Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Eh, I won't contend that we haven't largely eliminated evolution in terms of necessity to survive most previously deadly diseases, but to claim that we've eliminated all factors that our genes don't already unanimously account for is just arrogant.
i agree. its the choice of the owner of the *****, not his parents or anybody else.ledger said:
How is a child supposed to choose about something they don't know the true function of until they're twelve? For children to choose in a way that would be most benificial, the children would have to be able to choose before the age of twelve. Thus in order for the child's choice to be their own, Sex-ed must be tought at a much younger age. But we all know that "abstainance only" schools won't do that. So what plan do you have for children to choose at a time when it would still be beneficial?
QFT. The majority of the reasons behind it's removal have nothing to do with aesthetics or sexual performance...
Before you try to ride this line of reasoning any further, explain what benefits you purport the surgery to have, why they are unattainable after age twelve, and why the complications you contend may occur from lack of circumcision are enough of a serious issue that the choice should be given to the parents at infancy, voiding all need to even CONSULT their child.
Ever heard the phrase "The burden of proof lies on the prosecution?" You can't just go asserting things without backing them up and then demand disproof the second someone calls you on it. Besides, I hardly see how the health problems of someone who lived before the advent of modern medicine are relevant to the present day.
Pretty sure we still evolve, I'm born with no wisdom teeth
Benefits to circumcision before puberty basically consist of better prevention of certain STD's, while circumcision in general mainly prevents balanitis (inflammation), phinosis, and cancers (Can't mutate cells you don't have). And I didn't say that it is best done on an enfant, I said it was best done before 12/puberty.
You are correct, I should have shown my evidence better. However, I have an opportunity to do so now. Louis XVI of France (Louis Capet) suffered from phinosis, an inflammation of the foreskin. This made procreation impossible for him. However, a simple circumcision solved this, and that is how he's relevant. He was an example of phinosis's effects, including a "sterility" of sorts, and it's ability to be treated with a circumcision. And we do still have a decent amount of diagnosed cases of phinosis in uncircumcised enfants, 1/100. I'd say that it's a relatively good reason that one would choose circumcision.
So wait. What STDs do you claim it to prevent, and are they life-threatening/seriously and permanently disabling? If they're not, I still don't see how the decision should be entirely in the hands of the parents. Meanwhile, claiming that foreskin cancer is an adequate reason to circumcise without consent could be applied to any body part. After all, you can't have cancer in a part you don't have, right?
Okay, so he had a condition that could be cured by circumcising after the fact. This is a reason to circumcise without consent why?
I have to wonder about the morality of pre-pubescent children having sex, much less removing their foreskin so that when a five year old screws someone, he is less likely to contract an STD.
If your hand becomes gangrenous I would suggest that you have it surgically removed. If it doesn't have anything wrong with it, why even consider removing it? Really, you do not remove healthy human tissue for no reason.
This argument is such garbage. I'm so sick of hearing it. Eyes are necessary, pinkies are useful, foreskin is not. It's that simple. No I don't want to surgically remove my hands nor my eyes because they are pretty useful to me. What a terrible argument.
Unless you can provide a logical argument against it, the point stands. You do not remove healthy tissue for no good reason, regardless of its location on the body.
You already hit it on the head, infants can't consent and that is the point. And consent is a verb not adjective.
Then why doesn't most of the world do it? Circumcision seems to be distinct of the Judeo-Christian population and almost no one else. Yet the rest of the world doesn't have any problems with their foreskins. When it is done is irrelevant.
It lowers their chances later in life. It also prevents STD's for women as well as the foreskin binds to the infection better than the rest.
Foreskin is probably about 95% useless, eyes are very useful.
Some parents have their kid's appendix removed as prevention, why does no one speak out against that?
It happens in extreme cases, note that in my original post I said, "and in extreme cases, sterility." It does still effect others, and it's painful, but they can still conceive.
No, my response was to your statement that it stops children from getting STDs before puberty. Besides with, we have condoms now.
You still don't remove people's eyes for no reason. My point stands.
Okay I did a search for preventative appendectomies and found nothing to support what you said. From everything I read appendectomies are a major surgery with complications and should only be administered in an emergency situation. Otherwise surgey should not be performed.
No, you said "And we do still have a decent amount of diagnosed cases of phinosis in uncircumcised enfants, 1/100." One in every hundred is a huge number of people. The rest of the world would cut off their jimmy skins if it were really that high.
While that seems a bit extreme, at least the disease the appendix can cause is deadly.
You're arguing against yourself. The less harmful and irreversible the damage caused by the disease is, the less justified it seems to pre-emptively remove body parts without consent to prevent it.
Um, and that's kind of what we're debating. I don't see anyone contending that a fully-consenting adult should not have the right to do whatever he likes to his foreskin. We're talking about the routine practice of infant circumcision, carried out with consent of parents only.
I said, "benefits... BEFORE PUBERTY consist of better prevention," I didn't say anything about kids having sex before puberty.
Then you searched for the wrong thing. "Preventive appendectomy" brings up "incidental appendectomies", which are used as a preventative measure.
Maybe they just wait until they have to have it done instead.
How else was I supposed to take that?
Okay, I searched for your new term and there does appear to be a debate over that issue in the medical community. So you are still wrong. And the medical community also considered it to be unnecessary, from what I read.
Or your numbers are wrong and there are a lot fewer cases of problems with uncircumcised males than you put forth.
The way I intended it.
So? There is also a debate about circumcision. That doesn't mean that it isn't done. My point was that it is still done today. And there wouldn't be a debate if some didn't view it as necessary. Flu shots aren't necessary, but they are an important preventive measure. Preventive measures are very often unnecessary, but are taken in order to help ensure safety.
Then why haven't you given your numbers? I fail to see how my numbers are wrong based off of ideas as to how societies should react to a disease.
It is only necessary from a biblical POV. There is no real medical reason to circumcise children, wholesale.
The Flu KILLS enough people for it to be considered necessary. How many people do you know die because they weren't circumcised? Preventing illness also has a positive economic impact as well. Watch the news, all but two of the United States has widespread cases of influenza. Most of the country is being affected by it. This is definetly not the case for lack of circumcision.
Because I don't really care to research how many men are killed each year because they still have their weeny skins. I guess I could look at the FBI database or the CDC, but I'm not particularly sure where I'd find the answer. Nor am I particularly motivated to find out.
At that point I was still talking about incidental appendectomies.
But flu shots aren't necessary as in a gangrenous hand, it is a preventive measure to lessen the chance of influenza. And did you really bring up US economy? That is bad enough without the illness right now.
You are debating a topic you don't want to spend time researching.
And how do you know that it's not a problem? Because you haven't heard of it? People didn't hear about aids until the 80's, but it was a problem long before.
Exsqueeze [sic] me?
Almost everyone gets the flu, which makes it a pretty good preventative measure. Not everyone gets inflamed foreskins, in fact most people do NOT get any problems with their foreskin in their entire lifetime.
At least not that specific point. I've researched as I've needed to.
That's because only homosexuals had it before the eighties, and homosexuals don't matter.
Was I trying to prove that circumcision isn't done? No, it was the whole appendectomy thing that I was trying to prove.
And there we go. That is exactly why that one person out of one-hundred isn't heard of. It's not that big of a problem. When that one person has to be circumcised, it's like any other operation. Do you hear about normal operations in the news?
That is good to know.
But earlier you were saying that 1/100 was a widespread problem.
Huh?
I've pointed out that one percent is a significant portion of the population and it doesn't seem that so many people are circumcised later in life. If you are instead saying that it isn't an issue, then why are you defending circumcision at birth?
One percent is statistically significant, yes.
I agree 100%. Impotence is a long-run effect as a result.
Consider yourself the uninformed one. The difference between Western male circumcision and that crazy female one is like the same difference between gently picking a sticker off a pear with your nail and using a corer to cut a deep gouge to remove the stickerDumb said:
Consider yourself the sinker.
Explain how they don't.