if you ever have kids, you might discover that it's not such a black and white world.

5/23/2011 4:08:34 PM

Quote :

"The lack of merits for corporal punishment belong in a different thread. Comparing corporal punishment to cosmetic surgery for infants is ludicrous."

I disagree. the question is what are parents allowed to do to their children. Why the parent chose to do it to their children seems irrelevant to me.

On a slightly different subject, if you asked the child whether they would prefer circumcision or growing up in foster care because the state imprisoned their parents, I wonder which they would choose.

5/23/2011 4:24:21 PM

Since we want to talk about it here, I have a 3 year-old and timeout and taking away privileges has been incredibly effective. We're at the point that the threat (and her fully knowing that it's not an empty threat) of punishment is effective at dealing with most misbehavior. Even before timeout was feasible we found non-physical methods to modify behavior to be extremely effective (changing the situation or environment to make the behavior impossible or undesirable to her).

Quote :

"I disagree. the question is what are parents allowed to do to their children. Why the parent chose to do it to their children seems irrelevant to me. "

Well you're right in that "circumcision" and "sending your kids to bed without their supper" are both in the category of "things parents do to their children" they are so far on opposite ends of the severity spectrum that the comparison is ridiculous.

Quote :

"On a slightly different subject, if you asked the child whether they would prefer circumcision or growing up in foster care because the state imprisoned their parents, I wonder which they would choose."

And nowhere have I suggested imprisoning anyone for circumsizing their children. I understand how ingrained it is in our culture and do not entirely fault a parent for not understanding the gravity of what they're doing to their child. At some point (after laws has been in effect for a long period of time) harsher punishments may be warranted, but going from "the thing to do" and "put you in federal pound me in the ass prison" overnight would be unfair.

5/23/2011 4:36:54 PM

One thing is for sure:

If no religion had ever called for circumcision or brought attention to the foreskin, no one would be doing it today.

5/23/2011 6:03:16 PM

^^ If you are not suggesting a law be passed against it, then what are you suggesting? The thread is about throwing people in jail for up to a year for circumcising their male children. That last statement means you are also against the ban described in the original post.

^ And if no religion had called attention to the middle east, the "Jewish State" would probably still be New York and people probably wouldn't be blowing themselves up over it.

[Edited on May 23, 2011 at 6:05 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/23/2011 6:03:20 PM

Quote :

"Wrong wrong wrong. It cannot possibly function in exactly the same way it did before."

too bad there is no definitive proof for that. DOH!

your links concerning circumcision show studies with evidence against circumcision, but there are equally valid studies to show now long term effects. As in, it's still up in the air.

Quote :

"The big fucking deal is that you are cutting a newborn with a knife in an incredibly sensitive part of the body for no damned reason."

Except a religious ritual. Which is protected by the 1st Amendment. DOH!

Quote :

"is cutting a newborn with a knife causing harm or not?"

in this case, no, it's causing zero harm.

Quote :

"But why? Why is it ok to lop off a part of a dick but not superficially harm them in a way that won't leave permanent damage? "

Hmmm, a medical procedure versus a beating. why is one worse than the other? hmm...

Quote :

"And people ask me what damage religion does to this world. Your claim of zero harm is absolutely wrong."

Yep. I've really been horribly harmed by being circumcised. If your example of "harm religion does to the world" is "random shit that causes zero harm that people don't even remember," then you've got a weak case.

Quote :

"it is a well-known fact that men with uncircumcised penises derive greater pleasure from sex as the penises are more sensitive."

reference? source? Facts not offered.

Quote :

"Time-out, removal of privileges, and scolding are a few."

And it none of that works as well as a spanking. Hell, none of that works at all. My niece is living proof.

Quote :

"Hitting your child or depriving them of nutrition are examples of lazy and cruel parenting."

Sending your child to bed without dinner once is not "depriving them of nutrition." jeez.



but, yep, noooooooooo benefits. none at all...
http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

and what was that about reduced sexual pleasure?
http://www.circinfo.net/circumcision_sensitivity_sensation_sexual_function.html

Quote :

"The foreskin contains sensory nerve receptors as are prevalent over the rest of the penis. There is no scientific evidence that the extra complement of these in uncircumcised men leads to greater sexual pleasure."

DOH!!!

[Edited on May 23, 2011 at 6:27 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2011 6:16:36 PM

cutting the umbilical cord is barbaric irreversible mutilation!!1

5/23/2011 6:31:37 PM

the table at the bottom of the page here it up pretty nicely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Satisfaction
ergo, zero harm. religious ritual. 1st amendment. stop feeling bad about something you don't even fucking remember that has zero affect on your life except for your foreskin envy



oh, and the Kim and Pang study? Widely criticized as being poorly designed and focusing on masturbation, not sex. DOH!

Quote :

"Another flawed study was conducted in Korea. This examined masturbation, rather than a male's typical sexual expression, namely vaginal intercourse, and confused "sexuality" (in the title of the article) with "male sexual response" [Kim & Pang, 2007]. The various flaws, including poor study design, and the authors' statement that all men in Korea are circumcised, then giving a tally of circumcised men that exceeded the n value of the cohort, makes one wonder about the thinking of the authors, not to mention the source of the uncircumcised men! These serious errors and other deficiencies in their study has led to it being criticized severely [Willcourt, 2007]."

5/23/2011 6:50:00 PM

Quote :

"too bad there is no definitive proof for that. DOH! your links concerning circumcision show studies with evidence against circumcision, but there are equally valid studies to show now long term effects. As in, it's still up in the air."

Your bullshit knows no bounds. The long term effects are lack of a foreskin. Produce the "equally valid studies that show now[sic] long term effects.

Quote :

"Except a religious ritual. Which is protected by the 1st Amendment. DOH!"

Harming others is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Quote :

"in this case, no, it's causing zero harm."

Why the qualifier "in this case?" What cases when cutting a newborn with a knife is it harm? How are we to differentiate between the cases?

Quote :

"Hmmm, a medical procedure versus a beating. why is one worse than the other? hmm..."

An unnecessary medical procedure (no immediate medical necessity by definition) that causes permanent scarring. Do you agree that unnecessary medical procedures are assault? If so, would the burden of proof not be on you to prove that the procedure is necessary? Or can I perform surgery on you without anesthesia with the benefit of our doubt?

Quote :

"Yep. I've really been horribly harmed by being circumcised. If your example of "harm religion does to the world" is "random shit that causes zero harm that people don't even remember," then you've got a weak case."

By this line of reasoning, I can rape you with a broomstick, scar you for life and as long as I beat the shit out you so that you don't remember it and you fully recover (but still scarred) it's ok.

Let's pretend for a moment that you could remember getting the tip of your dick chopped off. Would it have been wrong then? If you could remember being pinned down and having your foreskin forcibly removed, would it have been wrong? How does being able to remember it have any bearing whatsoever on whether actual harm is caused?

Quote :

"And it none of that works as well as a spanking. Hell, none of that works at all. My niece is living proof."

And my daughter is proof that it works perfectly fine. But anecdotal evidence is for the birds. If you don't already understand that current pediatric teaching regarding punishment recommends not to spank and is backed up by scientific research, then me citing this claim is absolutely worthless.

You're not going to read it, but here it is.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;101/4/723.pdf

Quote :

"Sending your child to bed without dinner once is not "depriving them of nutrition." jeez."

I don't know, it seems to fit the bill entirely. You are depriving them of eating (the manner in which their body gains nutrition) as a means of discipline. One night probably won't cause any lasting damage, but it's not a method of punishment I agree with nonetheless.

Nothing on "http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html" is cited in the least. Every claim I've provided has been cited. Not only that, but each claim on "circinfo.com" is fallacious. Anything regarding the transmission of disease is entirely invalidated by hygiene and safe sex practices.

