• 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

Pierced ears grow back.

I find it troubling that people are so quick to turn to genital mutilation to solve problems that are easily enough addressed by good personal hygiene and responsible sexual practices.

Jewish people have been doing it for years.

I could see the concern if the removal of the skin (1) impacted the man's ability to urinate; (2) impacted the man's ability to have an orgasm; and/or (3) impacted the whole functioning of the penis.
 
Pierced ears grow back.

I find it troubling that people are so quick to turn to genital mutilation to solve problems that are easily enough addressed by good personal hygiene and responsible sexual practices.

There's no reason for piercing ears other than beauty.

Try telling an 8 year old boy to USE SOAP in the shower. If he doesn't care about the crud under his nails, on his face or in his crack, he's not gonna care about anything unseen under the foreskin. It's not until you boys start realizing that's something special down there that you acually start taking care of it.
 
Last edited:
My son's nephrologist recommended it for medical reasons.

And yet the AAP doesn't recommend it for any reason.

In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.
 
And yet the AAP doesn't recommend it for any reason.

I read that as saying there is no medical reason to do it. I don't read as saying they don't recommend it.
 
And yet the AAP doesn't recommend it for any reason.

I guess my son's specialist is a quack. He knows less than you. So far, he's kept my son's sole kidney in good health. I'll continue to trust him.
 
Jewish people have been doing it for years.

I could see the concern if the removal of the skin (1) impacted the man's ability to urinate; (2) impacted the man's ability to have an orgasm; and/or (3) impacted the whole functioning of the penis.

So, it's okay to mutilate someone as long as it doesn't impact the function of the body part mutilated?
 
So, it's okay to mutilate someone as long as it doesn't impact the function of the body part mutilated?

I don't see it as mutilation.
 
I read that as saying there is no medical reason to do it. I don't read as saying they don't recommend it.

Why would they recommend something for no medical reason? Because it might be "ugly"?

I guess my son's specialist is a quack. He knows less than you. So far, he's kept my son's sole kidney in good health. I'll continue to trust him.
I quoted the AAP's stance, which has nothing to do with my own knowledge.
 
I guess my son's specialist is a quack. He knows less than you. So far, he's kept my son's sole kidney in good health. I'll continue to trust him.

I pointed out that the quote does not say that the AAP doesn't recommend it--it merely states that they don't think there is a medical reason for it.
 
I don't see it as mutilation.

Cutting off a chunk of skin isn't mutilation?

Well, I think my nephew's arms are too "ugly". Maybe I should take a knife and slice chunks of skin out of his arms. I mean, it won't impact the function of the arms, and *I* don't think it's mutilation.

Hell, while we're at it, we should cut off my nieces labia and her clitoral hood.
 
Last edited:
Why would they recommend something for no medical reason? Because it might be "ugly"?


I quoted the AAP's stance, which has nothing to do with my own knowledge.

I assume they made that statement to point out that they don't have a medical reason to recommend it. Do you want to provide the link to that quote so I can read the entire thing?
 
Cutting off a chunk of skin isn't mutilation?

Well, I think my nephew's arms are too "ugly". Maybe I should take a knife and slice chunks of skin out of his arms. I mean, it won't impact the function of the arms, and *I* don't think it's mutilation.

But if you notice, that skin would partially grow back because your nephew's body needs it. I don't see skin growing back on a penis because, clearly, the body doesn't need it.
 
But if you notice, that skin would partially grow back because your nephew's body needs it. I don't see skin growing back on a penis because, clearly, the body doesn't need it.

Ah, okay, then the labia of my niece. And her clitoral hood. Wouldn't want any 'gunk' getting under there.
 
Ah, okay, then the labia of my niece. And her clitoral hood. Wouldn't want any 'gunk' getting under there.

Okay. I don't see comparing the female genitalia to the male genitalia as comparing apples to apples.

I read parts of the article. I don't see that the AAP is saying they don't recommend it. I see as their addressing the pluses and minuses of having a circumcision so that parents can be informed and determine what is in the best interest of the child.
 
Cutting off a chunk of skin isn't mutilation?

Well, I think my nephew's arms are too "ugly". Maybe I should take a knife and slice chunks of skin out of his arms. I mean, it won't impact the function of the arms, and *I* don't think it's mutilation.

Yeah, what a horrendous comparison.

For starters, i'd dare say the pain would be greater as unlike the penis if you cut off the skin on an arm its going to expose the area underneath it and also a larger chance of getting muscle, tendon, and other things that are more of an issue. Not to mention, unlike the penis, it would leave the arm exposed to external sources meaning infection becomes more likely during that time.

Yes, looks are part of it for some as a joking thing. However the prime reason seems to typically be upkeep. Simply put, it is easier to upkeep on it when its cut. It has nearly 0 harmful reprucussions to the person.

Lets look at the actual DEFINITION of mutilation shall we?

"an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part "

"Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death"

"mutilated - maimed: having a part of the body crippled or disabled "

Definitions of Mutilation

just a coupe that came up.

Disfigurement? Arguable since even that is speaking of the spoiling of appearance and again that does go back to the "how it looks. But even then, it does not deprive one of limb or body part.

The next definition? Degrades the appearance (debatable) or the function? Hmm, doesn't degrade the function at all. not mutilation by that definitoin.

Having the body crippled or disabled. Preeeeeeeety sure my guy's still working so I don't think that's the case.

No, sorry, its not mutilation and the attempt to compare it or allued to the abomonable things being done in other places in the world that actually DOES have a legitimate negative effect upon the organ is amazingly dishonest and frankly just makes your entire argument look like it belongs in the realm of something on SNL than a debate site.
 
Hell, while we're at it, we should cut off my nieces labia and her clitoral hood.

Oh gosh, the thought of female mutilation makes me shudder. Those people who do that also give supposed benefits of it. Thankfully, I don't live anywhere near those people.
 
Ah, okay, then the labia of my niece. And her clitoral hood. Wouldn't want any 'gunk' getting under there.

Circumcision is not intended to prevent orgasm! And there are possible long-term health complications from female genital mutilation including UTIs, infertility, and pregnancy complications.

Comparing circs to FGM is absurd. :roll:
 
Oh gosh, the thought of female mutilation makes me shudder. Those people who do that also give supposed benefits of it. Thankfully, I don't live anywhere near those people.

There was an article on the front page of the Washington Post describing this young girl thinking she is going to some party for herself. It describes her entering the room happy and then realizing why she was there. I couldn't read it anymore and literally wept. It sickens me.
 
Definitely. I mean, if there was a significant chance of any kind of significant loss to pleasure or function down there then I'd be on the other side of things in regards to guys. But there's not. There's on conclussive evidence that its less sensitive, or functions any worse, if one is circumsized and one isn't. That's, from all I understand about it, not the case with what's done with females.
 
Circumcisions simply because some goofballs think uncircumcised is "ugly"?

That makes no sense at all because, it doesn't matter how they are wrapped, ALL penises are ugly. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Jewish people have been doing it for years.

I could see the concern if the removal of the skin (1) impacted the man's ability to urinate; (2) impacted the man's ability to have an orgasm; and/or (3) impacted the whole functioning of the penis.

Definitely. I mean, if there was a significant chance of any kind of significant loss to pleasure or function down there then I'd be on the other side of things in regards to guys. But there's not. There's on conclussive evidence that its less sensitive, or functions any worse, if one is circumsized and one isn't. That's, from all I understand about it, not the case with what's done with females.
http://www.luckystiff.org/circumcision/information/The_Case_Against_Circumcision-4.pdf
http://www.luckystiff.org/circumcision/information/The_Case_Against_Circumcision-4.pdf
starting on page 3 from the article "Mommy where is my foreskin' :lol:

Circumcision desensitizes:
Circumcision desensitizes the penis radically. Foreskin amputation means severing the rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in the foreskin itself. Circumcision almost always damages or destroys the frenulum. The loss of the protective foreskin desensitizes
the glans. Because the membrane covering the permanently externalized
glans is now subjected to constant abrasion and irritation, it keratinizes, becoming dry and tough. The nerve endings in the glans, which in the intact penis are just beneath the surface of the mucous membrane,
are now buried by successive layers of keratinization. The denuded glans
takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic

while orgasms are great, if they could be better due to higher sensitivity....
Circumcisions simply because some goofballs think uncircumcised is "ugly"?

That makes no sense at all because, it doesn't matter how they are wrapped, ALL penises are ugly. :2wave:
spoken like a real man ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom