Court stops circumcision.

Potential health benefits of fgm.

It shouldn't be painful, if it is then it's time to visit the GP.

With my eyes?

A dirty vagina is a hygiene issue but a dirty penis is a foreskin issue?

Is removing the clitoris the only type of fgm that's illegal? What about labia removal?

So, to clarify, do you think that the negligable (and contested) health benefits justify non-essential circumcision - especially considering the risks; death, infection, disfigurement, reduced sensitivity, post-op discomfort and psychological issues. And the ethical issue - mutilating the genitals of an infant!

Moreover, the STI argument is a red herring, because people engaging in sex with partners with unknown sexual history must use condoms - thus rendering any marginal risk reduction of circumcision meaningless. In fact, the commonly used claim that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting STIs could well lead to circumcised men not using a condom - which would far outweigh any negligable risk reduction.

And if it reoccurs after treatment, a circumcised is advised.

A painful infection is a foreskin issue yes, which is why men with persistent balantis may opt for circumcision.

The death/disfigurement and infection argument is weak, because complications can occur from all procedures, no matter how minor. When performed correctly, there is a very slim chance of a serious complication arising, especially in today's society, so this argument wouldn't be a deciding factor for me. Like I said before, I would probably allow my partner to make the decision, because I wouldn't care if my son is circumcised or not. I just don't see it as a big issue at all, but that's just me..
Reduced sensitivity is a subjective one. Nobody can know for certain whether circumcision will definitely result in reduced sensitivity. There have been studies conducted and the findings cannot necessarily be relied on because of the subjectivity.

The NHS website and World health organisation (WHO) have both stated that there aren't any benefits to FGM. I don't know of any studies conducted on FGM about benefits..

And if it reoccurs after treatment, a circumcised is advised.

What does a 'disgusting' vagina look like?

What is the benefit of a labia removal though?

The death/disfigurement and infection argument is weak, because complications can occur from all procedures, no matter how minor. When performed correctly, there is a very slim chance of a serious complication arising, especially in today's society, so this argument wouldn't be a deciding factor for me.

Like I said before, I would probably allow my partner to make the decision, because I wouldn't care if my son is circumcised or not. I just don't see it as a big issue at all, but that's just me..

Reduced sensitivity is a subjective one. Nobody can know for certain whether circumcision will definitely result in reduced sensitivity. There have been studies conducted and the findings cannot necessarily be relied on because of the subjectivity.

I know this, which is why I didn't mention anything about STDs.

On the odd occasion where my helmet has popped out in my pants, the discomfort has been almost unbearable. To be able to function normally, the sensitivity must be reduced. Hardly rocket science.

The point is: the risk is still there so why risk the life of your beloved son simply to carry out a procedure that is completely unnecessary?

On the odd occasion where my helmet has popped out in my pants, the discomfort has been almost unbearable. To be able to function normally, the sensitivity must be reduced. Hardly rocket science.

You just triggered me!!1!!

Flash back to my several weeks of walking like i'd **** myself whilst waiting for my helmet to desensitise after circumcision.

The risk of UTIs/penile cancer/foreskin related conditions such as balantis are also there so why risk the health and well being of your beloved son?

Masturbation must be a pain in the ass

I'm not implying that -- that's exactly what I've said. 'It has health benefits because I said it has health benefits' is no better an argument than 'Santa exists because I said he exists.' If that wasn't an accident, then I do worry that much of your time in D&CA is wasted by definition.

So, to clarify, do you think that the negligable (and contested) health benefits justify non-essential circumcision - especially considering the risks; death, infection, disfigurement, reduced sensitivity, post-op discomfort and psychological issues. And the ethical issue - mutilating the genitals of an infant!

Moreover, the STI argument is a red herring, because people engaging in sex with partners with unknown sexual history must use condoms - thus rendering any marginal risk reduction of circumcision meaningless. In fact, the commonly used claim that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting STIs could well lead to circumcised men not using a condom - which would far outweigh any negligable risk reduction.

The point is: the risk is still there so why risk the life of your beloved son simply to carry out a procedure that is completely unnecessary?

Its not subjective that breasts form from puberty and continue to develop. It's not subjective that a teenage girl undergoing a double masectomy would take around 4-6weeks to heal. It's not subjective that male circumcision in newborns would take around 5-10days to heal.
It is subjective that I don't view circumcision to be some kind of horrific procedure. That's my opinion. Just like you have your opinion..

I've clearly explained why I don't view FGM as equivalent to circumcision. I'm not repeating myself.

lol are you kidding "risk the life" I know that you've seen stats posted about the death rate if not on this thread, others, it's something like 0-2% fgs, stop making bullsh1t arguments.
even crossing the road has a death risk.

...are you kidding? are you actually not aware of the stupidity of your message?
you're saying that it's not subjective that it's a certain time that it takes to heal but the TIME ITSELF IS THE SUBJECTIVE PART ALTOGETHER -_- the objective part is the PAIN. and the lack of consent! jesus christ.

Because crossing the road is the same as cutting off part of a human being's body.

okay well it's not, but I'm not saying it is. I'm saying your point is stupid because the death rate is so tiny and there are loads of procedures with way higher death rates.

Ethics argument is valid but that's not the point you were making in that, so don't bring that up now when I was talking about death rate.

bolded: studies have shown otherwise lol.

Got some links?

earlier on this thread.