• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Call for higher circumcision rate

STD transmission rate is reduced to zero for people who do not have sex with infected males.

Here's an idea, make the treatment for STD's include castration.

Justify the pre-emptive mutilation of the penises of all new-born infants based on the POTENTIAL for any of them to spread a disease they have not yet contracted. Where does this fit in medical ethics? Answer: it is not ethical.

Hyperbole much? I'm not interested in your ability to hypothesize about the absurd. I am interested in a discussion of the data. I don't really much care about your opinions unless they are backed up with supportive evidence.

And medical professionals disagree with you. Just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
The U.S is a circumfetish nation with an obsession with circumcision and you also have an obsession to remove men's foreskin. I already debunked the myths used to justify male genital mutilation. i am not going to repeat myself

Moderator's Warning:
I don't know how you think "circumfetish" helps your argument, but it doesn't. I makes it look like you are trying to flame/bait. Also, I am unaware of any circumcisions that jallman has performed. You would think that if he had such an obsession, I would have heard about this. I seriously doubt you have any proof of him removing any foreskins. This is also flaming/baiting. Please stop immediately or there will be consequences.
 
Yeah, they would be guilty of assault. Now if a parent has an approved medical procedure performed on their child to promote good hygeine and decreased chance of STD transmission (something none of you have refuted), then that would be acceptable.
It has been refuted in that no other part of your body is surgically removed for the purpose of health, hygiene or preemptive care. It's refuted by the fact that this method of hygiene is more invasive than proper cleaning and a lower rate of STDs is had with condom use.
 
It has been refuted in that no other part of your body is surgically removed for the purpose of health, hygiene or preemptive care. It's refuted by the fact that this method of hygiene is more invasive than proper cleaning and a lower rate of STDs is had with condom use.

Both irrelevant points. We're not talking about just any other part of the body. We're talking about the foreskin. What happens to the rest of the body is irrelevant.

And the efficacy of condom use is irrelevant as we are not discussing condom use. We are discussing whether or not circumcision has a health value of lowering STD transmission rates. And studies say, it does. You have been unable to refute that.

Now if you think you can refute that, either by counter study or by a problem with the methodology of the studies in question, by all means.
 
It wasn't a try at dismissal. You've it's been dismissed.
I'm glad you acknowledge that your debate tactic is to be dismissive, not that it hasn't been obvious.

You can't refrain from asking idiotic questions intended only to inflame or what?

Yeah, I saw what it says. And it still does not negate the fact that amputation and excision are not the same thing. It still does not negate the fact that circumcision is not an amputation. Get over it and move on.

You obviously don't know anything about me. I grew up on a farm with an apple orchard. Yes, I have pruned a tree. Which has nothing to do with the incorrect application of the word "amputation".
Yes it is and I've already shown you the definition in public use. Sorry that you can't bear to be proven wrong but that's your psychosis. It's actually irrelevant to the topic which is why you insist on having it your way, so you can divert the discussion. I have no problem using or not using "amputation".

Oh here we go with gratuitous "Baby Jebus knocked me down and stole my bicycle when I was 5" rant...:roll:
Another ad hom, how unusual. Was circumcision created as a religious covenant or not or do you think it was created for hygienic purposes?

I have. I said I don't agree with your assessment. I thought you understand what a disagreement is. :doh
You have? Where have you agreed that surgery to remove healthy tissue should be the last stop, not the first. So your disagreement with me on this issue is what, that circumcision is the last resort?? :confused:


Why would I bother to specifically acknowledge the obvious? :confused:
Because you have a penchant for arguing against the obvious and every detail of an argument must be covered or you'll simply weasel out of the discussion with an ad hom.

Except boob implants, face lifts, chin and nose jobs. Oh wait...but they don't have any coinciding religious context so no need to kick and scream and whine and cry about those. :lol:[/QUOTE]
Nice try at misdirection but we are not talking about the childs choice of an elective surgery. Since you decided be ridiculous, would you be against a parent giving their infant breast implants?
 
Not exactly.

However, that fails to explain where the outrage comes from.
Are you outraged at vaginal mutilation? The outrage comes from people doing things to infant male that is unnecessary. Being a male, I empathize. It's an outrageous procedure that deserves outrage. Add to it that it is yet another outrageous religious practice pushed and disguised by the medical community as something normal and healthy... you get outrage. Doctors are not supposed to purposefully and unnecessarily harm you. You don't see where the outrage comes from?
 
Parents grant consent for their children. There is no mutilation involved in a male circumcision.
Sorry, you can deny amputation if you want but circumcision definitely falls WELL within the accepted definition of mutilation. Denying it only exposes your desire to force your position regardless of fact.
 
I'm glad you acknowledge that your debate tactic is to be dismissive, not that it hasn't been obvious.

I'm glad you keep exhibiting that your debate tactic is to lie and deceive when you are long on nastiness and short on fact, not that it hasn't been obvious.

Yes it is and I've already shown you the definition in public use. Sorry that you can't bear to be proven wrong but that's your psychosis. It's actually irrelevant to the topic which is why you insist on having it your way, so you can divert the discussion. I have no problem using or not using "amputation".

No. You've done verbal and semantic somersaults to attempt to grossly exaggerate the procedure. I'm not buying it and will not respond to dishonest hyperbole of calling an excision and amputation.

Another ad hom, how unusual. Was circumcision created as a religious covenant or not or do you think it was created for hygienic purposes?

Irrelevant. We are discussing the issue under a medical context. I am not concerned with where it started. I am simply concerned with the medical value of the procedure now, which has been proven by studies that you cannot refute. I'm not going to make this into a "nuns barbecued my cat when I was 10 and made me watch them eat it so now I hate all things Jesus" rant just for your therapeutic convenience.

You have? Where have you agreed that surgery to remove healthy tissue should be the last stop, not the first.

No, we did not agree to that. You asserted that. I disagree.

So your disagreement with me on this issue is what, that circumcision is the last resort?? :confused:

That circumcision has a health value and that there is no violation of rights or dignity in its medical practice.

Because you have a penchant for arguing against the obvious and every detail of an argument must be covered or you'll simply weasel out of the discussion with an ad hom.

Just like the above which was nothing more than ad hom at it's finest? Okay, sport...you keep fooling yourself and everyone else will keep laughing at you.

Nice try at misdirection but we are not talking about the childs choice of an elective surgery. Since you decided be ridiculous, would you be against a parent giving their infant breast implants?

Nothing ridiculous about it. You stated an absolute. I demonstrated where your absolute is patently false. Sorry you find that so inconvenient but it is what it is. Deal with it.

I refuse to indulge what you have already stated is ridiculous. Moving right along...
 
Sorry, you can deny amputation if you want but circumcision definitely falls WELL within the accepted definition of mutilation. Denying it only exposes your desire to force your position regardless of fact.

Sorry, you can apply emotionally charged rhetoric to the debate despite it being patently false and idiotic as the day is long, but male circumcision is a medical procedure that falls outside the accepted definition of mutilation. Pressing it as such only exposes your inability to form a coherent and rational argument so you resort to hyperbole and hysterics.


"ZOMGWTF!!! THINK of the CHIIIIIILDREEEN!!!!!!"
 
You have made no effort to refute legitimate studies. You have indulged the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and nothing more.
Just because you refuse to accept the refutation doesn't mean it hasn't been made. The refutation is:
1) proper cleaning practices are just as effective for hygiene
2) Condom use is more effective at reducing STDs
3) Elective surgery on an infant which will permanently disfigure it, is plainly wrong as evidenced by the fact that other such "preventive" surgeries are prohibited.
4) Doctors are not supposed to perform unnecessary surgeries especially when a less invasive alternative is as or more effective.
5) it is a religious practice that has been defended by some of the medical community out of tradition and excused as something to do with hygiene.

What's the pro? Hygiene and aesthetics?

Oh and your use of latin, because someone else used it doesn't add to your argument, mostly because it's incorrect anyway.

We aren't discussing other body parts. We are discussing circumcision. Please stay on topic.
And yet you bring up other body parts at your whim. This makes you a hypocrite... in yet another thread.
 
Female circumcision removes the functionality of the genitals. It is a total excision of the clitorus for the express purpose of stopping pleasure from sex.

Male circumcision does no such damage to sexual functions and even has hygeine benefits.
It decreases the sensitivity of the glans. FAIL
 
Sorry, you can apply emotionally charged rhetoric to the debate despite it being patently false and idiotic as the day is long, but male circumcision is a medical procedure that falls outside the accepted definition of mutilation.

To be honest with you Jallman, when you define mutilation in its absolute sense, you'll notice a kind of mutilation does infact take place during surgery. Whats funny about it though, is that everytime i put a case against others, in terms of politics and biology (be it abortion or this), the opposition likes to go off and use a word that is suitable for the situation but totally not the case and far more dramatic because it gives strength to a weak opinion. For example, Pro-Lifers like to say baby killers instead of the word abortion, im not saying this opinion is wrong, but the word is uneccessary and dramatic and is just a political tool. The argument against circumcision, "mutilating men". In the sense of a word, a mutilation is taking place, but the word is dramatic and uneccessary and again is a political tool for furthering the oppositions case. I had surgery on my toe today. I should not have got it done, because its mutilation. Oh noo!! Yet they refuse to use the word mutilation in other surgeries where the concept is the same: cutting up, extracting, ie heart transplants, etc. The things they agree with is suprisingly not mutilation though the surgerical concept is the same.
Pressing it as such only exposes your inability to form a coherent and rational argument so you resort to hyperbole and hysterics.

Exactly.
 
It decreases the sensitivity of the glans. FAIL

Minimally. And you have managed to outweigh a little extra sexual pleasure with hygiene and safe sex, and disease transmission. At least i know now where your brain is. Now thats a fail.
 
No, you did not refute them. You showed that there are lower STD rates in other countries that happen to practice circumcision less. That does not refute anything. You need to show causation, not just correlation.
Nor have you refuted that proper cleaning and condom use are as or more effective and don't require surgery which makes them a better alternative.


I saw them. I also pointed out that most on that list were not applicable to humans because we wear clothing that performs the same functions.

I don't care about blood and lymph vessels nor do I care about nerves. Those structures do not determine usefulness of a flap of skin.
None of that is fact however and little more than your personal opinion. Not to mention that you are wrong in those opinions.
 
Nor have you refuted that proper cleaning and condom use are as or more effective and don't require surgery which makes them a better alternative.

I am not trying to refute that condom use is more effective than circumcision. Whether condom use is better is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether circumcision has the health benefit of decreasing STD transmission. I would be very interested to see you demonstrate where I have advocated circumcision as an alternative to condom use because as far as I recall, I haven't made any such claim, nor would I.

None of that is fact however and little more than your personal opinion. Not to mention that you are wrong in those opinions.

Uh, no. It is a fact that the foreskin serves a protective function that is made obsolete by the fact that we where clothing.

And you still FAIL at demonstrating where I have been wrong. Speak to the studies or fold because that is all that is left for you to do.

Somehow, I doubt you'll make the intelligent argument based on the history of this thread.
 
Minimally. And you have managed to outweigh a little extra sexual pleasure with hygiene and safe sex, and disease transmission. At least i know now where your brain is. Now thats a fail.

Further, I highly doubt he can show any study that shows circumcised men are impaired sexually or seek out sexual pleasure than their uncircumcised counterparts.

It's all pure conjecture and baseless opinion on his part. Like always.
 
Just because you refuse to accept the refutation doesn't mean it hasn't been made. The refutation is:
1) proper cleaning practices are just as effective for hygiene
2) Condom use is more effective at reducing STDs

That's not refutation. That's a subject change.

3) Elective surgery on an infant which will permanently disfigure it, is plainly wrong as evidenced by the fact that other such "preventive" surgeries are prohibited.

And a bunch of hysterical and subjective nonsense along with an outright lie.

4) Doctors are not supposed to perform unnecessary surgeries especially when a less invasive alternative is as or more effective.

Another outright lie as evidenced by the fact that we have elective cosmetic surgery right.

5) it is a religious practice that has been defended by some of the medical community out of tradition and excused as something to do with hygiene.

And more irrelevant "Jebus knocked me down and took my lunch money" nonsense because no one here is making a religious argument except you.

What's the pro? Hygiene and aesthetics?

And decrease STD transmission.

Oh and your use of latin, because someone else used it doesn't add to your argument, mostly because it's incorrect anyway.

Oh and your lack of understanding of how logical fallacies apply doesn't take anything away from my argument, mostly because you are wrong anyway.

And yet you bring up other body parts at your whim. This makes you a hypocrite... in yet another thread.

I only did in response to a specific question asking "what other body parts". And you calling me a hypocrite...ad hom. A reported ad hom at that.
 
Further, I highly doubt he can show any study that shows circumcised men are impaired sexually or seek out sexual pleasure than their uncircumcised counterparts.

It's all pure conjecture and baseless opinion on his part. Like always.

Sexually Impaired? Pathetic, another dramatic nonsense term to further his weak case.

A) Seeking sexual pleasure and getting horny is dictated by testosterone releases and is of no relation to the nerve endings.

B) Amount of pleasure recieved during sex is of relation to the nerve endings. Our penis and glands however contain 10's of million of nerve endings, which is why when the foreskin is removed, and approx 100,000 nerve endings as a result, it makes little to absolutely no noticable difference during sex. As i have stated already, biologically speaking, loosing 100,000 nerve endings is nothing. It also scares me that people think more of there sexual pleasure then the safety of others and there own health. I think its pretty selfish, especially because you have nothing to loose.
 
Last edited:
Studies disagree with you. STD transmission rate is reduced by 50% in circumcised males.

Just because one practice is more effective, the effectiveness of the other practice is not negated. Try logic.
Apparently you should try logic. It is illogical to perform surgery when not necessary. If two things accomplish similar results (circumcision doesn't even produce similar results but, for the sake of argument) then the less invasive one should logically be preferred.

I know you need to use ad homs such as "obsession with removing foreskins" to feel like you are making a point, but I assure you, it's not helping your argument.
:rofl You're the queen of ad homs in this thread... was that an ad hom? :doh

An attempt to vilify rather than rationally debate the points is noticed.
Yes, we all see you doing it, no need to point it out.

Now moving on, of the functions you listed, the majority were for protective purposes. Those same purposes are achieved by the wearing of clothing rendering the usefulness of the foreskin void.
Do you have any proof that this is true or are you just making it up? The sensitivity of the glans on the head of the penis are lessened by friction against clothing. FAIL

I also don't care about the size of the foreskin on an adult male. Size of the foreskin does not translate into usefulness.
No but it shows the amount of skin being removed is rather large, so it's not just a little piece of useless skin. The skin is the largest organ an no part of it is without usefulness.

1. Epithelial Tissue - The cells of epithelial tissue pack tightly together and form continuous sheets that serve as linings in different parts of the body. Epithelial tissue serve as membranes lining organs and helping to keep the body's organs separate, in place and protected. Some examples of epithelial tissue are the outer layer of the skin, the inside of the mouth and stomach, and the tissue surrounding the body's organs.
2. Connective Tissue - There are many types of connective tissue in the body. Generally speaking, connective tissue adds support and structure to the body. Most types of connective tissue contain fibrous strands of the protein collagen that add strength to connective tissue. Some examples of connective tissue include the inner layers of skin, tendons, ligaments, cartilage, bone and fat tissue. In addition to these more recognizable forms of connective tissue, blood is also considered a form of connective tissue.
3. Muscle Tissue - Muscle tissue is a specialized tissue that can contract. Muscle tissue contains the specialized proteins actin and myosin that slide past one another and allow movement. Examples of muscle tissue are contained in the muscles throughout your body.
4. Nerve Tissue - Nerve tissue contains two types of cells: neurons and glial cells. Nerve tissue has the ability to generate and conduct electrical signals in the body. These electrical messages are managed by nerve tissue in the brain and transmitted down the spinal cord to the body.

Basic Anatomy - Organs & Organ Systems
 
Apparently you should try logic. It is illogical to perform surgery when not necessary. If two things accomplish similar results (circumcision doesn't even produce similar results but, for the sake of argument) then the less invasive one should logically be preferred.

Could, should, would...all subjective. Also, doctors and researchers disagree with you.

I'm not interested in your baseless opinions of "coulda' shoulda'". Facts please.

:rofl You're the queen of ad homs in this thread... was that an ad hom? :doh

If you feel like I have been using ad homs, then please report them as I just did with this ad hom.


Yes, we all see you doing it, no need to point it out.

Again, a blatant lie. And nowhere near being on topic. I have been consistently trying to keep the discussion about the topic and not other people. But if you feel I haven't, please report.

Do you have any proof that this is true or are you just making it up? The sensitivity of the glans on the head of the penis are lessened by friction against clothing. FAIL

Do you have any sort of study that shows this to be the case or that sex is significantly or even noticably impaired? FAIL.

No but it shows the amount of skin being removed is rather large, so it's not just a little piece of useless skin. The skin is the largest organ an no part of it is without usefulness.

I never used the word "little". And no, size still does not equate to usefulness. FAIL



Yes, I understand what the different tissues are as I took biology courses in college, too. Do you wish to make a point or were you just demonstrating your irrelevant linking skills for us?
 
Both irrelevant points. We're not talking about just any other part of the body. We're talking about the foreskin. What happens to the rest of the body is irrelevant.

And the efficacy of condom use is irrelevant as we are not discussing condom use. We are discussing whether or not circumcision has a health value of lowering STD transmission rates. And studies say, it does. You have been unable to refute that.

Now if you think you can refute that, either by counter study or by a problem with the methodology of the studies in question, by all means.
And this shows that you are willing to say absolutely anything to weasel out of a debate you have clearly lost.

I don't have to refute that removal of the foreskin has a health value of lowering STD transmission rates. It does. Just like I'm not refuting that removing the penis entirely is even MORE effective. I'm arguing that it is an unnecessary procedure BECAUSE there are more effective and less invasive means. We are not arguing the effectiveness of a given action but rather the necessity. YOU simply want to argue whether or not an action is effective which is not just a bad argument it's illogical and specious. Face it, you can't win this argument because outside of a religious practice it is unnecessary.
 
And this shows that you are willing to say absolutely anything to weasel out of a debate you have clearly lost.

So, nothing to say about teh actual topic but still just personal attacks on me? No surprise there.

I don't have to refute that removal of the foreskin has a health value of lowering STD transmission rates. It does. Just like I'm not refuting that removing the penis entirely is even MORE effective. I'm arguing that it is an unnecessary procedure BECAUSE there are more effective and less invasive means. We are not arguing the effectiveness of a given action but rather the necessity. YOU simply want to argue whether or not an action is effective which is not just a bad argument it's illogical and specious. Face it, you can't win this argument because outside of a religious practice it is unnecessary.

Except that studies disagree with you and you still make it all about opinions and "baby Jebus stole my first girlfriend and punched me in the eye". No one here is arguing religious practice except for you.

And you still have not refuted studies and the call by the WHO to encourage circumcision in high STD populations.
 
Irrelevant. We are discussing the issue under a medical context. I am not concerned with where it started. I am simply concerned with the medical value of the procedure now, which has been proven by studies that you cannot refute. I'm not going to make this into a "nuns barbecued my cat when I was 10 and made me watch them eat it so now I hate all things Jesus" rant just for your therapeutic convenience.
The underlined is an ad hom, just in case you didn't realize.
I do not need to refute the medical studies. I simply refute the procedure as unnecessary. When something is unnecessary and an alternative is available, only a fool or a benefactor would defend the unnecessary. Are you getting paid to defend or perform circumcisions?

No, we did not agree to that. You asserted that. I disagree.
Then what were you talking about here when I said:
"You still haven't acknowledged that surgery to remove healthy tissue should be the last stop, not the first. "
and you replied
I have. I said I don't agree with your assessment. I thought you understand what a disagreement is. :doh
So you do or don't agree that surgery to remove healthy tissue should be the last stop, not the first?

That circumcision has a health value and that there is no violation of rights or dignity in its medical practice.
The "health value" is a specious argument and is therefore fallacious. Surgically removing tissue instead of cleaning it is criminal in my opinion. And there are better ways to prevent STDs making the procedure for this purpose a poor substitute.

I disagree on the violation of rights because it is an unnecessary procedure.

Dignity? I believe that you do harm the childs dignity. Do you have some proof that it does not?

Just like the above which was nothing more than ad hom at it's finest? Okay, sport...you keep fooling yourself and everyone else will keep laughing at you.
The underlined is an ad hom, just in case you didn't realize it.

Nothing ridiculous about it. You stated an absolute. I demonstrated where your absolute is patently false. Sorry you find that so inconvenient but it is what it is. Deal with it.
I will now demonstrate that you are wrong. I did not make an absolute statement.
Boob job: A push up or enhancement bra would be a first effort.
Facelift: cosmetic usage would be a first effort and then maybe collagen injections.
Chin and nose jobs: cosmetic applications would be a first effort.

Sorry, you fail.


I refuse to indulge what you have already stated is ridiculous. Moving right along...
But you said they are not ridiculous and you posit them as evidence for your position. So why not defend them now? Or would you rather just stick with your attempted escape from the poor argument you made?
 
Sorry, you can apply emotionally charged rhetoric to the debate despite it being patently false and idiotic as the day is long, but male circumcision is a medical procedure that falls outside the accepted definition of mutilation.
mu⋅ti⋅late
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Please refute how this definition does not relate to circumcision.

Pressing it as such only exposes your inability to form a coherent and rational argument so you resort to hyperbole and hysterics.
This is a distraction because I am not using hysterics or hyperbole. I have made a rational argument and you are unable to refute it.


"ZOMGWTF!!! THINK of the CHIIIIIILDREEEN!!!!!!"
That is resorting to hyperbole and hysterics. :2wave:

Your attempts at avoiding the loss of this argument are becoming more and more desperate.
 
Back
Top Bottom