Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Christian Klippel]

Always fun to see the pro-circumcission "arguments". And also fun to see how quickly it gets reduced to "but it's jewish tradition", despite the fact that not only jews follow that tradition. Wondering how long it will take for some poster to call me an antisemite, and then go on and tell me that there is some kind of wide spread antisemitism still going on in my country.

So, "but it is our tradition/religion" is basically all that the defenders have left in the end. But so what? Hey, enslaving black people was a common thing for quite a long time. Anyone want to argue that it is a bad idea that we got rid of that in many countries? Honour killings are tradition in some countries still, so i guess that is a-ok because, well, it is tradition?

What about the silly "argument" about a need to show what detrimental effects it can have? That is simply not the point. Children have rights. Universal rights that many nations agreed upon. There is absolutely no sane reason why such laws should be broken because of whatever tradition or religion.

All the talk about sensitivity of the penis, what problems may arise (up to death, no less), etc. is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue: the rights of the child as a person.

Anyone who claims that their right to freedom of religion is harmed by limiting what they can do to _other_ people is just stupid. If you think that is not the case, hey, what about someone following the Aztec religion and tradition? It sure must then be OK that such people can sacrifice humans, right? If you think not, but still think that infant (or minors) circumcission should be allowed, then you are nothing more but a hypocrite.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[The Big Dog]

Always fun to see the pro-circumcission "arguments". And also fun to see how quickly it gets reduced to "but it's jewish tradition", despite the fact that not only jews follow that tradition. Wondering how long it will take for some poster to call me an antisemite, and then go on and tell me that there is some kind of wide spread antisemitism still going on in my country.

So, "but it is our tradition/religion" is basically all that the defenders have left in the end. But so what? Hey, enslaving black people was a common thing for quite a long time. Anyone want to argue that it is a bad idea that we got rid of that in many countries? Honour killings are tradition in some countries still, so i guess that is a-ok because, well, it is tradition?

What about the silly "argument" about a need to show what detrimental effects it can have? That is simply not the point. Children have rights. Universal rights that many nations agreed upon. There is absolutely no sane reason why such laws should be broken because of whatever tradition or religion.

All the talk about sensitivity of the penis, what problems may arise (up to death, no less), etc. is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue: the rights of the child as a person.

Anyone who claims that their right to freedom of religion is harmed by limiting what they can do to _other_ people is just stupid. If you think that is not the case, hey, what about someone following the Aztec religion and tradition? It sure must then be OK that such people can sacrifice humans, right? If you think not, but still think that infant (or minors) circumcission should be allowed, then you are nothing more but a hypocrite.

Greetings,

Chris

It has been pretty well established that circumcision has distinct medical benefits in the avoidance of penile cancer and preventing the spread of STDs and HIV.

seems like a decision that should be left to the parents and their physician.

Sorry can't help you on the Jewish thing, no matter how "fun" you think that is.

 

[Christian Klippel]

It has been pretty well established that circumcision has distinct medical benefits in the avoidance of penile cancer and preventing the spread of STDs and HIV.

Yea, all these infants are out to bang whatever guy/gal they can. And anyways, it simply is not the point.

seems like a decision that should be left to the parents and their physician.

No. Parents and physicians should follow what is the accepted, (almost) universally agreed upon law. And that is to treat to children like normal persons and not property, and not to cause them any unnecessary harm. Snipping of random bits is considered such.

Tradition or religion has no place in this, and should not have, ever.

Sorry can't help you on the Jewish thing, no matter how "fun" you think that is.

No, it's not fun at all, at least for me. However, others seem to think so. See the older threads about this issue.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: And hey, slavery has distinctive benefits as well: increased productivity while having to pay less for the workers. Heck, even hire-and-fire doesn't need to be followed anymore. Slaves are not hired, after all. Oh, the benefits of that!

 

[The Big Dog]

No. Parents and physicians should follow what is the accepted, (almost) universally agreed upon law. And that is to treat to children like normal persons and not property, and not to cause them any unnecessary harm. Snipping of random bits is considered such.

Tradition or religion has no place in this, and should not have, ever.

Pretty sure I never mentioned either tradition or religion, and I'm a bit surprised at the willingness to interfere with people's medical decisions made in consultation with their doctors.

Missed your "ETA." You might wish to look up the concept of straw man arguments. Here is a help:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

^ And not to forget the importance of washing. How else are you going to wash under toenails unless you detach them?

Also, washing. Amputating the earlobes reduces the need to wash behind them.

I literally snorted laughing at that.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Pretty sure I never mentioned either tradition or religion, and I'm a bit surprised at the willingness to interfere with people's medical decisions made in consultation with their doctors.

Missed your "ETA." You might wish to look up the concept of straw man arguments. Here is a help:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Problem is that infant (or minors) circumcission for traditionl or religious purposes has exactly nothing to do with medical reasons.

And no, it was not a strawman, but a comparison. If the argument is that infant circumcission has some medical benefit for infants/children, especially in case of STD or HIV, the realm of "just silly" has been left already. No need for any straw.

In case of medical benefits anyway. Can i assume that you are OK with parents/doctors to cut away earlobes from infants and children? To pull toe-nails? What about the anus? Or the lung? Liver? Heart? After all, it is _proven_ that those body parts can cause problems later in life. Better not having them then, if that means less trouble later on, right?

Yes or no?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Craig B]

"deleterious physical... outcomes" - have you forgotten what male genital mutilation actually is?

Even better,

chance of deleterious ... physical outcomes

There is not even any chance of these, seemingly, let alone any measurable incidence of them.

 

[sadhatter]

Really? Because the circumcised men I know don't actually seem to be "missing" much of anything.

I don't feel I'm missing anything by not being six feet tall, but if there was a choice in the matter and my parents made it for me, I'd be pretty angry.

This is also a really dishonest debating tactic, you are essentially trying to put the onus on us to find gales of men willing to say " my penis sucks", in order to accept the point that there may be loss of sensation. You know who else used this tactic? The makers of enzyte. Reason being they know getting a man to degrade his own penis is going to be as easy as getting a Nazi to admit Hitler went overboard.

And all that aside, seriously man, how many guys do you know that would state they have a lame Johnson, even if they are packing two grapes and tic tac? Lets use a bit of common sense here.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Lets use a bit of common sense here.

Not going to happen as soon as tradition and/or religion is involved. Because, you know, it was always that way after all!

Greetings,

Chris

 

[The Big Dog]

Problem is that infant (or minors) circumcission for traditionl or religious purposes has exactly nothing to do with medical reasons.

And no, it was not a strawman, but a comparison. If the argument is that infant circumcission has some medical benefit for infants/children, especially in case of STD or HIV, the realm of "just silly" has been left already. No need for any straw.

In case of medical benefits anyway. Can i assume that you are OK with parents/doctors to cut away earlobes from infants and children? To pull toe-nails? What about the anus? Or the lung? Liver? Heart? After all, it is _proven_ that those body parts can cause problems later in life. Better not having them then, if that means less trouble later on, right?

Yes or no?

Greetings,

Chris

I see you are getting the whole concept of straw manning. Pretty surprising that you went for the whole "slavery" angle, particularly after a well known nation consigned a fairly substantial number of people in europe to slavery or worse dependent in large part on whether they were cicumsized or not.

But your heart removal comparison was tight. So are you saying we should have uniformed men in the doctors office (wearing earth tones like brown shirts I think) or cut off the middleman, and assemble them in a single concentrated group, like a camp or something?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

There is not even any chance of these, seemingly, let alone any measurable incidence of them.

Really? All those pictures in Google Images of penises damaged or destroyed by circumcision as infants don't exist?

 

[spin0]

It has been pretty well established that circumcision has distinct medical benefits in the avoidance of penile cancer and preventing the spread of STDs and HIV.

Study: Circumcision Does Not Prevent Sexually-Transmitted Infections
A new study by urologists shows no link between circumcision and sexually-transmitted infections.

A 2012 study of Caribbean men in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that "compared with uncircumcised men, circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection."

Siegried et al. (2003) surveyed 35 observational studies relating to HIV and circumcision: 16 conducted in the general population and 19 in high-risk populations. "We found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men."

Circumcision does not affect HIV in U.S. men: study
Black and Latino men were just as likely to become infected with the AIDS virus whether they were circumcised or not, Greg Millett of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. "We also found no protective benefit for a subset of black MSM (men who have sex with men) who also had recent sex with female partners"

A 2008 meta-analysis of 15 observational studies, including 53,567 gay and bisexual men from the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, India, Taiwan, Peru and the Netherlands (52% circumcised), found that the rate of HIV infection was not significantly lower among men who were circumcised compared with those who were uncircumcised.

The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms".

And in Botswana there's an upsurge in the number of circumcised men infected by the HIV.

And Bensley & Boyle (2001)found that circumcised men were significantly more likely to be reluctant to use condoms than genitally intact men. The finding that intact men used condoms more consistently was recently confirmed by Crosby & Charnigo (2013) among men attending sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics.

 

[The Big Dog]

Study: Circumcision Does Not Prevent Sexually-Transmitted Infections
A new study by urologists shows no link between circumcision and sexually-transmitted infections.

A 2012 study of Caribbean men in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that "compared with uncircumcised men, circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection."

Siegried et al. (2003) surveyed 35 observational studies relating to HIV and circumcision: 16 conducted in the general population and 19 in high-risk populations. "We found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men."

Circumcision does not affect HIV in U.S. men: study
Black and Latino men were just as likely to become infected with the AIDS virus whether they were circumcised or not, Greg Millett of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. "We also found no protective benefit for a subset of black MSM (men who have sex with men) who also had recent sex with female partners"

A 2008 meta-analysis of 15 observational studies, including 53,567 gay and bisexual men from the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, India, Taiwan, Peru and the Netherlands (52% circumcised), found that the rate of HIV infection was not significantly lower among men who were circumcised compared with those who were uncircumcised.

The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms".

And in Botswana there's an upsurge in the number of circumcised men infected by the HIV.

And Bensley & Boyle (2001)found that circumcised men were significantly more likely to be reluctant to use condoms than genitally intact men. The finding that intact men used condoms more consistently was recently confirmed by Crosby & Charnigo (2013) among men attending sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics.

Anything on cancer?

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.

Seems like one should consult their medical professional, agree?

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't feel I'm missing anything by not being six feet tall, but if there was a choice in the matter and my parents made it for me, I'd be pretty angry.

This is also a really dishonest debating tactic, you are essentially trying to put the onus on us to find gales of men willing to say " my penis sucks", in order to accept the point that there may be loss of sensation. You know who else used this tactic? The makers of enzyte. Reason being they know getting a man to degrade his own penis is going to be as easy as getting a Nazi to admit Hitler went overboard.

And all that aside, seriously man, how many guys do you know that would state they have a lame Johnson, even if they are packing two grapes and tic tac? Lets use a bit of common sense here.

Curiously, in the absence of "gales of men" you seem quite comfortable saying that "your penis sucks."

 

[colander]

Are there any body modifications to be done on an infant that you'd not be okay with? Tattoos, piercings, dermal implants, scarification, the removal of enough toes to look different but not to affect walking?

Rule of thumb: if it's not as bad for a child as having a parent put in prison, then you probably shouldn't impose criminal penalties on parents for doing it

do you see where I'm going with this?

 

[rustypouch]

Rule of thumb: if it's not as bad for a child as having a parent put in prison, then you probably shouldn't impose criminal penalties on parents for doing it

do you see where I'm going with this?

Do you really want an answer, especially when "he's too young to remember" is a reason to discount causing pain to infants?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Curiously, in the absence of "gales of men" you seem quite comfortable saying that "your penis sucks."

Do you ever address the things that people are actually writing, or do you just throw straw around? Next time, if you're going to post a response to somebody else's post, quote both. That way we get a little thing called "context". It's usually conducive to an actual argument. Try it sometime.

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you ever address the things that people are actually writing, or do you just throw straw around? Next time, if you're going to post a response to somebody else's post, quote both. That way we get a little thing called "context". It's usually conducive to an actual argument. Try it sometime.

You mean like you just did there.... Oh wait.....

Lolz

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Really? Because the circumcised men I know don't actually seem to be "missing" much of anything.

And all that aside, seriously man, how many guys do you know that would state they have a lame Johnson, even if they are packing two grapes and tic tac? Lets use a bit of common sense here.

Curiously, in the absence of "gales of men" you seem quite comfortable saying that "your penis sucks."

sadhatter was obviously countering colander's claim that circumcised men don't "miss" anything. He suggested, reasonably, that most men would never admit to having a "lame" Johnson, by any standard.

You implied that he was criticizing other mens' penises, which was obvious ********, and would have been clear if you had put it in context. However, in the interest of propping up your strawman, you ignored what had been said previously, a rather dishonest tactic you frequently indulge in.

 

[The Big Dog]

sadhatter was obviously countering colander's claim that circumcised men don't "miss" anything. He suggested, reasonably, that most men would never admit to having a "lame" Johnson, by any standard.

You implied that he was criticizing other mens' penises, which was obvious ********, and would have been clear if you had put it in context. However, in the interest of propping up your strawman, you ignored what had been said previously, a rather dishonest tactic you frequently indulge in.

Oh context! But wait, thegoldcountry, you left off the post colander was replying to, and the one that the post that colander was replying to was replying to, and ... Etc etc etc.

what a silly, silly argument. Particularly in light of the fact that you bizarrely cut off most of the post to which I was replying.

In fact, he said that it was dishonest to assert that he should be expected to come up with evidence that circumsized men report a "loss of sensation" despite the fact that he was advancing that very claim.

Anyway, I enjoyed your comments! Irony can be hilarious, particularly when advanced as stridently as yours.