Since I was done near birth, I'll never know the difference, but I should have been given the choice IMO, as the procedure was done without my consent. But just like a pint of milk, you can't unspill it.
Not to the people whose babies have died due to a completely unnecessary procedure. Your attitude is frankly disgusting.
Well thanks for that blindingly obvious insight!
However when discussing the safety or otherwise of any medical procedure I would have thought it useful to understand what proportion of people die as a result before claiming that it is a dangerous procedure. 100 deaths out of 2 million or 0.005% is negligible in the context of that conversation, which is my point.
Your own attitude seems to be that of someone who isn't quite familiar with how discussion (or indeed numbers) work. However I'm sure you are a delight in every other way. ^_^
I can only suggest you work on your vocabulary. To try and imply that men who have been circumcised have mutilated genitalia is both offensive to them (and their perfectly lovely tackle) and manifestly inaccurate.
It is purely accurate just like female genital mutilation is perfectly accurate.
It is unnecessary 'surgery' on someone who has no say in whether they want it or not.
I put surgery in quote marks because if we are talking about Jewish circumcision then that isn't done by medical people.
100 deaths out of 2 million or 0.005% is negligible in the context of that conversation, which is my point.
It is only negligible if the deaths incurred by NOT having the procedure is more than 0.005%.
When not having the procedure, within a religious context, would lead to exactly zero deaths and having the procedure leads to deaths then those deaths are significant.
Those deaths have occurred due to other people forcing their beliefs onto other people who have no recourse to protest...apart from crying and filling their nappies.
I presume you are also a proponent of female circumcision?
It is purely accurate just like female genital mutilation is perfectly accurate.
It is unnecessary 'surgery' on someone who has no say in whether they want it or not.
I put surgery in quote marks because if we are talking about Jewish circumcision then that isn't done by medical people.
There are many forms of unnecessary surgery which don't lead to mutilation. This is one of them. It leaves the penis perfectly functional and aesthetically pleasing. Mutilation is far too strong a term and is used to evoke reactions of disgust and horror which are, imo, simply not appropriate in this context.
It is only negligible if the deaths incurred by NOT having the procedure is more than 0.005%.
When not having the procedure, within a religious context, would lead to exactly zero deaths and having the procedure leads to deaths then those deaths are significant.
Those deaths have occurred due to other people forcing their beliefs onto other people who have no recourse to protest...apart from crying and filling their nappies.
I presume you are also a proponent of female circumcision?
Why would you presume that? Do you consider the two procedures equivalent?
There are many forms of unnecessary surgery which don't lead to mutilation. This is one of them. It leaves the penis perfectly functional and aesthetically pleasing. Mutilation is far too strong a term and is used to evoke reactions of disgust and horror which are, imo, simply not appropriate in this context.
If; as has been established; this 'unnecessary surgery ' can lead to death then calling it either 'mutilation' or 'aesthetically pleasing' is somewhat irrelevant.
If; as has been established; this 'unnecessary surgery ' can lead to death then calling it either 'mutilation' or 'aesthetically pleasing' is somewhat irrelevant.
Indefensible would be more appropriate.
I can only assume that point is beyond comprehension.
There are many forms of unnecessary surgery which don't lead to mutilation. This is one of them. It leaves the penis perfectly functional and aesthetically pleasing. Mutilation is far too strong a term and is used to evoke reactions of disgust and horror which are, imo, simply not appropriate in this context.
I can only assume that point is beyond comprehension.
Cue... a good dollop of asinine flippancy.
It's interesting how you choose to characterise my failure to be persuaded by your point of view.
Quite simply I don't agree with your argument that because there is a statistically tiny chance of death occurring this procedure should be considered dangerous enough for us to prevent people from choosing to have it performed on their children.
The numbers aren't compelling enough for me to consider it reasonable to remove that choice from people on the basis of them.
People should certainly be given all of the information, but then, much as this may pain you, the choice must be theirs.
There are many forms of unnecessary surgery which don't lead to mutilation. This is one of them. It leaves the penis perfectly functional and aesthetically pleasing. Mutilation is far too strong a term and is used to evoke reactions of disgust and horror which are, imo, simply not appropriate in this context.
Are you on a wind-up? If you are, then fair play, you've done a good job, got most of us fooled. However if you are not, and you view baby deaths rates as 'negligible' and you think it's OK to cause unnecessary pain and without consent because the penis will be 'aesthetically pleasing'then that is worrying.Would you be OK for young children to be tattooed because it may be seen by some as aesthetically pleasing?
Are you on a wind-up? If you are, then fair play, you've done a good job, got most of us fooled. However if you are not, and you view baby deaths rates as 'negligible' and you think it's OK to cause unnecessary pain and without consent because the penis will be 'aesthetically pleasing'then that is worrying.Would you be OK for young children to be tattooed because it may be seen by some as aesthetically pleasing?
Eh? I'm disagreeing about the use of the word mutilation in the post you quote. To clarify I don't think that a circumcised penis is more or less aesthetically pleasing than an uncircumcised one. I think for something to qualify as having been mutilated it needs to have been rendered unfit for purpose, ie procreation and sexual pleasure in this case , or deformed in some way. I don't think that criteria applies to circumcised penises so I don't think the term mutilated can be reasonably applied.
I believe I have adequately explained my use of the phrase negligible and I haven't actually commented on the issues of consent or pain so please do try to restrict your disagreement with me to things I have actually said.
Well you said, I think, that you don't really care about this subject, so I think people will wonder maybe if you are doing some light trolling to pass the time, when you make comments which you must know will wind people up.
Well you said, I think, that you don't really care about this subject, so I think people will wonder maybe if you are doing some light trolling to pass the time, when you make comments which you must know will wind people up.
Fair enough but no I don't tend troll tbh .Everything I have posted is my actual opinion even if I don't feel very strongly about the subject in general.
It's interesting how you choose to characterise my failure to be persuaded by your point of view.
Quite simply I don't agree with your argument that because there is a statistically tiny chance of death occurring this procedure should be considered dangerous enough for us to prevent people from choosing to have it performed on their children.
The numbers aren't compelling enough for me to consider it reasonable to remove that choice from people on the basis of them.
People should certainly be given all of the information, but then, much as this may pain you, the choice must be theirs.
An agonising, traumatic procedure carried out on newborns and children with the risk of severe complications and death. Have you any idea at all how circumcision is carried out on them? You can't possibly know, to be so flippant and dismissive. In the name of any religion the choice should be removed from all parents, as has already happened in some civilised countries.
Without the consent of the individual no-one should be circumcised.
One death, as a result of this barbarism, is one too many.
An agonising, traumatic procedure carried out on newborns and children with the risk of severe complications and death. Have you any idea at all how circumcision is carried out on them? You can't possibly know, to be so flippant and dismissive. In the name of any religion the choice should be removed from all parents, as has already happened in some civilised countries.
Without the consent of the individual no-one should be circumcised.
One death, as a result of this barbarism, is one too many.
Ahh I see, now it can only be ignorance that keeps me from agreeing with you. How utterly unsurprising.
Your points are all well and good except that many many men who have been circumcised in perfectly civilised counties (and not in the name of any religion btw) don't appear to feel this way. I understand that this fact is inconvenient for you which I expect is why you are ignoring it. However it is really this fact which prevents me from jumping on your bandwagon. The outrage of a vocal minority isn't always more important or more valid than the silent majority who are content with the status quo.
Ahh I see, now it can only be ignorance that keeps me from agreeing with you. How utterly unsurprising.
Your points are all well and good except that many many men who have been circumcised in perfectly civilised counties (and not in the name of any religion btw) don't appear to feel this way. I understand that this fact is inconvenient for you which I expect is why you are ignoring it. However it is really this fact which prevents me from jumping on your bandwagon. The outrage of a vocal minority isn't always more important or more valid than the silent majority who are content with the status quo.
They may be but as a man who was cut in a civilised country and not for religious reasons I do object to what was done to me without my consent. Sorry if this does not fit with your assumptions.
Would be happy to see your evidence that a majority silent or otherwise supports infant circumcision.
Ahh I see, now it can only be ignorance that keeps me from agreeing with you. How utterly unsurprising.
Your points are all well and good except that many many men who have been circumcised in perfectly civilised counties (and not in the name of any religion btw) don't appear to feel this way. I understand that this fact is inconvenient for you which I expect is why you are ignoring it. However it is really this fact which prevents me from jumping on your bandwagon. The outrage of a vocal minority isn't always more important or more valid than the silent majority who are content with the status quo.
I can assure you as far as this barbarism is concerned a lot more than a minority of humane adults are deeply concerned about infant circumcision, with many more countries trying to ban it.
You only seem bothered about the aesthetics, which is a debatable point. That is also not the fatuous reason for religious infant/child circumcision. You seem to be spectacularly missing the issue of the agonising cruelty inflicted on babies and children, by now bringing men into the discussion, so I have nothing more to say.
An agonising, traumatic procedure carried out on newborns and children with the risk of severe complications and death. Have you any idea at all how circumcision is carried out on them? You can't possibly know, to be so flippant and dismissive. In the name of any religion the choice should be removed from all parents, as has already happened in some civilised countries.
Without the consent of the individual no-one should be circumcised.
One death, as a result of this barbarism, is one too many.
I agree. So why is it still legal for non medical reasons in the UK as far as I know and FGM is not. Talk about injustice and equality being equal, but more equal for others, i.e. women in this case.
And please (other posters) don't talk about some other parts of the world regarding FGM as a counter argument. I know. We are talking about the UK here.
Both procedures should be outlawed, except for medical reasons in case of circumcision.
ETA. I wasn't 'done' in the conventional Jewish way, but at an NHS hospital and I don't remember anything about it, which is probably for the best.
I agree. So why is it still legal for non medical reasons in the UK as far as I know and FGM is not. Talk about injustice and equality being equal, but more equal for others, i.e. women in this case.
And please (other posters) don't talk about some other parts of the world regarding FGM as a counter argument. I know. We are talking about the UK here.
Both procedure should be outlawed, except for medical reasons in case of circumcision.
Yes I agree. It should be banned and probably will be at some time. Germany banned it but they caved because of accusations of anti Semitism. I know you have Jewish heritage so it's interesting to hear your POV. Over the years Jewish friends of mine have sometimes decided against it, but far more so in recent years, which is encouraging. Both are totally unnecessary cruel, agonising procedures, often mutilating or fatal and carried out on underage children and infants.
I couldn't care less what any adult male decides for himself and of course it has to be done if there are genuine medical reasons.
Comments
Not to the people whose babies have died due to a completely unnecessary procedure. Your attitude is frankly disgusting.
Any religion that requires a man to put his mouth on a mutilated baby penis, is twisted.
Well thanks for that blindingly obvious insight!
However when discussing the safety or otherwise of any medical procedure I would have thought it useful to understand what proportion of people die as a result before claiming that it is a dangerous procedure. 100 deaths out of 2 million or 0.005% is negligible in the context of that conversation, which is my point.
Your own attitude seems to be that of someone who isn't quite familiar with how discussion (or indeed numbers) work. However I'm sure you are a delight in every other way. ^_^
It is purely accurate just like female genital mutilation is perfectly accurate.
It is unnecessary 'surgery' on someone who has no say in whether they want it or not.
I put surgery in quote marks because if we are talking about Jewish circumcision then that isn't done by medical people.
It is only negligible if the deaths incurred by NOT having the procedure is more than 0.005%.
When not having the procedure, within a religious context, would lead to exactly zero deaths and having the procedure leads to deaths then those deaths are significant.
Those deaths have occurred due to other people forcing their beliefs onto other people who have no recourse to protest...apart from crying and filling their nappies.
I presume you are also a proponent of female circumcision?
There are many forms of unnecessary surgery which don't lead to mutilation. This is one of them. It leaves the penis perfectly functional and aesthetically pleasing. Mutilation is far too strong a term and is used to evoke reactions of disgust and horror which are, imo, simply not appropriate in this context.
Why would you presume that? Do you consider the two procedures equivalent?
If; as has been established; this 'unnecessary surgery ' can lead to death then calling it either 'mutilation' or 'aesthetically pleasing' is somewhat irrelevant.
Indefensible would be more appropriate.
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
I can only assume that point is beyond comprehension.
Cue... a good dollop of asinine flippancy.
Oh dear. Can only assume you're trolling now.
Your mistake *shrugs*
It's interesting how you choose to characterise my failure to be persuaded by your point of view.
Quite simply I don't agree with your argument that because there is a statistically tiny chance of death occurring this procedure should be considered dangerous enough for us to prevent people from choosing to have it performed on their children.
The numbers aren't compelling enough for me to consider it reasonable to remove that choice from people on the basis of them.
People should certainly be given all of the information, but then, much as this may pain you, the choice must be theirs.
Are you on a wind-up? If you are, then fair play, you've done a good job, got most of us fooled. However if you are not, and you view baby deaths rates as 'negligible' and you think it's OK to cause unnecessary pain and without consent because the penis will be 'aesthetically pleasing'then that is worrying.Would you be OK for young children to be tattooed because it may be seen by some as aesthetically pleasing?
Eh? I'm disagreeing about the use of the word mutilation in the post you quote. To clarify I don't think that a circumcised penis is more or less aesthetically pleasing than an uncircumcised one. I think for something to qualify as having been mutilated it needs to have been rendered unfit for purpose, ie procreation and sexual pleasure in this case , or deformed in some way. I don't think that criteria applies to circumcised penises so I don't think the term mutilated can be reasonably applied.
I believe I have adequately explained my use of the phrase negligible and I haven't actually commented on the issues of consent or pain so please do try to restrict your disagreement with me to things I have actually said.
Well you said, I think, that you don't really care about this subject, so I think people will wonder maybe if you are doing some light trolling to pass the time, when you make comments which you must know will wind people up.
Fair enough but no I don't tend troll tbh
Deity worship is whacky enough, but believing your god wants you to saw off parts of newborn babies genitalia is way out there.
An agonising, traumatic procedure carried out on newborns and children with the risk of severe complications and death. Have you any idea at all how circumcision is carried out on them? You can't possibly know, to be so flippant and dismissive. In the name of any religion the choice should be removed from all parents, as has already happened in some civilised countries.
Without the consent of the individual no-one should be circumcised.
One death, as a result of this barbarism, is one too many.
Ahh I see, now it can only be ignorance that keeps me from agreeing with you. How utterly unsurprising.
Your points are all well and good except that many many men who have been circumcised in perfectly civilised counties (and not in the name of any religion btw) don't appear to feel this way. I understand that this fact is inconvenient for you which I expect is why you are ignoring it. However it is really this fact which prevents me from jumping on your bandwagon. The outrage of a vocal minority isn't always more important or more valid than the silent majority who are content with the status quo.
They may be but as a man who was cut in a civilised country and not for religious reasons I do object to what was done to me without my consent. Sorry if this does not fit with your assumptions.
Would be happy to see your evidence that a majority silent or otherwise supports infant circumcision.
I can assure you as far as this barbarism is concerned a lot more than a minority of humane adults are deeply concerned about infant circumcision, with many more countries trying to ban it.
You only seem bothered about the aesthetics, which is a debatable point. That is also not the fatuous reason for religious infant/child circumcision. You seem to be spectacularly missing the issue of the agonising cruelty inflicted on babies and children, by now bringing men into the discussion, so I have nothing more to say.
I agree. So why is it still legal for non medical reasons in the UK as far as I know and FGM is not. Talk about injustice and equality being equal, but more equal for others, i.e. women in this case.
And please (other posters) don't talk about some other parts of the world regarding FGM as a counter argument. I know. We are talking about the UK here.
Both procedures should be outlawed, except for medical reasons in case of circumcision.
ETA. I wasn't 'done' in the conventional Jewish way, but at an NHS hospital and I don't remember anything about it, which is probably for the best.
Yes I agree. It should be banned and probably will be at some time. Germany banned it but they caved because of accusations of anti Semitism. I know you have Jewish heritage so it's interesting to hear your POV. Over the years Jewish friends of mine have sometimes decided against it, but far more so in recent years, which is encouraging. Both are totally unnecessary cruel, agonising procedures, often mutilating or fatal and carried out on underage children and infants.
I couldn't care less what any adult male decides for himself and of course it has to be done if there are genuine medical reasons.