The table at the bottom of the page just shows many studies with varying results. It doesn't sum up anything. The accurate statement is the very first line of the wiki: The sexual effects of circumcision are the subject of some debate. There are obviously many studies on both sides of the argument.

You seem to think I have to prove that the procedure has long term harmful effects in order to justify not cutting our children. I wish you could just see the insanity of this statement.

At the very least, the pain inflicted directly on the child and (even if local anesthetic is used, which is not likely) the pain and discomfort felt by the child during recovery is an infliction of harm on the child. It's up to you to justify it and "tradition" and "religious rules" are not good enough.

I mean honestly, if "doesn't remember it, but leaves a permanent scar" is your litmus test for not harming a person I seriously wonder if we can continue this conversation.

5/23/2011 7:55:35 PM

our children are not old enough for us to ask them to consent to the procedure. But other cultures do wait. Would you accept the procedure being done on an 8 year old consenting to the procedure because they don't know any better as is common in some 3rd world countries?

I am assuming you miss-spoke when you said "Do you agree that unnecessary medical procedures are assault?" As if we should go out and arrest all the nation's plastic surgeons.

Also, you missed this very relevant question:
"If you are not suggesting a law be passed against it, then what are you suggesting? The thread is about throwing people in jail for up to a year for circumcising their male children. That last statement means you are also against the ban described in the original post." As such, it seems your only goal is to get the rest of us to acknowledge your disapproval of the practice. Well, i agree with you. I will never circumcise my children. But I am also deeply opposed to depriving children of their parents over this issue.

[Edited on May 23, 2011 at 11:41 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/23/2011 11:35:34 PM

Quote :

"our children are not old enough for us to ask them to consent to the procedure. But other cultures do wait. Would you accept the procedure being done on an 8 year old consenting to the procedure because they don't know any better as is common in some 3rd world countries? "

I honestly don't know what age a person should be allowed to give consent to a cosmetic procedure. It's younger than 18.

Quote :

"I am assuming you miss-spoke when you said "Do you agree that unnecessary medical procedures are assault?" As if we should go out and arrest all the nation's plastic surgeons. "

Unnecessary without consent. Derp.

Quote :

"Also, you missed this very relevant question: "If you are not suggesting a law be passed against it, then what are you suggesting? The thread is about throwing people in jail for up to a year for circumcising their male children. That last statement means you are also against the ban described in the original post." As such, it seems your only goal is to get the rest of us to acknowledge your disapproval of the practice. Well, i agree with you. I will never circumcise my children. But I am also deeply opposed to depriving children of their parents over this issue. "

I'm not sure. On the one hand I agree with not depriving children of their parents and effectively punish the children for their choices, and on the other this is a behavior that should be stopped, like any form of child abuse. I don't know that prison time is in order, as parents certainly aren't acting maliciously when they choose to circumcise their children and as we've already discussed are influenced by very strong social factors. But where do you start?

5/24/2011 12:03:34 AM

Quote :

"But where do you start?"

In the marketplace of ideas. Try to convince your friends and family not to do it and don't do it yourself. If it is not worth throwing people in jail or otherwise ruining people's lives, then don't. Join us in opposing this law.

5/24/2011 8:15:09 AM

Quote :

"if you ever have kids, you might discover that it's not such a black and white world."

The world .... is full of beautiful nuance *chops a little kid's wiener*

5/24/2011 10:06:24 AM

I both love and hate you, McDanger.

5/24/2011 11:02:16 AM

while i think your position here is fairly retarded stu youre doing a helluva job in the bible threads.

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 11:28 AM. Reason : i]

5/24/2011 11:21:02 AM

smegma

5/24/2011 11:21:18 AM

Quote :

"whole i think your position here is fairly retarded stu youre doing a helluva job in the bible threads."

Please, explain why snipping off part of your baby's penis for negligible (and arguably detrimental) medical/cosmetic benefits is not retarded.

