Circumcision

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7772002181711601907&q=penn+and+teller&hl=en

Penn & Teller pwn the religious nuts & dick slicers!

>>27 Keep posting Xel.  Don't give in to the dick slicers and religious fanatics.

>>34

whut? that it's not bad for you is my point. i had to have the procedure done because of scar tissue that built up from a herpes infection (not sexually transmitted!). there is pretty much no difference. over time my penis became slighty less sensitive and easier to care for, but i always keep clean before the surgery and i never liked cumming early anyways but even when i had foreskin i could still control it. so that's why i said there's really no difference.

but nevermind me, you guys seem pretty dead set on arguing about it so i'm gonna find my way out of this crazy thread. you can keep arguing till the end of the world people aren't going to stop circumcising their boys if they way.

Why should we allow non-medical related circumsizing of anyone else than Jewish/Muslim children or those who are adults and want it? There's no reason other than you circumsized guys are obviously feeling inferior and thus want to take away foreskin from all boys and men. My whole family is uncircumsized and proud of it.

>>43

Baseless and pretty fucking nutty. There are no "teams" here, you fucking degenerate. Why exactly should I, a heterosexual male, give a flying fuck what your dick or anyone elses looks like?

>>37
"Male genital mutilation, while it might not have negative medical effects, lacks any positive medical effect, and is painful for the baby."

Ear piercing, while it might not have negative medical effects, lacks any positive medical effect, and is painful for the baby.


END EAR MUTILATION NOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWW

>>45
Holy fuck you're stupid. ARe you capable of contemplating more than 1 thought at a time? Babies cannot make the choice whether they want circumcision or an ear piercing or not, since neither serve any purpose babies shouldn't be forced to have either done to them so they can make the choice when they are adults.

>>46

no u! you lack common sense and are acting similar to a certain jewish mom from a certain TV show that airs on comedy central.

if a parent is told by their doctor that circumcision is good, then a parent has a right to say yes if they think that will help their baby.

if a parent is told by their doctor that circumcision is bad, then a parent has a right to say no if they think that will help their baby.

either way- the end result is really that it doesn't make a fucking difference. Half the planet is circumcised, half isn't. Pain isn't an issue because anesthic is used and the pain isn't something that will psychologically destroy the child.

you've been hammered again and again on these points and you still keep bringing the focus back to someone's dick. Someone else's BABY DICK. you have no definitive proof because if circumcision was really so bad then it would've been banned outright along time ago like other medical practices.

>>46
You fucking moron, parents can make any legal decision for their kids. Parents should make decisions that serve no purpose for their kids? What the fuck? Babies shouldn't be forced to wear ugly clothes either, or get haircuts, or stop picking their nose, these kids should wait until they are adults and they can decide for themselves if they want to being their teddy bear to school!!

>>47
If a parent is told by their doctor that circumcision is cosmetic, then it should be left until the baby grows up and is mature enough to decide for themselves.

>>49
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH WOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAARRRRGHHHHHH YOU WANT TO EXTERMINATE THE JEWS YOU ARE NNNAAZI AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH IMMMMM FUKKKEEEN ANNGGGGGGRRRRRRRYYYYYY

>>49
HHOOLLYY FFUCKCKK I JUST SHAT MYSELF SO UFKKEN HARD CAUSE IM SO PISSED OFF IM HITTING TEH COMPUTER SCREEN AND SLAPPING MY HANDS AGAINST TEH KEY BOARDAAAHWEU8EJRIROGRRGJHERIOH'ZSEORJH'AEIOJTHME;'IOTJH,EO;STJHEIOR;JHAW'EIRJTGEAIORGT


WWWWWWHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

This is my last reply in this thread. I've got better things to do than to convince aspiring pedos that another baby's dick is none of their business.

Also, in this study here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14979200&query_hl=27) they found that adults who were circumcised later in life have higher incidences of erectile disfunction.  While the increase in risk is small, it is statistically high enough to say that circumcision increases risk of erectile disfunction.

