Add to availability of condoms and sex and hygiene ed the fact that clean water and soap is more readily available outside major parts of Africa, and there remains no argument for circumcision. Especially not for infants who still have many years before engaging in sexual relations. By sexual maturity, they can hopefully reach an informed decision on if they want to get mutilated or not.
-
Features
Should circumcisions be illegal?
- Thread starter NobleSavage
- Start date
Add to availability of condoms and sex and hygiene ed the fact that clean water and soap is more readily available outside major parts of Africa, and there remains no argument for circumcision. Especially not for infants who still have many years before engaging in sexual relations. By sexual maturity, they can hopefully reach an informed decision on if they want to get mutilated or not.
A little off topic, but it just occurred to me, if illegals were circumcised, it would greatly discourage people trying to sneak across our borders.
That melds PERFECTLY with my favorite plan that we give a 20-mile wide swath along the Rio Grande to the Israelis and let them build a fence. Now add, "and let them circumcise anyone who tries to cross" and I think we have both a secure southern border and a solution to the mideast cluster.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
So I went out and checked. Got mixed review. Yes for health no for cleanliness.
Do uncircumcised guys smell bad? http://foreskinfacts.com/circumcision-myths/do-uncircumcised-guys-smell-bad/
Health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/aap-circumcision-recommendation/
[h=1]Effect of tonsillectomy on health-related quality of life and costs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23679811[/h]
Warp a paper around that cannabis and smoke it.
Do uncircumcised guys smell bad? http://foreskinfacts.com/circumcision-myths/do-uncircumcised-guys-smell-bad/
Health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/aap-circumcision-recommendation/
[h=1]Effect of tonsillectomy on health-related quality of life and costs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23679811[/h]
Warp a paper around that cannabis and smoke it.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Funny, all the research I've seen suggests the exact opposite. The infections they mention for instance circumcision preventing; they're so rare that AFAIK circumcision kills more babies than it prevents these infections (which are perfectly treatable anyhow). They also mention the HIV/Africa study, which has already been addressed. They mention there's a link between circumcision and decreased risk of rare penile cancer. I mean, duh? Does that mean we should preventively cut off breasts too? Finally, they claim there are no scientific studies that support the claim circumcision decreases sexual pleasure, but this is outright *false*: there are in fact studies that show this can happen, and they show that circumcision can result in problems with orgasming. It is true that studies do not show anything approaching a guaranteed decrease in sensitivity, rather what they show is that there is a wide range of possible results, including no change, decreased sensitivity, and even increased sensitivity; in other words, a far cry from their claim there are no studies that show decreased sexual pleasure being a possible result.
A very irresponsible article from CNN if you ask me.
Ya, what the fuck is up with reporting that doesn't validate one's predetermined biases? It's like that one time that a FOX reporter mentioned that he thought Obama did something right. Got his ass fired on the spot. CNN needs to follow that example instead of bullshit like "examining the evidence" and "reporting the facts" or whatever other un-American activities those pinkos are engaging in.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Ya, what the fuck is up with reporting that doesn't validate one's predetermined biases? It's like that one time that a FOX reporter mentioned that he thought Obama did something right. Got his ass fired on the spot. CNN needs to follow that example instead of bullshit like "examining the evidence" and "reporting the facts" or whatever other un-American activities those pinkos are engaging in.
An unfair characterization of my point; namely that there actually are plenty of studies that directly contradict the claims they make in the article, claims that they put forth as factual and scientifically unchallenged. It is the article, in point of fact, that seems designed to validate a pre-determined bias while conveniently ignoring the large body of evidence that contradicts it. Pointing this out, as I have, does not mean I'm calling the article out for not agreeing with *my* bias; it means the exact fucking opposite.
Ya, what the fuck is up with reporting that doesn't validate one's predetermined biases? It's like that one time that a FOX reporter mentioned that he thought Obama did something right. Got his ass fired on the spot. CNN needs to follow that example instead of bullshit like "examining the evidence" and "reporting the facts" or whatever other un-American activities those pinkos are engaging in.
An unfair characterization of my point; namely that there actually are plenty of studies that directly contradict the claims they make in the article, claims that they put forth as factual and scientifically unchallenged. It is the article, in point of fact, that seems designed to validate a pre-determined bias while conveniently ignoring the large body of evidence that contradicts it. Pointing this out, as I have, does not mean I'm calling the article out for not agreeing with *my* bias; it means the exact fucking opposite.
Ya, the smiley means to not take the response seriously because it's meant in jest.
Ya, what the fuck is up with reporting that doesn't validate one's predetermined biases? It's like that one time that a FOX reporter mentioned that he thought Obama did something right. Got his ass fired on the spot. CNN needs to follow that example instead of bullshit like "examining the evidence" and "reporting the facts" or whatever other un-American activities those pinkos are engaging in.
My oldest daughter is a registered nurse. One of her first assignments when she was a newly graduated nurse was on the Veteran's Administration floor of a large hospital. In those days, most of her patients were bedridden men over the age of 60. Part if her duties included sponge baths for these gentlemen. Years later, when my first grandson was born, she cited this experience as the reason for choosing to have her son circumcised. I did not ask her to clarify.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Really? Because it sure seems like a sarcastic attempt to ridicule my stated opposition to the article in question, which is not something one can really just 'take in jest'.
Correct. It was a sarcastic attempt to ridicule your stated opposition to the article in question ... done in jest.
If you want to go ahead and be offended anyways for some reason, then go ahead and be offended but don't bother me with it. I'm only responsible for my own intents and not for your irrational misattributions of my intents.
There is a common saying in my neighborhood, "If you can't take a joke, we enjoy it a little more."
dystopian
Veteran Member
Taking someone else's actual position and then sarcastically adding facets and motivations to it that aren't apparent in order to ridicule the original is what we call a strawman argument; not a joke. Making a joke requires humorous intent and content; which is *always* going to be lacking in a strawman argument masquerading as a 'joke' (more so when it's one that requires the author to insist that 'no really, it's a joke')
If you want to make a joke at my expense, maybe try making it about something that's actually true; like my tendency to deconstruct everything; or my apparent inability to take a hint.
I've seen this referred to as the Mushroom-Turtleneck Law: for every statement or study on circumcision, a contradictory study or statement exists.
The CNN article quotes the American Academy of Pediatrics' 2012 policy paper on circumcision. That paper has been heavily criticised by a panel of doctors from Europe and Canada (where circumcision is less common).
Here is an interesting article about the controversy over whether circumcision lowers the risk of HIV/AIDS:
http://www.poz.com/articles/circumcision_debate_2801_24568.shtml
dystopian
Veteran Member
No doubt. Which is why I take issue with the CNN article, since it tries to paint a picture of the debate being settled, when that is far from true. When it comes to recommending the act of performing surgery on infants that permanently alters their bodies, you'd better damn well make sure that doing so is absolutely necessary and medically warranted; which it certainly doesn't seem to be.
Reading that article is like reading a playground argument transcript; looks like on that side of the atlantic, the debate's devolved to the point where the two sides aren't even listening to each other anymore and are just beating their own chests.
George S
Veteran Member
Speaking of jokes and circumcisions... a one-liner:
Those Jews are an optimistic bunch. They cut a bit off before they even know how long its gonna be.
__________
What degree of bodily mutilation are parents allowed.
Male genital mutilation but not female genital mutilation?
How is the surgical removal of any body part from a child -- from tonsils to foreskin -- for other-than-medical reasons allowed?
Those Jews are an optimistic bunch. They cut a bit off before they even know how long its gonna be.
__________
What degree of bodily mutilation are parents allowed.
Male genital mutilation but not female genital mutilation?
How is the surgical removal of any body part from a child -- from tonsils to foreskin -- for other-than-medical reasons allowed?
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,154
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
It's allowed by law not being an attempt to implement somebody's morality. Law is an attempt to get the ruler what he wants. Usually what the ruler wants is to keep the peace. Letting people persist in their cultures' traditional practices, especially when they're religious obligations, is usually highly expedient.
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported on Thursday that 11 baby boys in New York City were infected with herpes between Nov. 2000 and Dec. 2011 following an ultra-Orthodox Jewish circumcision ritual called metzitzah b’peh — or oral suction — in which the mohel puts his mouth directly on the newborn’s circumcised penis and sucks away the blood...Ten of the babies were hospitalized, at least two developed brain damage and two died,
Trying a couple of 'em for manslaughter ought to help.
As usual it is interesting how "the religious" care so deeply about fetuses yet are willing to sacrifice any number of children to their gods.
Trying a couple of 'em for manslaughter ought to help.
As usual it is interesting how "the religious" care so deeply about fetuses yet are willing to sacrifice any number of children to their gods.
Last edited:
And also maybe arrest them for sucking on a baby's penis.
arkirk
Veteran Member
Not to worry. There is a lot of deep south humor that is not at all funny, that draws belly laughs in that neighborhood. It is a matter of not being there and not understanding the strange social conventions of that place.