Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[zooterkin]

Cool! Why did you bring it up then?

I think you have me confused with someone else. Just pointing out that doctors do not routinely recommend circumcision in this part of the world, though they apparently do where you are.

 

[zooterkin]

FFS, why are some of you so obsessed with someone else's penis?

That's exactly what those of us who don't see the need for routine circumcision are wondering.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Seems to me that, as we've got to the stage of calling people who are against routine non-medical circumcision gay Nazis, we're probably approaching the end of rational discussion on the topic. I'm happy to be proved wrong if anybody has any actual arguments to put forth.

 

[ddt]

FFS, why are some of you so obsessed with someone else's penis?

Why don't you ask YHWH? He claims to have started the whole thing.

(One of the historic inconsistencies in the Abraham story is that circumcision was already widespread in the Middle East at the purported time. So how circumcision could be a mark of God's chosen people while Egyptians, Moabites, Edomites, etcetera were routinely circumcised too eludes me).

 

[ddt]

And they'll lock you up and strip the medical physicians of their licenses.

Doctors, parents, murderers and thieves.

The overseer has arrived.

It arrived some 5,000 years or more ago, when the first states formed. What's your point?

Clear the streets for the brown battalions,
Clear the streets for the stormtrooper!
Millions are looking upon the foreskin full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!
Millions are looking upon the foreskin full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!

Horst Wessel was murdered because he wanted to be circumcised?

You do realize that nobody is going to take your posts anymore seriously when you make such statements?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Did your doctor recommend that your child be tattooed or her clitoris foreskin be removed?

Evasion noted. Since you ask, though, yes, if you cherry-pick, there are studies showing the benefits of chopping off someone's clitoris foreskin, just like there are studies that can be cherry-picked showing benefits of circumsicion of penises.

Furthermore, removal of the clitoris foreskin is just as much a proud tradition as male circumsicion, and it is a procedure, like male circumsicion, that many adults voluntarily choose to have performed on them, and, like in the cases of male circumsicion, most of the people who undergo the procedure in adulthood are happy they had it done.

Pray tell, if you dislike the analogy, how are the two different?

And they'll lock you up and strip the medical physicians of their licenses.

Doctors, parents, murderers and thieves.

The overseer has arrived.


Clear the streets for the brown battalions,
Clear the streets for the stormtrooper!
Millions are looking upon the foreskin full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!
Millions are looking upon the foreskin full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!

...Godwin noted. Was there anything else?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

It is personal as murder? Seriously?

He didn't say as serious as murder. He said as personal as murder. The wording might be unfortunate, but the fact remanis that you can't call something "personal" when it's something you do to someone else.

And who is going to enforce those human rights? The government? How you going to do that?

I'm sure you are aware that Norway happens to have a police force and a modern justice system, so I don't quite understand the question.

The medical evidence has been presented, and I assume that you folks are going to assign a governmental overseer to enforce your view of the medical decision?

wut.

 

[The Big Dog]

Really? You left out the Holocaust reference. 4/10.

and you ignore the hysterical murderer comparison?

1/10

 

[The Big Dog]

Evasion noted.

Pray tell, if you dislike the analogy, how are the two different?

Wasn't my analogy bro (nor yours) Not my burden.

By the way, we already covered the whole medical doctor recommended the circumcision and not the false analogy, right?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm very confused.

 

[rustypouch]

That's exactly what those of us who don't see the need for routine circumcision are wondering.

Exactly.

I want babies' penises left alone.

If people didn't insist on mutilating children, there wouldn't be an issue.

 

[ddt]

He didn't say as serious as murder. He said as personal as murder. The wording might be unfortunate, but the fact remanis that you can't call something "personal" when it's something you do to someone else.

Exactly.

and you ignore the hysterical murderer comparison?

There's nothing hysterical about it. The pro-circumcision posters here time and again try to gloss over the fundamental fact that circumcising an infant or a child is something that you do to someone else, not to yourself.

Nobody denies the right over your own body, whether you want to perform (or have performed) circumcision, FGM, tattoos, ear piercing, or even the ultimate, take your own life. But you don't have the right to do that to someone else. That that someone else is your child does not give you the right to do with them as you please: a child is not property, but a separate human being for whom you have the responsibility to care. Mutilating it has as little place in that as killing it.

Let's repeat that word: mutilate, because circumcision simply is mutilation, as much as FGM, piercings, ripping out toenails, installing lip plates or cutting off earlobes is. There's nothing special about the foreskin in that respect, and the continuing silence, thread after thread, by the pro-circumcision posters whether they're comfortable with any of those other mutilations and why yes or not, really says it all.

 

[The Big Dog]

There's nothing special about the foreskin in that respect, and the continuing silence, thread after thread, by the pro-circumcision posters whether they're comfortable with any of those other mutilations and why yes or not, really says it all.

Yes, it does really say it all. It says it is a false analogy and a fallacy.

Further, it has been explained time after time why it is a false analogy: because circumcision is a medical procedure performed after advice and consent (and a recommendation in my personal case).

You show me a Doctor recommending FGM, piercings, ripping out toenails, installing lip plates or cutting off earlobes or studies such as have been linked here showing the beneficial medical affects of FGM, piercings, ripping out toenails, installing lip plates or cutting off earlobes so much so that they were adopted by WHO?

No of course you have no such thing, and you'll dodge this explanation why your fallacious argument is fallacious again.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Yes, it does really say it all. It says it is a false analogy and a fallacy.

Further, it has been explained time after time why it is a false analogy: because circumcision is a medical procedure performed after advice and consent (and a recommendation in my personal case).

You show me a Doctor recommending FGM, piercings, ripping out toenails, installing lip plates or cutting off earlobes or studies such as have been linked here showing the beneficial medical affects of FGM, piercings, ripping out toenails, installing lip plates or cutting off earlobes so much so that they were adopted by WHO?

No of course you have no such thing, and you'll dodge this explanation why your fallacious argument is fallacious again.

Wow, talk about false analogies.

It has been explained repeatedly (and ignored repeatedly) that there are obvious cases of necessary circumcision for medical reasons.

Automatically mutilating a newborn infant is not medically necessary.

Most of the people using "medical reasons" as a justification for circumcision are blatantly and vocally doing it for their own reasons, and using "medical reasons" as a rationalization.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Yes, it does really say it all. It says it is a false analogy and a fallacy.

Further, it has been explained time after time why it is a false analogy: because circumcision is a medical procedure performed after advice and consent (and a recommendation in my personal case).

Um, no, it isn't. Babies can't give informed consent, and most circumsicions aren't made because of medical conditions, or perceived health benefits, but for reasons of tribal tradition.

You show me a Doctor recommending FGM, piercings, ripping out toenails, installing lip plates or cutting off earlobes or studies such as have been linked here showing the beneficial medical affects of FGM, piercings, ripping out toenails, installing lip plates or cutting off earlobes so much so that they were adopted by WHO?

I notice you've left out removal of clitoris foreskin in your tirade. I wonder why...

No of course you have no such thing, and you'll dodge this explanation why your fallacious argument is fallacious again.

We've spent the last few pages doing little but discussing the medical side of things.

 

[The Big Dog]

I notice you've left out removal of clitoris foreskin in your tirade. I wonder why...

I did what? I specifically cut and pasted from ddt

Therefore, on what do you base this accusation?

In fact, I note that what I did cut and paste from includes FGM, and therefore not only is your accusation unfair, it is completely and utterly wrong.

 

[GlennB]

The ultimate obscenity here (a strong word, but it's my view) is that people are physically imposing their religion or culture on an unknowing baby who might end up rejecting that very religion or culture.

"Mum, Dad, I truly believe <insert religion/culture here> is a pile of poop. Can I have my <foreskin/earlobes/unscarred face/unbound feet/normal neck> back?"

"Sorry you feel that way <son/daughter>, as it's too late, but maybe you should try harder to believe in our <religion/culture>?"

****, basically, that. And refined debates about angels on the heads of pins varying degrees of health or cosmetic benefits/deficits miss the point entirely. I was raised as a Roman Catholic and later rejected that religion (and all others) and bear no physical scars. If RCism involved getting branded with a cross on the forehead I'd be seriously pissed.

 

[The Norseman]

Since Jewish men are predominantly circumcised, Loss Leader is entirely appropriate in pointing it out if Jewish populations don't seem to have these problems one might expect if they believed circumcision is as harmful as claimed.

American men are also predominantly circumcised, for example, so it's not a problem limited to Jewish men and it'd be more honest to include every man who was circumcised.

Except it most likely is, at least in part.

"Most likely"? I doubt there's evidence supporting your position, so I'm not going to ask for it and consider it an opinion.

 

[ddt]

Yes, it does really say it all. It says it is a false analogy and a fallacy.

Further, it has been explained time after time why it is a false analogy: because circumcision is a medical procedure performed after advice and consent (and a recommendation in my personal case).

Evidence for that "advice and consent"?

Advice other than "YHWH told Abraham to lop it off".
And other than "it would be funny if he looked different than dad".
And other than "he would be embarrassed in the locker room".
And other than the disingenuous "it reduces the risk of UTI", leaving out the part "which are perfectly treatable with antibiotics".
And other than the disingenuous "it reduces the risk of HIV", leaving out the part "among Ugandan males who perform heterosexual sex without condoms".

You show me a Doctor recommending FGM,

http://www.desertflowerfoundation.org/en/fgm-scandal-in-the-us/:

Dr. Hatem al-Haj, a medical doctor and fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommends FGM in a paper in Arabic entitled “Circumcision of Girls: Jurisprudence and Medicine” und explains that it is “an honor” for women.

ripping out toenails

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8455962&postcount=711

or flawed studies such as have been linked here showing the beneficial medical affects of FGM, piercings, ripping out toenails, installing lip plates or cutting off earlobes so much so that they were adopted by WHO?

FTFY.

 

[The Big Dog]

http://www.desertflowerfoundation.org/en/fgm-scandal-in-the-us/:

I asked you to come up with examples supporting your fallacious comparison. You came up with one. Who justified his position based on the Koran, only.

Not helping your case.

By the way, don't change what I posted in an alleged quote, are we understood?

eta: "And other than the disingenuous "it reduces the risk of UTI", leaving out the part "which are perfectly treatable with antibiotics"." Such treatments are not 100% effective, further the use of anti-biotics is not good for the environment, and their over use has lead to alarming decreases in their efficacy. Disingenuous? Quite the opposite.