Ban Male Genital Mutiliation, says European Council

[Pandeeria]

From http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/full

"The glans in the circumcised male is less sensitive to fine-touch pressure than the glans of the uncircumcised male. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis."

Sensitive doesn't mean has less pleasure in bedroom situations, it might just mean it's less likely that premature....things will happen then, apparently.

Either way, I have to go to work, so I'll be on later to discuss this. Please keep it civil.

Actually it kind of does reduce pleasure by removing nerve endings.

See ya.

[Neo-Mlytoria]

But it wasn't even the child's option to get circumcised yet he should still die? You could just educate kids in sec ed class about circumcision and exaggerate all the negatives. That would save more lives and not be as bad.

If the child is left to their parents they will surely grow up to be theist zealots just like their parents, and continue the cancer. If their parents are arrested and they're given to foster care they're all but surely socially and economically screwed from the get-go and just a burden on society, all-around a negative return on investment no matter how you slice it.

Lives such as those will ultimately cause more suffering and burden than they are worth. Kill the parents and let what will happen to the infants, happen; the individual can be replaced, as humans are essentially factories for making more like themselves. Whereas, the structural integrity of all society is not so easily replaced. It took humans centuries to drag ourselves out of our darkest times, every time they happened. What is one life here and there when stacked against the loss of prosperity of all mankind, and the doubtless obscene in comparison quantities of lives it would destroy? Nothing.

[The Independent Isle of Wight]

uh..I'm a moslemppp but I don't think circumcision is a cultural practice in Islam

only probably a few people do it in the muslim world

but its not anything in the crazy numbers

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Country_Level.png

[Geilinor]

But it wasn't even the child's option to get circumcised yet he should still die? You could just educate kids in sec ed class about circumcision and exaggerate all the negatives. That would save more lives and not be as bad.

If the child is left to their parents they will surely grow up to be theist zealots just like their parents, and continue the cancer. If their parents are arrested and they're given to foster care they're all but surely socially and economically screwed from the get-go and just a burden on society, all-around a negative return on investment no matter how you slice it.

Lives such as those will ultimately cause more suffering and burden than they are worth. Kill the parents and let what will happen to the infants, happen; the individual can be replaced, as humans are essentially factories for making more like themselves. Whereas, the structural integrity of all society is not so easily replaced. It took humans centuries to drag ourselves out of our darkest times, every time they happened. What is one life here and there when stacked against the loss of prosperity of all mankind, and the doubtless obscene in comparison quantities of lives it would destroy? Nothing.

I'm going to end this discussion with you now. I read your sig, and it says, "I believe genocide of certain groups is good". I think that's despicable. You're advocating the death of countless babies.

[The Serbian Empire]

They're so aggressive that they will probably create violence that is both senseless and endless. This is the evils of fundamentalism, but to win against them is to fight fire with fire. Either way, human rights will be forgotten in favor of silencing one group or the other.

Do you know what i imagine?
"Well, having a black president, or from the democrat party, will surely create violence within the redneck community. Better not do it even when the majority agreed to it."
"We should legalize human sacrifices, because else those 2 aztek fundamentalists will get even more violent."
"We should censor the press, or else people might be responsible for fundamentalists doing crimes."

Since when is capitulation to violence even remotely an option?

When the general safety of everyone is at risk. It's the key of my views of the Non-Aggression Principle. That is, do not do if it may lead to harm to oneself and others from people who don't follow the principle.

[Pandeeria]

But it wasn't even the child's option to get circumcised yet he should still die? You could just educate kids in sec ed class about circumcision and exaggerate all the negatives. That would save more lives and not be as bad.

If the child is left to their parents they will surely grow up to be theist zealots just like their parents, and continue the cancer. If their parents are arrested and they're given to foster care they're all but surely socially and economically screwed from the get-go and just a burden on society, all-around a negative return on investment no matter how you slice it.

Lives such as those will ultimately cause more suffering and burden than they are worth. Kill the parents and let what will happen to the infants, happen; the individual can be replaced, as humans are essentially factories for making more like themselves. Whereas, the structural integrity of all society is not so easily replaced. It took humans centuries to drag ourselves out of our darkest times, every time they happened. What is one life here and there when stacked against the loss of prosperity of all mankind, and the doubtless obscene in comparison quantities of lives it would destroy? Nothing.

You sound like an athiest-fundimentalist, with a social Darwin political view, which is bad. It's not the child fault and no one should be killed. You're no better then the very "cancer" you speak of.

[Jamjai]

uh..I'm a moslemppp but I don't think circumcision is a cultural practice in Islam

only probably a few people do it in the muslim world

but its not anything in the crazy numbers

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Country_Level.png

thanks.

I actually don't know anything about this subject

[Ifreann]

Removing a person's foreskin without permission is harmful in and of itself.

And you're wrong and clearly trying invalidate any opinion that doesn't agree with you.

You're right. I made it up. It's very easy to lie on the internet, you see, so it's best not to believe unsupported claims.

See what I'm getting at here?

I'm not interested in people's beliefs about souls. Foreskins are very real things. Souls, not so much.

And comparing people's opinion on them irrelevantly to your opinion on some other things.

Are foreskins part of the child's body before they are circumcised? If yes, then it is a matter of bodily integrity.

Baptism involves getting a wet head. Circumcision involves part of one's body being permanently removed.


I don't want to ban circumcision. If it is done on the legitimate advice of a doctor or with the informed consent of the person being circumcised then have at it. I want to ban circumcising children for no good reason.

Actually my opinion is based on logical reasoning from the axiom that one owns one's body and thus should control what happens to it.

So?


No, I'm just able to form opinions without relying on anecdotes.

Aside from the limited effects of slightly less pleasure in the bedroom, I can't think of any legitimate effects that are common enough to have people upset at this.

The very fact of cutting off part of a person's body without permission is the harm here. It doesn't matter whether there are long term effects or not.

Look, I was a bit rash calling your claim untrue. I have no doubt you know a collection of people who hate that they were circumcised,

Actually I don't know a single person who hates that they were circumcised. At least, none of the people I know who have been circumcised have expressed to me that they hate it. I couldn't even say for sure how many circumcised people I know. I don't often ask about my friend's genitals.

but by no means is that the majority of the population of those who have gone through the process. I haven't seen a single study connected to this, so I'm going to contradict your claims.

So you don't believe what I say without corroborating evidence. Good. I don't believe what you say without corroborating evidence. So when you keep saying things about how so many people are okay with being circumcised, I don't believe a single one of them. Not that this really changes anything.

You want circumcision done if for medical reasons and legitimate advice? I personally agree, but if those who share my religion want to do it, it is not my right to take that away from them.

Nonsense. Everyone has the right to protect their own rights and the rights of other where necessary.

When it comes to ones body, for the most part humans are not capable of what is good in relation to a body until they are 18. I personally think that is the best time to do it, but if my fellow jews want to keep with tradition, that's their prerogative, not ours.

It absolutely is not. Their religious beliefs change nothing about the situation, they are still removing part of someone's body without permission or justification and that is wrong.

Look, you are the one who brought up people you know having been harmed by it, I was bringing up the people I know, all of them who have had it done, who haven't.

Look, I am not using anecdotes here.

YES! You are! Bringing up the people you know and how they feel about their circumcisions is anecdotal! And I only brought up the people I know(which was a lie on my part) to highlight how your anecdotes prove nothing.

I am using opinion, that's it. You can disagree, this is what a discussion is about, not a hate war.

You're irritating at the most, I certainly don't hate you.

[Geilinor]

Do you know what i imagine?
"Well, having a black president, or from the democrat party, will surely create violence within the redneck community. Better not do it even when the majority agreed to it."
"We should legalize human sacrifices, because else those 2 aztek fundamentalists will get even more violent."
"We should censor the press, or else people might be responsible for fundamentalists doing crimes."

Since when is capitulation to violence even remotely an option?

When the general safety of everyone is at risk. It's the key of my views of the Non-Aggression Principle. That is, do not do if it may lead to harm to oneself and others from people who don't follow the principle.

The violation of the right to bodily sovereignty through non-medical circumcision is where the aggression is coming from, not the European Council.

[Ifreann]

Ban this madness.

The nuts crazy enough to do it back-alley style would be a good thing, because they could be summarily executed, and using the crude surgical implements and medical knowledge available to the common person would no doubt make for a very high mortality rate, thus rapidly killing one more tumor of the cultural cancer that sickens this world, much of the people that comprise that particular tumor before they should even grow old enough to become a problem in the future when they're adults.

No thanks, I'm not interested in facilitating your gore fetish.

[Occupied Deutschland]

From http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/full

"The glans in the circumcised male is less sensitive to fine-touch pressure than the glans of the uncircumcised male. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis."

Circumcision doesn't affect fertility, nor is circumcision generally thought to enhance or detract from sexual pleasure for men or their partners.

[The Independent Isle of Wight]

Here's a fun image. TLDR explanation is red = awesome bits.http://31.media.tumblr.com/4d6486d017706e533d471000fd09403f/tumblr_mn9kvu0Una1qhno3uo1_1280.gif

[Ifreann]

If you support HOOP, you'll have the JDL on your ass.

HOOP?

[The Independent Isle of Wight]

Circumcision doesn't affect fertility, nor is circumcision generally thought to enhance or detract from sexual pleasure for men or their partners.

It'd be great if you could post a link to how they came to this conclusion!

[Neo-Mlytoria]

I'm going to end this discussion with you now. I read your sig, and it says, "I believe genocide of certain groups is good". I think that's despicable. You're advocating the death of countless babies.

Death of some to the end of a better life for everyone else; to cut clean the cancer to save the body of humanity. Why should it matter that they're "adawwable babbies" or whatever you will? Would not countless more children die, ultimately, as a result of letting those children grow up and continue the cultural cancer that so sickens society today?

[Christian Democrats]

<snip>

The small sample size yields misleading figures. Larger studies, however, come to similar conclusions.

In several large epidemiologic studies, the authors found that the incidence of significant urinary tract infections in uncircumcised males less than six months of age was 1 to 4 percent. The incidence in circumcised males was only 0.1 to 0.2 percent.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/1999/0315/p1472.html

[Pandeeria]

I'm going to end this discussion with you now. I read your sig, and it says, "I believe genocide of certain groups is good". I think that's despicable. You're advocating the death of countless babies.

Death of some to the end of a better life for everyone else; to cut clean the cancer to save the body of humanity. Why should it matter that they're "adawwable babbies" or whatever you will? Would not countless more children die, ultimately, as a result of letting those children grow up and continue the cultural cancer that so sickens society today?

You advocate murder, and you're for genocide, execution, and population control. You could easily be considered the "cancer" of society.

[Siaos]

I'm Christian, but really? You want to ban circumcision for babies? The ritual which is a central part of the religion of at least 6 million people in the world? Banning it would be an obvious religious rights violation and, taking an argument from the pro-choicers, people are going to perform it anyway, especially if they believe that God wants them too. The only difference is that it will be in secret.

And the ritual barely qualifies as "mutilation", its a small piece of unessential skin on the penis.

Also, at the risk of getting too detailed, it is possible to regrow that skin within monthes with simple procedures.

[Occupied Deutschland]

It'd be great if you could post a link to how they came to this conclusion!

Probably from the AAP making no mention of it in their report on the topic.

The 'circumcision reduces sensetivity/pleasure' argument is unfounded bunk by unbiased standards. Bodily sovereignty is a much better argument.

[Souseiseki]

I'm Christian, but really? You want to ban circumcision for babies? The ritual which is a central part of the religion of at least 6 million people in the world? Banning it would be an obvious religious rights violation and, taking an argument from the pro-choicers, people are going to perform it anyway, especially if they believe that God wants them too. The only difference is that it will be in secret.

And the ritual barely qualifies as "mutilation", its a small piece of unessential skin on the penis.

Also, at the risk of getting too detailed, it is possible to regrow that skin within monthes with simple procedures.

lol are you seriously going to say it's a goddamn central part?

1) believe in the lord our god
2) cut your babies penis
3) thou shalt not kill

[The Independent Isle of Wight]

Banning it would be an obvious religious rights violation

Religious rights do not cover the mutilation of others!

And the ritual barely qualifies as "mutilation", its a small piece of unessential skin on the penis.

You consider the 5 most sensitive parts of your sex organ to be 'unessential'?

[Pandeeria]

I'm Christian, but really? You want to ban circumcision for babies? The ritual which is a central part of the religion of at least 6 million people in the world? Banning it would be an obvious religious rights violation and, taking an argument from the pro-choicers, people are going to perform it anyway, especially if they believe that God wants them too. The only difference is that it will be in secret.

And the ritual barely qualifies as "mutilation", its a small piece of unessential skin on the penis.

Also, at the risk of getting too detailed, it is possible to regrow that skin within monthes with simple procedures.

Your religious freedoms and ideals do not apply to others. You shouldn't be able to invade others bodily sovereignty because your religion says so. We don't live under a Theocracy, religion doesn't make you right or legally able to ignore others basic human rights.

The foreskin has a purpose. There is a reason why it evolved there.

You may try foreskin restoration but it won't be exactly like a true and natural foreskin. Once you lose it, you cannot fully go back.

[Lordieth]

I'm Christian, but really? You want to ban circumcision for babies? The ritual which is a central part of the religion of at least 6 million people in the world? Banning it would be an obvious religious rights violation and, taking an argument from the pro-choicers, people are going to perform it anyway, especially if they believe that God wants them too. The only difference is that it will be in secret.

And the ritual barely qualifies as "mutilation", its a small piece of unessential skin on the penis.

Also, at the risk of getting too detailed, it is possible to regrow that skin within monthes with simple procedures.

What about the rights of the child? Surely the rights of the child outweigh the religious rights of the parents.

[Siaos]

I'm Christian, but really? You want to ban circumcision for babies? The ritual which is a central part of the religion of at least 6 million people in the world? Banning it would be an obvious religious rights violation and, taking an argument from the pro-choicers, people are going to perform it anyway, especially if they believe that God wants them too. The only difference is that it will be in secret.

And the ritual barely qualifies as "mutilation", its a small piece of unessential skin on the penis.

Also, at the risk of getting too detailed, it is possible to regrow that skin within monthes with simple procedures.

lol are you seriously going to say it's a goddamn central part?

1) believe in the lord our god
2) cut your babies penis
3) thou shalt not kill

Its a ritual which had been practiced for more than 2000 years, so yes. I am saying that.

[Nervium]

I'm Christian, but really? You want to ban circumcision for babies? The ritual which is a central part of the religion of at least 6 million people in the world? Banning it would be an obvious religious rights violation and, taking an argument from the pro-choicers, people are going to perform it anyway, especially if they believe that God wants them too. The only difference is that it will be in secret.

And the ritual barely qualifies as "mutilation", its a small piece of unessential skin on the penis.

Also, at the risk of getting too detailed, it is possible to regrow that skin within monthes with simple procedures.

The parents rights end where the rights of a child begins, a child is not property, you are not allowed to do with it as you please.

And no, it can not regrow.