- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
STD transmission rate is reduced to zero for people who do not have sex with infected males.
Here's an idea, make the treatment for STD's include castration.
Justify the pre-emptive mutilation of the penises of all new-born infants based on the POTENTIAL for any of them to spread a disease they have not yet contracted. Where does this fit in medical ethics? Answer: it is not ethical.
The U.S is a circumfetish nation with an obsession with circumcision and you also have an obsession to remove men's foreskin. I already debunked the myths used to justify male genital mutilation. i am not going to repeat myself
Moderator's Warning: |
It has been refuted in that no other part of your body is surgically removed for the purpose of health, hygiene or preemptive care. It's refuted by the fact that this method of hygiene is more invasive than proper cleaning and a lower rate of STDs is had with condom use.Yeah, they would be guilty of assault. Now if a parent has an approved medical procedure performed on their child to promote good hygeine and decreased chance of STD transmission (something none of you have refuted), then that would be acceptable.
It has been refuted in that no other part of your body is surgically removed for the purpose of health, hygiene or preemptive care. It's refuted by the fact that this method of hygiene is more invasive than proper cleaning and a lower rate of STDs is had with condom use.
I'm glad you acknowledge that your debate tactic is to be dismissive, not that it hasn't been obvious.It wasn't a try at dismissal. You've it's been dismissed.
Yes it is and I've already shown you the definition in public use. Sorry that you can't bear to be proven wrong but that's your psychosis. It's actually irrelevant to the topic which is why you insist on having it your way, so you can divert the discussion. I have no problem using or not using "amputation".You can't refrain from asking idiotic questions intended only to inflame or what?
Yeah, I saw what it says. And it still does not negate the fact that amputation and excision are not the same thing. It still does not negate the fact that circumcision is not an amputation. Get over it and move on.
You obviously don't know anything about me. I grew up on a farm with an apple orchard. Yes, I have pruned a tree. Which has nothing to do with the incorrect application of the word "amputation".
Another ad hom, how unusual. Was circumcision created as a religious covenant or not or do you think it was created for hygienic purposes?Oh here we go with gratuitous "Baby Jebus knocked me down and stole my bicycle when I was 5" rant...:roll:
You have? Where have you agreed that surgery to remove healthy tissue should be the last stop, not the first. So your disagreement with me on this issue is what, that circumcision is the last resort??I have. I said I don't agree with your assessment. I thought you understand what a disagreement is. :doh
Because you have a penchant for arguing against the obvious and every detail of an argument must be covered or you'll simply weasel out of the discussion with an ad hom.Why would I bother to specifically acknowledge the obvious?
Are you outraged at vaginal mutilation? The outrage comes from people doing things to infant male that is unnecessary. Being a male, I empathize. It's an outrageous procedure that deserves outrage. Add to it that it is yet another outrageous religious practice pushed and disguised by the medical community as something normal and healthy... you get outrage. Doctors are not supposed to purposefully and unnecessarily harm you. You don't see where the outrage comes from?Not exactly.
However, that fails to explain where the outrage comes from.
Sorry, you can deny amputation if you want but circumcision definitely falls WELL within the accepted definition of mutilation. Denying it only exposes your desire to force your position regardless of fact.Parents grant consent for their children. There is no mutilation involved in a male circumcision.
I'm glad you acknowledge that your debate tactic is to be dismissive, not that it hasn't been obvious.
Yes it is and I've already shown you the definition in public use. Sorry that you can't bear to be proven wrong but that's your psychosis. It's actually irrelevant to the topic which is why you insist on having it your way, so you can divert the discussion. I have no problem using or not using "amputation".
Another ad hom, how unusual. Was circumcision created as a religious covenant or not or do you think it was created for hygienic purposes?
You have? Where have you agreed that surgery to remove healthy tissue should be the last stop, not the first.
So your disagreement with me on this issue is what, that circumcision is the last resort??
Because you have a penchant for arguing against the obvious and every detail of an argument must be covered or you'll simply weasel out of the discussion with an ad hom.
Nice try at misdirection but we are not talking about the childs choice of an elective surgery. Since you decided be ridiculous, would you be against a parent giving their infant breast implants?
Sorry, you can deny amputation if you want but circumcision definitely falls WELL within the accepted definition of mutilation. Denying it only exposes your desire to force your position regardless of fact.
Just because you refuse to accept the refutation doesn't mean it hasn't been made. The refutation is:You have made no effort to refute legitimate studies. You have indulged the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and nothing more.
And yet you bring up other body parts at your whim. This makes you a hypocrite... in yet another thread.We aren't discussing other body parts. We are discussing circumcision. Please stay on topic.
It decreases the sensitivity of the glans. FAILFemale circumcision removes the functionality of the genitals. It is a total excision of the clitorus for the express purpose of stopping pleasure from sex.
Male circumcision does no such damage to sexual functions and even has hygeine benefits.
Sorry, you can apply emotionally charged rhetoric to the debate despite it being patently false and idiotic as the day is long, but male circumcision is a medical procedure that falls outside the accepted definition of mutilation.
Pressing it as such only exposes your inability to form a coherent and rational argument so you resort to hyperbole and hysterics.
It decreases the sensitivity of the glans. FAIL
Nor have you refuted that proper cleaning and condom use are as or more effective and don't require surgery which makes them a better alternative.No, you did not refute them. You showed that there are lower STD rates in other countries that happen to practice circumcision less. That does not refute anything. You need to show causation, not just correlation.
None of that is fact however and little more than your personal opinion. Not to mention that you are wrong in those opinions.I saw them. I also pointed out that most on that list were not applicable to humans because we wear clothing that performs the same functions.
I don't care about blood and lymph vessels nor do I care about nerves. Those structures do not determine usefulness of a flap of skin.
It decreases the sensitivity of the glans. FAIL
Nor have you refuted that proper cleaning and condom use are as or more effective and don't require surgery which makes them a better alternative.
None of that is fact however and little more than your personal opinion. Not to mention that you are wrong in those opinions.
Minimally. And you have managed to outweigh a little extra sexual pleasure with hygiene and safe sex, and disease transmission. At least i know now where your brain is. Now thats a fail.
Just because you refuse to accept the refutation doesn't mean it hasn't been made. The refutation is:
1) proper cleaning practices are just as effective for hygiene
2) Condom use is more effective at reducing STDs
3) Elective surgery on an infant which will permanently disfigure it, is plainly wrong as evidenced by the fact that other such "preventive" surgeries are prohibited.
4) Doctors are not supposed to perform unnecessary surgeries especially when a less invasive alternative is as or more effective.
5) it is a religious practice that has been defended by some of the medical community out of tradition and excused as something to do with hygiene.
What's the pro? Hygiene and aesthetics?
Oh and your use of latin, because someone else used it doesn't add to your argument, mostly because it's incorrect anyway.
And yet you bring up other body parts at your whim. This makes you a hypocrite... in yet another thread.
Further, I highly doubt he can show any study that shows circumcised men are impaired sexually or seek out sexual pleasure than their uncircumcised counterparts.
It's all pure conjecture and baseless opinion on his part. Like always.
Apparently you should try logic. It is illogical to perform surgery when not necessary. If two things accomplish similar results (circumcision doesn't even produce similar results but, for the sake of argument) then the less invasive one should logically be preferred.Studies disagree with you. STD transmission rate is reduced by 50% in circumcised males.
Just because one practice is more effective, the effectiveness of the other practice is not negated. Try logic.
:rofl You're the queen of ad homs in this thread... was that an ad hom? :dohI know you need to use ad homs such as "obsession with removing foreskins" to feel like you are making a point, but I assure you, it's not helping your argument.
Yes, we all see you doing it, no need to point it out.An attempt to vilify rather than rationally debate the points is noticed.
Do you have any proof that this is true or are you just making it up? The sensitivity of the glans on the head of the penis are lessened by friction against clothing. FAILNow moving on, of the functions you listed, the majority were for protective purposes. Those same purposes are achieved by the wearing of clothing rendering the usefulness of the foreskin void.
No but it shows the amount of skin being removed is rather large, so it's not just a little piece of useless skin. The skin is the largest organ an no part of it is without usefulness.I also don't care about the size of the foreskin on an adult male. Size of the foreskin does not translate into usefulness.
1. Epithelial Tissue - The cells of epithelial tissue pack tightly together and form continuous sheets that serve as linings in different parts of the body. Epithelial tissue serve as membranes lining organs and helping to keep the body's organs separate, in place and protected. Some examples of epithelial tissue are the outer layer of the skin, the inside of the mouth and stomach, and the tissue surrounding the body's organs.
2. Connective Tissue - There are many types of connective tissue in the body. Generally speaking, connective tissue adds support and structure to the body. Most types of connective tissue contain fibrous strands of the protein collagen that add strength to connective tissue. Some examples of connective tissue include the inner layers of skin, tendons, ligaments, cartilage, bone and fat tissue. In addition to these more recognizable forms of connective tissue, blood is also considered a form of connective tissue.
3. Muscle Tissue - Muscle tissue is a specialized tissue that can contract. Muscle tissue contains the specialized proteins actin and myosin that slide past one another and allow movement. Examples of muscle tissue are contained in the muscles throughout your body.
4. Nerve Tissue - Nerve tissue contains two types of cells: neurons and glial cells. Nerve tissue has the ability to generate and conduct electrical signals in the body. These electrical messages are managed by nerve tissue in the brain and transmitted down the spinal cord to the body.
Apparently you should try logic. It is illogical to perform surgery when not necessary. If two things accomplish similar results (circumcision doesn't even produce similar results but, for the sake of argument) then the less invasive one should logically be preferred.
:rofl You're the queen of ad homs in this thread... was that an ad hom? :doh
Yes, we all see you doing it, no need to point it out.
Do you have any proof that this is true or are you just making it up? The sensitivity of the glans on the head of the penis are lessened by friction against clothing. FAIL
No but it shows the amount of skin being removed is rather large, so it's not just a little piece of useless skin. The skin is the largest organ an no part of it is without usefulness.
And this shows that you are willing to say absolutely anything to weasel out of a debate you have clearly lost.Both irrelevant points. We're not talking about just any other part of the body. We're talking about the foreskin. What happens to the rest of the body is irrelevant.
And the efficacy of condom use is irrelevant as we are not discussing condom use. We are discussing whether or not circumcision has a health value of lowering STD transmission rates. And studies say, it does. You have been unable to refute that.
Now if you think you can refute that, either by counter study or by a problem with the methodology of the studies in question, by all means.
And this shows that you are willing to say absolutely anything to weasel out of a debate you have clearly lost.
I don't have to refute that removal of the foreskin has a health value of lowering STD transmission rates. It does. Just like I'm not refuting that removing the penis entirely is even MORE effective. I'm arguing that it is an unnecessary procedure BECAUSE there are more effective and less invasive means. We are not arguing the effectiveness of a given action but rather the necessity. YOU simply want to argue whether or not an action is effective which is not just a bad argument it's illogical and specious. Face it, you can't win this argument because outside of a religious practice it is unnecessary.
The underlined is an ad hom, just in case you didn't realize.Irrelevant. We are discussing the issue under a medical context. I am not concerned with where it started. I am simply concerned with the medical value of the procedure now, which has been proven by studies that you cannot refute. I'm not going to make this into a "nuns barbecued my cat when I was 10 and made me watch them eat it so now I hate all things Jesus" rant just for your therapeutic convenience.
Then what were you talking about here when I said:No, we did not agree to that. You asserted that. I disagree.
So you do or don't agree that surgery to remove healthy tissue should be the last stop, not the first?I have. I said I don't agree with your assessment. I thought you understand what a disagreement is. :doh
The "health value" is a specious argument and is therefore fallacious. Surgically removing tissue instead of cleaning it is criminal in my opinion. And there are better ways to prevent STDs making the procedure for this purpose a poor substitute.That circumcision has a health value and that there is no violation of rights or dignity in its medical practice.
The underlined is an ad hom, just in case you didn't realize it.Just like the above which was nothing more than ad hom at it's finest? Okay, sport...you keep fooling yourself and everyone else will keep laughing at you.
I will now demonstrate that you are wrong. I did not make an absolute statement.Nothing ridiculous about it. You stated an absolute. I demonstrated where your absolute is patently false. Sorry you find that so inconvenient but it is what it is. Deal with it.
But you said they are not ridiculous and you posit them as evidence for your position. So why not defend them now? Or would you rather just stick with your attempted escape from the poor argument you made?I refuse to indulge what you have already stated is ridiculous. Moving right along...
mu⋅ti⋅lateSorry, you can apply emotionally charged rhetoric to the debate despite it being patently false and idiotic as the day is long, but male circumcision is a medical procedure that falls outside the accepted definition of mutilation.
This is a distraction because I am not using hysterics or hyperbole. I have made a rational argument and you are unable to refute it.Pressing it as such only exposes your inability to form a coherent and rational argument so you resort to hyperbole and hysterics.
That is resorting to hyperbole and hysterics. :2wave:"ZOMGWTF!!! THINK of the CHIIIIIILDREEEN!!!!!!"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?