Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.

Previous page 1 23 4 ... 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #30 - November 21, 2009, 12:18 AM

Quote from: osmanthus on November 21, 2009, 12:15 AM
Ok, so by that logic parents can have their daughters "circumcised" too as long as it isn't one of the more extreme forms that have known medical complications..

Not at all, I think it has been well documented that female circumcision is harmful to women.

I've yet to see any evidence that male circumcision falls into the same category.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #31 - November 21, 2009, 12:21 AM

Has, I said "as long as it isn't one of the more extreme forms that have known medical complications". In other words, you haven't answered my question.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- ninurta
- Ninurta the Apostate
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #32 - November 21, 2009, 12:29 AM

Quote from: Hassan on November 21, 2009, 12:12 AM
Speaking for myself, I have never been aware of any medical or health problem from the fact that I was circumcised as a baby without my consent and it has never been a problem or an issue and has all worked fine for 50 years and to be honest I quite like it the way it is

I don't think I would have it done to any kids I might have now not that I'm planning to have kids lol ) - but I don't see why it should be banned unless there was some strong evidence that it is detrimental.

I think banning should only be taken in extreme cases - otherwise just educate.

Well some people aren't as fortunate as you, some actually are harmed directly by the procedure because of the irregularities in the formation of male genitalia. I know its uncommon, but it happens.

Tatoos don't always harm children, so by your logic its okay to give them swatstika tatoos on their foreheads because it won't harm them physically. Nevermind that they don't have the asatruar, hindu, jain, buddhist nor nazi views given ~~(*indoctrinated into them*)~~ to them yet. To me, its a way to brand a child for life, originally meant to brand you as a part of a group beyond your will. No different than when farmers would burn into slaves a brand that says who the owner was.

It is not the way you live your life that is important, it is how well you enjoy it that matters.
- RIBS
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #33 - November 21, 2009, 01:34 AM

Quote from: ninurta on November 21, 2009, 12:29 AM
Well some people aren't as fortunate as you, some actually are harmed directly by the procedure because of the irregularities in the formation of male genitalia. I know its uncommon, but it happens.

Tatoos don't always harm children, so by your logic its okay to give them swatstika tatoos on their foreheads because it won't harm them physically. Nevermind that they don't have the asatruar, hindu, jain, buddhist nor nazi views given ~~(*indoctrinated into them*)~~ to them yet. To me, its a way to brand a child for life, originally meant to brand you as a part of a group beyond your will. No different than when farmers would burn into slaves a brand that says who the owner was.

I totally agree with what you just said. It is harmful un-necessary disfuiguring mutilation of somthing the process of evolution have kept on male penises.

...
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #34 - November 21, 2009, 07:34 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on November 21, 2009, 12:21 AM
Has, I said "as long as it isn't one of the more extreme forms that have known medical complications". In other words, you haven't answered my question.

No, I would not agree with female circumscision in any form. As I believe all forms of female circumcision have harmful effects on health - and I include sexual & psychological health in that definition.
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #35 - November 21, 2009, 07:38 PM

Quote from: ninurta on November 21, 2009, 12:29 AM
Well some people aren't as fortunate as you, some actually are harmed directly by the procedure because of the irregularities in the formation of male genitalia. I know its uncommon, but it happens.

This is not a matter of principle for me. I would be quite happy to support a ban if it was shown to be harmful. I would just like to see the evidence first - that's all.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #36 - November 21, 2009, 09:20 PM

Quote from: Hassan on November 21, 2009, 07:34 PM
No, I would not agree with female circumscision in any form. As I believe all forms of female circumcision have harmful effects on health - and I include sexual & psychological health in that definition.

Well in that case it shouldn't strain human ingenuity too much to come up with a version which does not have harmful long term effects. Would you be opposed to parents inflicting that on their daughters?

Oh and you said you "believe" all forms of female circumcision have harmful effects. Do you have any evidence that would support banning all forms?

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #37 - November 21, 2009, 09:56 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on November 21, 2009, 09:20 PM
Well in that case it shouldn't strain human ingenuity too much to come up with a version which does not have harmful long term effects. Would you be opposed to parents inflicting that on their daughters?

Oh and you said you "believe" all forms of female circumcision have harmful effects. Do you have any evidence that would support banning all forms?

Yes I think I would still oppose female circumcision even if it was not harmful in any way and no I don't have any evidence that it is harmful in all it's forms.

OK Oz I get your point - if I oppose female circumcision in all it forms even if it is not harmful in any way - then I should also oppose male circumcision.

I suppose it is a bit irrational and no doubt based on the fact that I was brought up thinking it was not just normal but preferable.

But if it is not harmful in anyway then on what basis could it be banned?
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #38 - November 21, 2009, 10:01 PM

Well it is opposed on the grounds that it is basically an unnecessary surgical procedure and as such should be done out of choice rather than being imposed.

The reasoning is:

1/ All surgical procedures cause some degree of pain and inconvenience for the patient.
2/ Subjecting them to this without their consent and without a good reason seems rather unethical.
3/ This is particularly true in the case of traditional circumcisions that are performed without modern anaesthetic and post-op care.
4/ Unnecessary surgical procedures tie up the time and effort of doctors and nurses who could be doing more important things.

ETA: I forgot to add.............

5/ All surgical procedures carry a risk of complications, which can be rather nasty at times.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #39 - November 21, 2009, 10:03 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on November 21, 2009, 10:01 PM
Well it is opposed on the grounds that it is basically an unnecessary surgical procedure and as such should be done out of choice rather than being imposed.

OK, that seems fair - I will go with that
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #40 - November 21, 2009, 10:21 PM

Hass - feel the pain this child is feeling, and then tell me whether you think there should at least be an age limit restriction on children having this operation performed on them because of their parents religious beliefs

3a5bb2555ce00db76734f02ca7f1ebb0-grande[1].jpg (33.23 KB, 468x312 - viewed 1173 times.)

My Book
My Blog
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #41 - November 21, 2009, 10:23 PM

Yeah, nasty.
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #42 - November 21, 2009, 10:32 PM

sorry. You go with supporting a ban on male circumcision despite the obvious health benefits. Do you suggest not clipping a childs nails until puberty? And of course none of this is from bigotry and bias....dear dear dear

Circumcision Can Reduce AIDS Risk, Study Says
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
July 27, 2005

Circumcised men may be much less likely to contract HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, through sex with infected women, a new study says.
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #43 - November 21, 2009, 10:33 PM

Circumcision appears to reduce AIDS risk from sex in men - Health & Science - International Herald Tribune
By Donald G. McNeil Jr.
Published: Thursday, December 14, 2006

Circumcision appears to reduce a man's risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, according to U.S. government health officials.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #44 - November 21, 2009, 10:35 PM

Condoms are even more effective.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #45 - November 21, 2009, 10:38 PM

and?
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #46 - November 21, 2009, 10:40 PM

They make your argument irrelevant.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- ninurta
- Ninurta the Apostate
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #47 - November 21, 2009, 10:42 PM

Quote from: Hassan on November 21, 2009, 07:38 PM
This is not a matter of principle for me. I would be quite happy to support a ban if it was shown to be harmful. I would just like to see the evidence first - that's all.

Which is fine, but it is medically unnecessary. it is like saying giving a child a nazi swatztika tatoo on his forehead is okay for the parents to do, because it is just as likely to or not to harm the child.

Would I ban allowing children to be circumcised? Only until they are old enough to say they want to be. Then again, I am for cosmetic surgeries to be a personal choice in general.

As for it lowering the risks of contracting HIV/AIDS, I heard that somewhere and that is interesting. Wearing a condom lowers the risk too.

It is not the way you live your life that is important, it is how well you enjoy it that matters.
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #48 - November 21, 2009, 10:46 PM

sorry what is my argument? you say it is an effective health measure. why do you want to ban it?
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #49 - November 21, 2009, 10:50 PM

Quote from: doubtfool on November 21, 2009, 10:33 PM
Circumcision appears to reduce a man's risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, according to U.S. government health officials.

Why do things by halves, why not completely chop their knobs off that should reduce the risk by 100%

My Book
My Blog
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #50 - November 21, 2009, 10:51 PM

A further report highlights it can be effective against cancer so really there is no medical basis for a ban, child circumcision is a minor operation...hmmm so why do 80% of these reasonable people here want to ban it?

Male circumcision cuts risk of cancer-causing virus

Posted Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:31pm AEDT

A report says circumcision protects men from genital herpes and a virus that causes genital warts and cancer.
- ninurta
- Ninurta the Apostate
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #51 - November 21, 2009, 10:54 PM

Quote from: doubtfool on November 21, 2009, 10:46 PM
sorry what is my argument? you say it is an effective health measure. why do you want to ban it?

No I didn't, I just simply said that i heard that about what you've said before, that it lowers the risk. I don't think its a necessary health measure, and 50% isn't exactly worth it over the other 2 extremely effective measures like wearing a condom or waiting. Also getting tested is a 3rd which is more effective. Why jump to what would be a fourth option before you've tried the other 3? and without the person's consent.

Having no genitalia and no organs that make you want sex will cut the risk of contracting STD's even more than does circumcision, though doing so you would probably agree would be extreme and not necessary, do you agree?

It is not the way you live your life that is important, it is how well you enjoy it that matters.
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #52 - November 21, 2009, 10:54 PM

Quote from: ninurta on November 21, 2009, 10:42 PM
Which is fine, but it is medically unnecessary. it is like saying giving a child a nazi swatztika tatoo on his forehead is okay for the parents to do, because it is just as likely to or not to harm the child.

Not sure that is a good analogy, but I'm not going to argue the point anymore coz I'm not really keen on defending it.
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #53 - November 21, 2009, 11:00 PM

Quote from: doubtfool on November 21, 2009, 10:51 PM
A further report highlights it can be effective against cancer so really there is no medical basis for a ban, child circumcision is a minor operation...hmmm so why do 80% of these reasonable people here want to ban it?

Male circumcision cuts risk of cancer-causing virus

Posted Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:31pm AEDT

A report says circumcision protects men from genital herpes and a virus that causes genital warts and cancer.

A condom 100%

it's so simple

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #54 - November 21, 2009, 11:08 PM

no medical reason to ban so why 80% baying for it?
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #55 - November 21, 2009, 11:09 PM

owned
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #56 - November 21, 2009, 11:11 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on November 21, 2009, 10:35 PM
Condoms are even more effective.

hey guys maybe we could muster at least 60% of ya to support a ban on these. I hear muslims (spit) wear them
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #57 - November 21, 2009, 11:13 PM

Quote from: doubtfool on November 21, 2009, 11:08 PM
no medical reason to ban so why 80% baying for it?

Is that 80% of the worlds population, or just 80% of countries where there are cultural or religious societal pressures? Also one question I am dying to ask, if God did not want us to have one, and he designed us perfectly, then why are we born with them?

My Book
My Blog
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #58 - November 21, 2009, 11:14 PM

Quote from: doubtfool on November 21, 2009, 11:08 PM
no medical reason to ban so why 80% baying for it?

Well I'm open to being convinced by hard evidence one way or the other. But I'd be interested to hear what the professional medical community say about it as a whole - rather than one or two reports.
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Medically unnecessary, non-consensual circumcisions should be banned.
Reply #59 - November 21, 2009, 11:17 PM

Quote from: doubtfool on November 21, 2009, 11:08 PM
no medical reason to ban so why 80% baying for it?

There is. The glans lose sensitivity.

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
Previous page 1 23 4 ... 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »