Circumcision divide between Denmark and Israel - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;43659994]Can you just stop with nitpicking and asspulling when I'm pretty positive that you knew what I meant when I wrote that. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Jewish_and_Democratic_State[/url] You have to be delusional or braindead to think that Judaism isn't related to Israel.[/QUOTE]If a Christian firebombs an abortion clinic, does that person's actions count against the entirety of Christianity? They did it directly because of their faith, their religion, but is that sufficient cause to say all Christians are domestic terrorists? Israel may have been created because of the creators' Jewish faith, but it does [I]not[/I] mean every other Jew across the world shares their reasoning or agrees with it.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;43663241]If a Christian firebombs an abortion clinic, does that person's actions count against the entirety of Christianity? They did it directly because of their faith, their religion, but is that sufficient cause to say all Christians are domestic terrorists? Israel may have been created because of the creators' Jewish faith, but it does [I]not[/I] mean every other Jew across the world shares their reasoning or agrees with it.[/QUOTE] a lone extremist is different than an entire nation.

[QUOTE=areolop;43663108]I forget that Facepunch is a very liberal forum, but I still think that this is a parents decision still. I agree with SleepyAl for most of it. If the parents are making an informed decision then yea, its ok to do.[/QUOTE] This type of surgery is only given exception because of its abrahamic origins. Almost irreversable operations similar to this wouldn't be permitted by the government or society in any other situation.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;43662980]I posted in a thread a few months back concerning circumcision. I haven't majorly changed my stance on it. But I still respect the fact that people think it's unnecessary or weird, so before you auto-rate dumb because someone has a differing opinion at least try to see the other side of the issue. The main point of contention here is the ethics behind it, but I'd like to reiterate points posted by people previously in the thread since it's going to be important later on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Circumcision does offer some health benefits, but it's nothing major enough to warrant it to be done to all children. It reduces the chance of penile cancers and UTIs, as well as the chance of transmitting HIV, but in the modern world if you keep your dick clean it's not a big benefit other than the cancer reducing one. - The procedure (if done correctly, which is the same for all medical procedures) should leave little loss in sensitivity, but in the majority of circumcisions not even noticeable loss in sensitivity. The loss in sensitivity reported in a [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23361453"]large study in German men[/URL] was so miniscule that it wasn't even statistically relevant, let alone clinically, meaning the difference is most likely due to random chance. (Anecdotally: I mean honestly, when a guy masturbates he's not focusing his fingers on his foreskin for the pleasure, he's focusing it on his glans, and the part that can possibly keratenize is not the part you would be touching in the first place due to the odd location (a bit at the end of the glans, the edge where the glans meets the shaft at a right angle, your hand just glides past that part)). - The reason it's done in infants is because it's way less complicated (you don't need to refrain from sex/masturbation for 4/6 weeks for one thing) and much quicker, and of course you're not going to remember it since at that age you can't even see color, let alone tell what the fuck is going on. Not every circumcision is like orthodox Jewish ones where they use no analgesic to minimize pain and chop the skin off haphazardly; in a clinical setting it's quick, effective, accurate and there's little to no pain due to analgesic pain reduction (no anesthesia due to the fact it can be dangerous to infants) and no need for post surgery pain management, so it's not like how people imagine it as as some sort of horrible disfiguring painful mutilation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The meat of the disagreement is here: ethical considerations. Concerning the points above,[U] the pain is minimal, there's no real noticeable loss in sensitivity, and the infant's not even going to remember it.[/U] The issue is whether the infant should have a choice in the matter. First, infants have no choice on name, whether they should be vaccinated (which is about the same pain response), their clothes, their haircut, what they eat, what surgeries they may need, et cetera because at that age they are unable to make any decisions for themselves, and their surrogate chooses these decisions for them with their best interests in mind. Is it ethical for the surrogate to make this decision, since it's not incredibly necessary? According to US health law, a surrogate may grant consent for a medical procedure that has no medical indication only if it is the child's best interests (yeah law =/= ethics but I feel it's relevant enough here to reference it). I'd argue it is in their best interests, based on my points above. However, if the parent believes it's not in the child's best interest, they can decide not to have their infant undergo the procedure. Pediatricians are required to tell the family of the risks and benefits of circumcision before they can have the operation done, by the way. So, what's my stance? [B]If the parent understands the risks and benefits of the procedure, then they should ultimately be the deciding factor, not their government or religion.[/B] But, chances are you're not even going to read this, instead you'll stick to your opinion and that's okay. But I'd prefer if you'd at least understand the reason circumcision is done isn't out of some horrible twisted mindset or anything, it's done because parents genuinely believe it to be in their child's interest. And, since the first thing you're going to mention is that A) I'm American and B) I'm cut, I still believe I have made fair points that shouldn't be disregarded. Anecdotally, I don't dislike that I'm cut, my dick feels fine, my friends are all cut and their dicks feel fine apparently, blah blah blah. It's really not a big deal to most people if their cut or not. A circumcision isn't going to be the turning point in a person's life that's going to set them up for a life of misery. The reason I've been defending it is because the movements against circumcision are largely anti-science, anti-medicine, and use fear mongering. I don't like movements that appeal to emotion rather than to actual trends, research, science and facts.[/QUOTE] 1. It offers a slight reduction in penile cancer, which is an [I]extremely[/I] rare form of cancer. It also reduces the risk of contracting HIV, the chances of HIV infection from intercourse are also [I]extremely[/I] low. So the benefits are minimal at best. The NHS website states that practicing good hygiene and using condoms are vastly more effective than circumcision. 2. Your large study of german men relates to Erectile Dysfunction, how is that related to sensitivity loss? You also stated that the loss of sensitivity is minimal, the NHS website appears to disagree. Also, neither you nor your friends can comment on sensitivity when all you've known is having a cut penis.. 3. It's an uncomplicated surgery. This is not a valid reason for having it done. You are more likely to have complications as a result of the surgery than enjoy any of the supposed benefits. Your ethical considerations are absurd as well. A parent getting to choose a child's haircut and clothing is rather different from choosing to permanently alter their body, for next to no health benefits. The health benefits of vaccination and the correct diet, on the other hand, are numerous. Movements against circumcision are anti-science and anti-medical, uh what?? Most circumcisions are performed for religious reasons. Have you ever asked your parents why they had you circumcised? Did they actually cite penile cancer and HIV reduction as reasons?

