• 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

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.


Exactly.

Use of the word mutilation in the case of circumcision is correct because it is an unnecessary procedure and is therefore a mutilation. I can and have made my argument quite clear, reasonable and correct without using the word "mutilate". Would you like me to reiterate it for you or will you concede this point?
 
The underlined is an ad hom, just in case you didn't realize.

Then report it, by all means. It's actually a hyperbole but don't let shades of fact get in the way of rant.

As to the rest of your drivel, it's not even worth responding to as I have no interest in seeing how much more mouth foam I can milk out of you today. Calm down, breathe in a paper bag or something, and then come back to this tomorrow.

But really, I grew tired of your constant personal attacks and demeaning tone and then your audacity to turn around and attack me for returning that same tone to you. I would just rather let the mods deal with you from here on. You have nothing I am interested in or want. I can learn nothing from you so you are a waste of bandwidth and time to me, personally. :shrug:
 
Minimally.
"Minimally": Do you have a penis?

Do you have a medical study which determines that the loss of sensitivity in all men is minimal?

And you have managed to outweigh a little extra sexual pleasure
Do you have a penis? Then you cannot judge the amount of pleasure lost.

with hygiene and safe sex, and disease transmission.
The penis must still be cleaned even on men who have been circumcised. Therefore the hygiene benefit is not only, obviously, minimal but, since you must still perform hygienic cleansing the circumcision is unnecessary.

50% reduction in STDs does not equate to "safe sex".

Safe sex and prevention of disease transmission have a greater efficacy through condom use. A nonsurgical method should always be preferred over a less effective, less invasive measure.

At least i know now where your brain is. Now thats a fail.
This is an ad hominem, in case you didn't realize.
 
Your attempts at avoiding the loss of this argument are becoming more and more desperate.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel good about how you behave. I don't really care anymore, slip. You've made yourself a nonissue to everyone but you. Now proceed to preen and prance and chortle with smug satisfaction that "you won internetz" because I grew tired of dealing with your behavior. I will not rob you of what little consolations in life there are when one has to be you. :shrug:
 
Citation please. Or we can simply consider this your uneducated opinion gained (pulled from thin air) from your desire to win an argument.

Consider it whatever you want, slip. No one and definitely not fact are going to stop you from believing fairy tale you wish.

If you think circumcision impairs sexual function, the onus is on you to prove that in some meaningful way. I can't prove a negative.
 
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.
I see you are trying to change the argument now because you can no longer keep up your specious line of reasoning. YOU may be trying to direct the argument to your benefit but the discussion has been on the necessity of the procedure. Just because you ignore the actual debate in order to push the argument away from your losing position doesn't hide that very fact.

I NEVER made any claim against your claim, I have maintained that the procedure is not necessary considering the alternatives. But keep trying, the tack you're taking is transparent.


Uh, no. It is a fact that the foreskin serves a protective function that is made obsolete by the fact that we where clothing.
No, it's not a fact that clothing has made the function or necessity of the foreskin obsolete. Please provide the proof of this claim.

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.
No, I have not only demonstrated that you are wrong I have proved it. We are not discussing whether or not your cited study is right or wrong. You can keep trying to end the debate on this position but it's obvious that it's your only out besides admitting you have lost.

Somehow, I doubt you'll make the intelligent argument based on the history of this thread.
I think it would be very easy to go through the history of this thread and see that my argument has been consistent and that you have avoided and obfuscated. Now you are trying to push the "prove my study is wrong" tack. I am not refuting your study since it is irrelevant to the discussion. I've simply used your study against you to show that your statistics are pointless. I have done so in various ways.
 
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.
The more you talk in this thread the worse it gets for you.

Does Circumcision Affect Sexual Sensitivity – What Research Says about Circumcision and Sensitivity
Does Circumcision Impact Physical Sexual Sensitivity?

By Cory Silverberg, About.com

Updated: January 08, 2008

About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by the Medical Review Board

Few would argue that circumcision changes physical sensitivity in the penis. By definition, circumcision is the cutting away of the foreskin, a part of the body that is rich with nerve endings. Circumcision also impacts the structure of the penis, and has a corresponding impact on penile sensation.

Foreskin Sexual Function/Circumcision Sexual Dysfunction

Erogenous tissue. the foreskin is heavily innervated even at birth and before.5 21 The foreskin is a specific erogenous zone6 with nerve endings near the surface of the ridged band arranged in rete ridges.29 The foreskin is noted for its sensory pleasure.12 36 51 Circumcision, therefore, diminishes sexual sensation.6 9 10 11 12 18 28 31 38 57 59 62 63 64
Those little numbers there are th elinks to the citations on that page. :2wave:
 
Use of the word mutilation in the case of circumcision is correct because it is an unnecessary procedure and is therefore a mutilation. I can and have made my argument quite clear, reasonable and correct without using the word "mutilate". Would you like me to reiterate it for you or will you concede this point?

You have no argument, face it. Plastic surgery in most cases are unnecessary. But thats not a mutilation, because you dont think its a bad thing. :2wave:
 
"Minimally": Do you have a penis?

Do you have a medical study which determines that the loss of sensitivity in all men is minimal?

Trying to give me an excuse to take a snap of it on webcam and stick it on DP are you slippery slope? :2razz:

Depends how much foreskin is removed. I can tell you loss of sensitivity in all men is minimal because we have the same amount of nerve endings in the foreskin, like most of us have one heart instead of two, its one of those things that are constant across the line unless your a special case.


Do you have a penis? Then you cannot judge the amount of pleasure lost.

Jesus christ im a male read the damn sig! I ****ing hate my name.

The penis must still be cleaned even on men who have been circumcised. Therefore the hygiene benefit is not only, obviously, minimal but, since you must still perform hygienic cleansing the circumcision is unnecessary.

Throughout the day do you KNOW how much bacteria can build up to cause infection or disease on the penis? You cant clear infection as simply once you've got it. Not all blokes carry around Penis polish and a hanky in the work place or stick there cocks in the sink to clean it "well". This is why circumcision is practicle, useful and effective.

50% reduction in STDs does not equate to "safe sex".

Its closer then an extra 50% isnt it?

This is an ad hominem, in case you didn't realize.

Ive lived long enough to know this. Ive also lived long enough to use it. Joke, Ad hominem, call it what you want. If your insulted by it, report it.
 
Last edited:
That's not refutation. That's a subject change.
It's actually you that is trying, desperately, to change the subject.

And a bunch of hysterical and subjective nonsense along with an outright lie.
Prove it instead of bloviating.

Another outright lie as evidenced by the fact that we have elective cosmetic surgery right.
Is it your claim now that circumcision is cosmetic surgery? I thought in an earlier post you said we aren't talking about other parts of the body and you also said we aren't talking about other procedures... desperation will get you introuble.

Now prove the outright lie.


And more irrelevant "Jebus knocked me down and took my lunch money" nonsense because no one here is making a religious argument except you.
It is part of my argument. I'm sorry if you don't like the truth of my argument.

The underlined part of your response is an ad hominem, in case you didn't realize.

And decrease STD transmission.
Right, 50%. There are more effective means, making circumcision a poor choice.

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.
What logical fallacy do I not understand? Ad hominem? Please do prove your statement.

I only did in response to a specific question asking "what other body parts".
Did you truncate my quote? That would be deceptive. :roll:

And you calling me a hypocrite...ad hom. A reported ad hom at that.
It's not an ad hom if it is actually true and provable, which it is and I did.

I can only laugh at that last part. Are you hoping to get the thread closed so you can escape?
 
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.

Unless you'd like to take back your statements as being nothing more than your opinion, I'll have to ask for the proof of your... facts. Got links?
 
I can only laugh at that last part. Are you hoping to get the thread closed so you can escape?

No, I am hoping that you learn to stop being a jerk that hinders all discussion with your nastiness.

I also wouldn't mind if you got thread banned at least so that the rest of us who want to debate rather than childishly posture can do so without your disruptions.
 
Unless you'd like to take back your statements as being nothing more than your opinion, I'll have to ask for the proof of your... facts. Got links?

Before i give you any links, i want you to first refute my statements with links of your own, if existant.
 
Somali anti-FGC campaigner spreads her net

Intact America Launches Campaign to Change the Way the Nation Thinks About Male Circumcision | Intact America


A Somali campaigner against Female Genital Cutting (FGC) wants the US to abandon Male Genital Cutting as well.

Filmmaker and activist Soraya Miré has joined with Intact America, a lobby group formed earlier this year, to launch a nationwide campaign to change the way America thinks about male circumcision. They argue the surgery is painful and medically unnecessary, removing healthy genital tissue from non-consenting baby boys, violating medical ethics and human rights.

"The same universal human right to an intact body that I have fought for on behalf of women and girls must apply to boys as well," Miré said, "especially those who are too young to make an informed decision about the integrity of their bodies.

"We need to ask ourselves: How can it be wrong to surgically alter the genitals of a baby girl without her consent but okay to surgically alter the genitals of a baby boy?"

The campaign hopes to influence a review by the Centers for Disease Control of studies of adult African male circumcision in the context of the HIV epidemic in Africa, with the goal of developing a recommendation to be released here in the United States.

"Studies of adult men in Africa cannot be used to justify subjecting non-consenting American baby boys to irreversible surgery that will remove healthy tissue from their genitals for the rest of their lives," Intact America's executive director Georganne Chapin says. "Let young men make decisions about their own bodies, when they reach an age to make that decision for themselves."

Before parents allow that, she says, they should ask themselves if they would allow it to be done to their daughters.
 
Somali anti-FGC campaigner spreads her net

Intact America Launches Campaign to Change the Way the Nation Thinks About Male Circumcision | Intact America


A Somali campaigner against Female Genital Cutting (FGC) wants the US to abandon Male Genital Cutting as well.

Filmmaker and activist Soraya Miré has joined with Intact America, a lobby group formed earlier this year, to launch a nationwide campaign to change the way America thinks about male circumcision. They argue the surgery is painful and medically unnecessary, removing healthy genital tissue from non-consenting baby boys, violating medical ethics and human rights.

"The same universal human right to an intact body that I have fought for on behalf of women and girls must apply to boys as well," Miré said, "especially those who are too young to make an informed decision about the integrity of their bodies.

"We need to ask ourselves: How can it be wrong to surgically alter the genitals of a baby girl without her consent but okay to surgically alter the genitals of a baby boy?"

The campaign hopes to influence a review by the Centers for Disease Control of studies of adult African male circumcision in the context of the HIV epidemic in Africa, with the goal of developing a recommendation to be released here in the United States.

"Studies of adult men in Africa cannot be used to justify subjecting non-consenting American baby boys to irreversible surgery that will remove healthy tissue from their genitals for the rest of their lives," Intact America's executive director Georganne Chapin says. "Let young men make decisions about their own bodies, when they reach an age to make that decision for themselves."

Before parents allow that, she says, they should ask themselves if they would allow it to be done to their daughters.

I am neither moved nor even interested an agenda driven special interest group that bases its intentions on subjective pleas to emotion. :shrug:
 
translation i am not interested in those who are defending the rights of males to have an intact body

I am interested in science, studies, and statistics. So yeah, I'm not really interested in pleas to emotion at all.

I'm circumcised and my body is intact, also, thank you very little.
 
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?

I think I mentioned earlier in this thread that doctors often DO use local anesthesia and adjunct methods (EMLA cream and oral sucrose) as well when performing routine circumcisions. I have witnessed this as a nursing student and such was the case for my own son. No male infant should ever be circumcised without effective anesthesia imo. Parents who plan to have their sons circumcised at birth should make absolutely sure that the doctor uses anesthetic.
 
I think I mentioned earlier in this thread that doctors often DO use local anesthesia and adjunct methods (EMLA cream and oral sucrose) as well when performing routine circumcisions. I have witnessed this as a nursing student and such was the case for my own son. No male infant should ever be circumcised without effective anesthesia imo. Parents who plan to have their sons circumcised at birth should make absolutely sure that the doctor uses anesthetic.

And they do. That's not even an issue here.
 
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.

Its not a "part of your body" its ****ing skin.

Stop being melodramatic.

If thats the case Im amputating my hair because it is a perfectly healthy "part of the body".
 
Last edited:
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?


A. I am not outraged at vaginal mutilation, probably because that isn't the proper terminology and your trying to use emotion to get people to be empathetic.

B. I have a son, and I don't recall any doctor ever trying to push us to decide to have a circumcision, in fact my son couldn't be circumcised until he was 3 months old because he was low birth weight. We still decided to get it done.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Everyone needs to cease the personal attacks in this thread. Next one gets an infraction and a thread ban. No exceptions.
 
Back
Top Bottom