(01-26-2012 09:42 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 09:29 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 12:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Women are taking infants and having their ears pierced and young boys are mutilated without their consent.

Just wondering how many guys would get the ol foreskin trimmed if they had to wait until they were 21.

If the practice had never been a religious tenet....zero. It has now become a recommended medical practice under the guise of improved health but there is nothing wrong with keeping one's foreskin and millions of males all over the planet live healthy live with one. One just has to be diligent in keeping their ***** clean(just as woman has to keep their ****** clean) and it is the parents job in teaching such habits. Removing it..regardless of the current morays....is mutilation. It is not even debatable.

That being said....I hold no ill will against my parents for engaging in the practice at my birth even though it was not necessary.

To call male circumcision 'mutilation' is a bit of a stretch. I don't begrudge anyone who chooses one or the other but having all daughters so far has spared me from making the decision.

Some older men develop cancer of the ***** - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

Protection against HIV and AIDS. A British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

The rest of the 'benefits' are, as you say, a hygienic matter.

60% of the justification is tradition, 39% is hygiene, 1% is health. A double mastectomy is an effective way to reduce the odds of breast cancer too.

To contend that this is done for "easier" hygiene purposes is fine I guess.

(01-26-2012 09:53 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 12:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Women are taking infants and having their ears pierced and young boys are mutilated without their consent.

Just wondering how many guys would get the ol foreskin trimmed if they had to wait until they were 21.

If the practice had never been a religious tenet....zero. It has now become a recommended medical practice under the guise of improved health but there is nothing wrong with keeping one's foreskin and millions of males all over the planet live healthy live with one. One just has to be diligent in keeping their ***** clean(just as woman has to keep their ****** clean) and it is the parents job in teaching such habits. Removing it..regardless of the current morays....is mutilation. It is not even debatable.

That being said....I hold no ill will against my parents for engaging in the practice at my birth even though it was not necessary.

Mutilation is a legal word. It is a crime to mutilate a child. So your use of the word is improper. It is not and illegal practice.

Fair enough..but...There is nothing in my American Heritage Dictionary about it being a legal term.

"to deprive a person or animal of a limb or other essential part"..."To render imperfect by damaging or excising a part"..."to cut off"

Give me another word and I'll use it. I really does not matter to me.

(01-26-2012 01:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Give me another word and I'll use it. I really does not matter to me.

"Ritualized Genital Cutting" ?

(01-26-2012 12:37 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 03:34 PM)G-Man Wrote:  I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

The solution for anyone wanting to do something to a child that could be seen by others as being abusive, or not in the child's best interest, is to simply do it to the child in-utero. Or at the least, prior to being fully-birthed.

Tatoo your kids all you want, just do before they get completely out of the birth canal.

For clarity....The parent in this case did nothing but give consent just as she probably did for a circumcision. The only difference is that the child also consented to the tattoo. He had no say in the former.


Cutting off ones foreskin after birth has been so accepted that now..any parent that chooses not to partake in this mutilation is seen as loony. Funny how ritual practices become standards that we do not even question.

So, then, looks to me like the simple solution is to cut off the foreskin, prior to birth--when the pre-baby is still a fetus. Then the fetus won't feel the pain, and it's all about the woman's right to choose whether she wants that foreskin cut off the invasive tissue's body. And to make it even easier on everyone, just do a partial-birth circumcision. Make sure a foot or hand or something is still in the birth canal, and whack away!

Clearly, under these circumstances, it is not mutilation as you claim.

(01-26-2012 02:39 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 12:37 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 03:34 PM)G-Man Wrote:  I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

The solution for anyone wanting to do something to a child that could be seen by others as being abusive, or not in the child's best interest, is to simply do it to the child in-utero. Or at the least, prior to being fully-birthed.

Tatoo your kids all you want, just do before they get completely out of the birth canal.

For clarity....The parent in this case did nothing but give consent just as she probably did for a circumcision. The only difference is that the child also consented to the tattoo. He had no say in the former.


Cutting off ones foreskin after birth has been so accepted that now..any parent that chooses not to partake in this mutilation is seen as loony. Funny how ritual practices become standards that we do not even question.

So, then, looks to me like the simple solution is to cut off the foreskin, prior to birth--when the pre-baby is still a fetus. Then the fetus won't feel the pain, and it's all about the woman's right to choose whether she wants that foreskin cut off the invasive tissue's body. And to make it even easier on everyone, just do a partial-birth circumcision. Make sure a foot or hand or something is still in the birth canal, and whack away!

Clearly, under these circumstances, it is not mutilation as you claim.

I see what you did there.:sly: I guess it depends upon when the foreskin appears during the gestation period.

(01-26-2012 01:32 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 01:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Give me another word and I'll use it. I really does not matter to me.

"Ritualized Genital Cutting" ?

"Ritual Gutting"?

Did you guys hear about the rabbi who collected all his foreskins and when he retired after 60 years he went to a leather maker with a huge box of them and asked him to make something nice out them all. He comes back a week later and the leather guy hands him a wallet. The rabbi ******* and moans and asks is that all he gets from a big box of skins. The leather guys say "rub it, and it turns into a suitcase."

Some seem to have more of a problem with a little snip than with the big snuff.

(01-26-2012 07:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Some seem to have more of a problem with a little snip than with the big snuff.

