Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Is circumcision child abuse?
18467 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Pa, USA
Offline
Posted 6/3/12
Well, after much debate, I got my son circumcised soon after birth. I went back and forth throughout my pregnancy thinking about the pain inflicted and whatnot but ultimately it came down to me wanting him to not be made fun of over something stupid in grade school /high school. Let me say I live in the USA, where it is fairly commonplace to be circumcised. I also remembered one guy I dated saying that he always felt weird in gym class as a kid due to not being circumcised, which made me even more thoroughly confused over what to do. But yeah, it the end, I got my son "snipped" if you will.
Selden 
13075 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Ered Gorgoroth
Offline
Posted 6/3/12 , edited 6/3/12
@Shinto-Male:

Women contract more UTI's than men for multiple reasons. Pointing that out does not do anything to counter my previous statement, it just shows us that women are more likely to contract UTI's. Uncircumcised men will still have less of a chance contracting a UTI than a female largely because of the placement of the urethra in relation to the anus, but that doesn't address my point either, it is just a fact.

the post-circumcision UTI during childhood article is a given. Any form of cutting or piercing will result in a high chance of a slight infection like a UTI; we don't have completely sterile environments. That's illustrated by the non-physician performed circumcisions getting more UTI's (most likely performed in a less sterile environment). A one time UTI versus running a higher chance of contracting multiple UTI's throughout your life is preferable to most people. The article which takes place amongst Jewish neonates only record post-circumcision events in infants, not life-time UTI problems. In other words they're recording the infection rate post-surgery for this procedure, much like hospitals do on a regular basis for certain procedures to see how clean their facility is. It doesn't counter my initial statement.

I am all for breastfeeding children due to the numerous benefits found in a mother's breast milk. The milk has been found to be slightly unique for each child, which is truly remarkable, and it has many immuno-building components to it. However, again, this article only deals with infants, and not the overall life time of a human male circumcised and not circumcised. It doesn't even deal with circumcision, and is a red herring in this debate. The article is a great, however, and I'll probably end up using it when I defend breast feeding over formula to mother's.

It doesn't matter if they usually break only if used improperly, they can still break, and therefore aren't the answer to every type of sexually related disease. Being tested for STDs is the best way, along with practicing sanitary sex. Most STD's have multiple vectors of transmission also, so a condom won't stop those forms of transmission. Condoms are decent at birth control, and have the ability to stop STDs from transmitting via sexual intercourse, but they aren't the greatest at either.
2267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/12
so why is that women are told to take antibiotics and practice good hygiene while men are told to chop off their genitals even with they are less likely to get UTI? half of all women will get UTIs. don't you think that's hypocritical? asking one gender to cut their genitals while giving the other antibiotics and told to wash their genitals is hypocrisy and FYI women's vulva's and area are more prone to infection than men. yet men are being constantly told to cut their genitals. UTIs are treatable without surgery.


Changes in vaginal pH make women more susceptible to infections

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100218/Changes-in-vaginal-pH-make-women-more-susceptible-to-infections.aspx








Selden 
13075 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Ered Gorgoroth
Offline
Posted 6/3/12 , edited 6/3/12
Circumcision is not castration (the chopping off of genitals). It is the peeling back of the foreskin on the penis, which is only part of the male sex organ. UTIs are not the only reason to be castrated, as I mentioned before as well.

Women are told to use antibiotics because circumcision for them is drastically different from male circumcision, and doesn't improve overall health of the urethral area (it also can also make sexual intercourse difficult and rather painful for females). Neither of these problems occur in males. The use of antibiotics for UTIs are when they are serious *bacterial* infections, otherwise I would say they are not needed and only promotes antibiotic resistance and causes MDR proliferation, or are completely useless if the infection is not bacterial and can only do harm (see reasons above).

