• 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

Canadian-bloke said:
The common law right to bodily integrity was affirmed by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1891

Union Pacific Railway Company v. Botsford
Click to expand...

Nothing in that case law establishes a right to bodily integrity. If anything, it establishes that a person may not be searched except by reasonable authority of law, nor may they have their personal effects worn on the body removed as payment on a judgment against them. It also establishes that surgery may not be used as a means of discovery during a legal matter.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
And hygeine. Sorry, but you're argumentative demeanor isn't going to score you any points if you don't bring sumpin to back it up. kthanxbai.
Click to expand...
Argumentative demeanor is kinda required in a DEBATE FORUM. :rofl nice try at dismissal though, however transparent...
Now if you'd kindly post the source you have that says we trim our hair and nails for hygiene. We wash our hair for hygiene but we trim it for aesthetics.

And what do all those have in common? Complete removal of the limb. BUZZZ...sorry but you fail again.
Click to expand...
You can't read or what? The first one - number 1 says
1. to cut off (all or part of a limb or digit of the body), as by surgery.
Click to expand...
Obviously you've never pruned a tree, you can prune any portion of a branch. I'll admit, that one is antiquated

I think you need to show some citation that the World Health Organization is pushing CHRISTianity.
Click to expand...
You're right it's actually Judeo-christian. Circumcision is a religious covenant. It was created by and for religion. We don't want to change the traditional meaning of marria... er... I mean circumcision do we? It's tradition after all.

And this isn't a matter of which is better, it is a matter of what are and aren't effective measures. And circumcision is an effective measure. You know...that whole 50% decrease in STD transmission thing. You still haven't refuted the benefits of that.
Click to expand...
You still haven't acknowledged that surgery to remove healthy tissue should be the last stop, not the first. You still haven't acknowledged that you can prevent appendicitis by removing the appendix... Surgery is supposed to be the last resort.
 
jallman said:
I'm not spending time answering posts that are full of nothing but hyperbole and hyper emotional rant like "circumfetish states of america".

Try refuting the world health organization's statistics and data, then get back to me. You've been thoroughly trounced point for point.
Click to expand...
Oh look a dodge... I wonder how many times you've called other people out for not wanting to waste their time.
 
jallman said:
Where is that right enumerated?
Click to expand...
So if someone held you down and without anesthesia, removed a strip of skin from your arm, just skin, no tendon or muscle, you wouldn't have any legal remedy against that person? Hey they only removed a little skin, what's you're beef?
 
Caine said:
Im still confused on where this outrage comes from?

Who decided to say, "I think I'll crusade against OTHER PEOPLE making the decision to circumcise OTHER PEOPLE."

Where does this come from? How does one go about to become an advocate for the abolition of circumcision?
Click to expand...
So you're saying that if something happens to someone else, it's no ones business but that person? I guess white men shouldn't have marched for civil rights FOR OTHERS.
 
Slippery Slope said:
So if someone held you down and without anesthesia, removed a strip of skin from your arm, just skin, no tendon or muscle, you wouldn't have any legal remedy against that person? Hey they only removed a little skin, what's you're beef?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Argumentative demeanor is kinda required in a DEBATE FORUM. :rofl nice try at dismissal though, however transparent...
Click to expand...

It wasn't a try at dismissal. You've it's been dismissed.

You can't read or what? The first one - number 1 says
Click to expand...

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.

Obviously you've never pruned a tree, you can prune any portion of a branch. I'll admit, that one is antiquated
Click to expand...

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".

You're right it's actually Judeo-christian. Circumcision is a religious covenant. It was created by and for religion. We don't want to change the traditional meaning of marria... er... I mean circumcision do we? It's tradition after all.
Click to expand...

Oh here we go with gratuitous "Baby Jebus knocked me down and stole my bicycle when I was 5" rant...:roll:

You still haven't acknowledged that surgery to remove healthy tissue should be the last stop, not the first.
Click to expand...

I have. I said I don't agree with your assessment. I thought you understand what a disagreement is. :doh

You still haven't acknowledged that you can prevent appendicitis by removing the appendix...
Click to expand...

Why would I bother to specifically acknowledge the obvious? :confused:

Surgery is supposed to be the last resort.
Click to expand...

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:
 
Slippery Slope said:
So you're saying that if something happens to someone else, it's no ones business but that person? I guess white men shouldn't have marched for civil rights FOR OTHERS.
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

However, that fails to explain where the outrage comes from.
 
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
Click to expand...


cosmetics are done ON CONSENTING individuals there is no comparison between that and mutilating unconsenting children


Caine said:
Not exactly.

However, that fails to explain where the outrage comes from.
Click to expand...

only people who support cutting unconsenting individuals will never understand
 
Last edited:
Canadian-bloke said:
cosmetics are done ON CONSENTING individuals there is no comparison between that and mutilating unconsenting children
Click to expand...

Parents grant consent for their children. There is no mutilation involved in a male circumcision.

only people who support cutting unconsenting individuals will never understand
Click to expand...

