Senate Bill has Muslims & Jews Outraged

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Here's a thread with much background information on the subject:

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2032&start=240&hilit=circumcision




It would appear that most of the "medical" justifications for circumcision are of debatable worth at best.

I wouldn't call them Medical justifications more than Medical benefits. It's not like they're amputating a toe, or shearing off your nose. It could be better compared to having your appendex removed-
You'll never get appendicitis - but it's just a medical benefit.

 

[TheFearmonger]

Hytegia, it seems you are missing the point. the foreskin carries with it a majority of the nerves that cause pleasure. The medical "benefits" are merely justifications, not reasons. the reason for this is religious in nature. Given these two facts, it should be evident that you should not be able to do this to a child. Not only does it fall under religious indoctrination(even if it isn't meant that way), but it denies that tiny human the right to choice. this isn't so much about the side little fringe benefits you gain or lose, because none of those are important. What is important is that these kids get a religious ceremony conducted on them at birth, without their consent, and it deadens sexual pleasure for the rest of their lives(which was why it was instituted)

There is no compelling reason to do this to a child, and there are logical ones to refrain from it. Therefore, people should be confronted with the facts, and then allow themselves to make the decision.


Edit: btw, in answer to your earlier assertion, I have been circumcised, yes. I also realize it was done for tradition, a stupid and meaningless reason to do anything, much less conduct the desert nomad ritual of removing the most pleasurable part of your body. Do I "go around whining", as you put it? No, but I still hope this bill passes. It does away with a terrible practice that has long been used for oppression.

 

[5810Singer]

Here's a thread with much background information on the subject:

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2032&start=240&hilit=circumcision




It would appear that most of the "medical" justifications for circumcision are of debatable worth at best.

I wouldn't call them Medical justifications more than Medical benefits. It's not like they're amputating a toe, or shearing off your nose. It could be better compared to having your appendex removed-
You'll never get appendicitis - but it's just a medical benefit.

I didn't call them "Medical justifications", I called them "medical" justifications, the parenthesis around the word "medical" denoting that there's no real medical evidence to support them.

Check the thread I linked to Hytegia, it's long but there's loads of evidence presented there.

 

[borrofburi]

<naive stuff>

Go read the last several pages of the circumcision thread, specifically where Freedom0f5peech starts posting (the one that Singer linked to). Specifically read Nogre's responses, since your responses seem to be very similar. You also seem to be significantly misinformed about some things, for instance the foreskin does serve a function. Moreover, even if it didn't, it is non-elective permanent unnecessary cosmetic surgery, and all such things should be the choice of the individual to whom they are done.

Of course, female circumcision is outrageous, but male circumcision? Mmmm I dunno. Seems to me it's more hygienic for males to be circumcised. I am happy with my circumcised penis and a little revolted by uncircumcised penises. They look like anteaters....

More hygenic? No evidence for that. You like circumcized more? So what? Again, this is all naive and misses the point entirely, and I give the same responses to you as I do to Hytegia (I.e. read the above, it applies to you as well)

What is important is that these kids get a religious ceremony conducted on them at birth, without their consent,

Precisely.

 

[freedom0f5peech]

I'm very busy with work at the moment, and so I cannot reply directly to the comments just yet (though I will).

In the meantime, there has been an interesting blog post on THE GOTHAM SKEPTIC regarding circumcision. The author (Page) is not very well educated about this topic, yet puts her 2 cents in. More interesting is the comments she receives, both on the original blog post, and her follow-up (both will be linked below).

Her first blog post (please read the comments/replies, as they are more informative than the blog):
http://www.nycskeptics.org/blog/vaccines-circumcision-and-the-huffpo/

Her follow-up blog post (please read the comments/replies, as they are more informative than the blog):
http://www.nycskeptics.org/blog/neonatal-male-cirumcision-cont/

It's interesting to read from John Snyder (Chief of the Section of General Pediatrics at Saint Vincent's Hospital in New York City), and how ill-informed he is about such an important topic (but goes to show how pitifully educated American doctors are on this subject).

I'll be back to comment on what is being mentioned here soon... in the mean time, below is my response to Page & John.

Regards.
f05

 

[freedom0f5peech]

I'll go ahead and post my replies (to this blog) here, in case they are lost or removed (because I think they are important).

==========================================

My first reply is to John Snyder.
John Snyder, M.D., is Chief of the Section of General Pediatrics at Saint Vincent's Hospital in New York City.
He is also Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at New York Medical College.

Comment Here: http://www.nycskeptics.org/blog/neonatal-male-cirumcision-cont/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

@John Snyder (you wrote):
"I'm sorry your sexual sensitivity is less than you'd like it to be, but perhaps there are other explanations for this?"

Why would there have to be other explanations... how could there not be loss of sensitivity? The foreskin contains a tighter concentration of nerve endings than any other part of the penis (Sorrells, British Journal of Urology, 2007). Almost all of the fine touch nerve receptors (Meissner's Corpuscles) are located in the foreskin, so without it a sense of fine touch is mostly removed (Taylor et al., Journal of Urology, 1996).

@John Snyder (you wrote):
"In addition to the very clear reduction in risk of HIV transmission"

This reduction isn't clear at all. The 3 RTCs used to show this were not double-blinded, nor properly controlled (there was no control).

All three RCTs were halted earlier than designed, including a study investigating the effect upon female infections (Wawer MJ, Lancet. 2009;374: 229-37). In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing toward the intact men's rate prior to the study being halted (Bailey RC, Lancet, 2007;369(9562):643-56). Following the study period, all participants in the "control" group were then offered circumcision, eliminating the possibility of any accurate follow-up study.

The studies showed that male circumcision offered no protection to women (Turner, et al., AIDS, 2007;21:1779-89). Rather, circumcising men infected with HIV appeared to increase transmission of the virus to female partners (Wawer MJ, et al., Lancet. 2009;374: 229-37). Male circumcision places women at greater risk of unsafe sex practices if they or their male sexual partners believe or insist they are immune from HIV.

Circumcision does not protect men having sex with men (Millett G, 2007;46(5):643-50).

Circumcision is less effective, riskier, and more expensive than condom use. Researchers who modeled South African data on a computer reported that "circumcision had a limited impact in reducing both new infections (range 3%-13% reduction) and deaths (range 2%-4% reduction), and its impact was overshadowed when combined with the other interventions" (Lima V. et al., WECA105, 2009). One analysis comparing the cost of circumcision with the cost of condoms found that condoms were 98% effective at hindering HIV transmission and reception, and 95 times more cost-effective than circumcision (McAllister RG, Men's Health, 2008;7(2):307-16).

The effects of researcher bias have not been considered as part of the RCT design or results. A Cochrane Collaboration Report from 2003 (Siegfried N, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 3) cautioned against such bias, stating: "Circumcision practices are largely culturally determined, so there are strong beliefs and opinions surrounding them. It is important to acknowledge that researchers' personal biases and dominant circumcision practices of their respective countries may influence interpretation of findings."

Even if the African studies were internally reliable, differences between the study population and social environment in sub-Saharan Africa and the American context render them unsuitable for drawing any conclusions about HIV prevention in the United States. the United States and sub-Saharan Africa differ in many ways, including, varying cultural and sexual practices, both hetero- and homosexual, different viral strains, different sanitary conditions, different levels of access to preventive services and general health care. If circumcision were effective in preventing the transmission of HIV, it is highly unlikely that the United States, where most adult men are circumcised, would have higher rates of HIV prevalence than countries in Europe, where circumcision is rare.

The circumcised group had specific instructions to abstain from sex and use condoms that the intact control group did not.
Experimenter and circumcision advocate Robert Bailey has admitted that "repeated study visits and intensive behavioral counseling" of the circumcised men were needed to reduce risk behaviors (Trinidad Express, Aug 20 2007).

If these results are acted on, with mass circumcision campaigns:

#1. Protection, if any, would be extended to a population, but it would be impossible to convince the average man that circumcision did not confer significant protection on him personally.

#2. The temptation would be irresistible, especially if he had submitted to a painful operation in adulthood, for a man to say "I'm circumcised, I'm safe".
- He would be more likely to lean on partners for unprotected sex
- This dis-empowers women

#3. Transmission from man to woman is easier than from woman to man. Circumcision has not been shown to protect women directly. (Circumcision protects men from AIDS but might increase risk to women, early results suggest (International Herald Tribune, Tuesday, 6 March 2007).

#4. Since circumcision desensitizes the glans, men circumcised in adulthood would be less willing to use condoms than before. (C. YANG, W. BRADLEY, The Journal of Urology, Volume 161, Issue 1, Pages 97-102)

#5. If they combine mass circumcision with Abstinence, Be faithful, Condoms, campaigns, as they propose, it will be impossible to tell what is responsible for the outcome: circumcision will be given the credit for any reduction, but will not have to take the blame for any lack of reduction.

@John Snyder (you wrote):
"there is an approximately 10 fold reduction in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life"

Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) are rare, and mainly occur in the first year of life. They are several times more common in girls than boys (but of course surgery is, rightly, never considered for girls). Consider that UTIs are more common among girls, treatment is close to the same, and knowing the importance of the foreskin as a pleasure receptive part of the genitals, it's clear that treatment should not include circumcision (just as it does not for girls).

@John Snyder (you wrote):
"It is also pretty universally recommended that a boy be circumcised after a first UTI, as this significantly reduces the likelihood of acquiring a second."

Considering that circumcision results in losing the most sensitive part of the penis (Sorrells, British Journal of Urology, 2007), this is a highly irrational measure to take.

@John Snyder (you wrote):
"Complications are vanishingly rare."

Regardless of what you might call a complication, 100% of circumcisions result in loss of tissue, loss of nerve endings, loss of fine touch, and loss of pleasure receptive ability.


==========================================

Below, I am repling to Page.
Page received her doctorate in Zoology (in New York City). She is a scientist, educator, and student. Page is a member of the board of directors for the New York City Skeptics, and is part of the organizing committee for the Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism (NECSS).

Comments Here: http://www.nycskeptics.org/blog/vaccines-circumcision-and-the-huffpo/
And Here: http://www.nycskeptics.org/blog/neonatal-male-cirumcision-cont/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Page
You say little lasting damage? How is it not lasting? Do we grow new nerve endings to compensate? I'm not aware of any studies which show such a thing.

@Page (you wrote):
"There is fleeting, subjective, and poorly defined evidence that uncircumcised men enjoy greater sexual pleasure than circumcised men"

This shouldn't be difficult to understand, as an intact (not circumcised) female (yourself). The male (Taylor et al., Journal of Urology, 1996) and female (R. K. Winkelmann, Proceedings Of The Staff Meetings Of The Mayo Clinic, Vol 34, No 2, 1959) prepuce are highly innervated with Meissners Corpuscles (sense of fine touch). Without the male foreskin, almost all fine touch nerve receptors are removed, and he can no longer sense this ability in full, like removing one taste from your taste buds (Cold & Taylor, BJU, 1999).

@Page (you wrote):
"This is not at all similar to the resulting harm of female genital mutilation"

You cannot so easily compare female and male circumcision. Female circumcision is divided into 4 "types". Each of these types have several variations, and Type IV encompasses all the kinds that Type I, II & III do not cover (WHO, Fact sheet No. 241, Feb 2010).

Several of these FGM procedures are far less severe than the average kind of MGM (Male Genital Mutilation, a.k.a. male circumcision) performed in the west. For example, Type I (kind 2) which is removal of the clitoral prepuce (WHO, Fact sheet No. 241, Feb 2010). While this is a homologous equivalent to the average western male circumcision, it removes less tissue, and less nerve endings (Fleiss, 1997:39).

Another example is FGM Type IV Pricking (WHO, Fact sheet No. 241, Feb 2010). This involves simply pricking (with a needle) the clitoris for a ceremonial drop of blood. Nothing is removed, and no nerve endings are lost.

Both of the above FGM examples will land you 14 years in prison in the USA, and are FAR less severe than the most average type of male circumcision.

@Page (you wrote):
"raise your hand if you have ever visited a less developed nation"

You seem to imply here that developed nations are circumcised, and non-developed nations are not. This could not be more incorrect. The majority of the developed nations do not circumcise. It's mostly Muslim nations that circumcise, with the exception of the USA (WHO, Dec 14 2007, ISBN 978-92-9173-633-1).

@Page (you wrote):
"that is a long way from saying that circumcision carries significant risks"

This is the error I am trying to correct. The line of thought per circumcision in America is entirely flawed. It's not risk vs. benefits, its loss vs. benefits. You CANNOT assess risk if you don't know the function of the part that is being amputated. Risk of ADDITIONAL problems BEYOND LOSS may be low, but the LOSS is immediate and life-lasting. Please research "Functions of the Foreskin".

i.e., if we didn't understand the obvious necessity of the fingers, and used a risk vs. benefit scenario to removing them, removing them would look favorable (no more ingrown fingernails, reduced hand warts, reduce hand injuries, etc)"¦ you need to study the function of the part being amputated before you can weigh risk vs. benefit (finger amputation is no risk vs. benefit, it's benefit vs. loss).

@Page (you wrote):
"why waste energy crusading against it?"

"Crusading" is an unnecessary emotive word here. This is a basic human rights discussion.

@Page (you wrote):
"I was in error to broach the subject of neonatal male circumcision in such a glib manner"

There is no error in discussing this topic, either for or against. The error was in comparing circumcision to vaccines (there is no strong evidence against vaccines, nor do vaccines remove or amputate any parts of the body).

@Page (you wrote):
"Obviously many of you feel that question should not even be posed to parents, and are 'crusading' against this"

Again, "Crusading" is an unnecessary emotive word here. There are people who are trying to get the rights of the child taken more seriously.

@Page (you wrote):
"Looking only at the science of an issue without factoring in broader consequences is quite reductionist."

Actually, we can stick with the science, we just have to be sure that we understand the function of what is being amputated before we can justify removal for any perceived "benefit".

@Page (you wrote):
"beware of the "correlation is not causation" fallacy."

Excellent! I'm glad you brought that up, because this applies equally to the results of various studies. For example, Williams BG (PLoS Med. 2006 Jul;3(7):e262) found a higher rate of HIV in southern Africa (where less circumcisions are performed) compared to northern Africa (where almost all of the men are circumcised). But correlation is not causation. The northern countries are Muslim, and sex outside of marriage (arranged, only 1 partner for life) can land you a death sentence! So which is more likely? That circumcision is reducing HIV, or that virtually no sleeping around outside of a single arranged marriage is reducing the spread of HIV?

@Page (you wrote):
"it has been documented to do in Uganda"

While Uganda may have a higher rate of HIV among intact men (as does Ethiopia, Cote d'lvoire, Burkina Faso and Kenya), most of these south African countries have a MUCH HIGHER rate of HIV (significantly higher than the difference between the rates of the countries I mentioned previously) among circumcised men (Cameroon, Rwanda, Lesotho, Malawi, Tanzania, Ghana and Swaziland)(Demographic and Health Surveys, Measure DHS). I'll say that again"¦ most of of these nations have HIGHER rates of HIV among Circumcised Men.

@Page (you wrote):
"the issue of whether the procedure of circumcision would benefit from a standard risk analysis where the medical benefits are weighed against the risks."

You continue to indulge in the same fallacy here. It's not benefit vs. risk, its benefit vs. loss. The loss is immediate, additional risks are an after-thought (concern).

@Page (you wrote):
"both topics can be subjected to medical risk assessment"

Again"¦ It's not benefit vs. risk (like a vaccine), its benefit vs. loss (you need to understand the function of what is lost, we can't look at later risks alone, and that's of secondary concern).

@Page (you wrote):
"Unlike female circumcision which has no medical or biological benefit"

Sure it has. We can find similarly silly "benefits" to female circumcision.

Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone Female Circumcision was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, and union status.
Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania:
For Better or For Worse?
(3rd IAS conf. on HIV pathogenesis & treatment)
International AIDS Society

Kanki et al. reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes, women who had undergone Female Circumcision had a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not.
Kanki P, M'Boup S, Marlink R, et al.
Prevalence & risk determinants of HIV-2 & HIV-1 in West African female prostitutes
Am. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895-907. PMID

@Page (you wrote):
"the medical literature suggests that there are beneficial outcomes to male circumcision."

Also true of female circumcision, which I showed above.

@Page (you wrote, regarding Sorrels 2007):
"is unclear how this loss of sensitivity might translate into loss of sexual pleasure"

As I explained above, it's a loss of fine touch sensation. This obviously does not remove the ability to have sex or feel pleasure, but there is no doubt that removing the ability to sense fine touch, removes the ability to sense fine touch (2+0=2, 0+2=2). And as I explained above, as an intact female (yourself), you should have a good idea what fine-touch (Meissners Corpuscles) feel like in your genital region.

@Page (you wrote):
"It is this jump that is highly controversial in the literature and is difficult to test."

It's not difficult to test at all, only non-profitable to conduct such tests (like Sorrells 2007). Finding reasons to circumcise results in ways to make profit (remember that studies are funded by companies who are interested in profit)"¦ finding reasons not to circumcise don't result in any profit.

@Page (you wrote):
"I apologize if it appeared that I did not deal with this risk with sufficient sensitivity"

There is no need to be "sensitive". I don't believe in PC (Politically Correct) language, and so I have no issue with the language you used. My issue is that you are using "risk" instead of LOSS to determine the cost/benefit.

@Page (you wrote):
"Once the risks and benefits are assessed they need to be weighed"

Repeating the same error yet again. It's Loss vs. Benefit (not risk vs. benefit).

@Page (you wrote):
"having a good understanding of the science supporting the pros and cons is essential and a matter of good skeptical inquiry."

Now THAT, (as an ardent skeptic, and regular member of the skeptic community, myself) can completely agree with you on.

@Page (you wrote):
"to the anger in the comments"

That was undoubtedly because of the seeming connection between vaccines and circumcision that your previous blog hinted at. I think that's a dangerous comparison, and many others agree. The two could not be much different.



Kind Regards,
f05 ( http://www.youtube.com/freedom0f5peech )

.

 

[Proteus]

I am happy with my circumcised penis and a little revolted by uncircumcised penises. They look like anteaters....

It's a good thing then that we don't rule on what people find disgusting then, because homophobes use the same pitiful excuse your using to justify why gay people shouldn't be able to get married. And when one considers the statistics I'm pretty sure most people would think that your dick is "revolting". But your still missing the point we are arguing that parents shouldn't be able to chose how to permanently surgically modify their children no matter what it is, especially when there's no fucking reason to.

As a quick side note, freedom0f5peech you rock.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

It's a good thing then that we don't rule on what people find disgusting then, because homophobes use the same pitiful excuse your using to justify why gay people shouldn't be able to get married. And when one considers the statistics I'm pretty sure most people would think that your dick is "revolting". But your still missing the point we are arguing that parents shouldn't be able to chose how to permanently surgically modify their children no matter what it is, especially when there's no fucking reason to.

As a quick side note, freedom0f5peech you rock.

I'm not saying that either side is horrific or overzealous - it just amazed me that people are getting up-in-arms over it. :/
It' a cock. It hangs low, and most women love it. If the procedure is done correctly, that will still exist but to an unconfirmable standpoint to either ones that will be their whole lives, or ones that won't (which is what it usually turns out to be anyhow).

Call me ignorant all that you will (@borrofburri) but you cannot claim that the reason of my questioning this entire discussion is not soundly from the nuteural standpoint.

 

[Proteus]

I'm not saying that either side is horrific or overzealous - it just amazed me that people are getting up-in-arms over it. :/

We think it's wrong and unethical which is why we care so much. If people didn't get "up-in-arms" over things which were morally wrong then we'd still have slavery and subjugation of women.

I'm not saying that either side is horrific or overzealous...

"[E]ither side is horrific"? What do you mean?

It's a cock. It hangs low, and most women love it. If the procedure is done correctly, that will still exist but to an unconfirmable standpoint to either ones that will be their whole lives, or ones that won't (which is what it usually turns out to be anyhow).

I think I understand what you're trying to say here (in which case you'd be wrong), but just to be sure you could paraphrase this statement?

 

[TheFearmonger]

Hytegia, you ask why we get up in arms over this. This, as we have previously asserted, is because we like human rights more than religious oppression. If you feel apathetic about this because you do not feel as we do, then there is nothing that will change your mind. To us, people matter more than false religions and their ceremonies. If you aren't aware of the facts of loss a person has, then such things are easy to find. Google is your friend. If you ask why we seem to be attacking your position, you have posted here. This post seems defensive, so I feel I must say this; you posted your thoughts on a forum of thinking skeptics. Therefore, your position will be attacked. That is how we grow. So, please, I must ask you to reconsider your position, as it seems to be one useless for the progression of the human race. If we allow these stupid traditions of slicing your child to satisfy a non-existent god to continue just from apathy to fix it, what kind of people are we? We, as humans, should fight for our kind. We must destroy those things that harm our kind, and this is one of those things.

 

[Case]

Call me ignorant all that you will (@borrofburri) but you cannot claim that the reason of my questioning this entire discussion is not soundly from the nuteural standpoint.

Oh, he can.

I'm sorry - I was believing that you were undermining the medical procedure by bringing up one problematic case.

No way. That would be as preposterous as... say... trying to undermine the validity of criticism of this medical procedure by bringing up one self-reportedly unproblematic case.

As I said, it's not really a detrement to my life. At all.

If a person wants to mutilate their genitals, by all means, if he or she is old enough to be able to make that decision, after having consulted medical staff to get information on the consequences of said procedure, fair enough. The mutilation of babies, infants, toddlers, prepubescent or pubescent children however, is unacceptable as every human being in our society today must be granted the right to remain unharmed. Especially if they are unable to protect themselves.

Your argument with respect to sexual practice doesn't hold either, as children (should) have very little to do with that (besides masturbation).

 

[Proteus]

Hytegia, you ask why we get up in arms over this. This, as we have previously asserted, is because we like human rights more than religious oppression. If you feel apathetic about this because you do not feel as we do, then there is nothing that will change your mind. To us, people matter more than false religions and their ceremonies. If you aren't aware of the facts of loss a person has, then such things are easy to find. Google is your friend. If you ask why we seem to be attacking your position, you have posted here. This post seems defensive, so I feel I must say this; you posted your thoughts on a forum of thinking skeptics. Therefore, your position will be attacked. That is how we grow. So, please, I must ask you to reconsider your position, as it seems to be one useless for the progression of the human race. If we allow these stupid traditions of slicing your child to satisfy a non-existent god to continue just from apathy to fix it, what kind of people are we? We, as humans, should fight for our kind. We must destroy those things that harm our kind, and this is one of those things.

Thank you for summing up my position. Very well said sir.

 

[nasher168]

As I said, it's not really a detrement to my life. At all.

Because you have known no different. Removing the foreskin has been shown conclusively to reduce pleasure.
Freedom0f5peech-who posted that really long post above-has argued very well against circumcision in the circumcision thread. In particular, his first post on this page illustrates it very well indeed, quoting countless scientific sources:http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2032&p=38551

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Hytegia, you ask why we get up in arms over this. This, as we have previously asserted, is because we like human rights more than religious oppression. If you feel apathetic about this because you do not feel as we do, then there is nothing that will change your mind.

I never took it as religious opression - just kind of, well:
It's like people making a big deal over spagetti, and whining about why their spagetti will always have less meat sauce than other people's spagetti: When I, for a fact, never thought it a big deal that I had less meat sauce on my Spagetti. I still get my noodly goodness.
I admit that the lifetime without that little extra sauce might be slightly less satisfying, but my entire life it's never been a matter of Religious rite or not - just never been contemplated.

To us, people matter more than false religions and their ceremonies. If you aren't aware of the facts of loss a person has, then such things are easy to find. Google is your friend.

But first: why would one want to? I enjoy what I have - and so do other women (this is the only thread where I can fully allow the male part of my ego take over - bare my humanity, please). It's not as if the average person goes to sleep crying over an uncircumsized penis.

If you ask why we seem to be attacking your position, you have posted here. This post seems defensive, so I feel I must say this; you posted your thoughts on a forum of thinking skeptics. Therefore, your position will be attacked. That is how we grow. So, please, I must ask you to reconsider your position, as it seems to be one useless for the progression of the human race.

But - one must admit that this does not inhibit the human race from thriving. We will, as a whole still have sex. We will, as a whole, stll have Spagetti. And the majority of us, as a whole, will enjoy the shit outta it. xD

If we allow these stupid traditions of slicing your child to satisfy a non-existent god to continue just from apathy to fix it, what kind of people are we? We, as humans, should fight for our kind. We must destroy those things that harm our kind, and this is one of those things.

So is AIDS, cancer, and a metric asston of things worse than this. I would like to see as much effort being strung into this as, say, pushing for other nobler crusades - such as the institution of a working and broader (but not universal) helathcare system, or otherwise fruitful tasks of science.


-------------------

I'm not against it at all, nor for it - I just didn't know that it was so "nightmarish" for people to think of. I've never thought that having more sauce on their spagetti meant so much arm-flailing and an opression of human rights somehow.

 

[TheFearmonger]

Hytegia, you ask why we get up in arms over this. This, as we have previously asserted, is because we like human rights more than religious oppression. If you feel apathetic about this because you do not feel as we do, then there is nothing that will change your mind.

I never took it as religious opression - just kind of, well:
It's like people making a big deal over spagetti, and whining about why their spagetti will always have less meat sauce than other people's spagetti: When I, for a fact, never thought it a big deal that I had less meat sauce on my Spagetti. I still get my noodly goodness.
I admit that the lifetime without that little extra sauce might be slightly less satisfying, but my entire life it's never been a matter of Religious rite or not - just never been contemplated.

To us, people matter more than false religions and their ceremonies. If you aren't aware of the facts of loss a person has, then such things are easy to find. Google is your friend.

But first: why would one want to? I enjoy what I have - and so do other women (this is the only thread where I can fully allow the male part of my ego take over - bare my humanity, please). It's not as if the average person goes to sleep crying over an uncircumsized penis.

If you ask why we seem to be attacking your position, you have posted here. This post seems defensive, so I feel I must say this; you posted your thoughts on a forum of thinking skeptics. Therefore, your position will be attacked. That is how we grow. So, please, I must ask you to reconsider your position, as it seems to be one useless for the progression of the human race.

But - one must admit that this does not inhibit the human race from thriving. We will, as a whole still have sex. We will, as a whole, stll have Spagetti. And the majority of us, as a whole, will enjoy the shit outta it. xD

If we allow these stupid traditions of slicing your child to satisfy a non-existent god to continue just from apathy to fix it, what kind of people are we? We, as humans, should fight for our kind. We must destroy those things that harm our kind, and this is one of those things.

So is AIDS, cancer, and a metric asston of things worse than this. I would like to see as much effort being strung into this as, say, pushing for other nobler crusades - such as the institution of a working and broader (but not universal) helathcare system, or otherwise fruitful tasks of science.
.

Apparently, you still do not understand my position. Let me restate in a simpler way. I don't care if you are happy in this state or not. That is irrelevant at best. What matters is that this is an abomination. What you, or any other person thinks personally about it, after being brought up in a culture that condones it, and having no point of reference, is pointless to discuss. The salience is this; I refuse to let a superstition continue to mutilate people to make some false god happy. The facts support getting rid of it, and for you to hold your opinion is fine, but as you very obviously haven't read the previous thread, or Freedom0f5peech's posts, I must ask you to refrain from saying this is silly until you know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[nasher168]

And the majority of us, as a whole, will enjoy the shit outta it. xD

Not as much as you could have...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Apparently, you still do not understand my position. Let me restate in a simpler way. I don't care if you are happy in this state or not. That is irrelevant at best. What matters is that this is an abomination. What you, or any other person thinks personally about it, after being brought up in a culture that condones it, and having no point of reference, is pointless to discuss. The salience is this; I refuse to let a superstition continue to mutilate people to make some false god happy. The facts support getting rid of it, and for you to hold your opinion is fine, but as you very obviously haven't read the previous thread, or Freedom0f5peech's posts, I must ask you to refrain from saying this is silly until you know what the hell you are talking about.

I've read them. I've spent most of my afternoon taking in all of the facts and responses.
But - the only place you have put it on is that of your Own Oppinion. No matter what you believe, you think that my oppinion on the matter is disreguardable, simply because it is not YOUR oppinion.
If you want to get pissy, I would like to see your records of being able to read into the minds of both and being able to objectively conclude, without bias, that the experience of each induvidual as they are would be different in any form.

---------------------------

Not as much as you could have...

Coulda - woulda - shoulda.
I will never experience it more epicly than I do right now. And, unless someone is willing to give a descicive by being circumsized right now to give an unbiased stance on the issue, I really don't think that they could be accurately compared beyond statistics and tests.
No matter what tests we do, or what experements we make, it is all irrelevant to the person experiencing it as they are.
From the objective standpoint? It would be better to be uncircumcised. From the realistic standpoint, however, one rarely bases their experiences on that of another's recorded experience, and it is certainly impossible to base their experiences from experiences that they've never known.

Scientific? No.
Realistic? Certainly.

 

[borrofburi]

Call me ignorant all that you will (@borrofburri) but you cannot claim that the reason of my questioning this entire discussion is not soundly from the nuteural standpoint.

You missread me, I simply think there is some reading you should do and do not feel like typing it all up from scratch or copying and pasting it.

 

[Proteus]

I will never experience it more epicly than I do right now. And, unless someone is willing to give a descicive by being circumsized right now to give an unbiased stance on the issue, I really don't think that they could be accurately compared beyond statistics and tests.

It's been done and it is better be intact or even to have a "restored" foreskin. It heightens sensitivity and prevents complications later on in life. Further more this has been explained to you with scientific references and visual aids. There's really no excuse now, you seem to have adopted the mindset of a creationist.

 

[borrofburi]

I never took it as religious opression - just kind of, well:
It's like people making a big deal over spagetti, and whining about why their spagetti will always have less meat sauce than other people's spagetti: When I, for a fact, never thought it a big deal that I had less meat sauce on my Spagetti. I still get my noodly goodness.
I admit that the lifetime without that little extra sauce might be slightly less satisfying, but my entire life it's never been a matter of Religious rite or not - just never been contemplated.

Again, you missread me/us, we don't think you should be angry at your parents for circumcising you, we think you should be against cosmetic surgery on non-consenting individuals. How you can be for cosmetic surgery on non consenting individuals blows my mind.