At least this thread was a little escape from damn politics. I have to say...If I see one more damn debate....

(01-26-2012 07:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 07:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Some seem to have more of a problem with a little snip than with the big snuff.

At least this thread was a little escape from damn politics. I have to say...If I see one more damn debate....

As of late you sure have been wanting to shut people down who don't parrot your views. I think this is the third time in the past week you've told me to shut up. Guess what? ...

Myself I believe in the principle of non aggression if your opinions don't harm me.

(01-26-2012 08:31 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 07:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 07:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Some seem to have more of a problem with a little snip than with the big snuff.

At least this thread was a little escape from damn politics. I have to say...If I see one more damn debate....

As of late you sure have been wanting to shut people down who don't parrot your views. I think this is the third time in the past week you've told me to shut up. Guess what? ...

Myself I believe in the principle of non aggression if your opinions don't harm me.

Sorry if you misunderstood me...I was talking about the Primary debates...and I have not told you or anyone else to shut up. I think you are confusing me with someone else. That is not my MO..with maybe the exception of Robert.

(01-26-2012 01:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 09:53 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 12:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Women are taking infants and having their ears pierced and young boys are mutilated without their consent.

Just wondering how many guys would get the ol foreskin trimmed if they had to wait until they were 21.

If the practice had never been a religious tenet....zero. It has now become a recommended medical practice under the guise of improved health but there is nothing wrong with keeping one's foreskin and millions of males all over the planet live healthy live with one. One just has to be diligent in keeping their ***** clean(just as woman has to keep their ****** clean) and it is the parents job in teaching such habits. Removing it..regardless of the current morays....is mutilation. It is not even debatable.

That being said....I hold no ill will against my parents for engaging in the practice at my birth even though it was not necessary.

Mutilation is a legal word. It is a crime to mutilate a child. So your use of the word is improper. It is not and illegal practice.

Fair enough..but...There is nothing in my American Heritage Dictionary about it being a legal term.

"to deprive a person or animal of a limb or other essential part"..."To render imperfect by damaging or excising a part"..."to cut off"

Give me another word and I'll use it. I really does not matter to me.

The word is circumcision. Everyone will know what it is you refer to. Look that up!

(01-22-2012 02:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Ill call it now.
Americans are just dumb and unprincipled enough to allow a disgraced former speaker of the HOR and admitted adulterer to be their leader. This election will really be between the "evil of two lessers".

(01-22-2012 09:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 08:49 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Newt asks forgiveness. Paul flip-flops. "Yes, I wrote some of them." "I own and take responsibility for them." "I don't know who wrote them, I've never read them, I disown them."

Paul is no more deserving of sainthood than any of the rest of them.

The OP is not about the good doctor. Let's stay focused here OK?

That appeared to be a "shut up" to me. Join in my bashing of Newt and the dumb Americans who would vote for him if you wish but do NOT bring up my guys racist ramblings.

(01-26-2012 09:23 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 02:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Ill call it now.
Americans are just dumb and unprincipled enough to allow a disgraced former speaker of the HOR and admitted adulterer to be their leader. This election will really be between the "evil of two lessers".

(01-22-2012 09:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 08:49 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Newt asks forgiveness. Paul flip-flops. "Yes, I wrote some of them." "I own and take responsibility for them." "I don't know who wrote them, I've never read them, I disown them."

Paul is no more deserving of sainthood than any of the rest of them.

The OP is not about the good doctor. Let's stay focused here OK?

That appeared to be a "shut up" to me. Join in my bashing of Newt and the dumb Americans who would vote for him if you wish but do NOT bring up my guys racist ramblings.

Well...I apologize. In no way was that my intent. Since I started the thread...I was just trying to keep it focused on the OP...nothing more.

(01-26-2012 09:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 01:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 09:53 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-26-2012 12:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 03:41 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Just wondering how many guys would get the ol foreskin trimmed if they had to wait until they were 21.

If the practice had never been a religious tenet....zero. It has now become a recommended medical practice under the guise of improved health but there is nothing wrong with keeping one's foreskin and millions of males all over the planet live healthy live with one. One just has to be diligent in keeping their ***** clean(just as woman has to keep their ****** clean) and it is the parents job in teaching such habits. Removing it..regardless of the current morays....is mutilation. It is not even debatable.

That being said....I hold no ill will against my parents for engaging in the practice at my birth even though it was not necessary.

Mutilation is a legal word. It is a crime to mutilate a child. So your use of the word is improper. It is not and illegal practice.

Fair enough..but...There is nothing in my American Heritage Dictionary about it being a legal term.

"to deprive a person or animal of a limb or other essential part"..."To render imperfect by damaging or excising a part"..."to cut off"

Give me another word and I'll use it. I really does not matter to me.

The word is circumcision. Everyone will know what it is you refer to. Look that up!

OK...I did look it up...again..and..Not to be annoying, but my American Heritage Dictionary defines circumcise as..1."To remove the foreskin of a male or the clitorus of a female."...2."To perform the religious rite of circumcision to purify spiritually and cleanse the body from sin."

I'm sorry...Nothing in the definition has anything to do with health or hygiene. It is solely by definition a religious tenet. Personally, I think this definition needs expanding to include those things because that is why mothers allow this regardless if it is a viable reason or not.