[QUOTE=lolz3;43659132]Circumcision has nothing to do with religion. Jewish people have them not for their faith, not for God, but for cleanliness. Being circumcised is way more cleaner then not (unless you're a bum that never baths.) Foreskin is just a hood for bacteria (not to say nothing on your body isn't) from smegma build up, but it's cleaner for the partner if you are. Just ask anybody that has been circumcised on their own terms, they will tell you it's cleaner for the female and easier to clean for the male. "No NO NO U IS STUPID AND UNEDUMICATED YOU GET DUM DUM RATATING!" Well pardon me for actually having knowledge. Flip side of the coin. Being circumcised can minorly increase your chances of having continuous UTIs(Urinary Tack Infection) yet those are very easy to treat. You can argue all you want about all these medicines and shit we and other developed countries have but 93% of Doctors over-medicate thier patients and give them wrong medicine to give them problems, [b]and that's comming from my family Doctor's mouth.[/b] Being circumcised has never been anything to do with religion or countries, it is the choice of the parent to have it removed so the child does not have to worry about it, or not have it done and have the child either go through in life with no problems at all, or have just a very small percentage of getting cancer. Not only that but if you are circumcised you can play Rocket Man! Tuck it into the launch pad and count down.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.thewellspring.com/flex/myth-circumcision-is-neither-harmful-nor-painful/2617/circumcision-who-profits.cfm[/url] I like this quote in particular: [QUOTE]Most parents want the operation. I can make an extra $200. Why should I try to dissuade them? —Anonymous obstetrician[/QUOTE] In Denmark and other countries with socialized health care, circumcision is just [I]barely[/I] still a thing. Personally, I haven't met a single circumcised person (that I know of) in my 18 years of being a professional dick-wearing dude. There's a reason why they don't do it here in Denmark; it's because it's a completely useless procedure (unless it's a guy with too tight foreskin or whatever) that does nothing but reduce the pleasure from masturbation and sex.

Great! Genital mutilation for religious purposes is awful. Does anyone have statistics on how many babies are getting circucised [B]not[/B] for traditional or religious reasons?

Making religious circumcision is a retarded move. All this will do is make people perform circumcision illegally which is worse. Cutting off the supply does not magically make demand disappear, I thought people would learn this by now

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;43664492]Making religious circumcision is a retarded move. All this will do is make people perform circumcision illegally which is worse. Cutting off the supply does not magically make demand disappear, I thought people would learn this by now[/QUOTE] Circumcision on someone who can't legally give consent is massive BS, and the parents [I]DESERVE[/I] to have their children taken from them if they even think about it.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;43660912]I seriously hope you're not blaming jews around the world for the actions of the state of Israel.[/QUOTE] No but if you look at the context of my sentence it was pretty fucking obvious that I used word jewish as synonym for Israeli. He literally started nitpicking and pretending to be a smartass for no reason.

