Intactivists in Florida snip away at opponents

[zahc]

I don't know,  or care to argue about, the best way to compare various forms of genital mutilation.  I am merely maintaining that all forms of male and female non-consenual genital cutting are properly considered mutilation. Unlike others here,  I do not harbor an unjustified belief/faith that some types of nonconsensual genital modification are categorically different phenomena from others in any way that matters for the purpose of determining the moral ok-ness of said genital cutting. That is exactly what people have taken issue with here:they have alleged that routine neonatal circumcision is "not mutilation".

  I find no reason to give MGM special status as "not mutilation" simply because the victims are male. Both male and female genital mutilation have been practiced throughout time. Both draw blood and remove healthy tissue. Arguments for both are extremely similar. Proponents of both allege hygiene benefits, proponents of both downplay the harm done and insist the damage is minor. Rhetoric from both camps exhibits ignorant of basic anatomy, with fgm proponents insisting the clitoris obstructs childbirth, and mgm proponents insisting the foreskin, frenulum, and ridged band have no sexual function. Victims of both insist they are happy it was done to them and wish to do it to their children. A subset of proponents of both insist that the crime is a necessary part of their culture and religion. Sexual partners of the mutilated say they prefer it.

I see no basis by which routine neonatal circumcision is not simply genital mutilation which has been practiced throughout history, which is despicable, and which the human race needs to evolve past. MGM only gets a pass in American culture because it is commonplace and familiar in certain subcultures. Evil is not the better for being commonplace or familiar...that makes it more evil, not less.

[freakazoid]

Nope.
FGM is the removal of the clitoris and oftentimes the labia as well.

FGM=/=circumcism

The word association you are using of circumcism--->FGM--->MGM is beyond absurd.

Its like saying an apple grows on a tree, a dog pees on the tree, so apple=dog pee.

There goes my appetite for apples.

[Jamisjockey]

I see no basis by which routine neonatal circumcision is not simply genital mutilation which has been practiced throughout history, which is despicable, and which the human race needs to evolve past. MGM only gets a pass in American culture because it is commonplace and familiar in certain subcultures. Evil is not the better for being commonplace or familiar...that makes it more evil, not less.

A position I have evolved to as well.  I didn't see it for what it was when my son recieved his.  His involved the use of the plastic ring, so it just didn't seem like such a big deal.  Hindsight though, I wouldn't have done it.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't know,  or care to argue about, the best way to compare various forms of genital mutilation.  I am merely maintaining that all forms of male and female non-consenual genital cutting are properly considered mutilation. Unlike others here,  I do not harbor an unjustified belief/faith that some types of nonconsensual genital modification are categorically different phenomena from others in any way that matters for the purpose of determining the moral ok-ness of said genital cutting. That is exactly what people have taken issue with here:they have alleged that routine neonatal circumcision is "not mutilation".

  I find no reason to give MGM special status as "not mutilation" simply because the victims are male. Both male and female genital mutilation have been practiced throughout time. Both draw blood and remove healthy tissue. Arguments for both are extremely similar. Proponents of both allege hygiene benefits, proponents of both downplay the harm done and insist the damage is minor. Rhetoric from both camps exhibits ignorant of basic anatomy, with fgm proponents insisting the clitoris obstructs childbirth, and mgm proponents insisting the foreskin, frenulum, and ridged band have no sexual function. Victims of both insist they are happy it was done to them and wish to do it to their children. A subset of proponents of both insist that the crime is a necessary part of their culture and religion. Sexual partners of the mutilated say they prefer it.

I see no basis by which routine neonatal circumcision is not simply genital mutilation which has been practiced throughout history, which is despicable, and which the human race needs to evolve past. MGM only gets a pass in American culture because it is commonplace and familiar in certain subcultures. Evil is not the better for being commonplace or familiar...that makes it more evil, not less.

Uh huh. Things aren't evil just because people object to them. Your logic here could easily be used against ear piercing, or toenail trimming, for children. "People say they're good, but I don't think they're good, and they are non-consensual, and I think they are bad, and people have been doing them for a long time, so that makes it worse."

I don't know,  or care to argue about, the best way to compare various forms of genital mutilation.  I am merely maintaining that all forms of male and female non-consenual genital cutting are properly considered mutilation.

IOW, your arguments aren't working, and people don't take your medical judgment as gospel truth, so you fall back on assertions.

[brimic]

I don't know,  or care to argue about, the best way to compare various forms of genital mutilation.  I am merely maintaining that all forms of male and female non-consenual genital cutting are properly considered mutilation. Unlike others here,  I do not harbor an unjustified belief/faith that some types of nonconsensual genital modification are categorically different phenomena from others in any way that matters for the purpose of determining the moral ok-ness of said genital cutting. That is exactly what people have taken issue with here:they have alleged that routine neonatal circumcision is "not mutilation".

  I find no reason to give MGM special status as "not mutilation" simply because the victims are male. Both male and female genital mutilation have been practiced throughout time. Both draw blood and remove healthy tissue. Arguments for both are extremely similar. Proponents of both allege hygiene benefits, proponents of both downplay the harm done and insist the damage is minor. Rhetoric from both camps exhibits ignorant of basic anatomy, with fgm proponents insisting the clitoris obstructs childbirth, and mgm proponents insisting the foreskin, frenulum, and ridged band have no sexual function. Victims of both insist they are happy it was done to them and wish to do it to their children. A subset of proponents of both insist that the crime is a necessary part of their culture and religion. Sexual partners of the mutilated say they prefer it.

I see no basis by which routine neonatal circumcision is not simply genital mutilation which has been practiced throughout history, which is despicable, and which the human race needs to evolve past. MGM only gets a pass in American culture because it is commonplace and familiar in certain subcultures. Evil is not the better for being commonplace or familiar...that makes it more evil, not less.

LOLOLOL.
 What's your stance on abortion?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I was gonna ask but was afraid to. You are a bad bad man


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[De Selby]

A position I have evolved to as well.  I didn't see it for what it was when my son recieved his.  His involved the use of the plastic ring, so it just didn't seem like such a big deal.  Hindsight though, I wouldn't have done it.

I made my decision purely on the basis of medical advantage -  what's the upside of remaining with fire skin for boys?  Medically speaking that is

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I don't know,  or care to argue about, the best way to compare various forms of genital mutilation.  

I'm pretty sure we're not comparing various forms of genital mutilation.

 

[Northwoods]

Arguing with zahc about circumcision is like arguing with Occutards about Capitalism.

[BlueStarLizzard]

The thing is, there is research supporting positive medical advantages to male circumcision.

There's nothing but medical harm from FGM.

*shrug* I just don't appreciate the comparison, and I am skeptical of the anti male circumcision movement. It really does seem pretty irrationally irate. Seems to me that the human race will continue regardless of if men have foreskins or not.
Leave it up to the parents.

[zahc]

Leave it up to the parents.

Why not leave it up to the child? I have no problem with voluntary body mods. Do you agree that cutting off healthy body parts from your children is wrong? But the penis is different? Because why? Even if some medical complications can be avoided, the penis is the only case where prophylactic surgery is considered reasonable. Why is that? Probably because the "medical reasons" justification is plain BS.

LOLOLOL.
 What's your stance on abortion?

In most cases I feel it's something like manslaughter. I think that life begins at conception so there's really no stage at which it is ok form of family planning. In cases where the mother's life is in danger or where due to hardship the child will likely die anyway, my pragmatism takes over.

Your logic here could easily be used against ear piercing

Yes. Ear piercing is not nearly as extreme as genital reduction. I would go so far as to call it harmless, though unsightly. But yes ear piercing is a non-necessary body mod that is often forced on children, so in that respect the two phenomena are similar.

so you fall back on assertions

Stating plain fact is not "falling back". Removing healthy flesh from innocent babies : mutilation. The burden is on those who wish to assert that routine neonatal circumcision is the exception, or that different rules should be applied for some reason. I'm still waiting for a compelling reason to consider it categorically special or different than say, removing the nose or outer ears.  The best the pro - mutilation camp can come up with is usually flimsy statements downplaying the harm done.

It really does seem pretty irrationally irate

Strapping babies to plastic boards, ripping their foreskin off of the glans, and either slicing or mashing off the mobile skin that would protect their penis and which contains most of its sexual receptors, so that even the remaining mucous membranes dry out and scarify into keratinized scar tissue is one thing.  Being puzzled that some of them aren't happy about it is just obtuse.

what's the upside of remaining with fire skin for boys?  Medically speaking that is

The upside is having a fully functional, rather than reduced and scarred penis. Medically speaking, the hospital loses out on an easy $300, and it's harder to sell them viagra later.

http://www.academia.edu/6395137/Adding_Insult_to_Injury_Acquisition_of_Erectile_Dysfunction_from_Circumcision

[BlueStarLizzard]

Why not leave it up to the child? I have no problem with voluntary body mods.


In most cases I feel it's something like manslaughter. I think that life begins at conception so there's really no stage at which it is ok form of family planning. In cases where the mother's life is in danger or where due to hardship the child will likely die anyway, my pragmatism takes over.

Yes. Ear piercing is not nearly as extreme as genital reduction. I would go so far as to call it harmless, though unsightly. But yes ear piercing is a non-necessary body mod that is often forced on children, so in that respect the two phenomena are similar.

Stating plain fact is not "falling back". Removing healthy flesh from innocent babies : mutilation. The burden is on those who wish to assert that routine neonatal circumcision is the exception, or that different rules should be applied for some reason. I'm still waiting for a compelling reason to consider it categorically special or different.  The best the pro - mutilation camp can come up with is usually flimsy statements downplaying the harm done.

Strapping babies to plastic boards, ripping their foreskin off of the glans, and either slicing or mashing off the mobile skin that protects the penis and contains most of its sexual receptors is one thing.  Being puzzled that some of them aren't happy about it is just obtuse.

The upside is having a fully functional, rather than reduced, penis. Medically speaking, the hospital loses out on an easy $300.

yep. irrationally irate.

Also, true story.

My mother decided to wait on ear piercing despite being pressured to do it when I was a baby. When I was 6, I begged for pierced ears. After months, she gave in.
So we went to the piercing place at the mall, and they did one ear. I screamed so much that Mom had to take me on a walk around the mall before she bullied me into getting my second ear done (She figured that at that point, to just get it done)
Before my ears healed up I was sent up to my fathers family to be the flower girl in my aunts wedding. Mom tried to change out my blue bear earnings for the gold studs, but I whined and so she just sent the studs along for Grandma to change. Except Grandma just took out the bears and forgot the studs. By the time I got home, my ears had healed over.
I still haven't gotten up the courage to get them repierced, even with the incentive of a bet with my Mom that she would get a second set if I got mine done.
I wish I had pierced ears and I also wish I had no part in either the decision making process or the memory of getting it done.

[roo_ster]

yep. irrationally irate.

Maybe he has skin in the game?  

[I could not come up with a way to use "No skin off his nose," so I feel somewhat a punny failure.]

==================================

For my own part, this is such a minor issue to get wound up about I do have to wonder about the wound-up-ees.  We have parents deliberately raising boys as girls and vice versa, looking to truly mess those kids up forever and there is less outrage at THAT than over circumcision.  I also guess we have solved the problem of parents treating their kids like punching bags such that we can focus on trivialities.  Not to mention using their kids for sexual gratification.

Oh well, I guess everyone's got to have a hobby.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I got my ears pierced when my oldest was 6 or 7 so I was 50. She wanted hers pierced but was a lil scared so I went first. She sat in my lap talking to me almost didn't notice it being done.
Youngest still hasn't asked. She may never she goes crazy if she gets a splinter.

On the op though Zach gave me some things to consider. And I am not sure what I would do if I had a boy, well that's not true wife had tubes tied so if I had a boy I am gonna run and hide. But while I can't say he made me switch sides he made me aware there is another side


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Perd Hapley]

Stating plain fact is not "falling back". Removing healthy flesh from innocent babies : mutilation.

Well, see, you're not "stating plain fact." You're asserting your own beliefs as fact. Go ahead and look up the word "mutilate" in various dictionaries. Here's Merriam Webster online, as an example:

: to cause severe damage to (the body of a person or animal)

: to ruin the beauty of (something) : to severely damage or spoil (something)

That only describes circumcision if you think it does. Your value judgments aren't facts; they're question-begging.

The best the pro - mutilation camp can come up with is usually flimsy statements downplaying the harm done.

When you peddle whoppers like that, you can't expect to be taken seriously.

https://www.google.com/search?q=study+health+benefits+circumcision&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

I don't really care about circumcision, but your mendacious arguments annoy me.

[White Horseradish]

I made my decision purely on the basis of medical advantage -  what's the upside of remaining with fire skin for boys?  Medically speaking that is

Well, if there was no advantage, don't you think people would be born without it by now?

The thing is, there is research supporting positive medical advantages to male circumcision.

This research is kind of questionable. Non-representative samples, for instance.

I wish I had pierced ears and I also wish I had no part in either the decision making process or the memory of getting it done.

If you do decide to go for it, don't go to the mall. A tattoo/piercing shop is far better.  Someone with proper skills and equipment will actually do a job that won't make you run around screaming.

That said, I got my first earring courtesy of drinking with a friend who had a needle and an apple handy.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Buy the DIY ear piercing kits. It's easy


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BlueStarLizzard]

I don't think it's really going to matter. For some reason, I can dig the scab off a puncture daily to keep it from getting an abscess, but even the thought of someone shooting a needle through my ear makes me want to run around screaming.

[White Horseradish]

They have kits? Kids these days...  

I did my DIY piercings with safety pins.

[freakazoid]

Well, if there was no advantage, don't you think people would be born without it by now?

Why would that be?

[KD5NRH]

Well, if there was no advantage, don't you think people would be born without it by now?

One could say the same about butt crack hair.  Its only purpose seems to be making a dirty place harder to clean and providing follicles to become abscessed.

[Balog]

How would you feel about having a hand in messing up your son's sex life?

How would you feel if your son had an adverse reaction to a vaccine an died? Better not vaccinate.

How would you feel if your son had an adverse reaction to an allergen and died? Better feed him the same diet chemo patients have and make him live in a bubble.

[Balog]

 How did Western civilization do without it for most of it's existence, and not perish in a pile of rotten wangs?

The same way they survived without vaccines or antibiotics?

[Balog]

I prefer penii

Obviously you should have went Navy instead of Army. 

[White Horseradish]

Why would that be?

If, as claimed, having foreskin makes the reproductive organs disease-prone, it will disappear over time, since people with diseased wangs are kind of unlikely to reproduce.

However, if evolution isn't your thing, you can look at it this way - why would humans be created with useless parts?

One could say the same about butt crack hair.  Its only purpose seems to be making a dirty place harder to clean and providing follicles to become abscessed.

Just because you don't know what the real purpose is, does not mean it doesn't exist. I have never had an abscess in my ass and don't find it particularly hard to clean.

Butt hair reduces friction and allows you to fart quietly.