmful to the child. I honestly don't see why you're up in a huff over this.



Pretty much this. You're at the mercy of your parents and docs until you are old enough to do things yourself. Until then you just have to trust their judgement. 

I hate how folk try to take away options from people with differing opinions just because they don't believe its right. There are arguments for and against the procedure and its up to the parent whether they want to cut things or give MMR jabs or put them in a boarding school - thats the priveledge of being a parent. When you have kids don't get them circumcised - but stop poking your nose into other peoples shit. The government should not get involved in this whatsoever.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You've got to be the worst medical student ever. The skin is an organ technically, but foreskin is not an essential part of the penis.


What about all the national and international medical associations in the world? Are you really going to say that they are all wrong, because everything I'm saying comes from them.



Toroxus said:


> Time to get serious. Cite a national or international medical organization that agrees with what you're claiming. Oh, and don't bother even looking at the BMA, the APedA, or the IMA, because I'll cite them later.
> is a collection of the current statements by the med organizations. Feel free to attempt to find what you need.



Feel free.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jun 5, 2011)

DON'T YOU EVER TALK ABOUT MY DICK WITHOUT MY PERMISSION

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTuazuSzkG0&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Vergil (Jun 5, 2011)

From WHO website:


> There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.
> 
> Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes:
> - the provision of HIV testing and counseling services;
> ...





This is from 



A GP talks about circumcision



> Are there benefits from circumcision?
> 
> There are several:
> 
> ...


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> DON'T YOU EVER TALK ABOUT MY DICK WITHOUT MY PERMISSION
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTuazuSzkG0&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]



YOU CAN DERE-LICT MY BALLS, CAPITAN!


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> This just might be the dumbest example I've heard in this thread.  So because one organ does one function, another organ that does that same function isn't needed? Do I really need to cite a similar example?
> 
> Edit: Never mind. This is the dumbest:
> 
> ...


----------



## Santí (Jun 5, 2011)

I approve of this thread.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

^Sees what you did there.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

As a victim of this horrible mutilation who masturbates dry every time, I say STFU. On a side note, I wish my parents waited until I was 18 to give me my vaccinations. Those shots hurt, and I would never, ever consent to them, but they were forced upon me.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

*Spoiler*: _For those who think that Circumcision protects HIV_ 






> "It is relatively more important to alter exposure to infectious agents than male susceptibility to them,"


Simonsen JN, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus infection among men with sexually transmitted diseases. N Engl J Med 1988; 219(4): 274-8.



> Numerous observational studies were carried out in Africa, but the evidence-based Cochrane Review (2003) found insufficient evidence to advocate a circumcision intervention to prevent HIV infection.


Siegfried N, Muller M, Volmink J, Deeks J, Egger M, Low N, Weiss H, Walker S, Williamson P. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2003.


> Thirty-five articles and a number of abstracts have been published in the medical literature looking at the relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection. Study designs have included geographical analysis, studies of high risk patients, partner studies and random population surveys. Most of the studies have been conducted in Africa. A meta-analysis was performed on the 29 published articles where data were available. When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). *Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.*





> All three studies found that non-circumcised males contract HIV infection more quickly than circumcised males.11-13 This may be because the circumcised males required a period of abstinence after their circumcision. All three studies were terminated early, before the incidence of infection in circumcised males caught up with the incidence of infection in the non-circumcised males. If the studies had continued for their scheduled time, it is probable that there would have been little difference between the circumcised group and the non-circumcised group. Mills & Siegfried point out that early termination of such studies cause the benefits to be exaggerated. Dowsett & Couch (2007), even after publication of the RCTs, found insufficient evidence exists to support a program of circumcision to prevent HIV infection.


-Mills J, Siegfried N. Cautious optimism for new HIV prevention strategies. Lancet 2006;368:1236.
-Dowsett GW, Couch M. Male circumcision and HIV prevention: is there really enough of the right kind of evidence? Reprod Health Matters 2007;15(29):33-44.[/quote]


Follow this citation:
Howe, Van. "Circumcision and HIV infection: review of the literature and meta-analysis." International Journal of STD & AIDS 10 (1999): 8-16.
And learn of the unbiased studies on circumcision and HIV that were conducted worldwide. Figure out why the experts on AIDSs say: "Circumcision to prevent HIV is scientifically unfounded." 



As for the citations of medical associations saying that circumcision protects against HIV, Apart from the lone wolf WHO, do any of them recommend circumcision for any reason?


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> As a victim of this horrible mutilation who masturbates dry every time, I say STFU. On a side note, I wish my parents waited until I was 18 to give me my vaccinations. Those shots hurt, and I would never, ever consent to them, but they were forced upon me.



You poor soul.

I know your pain.  I really wanted to experience Mumps, Measles, and Rubella myself...TO MAKE MY OWN CHOICE!


----------



## Vergil (Jun 5, 2011)

^Well don't do it on your kids then - in the end nothing really bad happened to you did it?


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> You poor soul.
> 
> I know your pain.  I really wanted to experience Mumps, Measles, and Rubella myself...TO MAKE MY OWN CHOICE!



My mom also exposed me to the chicken pox. They were itchy. I would have never connected to that.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Vergil said:


> ^Well don't do it on your kids then - in the end nothing really bad happened to you did it?



Srsly mang.  They'll thank me when they've narrowly escaped death but survived with their self-determination intact. 

/total sarcasm just to be sure



MrChubz said:


> My mom also exposed me to the chicken pox. They were itchy. I would have never connected to that.



I was traumatized...all that calamine lotion!


----------



## Thor (Jun 5, 2011)

I for one thank my parents for making my penis pretty and circumsized.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

Sum up;
Unnecessary medical procedure, is unnecessary.


----------



## Nemesis (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> As a victim of this horrible mutilation who masturbates dry every time, I say STFU. On a side note, I wish my parents waited until I was 18 to give me my vaccinations. Those shots hurt, and I would never, ever consent to them, but they were forced upon me.



Sorry but there are huge differences between vaccinations and what is basically a cosmetic procedure (in the western world).  Vaccinations against diseases can and will prevent the child contracting major life threatening illnesses as they grow older.

Circumcision really doesn't.  Not saying it is technically bad for you either.  Just saying that in the end it isn't something that has anything great either way and should not be placed along side the more important life saving or better health proceduers parents put on their child for their benefit.

In many ways the tattoo comparison is a lot more apt than this.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> Sorry but there are huge differences between vaccinations and what is basically a cosmetic procedure (in the western world).  Vaccinations against diseases can and will prevent the child contracting major life threatening illnesses as they grow older.
> 
> Circumcision really doesn't.  Not saying it is technically bad for you either.  Just saying that in the end it isn't something that has anything great either way and should not be placed along side the more important life saving or better health proceduers parents put on their child for their benefit.
> 
> In many ways the tattoo comparison is a lot more apt than this.



He was being sarcastic.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

It was a tongue-in-cheek statement, but fine. I would like to thank my parents for circumcising me and so would ever girl I ever slept with. That's the bottom line.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> He was being sarcastic.



??? He was not sarcastic on the vaccine part, which was the part of his post that Nemesis addressed.

To answer your earlier question about lube -- I couldn't find anything like a scientific study. It is however often referred to. It also kinds of stand to reason that lube helps when you don't have a foreskin, and is useless if you do have one that plays this precise role.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

impersonal said:


> ??? He was not sarcastic on the vaccine part, which was the stupid part of his post.





> It was a tongue-in-cheek statement, but fine. I would like to thank my parents for circumcising me and so would ever girl I ever slept with. That's the bottom line.



I thought so.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Toes allow for proper foot grip and balance in walking/running.
> 
> 
> 
> Does a foreskin allow for basic motor function?  Please don't say something that fucking stupid like a pinky toe being vestigial.  God damn it dude.





Seto Kaiba said:


> All your toes help maintain balance.



You both chose to misrepresent my question, great work. Nobody talked about _the toes_, what I was talking about is _the little toe_, which is practically vestigial. If you cut it off on an infant, that child would not grow up with any balance issues at all. Even adults who have their little toe removed can regain their balance. Only the big toe is really necessary to keep our balance, the rest are less and less important. They used to be important when we used our feet to grab stuff like other apes do, but now they're mostly vestigial.

The child would have an easier time fitting into shoes and many medical issues associated with the little toe would cease to be issues. I can guarantee you that if you and about 30% of all other humans had your little toes cut off as infants, you wouldn't mind it at all and would be right here defending a parent's right to mutilate their child's feet.



			
				Mael said:
			
		

> Hyping self-determination in children is why they're so fucked up and undisciplined to begin with, because parents are becoming so afraid to actually make a decision based upon their best interest in raising the child.
> 
> This kumbaya shit is getting tiresome.  Pretty soon parents won't be able to make ANY decisions such as schooling or influence and we might as well just rid them of their titles...since all they seem to be are glorified nannies, right?



Oh for the love of fuck 

*I'm not saying parents shouldn't be allowed to make the children eat the fucking vegetables, I'm saying that parents shouldn't be allowed to permanently mutilate their child's body.* Really, are you incapable of drawing the line somewhere between "we're not telling you his gender, he should decide that himself when he grows up" and "oh let's have unnecessary, irreversible surgery performed on him"?


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

^No Sauf, because honestly all I hear from you guys is this championing of self-determination for anything.  I have YET to see ANY child or friend or anyone for that matter rage at their parents for circumcision.  NOT. ONE. INDIVIDUAL.  I have read no op-ed for it.  I have seen no testimony for it even when I've looked it up.  I have only seen those uncut bitching about it while everyone else simply doesn't seem to give a darn.  To me a foreskin is like a wart, a growth on the skin that can go away and no one seems to complain.



Saufsoldat said:


> You both chose to misrepresent my question, great work. Nobody talked about _the toes_, what I was talking about is _the little toe_, which is practically vestigial. If you cut it off on an infant, that child would not grow up with any balance issues at all. Even adults who have their little toe removed can regain their balance. Only the big toe is really necessary to keep our balance, the rest are less and less important. They used to be important when we used our feet to grab stuff like other apes do, but now they're mostly vestigial.
> 
> *The child would have an easier time fitting into shoes and many medical issues associated with the little toe would cease to be issues. I can guarantee you that if you and about 30% of all other humans had your little toes cut off as infants, you wouldn't mind it at all and would be right here defending a parent's right to mutilate their child's feet*.



Stats to prove, plox.

And no I really don't think so.  Matter of fact, all toes are helpful in maintaining grip as well.  If you bothered to read the PDF, the pinky toe still has a percentage in the foot's overall use.  I know when I run my pinky toe still helps in my balance.  It's not vestigial at all, not like tonsils/appendix/foreskin.  Phlanges are pretty useful if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> ^No Sauf, because honestly all I hear from you guys is this championing of self-determination for anything.  I have YET to see ANY child or friend or anyone for that matter rage at their parents for circumcision.  NOT. ONE. INDIVIDUAL.  I have read no op-ed for it.  I have seen no testimony for it even when I've looked it up.  I have only seen those uncut bitching about it while everyone else simply doesn't seem to give a darn.  To me a foreskin is like a wart, a growth on the skin that can go away and no one seems to complain.



 If they love it so much, they can get circumcized once they're old enough. Doing it to infants brings unnecessary medical risks and raises ethical problems.



> Stats to prove, plox.



What stats? As far as I know there is no crackpot religion that cuts little toes off. Judaism and Islam are the last major religions that advocate body mutilation.



> And no I really don't think so.  Matter of fact, all toes are helpful in maintaining grip as well.  If you bothered to read the PDF, the pinky toe still has a percentage in the foot's overall use.  I know when I run my pinky toe still helps in my balance.



The size of the toes is indicative of their importance. In our evolutionary ancestors all toes had about the same size, because they were all important. Nowadays we have the big toe which is important to keep the balance and the other all a little smaller up to the nearly vestigial little toe. 

Stand up and put down your foot. Now lift everything except the ball of the foot while making a forward movement (forward, not diagonally as the shape of the foot would imply). This is different in some people but at that point my little toe does not touch the ground.

And don't even get me started on shoes, they make the smaller toes truly vestigial. But even in parts of the world where people walk barefoot most of the time, it's entirely possible for them to lose their little toes through accidents or disease and they'll still regain full mobility.



> It's not vestigial at all, not like tonsils/appendix/foreskin.  Phlanges are pretty useful if I'm not mistaken.



The foreskin is not vestigial, it quite a few nerve endings and protects the glans.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> The foreskin is not vestigial, it quite a few nerve endings and protects the glans.



I have never had foreskin and I can tell you my penis is pretty well protected.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I have never had foreskin and I can tell you my penis is pretty well protected.



Because we wear clothes. If that counts then all toes except the big one are vestigial because we wear shoes.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Isn't it up to the parents whether they want their child to be circumcised?


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Because we wear clothes. If that counts then all toes except the big one are vestigial because we wear shoes.



I don't know how much you run, not much I assume, but with the way I do, the pinky toe helps grip and absorb shock from time to time, especially on pivots and turns.



Disciple Bellic said:


> Isn't it up to the parents whether they want their child to be circumcised?



Parents are evil nowadays.


----------



## Nemesis (Jun 5, 2011)

it is an unecessary mostly cosmetic procedure.  If you allow it you should allow parents to tattoo their kids which is illegal.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Because we wear clothes. If that counts then all toes except the big one are vestigial because we wear shoes.



The foreskin can be under risk of tearing and other physical trauma. Either way, the penis is at risk of physical harm.



Nemesis said:


> it is an unecessary mostly cosmetic procedure.  If you allow it you should allow parents to tattoo their kids which is illegal.



Wrong. There are cases in which it is necessary to remove the foreskin, and it is a removal process that has no effect on the function of the penis. A tattoo is not a medical procedure, never a necessary one and the process of getting a tattoo is entirely different from circumcision. It's an idiotic comparison.


----------



## Nemesis (Jun 5, 2011)

no one is arguing against having it done when medically necessary though


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> it is an unecessary mostly cosmetic procedure.  If you allow it you should allow parents to tattoo their kids which is illegal.



Unnecessary? Circumcision protects from infections in your urethra. Urinary track infection is 10x more common to uncircumcised infants compared to circumcised infants. This among other things. What does a tattoo bring but infections?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> Isn't it up to the parents whether they want their child to be circumcised?



Not in Callifornia. See people care enough about a baby's rights to not let it get it circumcised but not enough to not kill them before they're born.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> no one is arguing against having it done when medically necessary though



You stated it was an "unnecessary cosmetic procedure". It is necessary at times, but either way, I think it's a non-issue. There are studies that detail beneficial effects of circumcision, there are ones that detail it for uncircumcised individuals, and ones that say either way makes no difference. There's no hard study that proves one over the other aside from the fact that it has no effect on the penis' ability to function, which is why I think it should be up to the parents to decide. The tattoo comparison doesn't hold because it isn't considered  a medical procedure, and there really are no documented benefits in the physical sense of getting one. Like the last source I stated, as long as the parent is properly counseled on the decision by their doctor(s), and feel it is in the best interests of the child's health, the decision should remain in their hands.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Not in Callifornia. See people care enough about a baby's rights to not let it get it circumcised but not enough to not kill them before they're born.



  

I might have to put this in my sig


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> I don't know how much you run, not much I assume, but with the way I do, the pinky toe helps grip and absorb shock from time to time, especially on pivots and turns.



I don't know how much you run, not much I assume, but I wear shoes, which means you land on the heel and have no use for the little toe at all.

Even if you run barefoot, the ball of the foot absorbs the shock, not the toes. It marginally helps the grip, since it's the last toe to touch the ground and the first to get off the ground.

It was just an example of a vestigial structure in humans. Should parents be allowed to have their infant child's appendix or tonsils removed without medical necessity? What about hair? It serves no important purpose, so why not have it removed through laser surgery?


----------



## Bleach (Jun 5, 2011)

Not hard to expect this from us Americans. Stoopidity 4 da winz.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

Okay, let's skip turning this into the medical circumcision debate. Most of us reasonable people concluded either:
A. Circumcision is bad.
B. Circumcision isn't bad or good.

So from here, we ask the on-topic question: *Do parents have the right to make a permanent life-long cosmetic decision for their child without consent?*
If you say "no," then routine infant circumcision should be illegal.
If you said "yes." Then the next question: "Why should parents have that right, which overrides the individual's right to their own body?"
If you feel that parents have total permanent cosmetic control over their children, where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable cosmetic changes? What differentiates circumcision, tattoos, sex changes, breast augmentation, piercings, etc?


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> So from here, we ask the on-topic question: *Do parents have the right to make a permanent life-long cosmetic decision for their child without consent?*


Depends entirely on context. Not everything can be settled with a general, sweeping motion.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

You're making it sound so dramatic.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Okay, let's skip turning this into the medical circumcision debate. Most of us reasonable people concluded either:
> A. Circumcision is bad.
> B. Circumcision isn't bad or good.
> 
> So from here, we ask the on-topic question: *Do parents have the right to make a permanent life-long cosmetic decision for their child without consent?*



Hard question: If I wasn't circumcised, I wouldn't bother to get circumcised because it would be too painful and too much of a hassle. Although, if I was a father and had a son I would have him circumcised.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I don't know how much you run, not much I assume, but I wear shoes, which means you land on the heel and have no use for the little toe at all.
> 
> Even if you run barefoot, the ball of the foot absorbs the shock, not the toes. It marginally helps the grip, since it's the last toe to touch the ground and the first to get off the ground.
> 
> It was just an example of a vestigial structure in humans. Should parents be allowed to have their infant child's appendix or tonsils removed without medical necessity? What about hair? It serves no important purpose, so why not have it removed through laser surgery?



I run cross-country, all the time, including the Boston Marathon.  Keep trying though.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> Hard question: If I wasn't circumcised, I wouldn't bother to get circumcised because it would be too painful and too much of a hassle. Although, if I was a father and had a son I would have him circumcised.



Why?



Mael said:


> I run cross-country, all the time, including the Boston Marathon.  Keep trying though.



You didn't answer my question


----------



## Kunkka (Jun 5, 2011)

The right question to ask is what kind of dick do women prefer to suck, circumcised or not?


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Why?



To protect from early infant infections and infections later on in life.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> To protect from early infant infections and infections later on in life.



Urinary tract infection? You had that awesome statistic of uncircumcized infants being ten times as likely to get it, but what you failed to mention is that the probability is still just 1% for uncircumcized infants. You'd have to circumcize hundreds of infants just to prevent one or two cases of UTI.

Later in life, the probability of infections isn't affected and more importantly, latere in life they can make their own decisions and can get circumcized if they want to be.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

Kunkka said:


> The right question to ask is what kind of dick do women prefer to suck, circumcised or not?


I don't like religious kinks.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> You didn't answer my question



Hair serves a purpose.  It helps shield the scalp from bitter cold or an unforgiving sun.  Hair however has also fallen under an aesthetic quality within human beings.

Also, with running, pivoting works off the ball of the feet and the toes.  Please, don't lecture a runner how he does his own thing.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 5, 2011)

Thank you atheists for depriving people of their right to be circumcised.  

Yay for "tolerance" and "respecting the beliefs of others".


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Thank you atheists for depriving people of their right to be circumcised.
> 
> Yay for "tolerance" and "respecting the beliefs of others".


You have the right to believe whatever you want, that isn't the same as *DOING* whatever you believe.

Such as some people believe they should offer human sacrifices, or cut off clitorises.

Not to mention circumcision being an act to mark the child under a specific faith. (Indoctrination much?)


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Hair serves a purpose.  It helps shield the scalp from bitter cold or an unforgiving sun.



I was mostly talking about body hair, which is completely vestigial. Also, we have hats to do the things you said and they do a much better job at them. Would you let your child go outside in winter without a hat just because he has hair? Didn't think so.



> Hair however has also fallen under an aesthetic quality within human beings.



People without hair look much better, therefore I should be able to remove any hair my child has.



> Also, with running, pivoting works off the ball of the feet and the toes.  Please, don't lecture a runner how he does his own thing.



Not the little toe, that one is unnecessary. There is no performance loss for a runner without his little toe.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> People without hair look much better, therefore I should be able to remove any hair my child has.



Not the same thing since we're talking health and not aesthetics.  Nice red herring though. 

Maybe we'll discuss baptism too and how traumatic that supposedly is. 



> Not the little toe, that one is unnecessary. There is no performance loss for a runner without his little toe.





Right, and grip gets a little harder with a pivot.  Again, I've been running since I was 16, wtf do you know that I don't?


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> You have the right to believe whatever you want, that isn't the same as *DOING* whatever you believe.
> 
> Such as some people believe they should offer human sacrifices, or cut off clitorises.
> 
> Not to mention circumcision being an act to mark the child under a specific faith. (Indoctrination much?)



Because getting a useless piece of skin cut off (that the person in question will be happy it happened anyways) is the same as being offered up for sacrifice.

Hey guys, I have an idea, lets go around getting everything under the sun banned in the pursuit of freedom!


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Urinary tract infection? You had that awesome statistic of uncircumcized infants being ten times as likely to get it, but what you failed to mention is that the probability is still just 1% for uncircumcized infants. You'd have to circumcize hundreds of infants just to prevent one or two cases of UTI.



I'll take .01%



> Later in life, the probability of infections isn't affected and more importantly, latere in life they can make their own decisions and can get circumcized if they want to be.



There are still higher risks for infections, penile cancer, inflammation on the penis (retraction) and STDs if one practiced unprotected sex. Furthermore, it is better for hygiene purposes. These all may be insignificant but they those things have higher probability in uncircumcised males.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> Because getting a useless piece of skin cut off (that the person in question will be happy it happened anyways) is the same as being offered up for sacrifice.


Many people aren't happy with circumcisions, bare assertion much?

Your assertion that it is useless is rather unfounded as well. Also the point was about religious freedoms being violated. Circumcision isn't covered by religious freedom, which was the point.





> Hey guys, I have an idea, lets go around getting everything under the sun banned in the pursuit of freedom!


I'm not supporting any ban. Please detail where I said we should ban anything?

Wanna try that again?





Disciple Bellic said:


> There are still higher risks


There are higher risks of cancer in your right arm if you have a right arm..

The higher risk is related to the higher volume of skin. In this instance it is statistically insignificant by comparison to lost skin.

*IE*: You're losing more skin(nerve clusters) in proportion to the risk reduction.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> *Many people aren't happy with circumcisions, bare assertion much?*



Can you point to me where people are unhappy?


----------



## Crowned Clown (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> This describes male circumcision:
> 
> 2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably
> 
> The foreskin that was cut off can never be restored, the penis is damaged irreparably. I'm not arguing necessity, I'm arguing for a child's right of self-determination in choices that will affect him for the rest of his life.



Once again, I function normally in society with a circumcised penis. I am not discriminated against, nor am I thought less of because of it. To tell you the truth I didn't even know what a circumcised penis vs. a non-circumcised penis was until a few years ago. Subsequently, I didn't know whether I was or not. You know what changed when I found out, nothing.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> There are higher risks of cancer in your right arm if you have a right arm..
> 
> The higher risk is related to the higher volume of skin. In this instance it is statistically insignificant by comparison to lost skin.
> 
> *IE*: You're losing more skin(nerve clusters) in proportion to the risk reduction.



Except if I loss my right arm I wouldn't be able to drive, get a decent job, play sports or do anything an ordinary person would do. Meanwhile, the removal of the foreskin has no real downsides.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> Many people aren't happy with circumcisions, bare assertion much?


I've never met anyone who is unhappy with being circumcised. Now I'm sure someone out there in the whole wide world is, but if enough were unhappy with it to be important there would be people other then soccer moms without penises protesting.



> Y*our assertion that it is useless is rather unfounded as well.* Also the point was about religious freedoms being violated. Circumcision isn't covered by religious freedom, which was the point.


It doesn't do anything important in the slightest.



> I'm not supporting any ban. Please detail where I said we should ban anything?
> 
> Wanna try that again?


The part where you started debating against circumcision in the debate.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Can you point to me where people are unhappy?




If you don't like reading... 2 men in particular on an episode of Bullshit.
[YOUTUBE=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6QI5IoWP50]skip to 7:30[/YOUTUBE]



MrChubz said:


> I've never met anyone who is unhappy with being circumcised.


Argument from ignorance much? "I've never met these people!" yet there are MEN who are advocating against circumcision and they were circumcised.





> It doesn't do anything important in the slightest.


Unnecessary medical procedures are unnecessary.

Not to mention removing it can and does cause complications.

Although that is another bare assertion, which is false. It serves multiple functions which some people find less important but some people finding it less important doesn't mean it isn't important.





> The part where you started debating against circumcision in the debate.


I said nothing about banning the practice, which is what you said. Again where did I say the practice should be banned?


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Can you point to me where people are unhappy?


*points at self*

Happy?


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

So you got a grumpy old blogger, a fat girl's testimonial on youtube, and about the most obscure study ever written to prove your point. Good job.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> If you don't like reading... 2 men in particular on an episode of Bullshit.
> [YOUTUBE=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6QI5IoWP50]skip to 7:30[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> Argument from ignorance much? "I've never met these people!" yet there are MEN who are advocating against circumcision and they were circumcised.Unnecessary medical procedures are unnecessary.



I'd like to see how these numbers run up with people who don't give a shit.

Toko, care to explain why you are?


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> So you got a grumpy old blogger, a fat girl's testimonial on youtube, and about the most obscure study ever written to prove your point. Good job.


It was an argument from ignorance to begin with. Good Job.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jun 5, 2011)

This isn't about banning circumcision altogether, like some people stated. This is about not letting someone make this decision for another person.
And not letting parents meddle with the bodies of their children, doesn't mean you take their rights as parents or their parenthood away from them.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> I'd like to see how these numbers run up with people who don't give a shit.


So the people who are unhappy with a completely unnecessary medical procedure that has risks and negative effects don't matter because most people don't have these problems?

The logic of your position is truly amazing.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Not the same thing since we're talking health and not aesthetics.  Nice red herring though.



There are no health reasons that justify circumcision in infants. 



> Maybe we'll discuss baptism too and how traumatic that supposedly is.



"Oh hai, let's compare sprinkling water on an infant's head to mutilating its genitals, that is sure to improve my argument"



> Right, and grip gets a little harder with a pivot.  Again, I've been running since I was 16,* wtf do you know that I don't*?



The evolutionary biology of your foot  Little toe used to be important for grabbing shit with your foot like our little finger is now, but ever since it's become atrophied. Why do you think toes are the one structural thing in our body that differs widely between humans? They're the one part of the body that can be completely different in two humans without affecting them at all. If they're so important for something as elemental as running, you'd think that one design would have spread among all humans, as is the case with every other part of our body structure.



Disciple Bellic said:


> I'll take .01%



Which would be wrong, it's about 0,1% in circumcized males. But diving things by 10 is hard, I don't blame you.



> There are still higher risks for infections, penile cancer, inflammation on the penis (retraction) and STDs if one practiced unprotected sex. Furthermore, it is better for hygiene purposes. These all may be insignificant but they those things have higher probability in uncircumcised males.



STDs and penile cancer are marginal and irrelevant as they don't apply to infants. For hygiene you have showers and if you don't use those, you have far greater health problems than your penis. A circumcized penis needs to be cleaned just as much as an uncircumcized one.



Crowned Clown said:


> Once again, I function normally in society with a circumcised penis. I am not discriminated against, nor am I thought less of because of it. To tell you the truth I didn't even know what a circumcised penis vs. a non-circumcised penis was until a few years ago. Subsequently, I didn't know whether I was or not. You know what changed when I found out, nothing.



Not sure what you're replying to, but it's definitely not my post. I never said that circumcized people don't function normally in society, just as circumcized females do. I said a part of the body that can never be restored is being mutilated without any medical necessity, only marginal medical advantages and additional medical risks.

The child's body does not belong to the parents, what part of that seems so outlandish to people?


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> It was an argument from ignorance to begin with. Good Job.



My argument is that there isn't a single decent movement (aside from people without penises) against circumcision. To counter that you showed me a fat girl and a grumpy old blogger. My argument is perfectly fine.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> So the people who are unhappy with a completely unnecessary medical procedure that has risks and negative effects don't matter because most people don't have these problems?
> 
> The logic of your position is truly amazing.



Same thing can be said about the people who have uncircumcised penises who suffer from the higher probability of cancer and infections .


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> So the people who are unhappy with a completely unnecessary medical procedure that has risks and negative effects don't matter because most people don't have these problems?
> 
> The logic of your position is truly amazing.



Actually, smartass, I simply wanted to see numbers.  



Saufsoldat said:


> There are no health reasons that justify circumcision in infants.
> 
> "Oh hai, let's compare sprinkling water on an infant's head to mutilating its genitals, that is sure to improve my argument"



You wanted to compare hair shaving with it based upon aesthetic which I never used as an excuse, so why can't I do the same nonsense you are? 



> The evolutionary biology of your foot  Little toe used to be important for grabbing shit with your foot like our little finger is now, but ever since it's become atrophied. Why do you think toes are the one structural thing in our body that differs widely between humans? They're the one part of the body that can be completely different in two humans without affecting them at all. If they're so important for something as elemental as running, you'd think that one design would have spread among all humans, as is the case with every other part of our body structure.



But the toe structure changed the more bipedal we got and didn't have to use our knuckles as support.

Believe it or not the pinky toe still helps a decent amount.  Balance and stability for one, something the foreskin does absolutely nothing for.  But fuck, what do I know?  I just have my toes help me for running constantly and doing exercises as grip and support, yes even the little one.  How much running and athletics do you do to back what you say up?

And ya know what?  Yes, a child's body DOES belong to its parents until the child is of an age where it can operate self-sufficiently.  I'm sick of this bleeding heart crap where a parent is completely devoid of the physicality of a child.  They made it, they fucking own it until the time comes where the kid can branch off.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> You wanted to compare hair shaving with it based upon aesthetic which I never used as an excuse, so why can't I do the same nonsense you are?



I was going to make an argument here, but having read your post I'll just say that the parents of the child and are therefore entitled to have any kind of surgery performed on it. Hair removal included.



> But the toe structure changed the more bipedal we got and didn't have to use our knuckles as support.



That it did, the toes became smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller and weaker and smaller and the big toe became stronger.



> Believe it or not the pinky toe still helps a decent amount.  Balance and stability for one, something the foreskin does absolutely nothing for.  But fuck, what do I know?  I just have my toes help me for running constantly and doing exercises as grip and support, yes even the little one.  How much running and athletics do you do to back what you say up?



You can use something (such as feet) without knowing jack shit about it, so please don't use running experience as a substitute for scientific knowledge.

If our toes were so important for running - one of the most important functions of humans - we'd have a clear, evolutionary model that's better than all others. But we don't, toe structure differs wildly among ethnicities and individuals.



> And ya know what?  Yes, a child's body DOES belong to its parents until the child is of an age where it can operate self-sufficiently.  I'm sick of this bleeding heart crap where a parent is completely devoid of the physicality of a child.  They made it, they fucking own it until the time comes where the kid can branch off.



If that's the stance you want to take, I won't keep arguing, but then you can't argue against female circumcision, botox injections, breast implants, or toe amputation.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 5, 2011)

> Toko, care to explain why you are?


I see it as medically uneeded.

To me it looks more and more like an old outdated practice that has no real basis in reality.  However at the same time I am torn.

I'm still uncertain whether it's right to make it not a choice for people to make for there children.....


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> My argument is that there isn't a single decent movement (aside from people without penises) against circumcision. To counter that you showed me a fat girl and a grumpy old blogger. My argument is perfectly fine.


Your argument was a bare assertion, which means it has no weight at all.
(You posted nothing to demonstrate it was only people without penises.)

You then had someone on this forum respond, and links to several men.





> Same thing can be said about the people who have uncircumcised penises who suffer from the higher probability of cancer and infections


Again, you're talking about reducing your risks by an insignificant amount by first increasing your risks of other problems.

Not to mention violating the Child's freedom to choose.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> If that's the stance you want to take, I won't keep arguing, but then you can't argue against female circumcision, botox injections, breast implants, or toe amputation.



Yes you can because it's relative.

Each one of these marks a relative situation, based more upon actual safety.  There's no real overwhelming statistic that male circumcision is ultimately life-threatening whereas the female variety is done in a manner that'll have them fucked up for years and possibly dead since those same regions already treat them as dirt.  As for boob implants, how often does a mother give a newborn boobs or does it make sense, where as male circumcision at the least has had some medical backup?  Again let's be relative.

I'm just not buying your implied statement that all freedom must go to a child and a parent is relegated to a mere nanny and bank.  This self-determination crap is being given to kids who for all intents and purposes are more ruled by base emotion than actual experience.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> You have the right to believe whatever you want, that isn't the same as *DOING* whatever you believe.
> 
> Such as some people believe they should offer human sacrifices, or cut off clitorises.
> 
> Not to mention circumcision being an act to mark the child under a specific faith. (Indoctrination much?)





This makes atheists look as batshit insane, intolerant and bigotted as the religion they claim to be superior to.  

Piercings on a persons clit or dick are health hazards which pose a risk of infection and mutilation very similar or worse to circumcisions.  So, why aren't atheists protesting those things or trying to illegalize them?

Because atheists don't give 2 schyets about harmful procedures, they're only interested in being intolerant, overbearing, douches towards religion to satisfy their own fanatical zealotry.

Circumcisions give them an excuse to do it.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jun 5, 2011)

^Doing this to a kid is illegal. Adults can make their own choice.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Actually, smartass, I simply wanted to see numbers.


1992 Study showed 41.4% (of 197 circumcised males) did not care. Of these men 20.2% were unhappy.

17.3% (of 197 uncircumcised males) did not care. Of these men 3.2% were unhappy.

Studies in 1996 showed people are generally happier when circumcised as adults.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> Your argument was a bare assertion, which means it has no weight at all.
> (You posted nothing to demonstrate it was only people without penises.)
> 
> You then had someone on this forum respond, and links to several men



1)The article makes it seem like mostly mothers against this.
2) Several men? One single blogger, 2 idiots on Youtube (whose argument is based around a woman who thinks she isn't being pleasured because her husband doesn't have foreskin), and a study that directly links anxiety and depression to circumcision (which I'll be honest. It doesn't take a psychologist to figure out that's bullshit). You'll need a bit more then that.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Yes you can because it's relative.
> 
> Each one of these marks a relative situation, based more upon actual safety.  There's no real overwhelming statistic that male circumcision is ultimately life-threatening whereas the female variety is done in a manner that'll have them fucked up for years and possibly dead since those same regions already treat them as dirt.



Male gentical mutilation in those piss poor countries is just as dangerous as the female variety and if it was done in first world countries, it would be just as safe, so that argument makes no sense.



> As for boob implants, *how often does a mother give a newborn boobs* or does it make sense, where as male circumcision at the least has had some medical backup?  Again let's be relative.



Argumentum ad numerum.

Let's not be relative, let's be honest. If circumcision wasn't a tradition among jews and muslims, *nobody* would come up with it on their own. If the world had no concept of circumcision, nobody in modern times would get the idea of cutting off some foreskin on a person, much less an infant. Think about it for just a minute and you'll have to agree that it's one of those things that only exist because of tradition.



> I'm just not buying your implied statement that all freedom must go to a child and a parent is relegated to a mere nanny and bank.  This self-determination crap is being given to kids who for all intents and purposes are more ruled by base emotion than actual experience.



I'm not giving the child self-determination, I'm saying don't make such permanent decision while the child is unable to make them. Why do we not just let our children drop out of school when they don't want to go anymore? Because we know they'll regret it and we want them to have all the options available to them once they're mature. That's why parents don't let their kids get tattoos with the name of their first love, because we know that those things are permanent. 

Children can't take loans, parents can't take loans in the name of the child and yet none of this is as permanent as circumcision. Circumcision is permanenty, it's something the child will have to deal with forever.


*Spoiler*: _Forever_ 



[YOUTUBE]MmRYccuXWNA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

This thread  Oh well, it doesn't matter really. Circumcision is dying at amazing speeds in America. In two generations it went from >90% to <30%. In one or two more, it'll drop from mainstream and be negligible, just like the rest of the developed world.

Actually Sauf, circumcision was introduced in America to prevent masturbation because it makes it less pleasurable. But Kellogg, the guy behind it, didn't know that sexual desire is separate from pleasure, and so, he failed.

Parents have no rights to make a permanent medical decision for cosmetic reasons. They shouldn't force children to get breast augmentations, sex changes, circumcision, etc. These are all permanent and offer no benefits, and only a bunch of risks.
And it's not really the parents fault, they are just misinformed by the professional doing the circumcision. You know, I once heard a doctor say that circumcision makes your son taller. And you know, that's what it really is. A bunch of bullshit fairytales to justify to yourself to make you feel better about being circumcised and to buy someone a new car.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Well then I'm just gonna go ahead and get my kid cut to buck that trend. 

He'll thank me when he's not referred to having a rain coat.


----------



## Vergil (Jun 5, 2011)

Jeez - folk here are making it sound as if being circumcised was the most traumatic thing ever and they are having trouble coping with it at this stage in their lives. I doubt that is the actual case. Most folk just shrug their shoulders and accept it. 

Being sent to boarding school or being around parents that smoke a lot is probably going to affect you more than this ever will. Stop sensationalising the effects. 

Its up to parents and parents that want it done to their kids will find less legal ways of doing it - thats really not good. Banning it is a dick move


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> 1)The article makes it seem like mostly mothers against this.


Mostly, isn't all.


> 2) Several men?


Yes 3, 2 on showtime, 1 blogger, 1 NF poster.





> a study that directly links anxiety and depression to circumcision


So your assertion based on an impression you got from an article, outweighs a study? Simply because you say so?

Your position is laughable, you flat out said you've never met anyone unhappy with a circumcision. (not to mention the post I was actually responding to said, show me where people are unhappy)


> Actually Sauf, circumcision was introduced in America to prevent masturbation because it makes it less pleasurable. But Kellogg, the guy behind it, didn't know that sexual desire is separate from pleasure, and so, he failed.


Which in of itself explains most of the misunderstandings certain groups of people have on the any issue regarding sex/sexuality etc...


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

You know, I'm still in shock that people think they own the rights to someone else's body for their entire lifetime. It's been a long time since I learned of your dumb human practices, but I'm still in shock over it.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> You know, I'm still in shock that people think they own the rights to someone else's body for their entire lifetime. It's been a long time since I learned of your dumb human practices, but I'm still in shock over it.



How cute.  How idealist. :33

Our dumb human practices?  Does that make you alien?

Cry me a river, honestly.  Life will go on and parents will continue to make operational choices for their kids and this in the grand scheme of things is one that will never produce the overwhelming trauma you're all looking for as an excuse to rid them of it.  Just ask the Jews.  Most will never give a shit.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> I thought so.


He meant every word of his vaccine analogy as an argument. Therefore it was appropriate to reply to it. 

Just because an argument is made in a certain tone does not mean people are not allowed to reply to it.

Pretty damn simple :-/


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael, your argument really degenerated into something that could easily be applied to female genital mutilation.



Toroxus said:


> Actually Sauf, circumcision was introduced in America to prevent masturbation because it makes it less pleasurable. But Kellogg, the guy behind it, didn't know that sexual desire is separate from pleasure, and so, he failed.



I know why it was introduced into the christian and secular world in recent history, but the original existence is still thanks to religious superstition and it was most definitely copied from jews.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Mael, your argument really degenerated into something that could easily be applied to female genital mutilation.



Then I'll just stop beating around the bush.

I was cut.  I don't give a shit.  I never gave a shit.  Don't know why I tried to give a shit.  Most people don't give a shit.  This won't pass.  Male circumcision will still exist long after we're dead.  End.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> Then I'll just stop beating around the bush.
> 
> I was cut.  I don't give a shit.  I never gave a shit.  Don't know why I tried to give a shit.  Most people don't give a shit.  This won't pass.  Male circumcision will still exist long after we're dead.  End.



I will now assume the role of Fatimah from Egypt:

I was cut.  I don't give a shit.  I never gave a shit.  Don't know why I tried to give a shit.  Most people don't give a shit.  This won't pass.  Female circumcision will still exist long after we're dead.  End.


----------



## Mael (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I will now assume the role of Fatimah from Egypt:
> 
> I was cut.  I don't give a shit.  I never gave a shit.  Don't know why I tried to give a shit.  Most people don't give a shit.  This won't pass.  Female circumcision will still exist long after we're dead.  End.



But the article isn't on females which has been proven to be worse, now is it? 

Male =/= female.  Nice try though.

Remember, we're looking for relativity here.


----------



## shurei (Jun 5, 2011)

My mom felt it was not a necessary procedure to do to my brother.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> Mostly, isn't all.
> Yes 3, 2 on showtime, 1 blogger, 1 NF poster.So your assertion based on an impression you got from an article, outweighs a study? Simply because you say so?
> 
> Your position is laughable, you flat out said you've never met anyone unhappy with a circumcision. (not to mention the post I was actually responding to said, show me where people are unhappy)Which in of itself explains most of the misunderstandings certain groups of people have on the any issue regarding sex/sexuality etc...




The bottom line is I challenged you to find me a single decent movement that proves circumcised men a a whole are unhappy with being circumcised. You got me a pathetic 4 men. You lose, good day sir.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I will now assume the role of Fatimah from Egypt:
> 
> I was cut.  I don't give a shit.  I never gave a shit.  Don't know why I tried to give a shit.  Most people don't give a shit.  This won't pass.  Female circumcision will still exist long after we're dead.  End.



Leave the trolling to me, you fat boring fuck.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> The bottom line is I challenged you to find me a single decent movement that proves circumcised men a a whole are unhappy with being circumcised. You got me a pathetic 4 men. You lose, good day sir.



Dude, are we not in a thread about just that?


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> The bottom line is I challenged you to find me a single decent movement that proves circumcised men a a whole are unhappy with being circumcised. You got me a pathetic 4 men. You lose, good day sir.


No, I responded to a post from Mael and then you asserted that it didn't fit your bullshit assertion.

Adding internet discussions to your list of failures in your pathetic life.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jun 5, 2011)

I'm also circumcised and I'm Ok with that. I believe it would be better if the religious would accept that circumcision must be a choice when you have the maturity to decide. In my case, it wasn't for the religion. I couldn't retract it easily, it was painful.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Mael said:


> But the article isn't on females which has been proven to be worse, now is it?
> 
> Male =/= female.  Nice try though.
> 
> Remember, we're looking for relativity here.



The principle is the same. You permanently mutilate the body of a person who cannot legally consent to the procedure without even consulting him or considering his wishes. What if your child grows up and decides that he wants his penis uncircumcized? "Tough luck, most circumcized people don't care so it's alright"? Or could he actually sue your ass for mutilating him without his consent?



MrChubz said:


> The bottom line is I challenged you to find me a single decent movement that proves circumcised men a a whole are unhappy with being circumcised. You got me a pathetic 4 men. You lose, good day sir.



Then why do so few men get circumcized as adults compared to parents deciding it over the heads of their children? "Not giving a shit" does not translate to "It's a good thing".

I don't give a shit that I was circumcized, I still don't appreciate the fact that I wasn't asked.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

Or that your freedom to choose, was suspended by your parents misinformed well intentions.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 5, 2011)

Eru Lawliet said:


> ^Doing this to a kid is illegal. Adults can make their own choice.



Uncircumcised men carry increased health risks in terms of cancer, etc.  There's no reason not to circumcize and every reason to do it.



> The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. Cancer of the penis carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the penis. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18, which are sexually transmitted, are involved in cancer of the penis.



Other benefits:



> Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
> Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
> Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission.
> Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.
> Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.



If freedom of choice is such an issue...

Why don't we wait till kids grow up before we decide to abort them?  So, we can ask them..  _Nicely_.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

I love your list of may benefits, how does that compare to the deaths caused by complications from male circumcision btw? Right.. it doesn't, because *ONE* death is enough to make it too much of risk for something that isn't necessary.

Lets compare some risks shall we...


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> I love your list of may benefits, how does that compare to the deaths caused by complications from male circumcision btw? Right.. it doesn't.



Most medical procedures can be harmful if you only look at potential complications. Not a valid reason not to go through with them.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> I love your list of may benefits, how does that compare to the deaths caused by complications from male circumcision btw? Right.. it doesn't, because *ONE* death is enough to make it too much of risk for something that isn't necessary.



Then I suppose most surgeries shouldn't be allowed since well... we're all gonna die anyway


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> I love your list of may benefits, how does that compare to the deaths caused by complications from male circumcision btw? Right.. it doesn't, because *ONE* death is enough to make it too much of risk for something that isn't necessary.




Why don't we wait till babies are old enough to choose whether or not they want to be vaccinated?

There are risks involved and some have died as a result.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Bleach said:


> Then I suppose most surgeries shouldn't be allowed since well... we're all gonna die anyway



Most surgeries (actually all infant surgery with the exception of circumcision) are only performed when there's some medical necessity.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Why don't we wait till babies are old enough to choose whether or not they want to be vaccinated?
> 
> There are risks involved and some have died as a result.



Vaccines are important for all of society, it's called herd immunity.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jun 5, 2011)

Damn Circumcision is a serious discussion here.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

> Elim Rawne said:
> 
> 
> > Most medical procedures can be harmful if you only look at potential complications. Not a valid reason not to go through with them.
> ...


Yes, and you advocate an unnecessary medical procedure for insignificant preventative benefits.

Your argument is fucking worthless.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Dude, are we not in a thread about just that?


7,100 people and not all of them are even males. 



Vynjira said:


> No, I responded to a post from Mael and then you asserted that it didn't fit your bullshit assertion.


Mael wanted you to point him to people that are unhappy. You came up with 4 people. 4 people is not enough to justify your position. Adding internet discussions to your list of failures in your pathetic life.



Saufsoldat said:


> Then why do so few men get circumcized as adults compared to parents deciding it over the heads of their children? "Not giving a shit" does not translate to "It's a good thing".


There isn't enough of a point to justify getting a procedure done (for most men at least).


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> There isn't enough of a point to justify getting a procedure done (for most men at least).



Oh but there is enough of a point to force it upon infants who cannot consent to it? Gotcha.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Oh but there is enough of a point to force it upon infants who cannot consent to it? Gotcha.


Enough to not ban it.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> I love your list of may benefits, how does that compare to the deaths caused by complications from male circumcision btw? Right.. it doesn't, because *ONE* death is enough to make it too much of risk for something that isn't necessary.
> 
> Lets compare some risks shall we...




That's silly.

There are risks associated with anything.  What we're interested in is the prevalence and statistical probability of risk.

As things stand, infants are more likely to be seriously injured or die from receiving a vaccination than circumcision.

Everything else is politics, dogma and engineering an agenda against "religious practices".  Because, people are gullible and uneducated enough to seriously believe religion "invented" circumcision.

You may not agree with it, but proposing a widespread ban is intolerance and prejudice on the part of those against it.

This is the atheist equivalent of religious folks wanting to ban sodomy or abortion.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> Enough to not ban it.



Let me get this straight:

You admit that the majority of adult men do not want to get circumcized, yet it's alright for parents to assume that every single infant in the nation wants to get circumcized?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> Yes, and you advocate an unnecessary medical procedure for insignificant preventative benefits.
> 
> Your argument is fucking worthless.



Just because you *think* it's unnecessary, doesn't mean it is. Going by your logic, vaccination is not absolutely necessary. Doesn't mean we should wait till the kid's 18 to vaccinate him.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Just because you *think* it's unnecessary, doesn't mean it is. Going by your logic, vaccination is not absolutely necessary. Doesn't mean we should wait till the kid's 18 to vaccinate him.



Herd immunity.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 5, 2011)

Vaccination have actual benefits not just for the child but for other people as well.

Like saufie just beat me to which is herd immunity.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> 7,100 people and not all of them are even males.


A good number of them are.





> Mael wanted you to point him to people that are unhappy. You came up with 4 people.


I stopped at 4 people, because 1 person was enough to satisfy that post.





> 4 people is not enough to justify your position.


My position? My refutation of a baseless assertion? Do you read what you type?

Pointing out that it is a baseless assertion was enough to refute your position. You have yet to provide evidence for your claim, the burden of proof is on you. Having not met that burden, 4 people and a study were more than I need to show.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Some people "need to" cut the clitoris off of little girls because of their religion, is that protected by the first amendment? Fuck no, religious freedom ends where any other right or freedom starts. In this case, the right of the child not to have unnecessary surgery performed on it.



Male circumcision and female circumcision are apples and oranges. And female circumcision isn't even a religious thing, it's just a tribal practice that some Arabs took notice of and decided to do it to some of their women. Circumcision is just like any other surgery, if you want to ban if because if it's risks then ban all other surgery since they are just as, if not more, dangerous.

Anyway, non issue is non issue. I'm sure this useless complaining will be struck down by the first amendment (freedom of choice and freedom of religion) and people can shut up about it.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 5, 2011)

What will probably happen is if atheists succeed in banning circumcision.

Religious folks will succeed in banning abortion.

That's the likely outcome.  

Rewarding religious or atheistic intolerance isn't a good precedent for anyone.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Just because you *think* it's unnecessary, doesn't mean it is.


No, scientists and doctors say it's unnecessary.





> Going by your logic, vaccination is not absolutely necessary.


Vaccination has benefits, circumcision has no statistically significant benefits with risks greater than the decrease in any risks that *may* be received.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Uncircumcised men carry increased health risks in terms of cancer, etc.  There's no reason not to circumcize and every reason to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





So, besides WHO. Why do no medical associations in the world recommend circumcision? Why do most of them oppose it? Why does the America Pediatric Association say that routine circumcision is "unacceptable."

Literally, not a damn thing you said was true. Not a damn thing. One in 600 for penile cancer? How about Japan and Sweden, where none of them are circumcised and the rate is 1 in 100,000 for penile cancer. Ugh, I'm not even going to bother with the rest. It's just a slanted article.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Herd immunity.



Overrated.

Besides, vaccinations can cause complications. THINK OF THE CHILDREN !!!


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> Male circumcision and female circumcision are apples and oranges. And female circumcision isn't even a religious thing, it's just a tribal practice that some Arabs took notice of and decided to do it to some of their women.



It might as well be religious, anyone can make his own religion after all.



> Circumcision is just like any other surgery, if you want to ban if because if it's risks then ban all other surgery since they are just as, if not more, dangerous.



Cutting off the legs of infants for no reason is just like any other surgery, if you want to ban it because of its risks, then ban all other surgery since they are just as, if not more, dangerous.

See what I did there?



> Anyway, non issue is non issue. I'm sure this useless complaining will be struck down by the first amendment (freedom of choice and freedom of religion) and people can shut up about it.



My religion says I must gouge out the eyeballs of my firstborn, is that protected by the first amendment?


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> I love your list of may benefits, how does that compare to the deaths caused by complications from male circumcision btw? Right.. it doesn't, because *ONE* death is enough to make it too much of risk for something that isn't necessary.
> 
> Lets compare some risks shall we...



How is this any better than the men who suffer from penile cancer and/or STD's because they were uncircumcised?


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 5, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> What will probably happen is if atheists succeed in banning circumcision.
> 
> Religious folks will succeed in banning abortion.
> 
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> What will probably happen is if atheists succeed in banning circumcision.
> 
> Religious folks will succeed in banning abortion.
> 
> ...



Why do you insist on bringing atheism into any debate, no matter how unrelated it is to the topic at hand? The organization is not an atheist organization and I bet that most of the members are christian.

Did Richard Dawkins give you the bad touch as a child or what is your problem?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> How is this any better than the men who suffer from penile cancer and/or STD's because they were uncircumcised?



By the time penile cancer or STDs become relevant, everyone can consent to circumcision himself.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> Then run out and create one so you can get female circumcision protected.
> 
> Um...you compared cutting off the foreskin of a penis to cutting someones off legs. Once again, apples and oranges.
> 
> Yet again, apples and oranges. How is circumcision anything like eye gouging?



Again, the foreskin is to the penis like the eyelid is to the eye. *THE EXACT SAME FUNCTIONS* The foreskin has even more though.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Christianity has nothing to do with circumcision. It does not oppose to it or support it. It doesn't matter.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> It might as well be religious, anyone can make his own religion after all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then run out and create one so you can get female circumcision protected.

Um...you compared cutting off the foreskin of a penis to cutting someones off legs. Once again, apples and oranges.

Yet again, apples and oranges. How is circumcision anything like eye gouging?


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> No, scientists and doctors say it's unnecessary.Vaccination has benefits, circumcision has no statistically significant benefits with risks greater than the decrease in any risks that *may* be received.



The heretics must burn in a lake of fire and circumcision, huh?

Those poor infidels.  



Toroxus said:


> Why does the America Pediatric Association say that routine circumcision is "unacceptable."



Why do so-called "medical associations" say mammograms, prostate screening and other routine practices are "useless"?

Because, their first priority is to money and finding ways to cut procedures out of healthcare in order to increase their own profit margins.

People who believe everything they read in a 'holy book' are considered unintelligent for a reason.  Believing everything and anything a so-called official source tells you, doesn't necessarily make you any better.  



Toroxus said:


> Literally, not a damn thing you said was true. Not a damn thing. One in 600 for penile cancer? How about Japan and Sweden, where none of them are circumcised and the rate is 1 in 100,000 for penile cancer. Ugh, I'm not even going to bother with the rest. It's just a slanted article.



Cancer rates in other countries are different due to them having different eating habits and lifestyles.



Saufsoldat said:


> Why do you insist on bringing atheism into any debate, no matter how unrelated it is to the topic at hand? The organization is not an atheist organization and I bet that most of the members are christian.
> 
> Did Richard Dawkins give you the bad touch as a child or what is your problem?



Because, the only issues that give atheists a boner are the ones that allow them to lash out at religion.  

Gay marriage -> bash religiontards!
Evolution -> bash religiontards!
Circumcision -> bash religiontards!

Those are the 3 most "important" and "pressing" issues to atheists, and the reason would seem to be due to correlation of self interest.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jun 5, 2011)

Ok, no one here asked answered my question if dick size correlates with circumcision. That's all I care about in this debate.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Again, the foreskin is to the penis like the eyelid is to the eye. *THE EXACT SAME FUNCTIONS* The foreskin has even more though.



Except is not. Are you sure you're a medical student? We went over this already. You *absolutely need* your eyelids for your eyes to function properly. You do NOT need the foreskin for the penis to function properly. The natural lubricant that a male produces is not compromised by circumcision, and there really is no correlation between dryness of the skin on the penis and circumcision.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> By the time penile cancer or STDs become relevant, everyone can consent to circumcision himself.



Lol "relevant". I'm just saying, Vynjira is so stuck on ONE person who suffers from a improper circumcision while many other men are suffering from penile cancer and STDs because they have foreskin.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> Then run out and create one so you can get female circumcision protected.



Seriously? You're saying that if someone's religion dictates it, you'd be alright with female circumcision? Once again, religion lets normal people do despicable, disgusting things.



> Um...you compared cutting off the foreskin of a penis to cutting someones off legs. Once again, apples and oranges.



Don't backpaddle now, your argument was that if I want to ban one form of surgery (namely circumcision (which I don't even want to ban)), then you must ban all forms of surgery. That was your argument.



> Yet again, apples and oranges. How is circumcision anything like eye gouging?



It's an unnecessary mutilation of the body. It also has great medical advantages. The person is guaranteed never to have problems with eyesight and there's no chance of eye cancer.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Again, the foreskin is to the penis like the eyelid is to the eye. *THE EXACT SAME FUNCTIONS* The foreskin has even more though.





Not sure if serious.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> Lol "relevant". I'm just saying, Vynjira is so stuck on ONE person who suffers from a improper circumcision while many other men are suffering from penile cancer and STDs because they have foreskin.



We also have many people with testicular cancer, who could have had their balls cut off as infants and people with STDs who could have had their dicks cut off. It solves so many problems.


----------



## Bleach (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> We also have many people with testicular cancer, who could have had their balls cut off as infants and people with STDs who could have had their dicks cut off. It solves so many problems.



Yea but getting your foreskin cut off doesn't mean you can't have kids...


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> We also have many people with testicular cancer, who could have had their balls cut off as infants and people with STDs who could have had their dicks cut off. It solves so many problems.



Problem is, we need our genitalia while we don't need the foreskin, at all.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Bleach said:


> Yea but getting your foreskin cut off doesn't mean you can't have kids...



But think of the cancer!

I'd really like to know how many infants and children get penile cancer before they are old enough to get circumcised.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> It's an unnecessary mutilation of the body. It also has great medical advantages. The person is guaranteed never to have problems with eyesight and there's no chance of eye cancer.



It's not mutilation as it does not compromise the penis' ability to function, nor does it remove an essential part of the penis. There are documented benefits from its removal just as there are documented adverse effects of not being circumcised too, and its something that much like what you are claiming is still being studied. There is no hard evidence for either. The only hard evidence is that it doesn't compromise the penis' ability to function. So as I stated before, if the parent wishes to do so in the best interests of the child's health and with the proper counsel of their doctors, the decision should be left up to them, the same position the the WHO has taken on this.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> Problem is, we need our genitalia while we don't need the foreskin, *at all*.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Seriously? You're saying that if someone's religion dictates it, you'd be alright with female circumcision? Once again, religion lets normal people do despicable, disgusting things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I personally would not agree with it and (because it's a *choice*) not get it for my daughter. However, if it's protected by the first amendment my disagreement won't do anything about it.

Indeed, and I'm not backpaddling. But my argument is on the the basis of it's a minor surgery and not even harmful. And, whether or not you agree with it it does help with infections and things of that nature. But, you're just jumping from circumcision to cutting off limbs. Apples and oranges.

How is blinding someone akin to removing foreskin? Also, does circumcision  prevent the penis from functioning? If you rip someones eyes out they stop working. If you get circumcised your penis still works perfectly.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

_The World Health Organization state that there is "debate about the role of the foreskin, with possible functions including keeping the glans moist, protecting the developing penis in utero, or enhancing sexual pleasure due to the presence of nerve receptors"._

In other words, there's no hard evidence for the claims.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> How is this any better than the men who suffer from penile cancer and/or STD's because they were uncircumcised?


Well for one thing, all of those are real risks that you're putting on your child. For possibly reducing the risk of cancer and STDs an insignificant amount.

Which is to say you're putting your child AT risk for something that may not do *ANYTHING* to prevent cancer or STDs and *IF* it has any effect it is negligible.

When we have more effective measures that carry no risk to reduce STDs or penile cancer.. because they aren't procedures. Condoms for one, healthy lifestyle choices for two.

If they decide when they are older they want to try to decrease these risks... then no one is stopping them.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It's not mutilation as it does not compromise the penis' ability to function, nor does it remove an essential part of the penis.



I'm used to dishonesty from some debaters, so please go back a few pages and look through your posts. I asked you to define mutilation for me and you definitions included male circumcision. It disfigures a part of the body irreparably and is thus mutilation, end of the story.

Why do you people so stubbornly defend bronze age medical procedures? We're not in Africa, there is no AIDS epidemic in the western world and we have great access to hygiene. That makes all perceived medical benefits of circumcision marginal at best and the benefits of getting circumcised as an infant as opposed to getting circumcised once you're old enough to consent to it are non-existent.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

18 years without foreskin and my glans have been perfectly fine.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> No, I personally would not agree with it and (because it's a *choice*) not get it for my daughter. However, if it's protected by the first amendment my disagreement won't do anything about it.
> 
> How is blinding someone akin to removing foreskin? Also, does circumcision  prevent the penis from functioning? If you rip someones eyes out they stop working. If you get circumcised your penis still works perfectly.



I'll just put those two points together. Are you saying that mutilating the genitals of little girls or gouging out the eyeballs of infants for religious reasons might be protected by the first amendment?

You obviously have no understanding of what the first amendment does.



> Indeed, and I'm not backpaddling. But my argument is on the the basis of it's a minor surgery and not even harmful. And, whether or not you agree with it it does help with infections and things of that nature. But, you're just jumping from circumcision to cutting off limbs. Apples and oranges.



There's a lot of minor surgeries that require the patient's consent as opposed to just the consent of his parents without any medical necessity. Most forms of cosmetic surgery are minor surgery. Does that mean parents should be allowed to have it performed on their infant children?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I'm used to dishonesty from some debaters, so please go back a few pages and look through your posts. I asked you to define mutilation for me and you definitions included male circumcision. It disfigures a part of the body irreparably and is thus mutilation, end of the story.



I'm being totally honest. You want to desperately cling to a subjective matter rather than the hard facts that it does not remove an essential part or compromise the ability of the penis to function. Disfigurement, mutiliation, it's a load of bollocks because the penis is kept intact, and it does no damage to the penis or its ability to function.



> Why do you people so stubbornly defend bronze age medical procedures? We're not in Africa, there is no AIDS epidemic in the western world and we have great access to hygiene. That makes all perceived medical benefits of circumcision marginal at best and the benefits of getting circumcised as an infant as opposed to getting circumcised once you're old enough to consent to it are non-existent.



Why can't you just leave it to parents to decide for themselves? The perceived benefits are often and can be enough for them to decide whether or not to get it.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 5, 2011)

Sauf, give up. They won't listen to the entire world's medical associations, claiming a global conspiracy. If they won't listen to every reputable doctor in the world, they won't listen to you.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> Well for one thing, all of those are real risks that you're putting on your child. For possibly reducing the risk of cancer and STDs an insignificant amount.



Same thing goes for your previous post about the cons of bad circumcision but you knew that so you said focus ONE person who suffers from one of the list. I'm saying is since you want to acknowledge ONE person who suffers from a improper circumcision why not acknowledge the ONE person who suffers from penile cancer or STDs because they have foreskin? I'm not against to being uncircumcised by your logic was off.


> If they decide when they are older they want to try to decrease these risks... then no one is stopping them.



By that time, it would be too painful for anyone to want to remove a useless foreskin.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Sauf, give up. They won't listen to the entire world's medical associations, claiming a global conspiracy. If they won't listen to every reputable doctor in the world, they won't listen to you.



The links and others provided were from the CDC and WHO in contrast to your claims. I think the one not listening to the world's medical associations are you.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I'm being totally honest. You want to desperately cling to a subjective matter rather than the hard facts that it does not remove an essential part or compromise the ability of the penis to function. Disfigurement, mutiliation, it's a load of bollocks because the penis is kept intact, and it does no damage to the penis or its ability to function.



The foreskin is a part of the body, it is attached to our body and damaging it irreparably by removing it means you're damaging a part of the body irreparably.

You can remove the earlobe without damaging the function of the ear, does that mean doing so is not mutilation?



> Why can't you just leave it to parents *to decide for themselves*? The perceived benefits are often and can be enough for them to decide whether or not to get it.



I absolutely and 100% agree with you, parents should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to get circumcized.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Let me get this straight:
> 
> You admit that the majority of adult men do not want to get circumcized, yet it's alright for parents to assume that every single infant in the nation wants to get circumcized?



Last I checked it's not mandated that every child gets circumcised. I think it's alright for the parents to choose.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

The WHO suggests routine or preventive circumcision only in areas where there is an AIDS epidemic, in the west we have condoms, hygiene and medical support readily available making the already minor benefits of circumcision absolutely negligible.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> The foreskin is a part of the body, it is attached to our body and damaging it irreparably by removing it means you're damaging a part of the body irreparably.
> 
> You can remove the earlobe without damaging the function of the ear, does that mean doing so is not mutilation?



The foreskin isn't an essential part of the penis, it isn't irreparably damaging it. You're desperately clinging onto a sinking ship. 

Why not? Some lobes are attached and others aren't. If the risk of profuse bleeding can be properly contained, and if the parent feels it serves in the interests of the child's health and they are properly counseled of their doctor on whether or not that belief holds water, I don't see why not. Like you stated, it serves no essential function much like the foreskin. Unlike circumcision though, there aren't any extensive studies on benefits of the  removal of one's earlobe(s).



> I absolutely and 100% agree with you, parents should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to get circumcized.



That wasn't too clever. Parents should decide if they want their newborn sons to be circumcised.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I'll just put those two points together. Are you saying that mutilating the genitals of little girls or gouging out the eyeballs of infants for religious reasons might be protected by the first amendment?
> 
> You obviously have no understanding of what the first amendment does.
> 
> ...



The first amendment protects religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Since a ban on this will affect certain religious practices I'm using it as a part of my argument.

Now, to answer your question. At face value perhaps so, unless it's taken to court and ruled illegal. However, just because I support circumcision doesn't mean I would support eye gouging as a religions practice as they are not alike.

Point taken. But what does cosmetic surgery have to do with circumcision? You jump from cutting off limbs to eye gouging to cosmetic surgery but those things have nothing to do with circumcision. Let me ask you now, do you wholeheartedly believe that circumcision (the cutting of the foreskin) is truly no different that cutting off an arm or gouging out ones eyes?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The foreskin isn't an essential part of the penis, it isn't irreparably damaging it. You're desperately clinging onto a sinking ship.



*I am not talking about the Penis.* I am talking about a part of our body called the pr?putium, commonly known as the foreskin. It is a fold of skin with blood vessels and nerve endings. Removing it disfigures the body permanently and irreparably, even if no other functions are affected, it is a mutilation of the body.



> Why not? Some lobes are attached and others aren't. If the risk of profuse bleeding can be properly contained, and if the parent feels it serves in the interests of the child's health and they are properly counseled of their doctor on whether or not that belief holds water, I don't see why not.



What about our hair? It's vestigial, so parents should be able to get laser hair treatment for their infant child, right?



> That wasn't too clever. Parents should decide if they want their newborn sons to be circumcised.



Why do you deprive that citizen his right to physical integrity without any medical necessity or consent?


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> Same thing goes for your previous post about the cons of bad circumcision


No, those are real risks(that conclusively happen) and they are *ADDED* to your child. For benefits which are *NOT* conclusive and insignificant.

"It *MIGHT* reduce you chances of certain conditions (that are easily preventable by other means) by some negligible percent, but it *DOES* add risks of these complications."


----------



## Crowned Clown (Jun 5, 2011)

I am curious how many are against circumcision on the basis of taking away the rights of the children are for abortion. It does seem there is a bit of religious divide here, even if it is not at the forefront, so I am assuming at least a few against circumcision are for abortion.

Abortion is the ultimate mutilation, taking away the rights of children. That is a forever lifechanging event.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Crowned Clown said:


> I am curious how many are against circumcision on the basis of taking away the rights of the children are for abortion. It does seem there is a bit of religious divide here, even if it is not at the forefront, so I am assuming at least a few against circumcision are for abortion.
> 
> Abortion is the ultimate mutilation, taking away the rights of children. That is a forever lifechanging event.



Exactly. CTK basically summed it up all here:


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> The first amendment protects religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Since a ban on this will affect certain religious practices I'm using it as a part of my argument.



Freedom to exercise your religion ends the moment it conflicts with the freedoms of another person. If your religion calls for you to kill apostates, like Islam does, you can't do it, because other people have the right to live. If your religion tells you that you're allowed to beat your wife, like Islam does, you can't do it either. If your religion tells you to stone people that work on Saturday, like Judaism, you can't do it. If your religion tells you that you have to mutilate the genitals of your child, you can't... oh wait.



> Now, to answer your question. At face value perhaps so, unless it's taken to court and ruled illegal. However, just because I support circumcision doesn't mean I would support eye gouging as a religions practice as they are not alike.



I'll just keep you with that. Maybe one day you'll think about the horrible, horrible thing you just condoned in the name of religious freedom.



> Point taken. But what does cosmetic surgery have to do with circumcision? You jump from cutting off limbs to eye gouging to cosmetic surgery but those things have nothing to do with circumcision. Let me ask you now, do you wholeheartedly believe that circumcision (the cutting of the foreskin) is truly no different that cutting off an arm or gouging out ones eyes?



It's equally unnecessary. Every surgery is a risk, always. So why do we allow surgery that is neither necessary, nor significantly improves the patient's quality of living, nor happens with the patient's consent? It's crazy.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Crowned Clown said:


> I am curious how many are against circumcision on the basis of taking away the rights of the children are for abortion. It does seem there is a bit of religious divide here, even if it is not at the forefront, so I am assuming at least a few against circumcision are for abortion.
> 
> Abortion is the ultimate mutilation, taking away the rights of children. That is a forever lifechanging event.



Killing is not the same as mutilating, neither is killing always worse than mutilating. For example in many places, you can hunt and kill and animal, but you can't torture, mutilate or have sex with it.

Abortion happens in the womb, before the fetus is conscious and before it becomes a person. Women have the right to abort because it is their body, the body of an infant does not belong to anyone but the infant.


----------



## Crowned Clown (Jun 5, 2011)

I ask you, how am I lesser person because of my circumcision. I can still have sex (albeit slightly fewer nerve endings) with even a chance of protection from various complications that can arise from having a foreskin. I am one of the lucky few (since apparently complications from having circumcision are rampant) to not have had issues so on the whole, I feel that I have received a net benefit.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Crowned Clown said:


> I ask you, *how am I lesser person because of my circumcision*. I can still have sex (albeit slightly fewer nerve endings) with even a chance of protection from various complications that can arise from having a foreskin. I am one of the lucky few (since apparently complications from having circumcision are rampant) to not have had issues so on the whole, I feel that I have received a net benefit.



What the fuck are you talking about? I'm circumcised. Nobody in this thread ever suggested that circumcised people are somehow lesser humans.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

So it's okay to deny the infant their right to live but you'll be damned if an infant gets a procedure with virtually no negative effects done on your watch.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> So it's okay to deny the infant their right to live



Nope and I don't know where you heard such nonsense.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Your post made it sound like you're pro-abortion.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 5, 2011)

Crowned Clown said:


> I am curious how many are against circumcision on the basis of taking away the rights of the children are for abortion. It does seem there is a bit of religious divide here, even if it is not at the forefront, so I am assuming at least a few against circumcision are for abortion.
> 
> Abortion is the ultimate mutilation, taking away the rights of children. That is a forever lifechanging event.



We don't abort children, we abort fetuses. The rights of children do not extend to things that are not children. It's not a lifechanging event, because it doesn't have life yet and it never will. You can't change something that doesn't and never will exist.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> We don't abort children, we abort fetuses. The rights of children do not extend to things that are not children. It's not a lifechanging event, because it doesn't have life yet and it never will. You can't change something that *doesn't and never will exist*.



Only because you're denying its existence.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> Your post made it sound like you're pro-abortion.



I'm pro-choice if that's what you mean.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I'm pro-choice if that's what you mean.



Same thing.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I'm pro-choice if that's what you mean.



No, I mean Pro-abortion, as in supporting abortions themselves, as opposed to the right to choose to get one or not.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Freedom to exercise your religion ends the moment it conflicts with the freedoms of another person. If your religion calls for you to kill apostates, like Islam does, you can't do it, because other people have the right to live. If your religion tells you that you're allowed to beat your wife, like Islam does, you can't do it either. If your religion tells you to stone people that work on Saturday, like Judaism, you can't do it. If your religion tells you that you have to mutilate the genitals of your child, you can't... oh wait.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you really want to equate circumcision to murder then I can't stop you. But no matter what you want to paint it as it's nothing more than a simple surgery, necessary or not.

At this point you're just putting words in my mouth. If you want to play make mountains out of molehills then I can do that all day too. You're calling for the restriction of peoples rights to get their sons circumcised, so you must support Stalin, Pol Pot and many other tyrants who have taken away peoples rights? I can do the same thing you're doing but I see that those things have nothing to do with circumcision.

But do you really think that cutting off foreskin is the same as cutting off an arm our gouging out ones eyes? Not whether it's necessary or not but just in it's practice alone?


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> Only because you're denying its existence.



I only deny its existence because it doesn't exist.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> Same thing.


No, it isn't.

Being pro-choice, does not mean you would choose to have an abortion or that you wouldn't try to prevent abortions. (In a reasonable manner)

It means that you are not *WILLING* to force people by law to conform to your beliefs.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> Same thing.



Not at all, I am against all the reasons that make people want to have an abortion, like poverty and lack of education.



MrChubz said:


> No, I mean Pro-abortion, as in supporting abortions themselves, as opposed to the right to choose to get one or not.



I support a woman's right to choose to get an abortion.


----------



## Thor (Jun 5, 2011)

I ask one question. What does removing foreskin actually do? Does it harm you? Does it kill? Sheesh soon people will want to ban parents from piercing their daughters ears or cutting their sons hair.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> I only deny its existence because it doesn't exist.


I knew it was a bad idea to get started with you. Forget it.



Saufsoldat said:


> Not at all, I am against all the reasons that make people want to have an abortion, like poverty and lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> I support a woman's right to choose to get an abortion.



I've already gathered that you're pro-choice. But I'm wondering if you support the actual act of an abortion itself.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> Same thing.



Not quite. One can be pro-choice but anti-abortion.

Like me for instance. I support a womans right to get an abortion but think it should only be done in cases of rape, i*c*st, etc. If it's just because she doesn't want to have the baby then I think she shouldn't be able to get it aborted and should just have it and give it up for adoption so someone else can have it.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> I've already gathered that you're pro-choice. But I'm wondering if you support the actual act of an abortion itself.



It would entirely depend on the situation I'm in and as a male I don't claim to understand what pregnancy would do to a person. I am against it, but I wouldn't judge any girl or woman who gets an abortion.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Abortion happens in the womb, before the fetus is conscious and before it becomes a person. Women have the right to abort because it is their body, the body of an infant does not belong to anyone but the infant.



Infants can't think on their own


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

I was just wondering. As for me I'm pro-choice, but i*c*st is the only case I'm even iffy on when it comes to justifiable reasons to get one.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> Infants can't think on their own


Fetuses =/= Infants.

Are you seriously suggesting that *if some set of circumstances forced you* to choose between the survival of a fetus or the survival of an infant, that you would consider the fetus over an infant?


----------



## Subarashii (Jun 5, 2011)

First, genital mutilation in Africa needs to be stopped, then I'll think about giving a fuck about circumcision. 

Also, circumcision can reduce premature ejaculation, and no body likes that


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> Fetuses =/= Infants.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that *if some set of circumstances forced you* to choose between the survival of a fetus or the survival of an infant, that you would consider the fetus over an infant?



How you even came up with that post from my previous post is a mystery. 

I'll pass.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> Infants can't think on their own



An infant is a person, it has rights and it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights like a fetus does. Again, the prime argument for choice was always that it's the woman's body. That obviously is not the case for infants.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> How you even came up with that post from my previous post is a mystery.
> 
> I'll pass.


You implied that the fetus and the infant were similar, in the aspect that an infant cannot think on it's own.

He said consciousness, but aside from that *EVEN IF* we grant you that he said a Fetus cannot think on it's own and thus it is the same as an Infant. You must acknowledge there is a fundamental difference between the two? You passing on the question, demonstrates that you understand there is a difference. You're just arguing with the difference that he explained.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> An infant is a person, it has rights and it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights like a fetus does. Again, the prime argument for choice was always that it's the woman's body. That obviously is not the case for infants.



It's not the fetus fault that it was brought into this world. It is the fault of the woman (except for rape).


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> It's not the fetus fault that it was brought into this world. It is the fault of the woman (except for rape).



What the hell are you talking about? It's not the fault of the sperm that the woman is on the pill and it's not my fault that I wasn't born a millionaire, how does any of that constitute an argument?


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> It's not the fetus fault that it was brought into this world. It is the fault of the woman (except for rape).



And the fault of the man, who impregnated her.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> What the hell are you talking about? It's not the fault of the sperm that the woman is on the pill and it's not my fault that I wasn't born a millionaire, how does any of that constitute an argument?



You said that a infant is a person because it's no longer in the womb and is a separate person unlike the fetus which is still inside the womb therefore the woman rights always supersedes. My point is it's not the fetus fault that is was brought into this world. I'm sure the fetus would like rights too.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> You said that a infant is a person because it's no longer in the womb and is a separate person unlike the fetus which is still inside the womb therefore the woman rights always supersedes. My point is it's not the fetus fault that is was brought into this world. I'm sure the fetus would like rights too.



I'm not seeing the argument here. Of course nothing is the fetus's fault, that's why we're not punishing it for anything, we're just aborting it.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Lol, yeah we're just making sure it'll never have a life. It's not as if we're circumcising it or anything.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

Mutilating a person for life and preventing a person from existing in the first place are two entirely different things.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Yeah, having someone have a procedure with virtually no negative effects is much worse then denying a fetus its right to develop into a human like you or me.


----------



## Nemesis (Jun 5, 2011)

Every procedure has risks.  So why allow something that in the western world has no benefits apart from "I want my son to have it because".  Something that unlike a hair cut can not be undone and for the majority is nothing more than a cosmetic thing.  It would be like allowing parents to tattoo their newborns because they think it looks better.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 5, 2011)

Uncircumcized porn is on the rise.


----------



## Lebron Flocka James (Jun 5, 2011)

Just cut the shit off all the cool kids are doing it.................


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 5, 2011)

That isn't an argument.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> Yeah, having someone have a procedure with virtually no negative effects is much worse then denying a fetus its right to develop into a human like you or me.



What part of permanent mutilation of the body don't you understand? You can always make a new fetus, but you can't restore the foreskin.

Wearing a condom also denies a potential human his right to exist.


----------



## Lebron Flocka James (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> What part of permanent mutilation of the body don't you understand? You can always make a new fetus, but you can't restore the foreskin.



Who need foreskin I mean come on man who needs that shit what good dose it do...............


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> What part of permanent mutilation of the body don't you understand? You can always make a new fetus, but you can't restore the foreskin.



What part of not having a foreskin matters less then the booger in my nose I just flicked away do you not understand? If I had to chose between not having a foreskin and not having existed at all because my mom didn't think I was even worth bring into the world, I'd choose not having a foreskin. You would too and so would 95% of the people on the planet.

Edit: Preventing contraception and terminating a human being while its still developing is two entirely different things.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> What part of not having a foreskin matters less then the booger in my nose I just flicked away do you not understand? If I had to chose between not having a foreskin and not having existed at all because my mom didn't think I was even worth bring into the world, I'd choose not having a foreskin. You would too and so would 95% of the people on the planet.



Because you already exist. Fetuses aren't people, they're not individuals. They don't have desires, dreams, fears, pain or anything of that kind. The comparison here is just inane. There is no dichotomy between existing and being circumcised, this isn't an argument for anything.



> Edit: Preventing contraception and terminating a human being while its still developing is two entirely different things.



Nope.


----------



## MrChubz (Jun 5, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Because you already exist. Fetuses aren't people, they're not individuals. They don't have desires, dreams, fears, pain or anything of that kind. The comparison here is just inane. There is no dichotomy between existing and being circumcised, this isn't an argument for anything.


You're right. There isn't an argument. You're a piece of trash who thinks a pointless piece of skin is worth more then the right of a developing human being able to develop into a human being who has desires, dreams, fear, pain, and everything of that kind. We're done here. Go and rethink your moral values.



> Nope.


Oh good one. You really shut me down.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 5, 2011)

MrChubz said:


> You're right. There isn't an argument. You're a piece of trash who thinks a pointless piece of skin is worth more then the right of a developing human being to develop into a human being who has desires, dreams, fear, pain, and everything of that kind. We're done here. Go and rethink your moral values.



If you think something non-existing has the right to exist, why aren't you busy reproducing? All those potential humans have a right to develop into actual humans, so get raping.



> Oh good one. You really shut me down.



You didn't offer any reasoning, so I don't need to refute anything. Both a zygote and a sperm cell can develop into a human being given the right conditions.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> Every procedure has risks.  So why allow something that in the western world has no benefits apart from "I want my son to have it because".  Something that unlike a hair cut can not be undone and for the majority is nothing more than a cosmetic thing.  It would be like allowing parents to tattoo their newborns because they think it looks better.



 Really? You posted this argument before and Kaiba already addressed it.


----------



## Yaypie (Jun 5, 2011)

I don't see it as damaging or life threatening, as the Jewish religion has reasons and symbolism in doing everything that they do. And it's done in the best interests and for love of the child. It's a sacred tradition that's been done for thousands of years. And it's never stopped them from being fruitful or multiplying. 

You don't have to agree with it, but calling it barbaric is a little much.

As Mel Brooks would say, "You just nip the tip!"


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 5, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> Really? You posted this argument before and Kaiba already addressed it.


Addressing something is entirely different from refuting it, which is something he failed to do.

Sauf refuted his response to this argument. (among other people)


----------



## The Potential (Jun 5, 2011)

I guess to some people it's that big of a deal...


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 5, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> Addressing something is entirely different from refuting it, which is something he failed to do.
> 
> Sauf refuted his response to this argument. (among other people)



Sorry, then I meant REFUTED.


----------



## Syed (Jun 6, 2011)

LOL this is a hot pressing issue, huh?!


----------



## Yaypie (Jun 6, 2011)

Everyone is sensitive about their junk.


----------



## Crowned Clown (Jun 6, 2011)

Because their junk is sensitive


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jun 6, 2011)

Babies should be castrated at birth.

It would reduce our population growth.


----------



## Red (Jun 6, 2011)

Goddamnit I hate this ban happy society we live in. People should really stop this nonsense of "Ban things we don't like just because!".


----------



## Yachiru (Jun 6, 2011)

Red said:


> Goddamnit I hate this ban happy society we live in. People should really stop this nonsense of "Ban things we don't like just because!".



Except circumcision is actually harmful cuz the penis NEEDS the foreskin.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 6, 2011)

Red said:


> Goddamnit I hate this ban happy society we live in. People should really stop this nonsense of "Ban things we don't like just because!".



Nobody wants to ban circumcision, what they want to ban is circumcision of people without their consent.


----------



## ez (Jun 6, 2011)

Doctors should start offering penis reconstructive surgery.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jun 6, 2011)

Yeah, let's just ban it baby.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 6, 2011)

ezxx said:


> Doctors should start offering penis reconstructive surgery.



They do, but you can't reconstruct nerves, especially not when you haven't had them since you're an infant.


----------



## Gaara77demon (Jun 6, 2011)

majority of women prefer circumcised.

an example is that youtube video that was posted in this thread.

guess what most men would prefer if they heard that


----------



## Palpatine (Jun 6, 2011)

I never saw circumcision as a big deal myself, while I would personally prefer it to be up to the child/person getting it.

However, I don't think there's any evidence that it can cause anyone genuine medical problems. Besides, it's a standard practice in Judaism, and some factions of Islam as well from what I recall. 

It's not like you're castrating them.


----------



## DarkSpring (Jun 6, 2011)

Lol, stupid

because I TOTALLY remember how much it hurt when I was 3 hours old, it scarred me so deeply and changed my life emotionally


----------



## kazuri (Jun 6, 2011)

> \However, I don't think there's any evidence that it can cause anyone genuine medical problems





> because I TOTALLY remember how much it hurt when I was 3 hours old, it scarred me so deeply and changed my life emotionally



This has absofuckinglutely NOTHING to do with why it shouldn't be done.

Even if it felt good and made kids dick 10 inches longer and orgasm rainbows, that has NOTHING to do with why you shouldnt be able to remove parts of peoples bodies without their permission, for no reason.



> majority of women prefer circumcised.



Majority of men prefer big boobs, should we give infant girls implants? Kids arent supposed to have sex till 18, so which women would be complaining about the uncircumcised dick BEFORE then? when the kid is 18 he has the capability of deciding for himself if he wants to cut parts of himself off, and doing what 'women prefer' if he wants. 

common fucking sense.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 6, 2011)

kazuri said:


> Majority of men prefer big boobs, should we give infant girls implants? Kids arent supposed to have sex till 18, so which women would be complaining about the uncircumcised dick BEFORE then? when the kid is 18 he has the capability of deciding for himself if he wants to cut parts of himself off, and doing what 'women prefer' if he wants.
> 
> common fucking sense.



Big boobs have no health benefits and some women get them naturally. No one's going to grow an uncircumcised penis...

On top of that, I would rather have this done when there's no chance I would remember it. Though its not common sense, even if it was I wouldn't trust you to have thought of it, look at the first part of your argument? 

Its like someone going "Most women like white teeth and clean breath and a guy that brushes his teeth" and then you go on about breast implants. 

Cleaning your teeth regularly is shown to help keep you alive longer and keep them from rotting out of your head, there's a medical benefit, like circumcision, the fact that women like it is just a plus...for both. 

Big breasts are just aesthetic.


----------



## kazuri (Jun 6, 2011)

Circumcision is entirely aesthetic. Not only are the actual results about the std crap debatable, but the tests themselves are bad. I guarantee you the people they tested for the std's were over 18, which COMPLETELY nullifies any result, considering the people at 18 could have gotten circumcised if THEY choose to be, what, a few % less likely to get stds..? 

Just because some people are too horny to find out if someone else has an std, you should not be able to chop off parts of someone else. that is COMPLETELY illogical.

And, just like you said some women grow big breasts, most men who arent circumcised do not have std's. But besides that, there are advantages to bigger breasts. They are treated nicer by men who prefer bigger breasts, therefor their life is easier, therefor that is a huge benefit.


The COMMON SENSE part is, you do not decide for someone else if they want parts of themselves removed(or added to) unless there is a for sure medical need. 'potentially' getting an STD, is NOT one.

And... just because youre too much of a pussy to remember a little pain, doesn't mean other people should get to decide if others have parts of themselves cut off.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 6, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Big boobs have no health benefits and some women get them naturally.


Neither does circumcision, unless your infant is sexually active in Africa and doesn't use a condom.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 7, 2011)

DarkSpring said:


> Lol, stupid
> 
> because I TOTALLY remember how much it hurt when I was 3 hours old, it scarred me so deeply and changed my life emotionally



Well, it did scar your body, there's no denying that. If I cut off the clitoris of an infant girl, she wouldn't remember it either when she's grown up, but that's no argument for doing it.


----------



## zuul (Jun 7, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> Neither does circumcision, unless your infant is sexually active in Africa and doesn't use a condom.



Even that is debatable. Since those studies were not done seriously enough.

As expected, the former victims are the most adament to defend it, and it's moms who will have to be counted on to put an end to comestic circumsition.


----------



## Crowned Clown (Jun 7, 2011)

zuul said:


> Even that is debatable. Since those studies were not done seriously enough.
> 
> As expected, the former victims are the most adament to defend it, and it's moms who will have to be counted on to put an end to comestic circumsition.



Maybe because the victims haven't experienced anything wrong, so we think it is stupid to ban it.


----------



## Macdoggle (Jun 7, 2011)

I'm glad I wasn't born in America where I'd most likely have part of my junk cut off, the thought of it seriously weirds me out. It's freaky how adamantly people there seem to cling to the 'stop whining about it' argument as if it's okay to cut off part of someone's foreskin without consent just cause it's the norm or there's some vague, uncertain or possibly irrelevant benefit (If any. No I do not claim to know much about it's alleged benefits cause people don't really do it over here.)
It should ONLY be the decision of the individual and it's disturbing how many people wish to say the individual's choice is irrelevant, that the parents should be able to choose for them.
I don't know anyone circumcised here in Australia amongst my mates. Shit's fucked up man.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 7, 2011)

Macdoggle said:


> I'm glad I wasn't born in America where I'd most likely have part of my junk cut off, the thought of it seriously weirds me out. It's freaky how adamantly people there seem to cling to the 'stop whining about it' argument as if it's okay to cut off part of someone's foreskin without consent just cause it's the norm or there's some vague, uncertain or possibly irrelevant benefit (If any. No I do not claim to know much about it's alleged benefits cause people don't really do it over here.)
> It should ONLY be the decision of the individual and it's disturbing how many people wish to say the individual's choice is irrelevant, that the parents should be able to choose for them.
> I don't know anyone circumcised here in Australia amongst my mates. Shit's fucked up man.



You already said you don't know anything about it, why should people listen to you at all? 

Basically you came in a thread shouting "I don't know what I'm talking about but I've got an opinion anyway!" That's not enough reason. 

And in all honesty the whining seems to be coming from people who haven't been circumcised.


----------



## Macdoggle (Jun 7, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You already said you don't know anything about it, why should people listen to you at all?
> 
> Basically you came in a thread shouting "I don't know what I'm talking about but I've got an opinion anyway!" That's not enough reason.
> 
> And in all honesty the whining seems to be coming from people who haven't been circumcised.



Hmm. It's regrettable that I may have come across that way. I meant that I am unaware of any alleged benefits as there does not appear to be a firm consensus about it. In which case I don't think it should be performed on someone without consent, for a negligible or non-present benefit. I did not mean to say I have not attempted to learn about the issue.

Even so, the health benefit argument seems to be more of a secondary reason for the majority of circumcision. By this I mean that I don't think the supposed health benefits are the reason most people get it done to their kids. It seems like on the majority of times it's just done so the kid will 'fit in', which I believe is a poor excuse for doing it.

But I don't think you really acknowledged the main point of my post which was about whether or not parents should have the right to cut off part of their kid's penis because they think it looks nicer, or because of religious reasons or whatever you want to put it down to. Don't you think it should be an individual choice? I don't see how making it an individual's choice is such a god-awful idea as some seem to say it would be.

Also the fact that the majority of the circumcised men don't complain about having been circumcised doesn't mean that it was still okay to circumcise those other guys who didn't want it done to them.
Complaining about being circumcised might also be viewed as embarrassing or damaging to one's ego as it would require the man openly acknowledging he is unhappy about something to do with his penis. This might discourage some circumcised men from speaking up about it. (not that I'm saying this is the case in all or even very many circumcised men, but it's something to consider.)


----------



## Eisenheim (Jun 7, 2011)

Never knew this was a serious issue.


----------



## Gaara77demon (Jun 7, 2011)

Macdoggle said:


> Hmm. It's regrettable that I may have come across that way. I meant that I am unaware of any alleged benefits as there does not appear to be a firm consensus about it. In which case I don't think it should be performed on someone without consent, for a negligible or non-present benefit. I did not mean to say I have not attempted to learn about the issue.
> 
> Even so, the health benefit argument seems to be more of a secondary reason for the majority of circumcision. By this I mean that I don't think the supposed health benefits are the reason most people get it done to their kids. It seems like on the majority of times it's just done so the kid will 'fit in', which I believe is a poor excuse for doing it.
> 
> ...




why would someone be unhappy about something that has no meaning. 
although this arguement is mainly about giving the parents the choice. 

your parents could have made the choice to abort you or not have you at all.


----------



## zuul (Jun 7, 2011)

If you want circumsition then you should accept infant excision as well.

At least try to be a little consistent and stop being hypocrites !


----------



## lacey (Jun 7, 2011)

Ugh, more flack over the most trivial of things.

What else is old?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 7, 2011)

Eisenheim said:


> Never knew this was a serious issue.





♥ Comatose ♥ said:


> Ugh, more flack over the most trivial of things.
> 
> What else is old?



It's sad that people think the permanent mutilation of a person without his consent is trivial.


----------



## Eisenheim (Jun 7, 2011)

^
Uh, I'm circumcised and never did I feel hated or discriminated by others. Never got any disease or whatsoever. I never even heard anyone who have to go through shit because he's circumcised.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 7, 2011)

Eisenheim said:


> ^
> Uh, I'm circumcised and never did I feel hated or discriminated by others. Never got any disease or whatsoever. I never even heard anyone who have to go through shit because he's circumcised.



What does that have to do with anything? There are risks involved in every surgery and performing one that is not medically necessary and doesn't increase the patient's quality of living without his consent is simply unethical.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 7, 2011)

Eisenheim said:


> ^
> Uh, I'm circumcised and never did I feel hated or discriminated by others. Never got any disease or whatsoever. I never even heard anyone who have to go through shit because he's circumcised.



A couple of kids die every year of direct complications from their circumcision.


----------



## Mael (Jun 7, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> A couple of kids die every year of direct complications from their circumcision.



Stats?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 7, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> What does that have to do with anything? There are risks involved in every surgery and performing one that is not medically necessary and doesn't increase the patient's quality of living without his consent is simply unethical.


Funny one could say the same thing about abortion which you're for.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 7, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Funny one could say the same thing about abortion which you're for.



Again, nobody is against circumcision. We're against forcing it on infants who cannot say no.


Mael:


			
				Wikipedia on circumcision said:
			
		

> Although deaths have been reported,[142][154] the American Academy of Family Physicians states that death is rare, and cites an estimated death rate of 1 infant in 500,000 from circumcision.[119] In 2010, Bollinger estimated a death rate of 9.01 per 100,000, or 117 per year in the United States.[155]


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 7, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Again, nobody is against circumcision. We're against forcing it on infants who cannot say no.


Since it seems you can't understand I guess I have to spell it out for you. 

There's an infant who can't say no involved in abortion too and the chances of him dying from it are around 100%.


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 7, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> There's an *infant* who can't say no involved in *abortion* too and the chances of him dying from it are around 100%.


I lol'd                             .


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 7, 2011)

thekingisback said:


> I lol'd                             .


Unlike most of your arguments what I said actually made sense. Sorry that making connections and sense and spelling things in an understandable way is hilarious too you. You must have a hard time reading any posts at all without cracking up at this rate.


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 7, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Unlike most of your arguments *what I said actually made sense*. Sorry that making connections and sense and spelling things in an understandable way is hilarious too you. You must have a hard time reading any posts at all without cracking up at this rate.


Lol'd again. 


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> There's an infant who can't say no involved in abortion too and the chances of him dying from it are around 100%.





			
				 COMMON SENSE said:
			
		

> An infant or baby is the very young offspring of humans. A newborn is an infant who is within hours, days, or up to a few weeks from birth. In medical contexts, newborn or neonate (from Latin, neonatus, newborn) refers to an infant in the first 28 days after birth.[1] The term "newborn" includes premature infants, postmature infants and full term newborns. The term infant is derived from the Latin word infans, meaning "unable to speak" or "speechless." It is typically applied to children between the ages of 1 month and 12 months; *however, definitions vary between birth and 3 years of age.* "Infant" is also a legal term referring to any child under the age of legal adulthood.


Hmmmmmmm you can abort an infant these days. 

Sorry for being so stupid CTK, i obviously don't know what an infant is.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 7, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Since it seems you can't understand I guess I have to spell it out for you.
> 
> There's an infant who can't say no involved in abortion too and the chances of him dying from it are around 100%.





Please, spell it out for me again.


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 7, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Please, spell it out for me again.


He can but it would do you no good, it's your bad grammar that makes you unable to gasp anything he says!


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 7, 2011)

Sucks to be me I guess


----------



## Gaara77demon (Jun 7, 2011)

just fyi if you are at all in anyway in favor of the right of abortion but not on the right of the parent to get their child circumcised then you are a hypocrite.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 7, 2011)

Gaara77demon said:


> just fyi if you are at all in anyway in favor of the right of abortion but not on the right of the parent to get their child circumcised then you are a hypocrite.



just fyi


no.


----------



## Gaara77demon (Jun 7, 2011)

mind explaining the difference

 2:37 of this video says you are wrong



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tp5O2nLmCQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 7, 2011)

Gaara77demon said:


> mind explaining the difference
> 
> 2:37 of this video says you are wrong
> 
> ...


2:37 McCain says he is wrong. 

Thanks for making me lol YET again.


----------



## Gaara77demon (Jun 7, 2011)

thekingisback said:


> 2:37 McCain says he is wrong.
> 
> Thanks for making me lol YET again.



you misunderstand, i am pro abortion and pro parents rights on their own child. i am against what he said in that video, i am just trying to say that you cant be pro abortion yet against parents rights of circumsion on their infant


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 7, 2011)

Gaara77demon said:


> mind explaining the difference


Abortion is a procedure performed on a usually adult, but at least sexually mature individual, to remove a non-thinking parasite from her body. The parasite will never notice what happened, it will never live a life lacking anything that was taken from it, and it will never be able to care about it.

Circumcision is a procedure performed on a thinking person. Usually it is a pointless ritualistic procedure without that person's consent.

That's the difference. I support abortion on fetuses but not on infants. I support circumcision for those who want it done to themselves, but not on people who cannot possibly consent to it unless it is for medical reasons.



> 2:37 of this video says you are wrong
> 
> 
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tp5O2nLmCQ[/YOUTUBE]



All I saw at 2:37 was McCain being a dumbass, and other dumbasses cheering him on.



Gaara77demon said:


> you misunderstand, i am pro abortion and pro parents rights on their own child. i am against what he said in that video, i am just trying to say that you cant be pro abortion yet against parents rights of circumsion on their infant


You can try to say it as much as you want, it will never be true.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 7, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Abortion is a procedure performed on a usually adult, but at least sexually mature individual, *to remove a non-thinking parasite from her body.* The parasite will never notice what happened, it will never live a life lacking anything that was taken from it, and it will never be able to care about it.


And you wonder why people here consider you a bad example. Maybe its because you think that calling something out of its name will make what you're doing somehow moral?

A pretty dead on sign your argument is grade a bullshit is when you have to pepper it with obvious propaganda because your point's not good enough to stand on its own. Fact of the matter is abortion and circumcision are both procedures performed on people who are too young to decide for themselves, one of them has far more dire consequences than the other and no one who's been aborted can speak for themselves to this day and say they're happy it happened.


----------



## Gaara77demon (Jun 7, 2011)

blame society today as more women find it asthetically more pleasing for it to be circumcised. even textbook and medical guides show it circumcised looking why is that.


----------



## zuul (Jun 7, 2011)

Gaara77demon said:


> just fyi if you are at all in anyway in favor of the right of abortion but not on the right of the parent to get their child circumcised then you are a hypocrite.



I fail to see how it relates.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 7, 2011)

zuul said:


> I fail to see how it relates.


Wouldn't be the first time you didn't get something, its been explained more than once.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 7, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And you wonder why people here consider you a bad example. Maybe its because you think that calling something out of its name will make what you're doing somehow moral?


oh hey CTK, how's it going with that definition of the word infant? Starting to grasp it yet?

I'm not sure what you think that I am doing, and how morality enters into it. Please explain. Are you talking about abortions? Sorry to tell you but I've never had one and I never will be able to.



> A pretty dead on sign your argument is grade a bullshit is when you have to pepper it with obvious propaganda because your point's not good enough to stand on its own. Fact of the matter is abortion and circumcision are both procedures performed on people who are too young to decide for themselves, one of them has far more dire consequences than the other and no one who's been aborted can speak for themselves to this day and say they're happy it happened.


So I guess you're still having problems with definitions. The only _people_ that abortion is performed on is the pregnant woman. No other people are involved.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jun 7, 2011)

It's a bit off topic, but since people also talk about abortion here:

I have a question about the terminology. Are the words "fetus" and "embryo" used synonymously in English?
Because in Germany, it's not allowed to abort fetuses (with some exceptions, e.g. if the life of the mother is in danger), it's only allowed have an abortion within the first 12 weeks, during the embryonal stage.
Or can you have an abortion at later stages in the US?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 7, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> oh hey CTK, how's it going with that definition of the word infant? Starting to grasp it yet?
> 
> I'm not sure what you think that I am doing, and how morality enters into it. Please explain. Are you talking about abortions? Sorry to tell you but I've never had one and I never will be able to.
> 
> ...



Whatever you want to say to make you sleep at night, its not as if you've demonstrated anything to show you care for children at all in the past. Pretty much you believe its okay to fuck them in _every _sense of the word.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 7, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Whatever you want to say to make you sleep at night, its not as if you've demonstrated anything to show you care for children at all in the past. Pretty much you believe its okay to fuck them in _every _sense of the word.



Hear, hear. The guy who wishes to murder people for the crime of _having consensual sex_ claims to be the moral authority.

I do believe it's time for a popcorn.gif, this should get exciting.


----------



## Mael (Jun 7, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Hear, hear. The guy who wishes to murder people for the crime of _*having consensual sex*_ claims to be the moral authority.
> 
> I do believe it's time for a popcorn.gif, this should get exciting.



Last time I recall that was one of the Muslim users here who advocated that.


----------



## soulnova (Jun 7, 2011)

> I myself am not fond of circumcision, because it is genital mutilation, and* if people are opposing female genital mutilation, it is only fair to oppose male genital mutilation*, as well. However, I also support freedom of choice in all matters, so *if a male wishes to have his penis circumcised, he should have the freedom to do, and not have the decision made for him by his parents or have the government forbid him from doing so*.



This. Simply this. 






> to remove a non-thinking *parasite* from her body.



 So now it went from a "lump of cells" to "_parasite_"? Really? Why don't you call it with its true name, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, in that order?


----------



## Mael (Jun 7, 2011)

soulnova said:


> So now it went from a "lump of cells" to "_parasite_"? Really? Why don't you call it with its true name, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, in that order?



Because that's just Grrblt.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 7, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Hear, hear. The guy who wishes to murder people for the crime of _having consensual sex_ claims to be the moral authority.
> 
> I do believe it's time for a popcorn.gif, this should get exciting.


Overstatements again, I never said that anyone should be murdered for consensual sex. Once again there you go spouting off at the mouth with shit you can't back up. 



Continue to throw your little temper tantrums and continue to make yourself look silly in every thread you throw your hat in. Can't you at least make one claim where you don't have to twist words to make your side seem right?

Pretty much everything you've called something in this thread is debatable at best.



soulnova said:


> This. Simply this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The difference with males and females is that for males there is actually a medical benefit and on top of that its not reducing them to baby making machines. Female circumcision basically takes the clitoris away which is honestly where a lot of the pleasure comes from. There's no benefit to it at all, its just part of a culture that thinks pleasure, especially when women receive it, is evil


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 7, 2011)

Mael said:


> Last time I recall that was one of the Muslim users here who advocated that.


I guess more than one forum user can have the same stance on the subject.



soulnova said:


> So now it went from a "lump of cells" to "_parasite_"? Really? Why don't you call it with its true name, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, in that order?



It is a parasite. An unwanted organism attached to and feeding from the host body.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Overstatements again, I never said that anyone should be murdered for consensual sex. Once again there you go spouting off at the mouth with shit you can't back up.


Yes, you said you would personally kill anyone who had sex with a fourteen year old. Though I'm not entirely sure about what age you used, might have been thirteen or fifteen.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 7, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> I guess more than one forum user can have the same stance on the subject.



Okay but that doesn't prove I said it. 



> It is a parasite. An unwanted organism attached to and feeding from the host body.



Sounds like a clear definition for you on these forums? I mean honestly for something to be a parasite it has to remain that way and I don't know of parasites that grow to sustain themselves and turn into people....



> Yes, you said you would personally kill anyone who had sex with a fourteen year old. Though I'm not entirely sure about what age you used, might have been thirteen or fifteen.



That doesn't sound like me, unless you're twisting the language. Maybe I said rape? Maybe I was joking? 

I mean as we all know you're usually not telling the whole story and other times you're downright lying.


----------



## soulnova (Jun 7, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> It is a parasite. An unwanted organism attached to and feeding from the host body.






> Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between *organisms of different species*



Yeah... right. I'll keep zygote and blastocyst.


----------



## Mael (Jun 7, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sounds like a clear definition for you on these forums? I mean honestly for something to be a parasite it has to remain that way and I don't know of parasites that grow to sustain themselves and turn into people....



You obviously haven't seen a tapeworm fully mature. 

But we as hosts have no right to circumcise them.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 7, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Okay but that doesn't prove I said it.


That's true. But you did.



> Sounds like a clear definition for you on these forums? I mean honestly for something to be a parasite it has to remain that way and I don't know of parasites that grow to sustain themselves and turn into people....


That's not true.



> That doesn't sound like me, unless you're twisting the language. Maybe I said rape? Maybe I was joking?
> 
> I mean as we all know you're usually not telling the whole story and other times you're downright lying.


You were definitely talking about consensual sex. I don't know if you were joking, but it sure didn't seem like that.

I'm always telling the whole relevant story and I don't lie.



soulnova said:


> Yeah... right. I'll keep zygote and blastocyst.





			
				Wiktionary said:
			
		

> Noun
> 
> parasite (plural parasites)
> (biology) A (generally undesirable) living organism that exists by stealing the resources produced/collected by another living organism.



But alright. Let's go with organism with clear parasite-like tendencies. Happy?


----------



## saprobe (Jun 7, 2011)

*The Circumcision Debate:*


----------



## Gaara77demon (Jun 7, 2011)

a baby is not stealing from the mother inside the womb if the mothers body is made to give nourishment to the child. parasites are unnatural


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 7, 2011)

Gaara77demon said:


> a baby is not stealing from the mother inside the womb if the mothers body is made to give nourishment to the child. parasites are unnatural



It's stealing when the mother does not wish to let it have that nourishment. You know, as in taking something without being allowed to?


----------



## DragonHeart52 (Jun 7, 2011)

As far as a minor is concerned, I'm in the "if medically necessary" camp. If a man chooses to be circumcised later, at least he's chosen the risks, the surgical expense, and the recovery pain for his own body. I don't think banning is the answer, however, because there are rare cases requiring the surgery and it is a medical issue, not a court decision.  That said, routine newborn circumcision is largely a cosmetic procedure and, like any other cosmetic surgical procedure, insurance companies should not pay for it unless it is proven to be medically necessary. This isn't an anti-religious statement, just pointing out how a religious practice is regularly being paid for by medical insurance when the procedure isn't required; an argument often given is so "he'll look like the other boys" or "he'll look like his father."

Parents should be told the truth about the procedure including the fact that their newborn will not be given anything for pain because of the risk of a reaction, the risk of injury to the penis, and the elective nature of the procedure.  Then, if they still want their son circumcised, they should pay for it just as patients self-pay for other medically unnecessary cosmetic procedures.


----------



## Mael (Jun 7, 2011)

Gaara77demon said:


> a baby is not stealing from the mother inside the womb if the mothers body is made to give nourishment to the child. parasites are unnatural




*Spoiler*: _Think of the children!_ 





Hookworm egg lol


----------



## saprobe (Jun 7, 2011)

Gaara77demon said:


> a baby is not stealing from the mother inside the womb if the mothers body is made to give nourishment to the child. *parasites are unnatural*


 
Au contraire, parasites are very natural. Everything, including people, have parasites specific to them.

This has nothing to do with the topic. Just thought you were being unfair to parasites.


----------



## Gaara77demon (Jun 7, 2011)

soulnova said:


> This. Simply this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



comparing female to male circumcision is like comparing an apple and orange, they are two very different things





saprobe said:


> Au contraire, parasites are very natural. Everything, including people, have parasites specific to them.
> 
> This has nothing to do with the topic. Just thought you were being unfair to parasites.



oh ya you are correct. i was kind of thinking of the bad ones that would kill you. the ones that goal is to take everything until the host is deadi guess by unnatural i meant parasites that arent normally common and are dangerous


----------



## Mathias124 (Jun 7, 2011)

Gaara77demon said:


> comparing female to male circumcision is like comparing an apple and orange, they are two very different things



Agreed, anyone who believes different should leave the thread as they obviously don't know enough to debate the subject.

Anyhow, its a requirement for jews and its impossible to uphold the law.

What is the police gonna do? strip down kids and check their dicks?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 7, 2011)

Mathias124 said:


> Agreed, anyone who believes different should leave the thread as they obviously don't know enough to debate the subject.



The loss in sexual pleasure is of course greater in female genital mutilation than in male genital mutilation, but apart from that they're quite similar. 

You cannot compare a male circumcision performed by a surgeon in a hospital to a female circumcision performed on the dinner table in some dirt poor country. If the conditions were more similar, then the difference is actually rather small.



> Anyhow, its a requirement for jews and its impossible to uphold the law.
> 
> What is the police gonna do? strip down kids and check their dicks?



I don't know about the US, but when we had exams in elementary school or when the doctor gave me a physical, they routinely checked our dicks.

Just take away the license of surgeons who perform it and charge Rabbis who perform it with aggravated assault.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 7, 2011)

Yeah it's should definitly be banned.




Brotha Yasuji said:


> They do know it's only an option right? Also like the article said, Muslims and Jews need to do it by their religion, so it may be protected by the first amendment.



I don't see where in the constitution my parents are given the right to mangle my cock as a baby, and I fail to see where it helps strengthen my faith as opposed to me deciding if I want to do it for God.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jun 7, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> The loss in sexual pleasure is of course greater in female genital mutilation than in male genital mutilation, but apart from that they're quite similar.
> 
> You cannot compare a male circumcision performed by a surgeon in a hospital to a female circumcision performed on the dinner table in some dirt poor country.* If the conditions were more similar, then the difference is actually rather small.
> *
> ...



Dont know enough to argue against the bolded part, but you're probably right.

In denmark (where i come from  ) they just check if our balls have fallen down, why the hell would they "check your dicks" ?


----------



## Mathias124 (Jun 7, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Yeah it's should definitly be banned.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



... did you just try to make sense of a religious practice?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 7, 2011)

Mathias124 said:


> Dont know enough to argue against the bolded part, but you're probably right.
> 
> In denmark (where i come from  ) they just check if our balls have fallen down, why the hell would they "check your dicks" ?



How the hell am I supposed to know what they're looking for? Even the doctor at the army physical checked my junk 

It's not like they stroke and suck it for five minutes, just one routine grab to see if everything is in order.


----------



## Gaara77demon (Jun 7, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> The loss in sexual pleasure is of course greater in female genital mutilation than in male genital mutilation, but apart from that they're quite similar.
> 
> You cannot compare a male circumcision performed by a surgeon in a hospital to a female circumcision performed on the dinner table in some dirt poor country. If the conditions were more similar, then the difference is actually rather small.




i dont know much about female circumcision besides what was said in this thread but from what i noticed the female would loose alot more pleasure. and female circumcision is based on quite different reasons compared to male. as well as the fact that female circumcision causes more harm where as there are alot of benefits of male circumcision

Also on the whole pleasure debate, how can there even be one. You can say you lose nerve endings (which could help promote longevity which most people prefer anyway) but i need someone to post that has had a circumcision much later in life and can actually report that the pleasure so noticeably different that it would impact your life...


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 7, 2011)

Gaara77demon said:


> i dont know much about female circumcision besides what was said in this thread but from what i noticed the female would loose alot more pleasure.



As I said, that's the most significant difference. Female genital mutilation is like cutting off the glans on a man.



> and female circumcision is based on quite different reasons compared to male.



That depends, the jews have indeed a different reason, as they only circumcize males and do it right after birth. The cultures that perform genital mutilation on both boys and girls usually do so not after birth but around the time of puberty or a little earlier (8-12 years depending on the area, I believe). Circumcision for them marks the point at which a gender neutral child becomes a man or a woman. Boys have the parts removed that resemble the labia and are associated with females (namely the foreskin) and girls have the part removed that resembles a penis (the clitoris). 

The practice itself and the extent of the mutilation differs wildly among cultures, some just cut off a small part of the clitoris, others not only cut off the clitoris but also parts of the labia and some sew the vagina together until the girl gets married. All of the practices are aimed at "taming" a girl and make her less boyish, i.e. rebellious, promiscuous and all the other things those primitive cultures say boys are allowed to be.



> as well as the fact that female circumcision causes more harm where as there are alot of benefits of male circumcision



The benefits are small, especially in the west. We don't have an AIDS epidemic, personal hygiene is the norm and condoms are easily available, cheap and socially acceptable.



> Also on the whole pleasure debate, how can there even be one. You can say you lose nerve endings (which could help promote longevity which most people prefer anyway) but i need someone to post that has had a circumcision much later in life and can actually report that the pleasure so noticeably different that it would impact your life...



Men who had circumcision performed in later life initially report greater pleasure, but that much should be obvious. If you've had your glans protected by skin your whole life and suddenly it starts rubbing everywhere, you'll feel like it's more sensitive.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jun 7, 2011)

I think a woman looses most, if not almost all of the pleasure, if the clitoris is cut off. It's much, much more sensitive than the vagina.
The vast majority of women can't reach an orgasm, without the stimulation of the clitoris.


----------



## Gaara77demon (Jun 7, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Men who had circumcision performed in later life initially report greater pleasure, but that much should be obvious. If you've had your glans protected by skin your whole life and suddenly it starts rubbing everywhere, you'll feel like it's more sensitive.





wait what? i thought it was the other way around because circumcised apparently looses all those sensitive nerve endings.

at least that what i seen the anti circumcision people claim


----------



## kazuri (Jun 7, 2011)

> It's stealing when the mother does not wish to let it have that nourishment. You know, as in taking something without being allowed to?



Except she is her body and her body is allowing it to happen therefor she is allowing it.

But besides that.. Its child neglect, and she should go to jail, just like if she didnt allow her 3 year old to eat.



> The vast majority of women can't reach an orgasm, without the stimulation of the clitoris.



Theres a thin line between not knowing how, and 'cant'.



> comparing female to male circumcision is like comparing an apple and orange, they are two very different things



No its not. Both are simply removing parts of someone elses body without their permission. There is ZERO reason to analyze/compare it any further, because you shouldn't remove ANY parts of ANYONE for no reason. And the std crap is plain bullshit.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 7, 2011)

Gaara77demon said:


> wait what? i thought it was the other way around because circumcised apparently looses all those sensitive nerve endings.
> 
> at least that what i seen the anti circumcision people claim



I said initially. The glans is by far the most sensitive part of the penis, when you're had it protected for decades and suddenly it rubs against everything, the stimuli will be more intense.

After a while, the body will get used to the stimulation and otherall pleasure will be reduce (but not really noticeably).



kazuri said:


> Except she is her body and her body is allowing it to happen therefor she is allowing it.



So if I have a boner, I consent to any woman having sex with me? And vice versa if a woman is wet she consents to having sex with any man? The bodies consent after all, amirite?



> But besides that.. Its child neglect, and she should go to jail, just like if she didnt allow her 3 year old to eat.



For it to be child neglect, the fetus would have to be an actual child instead of, you know, a fetus.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Jun 7, 2011)

up next - effort to ban ear piercing


----------



## Super_Monster (Jun 7, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> The loss in sexual pleasure is of course greater in female genital mutilation than in male genital mutilation, but apart from that they're quite similar.
> 
> You cannot compare a male circumcision performed by a surgeon in a hospital to a female circumcision performed on the dinner table in some dirt poor country. If the conditions were more similar, then the difference is actually rather small.



Hey Sauf, I usually tend to wholly agree with your posts but I think you may be underestimating just how key the clitoris is to female sexual arousal. Biologically speaking, all human embryos have a female program of development. During a certain phase, the muscles which would have been the vagina protrudes outwards and becomes the sheaf of the penis. The clitoris is reversed and becomes the head of the penis. The labia majora becomes the scrotum. Therefore it could be said, in a very literal sense, that ?a man is a woman turned inside-out.?

I see you've noted this, however I feel that you have not given enough import to the fact that the clitoris is the most sensitive erogenous zone of the female. It is equivalent to cutting of the head of the penis. Even if the surgical environment was sterilized and complete hygienic it would not change the fact that one is nearly completely stripped of any sexual stimulation versus a minor reduction in sexual stimulation which is apparently debatable in and of itself.

In essence what I mean to say is, that even though the loss in sexual pleasure (oh and the amount of flesh mutilated) is the primary difference, it is a monumental one at that, one that overshadows the other differences and makes them pale, indeed, almost not even noteworthy in comparison! I have never heard a word of resent from any circumcised male (although this is obviously in part a matter of cultural conditioning). I would imagine that (admittedly I've never met any) many circumcised women have shed much sorrow over their circumcision (as such the psychological damage is another difference).

I agree with you on just about everything else regarding this though! (that it does fit the definition of mutilation, that it is not a medical necessity in the developed world, etc.)


----------



## dummy plug (Jun 7, 2011)

kazuri said:


> Removing parts of peoples bodies, especially pleasurable parts, for NO reason, is just unethical.



you dont understand what circumcision is for, do you? 

circumcision is also practiced for its medical benefits not only because Jews and Muslim practice it...its a form of hygiene since dirt accumulates inside the foreskin and removing it exposes the head and you can clean it...WHO also declared that it significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection...

now, when you say "removing parts of peoples bodies, especially pleasurable parts, for NO reason, is just unethical", well exposing the head of the penis gives it more stimulation during sex...just think of the foreskin acting like a condom and reducing stimulation


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 7, 2011)

Super_Monster said:


> Hey Sauf, I usually tend to wholly agree with your posts but I think you may be underestimating just how key the clitoris is to female sexual arousal. Biologically speaking, all human embryos have a female program of development. During a certain phase, the muscles which would have been the vagina protrudes outwards and becomes the sheaf of the penis. The clitoris is reversed and becomes the head of the penis. The labia majora becomes the scrotum. Therefore it could be said, in a very literal sense, that ?a man is a woman turned inside-out.?
> 
> I see you've noted this, however I feel that you have not given enough import to the fact that the clitoris is the most sensitive erogenous zone of the female. It is equivalent to cutting of the head of the penis. Even if the surgical environment was sterilized and complete hygienic it would not change the fact that one is nearly completely stripped of any sexual stimulation versus a minor reduction in sexual stimulation which is apparently debatable in and of itself.
> 
> ...



It is a significant difference, but the cultural issue here is very similar. If we cut off the clitoris of infant girls, they'd never know what they're missing, so it's unlikely that they'd miss it. Do it to a large enough percentage of the population and any despicable practice becomes acceptable. Only a fraction of the adult population chooses to get circumcised, yet it's alright to assume consent in toddlers.

Why do we reject female circumcision? Because we assume that the girls want to experience sexual pleasure some day. The issue is the same, it's based on consent.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 7, 2011)

dummy plug said:


> you dont understand what circumcision is for, do you?
> 
> *circumcision is also practiced for its medical benefits not only because Jews and Muslim practice it...its a form of hygiene since dirt accumulates inside the foreskin and removing it exposes the head and you can clean it...WHO also declared that it significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection...*
> 
> now, when you say "removing parts of peoples bodies, especially pleasurable parts, for NO reason, is just unethical", well exposing the head of the penis gives it more stimulation during sex...just think of the foreskin acting like a condom and reducing stimulation



This is what I've been saying this entire thread?


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jun 7, 2011)

dummy plug said:


> you dont understand what circumcision is for, do you?
> 
> circumcision is also practiced for its medical benefits not only because Jews and Muslim practice it...its a form of hygiene since dirt accumulates inside the foreskin and removing it exposes the head and you can clean it...WHO also declared that it significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection...
> 
> now, when you say "removing parts of peoples bodies, especially pleasurable parts, for NO reason, is just unethical", well exposing the head of the penis gives it more stimulation during sex...just think of the foreskin acting like a condom and reducing stimulation



The foreskin can be pushed back entirely. There're no parts, that are unreachable, so cleaning isn't a problem (it's just a bit easier without the foreskin).
In Germany, circumcision is rather uncommon and I've never heard anything about men having any health problems, because of this.

When the penis is errected, the foreskin (usually) doesn't cover the glans anymore, so the head of the penis is exposed completely.
The difference is, that without a foreskin, the glans is never covered. So it's exposed to perpetual rubbing (against the pants), which makes it less sensitive over time. That's why they say, circumcised men can last longer during sex.


----------



## Subarashii (Jun 7, 2011)

Serial porn poster has struck again!

Too bad he didn't post uncircumcised penises.


----------



## Vynjira (Jun 7, 2011)

Eru Lawliet said:


> That's why they say, circumcised men can last longer during sex.


As well as increasing the risk erectile dysfunction.


----------



## Subarashii (Jun 7, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> As well as increasing the risk erectile dysfunction.



Where did you hear that?!


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 7, 2011)

Subarashii said:


> Where did you hear that?!



Vyjira is just talking out her rear end. Improper male circumcisions are EXTREMELY rare.


----------



## Syed (Jun 7, 2011)

Just out of curiosity. Are the males against male circumcision actually uncircumcised themselves. And vice versa?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 8, 2011)

Syed said:


> Just out of curiosity. Are the males against male circumcision actually uncircumcised themselves. And vice versa?



Yes I am, but that's no measure for it. You have to look at how many uncircumcised, mature males choose to get circumcised and that number is rather small compared to the 30% or so that gets their genitals mutilated without having any say in it.

If you afflict something upon someone right after birth, they'll learn to accept it because there's nothing they can do about it, so it's a bad measure to take someone who hasn't had an intact penis since infancy and then ask him whether he's alright with it. Instead you have to take uncircumcised adults and ask them if they'd consent to getting circumcised just for the looks.


----------



## Sphere (Jun 8, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> There are risks involved in every surgery and performing one that is not medically necessary and doesn't increase the patient's quality of living without his consent is simply unethical.



Pretty much this.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jun 8, 2011)

Sauf, has your opinion on this changed in the last few years? I'm sure I remember you arguing the exact opposite, or were you just trolling at the time?


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Jun 8, 2011)

you dont have to ban it, just make a choice if you want your boys weewee circumsized or not.
wth ca


----------



## Santí (Jun 8, 2011)

Remember Children: Say _no_ to having your penis cut.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 8, 2011)

dummy plug said:


> circumcision is also practiced for its medical benefits



Level 10 bullshit. There are no medical benefits



> WHO also declared that it significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection.



Wow, this is just .. evil.



> .just think of the foreskin acting like a condom and reducing stimulation



Bullshit. You'll sorely sensitive all day, even having your dick in your underwear would cause you endless disconfort and a bit of pain, untill finally your dick has suffered so much punishment and is so worn out it can't feel as much any more and then, after a little while, a month or two really, it'll be just worn out leather and it feels a fraction of a normal cock


----------



## hammer (Jun 8, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Level 10 bullshit. There are no medical benefits



i can tell you from experince its not bullshit infection fucking hurts.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 8, 2011)

wanna avoid infection? rub your dick in the shower ten seconds longer.
I hate getting athlete's foot but I'm not gonna chop off my toes for it
Mangling your dick as good of a benefit against infection the same way root canal is a great way to fight cavities


----------



## hammer (Jun 8, 2011)

i was 4 years old do you think I knew my hole would shrink until I peed blood? my mom diddnt get me cut to spite my grandparents and I even when I did wash it would stick and bleed when I pulled it down


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 8, 2011)

Then that's a medical procedure, something a bit different than the matter being discussed at hand

Amputation =/= maiming


----------



## hammer (Jun 8, 2011)

the only reason im for it was because of how bad that fucking hurt I actually partiually liked it but one of my first memories was from bad to worse when I peed


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 8, 2011)

Rob said:


> Sauf, has your opinion on this changed in the last few years? I'm sure I remember you arguing the exact opposite, or were you just trolling at the time?



I recognized that being circumcised myself was pretty much the only reason for why I thought it was alright. The truth is that it was done without my consent, caused a lot of pain, doesn't have any benefits and I would never have it done now that I'm old enough to consent.

I guess it's the default reaction to this kind of thing. People don't like being told that what the people they trust the most did to them was wrong. I assumed it was somehow necessary but reading up on the issue (which my parents obviously didn't do) showed that there was absolutely no medical necessity and being phimotic at the age of four is perfectly normal.



hammer said:


> i was 4 years old do you think I knew my hole would shrink until I peed blood? my mom diddnt get me cut to spite my grandparents and I even when I did wash it would stick and bleed when I pulled it down



I was 4 years old when I got circumcised and pissing hurt like hell for two weeks afterwards. I was screaming several times a day in the bathroom.


----------



## hammer (Jun 8, 2011)

well I was pissing blood before I got cut so i diddnt care until my 2 weeks were p and it felt nice not for it to hurt and pee blood to say there is NO use is silly


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> wanna avoid infection? rub your dick in the shower ten seconds longer.
> I hate getting athlete's foot but I'm not gonna chop off my toes for it
> Mangling your dick as good of a benefit against infection the same way root canal is a great way to fight cavities


My god, stop acting like they cut half your dick off, exaggerating the argument just looks silly when people here have had it done and can tell you its not "cutting your dick off".


----------



## dummy plug (Jun 8, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Level 10 bullshit. There are no medical benefits



god, are you a doctor or something? coz i know you're not so dont tell us guys who had it what it's like...go ask any doctor and they'll disagree with you 




> Wow, this is just .. evil.



i never knew about the HIV part until i read it on wikipedia...now if you are a medical expert who did tests on this then you can disagree, if not then just shut the fuck up 



> Bullshit. You'll sorely sensitive all day, even having your dick in your underwear would cause you endless disconfort and a bit of pain, untill finally your dick has suffered so much punishment and is so worn out it can't feel as much any more and then, after a little while, a month or two really, it'll be just worn out leather and it feels a fraction of a normal cock



it was painful, yeah but its nothing to whine about...because if you really had a circumcision then you should have a pair of balls as well since you are a guy...it looks like you need to grow a pair and stop wussing around how painful it was, what a wuss 

seriously, it was painful but i dont remember experiencing what you said...if you are so worried about the pain then use your brain and common sense...if the underwear is bugging your poor cock without balls then dont wear underwear! or use those intant cup noodle cups as shield, put your wiener there and then wear underwear so its shielded from the cloth, duh...looks like someone had a bad experience as a child, or is maybe just making a poor made-up story 

and a month or two, seriously? are you for real? mine lasted like only 2 weeks or so, maybe less as i can remember...are you sure that was circumcision? god i think you had a different _circumsicion_


----------



## Nemesis (Jun 8, 2011)

Dummy there are NO medical benefits for people with access to clean water and soap, the foreskin takes 0.004 seconds to pull back and wash and people should be showering regularly also.

And about HIV, yeah it reduces risk but it is still a too great a risk of HIV.  You know what is a much much better reduction of HIV transmission.  A FUCKING CONDOM.  Widely available and free from medical centers.  While in Africa those that don't use a condom because some guy in the vatican says it is evil then should use their own brains for once instead of listening to shit advice.

Also cut the macho crap.


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 8, 2011)

Good gods, why the hell is this thread still alive


----------



## dummy plug (Jun 8, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> *d*ummy there are NO medical benefits for people with access to clean water and soap, the foreskin takes 0.004 seconds to pull back and wash and people should be showering regularly also.
> 
> And about HIV, yeah it reduces risk but it is still a too great a risk of HIV.  You know what is a much much better reduction of HIV transmission.  A FUCKING CONDOM.  Widely available and free from medical centers.  While in Africa those that don't use a condom because some guy in the vatican says it is evil then should use their own brains for once instead of listening to shit advice.
> 
> Also cut the macho crap.



EDIT: i told you i just read it on wiki which i clearly stated and yeah, a reduction is a reduction no matter how small it is right? so it _is_ a medical benefit after all... i never said anything about it being better than condom nor will i go to that Vatican issue you pointed out... also circumcision _is_ a macho thing in my country so yeah, pardon about that cant help it


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 9, 2011)

Nemesis said:


> Dummy there are NO medical benefits for people with access to clean water and soap, the foreskin takes 0.004 seconds to pull back and wash and people should be showering regularly also.
> 
> And about HIV, yeah it reduces risk but it is still a too great a risk of HIV.  You know what is a much much better reduction of HIV transmission.  A FUCKING CONDOM.  Widely available and free from medical centers.  While in Africa those that don't use a condom because some guy in the vatican says it is evil then should use their own brains for once instead of listening to shit advice.
> 
> Also cut the macho crap.



You say there are none but then you go and give the negative right on the other side. It doesn't matter how fucking small you think the benefit is, its still a benefit. 

If I tell you 4.99 is cheaper than 5$ its not a lie and no amount of whining is going to make one cent not still different.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jun 9, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> Good gods, why the hell is this thread still alive



My thread runs strong. 


Anyways, I as I have continued to point out, I would not want a circumcision if it affected my dick size. Simple as that. But I can't go back in the past and undo it.

Also, if I'm going to have a boy, I don't think I'd give him a circumcision. People do well without it. I'm not particularly religious, and I'll teach him how to clean himself well enough.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 9, 2011)

dummy plug said:


> EDIT: i told you i just read it on wiki which i clearly stated and yeah, a reduction is a reduction no matter how small it is right? so it _is_ a medical benefit after all... i never said anything about it being better than condom nor will i go to that Vatican issue you pointed out... also circumcision _is_ a macho thing in my country so yeah, pardon about that cant help it



No correlation between HIV infection rate and circumcision rate has ever been found in the western world, all the studies were done in parts of Africa with little to no access to personal hygiene.


----------



## Hero (Jun 9, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> No correlation between HIV infection rate and circumcision rate has ever been found in the western world, all the studies were done in parts of Africa with little to no access to personal hygiene.



Smarty pants


----------



## Hero (Jun 9, 2011)

kazuri said:


> You do know its not that theres no option, its that the wrong person has the option...?
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference in performing medical procedures for no good reasons, and doing it for a good reason.



Well even if their foreskin is removed, they can have foreskin restoration when they're older.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 9, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> No correlation between HIV infection rate and circumcision rate has ever been found in the western world, all the studies were done in parts of Africa with little to no access to personal hygiene.



Black people are people too, you racist Kraut. The studies are still valid.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 9, 2011)

Fireworks said:


> Well even if their foreskin is removed, they can have foreskin restoration when they're older.



Which is purely cosmetic, the nerve endings are dead forever.



Elim Rawne said:


> Black people are people too, you racist Kraut. The studies are still valid.



Maybe you should take a creative break from trolling, it's gotten a little dry.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 9, 2011)

Says the fat fuck who hates black people


----------

