Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

This too shall pass.
Post Reply
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Hoosiernorm »

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Your Honors: Believe us Jews, who have eaten our bread with joy for so many thousands of years, and who say each morning, "Happy are we, how good is our portion, how lovely our fate, how beautiful our heritage." Mephistopheles is not entirely wrong: life was indeed made for a god. But what God has made also can be imparted to human beings. We cannot be gods, but we can be godly.
Been busy doing stuff
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Alexis »

When I saw the German court decision a few days ago, I knew that our Spengler would comment, and I understood it would be a real challenge for him to avoid confirming Godwin's Law.

Reading the beginning of his piece, I was hopeful and prepared to congratulate our host... :D

...Alas, in sixth paragraph:
Not even the Nazis thought of banning circumcision as a way of uprooting Jewish life in Germany. If your decree withstands a constitutional challenge, Germany once again will be Judenrein.
:roll:

Godwin won.

Again. :(
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Endovelico »

People who do funny things to their bodies under religious pretenses should be confined to some nut-house.

Whoever thinks that God prefers this...

circumcised penis

to this...

uncircumcised penis

is out of his/her mind...
AzariLoveIran

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Alexis wrote:.
Not even the Nazis thought of banning circumcision as a way of uprooting Jewish life in Germany. If your decree withstands a constitutional challenge, Germany once again will be Judenrein.

.
.
Amen

:lol: :lol: .. just jokin


look, folks

am 1000% sure German court will uphold the law

parents can not decide for a non medically necessary surgery on a child

what about if that child grows up and would object to being circumcisioned ? ? can not be reversed

fact is, DICKS not circumcisioned provide more pleasure in sex .. some man could object being circumcisioned when infant .. in fact some could sue their parents for deciding for them to be Jewish (or Muslim) by circumcision them

One more of David garbage


.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Typhoon »

Hoosiernorm wrote:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Your Honors: Believe us Jews, who have eaten our bread with joy for so many thousands of years, and who say each morning, "Happy are we, how good is our portion, how lovely our fate, how beautiful our heritage." Mephistopheles is not entirely wrong: life was indeed made for a god. But what God has made also can be imparted to human beings. We cannot be gods, but we can be godly.
Recently, my fondness for the Theatre of the Absurd is satisfied by reading a Spenglerman essay.

____

One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea.

It's reasonable that such procedures not be permitted until the infant is an adult capable of and legally entitled to giving his informed consent.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Hoosiernorm »

Typhoon wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Your Honors: Believe us Jews, who have eaten our bread with joy for so many thousands of years, and who say each morning, "Happy are we, how good is our portion, how lovely our fate, how beautiful our heritage." Mephistopheles is not entirely wrong: life was indeed made for a god. But what God has made also can be imparted to human beings. We cannot be gods, but we can be godly.
Recently, my fondness for the Theatre of the Absurd is satisfied by reading a Spenglerman essay.

____

One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea.

It's reasonable that such procedures not be permitted until the infant is an adult capable of and legally entitled to giving his informed consent.
Guess you missed that part in the OT about different biblical figures who were born with a medical condition known as Aposthia.
Been busy doing stuff
Demon of Undoing
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Demon of Undoing »

One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea.
You know Jews. They always love a sale. Who could pass up 20% off?
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Typhoon »

Hoosiernorm wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Your Honors: Believe us Jews, who have eaten our bread with joy for so many thousands of years, and who say each morning, "Happy are we, how good is our portion, how lovely our fate, how beautiful our heritage." Mephistopheles is not entirely wrong: life was indeed made for a god. But what God has made also can be imparted to human beings. We cannot be gods, but we can be godly.
Recently, my fondness for the Theatre of the Absurd is satisfied by reading a Spenglerman essay.

____

One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea.

It's reasonable that such procedures not be permitted until the infant is an adult capable of and legally entitled to giving his informed consent.
Guess you missed that part in the OT about different biblical figures who were born with a medical condition known as Aposthia.
Certainly did.

So I'll rephrase.

One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea simply because some other guy was born without a foreskin.

What if male role model X had been born without a penis . . . penile agenesis?
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by YMix »

Alexis wrote:
Not even the Nazis thought of banning circumcision as a way of uprooting Jewish life in Germany. If your decree withstands a constitutional challenge, Germany once again will be Judenrein.
:roll:

Godwin won.

Again. :(
More like an opportunity for Israeli Jews to make some money off their German brothers. "Special circumcision&holiday package: get your son's foreskin cut off and see Israel. Now this is a true HOLIday!"
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Milo
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:24 am

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Milo »

Perhaps while we're at it we should not have newborns cords cut. After all, it's not medically necessary and results in as much trauma as circumcision.

For the same reasons, no trimming their nails, hair, or bathing them anytime they protest!
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Zack Morris »

Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Hoosiernorm »

Typhoon wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Your Honors: Believe us Jews, who have eaten our bread with joy for so many thousands of years, and who say each morning, "Happy are we, how good is our portion, how lovely our fate, how beautiful our heritage." Mephistopheles is not entirely wrong: life was indeed made for a god. But what God has made also can be imparted to human beings. We cannot be gods, but we can be godly.
Recently, my fondness for the Theatre of the Absurd is satisfied by reading a Spenglerman essay.

____

One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea.

It's reasonable that such procedures not be permitted until the infant is an adult capable of and legally entitled to giving his informed consent.
Guess you missed that part in the OT about different biblical figures who were born with a medical condition known as Aposthia.
Certainly did.

So I'll rephrase.

One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea simply because some other guy was born without a foreskin.

What if male role model X had been born without a penis . . . penile agenesis?
We would probably be singing a variant of the Colonel Bogey March at Easter Mass.... :D
Been busy doing stuff
AzariLoveIran

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Milo wrote:
AzariLoveIran wrote:
Milo wrote:.

Perhaps while we're at it we should not have newborns cords cut. After all, it's not medically necessary and results in as much trauma as circumcision.

For the same reasons, no trimming their nails, hair, or bathing them anytime they protest !

.

what a rubbish Milo, what a rubbish

why you shoeshining Zionist ? ?

what is the difference between boys being circumcisioned and girls being circumcisioned ?

how come those Bedouins doing girl circumcisioned are called criminal, called sexual mutilation, and, not the boys circumcisioned ? ?

both same concept and same garbage

but

that beside the point

point is

a male must himself decide whether he wants to be circumcisioned .. or not

many Muslim and Jew adult maybe would like not to 2B circumcisioned .. fact is sex more enjoyable when not circumcisioned and many would like not have been circumcisioned

other tribal ceremonies included in many weird religions would want similar stuff with their new born .. what than ? ?

you Milo, when things for Jews, become dumb, but slightest thing about Islam, you fist in line beating the drum . . 2B effective, one must be fair and unbiased


.
We do any number of things to infants without their consent that they have to live with all their lives. However, this one always seems to get the bulk of the objections, despite that the most pessimistic evaluations of it consider it being neutral in terms of health benefits. Wonder why that is, not!

What you call female circumcision is not circumcision.

It's becoming evedent that you are not a Muslim or have stopped being one.


Azari is Rumi-Muslim

and

nobody, including parents, is allowed to order medical surgery on new born or children, except when medical doctors decides it is necessary .. that valid for everybody, including Muslims, Jews, and and and

that is exactly what German courts said .. and Azari 2nds it


.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

edit: nvm, I don't care enough about this issue to argue for or against it.
Last edited by NapLajoieonSteroids on Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Milo
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:24 am

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Milo »

Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
Is lowering the risk of diesease medically necessary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

This one is not definitely bad, and quite arguably beneficial, so it can be the choice of the parents.
AzariLoveIran

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by AzariLoveIran »

Milo wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
Is lowering the risk of diesease medically necessary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

This one is not definitely bad, and quite arguably beneficial, so it can be the choice of the parents.

it is now medically proven that Circumcision is not medically beneficial at all


.
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Hoosiernorm »

Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
Zack Jews have a covenant to maintain that is both ritual and practice that is handed down to them and received with all of it's duties and requirements. They aren't going to become tree hugging Methodists just because of some judicial ruling.
Been busy doing stuff
anderson
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by anderson »

Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
How does it impact functionality? The biological functions of the organ are:
  • Expel urine
  • Become erect to enable intercourse
  • Fire semen out to impregnate a female
None of which are impacted in the least by circumcision.

The problem with the "wait until he's an adult and let him choose for himself is that while infant circumcision is a pretty minor procedure, adult circumcision is a big to do requiring a surgical crew, minor anesthesia, cauterization to prevent excessive bleeding, etc.
What is more, it is considered a vanity optional procedure, so even in socialist medicine countries, the man has to pay the expense (a few thousand $) out of pocket. Whereas an infant circumcision is around $100.

If someone wants to choose not to circumcise his son, that's one thing, but this exaggerated "mutilation" rhetoric is a heaping load of horseshite.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Typhoon »

anderson wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
How does it impact functionality? The biological functions of the organ are:
  • Expel urine
  • Become erect to enable intercourse
  • Fire semen out to impregnate a female
None of which are impacted in the least by circumcision.

The problem with the "wait until he's an adult and let him choose for himself is that while infant circumcision is a pretty minor procedure, adult circumcision is a big to do requiring a surgical crew, minor anesthesia, cauterization to prevent excessive bleeding, etc.
What is more, it is considered a vanity optional procedure, so even in socialist medicine countries, the man has to pay the expense (a few thousand $) out of pocket. Whereas an infant circumcision is around $100.

If someone wants to choose not to circumcise his son, that's one thing, but this exaggerated "mutilation" rhetoric is a heaping load of horseshite.
You forgot the biological role of pleasure.

Some history:

What were the original motivations behind routine infant circumcision in the West?
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
anderson
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by anderson »

Typhoon wrote:
anderson wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
How does it impact functionality? The biological functions of the organ are:
  • Expel urine
  • Become erect to enable intercourse
  • Fire semen out to impregnate a female
None of which are impacted in the least by circumcision.

The problem with the "wait until he's an adult and let him choose for himself is that while infant circumcision is a pretty minor procedure, adult circumcision is a big to do requiring a surgical crew, minor anesthesia, cauterization to prevent excessive bleeding, etc.
What is more, it is considered a vanity optional procedure, so even in socialist medicine countries, the man has to pay the expense (a few thousand $) out of pocket. Whereas an infant circumcision is around $100.

If someone wants to choose not to circumcise his son, that's one thing, but this exaggerated "mutilation" rhetoric is a heaping load of horseshite.
You forgot the biological role of pleasure.

Some history:

What were the original motivations behind routine infant circumcision in the West?
Circumcision doesn't remove the ability to experience sexual pleasure.
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Hoosiernorm »

anderson wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
anderson wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
How does it impact functionality? The biological functions of the organ are:
  • Expel urine
  • Become erect to enable intercourse
  • Fire semen out to impregnate a female
None of which are impacted in the least by circumcision.

The problem with the "wait until he's an adult and let him choose for himself is that while infant circumcision is a pretty minor procedure, adult circumcision is a big to do requiring a surgical crew, minor anesthesia, cauterization to prevent excessive bleeding, etc.
What is more, it is considered a vanity optional procedure, so even in socialist medicine countries, the man has to pay the expense (a few thousand $) out of pocket. Whereas an infant circumcision is around $100.

If someone wants to choose not to circumcise his son, that's one thing, but this exaggerated "mutilation" rhetoric is a heaping load of horseshite.
You forgot the biological role of pleasure.

Some history:

What were the original motivations behind routine infant circumcision in the West?
Circumcision doesn't remove the ability to experience sexual pleasure.
Yeah and having the head of it exposed keeps you hand from flying off
Been busy doing stuff
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Typhoon »

anderson wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
anderson wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
How does it impact functionality? The biological functions of the organ are:
  • Expel urine
  • Become erect to enable intercourse
  • Fire semen out to impregnate a female
None of which are impacted in the least by circumcision.

The problem with the "wait until he's an adult and let him choose for himself is that while infant circumcision is a pretty minor procedure, adult circumcision is a big to do requiring a surgical crew, minor anesthesia, cauterization to prevent excessive bleeding, etc.
What is more, it is considered a vanity optional procedure, so even in socialist medicine countries, the man has to pay the expense (a few thousand $) out of pocket. Whereas an infant circumcision is around $100.

If someone wants to choose not to circumcise his son, that's one thing, but this exaggerated "mutilation" rhetoric is a heaping load of horseshite.
You forgot the biological role of pleasure.

Some history:

What were the original motivations behind routine infant circumcision in the West?
Circumcision doesn't remove the ability to experience sexual pleasure.
No, but it does diminish it.

The Hippocratic maxim is "First, do no harm."

One can argue that circumcision is a violation.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by Typhoon »

Hoosiernorm wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 3Dj02.html
Your Honors: Believe us Jews, who have eaten our bread with joy for so many thousands of years, and who say each morning, "Happy are we, how good is our portion, how lovely our fate, how beautiful our heritage." Mephistopheles is not entirely wrong: life was indeed made for a god. But what God has made also can be imparted to human beings. We cannot be gods, but we can be godly.
Recently, my fondness for the Theatre of the Absurd is satisfied by reading a Spenglerman essay.

____

One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea.

It's reasonable that such procedures not be permitted until the infant is an adult capable of and legally entitled to giving his informed consent.
Guess you missed that part in the OT about different biblical figures who were born with a medical condition known as Aposthia.
Certainly did.

So I'll rephrase.

One has seriously wonder what was going through the mind of the first guy to decide that chopping off an infant's foreskin was a good idea simply because some other guy was born without a foreskin.

What if male role model X had been born without a penis . . . penile agenesis?
We would probably be singing a variant of the Colonel Bogey March at Easter Mass.... :D
Had to look that one up. Very good.

As the original essay already Godwined the thread:

yB5odk3saa0
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
AzariLoveIran

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by AzariLoveIran »

anderson wrote:.

Circumcision doesn't remove the ability to experience sexual pleasure.

.
it diminishes it

nature has made a the way it for a reason, to protect the sensitive head

when Circumcisioned, the head is exposed, rubs on clothing and becomes to a degree, desensitized


.
anderson
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Spengler Discovers Dangerous Circumcision

Post by anderson »

Typhoon wrote:
anderson wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
anderson wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Unlike nails, Milo, foreskins do not grow back when clipped. And unlike umbilical cords, foreskins do not fall off naturally. The argument here isn't just about whether circumcision is 'natural' or not -- it is a permanent, irreversible change that impacts the functionality of a part of the body that is considered to have an especially strong role in defining one's autonomy, privacy, and identity. People are generally fiercely protective regarding choices they make involving their genitalia, and for very good reasons that don't need to be over-analyzed. The simple solution is to forbid genital mutilation unless medically necessary (e.g., a foreskin that won't retract) or until its owner can make an informed decision for himself.
How does it impact functionality? The biological functions of the organ are:
  • Expel urine
  • Become erect to enable intercourse
  • Fire semen out to impregnate a female
None of which are impacted in the least by circumcision.

The problem with the "wait until he's an adult and let him choose for himself is that while infant circumcision is a pretty minor procedure, adult circumcision is a big to do requiring a surgical crew, minor anesthesia, cauterization to prevent excessive bleeding, etc.
What is more, it is considered a vanity optional procedure, so even in socialist medicine countries, the man has to pay the expense (a few thousand $) out of pocket. Whereas an infant circumcision is around $100.

If someone wants to choose not to circumcise his son, that's one thing, but this exaggerated "mutilation" rhetoric is a heaping load of horseshite.
You forgot the biological role of pleasure.

Some history:

What were the original motivations behind routine infant circumcision in the West?
Circumcision doesn't remove the ability to experience sexual pleasure.
No, but it does diminish it.

The Hippocratic maxim is "First, do no harm."

One can argue that circumcision is a violation.
This is such a joke of an argument though.
Circumcised men do not, in general, report any dissatisfaction in their sex lives and sexual enjoyment relating to "lack of sensitivity."
If men have issues sexually with sensitivity, it's usually a matter of being too quick on the draw from having too much sensitivity.
I think most men could probably benefit from a little dulling down there.
Post Reply