Ban all genital mutilation of children

[Animavore]

Because in case of circumcision there's always the implication it's not a big deal. It doesn't have the same wicked tone jokes on murder have. It's very dismissive. More in the line of why did the chicken cross the road jokes.

It's not joked about in the same manner of other things people see bad because most have yet to see it as bad.

[NineBerry]

Cut the drama

:snigger:

[Forty Two]

Well, in all fairness, the reason most have not found that it's bad is that it's been commonly done for generation after generation on billions of people, and in the overwhelming number of instances, it's just a bit of skin off the top, and it does not generally impact function or have other deleterious effects. It's so common in the US that I've heard women describe seeing uncircumcised ones as weird or even gross looking, because they are used to seeing them circumcised.

The comparison to female circumcision is, in my opinion, not comparing apples to apples because quite often in the female variety they are cutting off the clitoris, and otherwise significantly impacting function.

[Forty Two]

Cut the drama

:snigger:

Ouch...that will cut him to the quick...or as the fundamentalist mohel said, "that's biting humor..."

[Animavore]

Well, in all fairness, the reason most have not found that it's bad is that it's been commonly done for generation after generation on billions of people, and in the overwhelming number of instances, it's just a bit of skin off the top, and it does not generally impact function or have other deleterious effects. It's so common in the US that I've heard women describe seeing uncircumcised ones as weird or even gross looking, because they are used to seeing them circumcised.

The comparison to female circumcision is, in my opinion, not comparing apples to apples because quite often in the female variety they are cutting off the clitoris, and otherwise significantly impacting function.

The argument that it's ok because people have done it for centuries is literally the worst argument ever. And who gives a shit if women like it? I'm sure the reverse argument would go down a treat. Also, no impact of function or deleterious effects?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mo ... ly-believe

Really don't get how anyone can justify taking a knife to a baby and cutting it in any way outside of necessity.

[Forty Two]

Well, in all fairness, the reason most have not found that it's bad is that it's been commonly done for generation after generation on billions of people, and in the overwhelming number of instances, it's just a bit of skin off the top, and it does not generally impact function or have other deleterious effects. It's so common in the US that I've heard women describe seeing uncircumcised ones as weird or even gross looking, because they are used to seeing them circumcised.

The comparison to female circumcision is, in my opinion, not comparing apples to apples because quite often in the female variety they are cutting off the clitoris, and otherwise significantly impacting function.

The argument that it's ok because people have done it for centuries is literally the worst argument ever.

If one is arguing the merits of it, yes. But, if one is explaining why people don't view it as bad, the fact that it is ubiquitous and familiar is a very big part of it. It's the same reason why people go batshit crazy when one person dies of SARS, but they don't bat an eye went 10,000 people die annually (or whatever it is) from the ubiquitous and familar flu.

And who gives a shit if women like it?

The point I was why people didn't take it as a super-serious issue. People are so used to it and it's so common that they are actually unfamiliar with uncircumcised ones. I wasn't arguing based on what women like. I was explaining that people don't view it as a major crime because it's so damn common that not being circumcised is the anomaly. Why would people view something that is the "norm" as if it were an aberration so abhorrent as to be unacceptable?

I'm sure the reverse argument would go down a treat. Also, no impact of function or deleterious effects?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mo ... ly-believe

Right - the long term problems set forth in that article are present in very small numbers of persons who are circumcised. The article simply refers to the procedure itself as a deleterious effect. Beyond that, it's the small percentage of complications. Getting ears pierced also does cutting or piercing damage to the body and there are small percentage of serious complication from that too.

Really don't get how anyone can justify taking a knife to a baby and cutting it in any way outside of necessity.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedu ... c-20013585 - so the Mayo Clinic says that these may be benefits of circumcision.

Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. Washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis is generally easy, however.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

You're not in favor of increased risk of penile cancer, are you? If circumcision can save just one life from being impacted by penile cancer, it's worth it....

And, obviously, circumcision benefits women by reducing their cervical cancer rates. Thus, women are affected by the failure of men to circumcise, and as a result, we know that systemic failure or refusal to circumcise is part of the patriarchy,

[Animavore]

You're really arguing it's ok because it only effects a small percentage? Including the 100 babies who die each year which you failed to mention? You understand 0% dying or having complications from risky and unnecessary surgery is less than a small percentage? And did you really compare ear piercing, which is generally done with consent, to cutting up an innocent child, often without anaesthesia, and definitely without permission?

I can see the brainwashing on this issue is so ingrained even atheists aren't immune.

[Forty Two]

You're really arguing it's ok because it only effects a small percentage?

I thought we were talking about why it's not considered a massive crime or something "wholly unacceptable," in the way you're expressing amazement that people don't find it to be such. I.e. - things that are done on massive scales, but which negatively impact only a very small number of people, tend not to be viewed as great crimes against humanity.

You know, like booze - drinking booze causes various ailments and issues in a small number of people, relative to the number of people who enjoy alcohol. Yet, most people view alcohol as an acceptable recreational drug in our culture.

Including the 100 babies who die each year which you failed to mention?

What do you mean "fail to mention?" I noted that the issues with circumcision impact a small percentage of the procedures done. I don't need to list out all the issues. If 100 babies died just in the US, then that would be 100 out of 2 million boy babies born. Again, I'm not saying babies dying is a good thing or a justification for doing it. But, things that kill 0.00005 of people tend not raise too many alarm bells.

Something like 100 babies a year die drowning in bathtubs, bath seats and buckets. Why is this atrocity not railed against and legislated against? How can people put their babies in bathtubs!?!? The law should require only overhead showers be used for babies.

Also, you "failed to mention" the babies that die from not being circumcised and the women that die from cervical cancer because of the increased risk they face when their male partners are not circumcised. Do they not matter? Or is it only the deaths from circumcision that matter, and not the deaths related to failure to circumcise?

You understand 0% dying or having complications from risky and unnecessary surgery is less than a small percentage?

Sure, and you did read, I assume, my link to the Mayo Clinic (not a lightweight in the medical field) which notes that there are complications and even deaths (from cancer) which result from not being circumcised. Do you understand that?

And did you really compare ear piercing, which is generally done with consent,

Babies who get their ears pierced consent to the process? Piercing ears is very common after about two months (the AAP recommends that parents wait until after the first tetanus shot). Parents like to do it before the kids get a little older because a 2 year old or a 5 year old is more likely to move around unexpectedly (not a good thing when you pierce ears).

to cutting up an innocent child, often without anaesthesia, and definitely without permission?

I do not agree with your terminology - "cutting up" and "mutilation." I compared it with ear piercing because it is another procedure that parents decide on for their kids which, as with anything, poses some percentage risk.

I can see the brainwashing on this issue is so ingrained even atheists aren't immune.

You sound rather brainwashed on this issue. You're coming across as if this is an article of faith, and you seem as if you're unable to focus on parts of the issue. Note that we were talking at one point about your question about how people can joke so casually about it, or not take it as seriously as you seem to view it. I was answering that by noting its prevalence and familiarity, and the relative rarity of significant complications, and you went right into accusing me of arguing in favor of the procedure based on its popularity. When someone gets really emotionally invested in something, they have a hard time staying focused.

If you'd like to explain how I seem brainwashed, please do.

[Animavore]

Who the fuck pierces their baby's ears?! I don't think the legal over here.

[Forty Two]

Who the fuck pierces their baby's ears?! I don't think the legal over here.

Millions and millions and millions of parents. It's done because it's easiest to do at that age. It takes a second, and they experience about the same discomfort as a vaccination shot.

[NineBerry]

Piercing a baby's ear lobes. The hole will be gone within days unless you make the baby wear earrings.

[Animavore]

What if they don't want it? It's just another example of violating a child's bodily automony for no good reason. Vaccination has a perfectly good reason as the recent spate of outbreaks because of idiot parents proves.So I don't know why your comparing. I'm sure a slap across the face also has a similar level of discomfort.

Can't believe I'm talking about why it's not ok to assault a child. I think I'm done here. This site gets lower every day.

[NineBerry]

As far as I can see, 42 is the only one defending MGM on here.

[Animavore]

He practically is the site now though.

[mistermack]

Removing the penis at birth would reduce the incidence of penis cancer, and the number of wankers.

I think the USA should consider it. And the Chinese should enforce it.

It would be great for the planet.