Finland drafting legislation to ban cosmetic and religious circumcision.

[Deleted]

Why should be parents allowed to harm their just born kid ? That is a crime, the man should decide for himself if he wants that or not.

Argument like

foreskin represented a dangerous point of infection throughout human history

has zero sense to anyone who can clean their dick properly, ofc for someone who never cleans stuff under the foreskin that may become problem, but thats because he cannot take care of himself.

[Velaniz]

"Mutilation" is inherently subjective and as such I see no reason to use it as a basis for state intervention.

Eh? Not really. The guidelines the state is operating here on very much have an objective basis. Circumcision is pointless, irreversible, and comes with heavy costs. Performing such a thing on un-consenting infants is the closest thing there is to objectively despicable.

I don't see any compelling state interest behind the ban.

Pointlessly and irreversibly removing viable skin from someone unable to consent to said irrevocable mutilation isn't compelling enough interest? Jesus Christ..

This wouldn't even be a question if it were about similiarly 'useless' tissue like earlobes, but since circumcision is the norm where you are, it completely clouds your ability to rationally look at the situation.

[Mnevis]

The staggering amount of studies that link not being circumcised to a higher risk of urinary tract infection alone makes the ignorance in this thread baffling. But hey, the many medical benefits illustrated in hundreds of studies clearly doesn't outweigh all ZERO medical reasons not to do it, so you dipshits are clearly on solid ground here. Fuck science!

Lower chance of penile cancer? Fuck that noise, I need my precious dick skin flap! Just so fucking stupid it's hard to believe.

Yep, I'd absolutely take an extra childhood UTI and a 0.00005% increased chance of getting penile cancer when I'm ancient in exchange for a "precious dick skin flap" of my own. And I don't think that's irrational at all. I want my body parts, even if there's a chance they'll someday give me a problem. That seems exceedingly normal to me, kind of the default position for living beings. I haven't cut any other parts of me off, why should I be pleased that part of my penis, the most sensitive part of my penis, for crying out loud, was cut off when I was a few days old?

[Kurioxan]

The staggering amount of studies that link not being circumcised to a higher risk of urinary tract infection alone makes the ignorance in this thread baffling. But hey, the many medical benefits illustrated in hundreds of studies clearly doesn't outweigh all ZERO medical reasons not to do it, so you dipshits are clearly on solid ground here. Fuck science!

Lower chance of penile cancer? Fuck that noise, I need my precious dick skin flap! Just so fucking stupid it's hard to believe.

There are several medical reasons not to do it, the fact that you never bothered to search for them does not mean they dont exist.

"Circumcision seems to protect against penile cancer"
Seems.

" Men who were circumcised as children have a lower chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not, but studies looking at this issue have not found the same protective effect if the foreskin is removed as an adult. Some studies even suggested a higher risk of penile cancer in men who were circumcised as adults. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but may be related to other known risk factors."
Which means its bad science looking for correlations, does not mean they are there. it likely has nothing to do with the foreskin if there is no difference when done as an adult.

"For example, men who are circumcised cannot develop the condition called phimosis, and cannot accumulate material known as smegma (see next section). Men with smegma or phimosis have an increased risk of penile cancer."
Easily fixable with proper hygiene, in the case of phimosis I will agree that circumcision makes sense, albeit there are other methods, just as effective and should be a personal choice.

"In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is very uncommon in the United States, even among uncircumcised men."
Yep, and preventable if it is due to smegma buildup.

People who are taller have higher risk of cancer than people who arent, lets cut their legs.
Exactly as you said good sir, fuck science, right?

[Cerus]

I don't see alot of problems with chopping foreskins for religious reasons and hygiene (besides the fact that i despice religion in all its forms). It has basicly no downsides to it. However i do mind the female version of it, removing clitoris and labia just so women can't enjoy sex. Thats highly disturbing and needs to be banned and people who practise it should be put away for life.

Loss of sexual sensation and the risk of infection and/or amputation of the penis are all downsides. The "studies" saying its more hygenic are bogus and even those only showed a TINY increase in UTIs.

[jugzilla]

Argument like has zero sense to anyone who can clean their dick properly, ofc for someone who never cleans stuff under the foreskin that may become problem, but thats because he cannot take care of himself.

"clean their dick properly?"

Have I been missing something all these years? I never got my dick cleaning manual. Maybe this is just something you have to worry about if your not cut?

[Velaniz]

The staggering amount of studies that link not being circumcised to a higher risk of urinary tract infection alone makes the ignorance in this thread baffling. But hey, the many medical benefits illustrated in hundreds of studies clearly doesn't outweigh all ZERO medical reasons not to do it, so you dipshits are clearly on solid ground here. Fuck science!

Lower chance of penile cancer? Fuck that noise, I need my precious dick skin flap! Just so fucking stupid it's hard to believe.

Yet it's funny how the majority of men in first-world countries where circumcision is frowned upon aren't afflicted with the conditions circumcision is supposed to protect you from at a notably higher frequency. Probably also worth pointing out how virtually every study illustrating how there's this or that benefit to circumcision, is invariably conducted my American authorities. You guys must really be on to something here. So must be the Jews and Muslims.

[Kaleredar]

Cleft palate is in most cases environmental, lack of folic acid during development or environmental toxins, directly (smoking/alcohol abuse) or indirectly (pollution)

Again, you have "some" cases where it's environmental, others where it's genetic, but either way, the child is born that way.

Cleft palate correction is not purely due to "conforming to beauty standards" it is a quality of life improvement, even in less severe cases.

Well then you're splitting things even further. In countries where circumcision would prove a "quality of life" improvement (as vague a term as that is,) should it be allowed? Or should it be universally reviled?

Even if we were to argue on an aesthetic point, this would be "restoring normal appearance", not changing something that is normal by birth to something that is not for no reason other than religious belief.

So when the majority has it, it's right to change it to conform it to that? Isn't the majority "normal?"

Another big issue with circumcision is that this is not a western tradition, and yet most places in the western world will do it by default, sometimes whether the parents want or not.

So now it depends on where it's being done, and "fereners changin' our ethics?"


And sure, they shouldn't do it without the parent's consent.

But that's what it's about. The parent's consent. The parents making a choice for their child that has nigh-negligible, if any, negative impact on their child's development.

Hell, if there were some religious thing where they removed that little tab of fat on your earlobe and the argument against it was approximate to "well now it'll be harder for the kids to have earrings" I wouldn't give a rat's ass.

This is an imposition of others beliefs in neonates.
Which is an entirely different but also relevant ethical problem.

So baptisms are next on the chopping block?

[Applenazi]

This wouldn't even be a question if it were about similiarly 'useless' tissue like earlobes

Yes, earlobes increase your risk of penile cancer, urinary tract infections, STDs, and phimosis. Your argument and associated comparison are logical, based in reality, and not at all completely fucking stupid. I mean for fucks sake you have free unlimited access to the entire collected knowledge of the world right in front of you, how can you be so ignorant?

...where circumcision is frowned upon aren't afflicted with the conditions circumcision is supposed to protect you from at a notably higher frequency.

Um yes.. they are... That's the entire point. See a study about circumcision involves people that are circumcised, and people who aren't; that is literally the entire framework of the study. But since you just made some random blanket statement with no statistical evidence as to your statement you clearly showed me, well played.

[Kaleredar]

Yet it's funny how the majority of men in first-world countries where circumcision is frowned upon aren't afflicted with the conditions circumcision is supposed to protect you from at a notably higher frequency. Probably also worth pointing out how virtually every study illustrating how there's this or that benefit to circumcision, is invariably conducted my American authorities. You guys must really be on to something here. So must be the Jews and Muslims.

Yes, American Authorities are caving to "big circumcision." One of the most powerful political lobbies.

I mean I could call it equally weird that places that frown upon circumcision always try to find something wrong with it. As Wells pointed out a few pages ago or so, they ultimately just default on "well it might not cause any actual problems, but the ethics and yadda yadda yadda..."

[Wells]

Pointlessly and irreversibly removing viable skin from someone unable to consent to said irrevocable mutilation isn't compelling enough interest? Jesus Christ..

The state should not be banning cultural practices on the basis of their practicality. Its harm is negligible to nonexistent.

- - - Updated - - -

Loss of sexual sensation and the risk of infection and/or amputation of the penis are all downsides. The "studies" saying its more hygenic are bogus and even those only showed a TINY increase in UTIs.

Yeah and I bet dicks get chopped off left and right

[Velaniz]

Yes, earlobes increase your risk of penile cancer, urinary tract infections, STDs, and phimosis. Your argument and associated comparison are logical, based in reality, and not at all completely fucking stupid. I mean for fucks sake you have free unlimited access to the entire collected knowledge of the world right in front of you, how can you be so ignorant?

The benefits you put forward haven't been demonstrated to outweigh the costs of circumcision. The only ones who think they possibly might are American authorities on the matter, and even then they've come short as far as conclusively demonstrating anything goes.

[Kurioxan]

And here it is. You have no desire to defend your own country. It's is more noble to protect infants from circumcision, than it is to defend some imaginary line in the dirt, I get that.

edit: how come no one has got into abortion yet? That isn't natural either.

I am pro-choice, a mothers bodily autonomy takes precedence. But that is a completely different topic lets not get into it, simply mentioning it because you expressed curiosity. (and please, abortion is natural, even with modern medicine, " Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 15-20%" This is disregarding the amount of miscarriages that happen when the woman is not even aware of a pregnancy, otherwise the rate would be about 30 or 40%.

One does not prevent another good sir, the defense and protection of the country falls into the hands of the military and the political institutions dedicated to it, by no means discourse about circumcision prevents soldiers or politicians from doing their jobs.
This affects different groups, im not sure where you are trying to go :P

[Applenazi]

The benefits you put forward haven't been demonstrated to outweigh the costs of circumcision. The only ones who think they possibly might are American authorities on the matter, and even then they've come short as far as conclusively demonstrating anything goes.

Hahahaha, what costs? What in the sweet fuck are you talking about? What negative health impact does cutting off a piece of dick skin cause, please tell me I fucking beg you.

Edit: I especially can't wait for the "cost" that outweighs dick cancer, I literally cannot contain my excitement.

[Kaleredar]

The benefits you put forward haven't been demonstrated to outweigh the costs of circumcision. The only ones who think they possibly might are American authorities on the matter, and even then they've come short as far as conclusively demonstrating anything goes.

There have yet to be any established "costs" beyond something tantamount to "they have to masturbate a bit more creatively."

If you want to "decry the Americans for caving to circumcision," then go ahead and conduct your tests and nail them on it, or point out where they went fundamentally wrong. You can't say "well my proof is proofier than your proof" without actually striking down what they're saying.

[Kurioxan]

"clean their dick properly?"

Have I been missing something all these years? I never got my dick cleaning manual. Maybe this is just something you have to worry about if your not cut?

Not really, unless you never bathe or shower, then it would be a problem. You just pull the skin back, takes no real extra care, hell it will happen when you rub yourself normally.

[Cerus]

Besides the obvious - Finland men will not be employed in porn.

What if instead of this, they decided it's stupid to do something that you think should be done - such as poking infants with needles (for vaccinations or any other reasons)?
Or do we allow anything that science says, as long as it's current science ... but then do we allow future science, or is it stupid, and shouldn't be allowed?

Should natural birth be allowed? I'm pretty sure c-section is safer.

More men are uncircumcised than circumsized. Watch more porn - most are intact.

C-section is NOT safer. It's far more common than it used to be and insome regions, nearly all births are via cesarean. Not because it's safer but because Drs have grown increasingly lazy and incompetent and are unable or unwilling to deliver vaginally because they'll lack the skill or don't want to be sued.

So rather than judge each case on its own, they push cesarean whether it's warranted or not.

[Velaniz]

The state should not be banning cultural practices on the basis of their practicality. Its harm is negligible to nonexistent.

Untrue. What's negligible are its supposed benefits. The fact that it's irreversible and removes the ability of an infant to choose is reason enough to ban any manner of infant circumcision.

Culture isn't an excuse for what's essentially mutilation. Culture should adapt to societal standards of morality. Not the other way around. If your culture is at odds with a law that prevents pointless and irreversible mutilation, then I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that your culture is fucked up. Seriously, this wouldn't even be an argument if circumcision were never the norm to begin with. I don't see you fighting for your liberty to have a labiaplasty performed on your infant daughter against her will, for one. What's a fact, though, is that your culture is dwindling. Soon you'll be in the minority, and your own descendants will look back on you with disdain for having perpetuated a custom as utterly mindless as this.

[Kaleredar]

Untrue. What's negligible are its supposed benefits. The fact that it's irreversible and removes the ability of an infant to choose is reason enough to ban any manner of infant circumcision.

That's like the most politician-like answer I've ever heard. Completely skirt the question and then insert your own view as if you made a point.

Culture isn't an excuse for what's essentially mutilation. Culture should adapt to societal standards of morality. Not the other way around. If your culture is at odds with a law that prevents pointless and irreversible mutilation, then I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that your culture is fucked up.

There are so, so many ways in which this is wrong...

First and foremost, you pretend society and culture are seperate

Secondly, you're basically espousing nationalism mixed with overarching cultural relativism (whether you know/like it or not.) Historically, those two things combined haven't done good things, ESPECIALLY in Europe.

Seriously, this wouldn't even be an argument if circumcision were never the norm to begin with. I don't see you fighting for your liberty to have a labiaplasty performed on your infant daughter against her will, for one.

False parallel

What's a fact, though, is that your culture is dwindling. Soon you'll be in the minority, and your own descendants will look back on you with disdain for having perpetuated a custom as utterly mindless as this.

You just called Wells Jewish. Or Muslim.

Oh this will be fun.

[Cybran]

I don't see any compelling state interest behind the ban.

Child protection isn't enough?