• 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

WHERE IN THE MEDICAL CODE OF ETHICS Justify amputation of healthy body parts for health and hygeinic reasons?

Now that we got your little ad hom problem cleared up...

We remove pieces of the body for health and hygeine already. We cut hair, fingernails, toenails. We remove the tonsils and appendix. We perform cosmetic surgery and we add lap bands to the obese.

Removal of the foreskin is also a far cry from "amputation" which is the removal of a limb. It is an unnecessary and problematic piece of the penis and removal of it, has has been shown by 25 year studies, can have very beneficial effects. A 50% reduction in transmission and contraction of STD's is definitely worth the procedure being done when the child is very young.

Mutilation is nothing more than charged rhetoric meant to vilify and denigrate with hysterical emotional rant rather than have an honest discussion about the health pros and cons of circumcision.
 
Now that we got your little ad hom problem cleared up...

We remove pieces of the body for health and hygeine already. We cut hair, fingernails, toenails. We remove the tonsils and appendix. We perform cosmetic surgery and we add lap bands to the obese.

Removal of the foreskin is also a far cry from "amputation" which is the removal of a limb. It is an unnecessary and problematic piece of the penis and removal of it, has has been shown by 25 year studies, can have very beneficial effects. A 50% reduction in transmission and contraction of STD's is definitely worth the procedure being done when the child is very young.

Mutilation is nothing more than charged rhetoric meant to vilify and denigrate with hysterical emotional rant rather than have an honest discussion about the health pros and cons of circumcision.


Hair and fingernails don't have nerves and blood vessels and cutting those off ARE NOT painfull. removal of the healthy foreskin is AMPUTATION and NOT medically necessary NO medical organization around the world say circumcision is medically necessary and those studies are nothing more than american circumfetisdh propaganda all of WHICH IGNORES THE HIGH rates of STDS in circumcising U.S.A The Highest in the developed world where most men are circumcised

and in about 7 african nations intact men have slightly lower rates of HIV



some stats

Zimbabwe

HIV Rates:


Circumcised men aged 20-49


20%


Intact men aged 20-49


19%



Swaziland

HIV Rates:


Circumcised men


21.8%


Intact men


19.5%




Rwanda

HIV Rates:


Circumcised men


3.8%


Intact men


2.1%


Ghana

HIV rates


Circumcised men


1.6%


Intact men


1.4%

above sources are from

Demographic and Health Surveys: MEASURE DHS Home
 
Correlation does not suggest causation.

Are there religious.social reasons these men are intact? Is it a larger sample of men? Smaller?

The numbers alone don't tell any tales.

For example, if 86% of uncircumcised men in Swaziland are in a group that forbids any sexual contact outside of marriage under penalty of death, the rates would be high by comparison.

Without any context, those numbers are useless.
 
What have FGC opponents stated publicly
about male genital cutting?

What FGC Opponents Say About MGC

Hanny Lightfoot-Klein (Author, Prisoners of Ritual: An Odyssey into Female Genital Circumcision in Africa) on p.193 of her book:

"The reasons given for female circumcision in Africa and for routine male circumcision in the U.S. are essentially the same. Both falsely tout the positive health benefits of the procedures. Both promise cleanliness and the absence of "bad" genital odors, as well as greater attractiveness and acceptability of the sex organs. The affected individuals in both cultures have come to view these procedures as something that was done for them and not to them."

How is Female Circumcision Trivialized?

"Both Islam and medicine agree on its benefits. Uncircumcised girls…are more liable to infections and cancers."

[Dr. Saed Thabet, professor gynecology at Cairo’s Kasr El Aini Teaching Hospital, quoted in "Female Circumcision is Curbed in Egypt," British Medical Journal, August 3, 1996]
 
Bull****. It's a hygeine issue as I already pointed out.
What? It is a religious tradition which, in it's origin, had nothing to do with hygiene. To deny this is... :censored

The issue of Hygiene came about to stop the questions from the nonreligious or non-Judeo-xians. I'm not going to go as far as claiming it a xian conspiracy but some have.

You can toss out loaded words like "mutilate" but the fact it, circumcision has been proven to decrease STD's. Until you can refute that, you are just talking out your ass.
Loaded words... Yeah, we shouldn't say what it is really is because then people might start rethinking their position. I thought you cons were against being PC? :doh

And this ****ing retarded mantra about STDs... yeah, removing your appendix at birth is 100% effective at stopping Appendicitis.

Plus, uncircumcised penises are just ugly. They look like some kind of ant-eater or something. That's just not attractive.
In your opinion. The majority of the world, which does not engage in this practice, disagrees with you.
 
Correlation does not suggest causation.

Are there religious.social reasons these men are intact? Is it a larger sample of men? Smaller?

The numbers alone don't tell any tales.

For example, if 86% of uncircumcised men in Swaziland are in a group that forbids any sexual contact outside of marriage under penalty of death, the rates would be high by comparison.

Without any context, those numbers are useless.



In Africa there are tribes and groups that circumcised boys in initations which signal transition from boyhood to adult manhood and others who don't perform circumcisions
 
Hair and fingernails don't have nerves and blood vessels and cutting those off ARE NOT painfull.

So now we're going to move the goal posts because your absolute was rebutted. OK, but my point stands...we DO remove pieces of the body for hygeine reasons.

removal of the healthy foreskin is AMPUTATION

No, it is not. It is an excision.

amputation is removal of an entire limb.

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good emotionally hysterical misdirection, now.

and NOT medically necessary NO medical organization around the world say circumcision is medically necessary

Really? Because it seems like the World Health Organization and UNAIDS, two very prominent medical organizations, seem to be promoting cicumcision pretty hard.

and those studies are nothing more than american circumfetisdh propaganda

Really? got anything more than hyper emotional caterwauling because umm...the studies the WHO and UNAIDS are calling on seem to have been promoted by and overseen by a Belgian, so that just shoots your whole theory out of the water right there, now doesn't it?

all of WHICH IGNORES THE HIGH rates of STDS in circumcising U.S.A The Highest in the developed world where most men are circumcised

Links and facts please?
 
Last edited:
What? It is a religious tradition which, in it's origin, had nothing to do with hygiene. To deny this is... :censored

The issue of Hygiene came about to stop the questions from the nonreligious or non-Judeo-xians. I'm not going to go as far as claiming it a xian conspiracy but some have.

So basically, you're a little pissy because something religious turned out to be, coincidentally, beneficial.

No surprise there.

Until you can refute the studies, you are basically blowing a lot of hot air and talking out your ass. As usual.
 
In Africa there are tribes and groups that circumcised boys in initations which signal transition from boyhood to adult manhood and others who don't perform circumcisions

Common sense indicates that the existence of both circumcised and uncircumcised men is enough for that data to be obvious.
 
So now we're going to move the goal posts because your absolute was rebutted. OK, but my point stands...we DO remove pieces of the body for hygeine reasons.

Hair and fingernails and toenails DO NOT HAVE nerves and blood vessels

No, it is not. It is an excision.

amputation is removal of an entire limb.

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good emotionally hysterical misdirection, now.

Whose body whose penises? leave the intact boys alone yhe foreskin is a healthy body and an ontegral part of the penis the functions are

Erotic pleasure, especially via the ridged band and Meissner's corpuscles

Acts as a rolling bearing in intercourse and masturbation

Prevents dyspareunia (painful intercourse)

Stimulates partner's genitalia, giving erotic pleasure

Supplies skin to cover the shaft in erection and prevent tightness

Stores pheromones and releases them on arousal

Stores, releases and helps distribute natural lubricants ("smega" and pre-ejaculatory fluid)

Makes the glans a visual signal of sexual arousal

Provides a seal against the vaginal wall to contain semen
Protective

Prevents the glans becoming keratinised, and keeps it soft and moist

Protects the thin-skinned glans against injury

Protects the nerves of the glans, retaining their erotic function


In infancy, protects the urethra against contamination, meatal stenosis, (and UTIs?)


Provides lysosomes for bacteriostatic action around the glans

Pigmented, it protects the unpigmented glans against sunburn

Vascular (rich in blood vessels that bring heat to the tissues), it protects the less vascular glans against frostbite, as Sir Ranulph Fiennes found on his epic transpolar walk.

Really? Because it seems like the World Health Organization and UNAIDS, two very prominent medical organizations, seem to be promoting cicumcision pretty hard.


and Most of the world outside of U.S.A and isreal disagrees and

including Canada

"Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." The Fetus and Newborn Committee and the Canadian Paediatric Society. March 15, 1996 Recommendations published - CMA Journal.


Really? got anything more than hyper emotional caterwauling because umm...the studies the WHO and UNAIDS are calling on seem to have been promoted by and overseen by a Belgian, so that just shoots your whole theory out of the water right there, now doesn't it?

again no national medical organization recommended circumcision

and there are better way like contraception and sex education to reduce and fight STDs



Links and facts please?




STD Prevention Today

Despite the fact that a great deal of progress has been made in STD prevention over the past four decades, the United States has the highest rates of STD infection in the industrialized world, making prevention as important as ever.

The U.S centre for disease control

CDC NPIN – STDs – Prevention Today
 
Wow, so even when faced with a bulletin directly from the WHO and UNAIDS that tells you they recommend it, along with a statement detailing who, including national health organizations, was involved, you're really going to keep going with this. Amazing.

Canadian-bloke said:
Hair and fingernails and toenails DO NOT HAVE nerves and blood vessels

So? Irrelevant in refuting your statement that we do not remove body parts for hygeine reasons. Blood vessels and nerves were not a stipulations. You got burned by stating an absolute. Deal with it and move on.

Whose body whose penises? leave the intact boys alone yhe foreskin is a healthy body and an ontegral part of the penis the functions are

Erotic pleasure, especially via the ridged band and Meissner's corpuscles

Acts as a rolling bearing in intercourse and masturbation

Prevents dyspareunia (painful intercourse)

Stimulates partner's genitalia, giving erotic pleasure

Supplies skin to cover the shaft in erection and prevent tightness

Stores pheromones and releases them on arousal

Stores, releases and helps distribute natural lubricants ("smega" and pre-ejaculatory fluid)

Makes the glans a visual signal of sexual arousal

Provides a seal against the vaginal wall to contain semen
Protective

Prevents the glans becoming keratinised, and keeps it soft and moist

Protects the thin-skinned glans against injury

Protects the nerves of the glans, retaining their erotic function


In infancy, protects the urethra against contamination, meatal stenosis, (and UTIs?)


Provides lysosomes for bacteriostatic action around the glans

Pigmented, it protects the unpigmented glans against sunburn

Vascular (rich in blood vessels that bring heat to the tissues), it protects the less vascular glans against frostbite, as Sir Ranulph Fiennes found on his epic transpolar walk.

None of which rebuts my point, but whatever. :shrug:

and Most of the world outside of U.S.A and isreal disagrees and

including Canada

"Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." The Fetus and Newborn Committee and the Canadian Paediatric Society. March 15, 1996 Recommendations published - CMA Journal.

By most of the world, you mean Canada? Because the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, disagrees with Canada.

again no national medical organization recommended circumcision

and there are better way like contraception and sex education to reduce and fight STDs

Survey says...

XXX

The whole "national health organization" is just you moving the goal posts again when you got smacked down on your lie that no health organization has recommended circumcision. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. You got burned again by stating an absolute.

And who, pray tell do you think comprises the WHO? ZOMG...it's the national health organizations that make up the UN. Wow...funny, that.

STD Prevention Today

Despite the fact that a great deal of progress has been made in STD prevention over the past four decades, the United States has the highest rates of STD infection in the industrialized world, making prevention as important as ever.

The U.S centre for disease control

CDC NPIN – STDs – Prevention Today

Wonderful. Now what, in all that, indicates anything in opposition to what the WHO and UNAIDS, among others, has had to say about circumcision helping prevent HIV and STD infection?
 
Last edited:
Now that we got your little ad hom problem cleared up...
Yeah, new guy, remember, when making ad homs you must avoid using the persons name. Some people learned this and some people, now designate themselves as selfrighteous hypocrite hall monitors who will report you because they can't be moderators themselves.

We remove pieces of the body for health and hygeine already. We cut hair, fingernails, toenails. We remove the tonsils and appendix. We perform cosmetic surgery and we add lap bands to the obese.
No remove tonsils and appendix because they are infected. If your doctor tells you to have your healthy tonsils or appendix removed preemptively, you should RUN not walk away from him/her.

Hair and nails... need some more straws to grasp at? :roll:

Removal of the foreskin is also a far cry from "amputation" which is the removal of a limb.
Circumcision does fall within the definition.

It is an unnecessary and problematic piece of the penis
Citations?

and removal of it, has has been shown by 25 year studies, can have very beneficial effects. A 50% reduction in transmission and contraction of STD's is definitely worth the procedure being done when the child is very young.
citations?

Wearing a condom is more effective.

Mutilation is nothing more than charged rhetoric meant to vilify and denigrate with hysterical emotional rant rather than have an honest discussion about the health pros and cons of circumcision.
And afterwords we'll discuss the pros and cons of removing fingers to prevent theft.

The honest debate is no debate. Teach your kids to wash their penis/vagina/ass and they will be more healthy instead of mutilating for the sake of ease.
 
Yeah, new guy, remember, when making ad homs you must avoid using the persons name. Some people learned this and some people, now designate themselves as selfrighteous hypocrite hall monitors who will report you because they can't be moderators themselves.


No remove tonsils and appendix because they are infected. If your doctor tells you to have your healthy tonsils or appendix removed preemptively, you should RUN not walk away from him/her.

Hair and nails... need some more straws to grasp at? :roll:


Circumcision does fall within the definition.


Citations?


citations?

Wearing a condom is more effective.


And afterwords we'll discuss the pros and cons of removing fingers to prevent theft.

The honest debate is no debate. Teach your kids to wash their penis/vagina/ass and they will be more healthy instead of mutilating for the sake of ease.

I already gave you citations. I'm not giving them again. I suggest you read.

And your little ad hom? Reported as promised.
 
Wow, so even when faced with a bulletin directly from the WHO and UNAIDS that tells you they recommend it, along with a statement detailing who, including national health organizations, was involved, you're really going to keep going with this. Amazing.

and national medical organizations around the world disagree i don't see and hear Japan, Europe and other places where intact males are the norm telling their male citizens to circumcise to prevent STDs










None of which rebuts my point, but whatever.





By most of the world, you mean Canada? Because the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, disagrees with Canada.

again no national medical organization recommended circumcision

and there are better way like contraception and sex education to reduce and fight STDs

the only other ones i can think of is abstinence and monogamy and i said most of the world INCLUDING Canada




Most of the world outside of U.S.A and isreal disagrees and

including Canada

what does the CDC say?



The most reliable ways to avoid becoming infected with or transmitting STDs are:

* Abstain from sexual intercourse (i.e., oral, vaginal, or anal sex)
* Be in a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner

Latex male condoms, when used consistently and correctly, can reduce the risk of transmission of chlamydia 1, gonorrhea 2, and trichomoniasis.3


Reducing Your Risk of STD Infection

All partners should get tested for HIV and other STDs before initiating sexual intercourse. However, if you decide to be sexually active with a partner whose infection status is unknown or who is infected with HIV or another STD, you can reduce your risk of contracting an STD:

* Ask a new sex partner if he or she has an STD, has been exposed to one, or has any unexplained physical symptoms. Do not have unprotected sex if your partner has signs or symptoms of STDs, such as sores, rashes, or discharge from the genital area. Many common STDs have no symptoms but can still be transmitted to a sexual partner. If your partner has had sexual relations with someone else recently, he or she may have an STD, even if there are no symptoms.
* Use a new condom for each act of insertive intercourse. Correct and consistent use of latex condoms and other barriers can reduce the risk of transmission only when the infected area or site of potential exposure is protected.
* Get regular checkups for STDs (even if you show no symptoms), and be familiar with the common symptoms. Most STDs are readily treated, and the earlier treatment is sought and sex partners are notified, the less likely the disease will do irreparable damage.
 
and national medical organizations around the world disagree i don't see and hear Japan, Europe and other places where intact males are the norm telling their male citizens to circumcise to prevent STDs.

Well I guess if a ****ing Belgian is in charge of the study and making the recommendations for a joint effort by the entire world, then that's just some American circumfetish propaganda (code for I have a problem making arguments so I will instead caterwaul hyperemotionally and hope it works)?

But please, do impart to us more of your boundlessly wise opinion. Because you sure ain't handing over much in the way of fact.

Alright, here's an idea. You show me what NATIONAL health organizations specifically disagree with circumcision worldwide and we can work from there. Mkay?

But as it stands, you got Canada for anti-circumcision and I got THE WORLD in favor of.
 
Last edited:
Well I guess if a ****ing Belgian is in charge of the study and making the recommendations for a joint effort by the entire world, then that's just some American circumfetish propaganda (code for I have a problem making arguments so I will instead caterwaul hyperemotionally and hope it works)?

But please, do impart to us more of your boundlessly wise opinion. Because you sure ain't handing over much in the way of fact.

Alright, here's an idea. You show me what NATIONAL health organizations specifically disagree with circumcision worldwide and we can work from there. Mkay?

But as it stands, you got Canada for anti-circumcision and I got THE WORLD in favor of.



you still have not list one NATIONAL not international NATIONAL medical organization telling thier male citizens to get cut to prevent STDs the key word is NATIONAL
 
As Columbus circumcised the globe.
 
you still have not list one NATIONAL not international NATIONAL medical organization telling thier male citizens to get cut to prevent STDs the key word is NATIONAL

So it really is about you moving the goal posts around until you find a stalemate for lack of free moves. :doh

You don't get to set the parameters here, chuckles. You asked for a health organization. I gave you the most comprehensive and representative one in the world.

You either refute or fess up to having nothing but this moving the goal posts **** you're doing is epic FAIL.

But it is rather funny to watch considering how you came out on the attack and were discovered to have tiny teeth and dull claws.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut the trolling and the name calling. Next person to make a personal attack is getting booted from the thread
 
So it really is about you moving the goal posts around until you find a stalemate for lack of free moves. :doh

You don't get to set the parameters here, chuckles. You asked for a health organization. I gave you the most comprehensive and representative one in the world.

You either refute or fess up to having nothing but this moving the goal posts **** you're doing is epic FAIL.

But it is rather funny to watch considering how you came out on the attack and were discovered to have tiny teeth and dull claws.



Position Statements of Medical Societies in English-Speaking Countries

Position Statements of Medical Societies
in English-Speaking Countries




2003 British Medical Association

“The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view. . . . Parental preference must be weighed in terms of the child's interests. . . . The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. . . . Some doctors may wish to not perform circumcisions for reasons of conscience. Doctors are under no obligation to comply with a request to circumcise a child.”

2002 Royal Australasian College of Physicians

“After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision. The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. . . . Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure.”

2002 Canadian Paediatric Society (reaffirmed 1996 position)

“Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”

2000 American Medical Association

“The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.”

1999 American Academy of Pediatrics

“Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”

1996 Australian College of Paediatrics

“The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons has informed the College that ‘neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce [foreskin].’ ”

1996 Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons

“We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce [foreskin]....The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that ‘State parties should take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.’ ”


Circumcision and HIV

National medical organizations unanimously find no proven medical benefit for circumcision and do not recommend it
 
National medical organizations unanimously find no proven medical benefit for circumcision and do not recommend it

Actually, you're wrong.

They do NOT unanimously find no proven medical benefit...they find no proven medical benefit that THEY DEEM is worthy enough to recommend it. I know for a fact the AMA has stated there ARE medical benefits for it of which you can find talked about earlier in this thread when this line of conversation had already occured.

I know for a fact as well that while the AMA does not recommend circumcision, they also do not recommend AGAINST it, actually stating that there are legitimate reasons on both sides and that they encourage parents to examine the benefits and risks of all sides and make their OWN decision.

The medical data on this is as damaging to the side that says you 100% shouldn't circumsize as it is for those that say you should. There is recognized medical benefits, and the AMA neither supports nor rejects the act.

So you're wrong, it is NOT unanimously
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom