Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Darth Rotor]

I note that the meat gazer marathon thread continues. It's a topic that never ends, despite the numerous previous threads that covered all of this. I cited a half dozen with links in a previous response.

I am sure that your parents (and most parents who have their child of either sex "circumcised") made their decision with good intentions and with no malice and indeed with love for you as their child, that however does not mean that you were not the victim of abuse.

My agnostic/atheist parents did not abuse me, and I was trimmed. Your assertion is libelous, against my parents. See my previous posts regarding how they arrived at their decision. My dad was not trimmed.

So, in what way was I the victim of abuse? Only by definition, apparently. "Men who were circumcised as infants were abused, thus men who were circumcised as infants were abused."

These are some of the same fools who, on the R & P JREF forum, assert that raising one's child in one's own religion is child abuse. Remember where you are posting.

Genital mutilation only became mainstream in the USA thanks to the likes of Kellogg and the anti-masturbation proponents.

False statement, in the case of my parents. That study had nothing to do with their decision. I took the liberty of asking my dad about that last week. He laughed at the idea that trimming me would cut down on masturbation.

Unfortunately their wonky puritan inspired pseudoscience is still influencing many, which means that many males in the USA have to live with having their penis scarred for life.

Hyperbole and nonsense, noted.

US circumcision rate is declining, and I expect it to decline much further. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/u-s-circumcision-rates-are-declining/?_r=0

I now have a project. Not sure if I'll complete it successfully. I will contact a local hospital and request that the next time a medical (not religious) circumcision is performed as one of the local niños is born, that I be permitted to retrieve it and place it in a plastic vial filled with isopropyl alcohol.

My request was denied.

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

Reliance on emotional spin is noted. Your insult to my parents is noted.

So it looks like, if circumcision is a factor in AIDS infection, it's a statistically insignificant one in comparison to high-risk vs. low-risk sexual activity; and sex education.

I'll suggest that using a condom is a better bet for prevention, trimmed or not trimmed.

It's simpler than that, if your Johnson's been clipped you favor circumcision if not you don't.

You remain wrong. I don't care one way or the other.

ftfy.

Your "fix" puts you in the category of folks who wish to allow children sexual consent at age 12, driving at age 12, all in the name of human rights. Voting too. Way to go.

Then why didn't God design man without a foreskin to prevent those UTIs?

Aye, isn't that the rub? (Pun intended). It does come as original equipment. Point for leaving it alone, don't you think?

Once again, it seems a touch uncivil to refer to me as a member of "the mutilation fan club" or to claim that I am preoocupied with the subject. .

I wonder if any of these folks would do so if we were face to face in a pub.

Because the data you need to do what you ask is unavailable.

Bias in who funds what research, perhaps?

Last night I had to cut my toenails. ..snip
Rolfe.

Your post is only On Topic for this thread if you or your relation have a foot fetish. Otherwise, it belongs elsewhere. As an analogy, fail.

Why is it, that members of this thread, including you,wantonly, and with malice aforethought fail to confront that which is plainly obvious, which is, and should have been the conclusion many post ago, that genital mutilation is a continuing obscenity,

Your opinion does not equal a fact.

"The AAP believes the health benefits are great enough that infant male circumcision should be covered by insurance, which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it."

I disagree. Elective procedure. Pay for it yourself, if you want it.

It would also be interesting to know what the AAP would think of circumcision if it wasn't a valuable income stream ...

Cha Ching! We may have a winner!

Thanks for your question, but this thread is not about me. I was referring to society as a whole.

I often refer to society as a-holes. (Note to Mods: this is not an attempt to circumvent censor, it is a pun that has to be built that way!!!!)

CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning.

Fascinating.
I was trimmed, and cannot confirm that they are right. Penile function alive and well, sex feels real good.
The government now knows more about my penis than I do? Get the government out of my boxer shorts, I don't need them in there.

 

[Baylor]

Fascinating.
I was trimmed, and cannot confirm that they are right. Penile function alive and well, sex feels real good.
The government now knows more about my penis than I do? Get the government out of my boxer shorts, I don't need them in there.

Uh, Ghent University Hospital is not "the government." Were you trimmed as an infant or as an adult? Unless you can compare pre-trimmed sex to post-trimmed sex, your observations are invalid.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Fascinating.
I was trimmed, and cannot confirm that they are right. Penile function alive and well, sex feels real good. The government now knows more about my penis than I do? Get the government out of my boxer shorts, I don't need them in there.

We're not talking about your particular penis. We're talking about circumsicion in general. There's a major difference.

I personally took the swine flu vaccine, and did not develop narcolepsy. The vaccine still caused narcolepsy in numerous other people. My personal anecdote does nothing to change this.

 

[rustypouch]

I note that the meat gazer marathon thread continues. It's a topic that never ends, despite the numerous previous threads that covered all of this. I cited a half dozen with links in a previous response. My agnostic/atheist parents did not abuse me, and I was trimmed. Your assertion is libelous, against my parents. See my previous posts regarding how they arrived at their decision. My dad was not trimmed.

These are some of the same fools who, on the R & P JREF forum, assert that raising one's child in one's own religion is child abuse. Remember where you are posting.
False statement, in the case of my parents. That study had nothing to do with their decision. I took the liberty of asking my dad about that last week. He laughed at the idea that trimming me would cut down on masturbation.
Hyperbole and nonsense, noted.


My request was denied.
Reliance on emotional spin is noted. Your insult to my parents is noted.
I'll suggest that using a condom is a better bet for prevention, trimmed or not trimmed.

You remain wrong. I don't care one way or the other.

Your "fix" puts you in the category of folks who wish to allow children sexual consent at age 12, driving at age 12, all in the name of human rights. Voting too. Way to go.
Aye, isn't that the rub? (Pun intended). It does come as original equipment. Point for leaving it alone, don't you think?
I wonder if any of these folks would do so if we were face to face in a pub.
Bias in who funds what research, perhaps?
Your post is only On Topic for this thread if you or your relation have a foot fetish. Otherwise, it belongs elsewhere. As an analogy, fail. Your opinion does not equal a fact.

I disagree. Elective procedure. Pay for it yourself, if you want it.
Cha Ching! We may have a winner!
I often refer to society as a-holes. (Note to Mods: this is not an attempt to circumvent censor, it is a pun that has to be built that way!!!!)

Fascinating.
I was trimmed, and cannot confirm that they are right. Penile function alive and well, sex feels real good.
The government now knows more about my penis than I do? Get the government out of my boxer shorts, I don't need them in there.

I just wonder why you don't consider removing bits from infants, for no good reason, not to be mutilation.

If I decided to chop off the lobes my kids' ears, I'm sure it would count as mutilation, and the kids would be taken away from me.

Why is chopping off bits of the penis any different? I'd like an answer besides 'religion' or 'tradition,' as that justification can be applied to other alterations, which are no longer acceptable in our society.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Also, personal anecdotes aren't data. We're not discussing your personal experience, we're talking about the effects of circumsicion across entire populations.

 

[Rat]

I just wonder why you don't consider removing bits from infants, for no good reason, not to be mutilation.

You're wrong; he does.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Uh, Ghent University Hospital is not "the government." Were you trimmed as an infant or as an adult? Unless you can compare pre-trimmed sex to post-trimmed sex, your observations are invalid.

How nice of you to completely miss the point that the evidence from Ghent University study is being used to justify a legislative ban on neotnatal circumcision. That's that source of keep-the-government-out-of-my-pants-and-off-my-children's-genitals sentiment that DarthRotor expressed.

 

[ehcks]

How nice of you to completely miss the point that the evidence from Ghent University study is being used to justify a legislative ban on neotnatal circumcision. That's that source of keep-the-government-out-of-my-pants-and-off-my-children's-genitals sentiment that DarthRotor expressed.

The government is doing nothing to your pants, and it's telling other people to stay off of children's genitals.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The government is doing nothing to your pants, and it's telling other people to stay off of children's genitals.

And thereby intruding upon the rights of parent to make medical decisions for their children as they are charged with doing for every other medical decision.

None of the evidence presented thus far has established a compelling interest for the to restrict that right that it has already extended to parents. Yes, there are risks to circumcision, as there are risks to any medical procedure, but there are also benefits. What proponents of legal bans on circumcision routinely do is mininmize, if not out-right ignore, the benefits and exaggerate the risks, which leads to the appearance that the government has a overwhelming interest in restricting previously granted rights. All that opponents of legal bans on circumcision point out is that the case for government intervention in an area in which the government usually grants wide latitude to parents is not justified as evaluation of the evidence does not reasonably establish a compelling government interest for restriction. Moveoever, the issues that proponents of band raise would fundamentally restructure the government's role in parental, medical decision making if applied to other medical procedures with the same stringency as they apply to circumcision.

 

[Baylor]

How nice of you to completely miss the point that the evidence from Ghent University study is being used to justify a legislative ban on neotnatal circumcision. That's that source of keep-the-government-out-of-my-pants-and-off-my-children's-genitals sentiment that DarthRotor expressed.

Since it was DarthRotor who committed a fallacy, it is up to him to defend it. All you've done is convolute the thread even further.

When DarthRotor said:

"The government now knows more about my penis than I do?"​

He committed a fallacy. Even if he were to reword it so it wouldn't be a fallacy {eta: and make it a statement rather than a question}, he'd still be wrong. Please don't defend someone else's fallacy with a fallacy with one of your own:

"that source of keep-the-government-out-of-my-pants-and-off-my-children's-genitals sentiment that DarthRotor expressed."​

This says that "the government" has interest in performing unneccessary medical procedures on:

a) Parents' genitals and b) Childrens' genitals.

...when the topic of the thread is that "the government" wants to ban an unneccessary medical procedure on infants' gentials.

 

[ehcks]

And thereby intruding upon the rights of parent to make medical decisions for their children as they are charged with doing for every other medical decision.

If the doctors are so against it that they get the government to ban it, it's not just not medically necessary, it's not a medical decision at all.

 

[Baylor]

Yes, there are risks to circumcision, as there are risks to any medical procedure, but there are also benefits.

Let's discuss the risks vs. "benefits"

Risks of circumcision:

• Permanent damage to the genitals - 100%
• Permanently dulled genital sensation - Very high, maybe even 100%
• Cutting off parts of (other than foreskin) or the entire penis - Low but not negligible; example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
• Death - Low but not negligible

Benefits:

• Allegedly lower risk of treatable UTI in infancy (1.1% for uncircumcised vs 0.2% for circumcised. (p > ?))

 

[jdp]

And thereby intruding upon the rights of parent to make medical decisions for their children as they are charged with doing for every other medical decision.

None of the evidence presented thus far has established a compelling interest for the to restrict that right that it has already extended to parents.
...

All that opponents of legal bans on circumcision point out is that the case for government intervention in an area in which the government usually grants wide latitude to parents is not justified as evaluation of the evidence does not reasonably establish a compelling government interest for restriction. Moveoever, the issues that proponents of band raise would fundamentally restructure the government's role in parental, medical decision making if applied to other medical procedures with the same stringency as they apply to circumcision.

Which is clearly your opinion. However, the medical and child welfare professionals in the countries under discussion have evaluated the same evidence and have come to a different conclusion.

 

[The Big Dog]

Unless you can compare pre-trimmed sex to post-trimmed sex, your observations are invalid.

 

[Rolfe]

It's "trimmed" now, is it? I find the adoption of increasingly banal terms to disguise the invasive nature of this procedure quite interesting.

Rolfe.

 

[Matthew Best]

How about "docked"?

 

[Rolfe]

Um, no? The "dock" is the word for the tail bone. Docking means cutting the tail bone.

Rolfe.

 

[Matthew Best]

OK, then "nipped"?

"Clipped"?

"Snipped"?

 

[ddt]

It's "trimmed" now, is it? I find the adoption of increasingly banal terms to disguise the invasive nature of this procedure quite interesting.

Rolfe.

Well yeah, it's just having a haircut, or trimming your toe nails.

 

[jdp]

Um, no? The "dock" is the word for the tail bone. Docking means cutting the tail bone.

Rolfe.

Rolfe don't many of the evil authoritarian European governments prohibit docking? I thought I read that somewhere.