"Circumcision a criminal act"

[Guest Peeves]

Another issue for the equation.

I see by far many young girls (mostly)with piercings today then a generation or so past.

I'm sure the parents are making that decision to allow. Since the 'kid' isn't old enough to make the decision, why is that so much different than a circumcision?

I know of at least one 14 year old that had a nose job, and I'm reading where some teens are having breast enhancement. Why then the fuss on circumcision?

[Boges]

Another issue for the equation.

I see by far many young girls (mostly)with piercings today then a generation or so past.

I'm sure the parents are making that decision to allow. Since the 'kid' isn't old enough to make the decision, why is that so much different than a circumcision?

I know of at least one 14 year old that had a nose job, and I'm reading where some teens are having breast enhancement. Why then the fuss on circumcision?

Yeah but the holes in the piercing can go away and the precious foreskin can never come back. blah blah.

[Guest Peeves]

Yeah but the holes in the piercing can go away and the precious foreskin can never come back. blah blah.

While well and good your response dos not address the moral/ethical/legal question.

[g_bambino]

So you're comparing someone's finger to a about a centimeter of penis skin.

Good observation skills! Now, how about demonstrating your skill at logically defending your argument.

[Boges]

Good observation skills! Now, how about demonstrating your skill at logically defending your argument.

Circumcision isn't medically necessary but it's an aesthetics procedure that parents choose to have performed on their male children for a variety of reasons.

Many children get the procedure done and it's not something the child will ever remember and the child will never miss something he had for a few days. There are benefits to having it done or people wouldn't do it.

I've never been given a study that shows a large number of people that are outraged they've had circumcision nor have they had massive medical problems from getting it. There are just a handful of people that want to get in the business of religious groups and control the rights of parents.

Since you don't really "need it", in Canada, in shouldn't be part of Public Healthcare. Then again Canada has flirted with offering sex-change operations on the taxpayer's dime.

But to ban it is a pretty extremist view considering the likely negative side effects of circumcision are negligible and the number of parents that choose to have the procedure done for their child is sizable.

As said earlier, in this thread, it's akin to abortion, when it was illegal. Jews and Muslims aren't going to stop the procedure because it's illegal so you push the practice underground where it then may become a public health problem.

The idea of criminalizing a procedure that's been done for thousands of years without much complaint is concerning to me.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Boges

[kraychik]

Good observation skills! Now, how about demonstrating your skill at logically defending your argument.

Perhaps you can support your moral posturing on behalf of these victimised boys by showing us the troves of circumcised adult men who want their foreskins back and now feel that they have been violated? Not in my entire life have a met a circumcised man who wishes that benevolent leftists like yourself would have sounded the alarm about malicious circumcisions when they were infants, to spare them for the horrors of genital mutilation.

Your self-aggrandisement as you pretend to be an advocate for people who don't want you speaking on their behalf is hilarious. Leftists like you make this forum entertaining.

Thank you for you verbal virtuosity.

[g_bambino]

Circumcision isn't medically necessary but it's an aesthetics procedure that parents choose to have performed on their male children for a variety of reasons.

Whether or not it's been done for thousands of years is irrelevant; the length of time the practice has been carried out doesn't in itself justify the practice. Nor does the procedure's proven minimum of risk to an individual's overall health. What's being scrutinised is the reason why the specific act of cutting off the foreskin is performed. It can be medically necessary, but yes, all one is otherwise left with are religious and/or aesthetic reasons; subjective benefits. The same could well be used to "justify" the removal of, say, the end of the left digitus minimus. Or, let's consider the equally (perhaps more) applicable meatotomy, or a penile subincision (note: NSFW). The latter is also a millennia old practice, proven (by how long its been used alone) to be of about as much risk to anyone's health as circumcision, and isn't (as far as I know) a criminal act. So, would you consider it to be acceptable for parents who were advocates of body modification, who thought the results of meatotomies or subincisions are aesthetically pleasing, to have either of those procedures carried out on their infant sons, in the same way circumcision is? Because, I'm certain no doctor would oblige, even though they will cut a foreskin off for the same "reasons".

[ed.: +]

Edited July 13, 2012 by g_bambino

[bleeding heart]

Since you don't really "need it", in Canada, in shouldn't be part of Public Healthcare. Then again Canada has flirted with offering sex-change operations on the taxpayer's dime.

It has been argued that this is a very profound mental health issue, cutting to the bone, as it were, of a person's actual identity.

[g_bambino]

Perhaps you can support your moral posturing on behalf of these victimised boys by showing us the troves of circumcised adult men who want their foreskins back and now feel that they have been violated? Not in my entire life have a met a circumcised man who wishes that benevolent leftists like yourself would have sounded the alarm about malicious circumcisions when they were infants, to spare them for the horrors of genital mutilation.

Your self-aggrandisement as you pretend to be an advocate for people who don't want you speaking on their behalf is hilarious. Leftists like you make this forum entertaining.

Thank you for you verbal virtuosity.

You appear to have confused me with someone else.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited July 13, 2012 by g_bambino

[Boges]

Whether or not it's been done for thousands of years is irrelevant; the length of time the practice has been carried out doesn't in itself justify the practice. Nor does the procedure's proven minimum of risk to an individual's overall health. What's being scrutinised is the reason why the specific act of cutting off the foreskin is performed. It can be medically necessary, but yes, all one is otherwise left with are religious and/or aesthetic reasons; subjective benefits. The same could well be used to "justify" the removal of, say, the end of the left digitus minimus. Or, let's consider the equally (perhaps more) applicable meatotomy, or a penile subincision. The latter is also a millennia old practice, proven (by how long its been used alone) to be of about as much risk to anyone's health as circumcision, and isn't (as far as I know) a criminal act. So, would you consider it to be acceptable for parents who were advocates of body modification, who thought the results of meatotomies or subincisions are aesthetically pleasing, to have either of those procedures carried out on their sons, in the same way circumcision is? Because, I'm certain no doctor would oblige, even though they will cut a foreskin off for the same "reasons".

Drop a NSFW on that link please.

From the brief second I saw that pic before clicking the X button that looked like half the penis being cut from tip to base. That's not, in anyway, comparable to circumcision.

You can be dogmatic about the idea of alternating a child's body with his consent but I think reasonable people can agree that circumcision doesn't greatly cause an adverse effect on the person's future as opposed to that horrific link you posted. If it was something people did "just cuz" then only Jewish people would do it because it's said to be done in the Bible. Many more people have it done other than Jews.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Boges

[kraychik]

It has been argued that this is a very profound mental health issue, cutting to the bone, as it were, of a person's actual identity.

That's ridiculous. It's a mental disorder to think one is a different gender and it should be treated as such. Of course, given our politically-correct culture, we cater to such abnormalities as if they aren't abnormalities.

[g_bambino]

Drop a NSFW on that link please.

Fair enough, done, and apologies.

From the brief second I saw that pic before clicking the X button that looked like half the penis being cut from tip to base. That's not, in anyway, comparable to circumcision.

You can be dogmatic about the idea of alternating a child's body with his consent but I think reasonable people can agree that circumcision doesn't greatly cause an adverse effect on the person's future as opposed to that horrific link you posted. If it was something people did "just cuz" then only Jewish people would do it because it's said to be done in the Bible. Many more people have it done other than Jews.

It is comparable in that it's a relatively risk-free procedure done for aesthetic purposes just like circumcision (when it's not done for medical reasons). If you still don't want to consider it as an applicable comparison, then regard again the less severe meatotomy. People do it "just cuz", too. But not, so far as I'm aware, to infants.

[ed.: +]

Edited July 13, 2012 by g_bambino

[bleeding heart]

That's ridiculous. It's a mental disorder to think one is a different gender and it should be treated as such. Of course, given our politically-correct culture, we cater to such abnormalities as if they aren't abnormalities.

No....your view on this matter is "political correctness," and is a conventional and short-sighted view that is finally beginning to change.

Just because you have a puritanical view of rigidly-defined gender and sex roles doesn't mean you're right.

Fortunately.

[kraychik]

Yeah, how thankful we should all be that whether or not you're a male or female is now a matter of opinion and not anatomy. Are you a man that wants to be a woman? No problem, we'll mutilate you are the expense of the taxpayer, rearrange a few things, and you'll still be a man but you'll sort of look like a woman.

Are you a senior who needs a knee replacement? Well, you can wait a year or two. We're busy indulging the mental disorders of individuals who are obsessed with their genitalia.

[bush_cheney2004]

More circumcision fun from Canada...I wonder if foreskins make for better hockey players:

....I’m a family doctor who’s been in solo practice for over 25 years. I have one son who is circumcised and three daughters. My husband is circumcised and I understand my son-in-law is circumcised. I’m a very strong advocate of circumcision. I see far too much suffering and problems with my male patients when they have to undergo adult circumcision. Or what about when people get older and need special attention? Orderlies aren’t retracting foreskins to ensure proper hygiene when people come into institutional care. Also, most mothers, certainly by the time the child is three, four or five, don’t touch the child’s penis or are very reluctant to do so.

http://www.circlist.com/rites/canada.html

Leggo my foreskin!

[bleeding heart]

Yeah, how thankful we should all be that whether or not you're a male or female is now a matter of opinion and not anatomy.

It's not about "opinion," it's about a core sense of identity. One that I (and presumably yourself) take for granted, so that we don't have to think about it.

People aren't going to consider, much less undergo reassignment surgery based on a whim!

I realize you hate them, kraychik...I'm just not completely sure why.

. We're busy indulging the mental disorders of individuals who are obsessed with their genitalia.

They're no more nor less "obssessed with their genitalia" than anyone else.

And it's not a mental disorder. Since you are using the language of the mental health profession, you might have looked into it to see their opinions on the matter.

Or--crazy!--talk to an actual individual undergoing or planning to undergo the procedures, and realize that they aren't scary lunatics trying to destroy the social fabric of Canada, or whatever fears are driving your bigoted little opinions.

Edited July 14, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

It's not about "opinion," it's about a core sense of identity. One that I (and presumably yourself) take for granted, so that we don't have to think about it.

People aren't going to consider, muck less undergo reassignemnt surgery based on a whim!

I realize you hate them, kraychik...I'm just not completely sure why.

They're no more nor less "obssessed with their genitalia" than anyone else.

And it's not a mental disorder. Since you are using the language of the mental health profession, you might have looked into it to see their opinions on the matter.

Or--crazy!--talk to an actual individual undergoing or planning to undergo the procedures, and realize that they aren't scary lunatics trying to destroy the social fabric of Canada, or whatever fears are driving your bigoted little opinions.

What's the point in even talking to you if I'm automatically slandered as a hater of people who suffer from a certain mental disorder simply because I disagree with you? My point is simple, it is ridiculous that we have begun to indulge the sick desires of certain people who suffer from a mental disorder by mutilating them and altering their genitalia. This is especially absurd considering they should be treated for this mental illness, and not have their sick desires served at the massive expense of the taxpayer. More broadly, the left (represented by you in this thread) clearly wants to move us into some sort of twisted post-gender society, where gender is now a cultural and not anatomical feature. And of course, the left seeks to force cultural change in its own interests, and redefine cultural associations with concepts like gender artificially rather than allowing them to flow organically. Nowadays, in the minds of the leftists, whether or not one if a male or female, a man or a woman, is now a subjective matter. Of course this is untrue, but the left never allowed reality to interfere with its fantasies.

Here is a hilarious (or disturbing, depending on your perception) example of the absurdity of the left in full effect:

Bailey Named Director of BGLTQ Student Life

This lady (or "it", as she/he/it prefers not to be described with a gender-indicative pronoun) was apparently upset that the original article referred to her as "she". Thankfully, a newly corrected version of the original article was then posted, with no gender-indicative pronouns used in reference to the lady (or whatever she/he/it is or wants to be).

The correction is here:

Harvard Picks First BGLTQ Director

An earlier version of this article used the pronoun "she" to refer to Vanidy "Van" Bailey, the newly appointed director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. In fact, Bailey prefers not to be referred to by any gendered pronoun.

She probably has a really nice salary for a nonsense position. Perhaps she can become an advisor to Obama for BGLTQXYZ affairs?

Lastly, and sincerely, thank you for exposing the inability of the left in actually engaging in serious argumentation. Please continue to call me a hater of every group you pretend to be a defender of (although they never asked for your defence). All your insults do is reveal the left for what it is.

[capricorn]

More circumcision fun from Canada...I wonder if foreskins make for better hockey players:

....I see far too much suffering and problems with my male patients when they have to undergo adult circumcision.

I knew a guy who experienced excruciating pain whenever he had an erection because the foreskin around his penis was too tight. Don't know why he waited so long but at the age of 25 he was circumcised. Ouch!! I need not say he's been a happy camper ever since.