5/24/2011 11:25:56 AM

first you need to understand my position, if i havent made it clear, is about the practical benefits of this and not religion in any way.

i am not religious and my parents are not either.

my mom has been an RN for decades and made that decision based on experience.

honestly from all the material ive read i dont think the medical or cosmetic benefits are even debatable. as strange as it might seem ive had this conversation many times are girls are ALWAYS repulsed by the idea of an uncut guy. but maybe the female population of charlotte nc isnt particularly open minded? furthermore if my penis has been desensitized then maybe the ladies enjoy the extra time it takes me to blow my load? it does blow, btw, and has not been rendered inoperable by this devastating surgery.

the burning of the doctors blade still permeates my mind- although the memory of this pain thankfully blocks the memory of coming out of my moms vagina.

please devote this protest energy to something else- for example, why did i have to get my hepatitis shots at school? it was mandatory. but why couldnt i just do it at the doctors office? you think a needle cant really fuck you up? youve never had some of the dumb twats sticking me then.

mole removal. ive had some taken off for cosmetic reasons and others because they were genuine concern. some of the ones i just thought looked bad ended up being early melanoma. some of the scary ones ended up being benign. all of them get tested, but thank god i was vain enough to go under the blade.

a couple of these were when i was little and my mom made the call. recently theyve fallen under my decision. im glad those decisions were made for me in hindsight- holy shit i cant even imagine getting circumcised now.

maybe you should have thumped morse code to your mother through the womb and informed her you didnt want this done?

oh yeah! youre a baby and dont know shit! well looks like the people who made you are about to make one of many calls influencing your life.

wait nevermind, at that point theyve already made a shitload of decisions regarding you- this is just a drop in the bucket.

youd think the kind of parents who give birth to such a forward-looking and enlightened stud would have been so impossibly liberal in the first place they would have never allowed such a hedonistic religious blade to touch your ween.

unfortunately it seems your college experiences have made you want to step back into cavetimes with your tubesausage.

have fun with this line of thought- its not going to pass even in san francisco of all places. if it doesnt float there then youre not going to get traction ANYWHERE. youll have to save it for the drum circle.

and yeah, the smegma post reminds me, i dont know if we covered cleanliness already, but yeah.

if you always wanted to grow cheese on your dick and market it through hillshire farms, and your parents have caused retroactive economic hardship on you, then by all means sue them. ill take my crackers with ham and swiss and eat them in a hot tub full of beautiful women that arent afraid my genitals resemble a moray eel entering and exiting its lair.




[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 11:54 AM. Reason : ! ! !]

5/24/2011 11:46:46 AM

Okay, I skipped a bunch of your rambling nonsense but I'll address the main points:

Quote :

"honestly from all the material ive read i dont think the medical or cosmetic benefits are even debatable."

What have you read? The medical benefits are most definitely debatable. Circumcision has some medical benefit, but having a foreskin has benefits as well.

http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm

Quote :

"as strange as it might seem ive had this conversation many times are girls are ALWAYS repulsed by the idea of an uncut guy. but maybe the female population of charlotte nc isnt particularly open minded"

Or maybe your friends are just ignorant.

Quote :

"oh yeah! youre a baby and dont know shit! well looks like the people who made you are about to make one of many calls influencing your life."

What do you think about deaf parents who refuse to have their deaf kids' hearing fixed? It's their choice I guess!

Quote :

"have fun with this line of thought- its not going to pass even in san francisco of all places. if it doesnt float there then youre not going to get traction ANYWHERE. youll have to save it for the drum circle."

I don't agree with this law, but I do think circumcision is wrong in most cases.

Quote :

"and yeah, the smegma post reminds me, i dont know if we covered cleanliness already, but yeah."

You don't clean your dick?

5/24/2011 12:09:01 PM

of course but its o so easier now.

5/24/2011 1:27:12 PM

^
How is it so much easier? Lift up arm, clean armpit. Pull back foreskin, clean dick.

Clearly you are not thinking very hard.

5/24/2011 1:50:26 PM

id gladly have my pits circumcised if it were possible.