That would be relevant if we were talking about Adult circumcision. But oh yeah: We're not. I have NLBS, too, and I know that was the best argument you could find from that site because Wiki quotes that site, as well. What you fail to understand is that this is a nebulous discussion. You aren't going to appear right to anyone who is rational.

Whether or not they are effected in adulthood is beside the main point.  The issue is that they are forced to undergo a completely pointless procedure - it has no medical benefit.

And so what? So the fuck what? Why the fuck do you care so much about baby dicks? Why do you care about other people's sexual satisfaction, especially to the point where you're calling for the illegalization of what you admitted was a "pointless procedure"? If it's so fucking pointless, then it doesn't need to be outlawed. Are you from China or something?

The reason to keep the foreskin is because it is extremely painful to cut it off, results in a less enjoyable sexual experiance later in life, and of course that there is no medical benefit to cut it off.

-It's only painful or risky if it's done by someone who isn't a doctor (they use anesthics)
-There is no conclusive evidence that says it makes sex less enjoyable. And even if it did, that still doesn't make a difference in a world where pre-mature ejaculation is considered penile dyfunction, too.
-There's no medical benefit to keeping it either.

>>49

That's a mighty big "If." Regardless, it really doesn't matter what the doctor tells the parents. The parents are the guardian of the child, not vise versa. The child can't consent to ANY medical procedure until well into its teens. Arguing is 11 kinds of deluxe-retarded considering that consent would only be an issue if circumcision periminantly harmed the boy in question. Which we already established that it doesn't.

I guess getting all worked up about a someone elses child's dick pain or capcity for pleasure seems like some kind of virtue for you. But to anyone with a shread of decency or common sense, it just makes you look like a twisted-sick fuck who uses is circular reasoning to justify someone other than the parent deciding what is truly best for their child.

>>52 Parents should not have the right or possibility to alter the physionomy of a child permanently before they have reached an age where professionals have dictated they can make the decision themselves. It's a flaky limit but it has to be drawn somewhere.

If Gyoshem and Annie want to cut off Göggem's foreskin they'd better put away money for a cosmetic operation that would put his dick back in its original state. That's a condition.

Sure, all rights not specicly granted to the parents are vested in the government. libnazi.

People who want circumcisions generally do for religious reasons. It was originally intended for the sensitive head of the penis to lose it's sensitivity as it is exposed to the elements.

>>54
It's not about the parent's rights.

>>54 Nooooooooo. Vested in the fucking kid. And putting nazi at the end of some political affiliate term you think stand for something icky isn't goin to cut it outside of the internet.

Yourmomnazi. Oh I have such integrity and edge.

Dear God. Or should I say Godwin?

And who speaks for the kid but the gov, of course.

>>59 The gov slaps the parents hard if they mutilate the child before a certain age. Or is the prospect of the gubbymint handling jurisprudence too... Anti-semitic? Arbitrary?

the gov hasnt been given the authority to interfere in this area and should never be allowed.

One other relevant and very important issue here is that parents are not always properly informed about the medical advantages (or lack thereof) of circumsicion.  If a doctor tells the parents there is any beneficial medical reason whatsoever for circumsicion, they are lying.  We should at least make sure that doctors are correctly informing parents of the nature of the procedure.

Thats doable

Usually Xel comes off pretty smart- but here is where his childish, purile, immature idealism shines through. Parents are in charge of kids until a certain age when it comes to medical procedures. We've established the overall harmlessness of circumcision and with that established harmlessness comes the irrelevance of consent.

By proxy of simple reason alone, there comes a time when everything doesn't come down to consent. And regardless of what you think is wrong about male circumcision, people shouldn't be forced to stop doing it if it is basically harmless and they feel that it helps their child medically or it is apart of their beliefs.

Xel and other morons, in their idiotic zealotry, think they're playing hardball with religious fanatics...but in fact their controlling behavior mimics those they loathe. They have a initial gut reaction to male circumcision and by God they're sticking to it. Lack of concrete, uncontested information to back their claims BE DAMNED.

Their inability to at the very least acknowledge that the benefits (or lack there of) of circumcision have never been established by either side (pro or con) makes their moral thrust just as weak as someone that used God as an explaination to KEEP circumcision. They attack blindly and self-righteously and that's always been dangerous.

All they see is that a majority of europe medical doctors say that it's wrong, it has no benefits, it's risky, etc. Meanwhile the other half of the world is existing just fine with circumcised dicks claiming that there are benefits and not-circumcising is wrong.

Neither side has effective proven anything and that what makes the suggested illegality of it wrong beyond repair because it denies people the right to make their own informed decisions. Needless, to say I would've felt alot better about this thread if all this jewish, anti-America shit never got brought up because let's be honest: That's what this is really about for people.

Just yet another thing that one side of the world thinks the other side of the world "doesn't get". Yet another round of "my country is better than yours."

Circumsion is too unatural. Period

>>64 remarkable win

I've heard a comment that about "50%" of the world is circumcized.  Actually, only about 20% of men in the world are circumcized.  The United States is the only major world power where circumcision is routinely practiced for non-religeous reasons.

That said, I didn't want to be circumcized, and I find it incredibly violating that it happened at a time when I was unable to even speak in protest.  I wish that it hadn't happened, but since my parents decided to make that irreversible choice for me, I got part of my gentialia amputated.

It is unfortunate that many men do not want to respect their son's body.  They got circumcized at birth and never know what they're missing, so they just assume that it's no big deal.  The majority of men who were circumcized later in life do claim that it affected their sexual pleasure in a negative way.

Look at it this way, a man who is colorblind from birth learns to live with the condition and never knows what they are missing -- a world full of colors.  This analogy has been used by men who have been circumcized later in life to describe how different their sexual experiences are.

>>64
>>66
Same person.

I think the only reason anti-chan support circumcision is because of it's obsession with culture. Any non-western culture is superior and any criticism of foreign culture is an attempt to destroy it be evil fascist boogeymen who lurk around every corner.

Give it up, no one is saying kosher food or jewish philosophy is wrong, just this dumb circumcision bullshit. Circumcision serves no purpose, it is cosmetic and the equivalent of parents having their baby's ears pierced.

>>68
It's equivalent of parents having piece of baby's ear removed. Circumcision is not piercing. It's removal of foreskin.

>>68

I don't have to post "remarkable win" after myself to seem right, because either way I'm not against or for circumcision. So there's no "right" here, only "reason". ---Thus it is "unreasonable" to suggest the illegality of circumcison based on consent, when children commonly don't have consent until teenagehood, anyway.

It is "unreasonable" to suggest consent is needed when it is obvious to anyone capable of common sense that circumcision isn't decreasing the quality of life or harming the child in some irreversable or perminant way.

Finally, for all of your claims about "circumcision supporters" and "religious fanatics", you don't seem to grasp the truth that both sides of the circumcision argument have failed to establish their viewpoints as valid based on medical science. So, you fags can keep crying about dick sensitivity and mutalation all you want because for every one of you idiots, there's another equally inbred and equally pathetic moron crying about "Cheesy dick" and "Cums quick". 

The only thing I find truly rediculous about this argument are people like >>69 who equate Circumcision to a baby having it's fucking removed. What's more important here, foreskin for added sexual pleasures (something the child won't even miss) or the entire sense of hearing in one side altogether? (Something that will definately be missed) Even more important is that you're trying to take away people's choice (REGARDLESS OF REASON), when you're incapable of providing CONCLUSIVE evidence as to why.

>>70
Dude you're crazy. Removing piece of your ear doesn't affect your hearing and is purely cosmetic. Exactly same what circumcision is.

>>70
So you are saying parents can harm children all we want until they are adults, as long as it doesn't have any major affect on their abilities?

If someone molested their son's penis when he is too young to remember what happenned when he grows up, you'd think that is fine because it is the parent's decision.

You also think that if someone had sexual intercourse into their daughter at the same age, that would be fine too.

Yeah, some liberal utopia you have there AC.

>>71

Delusional and Wrong. Removing a whole ear would most definately causes damage to the middle and outer ear qualifying as conductive hearing loss. Maybe you need to look in the physiologyof  things before you open your big mouth.

>>72

No, Mr. Same Person, I'm saying that as long as there isn't any conclusive evidence that a procedure will harm a child (who have no consent regardless of the medical procedure), then this doesn't constitute as "harm" in the first fucking place.

You have shown absolutely no conclusive scientific evidence that would put circumcision on par with molestation or rape (where's the long term psychological and emotion dysfunction?), so I don't know why you keep trying make these retarded comparisons and put these retarded words into my mouth.

Why would I be for sexual intercourse with a female infant when circumcision doesn't equate to such? Why do you continue to assume that I "support" circumcision when I've repeated multiple times that I could careless either way?

>>73
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm taking the words you use and applying them to other crimes to show how what you say is biased and contradictory.

You reasonning is that parent should be able to do whatever they want to their kids as long as they don't remember the pain caused or it is inconsequential.

If this is all you believe then you are essentially justifying child molestation and a whole myriad of pointless cosmetic surgery on children.

It should really be the child's choice when they grow up.

>>74
first, stop comparing this to child molestation, its a fucking stupid comparison

Second of all, does any kid want braces? or a lazy eye patch?
kids can't make good choices, they're fucking stupid

It should be the parents choice, because it is their kid, and the parents make better choices"usually".

>>75
"It should be the parents choice, because it is their kid, and the parents make better choices"usually"."

Usually doesn't = always.  Parental choice is frequently a good thing, I agree.  However, the freedom of parents stops when they are deciding to seriously physically mutilate their baby causing it tremendous pain for no reason, no medical benefit, and without giving the individual any choice or option in the matter whatsoever.

>>74
EXACTLY!

>>75
How many times do I have to go over this?

Eye patches and braces serve a purpose, circumcision doesn't.

Is it ok for parents to cut off a single pinkie toe?  Is it ok for parents to stick their kids over and over with a rusty needle? 

Dick slicing is not necessary, poses no medical benefits, is extremely painful, and only results in a lower quality of life for the child in the future. 

If a government cut up the foreskin of detainees in prison, would it be considered torture? Should governments be allowed to do this? Should parents?  Its a sad day when people are willing to deny rights to an innocent just-born baby that they grant to criminals.. and I'm not saying it should be done to either.

>>74

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm taking the words you use and applying them to other crimes to show how what you say is biased and contradictory.

Yeah, but here the thing: I don't support circumcision or uncircumcision, either way. This is what your puny little brain simply can not grasp because it torpedos any attempt you have at using circular reasoning (comparing child molestation to circumcision) to validate your weak argument. There can be no 'Bias' or contradictions here when I don't even have a perference.

All I'm saying is that if a parent wants to do that to their kid for cultural or for the supposed medical reasons, then that's well within their rights. Just like it's well within the rights of parents to NOT circumcise their child for cultural or supposed medical reasons.

The reason I think this is because both sides have failed to provide unrefutable and conclusive evidence that infant circumcision (or lack there of) makes a major difference in the lives of Adult Males.

>>76, >>77, >>78, >>79 - It doesn't matter if you're the same person or a group of nomadic retards, all you have to do to end this argument once and for all is to provide valid, peer-reviewed, conclusive evidence that infantile circumcision negatively effects Adult males and this would be over and DONE.

But you've been unable to do that (probably because no such study exists) and you've basically been repeating yourself for the last 30 or so posts.

Face it: Without the above criteria, you lose (and fail).

Next thread, please.