• 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!

Should male circumcision be banned?

Should male circumcision be banned?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 21.2%

  • No

    Votes: 41 78.8%

  • Yes, but allow a clause for religious beliefs.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    52
MistressNomad said:
Uh, a planceta isn't part of a person. But anyway...
Click to expand...

Of course it is. If it wasn't there would be no need to snip it off.

Science sees a harm. No one who had it done as an infant as anything to compare it against.
Click to expand...

Science also sees no harm.

I really don't understand why this particular kind of non-consensual surgery is ok, and all others are not. It has been shown to you over and over that the "benefits" are almost entirely myths.
Click to expand...

All surgery done to minors is non-consensual. You've also stated your opinion. An opinion that is counter to the overwhelming vast majority that have had it done.

For the record, I'm against infant ear piercing too. I find that somewhat less heinous, since it can heal. But I still don't think it's right.
Click to expand...

Again, really no harm. I'm not a big fan with infants either but it's not my call.
 
scourge99 said:
The only parts we care about are the criticisms of the "circumcision reduces HIV" studies. Care to tackle that or will you continue to dodge and dance by citing irrelevant portions?
Click to expand...

There are countless articles to be found that states that there is a benefit in helping reduce the risk of getting AIDS. Even a basic idea of the nuts and bolts would allow one to see why this is possible.

In a perfect world, there is basically no difference. The world is anything but perfect.
 
It's an impediment once a baby is born. So no, it isn't supposed to be there after birth. This is a beyond stupid argument.

If you think science sees no harm, then you simply haven't been reading, preferring to believe you're right for no reason and persist with your false information.

Non-consensual medically necessary surgery is a rather different thing from non-consensual cosmetic surgery. If you can't even admit that, then you're really beyond hope.

The majority who've had it done 1. Have no idea what it may have been like otherwise, and 2. Have a lot of their self-concept wrapped up in their penis - if that were true, like I said, there wouldn't be foreskin reconstruction available and booming.
 
MistressNomad said:
5. Removes as much as 80% of the nerve endings in the penis and finally...
Click to expand...

wow, was unaware that 80% of the nerve endings in the penis were in that tiny little foreskin.

6. It is performed on a NON-CONSENTING individual, and it cannot be undone.
Click to expand...

so is abortion, but that is perfectly legal too
 
MistressNomad said:
It's an impediment once a baby is born. So no, it isn't supposed to be there after birth. This is a beyond stupid argument.
Click to expand...

As I believe the entire discussion to be.

If you think science sees no harm, then you simply haven't been reading, preferring to believe you're right for no reason and persist with your false information.

Non-consensual medically necessary surgery is a rather different thing from non-consensual cosmetic surgery. If you can't even admit that, then you're really beyond hope.

The majority who've had it done 1. Have no idea what it may have been like otherwise, and 2. Have a lot of their self-concept wrapped up in their penis - if that were true, like I said, there wouldn't be foreskin reconstruction available and booming.
Click to expand...

The surgery to have it removed in an adult has been around even longer. Having horns implanted in your head is a growing procedure also.
 
scourge99 said:
Which conflicting studies?

Homosexuality falls into the domain of psychology/sociology. Soft sciences.


Which two studies on AGW are the same but produce different conclusions? And please cite studies from a legitimate and respected scientific journal.

A study on ice cores and a study on ocean levels are NOT the same study.
Click to expand...

waste of time, you are obviously one of those people who believes any poll/study whose conclusions agree with your position :shrug:
 
1Perry said:
There are countless articles to be found that states that there is a benefit in helping reduce the risk of getting AIDS.
Click to expand...
Assuming the studies are right, which are highly disputed, it only a 2% risk reduction. Wowzers!! :roll:

And then you ignore the complications associated with circumcision which counter that small benefit.

The time and energy would be better spent providing condoms and education. Circumcision is NOT an effective nor efficient solution for the HIV/AIDS problem.
 
1Perry said:
The surgery to have it removed in an adult has been around even longer. Having horns implanted in your head is a growing procedure also.
Click to expand...

I happen to know enough that that to know that, once again, you're making a totally fallacious argument. Implants of that sort are typically done in piercing studios, and precious few of them at that.

Foreskin reconstruction is part of a huge industry. The surgery itself is a long, long way away from giving the sorts of results men who get it are looking for, but it wouldn't be there if not for demand. Specifically, a demand by men who feel they were robbed of something (even if it's only their bodily sovreignty) by being circumcised non-consensually. Comparing it to a rare and fringe procedure performed usually out of curiosity that isn't even popular enough to be performed in mainstream settings is, again, ridiculous. You have a habit of making ridiculous arugments.

Do you have an intent to address anything relevant to the argument at all?
 
amazing what a difference a few seconds make.

as long as the baby is still in the mothers womb, it can be brutally murdered because of "choice" but a few seconds later that same baby is an individual and must be protected from being brutalized by a relatively harmless procedure.
 
OscarB63 said:
waste of time,
Click to expand...
I agree that you are wasting your time. You are once again caught red-handed making statements and claims you can't back up.

OscarB63 said:
you are obviously one of those people who believes any poll/study whose conclusions agree with your position
Click to expand...
I'm open to any polls or studies that go against my position on the CONDITION that they come from respected and legitimate sources.

That you cry and whine when you can't produce studies to support your claims is a prime indication about just how reasonable you are. :shrug:
 
Ho ho I do find it hilarious about this whole non-consenting thing now that a few others brought it up. So you are for abortion but cutting off some dick skin is a travesty?

lowlz-14.jpg
 
OscarB63 said:
amazing what a difference a few seconds make.

as long as the baby is still in the mothers womb, it can be brutally murdered because of "choice" but a few seconds later that same baby is an individual and must be protected from being brutalized by a relatively harmless procedure.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of a few seconds. It's a matter of several months. Elective abortions are illegal in the third trimester.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Ho ho I do find it hilarious about this whole non-consenting thing now that a few others brought it up. So you are for abortion but cutting off some dick skin is a travesty?
Click to expand...

Abortion on an inviable zygote with no brain, no qualities of life, and thus no sentience to inflict harm on? Sure.

You'll notice a pattern with me. I tend to base my opinion on evidence.
 
MistressNomad said:
It's not a matter of a few seconds. It's a matter of several months. Elective abortions are illegal in the third trimester.
Click to expand...

what? you've never heard of partial birth abortions? or are you just dishonest?
 
MistressNomad said:
Abortion on an inviable zygote with no brain, no qualities of life, and thus no sentience to inflict harm on? Sure.

You'll notice a pattern with me. I tend to base my opinion on evidence.
Click to expand...

unless that evidence is contra to your position. many abortions are performed in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters every year.
 
MistressNomad said:
Abortion on an inviable zygote with no brain, no qualities of life, and thus no sentience to inflict harm on? Sure.

You'll notice a pattern with me. I tend to base my opinion on evidence.
Click to expand...
Stop trying to argue abortion. They are just baiting you into arguing a different issue so they can ignore the circumcision issue.
 
OscarB63 said:
what? you've never heard of partial birth abortions? or are you just dishonest?
Click to expand...

Sure. But they are illegal for elective purposes. They are performed only in medical emergencies.
 
MistressNomad said:
Sure. But they are illegal for elective purposes. They are performed only in medical emergencies.
Click to expand...

yeah right. where do you live? fantasy island?

what kind of medical emergency is so critical that a partial birth abortion on a viable child is necessary instead of an emergency C-section?
 
Last edited:
It should be the choice of the parents.
 
scourge99 said:
Assuming the studies are right, which are highly disputed, it only a 2% risk reduction. Wowzers!! :roll:
Click to expand...

Unless you are one of those 2%ers.

And then you ignore the complications associated with circumcision which counter that small benefit.
Click to expand...

Complications arise in not getting it done also.

The time and energy would be better spent providing condoms and education.
Click to expand...

We have. It's done next to nothing.

Circumcision is NOT an effective nor efficient solution for the HIV/AIDS problem.
Click to expand...

It would seem that it doesn't hurt.
 
OscarB63 said:
yeah right. where do you live? fantasy island?

what kind of medical emergency is so critical that a partial birth abortion on a viable child is necessary instead of an emergency C-section?
Click to expand...

36 states ban it outright, and nationally the method usually used to performing it is banned.

Presumably, such a medical emergency would make the fetus inviable. Would you like a list of pregnancy complications that can be fatal for the woman, or fetus, or both?
 
MistressNomad said:
I happen to know enough that that to know that, once again, you're making a totally fallacious argument. Implants of that sort are typically done in piercing studios, and precious few of them at that.

Foreskin reconstruction is part of a huge industry. The surgery itself is a long, long way away from giving the sorts of results men who get it are looking for, but it wouldn't be there if not for demand. Specifically, a demand by men who feel they were robbed of something (even if it's only their bodily sovreignty) by being circumcised non-consensually. Comparing it to a rare and fringe procedure performed usually out of curiosity that isn't even popular enough to be performed in mainstream settings is, again, ridiculous. You have a habit of making ridiculous arugments.

Do you have an intent to address anything relevant to the argument at all?
Click to expand...

Sorry you dislike my arguements. The demand for lopping it completely off is growing also.......means nothing to me.
 
MistressNomad said:
Sure. But they are illegal for elective purposes. They are performed only in medical emergencies.
Click to expand...

Not true but I would agree that this is for another topic.
 
1Perry said:
Unless you are one of those 2%ers.
Click to expand...

In order to understand how ridiculous this is, you have to know what the per-exposure transmission rates for HIV are.

All forms of sexual exposure apart from receptive anal sex have a per-exposure transmission rate of significantly less than 1%.

Thus, a 2% reduction in transmission risk due to circumcision means you could carry out the decimal 3 or 4 places and the number would still be exactly the same as the risk uncirc'ed. That is how tiny of a benefit we're talking about. It is completely pointless.
 
1Perry said:
Unless you are one of those 2%ers.
Click to expand...
And maybe you'll win the lottery tomorrow.
:roll:


1Perry said:
Complications arise in not getting it done also.
Click to expand...
Complications are only the result of surgery or other medical operations.

There are some advantages to circumcision but they are canceled out by the drawbacks. Only in rare occasions would it be worth trading one risk for another. E.G., if you are prone to a very specific type of urinary tract infection.


1Perry said:
We have. It's done next to nothing.
Click to expand...
so adding some insignificant medical procedure will magically make it all better?


1Perry said:
It would seem that it doesn't hurt.
Click to expand...
When the money, time, and energy can be used on better and more effective solutions, YES IT DOES HURT!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom