# Circumcision



## Father Time (Jul 27, 2009)

Do you think infant circumcision should be banned?

Should it be legal to physically hurt and permanently disfigure a baby who could not possibly consent to it.

The questionable medical benefits (STD protections mostly) can easily be substituted with a condom. So should this be considered infringing on a baby's rights?


----------



## editec (Jul 27, 2009)

I think it should but we cannot because of people's religious convictions about it.


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 27, 2009)

o hell no.....not this again....

i went thru the anti circumcision movement when i had my child in the 80s...one woman went so far as to tell me my son would grow up and hate me for having "mutaliated" him....  my doctor tried to stall the procedure and change my mind...

the head docs....say that if the father is the child should be...giving the child male identity roles blah fucking shrink talk blah...

my reasoning:

father is ...

penile cancer is rare in circumcized males...

men do lose the elasticy of the foreskin....which causes them to have to have this done late in life when it is a major operation

father time...put yourself in the way back machine....sure they can use condoms to prevent stuff...but do they?

and lasty....no apple headed dicks on non circumsized men...

so the remark by that woman bothered me...till one day i just flat out ask son...(just the way i roll) if being circumcized bothered him?  after quickly informing me..that this is not what he wished to discuss with me....he said..."it works....all i care about"

so again i think it is family preference....btw...the woman who told me that..refused to have her son done...much to the delight of the jewish in laws...i think she was just making it a cause to prove to the inlaws who was in control.


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 27, 2009)

i still have the little ring they did it with....much to sons embarressment...


----------



## editec (Jul 27, 2009)

In response to the circumcision to reduce the incidence of penial cancer argument?

Did you know that among people who have the left lung removed, there is* no incidence* of cancer of the left lung, Stroll?

Perhaps we should all have our left lungs removed to reduce our incidence of lung cancer by 50%?


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 27, 2009)

o ed now you are just being sillie....you must have lungs to live....do you have to have a foreskin?

now i gave you the reasons...you give me yours?

<---demanding today


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 27, 2009)

and lets be honest here ed.....most men would rather take the foreskin removal than the penile cancer removal...dont make me do a poll.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 27, 2009)

This question should be asked right after questioning the child as to whether they want to be born into this world, at this particular time, to these particular parents, country, religion, and their social position. If the child answers affirmative to above, we can move to the next questions, sex, height, weight, intelligence etc.

PS does anyone know if they wear out? I don't have one.  LOL


----------



## Dr Grump (Jul 27, 2009)

Both my sons are uncircumcised. They should have been. My wife wouldn't wear it - typical of somebody who will never have to live with the consequences........


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 27, 2009)

what reasons did she give? 

i would think you would have manned up....damn you mean the wife can tell the hubby what the fuck to do?  esp with his sons? my hubby's mind was made up....he took a lot of the flax we got from doctor and hospital....i gave birth at 3 am...and they were trying to talk me out of it at 5 am...


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 27, 2009)

Genital mutilation of children should not be legal.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 27, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Genital mutilation of children should not be legal.



Ignorance should not be legal either. But you are living proof it exists.


----------



## editec (Jul 27, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> o ed now you are just being sillie....you must have lungs to live....do you have to have a foreskin?
> 
> now i gave you the reasons...you give me yours?
> 
> <---demanding today


 
What is the incidence of peneile cancer in circumcized V uncircumcized men?

Hey we could eliminate all cancer of the cliterous if we removed those, too,

Shall we?


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 27, 2009)

Boys should be circumcised as it is the only thing that distinguishes them from animals.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 27, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Genital mutilation of children should not be legal.
> ...




This from a guy who believes in genital mutilation of children, thinks rapists should get to marry their victims, espouses the glory of genocide....


----------



## G.T. (Jul 27, 2009)

I think keep doing it, for the health benefits and because of the look, straight up. I've been told by girls that it looks freaky to them when it's uncircumcized. I'm glad my mom had it done. It's considered more "normal" in the world of sex. That's a frivolous reason, but a reason that exists nonetheless.

**eta: plus, what's the harm? I have no memory of this, its pain, no sustained effects except that I'm actually GLAD it's been done.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 27, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Ok now PROVE any of those claims.


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 27, 2009)

I'm glad the docs removed the excess 5 inches so I can wear shorts in the summer time.  I'm just saying.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 27, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



You're a Christian. It's all there in your little holy book.

Also you're here in this thread to support the genital mutilation of children


----------



## G.T. (Jul 27, 2009)

I think using the term mutilation is silly. It's not to deform, it's for inherent health-benefits and Females from @ least my experience prefer it be done - so to NOT do it I'd also consider it a mutilation of sorts. 

You'd be considered ab-normal in a realm of life where you'd LEAST want to be considered that, SEX. (hubba). 

You're acting as if this is some form of torture or something. Ridiculous. The baby doesn't even realize this is happening or has happened, and it's done in an instant with no memory of it at all.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 27, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



In other words lying as usual, thanks for admitting it. Maybe there is hope for you after all?


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 27, 2009)

editec said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > o ed now you are just being sillie....you must have lungs to live....do you have to have a foreskin?
> ...



cancer of the clit?  let me find the first question?


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 27, 2009)

Penile cancer: importance of circumcision, human p...[Int J Cancer. 2005] - PubMed Result

but in all fairness a lot of studies...say no to this


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 27, 2009)

G.T. said:


> I think using the term mutilation is silly. It's not to deform




It is mutilation and disfigurement by definition.

Most common circumcision myths


----------



## G.T. (Jul 27, 2009)

I'm happy I don't have to fold back skin to fully clean under there, too, as health class taught me would have to be done had I not been circumcized.


----------



## G.T. (Jul 27, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I think using the term mutilation is silly. It's not to deform
> ...




It's not disfigurement if you make something look better.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 27, 2009)

So you're saying you now oppose circumcision iof children and recant your faith, that the Jews were wrong in taking Canaan, that you oppose zionism, that you recognize the Abrahamic god as evil, and that biblical law is immoral and wrong?


Wither answer yes, or prove my assertions correct.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 27, 2009)

G.T. said:


> It's not disfigurement if you make something look better.



You're an idiot


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 27, 2009)

myths and facts


----------



## del (Jul 27, 2009)

i knew a rabbi that saved all the foreskins and had them made into a wallet.

when he rubbed it, it turned into a suitcase.


try the veal...and tip your server


----------



## G.T. (Jul 27, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > It's not disfigurement if you make something look better.
> ...




Who the fuck are you?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 27, 2009)

Circumcision Myths and Facts


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 27, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> So you're saying you now oppose circumcision iof children and recant your faith, that the Jews were wrong in taking Canaan, that you oppose zionism, that you recognize the Abrahamic god as evil, and that biblical law is immoral and wrong?
> 
> 
> Wither answer yes, or prove my assertions correct.



None of what you claim is that.

Circumcision is a medical procedure to prevent infection.

And the rest is your retardo version of events. You made 3 specific claims back them up with evidence and facts or retract them. Already showed one of your claims is ignorant and false. You have 2 more to go NUMB NUTS.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 27, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Circumcision is a medical procedure to prevent infection.




That is a lie, and I have provided sources demonstrating it to be a lie.

You already have made it clear you support the genital mutilation of children. That you refuse to answer my questions makes it clear that I was correct on the other matters as well.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 27, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Who the fuck are you?


J.Beukema


----------



## G.T. (Jul 27, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Who the fuck are you?
> ...




 yah thanks. 

Do you have specific reasoning why you can't keep a conversation on the internet cordial, and not resort to mud-slinging or is that just an incarnation of your inner-immaturity? Just wondering. I did nothing to warrant your insult and am curious what's your deal.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 27, 2009)

I remain cordial until lying, genocidal pieces of shit like RGS and uneducated dolts like you start trunning your mouths


----------



## jillian (Jul 27, 2009)

del said:


> i knew a rabbi that saved all the foreskins and had them made into a wallet.
> 
> when he rubbed it, it turned into a suitcase.
> 
> ...



let's have a hand for del, ladies and gentlemen.

he'll be here all week.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 27, 2009)

It amazes me how some people obsess over children's penises.


----------



## del (Jul 27, 2009)

jillian said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i knew a rabbi that saved all the foreskins and had them made into a wallet.
> ...



and remember, buckle up and drive safely.

g'night, everybody!!!


----------



## jillian (Jul 27, 2009)

del said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


----------



## G.T. (Jul 27, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> I remain cordial until lying, genocidal pieces of shit like RGS and uneducated dolts like you start trunning your mouths



Your assessment that I'm an "uneducated dolt" is based on my disagreement with you over what is or isn't "disfiguring?"

Let's break that down for a moment. That's not sound enough evidence. No, no. Not very scientific at all. 

In order to form a more conclusive hypothesis, let's look at some actual facts and not a mere internet disagreement, shall we? 

Such as:

What, in fact, IS my educational back-ground?
At what level would my cessation of schooling qualify my being considered "uneducated?" 

Do you live in a glass house? Meaning, what are your qualifications and in what areas of education are you tenured to be applying the terms "uneducated" and "dolt" to persons whom you haven't met before and know very little about? Would you say that your reasoning is sound?

Case analysis: Immaturity.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 27, 2009)

I am God, bitch. That is all you need to know


----------



## G.T. (Jul 27, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> I am God, bitch. That is all you need to know



Not a very confident God. 

I don't admire a God who becomes so flummoxed with those who disagree with him that his "ticks" cause him to have irrational, mean-spirited, ill-founded comments towards those persons. That creates the appearance of a bewildered, frustrated God. 

God,

You need more swagger. 

~The Prince~


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 27, 2009)

then you must really hate the abrahamic god


----------



## Hugh7 (Jul 27, 2009)

strollingbones: 





> penile cancer


 is rare in *all* males, circumcised or not, rarer in non-circumcising Denmark than the US, rarer than *male* breast cancer. We could cut off boy babies' nipples to prevent that (they won't be needing them) but we don't.





> "father is..."


See www . circumstitions . com / Images / looklike.gif (no spaces)


> "men do lose the elasticy of the foreskin..."


That's a very rare condition (called BXO) which can be treated without surgery.


> "no apple headed dicks on non circumsized men..."


Huh?

midcan5:


> This question should be asked right after questioning the child as to whether they want to be born into this world, at this particular time, to these particular parents, country, religion, and their social position. If the child answers affirmative to above, we can move to the next questions, sex, height, weight, intelligence etc.


This seems to be a variant of "Parents make many decisions for their children" Short answer: ... but no decision quite like this, about what parts of his own body he is allowed to keep.

A better analogy is: when the child is born, does the doctor ask us if we want his pinky fingertips, earlobes, tonguetip, eyelids, or her little clitoral hood, clitoris or labia trimmed? What's so special about his foreskin that parents even get asked? (In the rest of the English-speaking world, they used to, but they found circumcising doesn't do any good, so now they don't. In most of the world they've never done it. Seven out of ten men in the world are intact.)


> PS does anyone know if they wear out? I don't have one. LOL


No, on the contrary they improve with use and experience.

xotoxi:


> Boys should be circumcised as it is the only thing that distinguishes them from animals.


 belongs on the list at www . circumstitions . com / Stitions&refs.html .

Bottom line: in the US, home of the free, all people should be allowed undisturbed ownership all of the healthy non-renewable parts of their bodies they were born with. If you don't own your own body, what do you own?


----------



## Father Time (Jul 27, 2009)

Hello, Hugh you're new here so I thought I should tell you that xotoxi (the guy who claims circumcision separates us from the animals) frequently jokes around on these boards so when he says something as radical as that you probably shouldn't take him seriously.

Anyway nice post otherwise.


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 27, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Hello, Hugh you're new here so I thought I should tell you that xotoxi (the guy who claims circumcision separates us from the animals) frequently jokes around on these boards so when he says something as radical as that you probably shouldn't take him seriously.
> 
> Anyway nice post otherwise.


 
Actually, my comment was a play on these gems:



AllieBaba said:


> Circumcision is the only thing that makes a dick worth looking at.
> 
> My boys all had them. It's what distinguishes them from animals.


 


AllieBaba said:


> So you don't want to answer the question?
> 
> I'll answer it for you.
> 
> There are few to no circumcised animals in the world. Ritualistic circumcision separates men from animals. If you find an ancient corpse and it's impossible to tell what it is, if it's circumcised, you can be fairly certain it's a man and not an orangutuan.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 28, 2009)

Ok I didn't think anyone could say something that stupid.

Circumcision is what separates us from animals, really? It isn't our language, our technology, our cities and houses, our ability to utterly destroy an ecosystem and possibly build suburbs on top, or manipulate genes or fuck even our own unique DNA. Not even the ability to give each other surgery, no it's the freaking circumcisions.


----------



## Hugh7 (Jul 28, 2009)

Thanks for clearing that up. So does it not follow that Allie Baba's daughters can not be distinguished from animals?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 28, 2009)

Hugh7 said:


> strollingbones:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure thing, of course you only apply this to the babies that are not murdered before they are ever born right? Those that have a mother that for convenience seek decides carrying a baby full term will impact her life in a negative manner and so has a doctor murder the unborn baby, right?

So one must not circumcised at birth but can be terminated before birth just fine? Have I got your argument down about right?


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 28, 2009)

Hugh7 said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. So does it not follow that Allie Baba's daughters can not be distinguished from animals?


 
That's what I've always wondered.

Maybe she tattoos them with the word "HUMAN" in bold across their forehead.


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 28, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Ok I didn't think anyone could say something that stupid.
> 
> Circumcision is what separates us from animals, really? It isn't our language, our technology, our cities and houses, our ability to utterly destroy an ecosystem and possibly build suburbs on top, or manipulate genes or fuck even our own unique DNA. Not even the ability to give each other surgery, no it's the freaking circumcisions.


 
Additionally, anytime archeologists have discovered uncircumcised mummified remains buried in the tundra of northern Canada, they have not been able to decide if the remains are that of a human or an artic orangutan.


----------



## Anguille (Jul 28, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Do you think infant circumcision should be banned?
> 
> Should it be legal to physically hurt and permanently disfigure a baby who could not possibly consent to it.
> 
> The questionable medical benefits (STD protections mostly) can easily be substituted with a condom. So should this be considered infringing on a baby's rights?


Yes.


----------



## Anguille (Jul 28, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> the head docs....say that if the father is the child should be...giving the child male identity roles blah fucking shrink talk blah...


 The doc's tried that sales pitch on my sister. She asked me what I thought. I said, "How often do you think T. and J. are going to sit around comparing dicks?". She told the docs keep your hand's off my little boy.



strollingbones said:


> men do lose the elasticy of the foreskin....which causes them to have to have this done late in life when it is a major operation


So circumcision is like a preemptive  face lift? LOL!


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jul 28, 2009)

G.T. said:


> I think keep doing it, for the health benefits and because of the look, straight up. I've been told by girls that it looks freaky to them when it's uncircumcized.* I'm glad my mom had it done*. It's considered more "normal" in the world of sex. That's a frivolous reason, but a reason that exists nonetheless.
> 
> **eta: plus, what's the harm? I have no memory of this, its pain, no sustained effects except that I'm actually GLAD it's been done.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 28, 2009)

if the only reason for circumcision is the prevention of a rare case of penile cancer then should we not subject all female babies to mastectomies because breast cancer is much more frequent?

How about removal of ovaries to prevent ovarian cancer

or removal of the cervix to prevent cancer???

What's good for the gander must also be good for the goose no?


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 28, 2009)

I once knew a doctor who saved the foreskins he removed from babies and he kept them in a quart jar.  When he had a jar full, he would send the foreskins off to a tannery and they would tan them and make a wallet out of them for him.  He loved it.  It was functional as a wallet and if he wanted to take a trip someplace he could rub the wallet and it would turn into an overnight bag.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jul 28, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> I once knew a doctor who saved the foreskins he removed from babies and he kept them in a quart jar.  When he had a jar full, he would send the foreskins off to a tannery and they would tan them and make a wallet out of them for him.  He loved it.  It was functional as a wallet and if he wanted to take a trip someplace he could rub the wallet and it would turn into an overnight bag.



Oh that is just sick!


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 28, 2009)

I'm cut and must admit, the ladies find my genitalia stellar!


----------



## Father Time (Jul 28, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hugh7 said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones:
> ...



Ladies and gentlemen this is what we call grasping at straws hugh has posted 3 things here and not one of them even mentioned abortion yet RGS is somehow able to psychically figure out that hugh's pro-choice?

Although even if he was that doesn't really address any of his arguments

This would be like assuming every pro-lifer was for the death penalty and then making them defend their dual positions before we discuss either.

Oh and I see little hypocritical about not giving fetuses rights (up to a point) because they're insignificant (the argument I hear most from pro-choicers) but giving newborns rights. For the most part they're not the same.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 28, 2009)

When the hell does a baby change from a non-baby into a baby?

That's about the stupidest thing I've heard.


----------



## chanel (Jul 28, 2009)

Uncircumcised penises are ugly.  Or so I've been told. lol

My doctor claimed that it is cultural.  The only boys he hadn't done were Hispanic.  He didn't want my children to be laughed at in the locker room.  That was good enough for me.  The procedure took five seconds.  Their births took 24 hours.  I felt no guilt.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> When the hell does a baby change from a non-baby into a baby?
> 
> That's about the stupidest thing I've heard.



I don't know, but apparently it changes from an animal to a human when you mutilate its genitals, to hear you tell it


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

chanel said:


> The procedure took five seconds.  Their births took 24 hours.  I felt no guilt.



This seems to hint at a touch of vengence


----------



## manu1959 (Jul 28, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Do you think infant circumcision should be banned?
> 
> Should it be legal to physically hurt and permanently disfigure a baby who could not possibly consent to it.
> 
> The questionable medical benefits (STD protections mostly) can easily be substituted with a condom. So should this be considered infringing on a baby's rights?



if you can kill em before they are born you should certainly be able to trim the anteater.....


----------



## Phoenix (Jul 28, 2009)

chanel said:


> Uncircumcised penises are ugly.  Or so I've been told. lol
> 
> My doctor claimed that it is cultural.  The only boys he hadn't done were Hispanic.  He didn't want my children to be laughed at in the locker room.  That was good enough for me.  The procedure took five seconds.  Their births took 24 hours.  I felt no guilt.



The entire procedure, including strapping their arms and legs down, takes longer than five literal seconds.  They do feel pain, but we assume they forget or get over it rather quickly.  

Would you feel guilty if the births took much less time?  Say, one hour of being in active labor.  Would you then consider not having them circumcised?

How much different is circumcision in boys from piercing an infant girls' ears because someone thinks it's cute.  That is inflicting pain, modifying their body solely for appearances.  There is not even any argument that it has health benefits or makes the child feel more comfortable amongst others of their same gender.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

Eve said:


> How much different is circumcision in boys from piercing an infant girls' ears because someone thinks it's cute.  That is inflicting pain, modifying their body solely for appearances.  There is not even any argument that it has health benefits or makes the child feel more comfortable amongst others of their same gender.




At least ears can heal.


----------



## Phoenix (Jul 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> At least ears can heal.



Circs do too.  They just don't return to their original form


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

Eve said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > At least ears can heal.
> ...



I'm not aware of foreskins regenerating, although i have seen many ears that were never the same


----------



## Phoenix (Jul 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Eve said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


Improper piercings can be bad, but improper circs are still worse.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > When the hell does a baby change from a non-baby into a baby?
> ...




Well that might be the way you read it...but what I SAID was animals don't circumcise their young.

Which, of course, they don't. I probably should have dumbed it down. Just when I think it's stupid enough to be understood by even the most dim witted, I can count on you to prove me wrong.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

That's not what you said. You said that mutilating your boys' genitals is what or made them any different than the animals and that you liked the way their cocks look now


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 28, 2009)

Yeah, go ahead and link that comment, dumbfuck.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> When the hell does a baby change from a non-baby into a baby?
> 
> That's about the stupidest thing I've heard.



It is only because you dishonestly changed the term fetus into baby.


----------



## Anguille (Jul 28, 2009)

Eve said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > Uncircumcised penises are ugly.  Or so I've been told. lol
> ...




The babies are too young for regular anesthesia. They cry out in pain.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Yeah, go ahead and link that comment, dumbfuck.







AllieBaba said:


> Circumcision is the only thing that makes a dick worth looking at.
> 
> My boys all had them. It's what distinguishes them from animals.





AllieBaba said:


> Ritualistic circumcision separates men from animals.





> If you find an ancient corpse and it's impossible to tell what it is, if it's circumcised, you can be fairly certain it's a man and not an orangutuan.


Of course, this implies that a non-circumcised penis can only be non-human


Of course, there is an explanation for why you're so fucking stupid



AllieBaba said:


> drinking makes me smarter.





AllieBaba said:


> my  inability to make sense explains all the responses.





:lol



Of course, you're the stupid bitch who compared foreskin to spinal bifida



AllieBaba said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Neser Boha said:
> ...


----------



## Anguille (Jul 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > The procedure took five seconds.  Their births took 24 hours.  I felt no guilt.
> ...


Doesn't it!


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 28, 2009)

Lol. I am pretty funny. I just can't say it often enough.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > When the hell does a baby change from a non-baby into a baby?
> ...





AllieBaba said:


> That's about the stupidest thing I've heard.





AllieBaba said:


> Lol. I am pretty funny. I just can't say it often enough.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 28, 2009)

JB, you really ought to use your own material more often. Practice makes perfect.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> JB, you really ought to use your own material more often.




Why? Your own words make my case


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 28, 2009)

Only if the case you're making is that I'm hilarious and you have way too much time on your hands.


----------



## Hugh7 (Jul 28, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I think keep doing it, for the health benefits and because of the look, straight up. I've been told by girls that it looks freaky to them when it's uncircumcized.* I'm glad my mom had it done*. It's considered more "normal" in the world of sex. That's a frivolous reason, but a reason that exists nonetheless.


Only in parts of the US, and with the rate now about 55%, less and less. Someone said a foreskin is a good airhead repellent.


> > **eta: plus, what's the harm? I have no memory of this, its pain, no sustained effects except that I'm actually GLAD it's been done.


And of course G.T. doesn't know what he's missing.

Zoom-bong, you may like this message: www . cafepress . com / intactivism / 5689452


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 28, 2009)

midcan5 said:


> This question should be asked right after questioning the child as to whether they want to be born into this world, at this particular time, to these particular parents, country, religion, and their social position. If the child answers affirmative to above, we can move to the next questions, sex, height, weight, intelligence etc.
> 
> PS does anyone know if they wear out? I don't have one.  LOL



If what wears out?  The foreskin, or the penis?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 28, 2009)

G.T. said:


> I think using the term mutilation is silly. It's not to deform, it's for inherent health-benefits and Females from @ least my experience prefer it be done - so to NOT do it I'd also consider it a mutilation of sorts.
> 
> You'd be considered ab-normal in a realm of life where you'd LEAST want to be considered that, SEX. (hubba).
> 
> You're acting as if this is some form of torture or something. Ridiculous. The baby doesn't even realize this is happening or has happened, and it's done in an instant with no memory of it at all.



Bearing in mind that neither of my sons is circumcised, I have to say that calling it "mutilation" is like calling an appendectomy "mutilation".  You weren't going to use it for anything anyway, and it's being done for medical and health reasons, not as a fashion statement.

I would like to add, though, that the medical establishment seems to think it is no longer strictly medically necessary, since many doctors will now recommend that it not be done unless the parents have strong opinions on the subject, and Medicaid and many health insurance companies no longer pay for it on the grounds that it's not medically indicated.


----------



## DV8 (Jul 28, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bearing in mind that neither of my sons is circumcised, I have to say that calling it "mutilation" is like calling an appendectomy "mutilation".  You weren't going to use it for anything anyway



What does a woman use her labia for?



> and it's being done for medical and health reasons,


 not as a fashion statement.

Actually, it's from the Jewish influence. It's a holdover from  Jewish ritual mutilation of their sons' genitals.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 28, 2009)

DV8 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Bearing in mind that neither of my sons is circumcised, I have to say that calling it "mutilation" is like calling an appendectomy "mutilation".  You weren't going to use it for anything anyway
> ...



I'm sorry, but the foreskin is not comparable to the labia, either outer or inner.  You should work on your anatomical studies a bit more.

And I'm sorry again, but while the Jews were the first to practice circumcision, it did not become widespread as some sort of "residual religious effect".  It was medically indicated and undeniably beneficial for a long time.  However, the medical establishment now believes that their science has now progressed to the point where the health concerns that circumcision mitigates can be dealt with in other ways.


----------



## Schnizel (Jul 28, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DV8 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Actually, it's homologous. Perhaps you should study more.


> And I'm sorry again, but while the Jews were the first to practice circumcision, it did not become widespread as some sort of "residual religious effect"


.
Actually, it did, which is why it's primarily practices in nations with a strong Christian influence.



> It was medically indicated and undeniably beneficial for a long time.



it was never such a valid medical procedure as they'd have you believe. Much like Female Hysteria, it was merely a means of seeking to justify things.


----------



## manu1959 (Jul 28, 2009)

hey....if you want your kid to look like an anteater....fine with me.....

i prefer the german helmet look......


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 28, 2009)

Schnizel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DV8 said:
> ...



No, they aren't, and if you were going for intimidation via big words, you have the wrong opponent.  That whole "I'ma throw out something with lots of syllables, and then loftily suggest that you study, and that'll make it sound like I have a scary argument" thing just makes me laugh.

The foreskin is also known as the prepuce.  In female anatomy, that term is used to denote the "hood" over the clitoris.  It is THAT anatomical part to which the foreskin is "homologous", Mr. Webster.  Perhaps YOU should do a little studying before you set out to impress me.


Schnizel said:


> > And I'm sorry again, but while the Jews were the first to practice circumcision, it did not become widespread as some sort of "residual religious effect"
> 
> 
> .
> Actually, it did, which is why it's primarily practices in nations with a strong Christian influence.



Really?  Then how come it's only been really common in the US in the twentieth century, and has never been that common in Europe at all?



Schnizel said:


> > It was medically indicated and undeniably beneficial for a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> it was never such a valid medical procedure as they'd have you believe. Much like Female Hysteria, it was merely a means of seeking to justify things.



If you're seriously trying to get me to believe that the American Academy of Pediatrics, in the mid-twentieth century, was recommending a surgical procedure so widely that 90% of male children had it on the same basis that nineteenth century doctors talked about "the vapors", you're going to have to earn a lot more credibility first.


----------



## Sinatra (Jul 28, 2009)

"What the hell - why these kids gotta start a thread about this? Musta been some momma boy liberal..."


----------



## Schnizel (Jul 28, 2009)

So the people doing the female circumcisions are doing it wrong? Damned, I'll tell 'm to make sure they just take the hood.


Thanks for helpin' us fix that


----------



## Schnizel (Jul 28, 2009)

Sorry, the medical dictionary I had was from the 50's


----------



## brewerboy (Jul 28, 2009)

Most chics I've polled on this have said that they dont dig un circumsized pee-pees.

But I do wonder how much it hurts babies. My son was given a thing of baby tylenol and he slept forever, and then seemed extra cranky when he woke up.

And man, it takes forever for that little ring/cap thingy to fall off!


----------



## BrianH (Jul 28, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Do you think infant circumcision should be banned?
> 
> Should it be legal to physically hurt and permanently disfigure a baby who could not possibly consent to it.
> 
> The questionable medical benefits (STD protections mostly) can easily be substituted with a condom. So should this be considered infringing on a baby's rights?



The idea to ban circumcision is retarded.  1. Condom companies say they don't protect against STDs.  
2.  Having a circumcised penis is not having a "disfigurement." 

I know someone who was not circumcised.  As a child, he didn't know to keep "very clean" down there and it got infected.  He was extremely embarassed about the infection and neglected to tell anyone.  The infection got worse until he got really sick and eventually was forced to go to the doctor.  It still embarasses him to this day.

Studies show that there really is know medical reasons to be, or not to be, circumcised.  But it really doesn't matter because 1.  60% of American males ARE circumcised. 2. Infants don't remember the circumcision or the pain. And 3. You're more likely to be made fun of in the locker room if you're uncircumcised.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 28, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think infant circumcision should be banned?
> ...



Name One condom company that says they don't protect against STDs, I've heard birth control pill sellers say it all the time but not condom companies.

You clean a intact dick with soap and water it's not that hard. From what I hear it takes less time than to floss properly.

Anyway I'd say it's a disfigurement because there's no way the penis is going to look like that naturally and the foreskin won't come back by itself.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 29, 2009)

Well you don't get to decide for the entire population. Sorry. It's no more painful than those awful heel pricks they do to get blood samples.

I've been there for 2 of them. Took about 2 seconds, babies quit crying within minutes and didn't cry again.


----------



## brewerboy (Jul 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Well you don't get to decide for the entire population. Sorry. It's no more painful than those awful heel pricks they do to get blood samples.
> 
> I've been there for 2 of them. Took about 2 seconds, babies quit crying within minutes and didn't cry again.



Have you been there after the babies are delivered back to their parents or the hospital nursery?

Not trying to be a smartass, but seriously. Have you?


----------



## Samyaza (Jul 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Well you don't get to decide for the entire population. .



This seems to be a trend when it comes to ignorant arguments.. You can' decide whether one can mutilate the genitals of  a child. You can't decide whether someone may kill their child. Do people not realize that it's an anarchist argument that, logically extrpolated, argues for to abolition of all law?


----------



## Hugh7 (Jul 29, 2009)

Father Time said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > I know someone who was not circumcised.  As a child, he didn't know to keep "very clean" down there and it got infected.  He was extremely embarassed about the infection and neglected to tell anyone.  The infection got worse until he got really sick and eventually was forced to go to the doctor.  It still embarasses him to this day.


This is the Fallacy of the Vivid Instance. You don't know the literally billions of men (seven out of ten of the world's men) who are intact and have never had any trouble, but you're prepared to recommend circumcising every baby on the basis of this one - who may not even have been circumcised, or needed it if he was. (US doctors are taught _nothing_ about the foreskin except how to cut it off.) The real problem with this child is the exaggerated shame that prevented him seeking treatment. (And he might have concealed the problem because he'd heard about getting it cut off, or even been threatened with that.)



> > Studies show that there really is know medical reasons to be ...circumcised.


That in itself should be enough reason not to do it.  


> > But it really doesn't matter because 1.  60% of American males ARE circumcised.


How does that make it not matter? 


> > 2. Infants don't remember the circumcision or the pain.


You could justify drug rape using that argument (and no, I'm not comparing them in any other way)


> > And 3. You're more likely to be made fun of in the locker room if you're uncircumcised.


With the rate down to 55%, no you're not. But that's just saying he must have part of his penis off to make him conform. And when he comes home and asks why he's different from the others, I'd rather be able to tell him that their parents had part of their peepees cut off and we didn't, than that they didn't and we did.


> You clean a intact dick with soap and water it's not that hard.


It's even easier to clean if it _is_ hard.





> From what I hear it takes less time than to floss properly.


That's a good comparison. About as long as to floss between two or three teeth. And it's more fun. (See above.)


----------



## JW Frogen (Jul 29, 2009)

I have no foreskin in this fight but still my glorious penis looks like an Evil Empire Storm Trooper!

All thanks to the the Dark Side of the circumcision.


----------



## Anguille (Jul 29, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Studies show that there really is know medical reasons to be, or not to be, circumcised.  But it really doesn't matter because 1.  60% of American males ARE circumcised. 2. Infants don't remember the circumcision or the pain. And 3. You're more likely to be made fun of in the locker room if you're uncircumcised.



1. And their undergoing an unnecessary operation makes your point how?

2. So the pain doesn't matter? Studies show children are very much influenced in how they will turn out later in life by what happens to them in the early years of life.

3. As if there arent unlimited reasons for being teased in a locker room. Never happen to my boyfriend.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 29, 2009)

Anguille said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Studies show that there really is know medical reasons to be, or not to be, circumcised.  But it really doesn't matter because 1.  60% of American males ARE circumcised. 2. Infants don't remember the circumcision or the pain. And 3. You're more likely to be made fun of in the locker room if you're uncircumcised.
> ...



Not my opinion...google circumcised vs. uncircumcised and you'll come up with a study by the University of Michigan.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 29, 2009)

Father Time said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



FDA Releases Draft Guidelines for Latex Condoms; Packages Would Say They "Greatly Reduce But Do Not Eliminate" Risk of HIV, Pregnancy - The Body


----------



## Barb (Jul 29, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Do you think infant circumcision should be banned?
> 
> Should it be legal to physically hurt and permanently disfigure a baby who could not possibly consent to it.
> 
> The questionable medical benefits (STD protections mostly) can easily be substituted with a condom. So should this be considered infringing on a baby's rights?



 It isn't only prevention of STDs, there's yeast infections that are easier to prevent (pretty much entirely) with a circumcision. Its harder to deal with once the kid reaches the age of consent, according to men who've had it done later in life, especially if there's a pretty nurse coming in and out of the room.... Still, I didn't want my son cut, and his father (my late ex-husband) knew it. He signed those papers when I was asleep. Poor kid. I woke up and there he was, a day old with a look on his face that said, "you let them _hurt_ me."


----------



## Anguille (Jul 29, 2009)

Anyone relying on being circumcised to prevent him from catching an STD is in trouble.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jul 29, 2009)

Anguille said:


> The babies are too young for regular anesthesia. They cry out in pain.



How many circumcisions have you witnessed?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2009)

Schnizel said:


> Sorry, the medical dictionary I had was from the 50's



Wow.  Two whole posts in a row that make no frigging sense at all.  You going for some sort of record here?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2009)

Samyaza said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Well you don't get to decide for the entire population. .
> ...



Well, unfortunately for this little argument, circumcisions are often done for religious reasons, and the law of the land prohibits the infringement of religious practice.  Show me someone having an abortion for religious reasons, and then we'll talk about the two being analogous.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 29, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Samyaza said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Do satanists count? I could've sworn I heard of one being done for their religion although that may have just been a rumor.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Samyaza said:
> ...



Was this supposed to be your idea of a clever, substantive post?


----------



## Father Time (Jul 29, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



No an honest question.


----------



## Hugh7 (Jul 29, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Samyaza said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Freedom of religion is not unlimited. Plenty of religions have in the past provided for human sacrifice (in fact there's a remnant of that in Christianity) but that would not be allowed today. Surgical, sterile, minimal, anaesthetised female genital cutting is part of the religious practice of Malaysia and Indonesia - they just call it "circumcision" - yet that would not be allowed in most of the English-speaking world. A good rule is "My freedom to practice my religion ends where your body begins" and when the body modification involved is permanent, it seems reasonable to protect children as well, boys as we now do for girls, for the sake of _their_ freedom of (and from) religion as adults.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2009)

Hugh7 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Samyaza said:
> ...



You are correct that freedom of religion is not unlimited, and must give way to things like the right to life of others.  However, regardless of the personal enmity of some against male circumcision, the fact is that it is not comparable to things like abortion (which involves death) and female circumcision (which has no medical benefit whatsoever, and results in harmful damage of lack of proper function of the involved body parts).  Therefore, there is not a sufficiently valid argument for overruling freedom of religion in this instance.

My suggestion is that those who don't like male circumcision follow the advice endlessly parroted with much less logic in abortion arguments:  if you don't like circumcision, don't get one.


----------



## Hugh7 (Jul 29, 2009)

Barb said:


> It isn't only prevention of STDs, there's yeast infections that are easier to prevent (pretty much entirely) with a circumcision.


 Yeast infections are caused by a bacterial imbalance and can be corrected without surgery (as they can in women), for example by applying yoghurt, but they need to be eradicated in both partners at once to stop them passing back and forth.


> Its harder to deal with once the kid reaches the age of consent, according to men who've had it done later in life, especially if there's a pretty nurse coming in and out of the room....


In Finland, where they know more about the foreskin than how to cut it off, the lifetime risk of circumcision is less than one in 6000.  


> Still, I didn't want my son cut, and his father (my late ex-husband) knew it. He signed those papers when I was asleep. Poor kid. I woke up and there he was, a day old with a look on his face that said, "you let them _hurt_ me."


Jebus, what a betrayal - of you both! No wonder he's your ex. We call this "the adamant father syndrome".


----------



## Hugh7 (Jul 29, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hugh7 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Notice I specified "Surgical, sterile, _minimal_, anaesthetised female genital cutting" which does not meet your criteria. Malaysians and Indonesians believe their variety of FGC _has_ medical benefits. Their name for it means "purification". They are just as devoted to it as Americans are to male circumcision.


> Therefore, there is not a sufficiently valid argument for overruling freedom of religion in this instance.


Who says male circumcision has to be as bad as abortion or African-style FGC before it is not protected by freedom of religion? If some religion mandated cutting off a baby's earlobe, we'd outlaw the practice in a moment. 



> My suggestion is that those who don't like male circumcision follow the advice endlessly parroted with much less logic in abortion arguments:  if you don't like circumcision, don't get one.


That argument has no logic (in either debate).


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 29, 2009)

Hugh7 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Hugh7 said:
> ...



We aren't talking about what behaviors are allowed in Malaysia and Indonesia.  We're talking about religious freedom and medical science in the United States of America.  



Hugh7 said:


> > Therefore, there is not a sufficiently valid argument for overruling freedom of religion in this instance.
> 
> 
> Who says male circumcision has to be as bad as abortion or African-style FGC before it is not protected by freedom of religion? If some religion mandated cutting off a baby's earlobe, we'd outlaw the practice in a moment.



Okay, this time when I say it, actually read and comprehend it, instead of spending the whole time thinking of whatever Mr. Clever Dick remark you can come up with to try to produce an "Aha!" moment.

The law says that male circumcision, and other religiously-mandated practices, have to meet a certain standard of unacceptability before the freedom of religion can be infringed. THAT is "who says".

We would outlaw cutting off a baby's earlobe for religious reasons because there is no connected medical benefit whatsoever to cutting off an earlobe.  That is one reason why no form of female circumcision whatsoever is allowed in the US, despite the religions present here which practice it in other countries:  because our medical establishment recognizes no concrete medical benefit.  If Jews were just cutting off foreskins because they liked the way penises look without them, we wouldn't allow that, either.

Again, you can argue the extent of the medical benefits to male circumcision all you like.  Certainly, the American Academy of Pediatrics has, which is why it is now viewed as elective surgery, rather than essential, and is not covered by Medicaid or most insurance carriers.  But only a damned fool tries to pretend that they don't exist at all.

Now, if you require me to lay this out for you neatly and clearly one more time by your attempts to confuse and muddle the various issues together in order to make some sort of point that only impresses you, I will know that you either have nothing real and just want to be pugnacious, or that you need me to draw you pictures.



Hugh7 said:


> > My suggestion is that those who don't like male circumcision follow the advice endlessly parroted with much less logic in abortion arguments:  if you don't like circumcision, don't get one.
> 
> 
> That argument has no logic (in either debate).



Incorrect.  While it IS illogical to try to say that one can ignore the killing of other people as long as they aren't among them, it is completely logical to say that one can and should ignore a practice that is not, generally speaking, harming anyone at all and is therefore purely a matter of opinion and personal preference.


----------



## Hugh7 (Jul 30, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hugh7 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


It was you who started mentioning FGC (which was covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield in the US until 1977). I specified at the outset that I was talking about "Surgical, sterile, _minimal_, anaesthetised female genital cutting" which was done in the US for claimed medical benefits. 

But you hopelessly confuse the issue by switching randomly between medical benefits and religious freedom. Holy Communion, Bar Mitzvah and Ramadan fasting have no medical benefits. (The fasting may even be harmful, but Muslims choose it individually for themselves. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if children were exempt.) They are allowed because the US embodies the right to practice religion in its Consititution.  

Circumcision is very different. It involves cutting a healthy, non-renewing erogenous part off _somebody else_.



> The law says that male circumcision, and other religiously-mandated practices, have to meet a certain standard of unacceptability before the freedom of religion can be infringed. THAT is "who says".


It does? Where? What is the "certain standard of unacceptability". So far as I know the law is silent on the subject, and it is silent on the subject of circumcision.

It outlaws polygamy, however:



> REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES.
> SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
> 98 U.S. 145
> OCTOBER, 1878, Term
> ...


Polygamy, so far as I know, poses no health risks.



> We would outlaw cutting off a baby's earlobe for religious reasons because there is no connected medical benefit whatsoever to cutting off an earlobe.  That is one reason why no form of female circumcision whatsoever is allowed in the US, despite the religions present here which practice it in other countries:  because our medical establishment recognizes no concrete medical benefit.


There you go again, mixing medical and religious in a purely arbitrary way (as I don't think anyone has done before you, and for the sake of sanity I hope nobody does again).



> If Jews were just cutting off foreskins because they liked the way penises look without them, we wouldn't allow that, either.


Says who? Gentiles can and do (I think some have posted to that effect here), so it would be discriminatory to allow them and forbid Jews.



> Again, you can argue the extent of the medical benefits to male circumcision all you like.  Certainly, the American Academy of Pediatrics has, which is why it is now viewed as elective surgery, rather than essential, and is not covered by Medicaid or most insurance carriers.  But only a damned fool tries to pretend that they don't exist at all.


Sure, cutting off any body part absolutely extinguishes the possibility of disease in that part, but that's about the end of it. You also have to look at the quantum of benefit, expressed in the Number Needed to Treat vs Number Needed to Harm, and circumcision ends up on the red side of the ledger.





> Hugh7 said:
> 
> 
> > > My suggestion is that those who don't like male circumcision follow the advice endlessly parroted with much less logic in abortion arguments:  if you don't like circumcision, don't get one.
> ...


At the risk of starting an abortion thread, to call abortion at every point in pregnancy from conception to birth "the killing of other people" is to beg a host of questions. Pregnancy is a _process_ involving the most dramatic possible change in status. It is universally agreed that a born baby has full human status, including the right to security of the person, and equality of the sexes.



> it is completely logical to say that one can and should ignore a practice that is not, generally speaking, harming anyone at all


But you cannot speak generally when it is done 1.2 million times a year in the US, and is unquestionably harming some of those people.



> and is therefore purely a matter of opinion and personal preference.


YES, personal preference - the personal preference of the person on the other end of the penis. Why is that so difficult to understand?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 30, 2009)

Hugh7 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Hugh7 said:
> ...



Sorry, but no on both counts.  I didn't introduce female circumcision into the conversation.  I merely answered its insertion.  Also, past decisions which have been revoked are as irrelevant as discussions of Malaysia and Indonesia are.  Once upon a time, medicine also touted the "benefits" of bleeding people with leeches for all manner of illnesses.  Then they learned better, and stopped.



Hugh7 said:


> But you hopelessly confuse the issue by switching randomly between medical benefits and religious freedom. Holy Communion, Bar Mitzvah and Ramadan fasting have no medical benefits. (The fasting may even be harmful, but Muslims choose it individually for themselves. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if children were exempt.) They are allowed because the US embodies the right to practice religion in its Consititution.



I may have confused YOU, but I haven't confused the issue.  Religion and religious freedom in the United States do not exist in a vacuum.  Freedom of religion, like all freedoms here, exists within boundaries, and one of the biggest boundaries for any freedom is perceived harm to others.  Those who make our laws are advised in their determination of that perception by the American medical community.  Thus, we limit religious freedom in regards to procedures, like female circumcision, which our medical community deems to be harmful without any balancing benefit, and does NOT limit religious freedom in regards to procedures like male circumcision, which our medical community does not deem to be harmful and/or has balancing benefits.

It is YOU who continually tries to confuse the issue by introducing bullshit strawman arguments like "cutting off earlobes" and rituals that have nothing whatsoever to do with medicine or physical changes, such as Communion and fasting.  (Although I will say you're mistaken about fasting being harmful or having no medical benefits.  Many physicians believe that a period of fasting can actually have a beneficial cleansing effect on the body, undertaken properly.)



Hugh7 said:


> Circumcision is very different. It involves cutting a healthy, non-renewing erogenous part off _somebody else_.



There is no medical support for the idea that circumcision hampers the erogenous capabilities of the male genitals, and I can tell you from experience that it makes no noticeable difference to the female partner, so spare me.  As for removal of body parts to improve health, until recently, tonsils and appendixes were routinely removed in order to improve the health of the patient, and I don't just mean when they became badly inflamed.  It was once standard practice for a surgeon who was already working in that area of the body to go ahead and remove the appendix while he was there, to eliminate any chance of it becoming a problem later.  Like male circumcision, such practice has fallen out of favor with medical authorities, but many doctors will still recommend appendectomies and tonsilectomies at the first sign of problems, even if it could be treated otherwise.



Hugh7 said:


> It does? Where? What is the "certain standard of unacceptability". So far as I know the law is silent on the subject, and it is silent on the subject of circumcision.



The law is NOT silent on the subject of circumcision, which is why it's LEGAL.  Duhhh.



Hugh7 said:


> It outlaws polygamy, however:
> 
> 
> Polygamy, so far as I know, poses no health risks.



There you go again, trying to confuse the issue with bullshit, unrelated straw men.  Polygamy is not a medical prodedure, dumbass, so it's not judged according to health risks.  If you're planning on wasting my time with crap like this, tell me now.



Hugh7 said:


> There you go again, mixing medical and religious in a purely arbitrary way (as I don't think anyone has done before you, and for the sake of sanity I hope nobody does again).



Again, the only confusion here is in your own head, and it's not my job to help you pretend to be sane by talking down to your perception capabilities.  If you can't keep up, find a new subject that's your speed.

We are talking about a medical procedure.  It is done, in many cases, because of religious beliefs.  Thus, there is no "arbitrary mixing" involved.  The two are connected on this subject.  Don't blame me if you can't handle reality.



Hugh7 said:


> Says who? Gentiles can and do (I think some have posted to that effect here), so it would be discriminatory to allow them and forbid Jews.



What in the Hell are you babbling about?  No one suggested letting Gentiles do something and forbidding Jews.

::sigh::  Try to follow this.  Non-Jewish people get cicumcisions because they offer medical benefits.  If they didn't, those people wouldn't get them, and there's a chance the law would also view it as an unacceptable religious practice where Jews are concerned.  Where you got "If it were just cosmetic, we'd forbid Jews to do it . . . but we'd still let Gentiles" is beyond me.



Hugh7 said:


> Sure, cutting off any body part absolutely extinguishes the possibility of disease in that part, but that's about the end of it. You also have to look at the quantum of benefit, expressed in the Number Needed to Treat vs Number Needed to Harm, and circumcision ends up on the red side of the ledger.



Okay, really, why are you here discussing a topic you so clearly haven't bothered to get even the slightest grasp on beforehand?  Males are not circumcised to prevent diseases of the FORESKIN, you ignoramus.

I'm not even going to waste my time explaining the medical benefits involved here, because I'm offended that you have wasted this much of my time without even vaguely educating yourself.  Go look it up and come back when you have something intelligent to contribute.  "Disease in that part."  Honestly.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 30, 2009)

Cec perhaps you can show us case law about the boundary of freedom of religion vs. harming others


----------



## Bootneck (Jul 30, 2009)

Did you hear about the blind circumciser? He missed and got the sack.


----------



## Phoenix (Jul 30, 2009)

Bootneck said:


> Did you hear about the blind circumciser? He missed and got the sack.





> You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.



Bummer.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 30, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Cec perhaps you can show us case law about the boundary of freedom of religion vs. harming others



Nice try, but I've never bought into your little games of "I must substitute legalese for common sense observation" before, and I won't start now.

If you want to present yourself to everyone as being too stupid to suss out what criteria the law uses for infringing on religious freedom (or any Constitutional freedom), do it solo.  You bore me.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 30, 2009)

You're the one who's been insisting you know what the legal precedent is, you should be able to back up your claims.


----------



## Hugh7 (Jul 30, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hugh7 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Once upon a time, medicine in the rest of the English-speaking world also touted the "benefits" of cutting off foreskins for all manner of illnesses.  Then they learned better, and stopped. (And leeches have made a comeback, in certain specialised cases.)



> I may have confused YOU, but I haven't confused the issue.  Religion and religious freedom in the United States do not exist in a vacuum.  Freedom of religion, like all freedoms here, exists within boundaries, and one of the biggest boundaries for any freedom is perceived harm to others.  Those who make our laws are advised in their determination of that perception by the American medical community.  Thus, we limit religious freedom in regards to procedures, like female circumcision, which our medical community deems to be harmful without any balancing benefit,


Yet ALL FGC, no mattor how minor and therefore harmless is outlawed. Why the double standard?





> and does NOT limit religious freedom in regards to procedures like male circumcision, which our medical community does not deem to be harmful and/or has balancing benefits.
> 
> It is YOU who continually tries to confuse the issue by introducing bullshit strawman arguments like "cutting off earlobes" and rituals that have nothing whatsoever to do with medicine or physical changes, such as Communion and fasting.


Circumcision is unique. There is NO other cutting off of living tissue that is also a religious ritual and allowed in the US. (I'm open to correction.) If it didn't involve the permanent removal of tissue, there would be no objection to it. So Cecilie can always dismiss any kind of comparision as a "bullshit strawman argument". When appropriate I will continue to make comparisons to other surgical procedures and other religious rituals. 


> (Although I will say you're mistaken about fasting being harmful or having no medical benefits.  Many physicians believe that a period of fasting can actually have a beneficial cleansing effect on the body, undertaken properly.)


I didn't say fasting in general, only the fasting of Ramadan.





> There is no medical support for the idea that circumcision hampers the erogenous capabilities of the male genitals, and I can tell you from experience that it makes no noticeable difference to the female partner, so spare me.


Anecdotal evidence. Sample of one. Plenty of contrary anecdotal evidence, and some studies. Studies that claim the opposite are remarkable for failing to consider the foreskin itself.





> As for removal of body parts to improve health, until recently, tonsils and appendixes were routinely removed in order to improve the health of the patient, and I don't just mean when they became badly inflamed.  It was once standard practice for a surgeon who was already working in that area of the body to go ahead and remove the appendix while he was there, to eliminate any chance of it becoming a problem later.  Like male circumcision, such practice has fallen out of favor with medical authorities, but many doctors will still recommend appendectomies and tonsilectomies at the first sign of problems, even if it could be treated otherwise.


Yes, we call those "scalpel-happy". US doctors tend to continue to be scalpel-happy towards the foreskin. And the medical claims for circumcision are quite as bogus as those for routine tonsillectomy.





> The law is NOT silent on the subject of circumcision, which is why it's LEGAL.  Duhhh.


It's not? Then it will be no trouble to quote chapter and verse.





> There you go again, trying to confuse the issue with bullshit, unrelated straw men.  Polygamy is not a medical prodedure, dumbass,


Did I say or imply that it was?





> so it's not judged according to health risks.  If you're planning on wasting my time with crap like this, tell me now.


The interesting thing about polygamy is that it's nowadays quite hard to see why it's outlawed, except religious intolerance - at least, when all parties give their informed adult consent. Its relevance here is that it impinges on bodily integrity a great deal _less_ than circumcision.





> Again, the only confusion here is in your own head, and it's not my job to help you pretend to be sane by talking down to your perception capabilities.  If you can't keep up, find a new subject that's your speed.
> 
> We are talking about a medical procedure.  It is done, in many cases, because of religious beliefs.  Thus, there is no "arbitrary mixing" involved.  The two are connected on this subject.  Don't blame me if you can't handle reality.


Actually, Maimonides enjoined Jews to circumcise for faith only, and no other reason. And 97% of circumcisions in the US have nothing to do with religion.

(It is not only medicine and religion that have been entangled in circumcision. Conformity, non-conformity, enhancing sexuality, diminishing sexuality, as a rite of passage to adulthood, the list is endless [see www . circumstitions . com / Stitions.html ] - Don't know what to do? Cut of someone else's foreskin! What's striking is how the ground keeps shifting. The secular operation was begun to "cure" and punish masturbation. It seemed to succeed because the boys made damned sure they weren't caught again after that, lest worse befall. What confused the issue was that stamping out masturbation was called "moral hygiene", so it got confused with real hygiene. As anti-masturbation hysteria waned, fear of STIs took over, then cancer, then UTIs, and so, inevitably, HIV/AIDS. One fanatic has already claimed it's good for swine flu, apparently on a "Why not? It's good for everything else!" basis. Once it became customary, "He should look like his father" was wheeled up and "He must look like his peers". Once foreskins became rare, they were also demonised, and women's sexual preference was brought in.)



> Hugh7 said:
> 
> 
> > Says who? Gentiles can and do (I think some have posted to that effect here), so it would be discriminatory to allow them and forbid Jews.
> ...





Cecilie1200 said:


> If Jews were just cutting off foreskins because they liked the way penises look without them, we wouldn't allow that, either.





> ::sigh::  Try to follow this.  Non-Jewish people get cicumcisions because they offer medical benefits.  If they didn't, those people wouldn't get them,


 The vast majority of people who "get circumcisions" do so because they're not strong enough to resist, being only a few days old.





> and there's a chance the law would also view it as an unacceptable religious practice where Jews are concerned.  Where you got "If it were just cosmetic, we'd forbid Jews to do it . . . but we'd still let Gentiles" is beyond me.


Don't put quotation marks around things I didn't say.





> Hugh7 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, cutting off any body part absolutely extinguishes the possibility of disease in that part, but that's about the end of it. You also have to look at the quantum of benefit, expressed in the Number Needed to Treat vs Number Needed to Harm, and circumcision ends up on the red side of the ledger.
> ...


Posthitis. Balantis Xerotica Obliterans (BXO). Phimosis.





> I'm not even going to waste my time explaining the medical benefits involved here, because I'm offended that you have wasted this much of my time without even vaguely educating yourself.  Go look it up and come back when you have something intelligent to contribute.  "Disease in that part."  Honestly.


What do they say about when one finger points at someone else, who the others point at?


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 9, 2009)

> Moses Maimónides (1135-1204), known as       the "Rambam," was a medieval Jewish rabbi, physician and       philosopher who stated unequivocally that the real purpose of       circumcision was to reduce sexual gratification. According to       Maimónides (see 1963 translation, p. 609),
> Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of       the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about       a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ       in question, so that this activity be diminished and the       organ be in as quiet a state as possible... In fact this       commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting       what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is       defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is       the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities       necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed       thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent       concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are       diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of       sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the       pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been       made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it       must indubitably be weakened.
> In the English speaking world, circumcision was introduced       as a medical procedure in the late-nineteenth century       (Hodges, 1997). Victorian notions about the "ills of       masturbation" influenced some physicians to endorse       amputation of the erotogenic foreskin as "preventative       therapy" since circumcised boys could not use their foreskins       for masturbation (Moscucci, 1996). Circumcision subsequently       was accepted as a panacea for many conditions, including       epilepsy, paralysis, malnutrition, "derangement of the       digestive organs," chorea, convulsions, hysteria, and other       nervous disorders (Gollaher, 2000). In the ensuing decades,       as each claimed benefit of circumcision was disputed, another       would come to take its place (Hodges, 1997).



Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 9, 2009)

The purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from gentiles. Period. Believe me, the Hebrews were all about increasing in number. They weren't interested in reducing sexual gratification.


----------



## xotoxi (Sep 9, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> The purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from gentiles.


 
Did you say that the purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from their _genitals_?

Uh...I don't think that they cut should be that deep.


----------



## jillian (Sep 9, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> The purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from gentiles. Period. Believe me, the Hebrews were all about increasing in number. They weren't interested in reducing sexual gratification.



As I understand it, the purpose of circumcision was a reaffirmation of the covenant and a symbol of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.


----------



## xotoxi (Sep 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > The purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from gentiles. Period. Believe me, the Hebrews were all about increasing in number. They weren't interested in reducing sexual gratification.
> ...


 
So the foreskin stands for Isaac?

I'm sure he'd be pleased.


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 9, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> The purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from gentiles. Period. Believe me, the Hebrews were all about increasing in number. They weren't interested in reducing sexual gratification.


I thought it was so you could tell your kids from the livestock? At least that's what you said before. Or are gentiles subhumans, too?


----------



## jillian (Sep 9, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



 it stands for the promise... but i figure the offering of a little bit of foreskin sure beats the alternative.

like i said, i'm no scholar about this, but that's what my understanding is.


----------



## xotoxi (Sep 9, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > The purpose of circumcision was to separate Hebrews from gentiles. Period. Believe me, the Hebrews were all about increasing in number. They weren't interested in reducing sexual gratification.
> ...


 
It wasn't livestock.  

It was animals in general (i.e. bears, elephants, otters, walruses).


----------



## JBeukema (Sep 9, 2009)

Yea... she cried to the mods (probably KK) and I got banned for linking to her posts about thinking to/quoting her sons cocks look better cut and only being able to tell them apart from orangutans because they're circumcised


----------



## xotoxi (Sep 9, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Yea... she cried to the mods (probably KK) and I got banned for linking to her posts about thinking to/quoting her sons cocks look better cut and only being able to tell them apart from orangutans because they're circumcised


 
I linked to them too...but I didn't get banned.

***Methinks you were banned for other reasons***


----------



## keee keee (Sep 9, 2009)

Under Obamacare circumcision will be manditory. He promised us HOPE  and CHANGE, and with the change he wants the tip!!!


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Hey, wait... if circumcision distinguished human from non-human, does that mean most on-Jews in the world are subhumans, Allie?

Very Old Testament at you- convenient excuse for genocide.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Samyaza said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...




What about human sacrifice for religious reasons?


'freedom of religion' is not a blank check for anything you declare part of your religion.


----------