[bush_cheney2004]

Best foreskin joke:

At the end of the tax year, the IRS sent an inspector to audit the books of a synagogue. While he was checking the books he turned to the Rabbi and said, "I notice you buy a lot of candles. What do you do with the candle drippings?"

"Good question," noted the Rabbi. "We save them up and send them back to the candle makers, and every now and then they send us a free box of candles."

"Oh," replied the auditor, somewhat disappointed that his unusual question had a practical answer.

But on he went, in his obnoxious way. "What about all these biscuit purchases. What do you do with the crumbs?"

"Ah, yes," replied the Rabbi, realizing that the inspector was trying to trap him with an unanswerable question. "We collect them and send them back to the manufacturers, and every now and then they send a free box of holy biscuits."

"I see," replied the auditor, thinking hard about how he could fluster the know-it-all Rabbi.

"Well, Rabbi," he went on, "what do you do with all the leftover foreskins from the circumcisions you perform?"

"Here, too, we do not waste," answered the Rabbi. "What we do is save up all the foreskins and send them to the Tax Office, and about once a year they send us a complete dick."

[bleeding heart]

What's the point in even talking to you if I'm automatically slandered as a hater of people who suffer from a certain mental disorder simply because I disagree with you?

Again...."mental disorder" is a term of mental health professionals.

My point is simple,

Oversimplistic.

it is ridiculous that we have begun to indulge the sick desires of certain people who suffer from a mental disorder by mutilating them and altering their genitalia. This is especially absurd considering they should be treated for this mental illness,

It is not a mental illness.

and not have their sick desires

You think it's some perverse sexual desire?

You know nothing, nothing at all, about the subject. However, don't let that little triviality stop you:

More broadly, the left (represented by you in this thread) clearly wants to move us into some sort of twisted post-gender society, where gender is now a cultural and not anatomical feature.

It's not a "cultural" matter...it's one of personal identity, at a core level.

That is, these men genuinely feel like women; and these women genuinely feel every bit like a man as every other man does.

I don't know why you can't get this.

And of course, the left seeks to force cultural change in its own interests, and redefine cultural associations with concepts like gender artificially rather than allowing them to flow organically.

No; you wish to artificially keep people from being who they really are; they wish to behave organically; naturally.

You are opposed to this. You are exactly what you think you are criticising. It'd be jaw-dropping, except that I'm already used to your foolishness.

Lastly, and sincerely, thank you for exposing the inability of the left in actually engaging in serious argumentation.

You do realize that you end virtually every post the same way, to almost every poster you "debate" with?

Try some originality of thought, rather than regurgitating whatever reactionary mouthbreathers you're channeling.

Please continue to call me a hater of every group you pretend to be a defender of (although they never asked for your defence).

On the contrary, I have explicitly and purposefully only deemed you a hater on matters where you insist it is the case.

And this is the only one, at least so far.

Now, I know, you enjoy inventing things out of thin air: Nazis are leftists, you have intelligent things to say, and other farcical assertions.

But some people might deem this dishonest.

And by the way, Thinker: when you defend the Holy name of the sainted President Reagan...did he "ask[...] for your defense"?

Curious, isn't it? the way you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

All your insults do is reveal the left for what it is.

You forgot to "thank" me for "exposing" them, kraychik.

Edited July 14, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Peeves]

Best foreskin joke:

At the end of the tax year, the IRS sent an inspector to audit the books of a synagogue. While he was checking the books he turned to the Rabbi and said, "I notice you buy a lot of candles. What do you do with the candle drippings?"

"Good question," noted the Rabbi. "We save them up and send them back to the candle makers, and every now and then they send us a free box of candles."

"Oh," replied the auditor, somewhat disappointed that his unusual question had a practical answer.

But on he went, in his obnoxious way. "What about all these biscuit purchases. What do you do with the crumbs?"

"Ah, yes," replied the Rabbi, realizing that the inspector was trying to trap him with an unanswerable question. "We collect them and send them back to the manufacturers, and every now and then they send a free box of holy biscuits."

"I see," replied the auditor, thinking hard about how he could fluster the know-it-all Rabbi.

"Well, Rabbi," he went on, "what do you do with all the leftover foreskins from the circumcisions you perform?"

"Here, too, we do not waste," answered the Rabbi. "What we do is save up all the foreskins and send them to the Tax Office, and about once a year they send us a complete dick."

There once was a Mohel that was prone to cut on the bias. We never stood next to his 'boys' at the urinal.

[kraychik]

Again...."mental disorder" is a term of mental health professionals.

I'm quite certain the types of people we're talking about suffer from a mental disorder listed in the DSM-IV.

It is not a mental illness.

Yes, it is.

You think it's some perverse sexual desire?

Perhaps you'd prefer the term "mental disorder". Thinking one was born with the wrong genitalia is certainly a problem that is not to be corrected by indulging this sick obsession with cosmetic surgery at the expense of the taxpayer.

It's not a "cultural" matter...it's one of personal identity, at a core level.

Sure it is, and I guess that's why it was only recently articulated by mental health professionals and is now a rising problem. Must be something in the water, right?

That is, these men genuinely feel like women; and these women genuinely feel every bit like a man as every other man does.

I never questioned their sincerity in their beliefs and their desires. It doesn't mean it's normal, and it certainly doesn't mean it isn't a problem that would ideally be treated rather than indulged at the expense of the taxpayer.

No; you wish to artificially keep people from being who they really are; they wish to behave organically; naturally.

I don't wish to keep anyone from anything. If they want to mutilate themselves, by all means, go ahead. These sick indulgences, however, should not be paid for by the taxpayer.

Try some originality of thought, rather than regurgitating whatever reactionary mouthbreathers you're channeling.

Maybe I am a mouthbreather, and maybe I am unintelligent. You may very well be far more intelligent and educated than I am. Perhaps even much more attractive, also. None of that means I'm wrong, though. And none of that means you're right, either.

You forgot to "thank" me for "exposing" them, kraychik.

Thank you for exposing the absurdity of the left by implying that these people who suffer from mental disorders causing them to obsess over their genitalia should have their sick desires indulged by the taxpayer, rather than treated properly with therapy and/or medication. What's next, people who really think they're reptiles having their sick desires for personal mutilation paid for by the taxpayer - to get their tongues cut, to get metal implanted into their skin, to get tattoos all over their bodies?

"They really feel like it's a part of their identity! You want to deny them their identities!"

Edited July 18, 2012 by kraychik

[g_bambino]

That is, these men genuinely feel like women; and these women genuinely feel every bit like a man as every other man does.

I'm curious: what does "man" and "woman" feel like? I mean, I am a man (at least, according to the traditional way of determining such matters), but I simply feel like me; I don't sense any particular feeling related to my gender; I can't even be certain there is or should be one. I can't tell what others, men and women, feel like, which I'd need to in order to first determine whether or not there's a specific feeling attached to one's biological gender and then whether or not I feel the way a man is "supposed to".

This isn't to be confused with the traits and behaviours that society typically relates to gender; women are soft, men are rugged, blah, blah. There are soft men and rugged women, but they don't feel any need to force their bodies to physically appear as a woman's or a man's because they "feel" like a woman or a man.

[Y]ou wish to artificially keep people from being who they really are; they wish to behave organically; naturally.

Behave organically, naturally, by undergoing the deliberate act of cosmetic surgery? Um... If they are people who indeed feel like the gender they physically are not, then that is what they are; surgery artificially changes that.

[ed.: -, sp]

Edited July 18, 2012 by g_bambino

[kraychik]

What's ironic is that bleeding heart made a comment about "gender roles" with the usual contempt we see from the left regarding cultural/traditional concepts (even though they are more often than not grounded deeply in biology), but then talks about "feeling like a man" or "feeling like a woman". G_bambino is correct to call him out on this stupidity.

In one breath he expresses contempt for tradition and cultural norms, and in the next he embraces those same traditions and cultural norms when subscribed to by mentally disturbed individuals who are obsessed with their genitalia and want to crossdress.

[bush_cheney2004]

What's ironic is that bleeding heart made a comment about "gender roles" with the usual contempt we see from the left regarding cultural/traditional concepts (even though they are more often than not grounded deeply in biology), but then talks about "feeling like a man" or "feeling like a woman"....

Maybe this is what Shania Twain meant when she reprised a Robert Palmer video style in her own Man! I Feel Like A Woman ?

Edited July 18, 2012 by bush_cheney2004