[QUOTE=O Cheerios O;43664669]Circumcision on someone who can't legally give consent is massive BS, and the parents [I]DESERVE[/I] to have their children taken from them if they even think about it.[/QUOTE] It's pretty horrible, but you're overreacting. I'd rather lose my foreskin than my parents

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;43664680]It's pretty horrible, but you're overreacting. I'd rather lose my foreskin than my parents[/QUOTE] No, if the parents can't follow a simple law, then they're unfit parents. Additionally, the original parents shall be forced to foot the bill for foreskin reconstructive surgery when the child(s) are old enough to give consent whenever they want that or not.

How did people even get the idea: "Oh, I have a son... let's cut his foreskin." ?

Why are religious folk so fucking obsessed with little boy's dicks.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;43664789]How did people even get the idea: "Oh, I have a son... let's cut his foreskin." ?[/QUOTE] It was considered good for hygiene back when people couldn't shower very often. Now it's done for tradition's sake

[QUOTE=lockdown6;43665516] people benefit from circumcision in places where hygiene is sub-par and child mortality rates are high, but is there really a point to not giving someone the choice in a developed nation where this isn't a problem?[/QUOTE] And benefit in developed countries because it's cleaner, but you're just going to sit there "no we have medications." Yes we do, and you probably would not need those medications if you got it removed, but oh no, let's decide that a Government is going to place a law that's for control and enslavement saying you as a parent CAN NOT decide what you want for your child, then sit there and decide I want it to be manditory that everyone should be. No, how about the Government fucks off and let parnets decide what they want for their kids.

"enslavement" lmfao

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;43666098]"enslavement" lmfao[/QUOTE] When something is banned, it is for control and not for better of people. They are wanting to control parents decisions over their children. When you are saying that I can or can not do this for my child, that's enslavement.

[QUOTE=lolz3;43666117]When something is banned, it is for control and not for better of people. They are wanting to control parents decisions over their children. When you are saying that I can or can not do this for my child, that's enslavement.[/QUOTE] lmfao

[QUOTE=lolz3;43666117]When something is banned, it is for control and not for better of people. They are wanting to control parents decisions over their children. When you are saying that I can or can not do this for my child, that's enslavement.[/QUOTE]I suppose preventing parents from beating their children is enslavement as well, by that logic?

And what exactly gives you the right to pretty much mutilate your child's penis without their consent? Benefits are almost non existent and are extremely situational. Show me the list where it shows how circumcision prevented so many penile cancers while they're rare enough as it is, and besides foreskin has immunological capabilities, and so is able to fight diseases anyway. To top it off you can still get penile cancer even if you're circumcised because cancer can be formed on either foreskin or glans. ( [url]http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@cah/@gen/documents/generalcontent/about-penile-cancer.pdf[/url] ) [quote=http://www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-prevention] In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in some studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account. In the United States, the risk of penile cancer is low even among uncircumcised men. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding human papilloma virus (HPV) infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Although infant circumcision can lower the risk of penile cancer, based on the risk of this cancer in the US, it would take over 900 circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer in this country.[/quote] The main problem for me is that complications happen way more than they should and some babies actually die because of circumcision.

