I told my fiance that I wouldn't have any more kids with him if he didn't agree to let any subsequent boys be au naturale. I absolutely believe that circumcision is child abuse, genital mutilation, and that any parent who circumcises their child should be arrested on those grounds and have their children removed from their custody. How come when somebody beats a child or rapes them, they get eighteen years to life in prison. . . but when they permit a doctor to actually remove part of their genitals, they get religious exemption? It's grotesque abuse and I more or less gave my fiance an ultimatum if he wanted to insist on circumcising any male children we have--- simply that we would either not have any more, I would leave him completely, or if he tried to have it done after the birth, I would take them away from him. As a sympathizer point, I said: "Would you take our daughter to the doctor and ask them to remove the hood of her clitoris? Because in some countries, women are circumcised too. Since they're anatomically similar, it should be okay to do the same thing to her." His face contorted and he agreed with me in an instant that it was wrong.

I believe VERY strongly on this subject.

Circumcision began to become popular as a means to keep little boys from masturbating, and later on to lower the libido of men. That being said, there is NO medical benefit to circumcision. I'm also confused on the Christian perspective. If God is perfect and made humans in his likeness, and he is not capable of flaw, why remove the foreskin of the penis he supposedly created? It's hypocrisy. If I was their God, I'd strike them down for modifying my masterpiece. If I was God, and I wanted no foreskin, I wouldn't have made humans with them. Foreskin helps fight off infection. How about instead of cutting it off, parents bother to just teach their boys how to take proper care of their genitals? Lazy, worthless pieces of crap.

I am a Canadian who was cut at or near birth, my dad was cut (I saw it once) my son was not cut. No way was I gonna hack pieces of my boy off. I know nothing of foreskins from personal knowledge, so am going to have to learn something about it just to advise him on hygiene. Is there issues around sex other than cleanliness? What are the issues around cleaning? How do you clean beneath it?

No-one has mentioned the conspiracy theory of circumcision that someone told me twenty years ago, it goes like this:

During WWII in Germany, the only way that could be 'reliably' used to tell a hiding Jew from a non-jew was circumcision. After the war a lot of Jewish doctors, who had fled to North America, pressed the practice of circumcision not only for cultural reasons, but also to provide future 'cover' (pardon the pun) for the Chosen People should the shit hit the fan again.

Onyx8, the foreskin until potty training age doesn't retract, so washing it with a cloth with a mild or no soap is preferable. After potty training age, the foreskin should retract (do NOT force it before it's ready; it's dangerous), wherein you simply retract it to a comfortable point and clean the glans and any exposed areas, again, very gently with a wet cloth. That's all you have to do. The foreskin is not something to be frightened of. It's there to protect the head of the penis from infection. Of course, there are instances where medical intervention IS necessary-- such as a small foreskin opening where the penis can't go through, which can be painful, but these problems are rare.

Yeah, it can't be rocket science, thanks.

UnderINK wrote:I told my fiance that I wouldn't have any more kids with him if he didn't agree to let any subsequent boys be au naturale. I absolutely believe that circumcision is child abuse, genital mutilation, and that any parent who circumcises their child should be arrested on those grounds and have their children removed from their custody. How come when somebody beats a child or rapes them, they get eighteen years to life in prison. . . but when they permit a doctor to actually remove part of their genitals, they get religious exemption? It's grotesque abuse and I more or less gave my fiance an ultimatum if he wanted to insist on circumcising any male children we have--- simply that we would either not have any more, I would leave him completely, or if he tried to have it done after the birth, I would take them away from him. As a sympathizer point, I said: "Would you take our daughter to the doctor and ask them to remove the hood of her clitoris? Because in some countries, women are circumcised too. Since they're anatomically similar, it should be okay to do the same thing to her." His face contorted and he agreed with me in an instant that it was wrong.

I believe VERY strongly on this subject.

Circumcision began to become popular as a means to keep little boys from masturbating, and later on to lower the libido of men. That being said, there is NO medical benefit to circumcision. I'm also confused on the Christian perspective. If God is perfect and made humans in his likeness, and he is not capable of flaw, why remove the foreskin of the penis he supposedly created? It's hypocrisy. If I was their God, I'd strike them down for modifying my masterpiece. If I was God, and I wanted no foreskin, I wouldn't have made humans with them. Foreskin helps fight off infection. How about instead of cutting it off, parents bother to just teach their boys how to take proper care of their genitals? Lazy, worthless pieces of crap.

as a cut guy I can say, I have no animosity towards my parents for it at all. Do I wish that I was still intact? yea I do. BUT I know my parents very well and (though I am opposite of them in almost every way) they would never do anything with the intention of harming me and I feel that many parents that choose to circ their son feel the same way. Child abuse is seen as horrible because of the parent's intent behind it. I haven't talked to my parents yet about why they did it but if they said something like "well, the doctor said it would be best." or " we thought it would help later on in life" I can't get mad at them for doing what was in my best interest and/or for being mislead. If they say "well it looks better' or "well your dad's cut so we thought it would be best if you were too" then I could see myself getting aggravated that their lack of critical thinking at the time took a part of my dick away lol but I still couldn't stay mad at them. Though I'm still a virgin I still get pleasure from it and I'm happy. Would it be better if I was intact? I dunno. It's fun to think about sometimes though lol. anyway, the point is, I think you may feel a little too strongly on the issue by implying that parents that choose to have their kid circed are automatically bad parents. This is simply not the case. Now I am AGAINST infant circumcision however, but I feel that this much anger might be unwarranted.

Orision wrote:There is no contradiction within that statement. Perhaps if I rephrase it, you will understand: because minors are not mature enough to give informed consent, it is the duty of both society and the parents to protect them. You have made the argument that the children should be circumcised if the parents want it to be so because the child cannot consent, whereas I say that because the child cannot consent, and circumcision is quite a significant and permanent procedure, that society should step in and prevent the parents from having the child mutilated, then when the child reaches adulthood they can choose circumcision if they want.

No, my argument is that if you're truly interested in reducing unnecessary pain you should be for outlawing having children because that's a parental choice that results in orders of magnitude more pain than their choice of a circumcision.

You are of course trying to move the argument since you don't seem to be able to defeat this one. And using the usual appeal-to-emotion tactics that won't work here.

Pulvinar wrote:

Orision wrote:
...and since the unnecessary* procedure is permanent, irreversible (foreskin restoration, AFAIK, doesn't generate skin with the significant concentration of nerves that the foreskin has), and has the significant side effect of reducing sexual pleasure, the parent's do not have the right to make this choice for the child.

The "reducing sexual pleasure" is a subjective view, not a fact. It doesn't help your argument.

In point of fact, the reduction of sexual pleasure is a PROBABILITY, not a view. The probability of reduced sexual pleasure IS a fact. And yes, it does help my argument. If you believe that it doesn't help my argument, then point out how. I have provided evidence that it is a probability, whereas you simply state that is not so. Provide proof or yield the point. Again, but two links of proof of the fact of probability:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_eff ... sturbation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_eff ... tisfaction

Those are comparing adult circumcisions-- not the same. I've seen enough studies on both sides of this issue to know that it's not going to be answered by pointing to your favorite studies. That game could go on forever.

Pulvinar wrote:

Orision wrote:
To understand the logic (that is, the whether my logic is strong (the following is not to test validity of premises, but to test strength of inductive argument): If a baby required a blood transfusion to save their left leg, and the parents did not want the transfusion to occur for, let's say, religious reasons, they do not have the authority to speak for the child and deny the child their left leg, nor does the child have the authority to deny themselves their leg because they have not yet matured to the point where they are capable of making such a decision; society is the one to make the decision, and chooses that the child retaining their leg is more important than either their will or their parents' will. There are three powerful authorities in a child's life: theirs, their parents', and society's.

You can't claim that the baby is an authority here if the baby isn't able to do any authorizing. Just the parents and their society decide. I don't see why you included this.

I included that point to help you understand my point that there are three sources for a child's determination, the child, the parent, and society. And I use the analogy of a case where, in my view of things, society has a duty to step and determine the fate of the child despite what the child or the parents want, to try and show that I believe that society should step in similarly in the case of circumcision. I included this example because you seem to be having a hard time understanding what it is I am saying, and keep arguing against things I am not saying.

And I'm still having a hard time understanding what you're saying. Exactly how does a baby determine this? You've already counted society and the parents as two of the three sources so you can't count them again. So I count just society and the parents. If society decides to step in then they will, but it doesn't affect my argument.

Pulvinar wrote:

Orision wrote:
You argument is fallacious by being syllogistic. You use equivocation. That is, you are using multiple definitions for the same word without acknowledging that the definition is not the same in each case.
1) Inflicting unnecessary pain is bad. In this case, unnecessary means that it is not required to save life, limb, remove significant pain, etc.
2) Having a baby is unnecessary. In this case, unnecessary means that one is not required to do so.

These are two significantly different meanings

No, I haven't changed the meaning of "unnecessary". Sentence 1 is your inventive interpretation, not mine.

Please provide your definition of "unnecessary pain" as it relates to being inflicted either on a person who cannot give consent or who not given consent. Examples might include: the pain of an appendectomy and recovery from said appendectomy upon an unconscious patient is necessary because the patient would die if you do not; the salvation of life is more important than the infliction of pain.

Please also provide your explanation of "unnecessary" as it pertains to growing a baby.

You're asking me to redefine "unnecessary" in peculiar ways so that my argument doesn't hold? I use the same definition: not needed for anything. It works fine for both cases: the pain is not needed for anything. The baby is not needed for anything.

I maintain that you are making you argument in invalid: Having a baby is unnecessary only in that the only thing that necessitates it is the existence of said baby. Inflicting pain is only necessary when it saves life, limb, stops significant pain, etc. In this case, having a baby is in fact necessary for the life of that baby to exist, which makes life's pains that result from said birth necessary pains as far as "Inflicting unnecessary pain is bad."

Pain is part of the whole baby package. If the baby as a whole is unnecessary, then any part is also unnecessary.

My argument is that the baby as a whole is unnecessary and having it is a parental choice that results in *all* pain that baby will have. That is the much more critical choice that parents make, and it must come before we get into deciding which of that pain is necessary for other reasons.

If society is judging by pain, and causing a lifetime's worth of pain is legal then it seems that any further choice parents make is relatively minor. I'm just going by where the logic takes us.

The fact that this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law even exists should open people's eyes a bit.

It's disappointing that the UK part is more concerned with parental custody than human rights.

Pulvinar wrote:Pain is part of the whole baby package. If the baby as a whole is unnecessary, then any part is also unnecessary.

Oh come on-- no one caught my blatant use of fallacy of division here??

Pulvinar wrote:
I wasn't arguing this, because it can't be demonstrated one way or the other. You do have to wonder of course why the thousands (millions?) of male doctors who have had circumcisions themselves didn't put a stop to this long ago if this were true.

For the same reason female circumcision continues to be performed in areas where it is prevalent by women whom themselves are circumcised, cultural inertia.

Perhaps this is just me being stupid... I can't help but worry if it's prevalence in the US is because there is no NHS of any kind? I'm concerned about going to the dentist for fear he'll want me to have something done when I don't really need anything done, I can't imagine being in a country where I'd have to worry about that at the docs too.

Still, Canada has high circumcision rate too and has an NHS, so I guess not. But is the number of circumcised males lower in canada than the US?

HAJiME wrote:Still, Canada has high circumcision rate too and has an NHS, so I guess not. But is the number of circumcised males lower in canada than the US?

It is lower, but still high considering non-religious motivation.

Edited to add: See here.

HAJiME wrote:Perhaps this is just me being stupid... I can't help but worry if it's prevalence in the US is because there is no NHS of any kind? I'm concerned about going to the dentist for fear he'll want me to have something done when I don't really need anything done, I can't imagine being in a country where I'd have to worry about that at the docs too.

Still, Canada has high circumcision rate too and has an NHS, so I guess not. But is the number of circumcised males lower in canada than the US?

The Canadian rate is much lower than the US though they did fall into the same trap and had a much higher rate not too long ago. The rates in Canada vary greatly by region but don't usually exceed more than 40% or so, and they've been inching down. It takes a long time to shake that monkey of societies back.

ETA: Here is a better place to look: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/rhs-ssg/pdf/tab-eng.pdf
About page 246.

The cite referenced previously is very biased so take what you read there with a grain of salt.

Pulvinar wrote:

Orision wrote:There is no contradiction within that statement. Perhaps if I rephrase it, you will understand: because minors are not mature enough to give informed consent, it is the duty of both society and the parents to protect them. You have made the argument that the children should be circumcised if the parents want it to be so because the child cannot consent, whereas I say that because the child cannot consent, and circumcision is quite a significant and permanent procedure, that society should step in and prevent the parents from having the child mutilated, then when the child reaches adulthood they can choose circumcision if they want.

No, my argument is that if you're truly interested in reducing unnecessary pain you should be for outlawing having children because that's a parental choice that results in orders of magnitude more pain than their choice of a circumcision.

You are of course trying to move the argument since you don't seem to be able to defeat this one. And using the usual appeal-to-emotion tactics that won't work here.

I am not making any appeal to emotion, and in the future, if you wish me to take your accusations of fallacy seriously, include an explanation of how I am performing that fallacy. An interest in reducing unnecessary pain would not seek the outlawing of having children, because the pain of life is a NECESSARY pain, else life would not exist. I have already told you how I am using "unnecessary", but here it is again: pain is necessary if it saves the life or limb of those experiencing it, or cures extreme pain; therefore the pains created by choosing to have a baby (this includes all the pains that baby will have throughout their life) are NECESSARY BECAUSE NOT INFLICTING THE PAIN WOULD PREVENT/DESTROY/HARM THE SUBJECT'S LIFE.

Pulvinar wrote:

Orision wrote:

Pulvinar wrote:

The "reducing sexual pleasure" is a subjective view, not a fact. It doesn't help your argument.

In point of fact, the reduction of sexual pleasure is a PROBABILITY, not a view. The probability of reduced sexual pleasure IS a fact. And yes, it does help my argument. If you believe that it doesn't help my argument, then point out how. I have provided evidence that it is a probability, whereas you simply state that is not so. Provide proof or yield the point. Again, but two links of proof of the fact of probability:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_eff ... sturbation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_eff ... tisfaction

Those are comparing adult circumcisions-- not the same. I've seen enough studies on both sides of this issue to know that it's not going to be answered by pointing to your favorite studies. That game could go on forever.

Perhaps the game could go on forever; as it is, I am the only one playing it, as you have cited NO references; furthermore, the reason adult circumcision are used is so that the subjects already have experience with sexual pleasures, which allows them to compare sexual pleasures after the circumcision to before, and thus know if pleasure was increased or decreased. Now, the amount of sexual pleasure one feels as a (not-recently) circumcised adult is the same one would feel whether they were circumcised at birth or at 18, this is based on how the human body generally functions, and if you want me to take credibly a criticism of this inductive reasoning, kindly provide evidence or at least a decent logical reasoning for how it is not true. Circumcised as an adult or as a baby yields the same results, after the body had healed of the circumcision and adjusted to it's new form. Oh, and yes, it IS going to be answered by me pointing to studies that support my argument, because THAT IS PART OF HOW DEBATE WORKS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_eff ... sturbation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_eff ... tisfaction

You state that having a baby is unnecessary. I disagree; having a baby is necessary for the baby to exist, as would, for example, later in life, a heart transplant be necessary for that same being to continue in life. However, having a baby is unnecessary for, say, starting a fire in your fire place, turning on a computer, listening to music, etc, but those points are irrelevant to the topic at hand. I will try to rephrase my argument yet again:

Having a baby is not necessary for many things in life. If, however, one chooses to have a baby, they are responsible for it, as is society, and so will, eventually, that child itself be responsible for itself. In keeping with the responsibility that society has to children, society should step in and make circumcision illegal. The reason for this is that the detriments of circumcision are real, significant, and permanent, while the procedure of circumcision is not required (in the very vast majority of cases) to save the life or limb of the child or to prevent extreme pain.

What is your argument, anyways? It seems to me like you're arguing that circumcision should be legal, is this correct?

Pulvinar wrote:

Orision wrote:

Pulvinar wrote:
You can't claim that the baby is an authority here if the baby isn't able to do any authorizing. Just the parents and their society decide. I don't see why you included this.

I included that point to help you understand my point that there are three sources for a child's determination, the child, the parent, and society. And I use the analogy of a case where, in my view of things, society has a duty to step and determine the fate of the child despite what the child or the parents want, to try and show that I believe that society should step in similarly in the case of circumcision. I included this example because you seem to be having a hard time understanding what it is I am saying, and keep arguing against things I am not saying.

And I'm still having a hard time understanding what you're saying. Exactly how does a baby determine this? You've already counted society and the parents as two of the three sources so you can't count them again. So I count just society and the parents. If society decides to step in then they will, but it doesn't affect my argument.

I hope this is the last time I have to tell you this: THE BABY IS NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING ANY SUCH DETERMINATION, THUS IT FALLS TO SOCIETY AND THE PARENTS. Of course, as a child grows, so do their capabilities, and with them their ability to determine their own fate. Withing the entire group of not-adult, there are three powers which determine the fate of a child, and their level of power varies with the age of the child as well as with the topic. Society, of course, has the most power because they command the men with guns.
More to the point, though: My argument is that society should step in to stop the unnecessary pain and destruction of pleasure (I have already provided more evidence that this is the case than you have provided that it is not the case) that is circumcision, and that the pain is unnecessary because it does not save the life or limb of the child, nor does it prevent extreme pain.

Pulvinar wrote:

Orision wrote:

Pulvinar wrote:

No, I haven't changed the meaning of "unnecessary". Sentence 1 is your inventive interpretation, not mine.

Please provide your definition of "unnecessary pain" as it relates to being inflicted either on a person who cannot give consent or who not given consent. Examples might include: the pain of an appendectomy and recovery from said appendectomy upon an unconscious patient is necessary because the patient would die if you do not; the salvation of life is more important than the infliction of pain.

Please also provide your explanation of "unnecessary" as it pertains to growing a baby.

You're asking me to redefine "unnecessary" in peculiar ways so that my argument doesn't hold? I use the same definition: not needed for anything. It works fine for both cases: the pain is not needed for anything. The baby is not needed for anything.

It would appear that you and I have different definitions of "unnecessary", and I have reworded my argument earlier in this post.

Pulvinar wrote:

Orision wrote:I maintain that you are making you argument in invalid: Having a baby is unnecessary only in that the only thing that necessitates it is the existence of said baby. Inflicting pain is only necessary when it saves life, limb, stops significant pain, etc. In this case, having a baby is in fact necessary for the life of that baby to exist, which makes life's pains that result from said birth necessary pains as far as "Inflicting unnecessary pain is bad."

Pain is part of the whole baby package. If the baby as a whole is unnecessary, then any part is also unnecessary.

My argument is that the baby as a whole is unnecessary and having it is a parental choice that results in *all* pain that baby will have. That is the much more critical choice that parents make, and it must come before we get into deciding which of that pain is necessary for other reasons.

If society is judging by pain, and causing a lifetime's worth of pain is legal then it seems that any further choice parents make is relatively minor. I'm just going by where the logic takes us.

That the choice must first be made whether or not to have a baby does not negate that decisions must also be made after birth. Decisions must be made after the child is born, and many those decisions can not be neglected just because of the fact that "having a baby is a choice". I'm just going to keep repeating myself in different ways for a bit now: "That having a baby is a more critical choice than circumcision does not mean that circumcision (snip, don't, outlaw, make mandatory, etc.) is not an important choice."

Society is not judging by pain, but rather by whether the pain is justified by the ends it produces, and how far society is willing to step in and restrict the parents (and child in some cases) depends on the significance of the pain, how certain the science is, whether the pain is necessary for life/limb/cutting out crippling pain, etc. The logic would indeed take us there, but your premises are untrue: I say again, society is not judging by pain. The case of circumcision is that significant pain is caused, and permanent reduction in pleasure is caused, and there is no necessitating ("justifying") factor. (To help you understand, a case where pain would be justified/necessitated is the case of whether or not to re-break a bone so it can set properly; in some cases, the pain of breaking the bone anew would be justified by the increased functionality of the limb and decreased pain in the limb after it sets after being re-broken, as compared to the case of not re-breaking the limb).

"blatant use of fallacy of division" (not your only fallacy) I'm not sure if I would have caught this if you hadn't posted it, since you posted it before I really went through your post, but you did word it pretty blatantly. Because you made such a blatant fallacy and called yourself on it, I suspect that you are using such illogical arguments and horrible fallacies here because you want to play games, not because you want to seek the truth and acquire a higher understanding of things. If you want to play games, start a thread in "fun and games", but keep your games out of forums where people are actively seeking the truth, your (allegedly) intentional trolling and intentional derailment are extremely despised. Since other people have been banned for trolling, were I you I would not be trolling unless I wanted to be banned and unless I wanted to intentionally damage the search for understanding.

For a small FEE I will remove your baby’s little finger.
He still young and won't remember any of the pain when he is older.
Without a little finger it will be cleaner because obviously with one less finger it’s just one less thing to wash, but make sure he still washes his other 4 fingers they can and will still get smelly and dirty even with one less finger to wash. (Not having a little finger is no excuse to stop washing your hand).
Also in this culture of shaving hair off/waxing cutting off FORESKIN because people/culture thinks it looks better, this little finger removal procedure fits in today’s modern “cut things off vanity” society perfectly (the women will go wild for it when he’s older only having 4 fingers).
He’s much more unlikely to get little finger cancer or any little finger diseases or infection, because he won't have a little finger when we are done.
as you know humans mainly only use their thumb index finger and middle finger to hold things, sure without a little finger his grip will be VERY slightly worsen, but he's young he won't know any better, by the time he grows up he would of gotten used to only having 4 fingers.
All the benefits of: being cleaner, fitting into society and no chance of little finger cancer and or little finger infection means it’s well worth the; MONEY, PAIN and WEAKENING OF GRIP.
Like I said for only a small FEE I will cut his little finger off and you can take your brand new (mutilated) child happily home with a bloody bandage over his hand.

Oh how I love my job. Congrats once again on the new baby.

Wow, thread resurrection.

I listened to part of an interview on CBC today with the usual pro/con input. The 'con' had suggested that babies be left intact and if they wished to access the alleged advantages of circumcision they could do so when they were of an age to make that decision themselves. I found it rather sickeningly amusing that the 'pro' doctor's rebuttal of that point was that he personally had a hard time getting his 11 year old son to shower let alone trying to convince him to get circumcised.

This doctor actually thought that was a valid reason to circumcise babies. Made me shake my head.

To be fair, he had other points regarding a cumulative protection against a number of diseases, almost all of which were valid only for sexually active people, but that one comment really stuck out for me.

The interview was on "As It Happens", CBC Radio, April 5, 2011. If interested you should be able to find it. I only heard a part of the 'con', and tbh she sounded fairly shrill, but I didn't disagree with what I heard. The 'pro' sounded like an arrogant dic.

Oops, I cut the end off.

Onyx8 wrote:Wow, thread resurrection.
To be fair, he had other points regarding a cumulative protection against a number of diseases, almost all of which were valid only for sexually active people, but that one comment really stuck out for me.

True smaller surface area = less surface area to infect not to mention it’s the surface area with all the chemical sensory bits and nerve endings (that absorbs stuff from your partner). Just depends if you see the act of cutting something off is a valid form of prevention, but that choice really should be left of the boy to make when he grows up. Because then you will know if you like your foreskin or not. I have no doubt that having it cut off will make it less sensitive with the simple logic: if you’re missing an arm that said arm isn’t going to feel pain or pleasure anymore.
I can understand why some people fight of the cause; it’s just the culture they’ve grown up in. Hopefully as with racism and sexism, in time it will die out, once the older generation die out and the more liberal younger (generally more liberal) are born. I’m sure I just made some peoples skin crawl right now XD

Well, I am cut, my Dad was cut, I don't know about my Grand-dad. But my son is not, so hopefully it stops here.

then i shall give you an internet hug



you can be the tiger if you like

Thanks.