First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Is circumcision child abuse?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 5/13/12

shinto-male wrote:

does this mutilation longfenglim have a reading problem? why is this illiterate assuming that i support FGM? all i did is compare the same excuses use to mutilate males and since this functionally illiterate mutilation idiot don't respect my rights and other male's rights to not cut their genitals I will put this idiot on ignore all he does is attacking me so fuck off mutilationist freak don't ever respond to my posts


and why is this mutilationists, illiterate continue this HIV circ claims?

this idiot fail to realize that circumcising U.S.A has the HIGHEST HIV RATES in the developed world. mutilationists like him can't explain that fact.


the reason why circus show lower rates in flawed african studies is because the cut group where told to wait on thier circumcision healed, giving safe sex lessons and where given condoms.


so mutilationist, illiterate freak YOU ARE ON IGNORE !


Illiteracy means that a person is unable to read or write- judging by your indifference to both grammar and to spelling, the charge of illiteracy may be more justly placed upon you. But, as I am not in the business of denegrating my opponets, and as I like to think myself more civilised than to debase myself to hurling dirt and mud at my opponet (even if my opponet is flinging faeces at me like a chimpanzee), I will not ponder upon this minor aspect too much. First, I have never assumed that you support it, just that you are doing Female Genital Multilation injustice by comparing one of the worse method of subjugating woman to male circumcision, even if the nature of both are so different as to make comparison impossible. I never said that you support it, but that you lack empathy with the suffering of females under such abhorrent practices, just as people compare their trivial suffering with the greatest suffering in modern history, the Shoah, either lack the compassion and empathy needed to make one human or is wholly ignorant, so too do you, in your comparison of two things naturally incomparable, denegrate one with so much lack of compassion, that you are either wholly ignorant of female circumcision, or you are wholly lacking in any form of empathy for woman. Unless you want to admit to being an ignoramus, you must show how exactly you are showing any empathy for woman when you make such comparisons.

Now, you have choined another epithet for me, and have christened me a 'mutilationist', and repeat the old drivel that America has the Highest HIV Rate in the developed world, an argument which I have already disposed several pages ago, but you feel the need to bring back over and over again. That is, that this statistics does not show anything at all relating to circumcision, it only shows statistics on America, which, as you may know, compose of circumcised and uncircumcised people, and, until there is data that corrolates circumcised people to uncircumcised people, then it shows nothing but that America has the highest HIV rate in the developed world. Such trite associations can be applied to anything, for example, Canada has lots of French people, Canada also has lots of oil, ergo, lots of French people means lots of oil. For my part, I have already shown several studies which does corrolate circumcision with HIV and compare it with uncircumcised people, from no less respectable a source as the WHO, as well as several Urology journals, one which you also cite. Then you say that circumcised people engage in less risky behaviour- this, however, is not true at all, for several studies were made to investigate that very point, which has already been posted, and which it is needless for me to repost.

You also evoke the sacred name of liberty to your side, and try to persaude the world that I am oppressing you somehow, that my disagreement somehow mounts to an attack on your freedom to keep your foreskin, and that I want to snip you. Be assured, then, that I have no plans to travel several thousand miles to the eternal frost and unending winter of Canada just for the priviledge of circumcising you against your will. I have repeatedly stated my position, that it is right that parents should have the liberty of snipping their infants, and, if anyone can be accused of trying to abridge rights, it is your anti-circumcisionists who want to abridge their rights to have their kid circumcised.

Now, of the last charge, that I should fuck off, and then fuck on, and fuck this and fuck that, and so on, I suggest that you expand your insults a bit. To this effect, I have decided to furnish a few examples, by which you may emulate, and thereby, some of my own glory will shine upon you, and you may become a more reasonable and more intelligent creature:

1. Illiterate Canuck, halfwitted Jap! The faeces of swines and dogs have more wit than you!

2. Intellectual eunuch and ever braying ass, do you enjoy the pain so much that you seeked to be scourged by me over and over again?

3. Thersites! You wicked and mishappened terror, you hateful and dispicable creature, would you like me, Ulysses, to flog you with the golden scepter of the Kings of Kings, to raise tumours and whelps at every blow?

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 5/13/12

shinto-male wrote:

longfelmlin is on ignore all he does is attacking and libeling me, display his illiteracy by claiming i don't have empathy for females. i reported his libeling to the moderators! this is the second time libeled me claiming i am a pedophile


Well, certainly you have spent the greater part of your response (now deleted) heaping malicious attack upon my character, but, as my character is absolutely above reproach (a quality that makes me fit to be the wife of Ceasar), the worse thing that you can say of me is that I am illiterate. But, as you are too dull to understand such literary devices as parody, I should probably explicate my methods as I would a child, for, judging by the quality of writing in your first paragraph, I assume that your intelligence is comparable to one. Now parody is method by which a certain aspect of what is to be mocked is imitated to expose its ridiculous and ludicrious nature, in my case, your penchant to calling your foes heartless, hater of infant boys, and paedophiles obsessed with circumcised penises.

2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 5/14/12
racist longfenglim who now resort to call me a racial slur "Jap" is on ignore!



Cut money from programmes that work, to pay for one that won't....



May 10, 2012
Africa: Less Global Funds, More Problems

By Laura Lopez Gonzalez,

Fund medicines or fund the programmes that support uptake and adherence? That's the choice countries are now facing amid Global Fund shortfalls. With money tight, countries are slashing civil society-led HIV and TB programmes - treatment supporters, community-based volunteers, support for people living with HIV - to safeguard essential services, according to preliminary research being conducted by the Open Society Foundations.

In November 2011, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria faced US$2.2 billion in unpaid donor pledges and cancelled its Round 11 of funding. This was the most dramatic manifestation of years of broken donor promises.

Two years earlier, Global Fund donors reneged on almost 15 percent of pledges - a figure that rose to almost a quarter of donor pledges in 2010, according to former Global Fund Executive Director, Michel Kazatchkine's November 2011 report to the board.

To ascertain the impact on civil society of these Global Fund shortfalls, OSF undertook research in three countries that had planned to apply for Round 11 funding - Swaziland, Malawi and Zimbabwe.

Through interviews with nearly 45 representatives from civil society, Global Fund Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs), HIV and TB programmes, and UN agencies, OSF found that these countries are facing funding gaps for essential services such as HIV and TB testing and treatment, prevention of mother-to-child transmission services (PMTCT), and support for orphaned and vulnerable children (OVC).

The research found that to free up funding for these initiatives, all three countries are cutting the kinds of complementary, civil society-led activities identified as 'critical enablers' in the UNAIDS Strategic Framework.

Swaziland has now halted HIV prevention programmes with the exception of PMTCT and medical male circumcision and may re-programme phase II of its current Global Fund money to shift more money towards buffer ARV stocks, according to Vusi Nxumalo, CCM member and Vice Chairperson of the Swaziland National Network of People Living with HIV and AIDS.

Swaziland's Round 11 application - like that of Namibia - would also have been the first to include HIV prevention programming aimed at criminalised, most-at-risk populations, such as sex workers and men-who-have-sex-with-men. In addition, the country would have addressed the needs of its small population of injecting drug users.


2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 5/14/12 , edited 5/14/12

shinto-male wrote:

racist longfenglim who now resort to call me a racial slur "Jap" is on ignore!



Now, of the last charge, that I should fuck off, and then fuck on, and fuck this and fuck that, and so on, I suggest that you expand your insults a bit. To this effect, I have decided to furnish a few examples, by which you may emulate, and thereby, some of my own glory will shine upon you, and you may become a more reasonable and more intelligent creature:

1. Illiterate Canuck, halfwitted Jap! The faeces of swines and dogs have more wit than you!

2. Intellectual eunuch and ever braying ass, do you enjoy the pain so much that you seeked to be scourged by me over and over again?

3. Thersites! You wicked and mishappened terror, you hateful and dispicable creature, would you like me, Ulysses, to flog you with the golden scepter of the Kings of Kings, to raise tumours and whelps at every blow?


If you have bothered to read what I posted, you would have realised that I have not called you a 'Jap', rather, I have furnished an example of an insult with that word. The Latins of ancient times had a certain book, where the most stylised and admired peices of rethoric are collated into a single tome, which they called a 'florida', or flowery. As with all orational handbooks, they are addressed to this you, who can, depending on the context, be a judge, a fellow orator, or a student, with a few Suasorias, which a man is to advise a historical figure to do so and so in preference to thus and thus, declamation, mock trials, etc. In my pity of your limited compacity to insult, I have drawn from a wide range of insults, a florida of mockery and disparagment, if you will, that you may pratice each one and perfect it, thus, expanding your vocabulary from the single word 'fuck' and, thereby, as your argument is weak, and still weak (already disposed of thoroughly in the last few pages), I hope to improve what you have some potential in improving, for the darkness of your dullness is so thick, no light of reason can ever hope to shine through it. You say you are around thirty, I find this dubious, for I know of no man of that age to weep and moan like a child, to insult, and, yet, throw such fits at every insult, no man, of course, but Dom.
2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 5/14/12

More American madness: Tattoos on a boy are criminal, circumcising him is just dandy


http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/01/georgia-mother-arrested-for-allowing-10-year-old-to-get-a-tattoo/


Inking arms, piercing ears, and removing foreskins: The inconsistency of parental consent laws in the State of Georgia

Gaquan Napier watched his older brother die in Acworth, Georgia after being hit by a speeding car. He was with him in those numbing final moments. And now Gaquan wants to keep his brother close to his own heart as he picks up the pieces and moves through life: in the form of a tattoo on his upper arm. Malik (that’s his brother’s name) plus the numbers from Malik’s old basketball jersey. Rest in peace. A memorial to his sibling and best friend, whose life was cut tragically short.

Gaquan is ten years old. So he asked his mother, Chuntera Napier, about the tattoo. She was moved by the request, by the sincerity and maturity of her son’s motivations. She consented. She took Gaquan to have the remembrance he wanted etched into his arm in ink.

Now stop the presses. Chuntera was arrested last week under child cruelty laws and for being party to a crime. Someone at Gaquan’s school had seen his tattoo and tattled to the authorities. But what was the offense?

A 2010 Georgia law states that it is categorically unlawful “for any person to tattoo the body of any person under the age of 18, except a physician or osteopath.” When it comes to tattoos, that is, parental consent is legally irrelevant in Georgia.

But why should that be so? Can someone make a moral argument for this? Is it because tattoos are irreversible, and some young kid might want a really silly tattoo that he’ll later regret? And some parents are so bad at being parents that they might allow their kid to get a really silly tattoo? And then the kid might be teased? And all of that would somehow amount to child abuse? Please fill me in.

The state, of course, does in some cases have the moral authority to override a parent in the upbringing of her child. My position is not that parents should always get the final say. Where clear-cut abuse is involved (hard as it sometimes is to pin down the clear-cut-ness of alleged abuse), then in the interests of the child, the parent should be trumped. But with respect to tattoos, why should the ban be absolute? Are tattoos so inherently harmful — so self-evidently abusive to a child who possesses one — that the pendulum of power should swing so dramatically stateside?

That’s not the worst of it. The truly troubling part involves a deep inconsistency in Georgia law regarding parental consent in general. This point can be made by offering a stark point of contrast. It is perfectly OK, under Georgia law, for a parent to consent to the surgical removal of her son’s foreskin, before he is able to form words or express an opinion, in a medically unnecessary, irreversible procedure which I have argued elsewhere is deeply immoral and should be banned. Tattoos? No way. Invasive, medically useless, nonconsensual genital surgery? Go right ahead.

So what is going on here? How can it be that neonatal circumcision is OK, and taking your baby daughter to have her ears pierced is fine – but allowing your 10-year old to memorialize his brother in the form of a tattoo lands you jail?

Parents exercise consent on behalf of their children, and rightly so. Children’s brains are not yet fully formed, and they are notoriously bad at making long-term decisions to their own benefit. But you can’t let your son or daughter do just anything, nor can you consent to just anything’s being done to your child’s body – and that’s appropriate too. You can’t consent to your 10-year old owning a shotgun; you can’t consent to cutting off your daughter’s ears or selling her liver – there are limits, and they have to do with harm and cruelty and risk to society. So far we’re safely in the territory of common sense.

But there are two big questions left over.

(1) Why should a parent be legally prohibited from consenting to her 10-year-old son’s getting a tattoo?

(2) Why should a parent not be legally prohibited from consenting to the circumcision of her speechless newborn?

I have answered (2) – at length – in an earlier post. The punchline is that — contrary to the law as it currently stands — parents should not be allowed to consent to medically irrelevant circumcision before the child himself is capable of stating his preferences about his own penis. Consent is the magic word, and the fulcrum of the whole debate. Read here for the full argument, relevant data, objections and replies.

The answer to (1) follows the same basic logic: people should be able to make decisions about what happens to their own bodies. Nobody else should be able to make decisions about a person’s body unless that person is incapable of giving consent and the intervention is medically necessary and the person making the decision is that person’s legal caretaker.

Tattoos are (mostly) irreversible. If your child didn’t ask for it, and certainly if the child is pre-verbal, you shouldn’t be allowed to shove a tattooing needle under his skin. That much is clear. But if the child does want a tattoo, then he should be able to say so and make that decision about his own body, so long as you, as the parent, taking everything into consideration, and exercising your own best judgment, consent.

Now, if your 10-year-old wants to get a tattoo of SpongeBob SquarePants on his forehead, you should probably say no. If your 10-year-old wants to memorialize his dead brother with some ink on his bicep, then you can still be a good parent and say yes. That’s true even if I, or some other parent, or the community at large, might want our own sons to wait a few years first. It’s a judgment call, and it’s not our concern.

Same goes for ear piercing. If a little girl wants to have her ears pierced, and her parents consent, there is nothing ethically problematic. But if the girl can’t yet sing her ABCs, then hold off on the hole-punch. If your little baby boy can’t yet pronounce sentences in his native tongue, then keep the scalpel out of his diaper. Let’s stop lacerating our children’s bodies for our own enjoyment. Let them speak their wants, when they’re able to speak their wants.

Like Gaquan. He expressed his desire. He wanted the tattoo. His mother thought it was a good idea. That the state should mark this out as illegal, and send in the authorities to arrest a citizen who’s done no harm is a gross injustice. If you don’t want a tattoo, don’t get one. If you don’t want your son to have some ink in his arm at his own request, then don’t take him to a tattoo parlor. Otherwise leave this grieving family alone and mind your own business.

Here is the upshot: if you can legally consent to your son’s foreskin being severed, when he is just-born and can’t yet speak — though you cannot morally consent to this, as I have argued — you should be able to consent to his getting a tattoo to memorialize his dead brother, when he specifically asks for it at the age of 10.



2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 5/14/12
Is there anything more contrary to the laws of nature than to deny parents the right to dispose of their children as they wish? They shout that children, dumb and unknowing as they are, must suffer to be given a choice in the matter of how to dispose of their foreskin, that it is the moral thing to do, would they also suffer to let their child jump off a cliff upon such principles as choice? Would they suffer to let children guide them into choosing homes, neighbourhood, schooling? Yet, certainly, these things have much greater bearing on the wellbeing and growth of a child than the foreskin, but they do not speak of these issues, for they know how weak such argument by consent are. The child didn't consent to be born, neither did he consent to be born to his parents, and to be raised in this neighbourhood, and among these playfellows in this school, yet he should be able to consent to having his foreskin removed? These psuedo-Moralist preach, but they preach such doctrines as their priorities always fall unevenly, they preach a doctrine of freedom of choice, while, at the same time, wanting to limit these freedom, they call it child abuse, when it is the natural order of authority, that of the parent to the child. Dare they object to this authority? Would they allow their children to run about wayward? Where should the line be drawn, where children consent begin and parental authority ends? It should end at something minor as a circumcision, and yet be extended to things indefinitely more important. They want to deny their parents their lawful authority over their children, in accordance with nature, to dispose of them as they think is best, so long as it does not harm them, and, yet, they proclaim themselves moral and ethical? They speak of morality, but their morality is only their opinion, they fight against the morals of nature, the natural morals imbued in our souls, and replace it with their own wicked 'morals'!
12651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 5/14/12 , edited 5/14/12
I think it IS abuse. It doesn't help boys function any better. When it comes down to it, it's a flap of skin. If you're okay with circumcision, why aren't you okay with girls having their labia removed? The only reason it is more 'socially-acceptable' is that it's been going on for a while, covered by the shroud of religion. Clean properly and there will be no problems. All the supposed 'health benefits' are either negligible or outright false. If it ain't broke or about to break, don't fix it, especially if you're not clear about what the 'fix' actually does.
27322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 5/14/12

longfenglim wrote:

Is there anything more contrary to the laws of nature than to deny parents the right to dispose of their children as they wish? They shout that children, dumb and unknowing as they are, must suffer to be given a choice in the matter of how to dispose of their foreskin, that it is the moral thing to do, would they also suffer to let their child jump off a cliff upon such principles as choice? Would they suffer to let children guide them into choosing homes, neighbourhood, schooling? Yet, certainly, these things have much greater bearing on the wellbeing and growth of a child than the foreskin, but they do not speak of these issues, for they know how weak such argument by consent are. The child didn't consent to be born, neither did he consent to be born to his parents, and to be raised in this neighbourhood, and among these playfellows in this school, yet he should be able to consent to having his foreskin removed? These psuedo-Moralist preach, but they preach such doctrines as their priorities always fall unevenly, they preach a doctrine of freedom of choice, while, at the same time, wanting to limit these freedom, they call it child abuse, when it is the natural order of authority, that of the parent to the child. Dare they object to this authority? Would they allow their children to run about wayward? Where should the line be drawn, where children consent begin and parental authority ends? It should end at something minor as a circumcision, and yet be extended to things indefinitely more important. They want to deny their parents their lawful authority over their children, in accordance with nature, to dispose of them as they think is best, so long as it does not harm them, and, yet, they proclaim themselves moral and ethical? They speak of morality, but their morality is only their opinion, they fight against the morals of nature, the natural morals imbued in our souls, and replace it with their own wicked 'morals'!


I hope this isn't one of those parody paragraphs of yours, because I would have to agree with these sentiments. Let parents do with their children as they see fit.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 5/14/12

i_love_u_jesus wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Is there anything more contrary to the laws of nature than to deny parents the right to dispose of their children as they wish? They shout that children, dumb and unknowing as they are, must suffer to be given a choice in the matter of how to dispose of their foreskin, that it is the moral thing to do, would they also suffer to let their child jump off a cliff upon such principles as choice? Would they suffer to let children guide them into choosing homes, neighbourhood, schooling? Yet, certainly, these things have much greater bearing on the wellbeing and growth of a child than the foreskin, but they do not speak of these issues, for they know how weak such argument by consent are. The child didn't consent to be born, neither did he consent to be born to his parents, and to be raised in this neighbourhood, and among these playfellows in this school, yet he should be able to consent to having his foreskin removed? These psuedo-Moralist preach, but they preach such doctrines as their priorities always fall unevenly, they preach a doctrine of freedom of choice, while, at the same time, wanting to limit these freedom, they call it child abuse, when it is the natural order of authority, that of the parent to the child. Dare they object to this authority? Would they allow their children to run about wayward? Where should the line be drawn, where children consent begin and parental authority ends? It should end at something minor as a circumcision, and yet be extended to things indefinitely more important. They want to deny their parents their lawful authority over their children, in accordance with nature, to dispose of them as they think is best, so long as it does not harm them, and, yet, they proclaim themselves moral and ethical? They speak of morality, but their morality is only their opinion, they fight against the morals of nature, the natural morals imbued in our souls, and replace it with their own wicked 'morals'!


I hope this isn't one of those parody paragraphs of yours, because I would have to agree with these sentiments. Let parents do with their children as they see fit.


I can assure you it isn't, I am completely serious about it.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 5/14/12

Morbidhanson wrote:

I think it IS abuse. It doesn't help boys function any better. When it comes down to it, it's a flap of skin. If you're okay with circumcision, why aren't you okay with girls having their labia removed? The only reason it is more 'socially-acceptable' is that it's been going on for a while, covered by the shroud of religion. Clean properly and there will be no problems. All the supposed 'health benefits' are either negligible or outright false. If it ain't broke or about to break, don't fix it, especially if you're not clear about what the 'fix' actually does.


I refer you to several pages of my previous argument with ShintoMale, who has made almost exactly the same points you have, which, I think, I have done well in debunking.
12651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 5/14/12 , edited 5/14/12

longfenglim wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

I think it IS abuse. It doesn't help boys function any better. When it comes down to it, it's a flap of skin. If you're okay with circumcision, why aren't you okay with girls having their labia removed? The only reason it is more 'socially-acceptable' is that it's been going on for a while, covered by the shroud of religion. Clean properly and there will be no problems. All the supposed 'health benefits' are either negligible or outright false. If it ain't broke or about to break, don't fix it, especially if you're not clear about what the 'fix' actually does.


I refer you to several pages of my previous argument with ShintoMale, who has made almost exactly the same points you have, which, I think, I have done well in debunking.


Actually, I only typed this because I don't think any of the points have been effectively refuted. No offense intended, but I still see circumcision as an unnecessary and potentially-damaging procedure. Even if it isn't 'abuse,' it certainly is not a procedure that I'd recommend that all parents have their boys go through. Unless circumcision is necessary due to some rare complication, I'd rather leave the body to develop itself. Performing such a procedure on such young people may have untold effects on development. I acknowledge differences in opinion and belief, which is why I will not say that circumcision should be illegal or outlawed, but I do view it as something negative.

The foreskin helps protect the head of the organ and helps it retain sensitivity. It is also a natural 'lubricant' that allows better movement and less discomfort for both parties during intercourse. Germ trap? Just clean it properly. Sure, removing it helps reduce the chance of disease transmission, but proper precautions (such as condoms and prudent choice in partners) are less intrusive than circumcision, as well as more effective. A permanent physical loss shouldn't be discounted so easily.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 5/14/12

Morbidhanson wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

I think it IS abuse. It doesn't help boys function any better. When it comes down to it, it's a flap of skin. If you're okay with circumcision, why aren't you okay with girls having their labia removed? The only reason it is more 'socially-acceptable' is that it's been going on for a while, covered by the shroud of religion. Clean properly and there will be no problems. All the supposed 'health benefits' are either negligible or outright false. If it ain't broke or about to break, don't fix it, especially if you're not clear about what the 'fix' actually does.


I refer you to several pages of my previous argument with ShintoMale, who has made almost exactly the same points you have, which, I think, I have done well in debunking.


Actually, I only typed this because I don't think any of the points have been effectively refuted. No offense intended, but I still see circumcision as an unnecessary and potentially-damaging procedure. Even if it isn't 'abuse,' it certainly is not a procedure that I'd recommend that all parents have their boys go through.


Its the parent's choice in the end- people like ShintoMale are all in favour of banning it outright for no better reason than they don't like it.


The foreskin helps protect the head of the organ and helps it retain sensitivity. It is also a natural 'lubricant' that allows better movement and less discomfort for both parties during intercourse. Germ trap? Just clean it properly. Sure, removing it helps reduce the chance of disease transmission, but proper precautions (such as condoms) are less intrusive than circumcision, as well as more effective. A permanent physical loss shouldn't be discounted so easily.


All nice explaination, but no major studies have corrolated such speculations as loss in sensitivity, or decrease in sexual pleasure in either partner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Summary_of_research_findings
2393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / In Rainbows
Offline
Posted 5/14/12

Lycanthrope wrote:

Circumcision is not a common practice in my country. In school both boys and girls were taught how to properly clean down there to keep infection free. And so far I have only met one uncircumcised guy that has had an infection and that's cuz his new girlfriend had claps and he didn’t know..
I have also met circumcised guys who had the procedure done to them at an age were they were unable to say yes or no to it and now feel like they have been violated.

Do I see it as abuse: No it doesn't cause damage
I feel like it's not alright if it's done to small children without their consent (unless it is medically necessary) but if you choose to have it done by yourself for whatever reason or purpose then fine.

Quite frankly it all boils down to knowling how to take care of your private area if you plan on using it.



circumcision is healthy because if you are not circumcised you will notice that your penis is full of some white stinky shits inside the foreskin. that is not good for you because it is has a horrible smell and its very dirty and also very disgusting. but once your circumcised those white shits will vanish.
12651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 5/14/12 , edited 5/14/12
^That white stuff is called smegma. It is basically composed of dead skin cells and other stuff. If you have any such unpleasant experiences, you will know that women tend to produce a LOT more than men (hence the smell if they haven't cleaned for a day), but few are willing to accept removal of lady parts. Clean regularly and it will hardly bother you.

Also, circumcision will not prevent penile cancer. Cancer can be caused by any number of things. Why get the procedure if it doesn't convincingly increase your safety? We still have not taken into account all factors that may cause the cancer. People with foreskins intact may statistically have it more, but correlation does not equal causation. All factors must be taken into account.

I have a 'cancer' analogy. I know it is not 100% relevant, but you seem intelligent enough to get the gist of it:
An 80-year old man discovers that he has a good chance of having prostate cancer. He goes to the doctor and the doctor tells him that he does, indeed, show early signs of developing the cancer. If he opts for treatment, his health will worsen and his quality of life will decrease for a while (he may even die due to the treatment), but the cancer will probably be fully eradicated. If he does not opt for treatment, he can live his next 20 years of life largely unaffected by the cancer. To treat or not to treat?


longfenglim wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

I think it IS abuse. It doesn't help boys function any better. When it comes down to it, it's a flap of skin. If you're okay with circumcision, why aren't you okay with girls having their labia removed? The only reason it is more 'socially-acceptable' is that it's been going on for a while, covered by the shroud of religion. Clean properly and there will be no problems. All the supposed 'health benefits' are either negligible or outright false. If it ain't broke or about to break, don't fix it, especially if you're not clear about what the 'fix' actually does.


I refer you to several pages of my previous argument with ShintoMale, who has made almost exactly the same points you have, which, I think, I have done well in debunking.


Actually, I only typed this because I don't think any of the points have been effectively refuted. No offense intended, but I still see circumcision as an unnecessary and potentially-damaging procedure. Even if it isn't 'abuse,' it certainly is not a procedure that I'd recommend that all parents have their boys go through.


Its the parent's choice in the end- people like ShintoMale are all in favour of banning it outright for no better reason than they don't like it.


The foreskin helps protect the head of the organ and helps it retain sensitivity. It is also a natural 'lubricant' that allows better movement and less discomfort for both parties during intercourse. Germ trap? Just clean it properly. Sure, removing it helps reduce the chance of disease transmission, but proper precautions (such as condoms) are less intrusive than circumcision, as well as more effective. A permanent physical loss shouldn't be discounted so easily.


All nice explaination, but no major studies have corrolated such speculations as loss in sensitivity, or decrease in sexual pleasure in either partner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Summary_of_research_findings


I'm not saying circumcision ought to be banned. This controversy is not so simple as to be validly reduced to black-and-white terms. I am saying there are better alternatives than snipping off a body part. Once removed, it is not easily restored.

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 5/14/12 , edited 5/14/12

Morbidhanson wrote:

^That white stuff is called smegma. If you have any experience, you will know that women tend to produce a LOT more than men, but few are willing to accept removal of lady parts. Clean regularly and it will hardly bother you.

Also, circumcision will not prevent penile cancer. Cancer can be caused by any number of things. Why get the procedure if it doesn't convincingly increase your safety? We still have not taken into account all factors that may cause the cancer. People with foreskins intact may statistically have it more, but correlation does not equal causation. All factors must be taken into account.

I have a 'cancer' analogy. I know it is not 100% relevant, but you seem intelligent enough to get the gist of it:
An 80-year old man discovers that he has a good chance of having prostate cancer. He goes to the doctor and the doctor tells him that he does, indeed, show early signs of developing the cancer. If he opts for treatment, his health will worsen and his quality of life will decrease for a while (he may even die due to the treatment), but the cancer will probably be fully eradicated. If he does not opt for treatment, he can live his next 20 years of life largely unaffected by the cancer.


1. Yet, of all the diseases to affect the penis, penile cancer is not the only one which Circumcision is associated, and clear links between Circumcision and HIV have prompted the WHO to promote it.

2.It is not analogous, because Circumcision does not deteriorate the quality of life of any person, nor does it adversely affert anyone's health. In addition, to use your analogy, it is certainly better for the eighty year old to undergo this process, for it eliminates the potential for cancer, and even if it does temporarily worsen his health and his quality of life, it allows him to live cancer free, while if he does not, he has a great chance of developing it, and slowly and painfully die from it, therefore, should a man be greedy of life, and wanting in health, he should opt for what is best, and, in this case, the best is that he should undergo this treatment rather than take the chance that this cancer will be harmless or will not develop at all.




longfenglim wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

I think it IS abuse. It doesn't help boys function any better. When it comes down to it, it's a flap of skin. If you're okay with circumcision, why aren't you okay with girls having their labia removed? The only reason it is more 'socially-acceptable' is that it's been going on for a while, covered by the shroud of religion. Clean properly and there will be no problems. All the supposed 'health benefits' are either negligible or outright false. If it ain't broke or about to break, don't fix it, especially if you're not clear about what the 'fix' actually does.


I refer you to several pages of my previous argument with ShintoMale, who has made almost exactly the same points you have, which, I think, I have done well in debunking.


Actually, I only typed this because I don't think any of the points have been effectively refuted. No offense intended, but I still see circumcision as an unnecessary and potentially-damaging procedure. Even if it isn't 'abuse,' it certainly is not a procedure that I'd recommend that all parents have their boys go through.


Its the parent's choice in the end- people like ShintoMale are all in favour of banning it outright for no better reason than they don't like it.


The foreskin helps protect the head of the organ and helps it retain sensitivity. It is also a natural 'lubricant' that allows better movement and less discomfort for both parties during intercourse. Germ trap? Just clean it properly. Sure, removing it helps reduce the chance of disease transmission, but proper precautions (such as condoms) are less intrusive than circumcision, as well as more effective. A permanent physical loss shouldn't be discounted so easily.


All nice explaination, but no major studies have corrolated such speculations as loss in sensitivity, or decrease in sexual pleasure in either partner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Summary_of_research_findings


I'm not saying circumcision ought to be banned. I am saying there are better alternatives than snipping off a body part. Once removed, it is not easily restored.



I have never stated that you believe that infant circumcision should be banned, but that people like Mr Shintomale believes so.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.