Consider this

[noobcakes]

You guys are just as biased as those who prefer circumcision. imo

nocirc.org homepage:

- Only the USA circumcises the majority of newborn boys without medical or religious reason.

Not very valid - if you claim there is no medical benefit to circumcision, why is this an argument at all? You can't say there is no medical benefit to circumcision and then argue that most circumcisions are bad because of no medical reason. ffs

- Circumcision denies a male's right to genital integrity and choice for his own body.

Removing the foreskin removes the male's right to keeping it just as much as keeping it denies the right to removing it. =\

[Aspie]

*YAWN* another day another sexist troll who thinks men and women should have different rights well go on now go troll somewhere else please unless you want to entertain us some more little one.

[Joseph]

You guys are just as biased as those who prefer circumcision. imo

It's not people against circumcision who are demanding doctors sew foreskins on babies to make them sexually appealing.


nocirc.org homepage:

- Only the USA circumcises the majority of newborn boys without medical or religious reason.

Not very valid - if you claim there is no medical benefit to circumcision, why is this an argument at all? You can't say there is no medical benefit to circumcision and then argue that most circumcisions are bad because of no medical reason. ffs

If you have a problem with something said on the nocirc page, that's probably where you need to be voicing your complaint.

And uh, I'm not exactly sure why you think the fact stated is not an argument.

Yes we CAN say that there are no medical benefits to circumcising an already healthy child (there aren't any), and yes, we CAN say that most circumcisions are bad because there isn't a medical reason (in a healthy child, which the majority of boys circumcised in the US are, there aren't).

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing circumcisions in healthy newborns. Much less presenting parents with any kind of "choice."

The circumcision of healthy, non-consenting children is medical FRAUD, it's a violation of basic human rights, and it happens at a grand scale in America.

- Circumcision denies a male's right to genital integrity and choice for his own body.

Removing the foreskin removes the male's right to keeping it just as much as keeping it denies the right to removing it. =\

How does this even begin to make any kind of SENSE?

Keeping your foreskin denies a man the right to remove it? There are quite a few men on here who chose to remove their foreskins, and later regretted it. An intact man can ALWAYS choose to go get circumcised if he wants. A circumcised man has to go through years of restoration if he wants to get any semblance of a foreskin back.

And, what is true for one sex, is true for the other. If removing a man's foreskin removes his rights to keep it, then it only follows that removing a woman's clitoris and/or labia removes her rights to keep it.

What absolute twaddle.

[Unregistered]

You guys are just as biased as those who prefer circumcision. imo


I would say more biased due to having absolutely no regard for medical and scientific input.

[Mincan]

Morons, it's about bodily integrity. You can always remove it, you can't get it back. Thus the default position must be to leave it alone to maintain the basic rights of the individual to autonomy.

[Aspie]

I would say more biased due to having absolutely no regard for medical and scientific input.

That is where your wrong quite a few intactavist are medical doctors, psychologist, psychiatrist, nurses, and so forth and on top of that there is a lot of research supporting our cause. Further more it wasn't that long ago oh about 40 years or so actually that some insurance companies still covered female circumcisions of minors like many insurance companies cover male circumcisions today and they did that in large part due to the medical literature at the time along with the attitude of the medical community towards female circumcision.

Also Mincan right on man right on what you said needs to be put on a bumper sticker or better yet made into a banner for the protest at the end of March.

[Joseph]

I would say more biased due to having absolutely no regard for medical and scientific input.

Would you regard "medical" or "scientific input" when considering female circumcision?

Didn't think so.

Maybe people against FGM are just "biased" like we are, too.

[Unregistered]

That is where your wrong quite a few intactavist are medical doctors, psychologist, psychiatrist, nurses, and so forth and on top of that there is a lot of research supporting our cause. Further more it wasn't that long ago oh about 40 years or so actually that some insurance companies still covered female circumcisions of minors like many insurance companies cover male circumcisions today and they did that in large part due to the medical literature at the time along with the attitude of the medical community towards female circumcision.

Also Mincan right on man right on what you said needs to be put on a bumper sticker or better yet made into a banner for the protest at the end of March.

*YAWN*

[Joseph]

Morons, it's about bodily integrity. You can always remove it, you can't get it back. Thus the default position must be to leave it alone to maintain the basic rights of the individual to autonomy.

When something is a basic human rights violation, it doesn't matter how much "medical" or "scientific input" you have.

If it's wrong, it's wrong.

Let's gather "medical" or "scientific input" on say, female circumcision.

Feet binding.

Maybe there are "medical benefits" to slashing your kids' foreheads open on the day of Ashura.

Let's do a "study" on that.

Skull trephination.

If there are "medical benefits," then there's no reason why doctors shouldn't be making money doing it to babies, right?

[Unregistered]

Would you regard "medical" or "scientific input" when considering female circumcision?

Didn't think so.



Yes I would. Fortunately, ALL the input is against FGM.

[Joseph]

*YAWN*

Non-argument...

[Joseph]

Yes I would. Fortunately, ALL the input is against FGM.

Uh, actually, no it's not.

You're just "ignoring" it, that's all.

;)

[Unregistered]

Uh, actually, no it's not.

You're just "ignoring" it, that's all.

;)

Ok. Feel free to provide me a study of the medical benefits then. I would love to see this official input from the medical community.

[Joseph]

Why do you want it?

So you can use your biased views to say "duh, no, that's not true..."?

[Joseph]

The studies I will provide also aren't recognized, and rightly so:

No one in the right mind looks at the "medical benefits" of genital mutilation...

That is, only FEMALE genital mutilation...

[Joseph]

WHO'S "biased?"

;)

[Unregistered]

Why do you want it?

So you can use your biased views to say "duh, no, that's not true..."?

Actually, I would like you to provide it to prove that it exists. You say that it does. So I want to see it, as I have not seen any official suggestion that benefits exist to FGM.
So Joseph. I asked for it, can you deliver?

I'm guessing, no.

[Joseph]

Well, there has already been a study on FGM and HIV, and it suggests that FGM could also be taken as a "precautionary step." The Stallings study can be accessed right here:

http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

And, as if that weren't enough, it seems that there's also a "study" that suggests that FGM, beautifully re-coined as "labiaplasty" here, can actually HELP woman's sexual satisfaction, even her partner's:

http://www.labiaplastysurgeon.com/labiaplasty-clinical-study.html

From the site:
- The study found an overall satisfaction rate of 97.2% for women undergoing labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction,
- An overall satisfaction rate of 83% in women having a vaginal tightening procedure (vaginoplasty/perineoplasty), and 91.2% for women combining both “outer” and “inner” work.
- The clinical study also cited data specifically regarding improvement in sexual satisfaction with 92.8% of women having both experienced improvement in their sexual satisfaction.
- The data also revealed that those women undergoing vaginal tightening (vaginoplasty) reported an estimated 82.2% overall improvement in their partner’s sexual satisfaction as well.

By the logic of the African AIDS research we can justify mass FGM campaigns.

But where is the WHO in its concern for measures against the HIV calamity in Africa? Where's the CDC?

[Joseph]

Not that my stance will ever change on FGM, but his study shows that victims of even the worst type of FGM, namely infibulation, still experience orgasms.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118496293/abstract

This is telling because human rights advocates always claim that FGM removes all sexual sensation from a woman.

COMPLETE BS.

[Joseph]

Actually, I would like you to provide it to prove that it exists. You say that it does. So I want to see it, as I have not seen any official suggestion that benefits exist to FGM.
So Joseph. I asked for it, can you deliver?

I'm guessing, no.

Watch you completely say "der... duh... what study?"

;)

[Joseph]

The bottom line is this:

All of the "studies" in the world would not be enough to justify FGM.

They never ARE.

When something is a basic human rights violation, "studies" are irrelevant.

"Science" will NEVER vindicate female genital cutting in baby girls. EVER.

So why is "science" an object for mutilating baby boys?

[Joseph]

Watch it... here it comes...

[Unregistered]

Ha. You're going to have to do a little better than a single study where they 'are not sure', and a link to a cosmetic surgeon to help women who have had multiple children.

Any evidence on infant FGM? That is after all, what we are talking about right? Not adult voluntary circumcision.

[Joseph]

BWAAH HAH HAH HAH!!!

Bottom line.

Recognizing "studies" that only suit YOUR cause while dismissing those that devastate it:

BIASSS!!!!

Watch who you point that "bias" finger at.

:D

[Unregistered]

You love replying to yourself. Do you always post about 5 times in a row?
Do you have a life outside of this place?

[Joseph]

Any evidence on infant FGM? That is after all, what we are talking about right? Not adult voluntary circumcision.

IN-teresting you mention that; most, if not all of the BS studies being used today to favor infant circumcision were all carried out on ADULTS...

:rolleyes:

[Unregistered]

Ha ha ha.

I don't think you do.

You are a sad individual. I actually feel sorry for you, having to spend your day in a forum like this.

[Dasher]

Yes I would. Fortunately, ALL the input is against FGM.

That's because there's no clitoris industry to make billions from it. Boys are not so lucky; their foreskins are in big demand. Including by that giant pharmaceutical company in Switzerland, where circumcision is illegal, or soon will be.

Don't you trolls have anything better to do than promote male genital mutilation with your phony scientific claims?

[Joseph]

You love replying to yourself. Do you always post about 5 times in a row?
Do you have a life outside of this place?

Ooh! The ad-hominem remarks!

Had to use 'em SOME-time...

:D

Let's see... my reply... though I really shouldn't... oh but it's too good!

A life outside this place...

Quoth the idiot who takes the time to come into a RESTORER'S forum to try and fight them...

BWAAAAAHAAAHAAA!

Be a good example and show us what someone with a life does...

:rolleyes:

[Joseph]

Ha ha ha.

I don't think you do.

You are a sad individual. I actually feel sorry for you, having to spend your day in a forum like this.

Don't feel so bad... YOU'RE in here aren't you?

;)

[admin]

- Only the USA circumcises the majority of newborn boys without medical or religious reason.

Not very valid - if you claim there is no medical benefit to circumcision, why is this an argument at all?

It is only given as a notice to people who think "EVERYBODY does it" is a justification to keep doing it.

- Circumcision denies a male's right to genital integrity and choice for his own body.

Removing the foreskin removes the male's right to keeping it just as much as keeping it denies the right to removing it.

That's simply false. HE can always remove it when HE chooses.

Quoting the most recently revised national policy on male circumcision (Holland's): KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications.

http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

Read the policy (it's in English). You'll see there is no denial of potential benefits found in "studies." As weak and conflicting and irrelevant to infants as they are, they are not deemed to merit over-riding the child's right to bodily integrity and autonomy.

[Joseph]

Yeah, I'm closing this thread...

Not going anywhere, just degenerates into non-related flame throwing...

If you have so many better things to do, oh "anonymous," why don't you go and do them?