Should circumcision be the person's OWN choice?

[Deleted]

Well in a lot of countries you can decide for your children pretty freely. I just find it weird to see people calling it mutilation when someome gets circumciced But i'm sure a lot of those people find abortion ok. These are diffrent subjects i know But if circumcision isn't ok the other one shouldn't be ok at all.

...

That is the single biggest strawman argument I've ever seen posted. What?

Shit, not even stuff posted by Gin in the thread about gay marriage was THIS strawman.

[Symphonic]

Always has if your child was a female, see all the furor around the world a while back over african genital mutilations. Why the double standard?

Urti, it's not a double standard. It's common sense. Cutting the foreskin of a male does not affect his future pleasure / etc. What they do to females is wrong, and if you can't understand the difference, perhaps you shouldn't have an input on what's right or wrong. There is a distinct difference in what they do to a woman and what they do to a man. One can be beneficial, the other never will be.

I don't care if a male is circumcised or not circumcised, I won't judge the decision to be right or wrong. I don't think there is anything wrong with male circumcision, but I don't care if you get it done or not. We got it done for my boy because of our feelings that it would help his future be healthier.

[Atrea]

Because it is mutilation. You have a part of your body removed, without your input, for no good reason.

That's the very fucking definition of mutilation.

mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

I'm not missing a limb or essential part. My penis works just fine thank you.
It is not disfigured or damaged irreparably - see above.
And it is not 'imperfect' any more than anyone else's.

You need to read the definition of words before you attempt to use them.

Using the term 'mutilation' is painting a large population of men as being somehow damaged, that something about their body is wrong.
That is my point of contention.

[Deleted]

...

That is the single biggest strawman argument I've ever seen posted. What?

Please explain instead of saying you find it a strawman argument. By just saying that you don't get much further with a discussion nor can i understand what you mean

[Deleted]

I'm not religious, but I've thought about getting circumcision myself. The skin is a wee bit too small for my glans when it erects.
Other than that, it seems that countries that do religious Circumcision have 90% lower rates of Cervical cancer.

It made me think that it might be a good choice for both me and the miss's

Haven't done it so far though.

[Urti]

TL;DR version: yes, it should be a person's choice, but this thread is ignoring the overwhelming evidence that shows circumcision reduces risk of a number of health issues for the circumcised person, and also the risk of transmitting The AiDS virus(regardless of your choice of partner) or other STD by a huge amount.

The likelihood of getting an STD if you have unprotected sex with an uncircumcised partner is orders of magnitude higher than with a circumcised partner. (sure, you should use protection, but 19 million cases a year makes it clear people don't.)

There is a reason Jews and Muslims have been doing it for so long; it works.

Female circumcision, however, is just plain mutilation that serves no functional purpose whatsoever.

Post some of this evidence from a reputable source. Not one real scientific study has shown a definite link like you claim. Also since the majority of the world is uncut, shouldn't most of europe/asia be dying of syphilitic crotchrot or some such?

[Herecius]

Please explain instead of saying you find it a strawman argument. By just saying that you don't get much further with a discussion nor can i understand what you mean

It's more than strawman, it's just ridonculous. You're comparing circumcision as something on the same level of abortion, like we're... aborting the foreskin? It's apples to oranges, it just doesn't make sense.

My kingdom for a day of people being able to have a debate without resorting to extreme hyperbole.

[pateuvasiliu]

]Allah doesnt have shit to do with this[/U], not being a religious man myself, and being turtleneck free i fully support the practice. If i have a son he will have his turtleneck removed as well because its just normal, if you like it or not.

You're horribly wrong. Muslims and Jews started it.

You're free to do whatever. Normal? Hardly. You're just falling under the pressure of society, because it's common practice in the US. Go ahead and mutilate your kid. A great father rises.

Circumcision have 90% lower rates of Cervical cancer.

How exactly does a woman get cancer from an uncircumcised penis?

[Underverse]

mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

I'm not missing a limb or essential part. My penis works just fine thank you.
It is not disfigured or damaged irreparably - see above.
And it is not 'imperfect' any more than anyone else's.

You need to read the definition of words before you attempt to use them.

Using the term 'mutilation' is painting a large population of men as being somehow damaged, that something about their body is wrong.
That is my point of contention.

Meh I would say it fits nicely with 2 and 3. I believe someone already linked this argument though. Especially 3 - imperfect by excising parts? Yeah, it depends on your definition of perfect, but a good place to start is the parts you're born with.

[Deleted]

Please explain instead of saying you find it a strawman argument. By just saying that you don't get much further with a discussion nor can i understand what you mean

I just find it weird to see people calling it mutilation when someome gets circumciced But i'm sure a lot of those people find abortion ok. These are diffrent subjects i know But if circumcision isn't ok the other one shouldn't be ok at all.

You're suggesting that if circumcision isn't okay, then abortion shouldn't be. Those issues have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with one another and you're bringing it up in an effort to appeal to emotion / some other bollocks. It's the definition of a strawman argument. You're avoiding attacking the person's main argument by creating something else to relate it to and attacking that instead, hence not defeating the actually argument. It's a logical fallacy.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Yet another misinformed poster.

The foreskin covers the most sensitive part of your penis. When you cut it you expose the glans to the outside environment that will slowly make it lose its sensitivity.

Yeah, because there is scientific information to back this claim up. Oh wait, no there isn't. In fact, there is no significant difference in sensitivity.

Reputable? THEY SELL THE FORESKIN TISSUE FOR RESEARCH. THEY GET MONEY FROM IT. DAMN STRAIGHT THEY SAY IT'S GOOD.

Get your head out of the sand.

Yeah, I'm sure the research organizations that don't perform circumcisions or get money from them are just making shit up.

Welllll he's kind of right. Sort of. What are you referring to that would counter his argument? There's at least one case, that being modern medicine, but are there any others?

He implied that the body is perfect and that changing it in any way is bad, yet there are about a million and one procedures that change the body because of its flaws.

You're suggesting that if circumcision isn't okay, then abortion shouldn't be. Those issues have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with one another and you're bringing it up in an effort to appeal to emotion / some other bollocks. It's the definition of a strawman argument. You're avoiding attacking the person's main argument by creating something else to relate it to and attacking that instead, hence not defeating the actually argument. It's a logical fallacy.

A strawman is when you misrepresent your opponent's argument. His is closer to a red herring.

[Rotted]

I think it should be a boy own choice when he hits 12 years old, if were just talking about Jewish traditions here,

Same as I agree, that christans shouldn't have their children baptized or christened until their 16 years old

It should be a personnal choice

[Dhurn]

TL;DR version: yes, it should be a person's choice, but this thread is ignoring the overwhelming evidence that shows circumcision reduces risk of a number of health issues for the circumcised person, and also the risk of transmitting The AiDS virus(regardless of your choice of partner) or other STD by a huge amount.

The likelihood of getting an STD if you have unprotected sex with an uncircumcised partner is orders of magnitude higher than with a circumcised partner. (sure, you should use protection, but 19 million cases a year makes it clear people don't.)

There is a reason Jews and Muslims have been doing it for so long; it works.

Female circumcision, however, is just plain mutilation that serves no functional purpose whatsoever.

Source for any of this?

The Jews and Muslims doing it for a while... I can think of a few things the Jews and Muslims have been doing for a while that I don't agree with.

[pateuvasiliu]

Yeah, because there is scientific information to back this claim up. Oh wait, no there isn't. In fact, there is no significant difference in sensitivity.

In fact, there is no significant difference in sensitivity.flaws.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[Deleted]

I think it should be a boy own choice when he hits 12 years old, if were just talking about Jewish traditions here,

Same as I agree, that christans shouldn't have their children baptized or christened until their 16 years old

It should be a personnal choice

Changing it to be their choice at 12 isn't going to make much a difference really. They're still highly dependant on their parents at that age and will suffer a significant amount of peer pressure / family pressure to get it done.

[A Day to Remember]

You're horribly wrong. Muslims and Jews started it.

You're free to do whatever. Normal? Hardly. You're just falling under the pressure of society, because it's common practice in the US. Go ahead and mutilate your kid. A great father rises.

If Muslims and Jews didnt do it and i was forced to look down at that ugly thing every day id have it removed anyway.

[Deleted]

You're suggesting that if circumcision isn't okay, then abortion shouldn't be. Those issues have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with one another and you're bringing it up in an effort to appeal to emotion / some other bollocks. It's the definition of a strawman argument. You're avoiding attacking the person's main argument by creating something else to relate it to and attacking that instead, hence not defeating the actually argument. It's a logical fallacy.

Well as i said they are 2 diffrent subjects i guess you missed that part. I'm talking about what is fair and what isn't.
I hope i'm still allowed to have my own opinion in some matters I'm talking about you getting to decide what to do for others in that way you do not think its the same?
I'm also not for circumcision to begin with nor am i against it. I don't see any need to make it illegal. As far as i knowledge goes it is somewhat fixable if you were to dislike what has been done to you. How the results are no idea

[Lunzium]

Well ladies prefer circumcised sooo...

In your country perhaps, certainly not here that's for sure

[Oerba Yun Fang]

Honestly, I'm circumcised and I don't really care. I don't remember it happening nor do I have any issue with being circumcised (I'm actually kind of glad as I've always thought uncut penises looked... odd - probably because I grew up cut, but still). If it were a traumatic experience that haunted the boy for the rest of his life I might take issue with it, but seeing as you can live a perfectly "normal" (quotations since the definition of the term varies) life (both generally and sexually) being circumcised, I don't see it as a big deal. I can't help but feel that calling it mutilation, while accurate, also carries a needlessly fearful connotation. When most people think mutilation I don't think they jump to foreskin being removed, but to things like limbs being removed.

[Gamdwelf]

If Muslims and Jews didnt do it and i was forced to look down at that ugly thing every day id have it removed anyway.

you would get your dick removed?