• 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
These "studies" have been highly criticized and discredited because of their methodological problems. For example, they did not complete their study. They just stopped as soon as they got the data they were looking for.

And even if it was true its still insignificant protection. Condoms and other prophylactics provide real, measurable, protection whereas circumcision does not.

OMFG....say it isn't so, a "scientific study" that manipulated data to come up with the results they were looking for????? IMPOSSIBLE :lamo

I've been trying to tell Tucker the same damn thing in another thread. apparently he thinks "scientific studies" are infallible.
 
And where did you mother learn it from? Did she perform the study or did she hear it from someone else? Where does the trail lead? To an actual study or to fraud/lie/imagination?

She saw it happen.
 
OMFG....say it isn't so, a "scientific study" that manipulated data to come up with the results they were looking for????? IMPOSSIBLE :lamo

I've been trying to tell Tucker the same damn thing in another thread. apparently he thinks "scientific studies" are infallible.

No studies are infallible. But if they have been through peer review or there are multiple studies on the same subject then that greatly reduces the chance of error.

A study by scientists that hasn't been reviewed or reproduced is always suspect.
 
She saw it happen.
Then get your mother to tell us the name of the study she "saw" so we can all verify it. Otherwise we will all assume you (or your mother) is a liar.
 
No studies are infallible. But if they have been through peer review or there are multiple studies on the same subject then that greatly reduces the chance of error.

A study by scientists that hasn't been reviewed or reproduced is always suspect.

I find it funny that two groups can do basically the same study and come up with virtually diametrically opposed results. seen it happen all to often, hence my general distrust of polls and studies.
 
I find it funny that two groups can do basically the same study and come up with virtually diametrically opposed results. seen it happen all to often, hence my general distrust of polls and studies.

In areas of sociology and other "soft sciences" that wouldn't be surprising. In areas like physics, math, chemistry, biology that would be surprising.

Have any examples?
 
In areas of sociology and other "soft sciences" that wouldn't be surprising. In areas like physics, math, chemistry, biology that would be surprising.

Have any examples?

look at all the conflicting studies on homosexuality and AGW
 
Then get your mother to tell us the name of the study she "saw" so we can all verify it. Otherwise we will all assume you (or your mother) is a liar.

Personal experience. My father wasn't cut.
 
Ban it. And no, it's not all about the pain. It's also about...
1. The trauma that it may cause.
2. Relatively high risk of complications when done in infants, some of which may require corrective surgery.
3. High risk of changes or even dysfunction in sexual function (in fact, this is why we started doing it in the West - to try to stop boys from masturbating by make them less sensitive - it was NOT for hygiene reasons).
4. No significant advantages (the hygiene thing is total bogus, most boys' foreskins work just fine or can be made to with minor stretching, the STD claims are wildly exaggerated).
5. Removes as much as 80% of the nerve endings in the penis and finally...
6. It is performed on a NON-CONSENTING individual, and it cannot be undone. Even if none of the above were true I would still be against it for this reason.

Temporal is right; it's genital mutilation as much as FGM is. Why we still tolerate performing it on infants in this country is so beyond me.
 
look at all the conflicting studies on homosexuality
Which conflicting studies?

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

look at all the conflicting studies on AGW
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.
 
Last edited:
The ones who are against it usually try to make the point that it's painful. It may be, but the ones it was done to don't remember it. I don't.
Was it Dr. Kutchacockoff who did the deed? :lamo
 
It is performed on a NON-CONSENTING individual, and it cannot be undone. Even if none of the above were true I would still be against it for this reason.

This one, right here. Why on earth should parents be allowed to mutilate their children? If I felt that my child would be better without eyes, would you support me removing them from my child? Of course not. It's absurd. An infant having part of his body cut off? It's wrong in every possible way. We don't even let kids get tattoos legally, let alone CUT STUFF OFF. No person has the right to mutilate another person, not even parents and their kids.
 
Personal experience. My father wasn't cut.

:lol:

And why should we believe anything you say, let alone the half-baked theories your family has developed based on anecdotal evidence?
 
:lol:

And why should we believe anything you say, let alone the half-baked theories your family has developed based on anecdotal evidence?

Because after my parents divorced, she never came down with the infections again.
 
Was it Dr. Kutchacockoff who did the deed? :lamo

That's really not funny considering the doctor who delivered me died in a plane crash not long after I was born.
 
Ban it. And no, it's not all about the pain. It's also about...
1. The trauma that it may cause.
2. Relatively high risk of complications when done in infants, some of which may require corrective surgery.
3. High risk of changes or even dysfunction in sexual function (in fact, this is why we started doing it in the West - to try to stop boys from masturbating by make them less sensitive - it was NOT for hygiene reasons).
4. No significant advantages (the hygiene thing is total bogus, most boys' foreskins work just fine or can be made to with minor stretching, the STD claims are wildly exaggerated).
5. Removes as much as 80% of the nerve endings in the penis and finally...
6. It is performed on a NON-CONSENTING individual, and it cannot be undone. Even if none of the above were true I would still be against it for this reason.

Temporal is right; it's genital mutilation as much as FGM is. Why we still tolerate performing it on infants in this country is so beyond me.

I never experienced any of the things you listed.
 
Because after my parents divorced, she never came down with the infections again.

So it must have been because he was uncut? There could not have been ANY other reason?
 
I never experienced any of the things you listed.

Well if you were circ'ed, yes, you did. You definitely experected 4-6. You may have experienced #1 and #3 (we will never know, since you will never know how you may have been if you hadn't been circ'ed and thus you can't tell us what the difference was, but we know through control studies that they occur).

But even if that were true, that doesn't make it ok to subject infants to that risk.
 
I never experienced any of the things you listed.

Technically, you couldn't experience otherwise. You have nothing to compare against. You only know what you feel is normal, just like the rest of us. Your own experience cannot teach the truth in this matter. Especially with an argument like "reduced sensation." You have absolutely no idea what another person feels. No one does. That's why this personal anecdote stuff isn't useful evidence.
 
Well if you were circ'ed, yes, you did. You definitely experected 4-6. You may have experienced #1 and #3 (we will never know, since you will never know how you may have been if you hadn't been circ'ed and thus you can't tell us what the difference was, but we know through control studies that they occur).

But even if that were true, that doesn't make it ok to subject infants to that risk.

Nope. I have feeling there and I'm a lot cleaner there than I would have been had I not been circumcised, plus I don't have a foreskin that has to be constantly pulled back when I do my business.
 
Nope. I have feeling there and I'm a lot cleaner there than I would have been had I not been circumcised, plus I don't have a foreskin that has to be constantly pulled back when I do my business.

There is no way you couldn't have exerpienced 4-6. You definitely, definitely did. Like I said, you have nothing to compare it against. But it was definitely non-consensual, and anatomically it's just a fact that the foreskin has a ton of nerve endings in it. The body is good at compensating to a degree, but that doesn't make it less true.

You also have a really weird idea about how much "effort" having a foreskin is. Guess what: cut guys can have gross dicks just as easily as uncut guys, and it takes a fraction of a second to clean under the foreskin.

Some women have to do the same thing, if they have a larger clitoral hood. Shall we cut it off?
 
These "studies" have been highly criticized and discredited because of their methodological problems. For example, they did not complete their study. They just stopped as soon as they got the data they were looking for.

And even if it was true its still insignificant protection. Condoms and other prophylactics provide real, measurable, protection whereas circumcision does not.

We will take your word for it. I posted the article.
 
There is no way you couldn't have exerpienced 4-6. You definitely, definitely did. Like I said, you have nothing to compare it against. But it was definitely non-consensual, and anatomically it's just a fact that the foreskin has a ton of nerve endings in it. The body is good at compensating to a degree, but that doesn't make it less true.

You also have a really weird idea about how much "effort" having a foreskin is. Guess what: cut guys can have gross dicks just as easily as uncut guys, and it takes a fraction of a second to clean under the foreskin.



Some women have to do the same thing, if they have a larger clitoral hood. Shall we cut it off?


Circumcision on a woman takes away her sexual desire. That's why the Muslims do it, to stop unfaithfulness. That's not the case with a man. I still enjoy sex with my wife and she likes the fact that I'm circumcised. She thinks uncircumcised men are disgusting.
 
Ban it. And no, it's not all about the pain. It's also about...
1. The trauma that it may cause.
2. Relatively high risk of complications when done in infants, some of which may require corrective surgery.
3. High risk of changes or even dysfunction in sexual function (in fact, this is why we started doing it in the West - to try to stop boys from masturbating by make them less sensitive - it was NOT for hygiene reasons).
4. No significant advantages (the hygiene thing is total bogus, most boys' foreskins work just fine or can be made to with minor stretching, the STD claims are wildly exaggerated).
5. Removes as much as 80% of the nerve endings in the penis and finally...
6. It is performed on a NON-CONSENTING individual, and it cannot be undone. Even if none of the above were true I would still be against it for this reason.

Temporal is right; it's genital mutilation as much as FGM is. Why we still tolerate performing it on infants in this country is so beyond me.

1. Yeah it caused me so much trauma I have a 6 month old daughter
2. Lol what?
3. As I stated before, my dick is sticking straight up and ready to go just in cast 50% of the day. If nothing else it made me dysfunction in a totally different way by making sure I'm flexing and ready all the time.
4. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure a lady is gonna want to stick this in there mouth without a bunch of extra turkey gobbler skin that makes it "suck" anymore than it already does.
5. So you are saying if I wasn't circumcised I would just nut faster? Hey I guess that helps me out doesn't help anybody else out.
6. You know what? I haven't heard one horror story from any guy saying "Omg I will never have a bunch of useless dick skin again my life is ruined RUINNNNED!!!"
 
Circumcision on a woman takes away her sexual desire. That's why the Muslims do it, to stop unfaithfulness. That's not the case with a man. I still enjoy sex with my wife and she likes the fact that I'm circumcised. She thinks uncircumcised men are disgusting.

Nope. Time to brush up on your anatomy.

Circumcision applies to foreskin. The clitoral hood is the female foreskin.

This is one form of practiced FGM. There are other more extreme forms that remove more tissue. And there are some that remove the entire vulva, including the clitoris. The term "FGM" encompasses a wide variety of practices. Some of which are EXACTLY THE SAME as male circumcision, in terms of what tissues they remove.

Removing only the clitoral hood would decrease sensation, in EXACTLY the same way male circumcision does, and for EXACTLY the same reasons. It would not completely end it, because the clitoris would still be there. But the effect would be the same.

And guess why we started circ'ing men in the Western world. Yes, that's right, to reduce their sexual pleasure and try to curb them away from masturbating.

It doesn't necessarily work, but that's the intent.

Circumcising women is a form of FGM. It has the exact same purpose and effect as circumcising men. It is the exact same tissue with the exact same purpose - just on a smaller glans. That's the only real difference.

And when it's women you find it horrible. And when it's men you find it acceptable. Why?
 
Back
Top Bottom