190 replies to this topic

[trix]

karaokeboy said:

But where does that leave Muslims?
  
You're telling these people that they can amputate roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the "skin" on their son's penis, but can't even so much as draw blood on their daughter.
  
How is that sensical?  What standard are you using to make this evaluation?  Harm inflicted?  How do you quantify that?  Can you quantify that?

I'm saying severe FGM, by any standard is more disruptive to sexual function than male circumcision, and should be illegal.  And I'm saying that enforcing this is much easier if all FGM are illegal, just like its easier to enforce bans on underage prostitution when all prostitution is illegal.  Any 'unfairness' in the letter of the law between the sexes is balanced by this greater good of preventing severe FGM.   That balance would be different if bloodletting was a majority of FGM, but according to the article you posted, its not.

[MurmursAdministrator]

Can I ask why the hell you are so obsessed with your dick? It seems rather odd to me.

[mrdavesanchez]

One of the bothersome ideas about this article is that the article is written by "Legal Scholars" rather than doctors, or at least that is what seems to be listed here.

I am not going to bring up the idea of female circumcision because I think that the issues between male and females are much different and should not be compared. I will say that one of the troubling aspects of the article is how it used the idea of "Pain" as a means to prove a point and specifically with the idea of using an "Anesthetic". First off, there are varying types of anesthetic, whether its just a local anesthetic, do they shoot novocaine or something like that around that area? or do they put the child under. Secondly, there are a lot of dangers with anesthesia, especially with neonates. Putting a neonate "Under" so to speak is very dangerous and should only be performed if something is definitely wrong and not for issues such as circumcision or any other procedures that might be considered normal, especially for a newborn.

If my child was being circumsized and the doctors were going to put the child under I would definitely question that.

[raveman2001]

I'm very happy with my circumsized penis, thanks very much. It's clean and I know a few guys who aren't circumsized and they agree it could have been a good idea.

I judge by my experience and that is that many around me are circumsized and everyone thinks it was the right decision. Of course it is also part of my religious beliefs, so in my -camp it's win-win. And in Canada, many (if not most) doctors at hospitals with maternity wards still recommend it for every child born.

[karaokeboy]

trix said:

I'm saying severe FGM, by any standard is more disruptive to sexual function than male circumcision, and should be illegal. And I'm saying that enforcing this is much easier if all FGM are illegal, just like its easier to enforce bans on underage prostitution when all prostitution is illegal. Any 'unfairness' in the letter of the law between the sexes is balanced by this greater good of preventing severe FGM. That balance would be different if bloodletting was a majority of FGM, but according to the article you posted, its not.

  
trix, I'm enjoying having this discussion with you. I thought I'd let you know before I type anything else. Despite my tendency to get a little heated, I genuinely believe that we all have the capacity to be respectful and generally decent to each other. Although some people choose to be inflammatory, I believe the snappiest, most persuasive people don't degenerate into personal attacks. Also, thank you for being patient with me, because, as has been discussed, sometimes I don't "get" everything that people say.
  
So, that said, I agree, severe FGM should be illegal. And I also understand where you're coming from on the "absolute" point, too.
  
The point of contention that I'd like to address is what your standard for "harm" is. It appears, and I can only assume because you didn't explicitly state this, that you are using "disruption of sexual function" as a standard for harm. Using this as a standard, MGM, especially in a medicoethic setting, meets the same criteria for unlawfullness. To prove this, I will show that circumcision causes significant disruption of sexual function.
  
First, I'd like to direct your attention to some electronic letters in the Journal of Medical Ethics that was published in response to Fox and Thomson's paper. They can be found online at http://jme.bmjjourna...rs/31/8/463#367 and http://jme.bmjjourna...rs/31/8/463#359 .
  
  I will not reprint the entirety here but the relevant portions where I'd like to direct your attention:
  Dear Editor:

    The Benatar brothers once again attempt to “justify the unjustifiable”, as Chessler so aptly put it.¹ One has to admire their dogged defence of their position, even after the American Journal of Bioethics published devastating criticism of their earlier paper.²

    Mutilation

    They still fail to understand the nature of mutilation. Mutilation is the destruction of appearance or function. Circumcision does both. In addition to altering appearance by replacing normal tissue with scar tissue, circumcision alters function in the following ways:

    Protective functions. The foreskin protects the glans penis throughout life. The amputation of the foreskin of infants is well documented to cause meatal ulceration and meatal stenosis.^3-5 The protective foreskin keeps the surface of the glans penis clean, free of infection, smooth, moist, supple, and sensitive.⁶

   Gliding action. The looseness of the foreskin allows it to glide back and forth during sexual intercourse.⁷ The gliding action provides effortless penetration⁸ and reduction of friction and chafing.⁹ Circumcision tightens the penile skin and destroys the gliding action, causing difficult insertion¹⁰ and abrasive intercourse.⁹

    Sensation. Anatomic investigation shows the foreskin to be highly innervated tissue.¹¹ Excision of the foreskin and its nerves causes weakened erectile function,¹² decreased penile sensitivity,¹² loss of erectile confidence,¹⁰ delayed ejaculation,¹³ and prolonged intercourse,¹⁰ all of which are indicative of diminished sensory input.

    Circumcision, therefore, readily qualifies as mutilation.
  

  ---
  

  Three recent studies undermine the Law Commission's argument for stating that circumcision is not, by their definition based on reducing sexual pleasure, a mutilation.[18-20] Decreased sexual satisfaction secondary to circumcision has been demonstrated in 17%,[18] 27%[19] and 38%[20] of patients. Moreover, since it comprises a wound under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, male circumcision's lawfulness must be in serious doubt. Indeed it may arguably constitute grievous bodily harm. Male circumcision would be ethical and appropriate only in cases of severe preputial lichen sclerosus which do not respond to conservative treatment; or in rare cases where the prepuce is irredeemably damaged due to necrosis or malignancy. The time has come for medical associations to caution their members that the removal of normal tissue from normal unconsenting children is always unethical. The medical school curriculum must urgently be updated to remove spurious clinical indications for this outmoded form of treatment.
  

  ---
  

The logical conclusion is that male circumcision ought to be restricted with the same degree as female circumcision. And identical to what you said about bloodletting, as long as a statistically significant portion of circumcisions result in a disruption of sexual function, then every degree ought to be restricted. This is further supported by the fact that there is no "bright line" between in what instances harm does or does not occur. In other words, it is impossible to show a specific single place on the organ where an excision would not logically lead to the deterioration of sexual function.
  

[mrdavesanchez]

www.circinfo.net/+circumcision+benefits&hl=en

This site seems to have a lot of benefits of circumcision that were not mentioned in this article. For instance some diseases are so rare, Penile Cancer being one that they say that its almost unheard of for a male that was circumsized around birth to even get it. Its only for those that are uncircumsized would there be a risk.

I would encourage those to read up on some of the more medical facts to this.

[OldManRay]

mrdavesanchez said:

Penile Cancer being one that they say that its almost unheard of for a male that was circumsized around birth to even get it. Its only for those that are uncircumsized would there be a risk.

But that increased risk exists in those with poor hygiene.  The risk of penile cancer is extremely low and it would be a stupid reason to promote circumcision, if that's what you're suggesting.  Promoting good hygiene is a much better idea.

[karaokeboy]

mrdavesanchez said:

www.circinfo.net/+circumcision+benefits&hl=en
  
This site seems to have a lot of benefits of circumcision that were not mentioned in this article. For instance some diseases are so rare, Penile Cancer being one that they say that its almost unheard of for a male that was circumsized around birth to even get it. Its only for those that are uncircumsized would there be a risk.
  
  I would encourage those to read up on some of the more medical facts to this.

  
You would be better served to avoid sites that are set up by circumfetishists, as circinfo.net and circlist and others are. Don't believe me? Take a look at the perversion for yourself, but if you have a weak stomache, then just trust me on this one.
  
Circinfo.com is the homepage for the "International Circumcision Information Reference Centre" (ICIRC). Anyone that does considerable research into circumcision learns who the people are that create these "informational" websites for parents, and what their real motives are. It's not easy to trace the roots of this information, but there is a trail left by their actions that is impossible to deny. One of the benefits of the Internet is that information often stays, even after someone tries to delete it and cover their tracks.
  
On the circinfo.com website, you will see that it is owned by a group called The Gilgal Society ("The International Circumcision Information Reference Centre is sponsored by The Gilgal Society" from the circinfo.com home page). You can go to www.netsol.com and do a "whois" search on the Gilgal Society's homepage, another "informational" website, (www.gilgalsoc.org) and you will see that it is owned by a guy in the UK named Vernon Quaintance (this is public information, I am not saying anything that is confidential). You can confirm that this "vernon" is tied to IRCIRC/circinfo.com by googling this link from his personal webpage "http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~vernon/ICIRC". You will see that it used to link to the ICIRC page (the link has now been broken but it now forwards you to www.circinfo.com). BTW, "gilgal" means "circle" (as in "circumcision", which means to cut around in a circle). You can verify that this "vernon" is Vernon Quaintance by
   looking at his homepage here: http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~vernon.
   Now is where it starts to get interesting... Vernon also hosted a UK website called "The Acorn Society" http://www.users.dir.../~vernon/Acorn/. This link will automatically forward you to The Acorn Society's website at http://www.acornsoc.org.uk. This is another "informational" circumcision site, but there is a twist. It is also a circumsexual website. A "circumsexual" is someone that gets off sexually by the act of circumcising, watching circumcisions, performing circumcisions, looking at pictures of circumcisions, anything relating to circumcision. When they create these informational websites they are promoting their circumsexual fetishes. Many of the men involved undergo numerous circumcisions. Look at some of the articles in the Acorn publication: "Childhood Wish Fulfilled", "Penis Puppeteers", "A Well Cut ****", "In Love With Circumcision", "Long Awaited Second Circumcision", "Scar Line", "From The Other Side Of The Knife", "Circumcision Bonds Us Together", "Tall Oaks From Little Acorns Grow", "Doing It Yourself", "Celebrity Circumcision", "The History Boys", "Turkish Circumcision", "A Bargain Recut", "First Cut Is The Deepest", "Circumcision Mishaps", "My Background And Three Circumcisions", "Four Foreskins For Christmas, My Six Circumcisions - Part 1". These are just a few of the many circumsexual articles available by the creator/owner of circinfo.com. I think it is vital that parents understand the type of people that are out there promoting circumcision and what their real motives are. Parents that don't know how these wesites are all related have no idea behind the propaganda used to encourage the unnecessary circumcision of infant boys. Vernon is also a member of a prominent circumcision list where circumsexuals gather online daily.
  
  Circlist:
  
  WARNING NOT SAFE FOR WORK (OR ANYWHERE DECENT) http://www.icon.co.z...rcum/circum.htm
  
  Need I say more?
  
  I will:
  
  http://www.sexuallym...rg/fetish-c.htm
  
  There.
  
  Now, if you're interested in what doctors, scientists, and researchers have to say on the subject, I suggest reading their actual words.  You can get it straight from the horses' mouths at www.cirp.org , an online library of papers and publications dealing with circumcision.
  
  As for circumcision reducing penile cancer?  Give me a break.

[karaokeboy]

OldManRay said:

But that increased risk exists in those with poor hygiene. The risk of penile cancer is extremely low and it would be a stupid reason to promote circumcision, if that's what you're suggesting. Promoting good hygiene is a much better idea.

*Claps*

Yay!  Smart people rock!

In fact, for almost every "benefit" someone could name from circumcision, there is some other method that is better at getting that benefit and is less drastic.

[mrdavesanchez]

OldManRay said:

But that increased risk exists in those with poor hygiene.  The risk of penile cancer is extremely low and it would be a stupid reason to promote circumcision, if that's what you're suggesting.  Promoting good hygiene is a much better idea.

This article that was posted was posted for the belief that

*  There is no real medical benefit to circumcision

What I had posted was just one example of several examples of what people have found to be data-based reasons why circumcision has medical benefits. While in developed countries Penile Cancer is quite low in both circumsized and uncircumsized males, it is higher in third world nations. They have also proven that patients that are circumsized as children have less likely rates of penile infections than those that are uncircumsized. And that is just a start.

What is problematic to me is when Lawyers write articles such as this and really do not look at the medical aspects of this. When I have my child I would rather listen to a pediatrician and a Urologist than a dumb lawyer. Pediatric and Urological groups both support circumcision and I see no reason to doubt them.

From reading just a little bit of information on this site it shows me that while I believe that everyone does have their choice in the matter, I do not believe that having a child circumsized at birth is unethical based on the fact that there are a lot of longterm health benefits from being circumsized at birth rather than later in life. I do not think it is mutilation either.

I am not going to make the argument that people that do not circumsize their children are unethical. I think its a choice and there are pros and cons to both sides of the argument.

[mrdavesanchez]

karaokeboy said:

*Claps*

Yay!  Smart people rock!

In fact, for almost every "benefit" someone could name from circumcision, there is some other method that is better at getting that benefit and is less drastic.

You know what. .shut the fuck you you little cunt. If you have penis problems don't take those issues out here.

"Smart People Rock" what the fuck is that about?

If you want to have a fucking discussion and you want to think then do so but don't be a fucking tool for your little campaign you seem to have here.

[karaokeboy]

mrdavesanchez said:

This article that was posted was posted for the belief that

*  There is no real medical benefit to circumcision

There isn't!  This is something that even the British Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatrics state in their policies.  "Potential" benefits do not outweigh the harms of circumcision.

Electronic Letter to JME said:

Dear Editor,  

Fox and Thomson[1] have injected a note of rationality into debate  over male circumcision with their conclusion that there is no compelling  legal authority for the view that the practice is lawful. They have  presented a thorough critique of the BMA's 2003 guidance document.[2] It  is however instructive to examine the statement from the BMA guidance that "Male circumcision in cases where there is a clear clinical need is not  normally controversial" against the advice "to circumcise for therapeutic  reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least  as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate".  

The evidence for the efficacy of conservative treatment is, in most  cases presently treated by circumcision, overwhelming. As this deviates  from the standard teaching of the medical curriculum, it is appropriate to outline the evidence in respect of what have recently been considered the  main clinical indications for male circumcision.  

Uncomplicated phimosis can be treated by potent topical steroids or  by simple conservative surgery.[3-5] Clearly it is inappropriate to  remove histologically normal tissue since this is amenable to plastic  correction. Paraphimosis too can be treated by an overwhelming array of  conservative treatments.[6] Balanitis should be treated in accordance  with clinical guidelines.[7] Recurrent balanitis can be managed by  restriction of washing with soap.[8]  

Current medical teaching has it that preputial lichen sclerosus,  otherwise known as "BXO",[9] is an "absolute" indication for circumcision. Lichen sclerosus should however be treated according to clinical  guidelines.[10] At least one controlled trial has confirmed that topical  steroids will effectively treat "BXO" in a percentage of cases.[11] A  greater number of less rigorous studies have shown that potent topical  steroids are effective for phimosis involving lichen sclerosus.[12-17]  The percentage effectiveness appears to be directly related to the potency of the steroid used. A success rate of 70% has been reported by Jorgensen for clobetasol diproprionate.[12]  

Three recent studies undermine the Law Commission's argument for  stating that circumcision is not, by their definition based on reducing  sexual pleasure, a mutilation.[18-20] Decreased sexual satisfaction  secondary to circumcision has been demonstrated in 17%,[18] 27%[19] and  38%[20] of patients. Moreover, since it comprises a wound under section  20 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, male circumcision's  lawfulness must be in serious doubt. Indeed it may arguably constitute  grievous bodily harm.  

Male circumcision would be ethical and appropriate only in cases of  severe preputial lichen sclerosus which do not respond to conservative  treatment; or in rare cases where the prepuce is irredeemably damaged due  to necrosis or malignancy. The time has come for medical associations to  caution their members that the removal of normal tissue from normal  unconsenting children is always unethical. The medical school curriculum  must urgently be updated to remove spurious clinical indications for this  outmoded form of treatment.  

References  

1. Fox M, Thomson M. A covenant with the status quo? Male  circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors. J Med Eth. 2005;  31(8):463﷓9.  

2. British Medical Association. The law and ethics of male  circumcision: guidance for doctors. London: BMA, 2003.  

3. Dewan PA, Tieu HC, and Chieng BS. Phimosis: is circumcision  necessary? J Paediatr Child Health. 1996;32(4):285﷓9.  

4. Berdeu D, Sauze L, Ha-Vinh P and Blum-Boisgard C. Cost- effectiveness of treatments for phimosis: a comparison of surgical and  medicinal approaches and their economic effect. BJU Int.  2001;87:239﷓244.  

5. Van Howe RS. Cost-effective treatment of phimosis. Pediatrics.  1998;102:E43.  

6. Little B, White M. Treatment options for paraphimosis. Int J Clin  Pract. 2005; 55(9):591﷓3.  7. No author identified. National guideline for the management of  balanitis. Sex Transm Infect. 1999; 75(Suppl 1):S85-8.  

8. Birley HDL, Walker MM, Luzzi GA, Bell R, Taylor-Robinson D, Byrne  M, Renton AM. Clinical Features and Management of Recurrent Balanitis;  Association with Atopy and Genital Washing. Genitourin Med. 1993; 69:400- 3.  

9. Hinchliffe SA, Ciftci AO, Khine MM, Rickwood AMK, Ashwood J,  McGill F, Clapham EM, van Velzen D. Composition of the inflammatory  infiltrate in pediatric penile lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (balanitis  xerotica obliterans): a prospective, comparative immunophenotyping study.  Pediatr Pathol. 1994; 14:223-233.  

10. Neill SM, Tatnall FM, Cox NH. Guidelines for the management of  lichen sclerosus. Br J Dermatol. 2002; 147:640-9.  

11. Kiss A, Csontai A, Pirot L, Nyirady P, Merksz M, Kiraly L. The  response of balanitis xerotica obliterans to local steroid application  compared with placebo in children. J Urol. 2001; 165(1):219-20.  

12. Jorgensen ET, Svensson A. The Treatment of Phimosis in Boys, with A Potent Topical Steroid (Clobetasol propionate 0.05%) Cream. Acta Derm  Venerol (stockh). 1993; 73(1):55﷓56.  

13. Pasieczny TAH. The treatment of balanitis xerotica obliterans  with testosterone propionate ointment. Acta Derm Venerol (stockh). 1977;  57:275-7.  

14. Dahlman-Ghozlan K, Hedbald MA, Von Krogh G. Penile lichen  sclerosus et atrophicus treated with clobetasol diproprionate 0:05% cream: a retrospective clinical and histopathalogical study. J Am Acad Dermatol.  1999; 40(3):451-7.  

15. Neuhaus IM, Skidmore RA. Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans and Its  Differential Diagnosis. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1999; 12(6):473-6.  

16. Poynter JH, Levy J. Balanitis xerotica obliterans: effective  treatment with topical and sublesional corticosteroids. Br J Urol. 1967;  39:420-5.  

17. Vincent MV, MacKinnon E. The response of clinical balanitis  xerotica obliterans to the application of topical steroid﷓based creams. J Pediatr Surg. 2005; 40(4):709-12.  

18. Masood S, Patel HR, Himpson RC, Palmer JH, Mufti GR, Sheriff MK.  Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we  informing men correctly? Urol Int. 2005; 75(1):62-6.  

19. Coursey JW, Morey AF, McAninch JW, Summerton DJ, Secrest C, White P, Miller K, Pieczonka C, Hochberg D, Armenakas N. Erectile function after anterior urethroplasty. J Urol. 2001; 166(6):2273-6.  

20. Fink KS, Carson CC, DeVellis RF. Adult Circumcision Outcomes  Study: Effect on Erectile Function, Penile Sensitivity, Sexual Activity  and Satisfaction. J Urol. 2002; 167(5):2113-6.

www.cirp.org has even more resources that show that studies toting benefits to circumcision are fatally flawed.  Don't make me resort to posting each one.

[karaokeboy]

mrdavesanchez said:

You know what. .shut the fuck you you little cunt. If you have penis problems don't take those issues out here.

"Smart People Rock" what the fuck is that about?

If you want to have a fucking discussion and you want to think then do so but don't be a fucking tool for your little campaign you seem to have here.

I didn't realize that you needed my approval so much.  I'm sorry!

What are you so upset about, honestly?  I haven't done anything to you.  Goodness, I was just thrilled that there was someone out there who understood a little.  Guess I can't be happy that someone else understands the issue I'm talking about?

Or do you call me a cunt because of something else?

I've tried to be decent.  Don't tell me that I haven't.

[mrdavesanchez]

karaokeboy said:

You would be better served to avoid sites that are set up by circumfetishists, as circinfo.net and circlist and others are. Don't believe me? Take a look at the perversion for yourself, but if you have a weak stomache, then just trust me on this one.
  
Circinfo.com is the homepage for the "International Circumcision Information Reference Centre" (ICIRC). Anyone that does considerable research into circumcision learns who the people are that create these "informational" websites for parents, and what their real motives are. It's not easy to trace the roots of this information, but there is a trail left by their actions that is impossible to deny. One of the benefits of the Internet is that information often stays, even after someone tries to delete it and cover their tracks.
  
On the circinfo.com website, you will see that it is owned by a group called The Gilgal Society ("The International Circumcision Information Reference Centre is sponsored by The Gilgal Society" from the circinfo.com home page). You can go to www.netsol.com and do a "whois" search on the Gilgal Society's homepage, another "informational" website, (www.gilgalsoc.org) and you will see that it is owned by a guy in the UK named Vernon Quaintance (this is public information, I am not saying anything that is confidential). You can confirm that this "vernon" is tied to IRCIRC/circinfo.com by googling this link from his personal webpage "http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~vernon/ICIRC". You will see that it used to link to the ICIRC page (the link has now been broken but it now forwards you to www.circinfo.com). BTW, "gilgal" means "circle" (as in "circumcision", which means to cut around in a circle). You can verify that this "vernon" is Vernon Quaintance by
   looking at his homepage here: http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~vernon.
   Now is where it starts to get interesting... Vernon also hosted a UK website called "The Acorn Society" http://www.users.dir.../~vernon/Acorn/. This link will automatically forward you to The Acorn Society's website at http://www.acornsoc.org.uk. This is another "informational" circumcision site, but there is a twist. It is also a circumsexual website. A "circumsexual" is someone that gets off sexually by the act of circumcising, watching circumcisions, performing circumcisions, looking at pictures of circumcisions, anything relating to circumcision. When they create these informational websites they are promoting their circumsexual fetishes. Many of the men involved undergo numerous circumcisions. Look at some of the articles in the Acorn publication: "Childhood Wish Fulfilled", "Penis Puppeteers", "A Well Cut ****", "In Love With Circumcision", "Long Awaited Second Circumcision", "Scar Line", "From The Other Side Of The Knife", "Circumcision Bonds Us Together", "Tall Oaks From Little Acorns Grow", "Doing It Yourself", "Celebrity Circumcision", "The History Boys", "Turkish Circumcision", "A Bargain Recut", "First Cut Is The Deepest", "Circumcision Mishaps", "My Background And Three Circumcisions", "Four Foreskins For Christmas, My Six Circumcisions - Part 1". These are just a few of the many circumsexual articles available by the creator/owner of circinfo.com. I think it is vital that parents understand the type of people that are out there promoting circumcision and what their real motives are. Parents that don't know how these wesites are all related have no idea behind the propaganda used to encourage the unnecessary circumcision of infant boys. Vernon is also a member of a prominent circumcision list where circumsexuals gather online daily.
  
  Circlist:
  
  WARNING NOT SAFE FOR WORK (OR ANYWHERE DECENT) http://www.icon.co.z...rcum/circum.htm
  
  Need I say more?
  
  I will:
  
  http://www.sexuallym...rg/fetish-c.htm
  
  There.
  
  Now, if you're interested in what doctors, scientists, and researchers have to say on the subject, I suggest reading their actual words.  You can get it straight from the horses' mouths at www.cirp.org , an online library of papers and publications dealing with circumcision.
  
  As for circumcision reducing penile cancer?  Give me a break.

It sounds like you have a fetish.. and not me. You are pushing Vernon for a run for his money.

[OldManRay]

mrdavesanchez said:

This article that was posted was posted for the belief that

*  There is no real medical benefit to circumcision

What I had posted was just one example of several examples of what people have found to be data-based reasons why circumcision has medical benefits....

By the way, Eric, your link didn't work for me so I couldn't read the material you were pointing to.

[karaokeboy]

mrdavesanchez said:

It sounds like you have a fetish.. and not me. You are pushing Vernon for a run for his money.

I didn't say you had a fetish.  I consider you (for the most part) a very normal person.

I don't have a fetish with foreskins.  Thanks anyway.  Being interested in protecting human rights doesn't make me sexually obsessed.

Besides, I don't think a fetish with foreskins is unnatural, no more so than a fetish with any other parts of sexual anatomy.  On the other hand, being obsessed with cutting off a body part is a bit unnatural, in my opinion.

[mrdavesanchez]

karaokeboy said:

I didn't realize that you needed my approval so much.  I'm sorry!

What are you so upset about, honestly?  I haven't done anything to you.  Goodness, I was just thrilled that there was someone out there who understood a little.  Guess I can't be happy that someone else understands the issue I'm talking about?

Or do you call me a cunt because of something else?

I've tried to be decent.  Don't tell me that I haven't.

Smart people rock??? What is that about????

You want to have a debate or promote your merits for an argument that is fine. Please do not be a jackass. You have completely lost all respect for you and your beliefs in my book.

And as far as the "Give me a break" argument about Penile Cancer. . . this is a disease with data. If you want data driven medicine then yes, this is important.

I think that my arguments have been fair and to the point. I do not think its unethical and I do not think it should become unlawful. I think its a choice that the parents should make together. I just do not like when lawyers make arguments for medical decisionmaking issues.  What is legal and what is ethical are two different studies.

[MurmursAdministrator]

mrdavesanchez said:

It sounds like you have a fetish.. and not me. You are pushing Vernon for a run for his money.

I quite agree. Why is a 17 year old so interested in this?

[mrdavesanchez]

karaokeboy said:

   Being interested in protecting human rights doesn't make me sexually obsessed.

Circumcision is a parental issue and not a human rights issue. If you were circumsized, yell at mom and pop. It would be ridiculous to decide to permanently make circumcision illegal based on its religious and cultural implications because your lack of tolerance would make you a bit of a racist.

[mrdavesanchez]

Claiming that there are human rights issues with Circumcision is offensive to anyone that is Jewish. (And that is just the start really). I think Muslims are circumsized as well... (but I might be wrong about that).

If you want to have a choice that is fine, but do not force that choice on me or wave the "Human Rights" choice in my face. . .