5/24/2011 2:02:09 PM

Quote :

"Or maybe your friends are just ignorant."

how is not liking something ignorant unless they had never seen one? And I would make a safe assumption they probably have seen one at least. So gaining more knowledge about circumcision will not make them like it more.

5/24/2011 2:49:21 PM

I was assuming they haven't, hence why I said ignorant and not stupid. They're free to not like it. I prefer non-flappy vaginas, but that doesn't mean girls should have their labia trimmed up nice and neat after they're born.

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 2:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/24/2011 2:52:14 PM

Quote :

"Your bullshit knows no bounds. The long term effects are lack of a foreskin. Produce the "equally valid studies that show now[sic] long term effects."

already done.

Quote :

"Harming others is not protected by the 1st Amendment."

No harm is occurring. so it's protected.

Quote :

"Why the qualifier "in this case?""

Because we're talking about one specific case? is that all that hard to comprehend?

Quote :

"By this line of reasoning, I can rape you with a broomstick, scar you for life and as long as I beat the shit out you so that you don't remember it and you fully recover (but still scarred) it's ok. "

except for the whole "causing zero harm" bit that I mentioned, which "scarring me for life" would clearly contradict. And, no, a circumcision scar does NOT count as "scarring me for life."

Quote :

"If you don't already understand that current pediatric teaching regarding punishment recommends not to spank and is backed up by scientific research, then me citing this claim is absolutely worthless."

I'm sure there is research for it. And I then look at my niece and see that the research is wrong. My parents spank her, and she behaves around them. My sister does not spank her, and she runs wild around my sister.

Quote :

"I don't know, it seems to fit the bill entirely."

No, it really doesn't. Depriving would mean NEVER feeding them.

Quote :

"The table at the bottom of the page just shows many studies with varying results. It doesn't sum up anything."

Actually, it sums it up PERFECTLY. Your "studies" hav-e equally valid studies that show the opposite. Moreover, at least one of your studies is completely invalid, as it focused on masturbation and not sex, among a myriad of other issues.

Quote :

"Not only that, but each claim on "circinfo.com" is fallacious."

have anything to back that up? of course not. are you now more knowledgeable about medicine than a medical doctor?

Quote :

"You seem to think I have to prove that the procedure has long term harmful effects in order to justify not cutting our children."

That is what the burden of proof is. You claim it is terrible and has all these terrible effects, yet you can't seem to prove that they exist Basically, all you've got is "OMG, SOME SKIN IS REMOVED AND IT PROBABLY HURTS!!!" Well, there are plenty of other surgery where skin is removed and it hurts, yet we allow those.

Quote :

"At the very least, the pain inflicted directly on the child and (even if local anesthetic is used, which is not likely) the pain and discomfort felt by the child during recovery is an infliction of harm on the child."

And parents do plenty of other things that cause pain, plenty of other medical things. This one is no different. That there is also a religious element for some only bolsters the case.

Quote :

"It's up to you to justify it and "tradition" and "religious rules" are not good enough."

When there is zero harm occurring, yes, they are good enough.

Quote :

"I mean honestly, if "doesn't remember it, but leaves a permanent scar" is your litmus test"

Not my litmus test. Mine is "zero harm." Nice strawman.

Quote :

"Unnecessary without consent. Derp."

So then all medical procedures performed before a child can consent are assault. got it.

Quote :

"it does blow, btw, and has not been rendered inoperable by this devastating surgery."

So then, you agree, it functions perfectly fine. zero harm.

now, let's look at your "harm"...

1. Full penis length and circumference. really? it makes it "look bigger?" woopty fuckin do.
2. Protection. My dick hasn't fallen off yet. I've had zero complications with it. Billions of other people haven't had it fall off, either. Billions of other people still have functioning dicks. Sounds like this "protection" thing is pretty bunk.
3. Ridged bands. And there are plenty of studies that show no sexual impairment. So, this is a worthless claim, too. Then there's this:

Quote :

"Taylor 'discovered' this 'ridged band' at the tip of the foreskin by studying less than a dozen dead bodies! This was by no means a scientific study. On the basis of these few observations he postulates (ie guesses) that there is a band of tissue at the tip of the foreskin with an erotic purpose. He fails to recognise that these men might, like so many uncircumcised men, have been suffering from phimosis or that rigor mortis, which would have already set in, might itself be the explanation. "

4. Gliding action. Actually proven false. The notion of the foreskin acting as a bearing has been shown to be fallacious. Good work!
5. Specialized sensory tissue. ALL nerves are specialized sensory tissue. There's nothing "special" about the foreskin. I'm not particularly concerned that I am not able to use my dick as a thermometer, though.
6. The frenulum Again, studies show no sexual impairment, and studies are conflicting as to whether sexual enjoyment is altered.
7. Proper blood flow. My penis still hasn't fallen off.
8. Immunological defense. and there is plain evidence that it can also represent a disease enabler. DOH!
9-14. Shit gets cut off Well no shit! Does it matter? Nope.
15. Natural texture and coloration of the glans. Some women like that look. Some don't. Woopty fucking do.
16. Zero risk of serious infection or surgical injury. I'd like to see some statistics on the number of boys who have to be castrated because they were circumcised. Proper medical care will prevent infection.
http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html
.19% complication rate in a study of 100,000 circumcisions in one study. 6 complications out of 11,000 in another, zero deaths. One death from 1939 to 1951 out of over half a million circumcisions in another study in the US. .2% of complications out of 350,000 in another study. Sounds like the risk is already pretty much zero.
17. Zero risk of death from surgery. Again, can we get some statistics on the number of boys who have been killed because they had a little skin snipped off? Really reaching at this point.
http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html

Quote :

"There are no deaths today from medical circumcisions in developed countries."

18. Zero risk of delayed or diminished maternal bonding. Allow me to quote:

Quote :

"There is some evidence that circumcision within the first few days of life may somewhat disturb the bonding process. However, if circumcision is performed during, or after, the second week of life the bonding has already occurred and there is no disturbance to it. Indeed many doctors recommend that the boy should be suckled immediately after his circumcision - something that comes very naturally to the baby. "

So, that's debunked
19. Electromagnetic "cross-communication." really? really... really?
20. The foreskin is necessary for optimal health and well-being of the male, as well as contributing to fulfillment in his sexual relationships. I guess they are, again, ignoring the multitude of studies that show zero sexual impairment and no affect on sexual enjoyment.



So, what was your case for harm, again?

Quote :

"What do you think about deaf parents who refuse to have their deaf kids' hearing fixed? It's their choice I guess!"

I'd imagine the risk of complications from fucking around near the brain might be slightly higher than .3% as it is from snipping some foreskin. Moreover, can you give ANY statistics to back this absurd claim up? Probably not.

Quote :

"How is it so much easier? Lift up arm, clean armpit. Pull back foreskin, clean dick."

Sure, that's easy for a 20-something. try teaching that to a 2 year old. The fact is, little boys are dirty. This helps keep it cleaner, and there are KNOWN complications from a dirty weiner.

5/24/2011 4:51:28 PM

You are god-damned outrageous. I don't even have to respond. You're the only person convinced that circumcision isn't immediately and long term harmful and I don't even give a fuck what your opinion is any more.

5/24/2011 4:58:59 PM

hahaha. I'll take that as an admission of defeat, then. I've given you fucking links to studies and sites that show that what you are saying is bullshit. All you've got is "it leaves a scar!" but hey, don't trust me. don't trust the myriad of studies that show no harm. Nope, trust your foreskin envy. And you call me deluded

allow me to say it again:

now, let's look at your "harm"...

1. Full penis length and circumference. really? it makes it "look bigger?" woopty fuckin do.
2. Protection. My dick hasn't fallen off yet. I've had zero complications with it. Billions of other people haven't had it fall off, either. Billions of other people still have functioning dicks. Sounds like this "protection" thing is pretty bunk.
3. Ridged bands. And there are plenty of studies that show no sexual impairment. So, this is a worthless claim, too. Then there's this:

Quote :

"Taylor 'discovered' this 'ridged band' at the tip of the foreskin by studying less than a dozen dead bodies! This was by no means a scientific study. On the basis of these few observations he postulates (ie guesses) that there is a band of tissue at the tip of the foreskin with an erotic purpose. He fails to recognise that these men might, like so many uncircumcised men, have been suffering from phimosis or that rigor mortis, which would have already set in, might itself be the explanation. "

4. Gliding action. Actually proven false. The notion of the foreskin acting as a bearing has been shown to be fallacious. Good work!
5. Specialized sensory tissue. ALL nerves are specialized sensory tissue. There's nothing "special" about the foreskin. I'm not particularly concerned that I am not able to use my dick as a thermometer, though.
6. The frenulum Again, studies show no sexual impairment, and studies are conflicting as to whether sexual enjoyment is altered.
7. Proper blood flow. My penis still hasn't fallen off.
8. Immunological defense. and there is plain evidence that it can also represent a disease enabler. DOH!
9-14. Shit gets cut off Well no shit! Does it matter? Nope.
15. Natural texture and coloration of the glans. Some women like that look. Some don't. Woopty fucking do.
16. Zero risk of serious infection or surgical injury. I'd like to see some statistics on the number of boys who have to be castrated because they were circumcised. Proper medical care will prevent infection.
http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html
.19% complication rate in a study of 100,000 circumcisions in one study. 6 complications out of 11,000 in another, zero deaths. One death from 1939 to 1951 out of over half a million circumcisions in another study in the US. .2% of complications out of 350,000 in another study. Sounds like the risk is already pretty much zero.
17. Zero risk of death from surgery. Again, can we get some statistics on the number of boys who have been killed because they had a little skin snipped off? Really reaching at this point.
http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html

Quote :

"There are no deaths today from medical circumcisions in developed countries."

18. Zero risk of delayed or diminished maternal bonding. Allow me to quote:

Quote :

"There is some evidence that circumcision within the first few days of life may somewhat disturb the bonding process. However, if circumcision is performed during, or after, the second week of life the bonding has already occurred and there is no disturbance to it. Indeed many doctors recommend that the boy should be suckled immediately after his circumcision - something that comes very naturally to the baby. "

So, that's debunked
19. Electromagnetic "cross-communication." really? really... really?
20. The foreskin is necessary for optimal health and well-being of the male, as well as contributing to fulfillment in his sexual relationships. I guess they are, again, ignoring the multitude of studies that show zero sexual impairment and no affect on sexual enjoyment.



So, what was your case for harm, again?

5/24/2011 5:00:40 PM

Maybe I'll beat my head with a baseball bat so I don't remember this conversation so it wouldn't have actually had an effect on me.

5/24/2011 5:02:44 PM

still waiting for you to show any harm


hahaha, and then, number 9 up there says those cells might protect the man from HIV, yet the fucking studies say it's probably a PATHWAY FOR HIV INFECTION! hahahahahahaha
don't believe me? google "Szabo and Short (2000)"

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2011 5:07:45 PM

Quote :

"20. The foreskin is necessary for optimal health and well-being of the male, as well as contributing to fulfillment in his sexual relationships. I guess they are, again, ignoring the multitude of studies that show zero sexual impairment and no affect on sexual enjoyment."

About this point, I want to say something.

Some studies have shown significant decrease in sexual pleasure, and some haven't. Doesn't it stand to reason, then, that it *can* lead to decreased pleasure in some men and not in others? And since there is no way to know beforehand until the child becomes an adult, shouldn't circumcision not be performed as it *could* lead to significantly decreased pleasure in the future?

Just thinking.

5/24/2011 5:57:35 PM

Quote :

"Some studies have shown significant decrease in sexual pleasure"

and some have shown an increase in pleasure. and some have shown no change.

Quote :

"And since there is no way to know beforehand until the child becomes an adult, shouldn't circumcision not be performed as it *could* lead to significantly decreased pleasure in the future?"

If that is your only concern, then it may make sense. However, there are other concerns, such as hygiene and cancer risks, not to mention religious aspects.

5/24/2011 6:03:28 PM

Jesus christ. That hygiene thing is so worn out. People in the US have access to running water, and take showers often. 70% of the world manages to not have any problems with it. If you take a shower on a regular basis, there isn't any concern about hygiene. Quite frankly, if you aren't taking a shower anyways, you're gonna have nastiness issues whether or not you got part of your dick removed.

I'm just curious for those people in favor of circumcision...if there is undeniable damage from a botched surgery (let's say .5-1.5% to compensate for several studies...that'd mean roughly 3,322,500-9,967,500 people worldwide), what is the appropriate course of action for the person whose dick is now fucked up?

Lastly, for anyone's concern of "looking different", it's getting to the point in the US where it's just about even, as it's dropped a lot from the 80's to today.

5/24/2011 8:02:11 PM

Quote :

"I'm just curious for those people in favor of circumcision...if there is undeniable damage from a botched surgery (let's say .5-1.5% to compensate for several studies...that'd mean roughly 3,322,500-9,967,500 people worldwide), what is the appropriate course of action for the person whose dick is now fucked up?"

That's not necessarily "undeniable damage". Most of the complications are minor ones that are almost immediately solved with no lasting effect. I mean, what in the fuck are you quoting where there is lasting damage to the penis, other than the missing foreskin?

Quote :

"Jesus christ. That hygiene thing is so worn out. People in the US have access to running water, and take showers often. 70% of the world manages to not have any problems with it. If you take a shower on a regular basis, there isn't any concern about hygiene. Quite frankly, if you aren't taking a shower anyways, you're gonna have nastiness issues whether or not you got part of your dick removed."

And yet, even with parents who are quite clean and bathe their children regularly, problems can still occur. The hygiene issue is certainly a valid concern.

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 8:11 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2011 8:10:23 PM

at the moment, this is the best thread on tdub.

5/24/2011 8:36:46 PM

Quote :

"70% of the world manages to not have any problems with it."

please cite your source.

5/24/2011 9:18:57 PM

seems like some of the people supporting this ban would equivocate getting your tonsils or wisdom teeth removed to being decapitated

5/24/2011 9:23:44 PM

^ yea, what about the people who are not adults (<18) and their parents and doctor decide to get their wisdom teeth out.

wisdom teeth is probably the most valid analogy
permanent scar: yes
decreased ability: yes, less teeth to chew
painful: yes, and this pain the kid can still remember.
legal consent: no, parents make the decision
religion: tooth fairy

ok all but the last one are serious.

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 9:55 PM. Reason : child abuse!]

5/24/2011 9:55:20 PM

Or more aptly, the third molars needed to be removed to facilitate the application of braces.

5/24/2011 10:03:11 PM

painful? i remember (partially) getting my wisdom teeth removed...i dont remember anything about the surgery itself, just that i was wasted on painkillers when my mom took me home

however if being uncircumcised supposedly gives you more sexual pleasure, i dont know if i would want that...that would just mean even more concentration on not nutting too soon

also i wonder if there is a correlation to people ITT supporting the ban being themselves uncircumcised and people opposing the ban being themselves circumcised

[Edited on May 24, 2011 at 11:03 PM. Reason : awkward transition from mom taking me home, to sexual pleasure ]

5/24/2011 10:54:57 PM

hell, I still can't feel the right-most quarter of my tongue and the bottom fourth of my mouth from when I had my wisdom teeth out.

5/24/2011 11:27:01 PM

Quote :

"i wonder if there is a correlation to people ITT supporting the ban being themselves uncircumcised and people opposing the ban being themselves circumcised"

I don't think anyone in this thread is supporting the ban. It's ludicrous to put people in jail for circumcision, when its such an ingrained practice.

5/25/2011 8:49:58 AM

if you have an erection lasting longer than 4 hours, please contact a doctor.

5/25/2011 8:54:47 AM