The problem isn't if circumcision is good or bad .. the problem is that parents shouldn't be allowed to make permanent scars/changes to their child (tattoos, circumcision .. ect). Its up to the person him/her-self, no matter how you put it. I see no problems with surgery/permanent changes being delayed until the person have a change to say no.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;43662980]I posted in a thread a few months back concerning circumcision. I haven't majorly changed my stance on it. But I still respect the fact that people think it's unnecessary or weird, so before you auto-rate dumb because someone has a differing opinion at least try to see the other side of the issue. The main point of contention here is the ethics behind it, but I'd like to reiterate points posted by people previously in the thread since it's going to be important later on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Circumcision does offer some health benefits, but it's nothing major enough to warrant it to be done to all children. It reduces the chance of penile cancers and UTIs, as well as the chance of transmitting HIV, but in the modern world if you keep your dick clean it's not a big benefit other than the cancer reducing one. - The procedure (if done correctly, which is the same for all medical procedures) should leave little loss in sensitivity, but in the majority of circumcisions not even noticeable loss in sensitivity. The loss in sensitivity reported in a [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23361453"]large study in German men[/URL] was so miniscule that it wasn't even statistically relevant, let alone clinically, meaning the difference is most likely due to random chance. (Anecdotally: I mean honestly, when a guy masturbates he's not focusing his fingers on his foreskin for the pleasure, he's focusing it on his glans, and the part that can possibly keratenize is not the part you would be touching in the first place due to the odd location (a bit at the end of the glans, the edge where the glans meets the shaft at a right angle, your hand just glides past that part)). - The reason it's done in infants is because it's way less complicated (you don't need to refrain from sex/masturbation for 4/6 weeks for one thing) and much quicker, and of course you're not going to remember it since at that age you can't even see color, let alone tell what the fuck is going on. Not every circumcision is like orthodox Jewish ones where they use no analgesic to minimize pain and chop the skin off haphazardly; in a clinical setting it's quick, effective, accurate and there's little to no pain due to analgesic pain reduction (no anesthesia due to the fact it can be dangerous to infants) and no need for post surgery pain management, so it's not like how people imagine it as as some sort of horrible disfiguring painful mutilation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The meat of the disagreement is here: ethical considerations. Concerning the points above,[U] the pain is minimal, there's no real noticeable loss in sensitivity, and the infant's not even going to remember it.[/U] The issue is whether the infant should have a choice in the matter. First, infants have no choice on name, whether they should be vaccinated (which is about the same pain response), their clothes, their haircut, what they eat, what surgeries they may need, et cetera because at that age they are unable to make any decisions for themselves, and their surrogate chooses these decisions for them with their best interests in mind. Is it ethical for the surrogate to make this decision, since it's not incredibly necessary? According to US health law, a surrogate may grant consent for a medical procedure that has no medical indication only if it is the child's best interests (yeah law =/= ethics but I feel it's relevant enough here to reference it). I'd argue it is in their best interests, based on my points above. However, if the parent believes it's not in the child's best interest, they can decide not to have their infant undergo the procedure. Pediatricians are required to tell the family of the risks and benefits of circumcision before they can have the operation done, by the way. So, what's my stance? [B]If the parent understands the risks and benefits of the procedure, then they should ultimately be the deciding factor, not their government or religion.[/B] But, chances are you're not even going to read this, instead you'll stick to your opinion and that's okay. But I'd prefer if you'd at least understand the reason circumcision is done isn't out of some horrible twisted mindset or anything, it's done because parents genuinely believe it to be in their child's interest. And, since the first thing you're going to mention is that A) I'm American and B) I'm cut, I still believe I have made fair points that shouldn't be disregarded. Anecdotally, I don't dislike that I'm cut, my dick feels fine, my friends are all cut and their dicks feel fine apparently, blah blah blah. It's really not a big deal to most people if their cut or not. A circumcision isn't going to be the turning point in a person's life that's going to set them up for a life of misery. The reason I've been defending it is because the movements against circumcision are largely anti-science, anti-medicine, and use fear mongering. I don't like movements that appeal to emotion rather than to actual trends, research, science and facts.[/QUOTE] By your own admission, the benefits are [I]minimal[/I]. "They can do a medical procedure if it has no medical need if it's in their best interests": as you've said, the benefits are minimal, in exchange for a part of your body. Vaccines and 'surgeries they may need' are highly beneficial and maybe necessary. Especially since you said "they may need". The other things you stated are also for health and such, except for clothes, which is just a given to choose for your children because you can't exactly have nude toddlers running around all over, now can you? I like how you dismiss the opposition as "anti-science" and "you're just being [I]emotional[/I]", when again, you yourself said that the benefits are [B]minimal.[/B] [QUOTE=lolz3;43666085]And benefit in developed countries because it's cleaner, but you're just going to sit there "no we have medications." Yes we do, and you probably would not need those medications if you got it removed, but oh no, let's decide that a Government is going to place a law that's for control and enslavement saying you as a parent CAN NOT decide what you want for your child, then sit there and decide I want it to be manditory that everyone should be. No, how about the Government fucks off and let parnets decide what they want for their kids.[/QUOTE] "We're not going to let you cut up your children's genitals unless if you have a medical need for it." "Enslavement!" You were saying about "appeals to emotion", SleepyAl? It's not some antisemitic plan to enslave the populace, it's for the sake of protecting children from unnecessary traditions being forced upon them.

[QUOTE=Spirit_Breaker;43666252]And what exactly gives you the right to pretty much mutilate your child's penis without their consent?[/QUOTE] Because you cant make consensual decisions on your own. Thats why. You dont get to choose anything in your life until your parents let you (or you turn 18). If they act in good nature, then yea, I dont see why it would be an issue. You're going to rebuttal with "Its not their body" but thats just the way things are working right now. Again, Facepunch is a liberal forum so when someone posts a conservative view bad things will happen

[QUOTE=areolop;43666958]Because you cant make consensual decisions on your own. Thats why. You dont get to choose anything in your life until your parents let you (or you turn 18).[/QUOTE] Hello. I have decided to give my baby daughter devil horns. I believe this will be good for her because I am a satanist this is my faith.

[QUOTE=areolop;43666958]Because you cant make consensual decisions on your own. Thats why. You dont get to choose anything in your life until your parents let you (or you turn 18). If they act in good nature, then yea, I dont see why it would be an issue. You're going to rebuttal with "Its not their body" but thats just the way things are working right now. Again, Facepunch is a liberal forum so when someone posts a conservative view bad things will happen[/QUOTE] "You shouldn't be able to cut off part of your child's genitals without their consent" "But that's just the way things are working right now." Is =/= ought.

[QUOTE=areolop;43666958]Because you cant make consensual decisions on your own. Thats why. You dont get to choose anything in your life until your parents let you (or you turn 18). If they act in good nature, then yea, I dont see why it would be an issue. You're going to rebuttal with "Its not their body" but thats just the way things are working right now. Again, Facepunch is a liberal forum so when someone posts a conservative view bad things will happen[/QUOTE] So conservatives would applaud me if I killed my baby and stuffed it with candy and then let my other kids beat on it with sticks? Cause it's my damn property? Woah, I never knew that the conservatives had that going for them, I'll get on board right away with my sticks. Your logic is flawed and you should feel bad about what you just said. I'm obviously joking about the baby thing but in areolops world it would be ok and he's a cop, just food for thought there.

[QUOTE=Last or First;43666949] It's not some antisemitic plan to enslave the populace, it's for the sake of protecting children from unnecessary traditions being forced upon them.[/QUOTE] Circumcision is not a tradition it is a choice. It is enslavement because when the government wants to take away parents choices, then when does it stop? You now can not spank your child because it's abuse. Now smacking your kid in the face with a belt is abuse. I want to give my child a cigar, that's abuse. I want my child to have this piercing on it's ear because of my faith, that's not abuse. Circumcision is not necessary but it is a choice that should be left to parents. People want to argue that Religion messes that up. No, the Government is now forcing people of Religion saying you can not do this we do not fucking care what your God says. That is control and is a step for enslavement. I'm not outraged that the Government wants to ban circumcision, I'm outraged that the Government is telling parents, YOU CAN NOT HAVE THIS DONE EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT EFFECT THEM NEGATIVLY!

[QUOTE=lolz3;43667263]Circumcision is not a tradition it is a choice. It is enslavement because when the government wants to take away parents choices, then when does it stop? You now can not spank your child because it's abuse. Now smacking your kid in the face with a belt is abuse. Circumcision is not necessary but it is a choice that should be left to parents. People want to argue that Religion messes that up. No, the Government is now forcing people of Religion saying you can not do this we do not fucking care what your God says. That is control and is a step for enslavement.[/QUOTE] Spanking your child wont end up with their buttocks falling off, slicing up their junk for no reason is just messed up though.

[QUOTE=pkhzor;43667276]Spanking your child wont end up with their buttocks falling off, slicing up their junk for no reason is just messed up though.[/QUOTE] People like you think Circumcision is this grotesque act that's evil and inhuman because it damages the penis. If you go to someone who knows what they are doing, they will have minimal if any scar tissue. And there is a reason it's for CLEANLINESS! What the fuck do you not understand about that, I was circumcised on my own terms three years ago and it is a shit load cleaner now.

[QUOTE=lolz3;43667263]Circumcision is not a tradition it is a choice. It is enslavement because when the government wants to take away parents choices, then when does it stop? You now can not spank your child because it's abuse. [B]Now smacking your kid in the face with a belt is abuse. I want to give my child a cigar, that's abuse.[/B] I want my child to have this piercing on it's ear because of my faith, that's not abuse. Circumcision is not necessary but it is a choice that should be left to parents. People want to argue that Religion messes that up. No, the Government is now forcing people of Religion saying you can not do this we do not fucking care what your God says. That is control and is a step for enslavement.[/QUOTE] Bold: what the fuck please never have children I am seriously concerned for your well being right now are you trolling, or are you high it has to be one of those two because you seriously cannot argue that it's wrong to stop people from hitting kids with belts and giving them cigars forcing them to get their ears pierced is wrong too Circumcision is a choice. A choice that should be left up to the child when they're old enough. Same with piercing their ears, but obviously that's for a much younger age; however, it's still their choice. Would you argue that it's enslavement to stop people from cutting off kids' toes? Cutting off toes is the parent's choice after all, and it has scientific benefits to prevent stubbed toes and toe cancer.