I understand fully. I disagree with you on the issue. Do not deign to speak for my understanding unless I ask you to do so.
 
jallman said:
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.
Click to expand...

it has already refuted many times and you ignore them becuase they affect your desire to mutilate onconsenting children


what other body parts of children should be cut off to reduce the chances of diseases and for hygeine purposes? how for do we extend this lunacy and laziness?
 
Canadian-bloke said:
it has already refuted many times and you ignore them becuase they affect your desire to mutilate onconsenting children
Click to expand...

You have made no effort to refute legitimate studies. You have indulged the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and nothing more.

what other body parts of children should be cut off to reduce the chances of diseases and for hygeine purposes? how for do we extend this lunacy and laziness?
Click to expand...

We aren't discussing other body parts. We are discussing circumcision. Please stay on topic.
 
Parents grant consent for their children. There is no mutilation involved in a male circumcision.
Click to expand...

parents in the FGM Africa also give consent to circumcise thier daughters how is that different from circumcising happy american parents?
 
jallman said:
You have made no effort to refute legitimate studies. You have indulged the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and nothing more.



We aren't discussing other body parts. We are discussing circumcision. Please stay on topic.
Click to expand...

I already refuted them you you refusing to aacknowledge that Intact Europe and Japan has the lowest STD rates in the world

the foreskin is an integral part of the penis with blodd vessels, lymph vessels and nerves I and and another poster already listed the functions looks like you ignored them
 
Canadian-bloke said:
parents in the FGM Africa also give consent to circumcise thier daughters how is that different from circumcising happy american parents?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Canadian-bloke said:
I already refuted them you you refusing to aacknowledge that Intact Europe and Japan has the lowest STD rates in the world
Click to expand...

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.

the foreskin is an integral part of the penis with blodd vessels, lymph vessels and nerves I and and another poster already listed the functions looks like you ignored them
Click to expand...

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.
 
jallman said:
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.
Click to expand...

you are making the same exact excuses like the FGM happy folks in Africa and some parts of the islamic world

"It's our religion. We pray, we do fasting, we do circumcision. For 14 centuries of Islam, our mothers and grandmothers have performed this operation. Those who are not circumcised get AIDS easily."

[Sheik Yusef Badry, in news report "Egyptian Court Allows Female Circumcision," Toronto Globe & Mail, June 25, 1997]


Common Denominators Between Male & Female "Circumcision"

Template

"One (doctor) said that he talked to every woman who came to him for this purpose (circumcision of their daughter), explaining the consequences and saying that it was unnecessary, but found they insisted upon having it done, so he complies. His justification was that he did it in a hygienic way and lost nothing by it, on the contrary, he gained money. But he overlooked the fact that he is acting unethically…instead of being a model of enlightenment for others; one can only assume that he is simply pursuing his own interests. The negative effect of this is that when we try to convince women that this operation is not necessary, they immediately reply that doctors do it, therefore it must be a good thing."

[Dr. Asma El Dareer, Sudanese physician, interview, p. 99, Prisoners of Ritual: Odyssey into Female Genital Circumcision in Africa, Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, 1989]
 
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.
Click to expand...

circumcision does not reduced the chances of STDs contraception and sex education and monogamy is more effective



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.
Click to expand...


how are they not applicable to humans? that useless flap of skin averages 15 square inches in adult men and how is it not usefull? i list the functions appearently you don't like anything that contradict your obsession in removing foreskins
 
Last edited:
Canadian-bloke said:
you are making the same exact excuses like the FGM happy folks in Africa and some parts of the islamic world

"It's our religion. We pray, we do fasting, we do circumcision. For 14 centuries of Islam, our mothers and grandmothers have performed this operation. Those who are not circumcised get AIDS easily."

[Sheik Yusef Badry, in news report "Egyptian Court Allows Female Circumcision," Toronto Globe & Mail, June 25, 1997]


Common Denominators Between Male & Female "Circumcision"

Template

"One (doctor) said that he talked to every woman who came to him for this purpose (circumcision of their daughter), explaining the consequences and saying that it was unnecessary, but found they insisted upon having it done, so he complies. His justification was that he did it in a hygienic way and lost nothing by it, on the contrary, he gained money. But he overlooked the fact that he is acting unethically…instead of being a model of enlightenment for others; one can only assume that he is simply pursuing his own interests. The negative effect of this is that when we try to convince women that this operation is not necessary, they immediately reply that doctors do it, therefore it must be a good thing."

[Dr. Asma El Dareer, Sudanese physician, interview, p. 99, Prisoners of Ritual: Odyssey into Female Genital Circumcision in Africa, Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, 1989]
Click to expand...

No, those are not even close to the same arguments I have made for circumcision.

I have not made the first religious argument.
 
Canadian-bloke said:
circumcision does not reduced the chances of STDs contraception and sex education and monogamy is more effective
Click to expand...

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.



how are they not applicable to humans? that useless flap of skin averages 15 square inches in adult men and how is it not usefull? i list the functions appearently you don't like anything that contradict your obsession in removing foreskins
Click to expand...

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. An attempt to vilify rather than rationally debate the points is noticed. Now if you please, keep it to the topic. Helpful debating hint: I am not the topic.

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. I also don't care about the size of the foreskin on an adult male. Size of the foreskin does not translate into usefulness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom