82% of Egyptian Woman Have Had Genitals Mutilated

[Deleted]

Do you know what's the most common source for infection? Bad personal hygiene. You know... that thing that can be prevented without surgery.

washing ones dick is apparently too difficult for some people to grasp. dont know about them, but ive never had any issues cleaning myself properly there

[Deleted]

This is an example of false equivalence since an appendicectomy is a significantly more invasive and risky surgery.

I'll give you a good example though: Vaccinations. We pre-emptively vaccinate children, sticking them with needles and injecting foreign organisms into their bodies in the belief that on balance, more good will come from the vaccination process than the harm.

From what I have seen most kids "suffer" as a result of the many vaccinations they undergo far more than from a male circumcision.

The biggest difference I see between the two is that in the case of vaccination there is no question as to whether it's beneficial, while the jury is still very much divided on the question of circumcision.



This sounds a lot like an ad hominen mixed with "it can't happen to me" syndrome.

The only one making a false equivalence here is you by comparing it to vaccinations. The removal of the appendix is a standard very low risk surgery, at least he compared two surgeries where in both cut and remove part of the baby.

You have no idea what you are talking about when you say stuff like

From what I have seen most kids "suffer" as a result of the many vaccinations they undergo far more than from a male circumcision.

. This is a perfect example of something that a crazy person would say.

There is nothing beneficial about circumcision, it only puts the baby needlessly at risk.

[Ragelicious]

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/01/he...ziz/index.html

Edit: Title should read 92% not 82%

82% of American boys Have Had Genitals Mutilated.

Where is the outrage?

[Raelbo]

"false equivalence"

Continues to compare surgery to vaccinations. I knew I would get a humorous response to my post.

They're both medical procedures and both involve doing something affecting bodily autonomy of an infant without its consent and both have similar potential for negative side effects.

Where? Who? How? Don't tell me your anti-vac too...

/facepalm. Seriously dude, if that's what you concluded...


No, I am not anti-vax. Quite to the contrary I am very much pro-vaccination. I am arguing that the arguments of the anti-circumcision crowd bear many similarities to those of the anit-vax crowd. Which is not to say that there aren't better arguments against circumcising infants than there are against vaccinations, just that a lot of the arguments I am seeing here are not good.

[RobertMugabe]

Most of those countries are Islamic.

The grey areas with 0% mutilation are not Islamic.

So no, it's not African.

This thread can be closed, another try hard Religion bashing thread (eventhough this Topic has absolutely nothing to do Islam; but hey it's bad Thing and it happens in some muslim countries, the christians, atheists and woodoo monks doing it are probably muslims as well /s)

[Granyala]

82% of American boys Have Had Genitals Mutilated.
Where is the outrage?

I find it rather disturbing that people compare the snipping of a little foreskin with the removal of Clitoris and Labia minora.

[Deleted]

They're both medical procedures and both involve doing something affecting bodily autonomy of an infant without its consent and both have similar potential for negative side effects.



/facepalm. Seriously dude, if that's what you concluded...


No, I am not anti-vax. Quite to the contrary I am very much pro-vaccination. I am arguing that the arguments of the anti-circumcision crowd bear many similarities to those of the anit-vax crowd. Which is not to say that there aren't better arguments against circumcising infants than there are against vaccinations, just that a lot of the arguments I am seeing here are not good.

i do love the fact that you seem to be arguing that genital mutilation of boys is a good thing....

[SandMax]

Vaccinations can be risks, though they are extremely rare and more so than risks related to circumcision. Vaccinations prevent very serious diseases and complications on individual and also protects the whole population by horde immunity, circumcision does not prevent any major risks, it only introduces considerable risks and violates ones right to not be mutilated.

False comparison.

[zorkuus]

I am arguing that the arguments of the anti-circumcision crowd bear many similarities to those of the anit-vax crowd.

Yeah now we're the bad guys making silly illogical arguments. Holy shit.
I give up.

[Deleted]

Extremely low probability outcomes. Funnily enough these things can also happen due to an infection in uncircumcised men.....



Firstly, it is not proven to inhibit sexual pleasure. While it is undeniable that nerve endings are lost, there is no evidence to suggest that it actually affects pleasure during intercourse. This is probably because sensations are processed in the brain, not the penis.



Hey, if Xarim doesn't have to demonstrate how his article proves his case, neither do I!

I'm willing to bet that the percentile off babies that die due to a circumcision is much much higher then the percentile of babies that die due to a urinary infection.

Yes, it is proven to inhibit sexual pleasure, while the brain will compensate some of the feelings it still is less sensitive. Just look at the American's and their lotion addiction. In the end its just cutting up part of a baby for no apparent reasons apart form decreasing sexual pleasure.

But Xarim did demonstrate why cutting up baby boys is bad.

[zorkuus]

Vaccinations can be risks, though they are extremely rare and more so than risks related to circumcision. Vaccinations prevent very serious diseases and complications on individual and also protects the whole population by horde immunity, circumcision does not prevent any major risks, it only introduces considerable risks and violates ones right to not be mutilated.

False comparison.

Well he already admitted "the jury's still out" on circumcision. So his argument basically boils down to "do it just in case".

[Deleted]

I find it rather disturbing that people compare the snipping of a little foreskin with the removal of Clitoris and Labia minora.

I find it rather disturbing that you do not. Its not about who has it worse, if that where the case then the MGM would win that too with the complete removal off the penis and balls. ALL forms of MGM and FMG should be illegal.

[Mayhem]

Yeah now we're the bad guys making silly illogical arguments. Holy shit.
I give up.

You have to understand, evolution of the penis took a wrong turn and we humans have to regulate that colossal mistake.

[Zoibert the Bear]

This is an example of false equivalence since an appendicectomy is a significantly more invasive and risky surgery.

I'll give you a good example though: Vaccinations. We pre-emptively vaccinate children, sticking them with needles and injecting foreign organisms into their bodies in the belief that on balance, more good will come from the vaccination process than the harm.

From what I have seen most kids "suffer" as a result of the many vaccinations they undergo far more than from a male circumcision.

The biggest difference I see between the two is that in the case of vaccination there is no question as to whether it's beneficial, while the jury is still very much divided on the question of circumcision.


This sounds a lot like an ad hominen mixed with "it can't happen to me" syndrome.

Are you fucking serious? Vaccinations leave no permanent mark on the body (excluding rare cases) whereas circumcision is very noticeable, including decreased sensitivity in the area.

I find it extremely ironic that people from countries where male circumcision is so widespread would complain about female circumcision.

[Granyala]

I find it rather disturbing that you do not. Its not about who has it worse, if that where the case then the MGM would win that too with the complete removal off the penis and balls. ALL forms of MGM and FMG should be illegal.

It is not "mutilation" if it is done for medical reasons.

I developed problems as a kid, my parents went to see the doc and they did the treatment. Problems solved.
That was well over 20 years ago. Medical knowledge advances and maybe today there are less invasive options, I don't know.

I do agree that it should be illegal unless it's a medical necessity though.
Performing unnecessary invasive treatments on an infant because of tradition is BS, no matter whether it's a boy or a girl.

[Raelbo]

The only one making a false equivalence here is you by comparing it to vaccinations. The removal of the appendix is a standard very low risk surgery, at least he compared two surgeries where in both cut and remove part of the baby.

He is comparing doing elective preventative procedures on babies. The whole premise of such a procedure is that the risk outweighs the reward. I don't know if you're being disingenuous is just ignorant, but an appendicectomy is not a low risk surgery in the same league as a circumcision: They differ by about 3 orders of magnitude.

Secondly, an appendicectomy has a significantly longer recovery time, involves a lot more pain, and costs 100 times more.

At least vaccinations compare favourably in terms of total discomfort for the patient, cost, recovery time etc.

You have no idea what you are talking about when you say stuff like . This is a perfect example of something that a crazy person would say.

Or maybe a parent who has had his kids vaccinated. Granted, I haven't had a son circumcised (and I am not sure I would) but I have several relatives and friends who have gone through it, and seen the babies in question.

There is nothing beneficial about circumcision, it only puts the baby needlessly at risk.

Honestly, statements like this just make you appear overzealous. Medical opinions on this differ, but very few would make such an extreme statement as you just have. There is definitely a potential medical benefit from circumcision. The real question is, is it sufficient to justify the risk. There are some very empassioned arguments on both sides. Reality is that the benefits are small and the risks are small.

- - - Updated - - -

i do love the fact that you seem to be arguing that genital mutilation of boys is a good thing....

Firstly, you're strawmanning by relabelling circumcision as genital mutilation. While you might be able to argue that it is a form of genital mutilation, it is nowhere near the same thing as say, cutting off the glans.

Secondly, I am actually not arguing that circumcision of boys is a good thing. I am saying it is a grey area.

It's just that people are so fixated on this idea that it has to be one way or the other, that they argue from one or other extreme and then assume that everyone else does too. IMO that is the absolute definition of narrow mindedness.

[zorkuus]

Secondly, I am actually not arguing that circumcision of boys is a good thing. I am saying it is a grey area.

You still haven't explained what it is. The vast majority of men in countries where circumcision isn't practised are just as healthy as the vast majority in the opposite case. So it's an unnecessary procedure if you don't already have a medical condition that needs an immediate fix.

[Raelbo]

Well he already admitted "the jury's still out" on circumcision. So his argument basically boils down to "do it just in case".

No, that it is not what I am saying. What I am saying is this:

Some people need to take a more balanced view of things when viewing other people's actions. The mere fact that infant male circumcision is being equated with FGM demonstrates very clearly that people are not looking at the issue with any degree of objectivity.

[Deleted]

It is not "mutilation" if it is done for medical reasons.

I developed problems as a kid, my parents went to see the doc and they did the treatment. Problems solved.
That was well over 20 years ago. Medical knowledge advances and maybe today there are less invasive options, I don't know.

I do agree that it should be illegal unless it's a medical necessity though.
Performing unnecessary invasive treatments on an infant because of tradition is BS, no matter whether it's a boy or a girl.

But that is the point, it is mostly done without the need for it. Of course, when the need arises like it did with you then it is no problem and it should be done as soon as possible. But that doesn't take away the fact that when its done without reason that it is still mutilation of the genitals, in fact, even when it is done for medical reasons it is still mutilation (a part of the skin is removed that can not grow back, hence mutilation). It is just that they did it to increase functionality instead of doing the procedure in order to decrease functionality.

[zorkuus]

No, that it is not what I am saying. What I am saying is this:

Some people need to take a more balanced view of things when viewing other people's actions. The mere fact that infant male circumcision is being equated with FGM demonstrates very clearly that people are not looking at the issue with any degree of objectivity.

I for example haven't said anything about FGM yet you managed to put my arguments in the same category somehow.

objectivity

Do as I say, not as I do.