Current Events > Circumcision on a newborn?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Paragon21XX posted...

Do you even know why girls are given FGM procedures and usually is not performed until they have begun puberty? Hint: it's not even remotely for the same reason that men are circumcised.

Hint: there's no reason that justifies non consensual genital mutilation

Dathrowed1 posted...

Honor

So that's gonna be a "no" on addressing your weak-ass name change argument in favor of pivoting to this "cultural relativism, union regs, hands are tied " move after failing so thoroughly?

Paragon21XX posted...

By intactivists who like to compare it to FGM even though there are magnitudes of biological and ethical differences between the two.

Nope, it's called that in general. There's just debate for how closely they should be compared or not.

There is no debate of "It's not MGM." The debate is "Should MGM be compared to FGM?"

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Religion is a right in of itself and in this case, it's going to get a pass

HashtagSEP posted...

Nope, it's called that in general. There's just debate for how closely they should be compared or not.

There is no debate of "It's not MGM." The debate is "Should MGM be compared to FGM?"

Could also frame the question as "how many times/how thoroughly can your genitals get cut before you call it mutilation?"

Apparently there's a concrete number to both, apparently male circumcision doesn't match the criteria.

So lay it out, o wise ones who have written the AMA/OSHA standards. 2 cuts, .5 grams of tissue removed? 4 cuts, 2 grams?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Unfortunately, the current presidential administration has proven this wrong, as much as I disagree with it

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I did no such thing. I think in this specific case given the history of the people doing it, they allow it slide

LonelyStoner posted...

Unfortunately, the current presidential administration has proven this wrong, as much as I disagree with it

Every administration is going to be ok with it. They don't want to rock the boat over something most people don't care about

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

A pivot to new "argument" and pretending the old one never happened in 3...

2...

*sees 320 replies*

Im a brave man but aint touching this one lmao.

Dathrowed1 posted...

Religion is a right in of itself and in this case, it's going to get a pass

Maybe. For now. You can't say how religion will be treated in 100 or 200 years. There may be an era where people aren't allowed to use religion as an excuse to do bad things

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

No i did not. I do not believe the government would grant a religious exemption for an honor killing vs. where they will with circumcision. America has a history on battling on what is and what isn't covered by first amendment. Circumcision will be a losing battle since it's not as big of a deal for the government to interfere

Zikten posted...

Maybe. For now. You can't say how religion will be treated in 100 or 200 years. There may be an era where people aren't allowed to use religion as an excuse to do bad things

100 years ago, not being nationalistic was considered a bad thing. Now you can openly protest the flag. We also won't be here in 100 years

Dathrowed1 posted...

100 years ago, not being nationalistic was considered a bad thing.

In 1925?

Not really.

Unless you meant 70 years ago, where you might have had a point.

Tell your wife you're okay with it on one condition. She has to eat the foreskin after it's detached. 92% chance she'll change her mind and let little buddy keep the entirety of his dingaling.

DrizztLink posted...

In 1925?

Not really.

Unless you meant 70 years ago, where you might have had a point.

The World Wars were actually a time of persecution for people who weren't nationalistic. So within the last 100 years and earliee

wanderingshade posted...

The lady who had her face bitten off by a pitbull was mutilated. Not having foreskin isn't a horrible disfigurement of a penis and isn't seriously damaged. Some women in Africa have the clitoris and labia minora cut off COMPLETELY and that is mutilation.

This is just a form of activists further and further intensifying language because they want to win arguments and shut out pithy remarks because they feel humiliated not being taken seriously. I'm not trying to say it's a good thing, but this is like calling Wounded Knee a Holocaust.

Dog it's literally there for a reason and removing it has dubious (at best) benefits. I'm not even chuffed about being circumcised and I agree it's mutilation without consent. It's removing the most sensitive part of the body. Just because one thing is obviously worse doesn't make the other not bad, what kind of logic is that. We could play measuring stick nand justify anything with that thought process. It's absurd.

If you had had a daughter, would you have allowed a female circumcision?
Humans have done that for over 2000 years so it must be alright to do, right? Right?

I wonder how these people would react to preemptive vasectomies.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Feeling is mutual on discussion style, and you dont need to inform me you arent replying. Just dont reply.

I dont agree all bodily is important as that angle is cherry picked used by anti vax types. I also find it absurd to compare a male circumcision to a woman's right to an abortion. The latter being far more significant and even life threatening.

You can compare virtually anything from extremes to trivial in the umbrella style of argument.

DrizztLink posted...

I wonder how these people would react to preemptive vasectomies.

A bad comparison.
A circumcision is not life threatening nor does it stop your ability to do basic bodily functions such as the ability to have a child without a medical procedure.

A vasectomy literally takes that away with 0 guarantee you can get the ability back. Success of a reversal declines as time goes on.

asdf8562 posted...

A bad comparison.

You'd be the expert:

asdf8562 posted...

I dont agree all bodily is important as that angle is cherry picked used by anti vax types.

...because that's not how bodily autonomy works, but look at you go anyway.

DrizztLink posted...

You'd be the expert:

...because that's not how bodily autonomy works, but look at you go anyway.

... you actually thought that was a good rebuttal. Hint, I never argued in defense of that.

Nor does that change the comparison tries to attempt something that actually can leave lasting significant harm.... to something that actually in the grand scheme of things doesnt. (Vasectomy to a circumcision)

Revocation68 posted...

I don't want to do this to my son but my wife seems to think I'm overreacting

You are not.

Revocation68 posted...

and that it will make his hygiene more difficult to manage if we don't choose to snip him.

No.

Revocation68 posted...

I don't know how safe or painless the procedure is today

It's not safe or painless at all.

Revocation68 posted...

I think it's messed up to do to a newborn

It is.

Don't do it.

damn this topic is gonna hit 500, isn't it?

I always have to wonder if the people who are so pro-circumcision are just worried that in a decade or two their dick might be considered "abnormal" in the US and some other countries.

I've still seen no good argument for the pro except tradition, religion, and "well I had it done to me". People mock those against it for caring too much (apparently), but I've seen no good reason to do it.

thronedfire2 posted...

damn this topic is gonna hit 500, isn't it?

I always have to wonder if the people who are so pro-circumcision are just worried that in a decade or two their dick might be considered "abnormal" in the US and some other countries.

I'm sure a lot of people who circumcise their sons do so because they're self conscious. It was done to them so they'll do it to their sons.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


would you have cut part of his dick off if you hadn't been circumcised, though?

asdf8562 posted...

A bad comparison.
A circumcision is not life threatening nor does it stop your ability to do basic bodily functions such as the ability to have a child without a medical procedure.

A vasectomy literally takes that away with 0 guarantee you can get the ability back. Success of a reversal declines as time goes on.

Just on a cursory google search it seems like ~110 deaths a year do occur in the US from circumcision. It's a tiny fraction, but if we're splitting hairs..

also I think what dathrowed was talking about with the kid names was how Denmark has a law that you can't give your child objectively stupid names that will just get them bullied for their entire childhood

HashtagSEP posted...

Dathrowed's a Trumper with quite a post history, by the way, just to illuminate where their argument is coming from. And likely why they tried to jump to vaccines as a comparison.

Also he's a Jehova's Witness who used to post his extremist views on the religion board.

asdf8562 posted...

... you actually thought that was a good rebuttal. Hint, I never argued in defense of that.

You just want to avoid bringing bodily autonomy into this discussion of bodily autonomy because "reasons."

Gotcha.

Enclave posted...

I'm sure a lot of people who circumcise their sons do so because they're self conscious. It was done to them so they'll do it to their sons.

Exactly

thronedfire2 posted...

damn this topic is gonna hit 500, isn't it?

I always have to wonder if the people who are so pro-circumcision are just worried that in a decade or two their dick might be considered "abnormal" in the US and some other countries.

Enclave posted...

I'm sure a lot of people who circumcise their sons do so because they're self conscious. It was done to them so they'll do it to their sons.

No one is thinking about this at all, hence "online"

Dathrowed1 posted...

No one is thinking about this at all, hence "online"

Out of curiosity, how many established nonprofits working on the subject would I need to link before you give up on this shit-ass argument for whatever plops into your brain next?

Because I'm prepared to start with five.

DrizztLink posted...

Out of curiosity, how many established nonprofits working on the subject would I need to link before you give up on this shit-ass argument for whatever plops into your brain next?

Because I'm prepared to start with five.

Doesn't matter to me because it's not going to get anywhere. If you don't like it, just don't do it to your kids. Better things to spend your money on

And that's another walkback, exactly as predicted.

You are fucking terrible at this.

DrizztLink posted...

And that's another walkback, exactly as predicted.

You are fucking terrible at this.

I've always maintained this issue isn't as important as you want to pretend it to be

The goalposts actually have the position mandated in the rules, cap'n.

Put it back.

DrizztLink posted...

The goalposts actually have the position mandated in the rules, cap'n.

Put it back.

That your concerns aren't as big as you want them to be and worrying about circumcision outside yoru family is silly?

If you don't have to worry about circumcision outside of your family, why have you been wasting your time arguing about it?

Worry about your own family and quit bringing it up, stop getting all uppity over something you claim doesn't matter.

DrizztLink posted...

If you don't have to worry about circumcision outside of your family, why have you been wasting your time arguing about it?

Worry about your own family and quit bringing it up, stop getting all uppity over something you claim doesn't matter.

It obviously DEEPLY matters to him.

Dathrowed, it's okay, you are allowed to be upset that your parents made a permanent modification to your body without your consent.

HashtagSEP posted...

Nah, I'm very positive. Some of the posts still exist.

I have had him tagged as "Trumper?" before this topic, so he's definitely said some questionable things before.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Clearly they do! These topics always go to 500! Its always a good laugh to see how worked up some people get.