I stated multiple times that women are more susceptible to UTIs, and have addressed above why women should not be circumcised, and that circumcision is not the mutilation of male genitalia. Mutilation implies destruction, where as this is a simple cut and then peeling back. Men should wash their penis as well after urination if need be (if there is dripping), it's good hygiene.

Circumcision is not a surgery *for* UTIs. It helps *prevent* UTIs, along with the other benefits aforementioned.

Yes, yes it does. That's thanks to bacteria reacting differently in different PH levels. E. Coli and other transient enterobacters that can help cause a UTI enjoy a different PH level than what is normal in the vaginal area and the skin.
2267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/12

Circumcision is not castration (the chopping off of genitals). It is the peeling back of the foreskin on the penis, which is only part of the male sex organ. UTIs are not the only reason to be castrated, as I mentioned before as well.


the foreskin is an integral part of the penis. it is there for a reason. it keeps the glands moist, andkeep out dirt and other matte and pevents it from drying out, keratinized and dessicated(a sight seen in pictures of circed penises) pathogens can enter the circumcision wound into the blood stream. a fact that the pro-circ always ignore




Women are told to use antibiotics because circumcision for them is drastically different from male circumcision, and doesn't improve overall health of the urethral area (it also can also make sexual intercourse difficult and rather painful for females). Neither of these problems occur in males. The use of antibiotics for UTIs are when they are serious *bacterial* infections, otherwise I would say they are not needed and only promotes antibiotic resistance and causes MDR proliferation, or are completely useless if the infection is not bacterial and can only do harm (see reasons above).


yes because in the pro-circ world only women have the right to keep their genitals the way they are born with. men don't have the right women are told to wash their genitals frequently and practice healthy living


I stated multiple times that women are more susceptible to UTIs, and have addressed above why women should not be circumcised, and that circumcision is not the mutilation of male genitalia. Mutilation implies destruction, where as this is a simple cut and then peeling back. Men should wash their penis as well after urination if need be (if there is dripping), it's good hygiene.



cutting off healthy, funtional foreskin from males is mutilation. the foreskin is there for a reason


tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.





Circumcision is not a surgery *for* UTIs. It helps *prevent* UTIs, along with the other benefits aforementioned.


even after you admitted than women have higher rates of UTI than men and women's genitals are more prone to infection you insist on calling for cutting males. don't you think there is something wrong with this picture? this is nothing more than dehumanizing males. stop asking us men to cut our genitals. give us the same rights that women have to keep our genitals we are born with.

health benefits are excuses. the first excuse for medical circumcision is to prevent masturbation. this started in the 1860s and since then many excuses are invented. the current latest one is the claim of reducing the cases of prostate cancer. i am looking forward to the new excuse they will invent






Selden 
13075 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Ered Gorgoroth
Offline
Posted 6/3/12
The foreskin can also trap dirt and other particles leading to infection. It's a double edged sword. Pathogens can only enter the incision at a very early time, like I've said before. A month or so after circumcision the penis is fine and not prone to infection due to the incision. A dessicated or keratinized penis is not caused by circumcision, nor does it increase the chance of either of these, but is a problem due to improper hygiene or the side effect of an autoimmune problem or possibly an STD.

No, not at all. Read the literature on why women should not be circumcised if you don't believe me, but it is an evident health issue with them. There is no "right" given to women and not men, it's not a law that circumcision must happen to a man in most countries. I'm not sure why it's such a personal issue with you, and I'm sorry if you were circumcised and hate it, but really, I don't think there is a huge problem with either like I first said.

1. circumcision is not crippling to the sexual function of a male.
2. There is no damage (reduce the value or usefulness of) caused to the sexual organ by circumcision.
3. The penis is not perfect either uncircumcised or circumcised.

I was calling on the benefits of circumcision. In my first post I said I really don't care either way, because either option is valid. I took a stance in giving the benefits for it because you seem so militant and offended at the very idea of circumcision I was attempting to show you that it's not as terrible as you're saying, though it's not as helpful as it was once thought. I'm not asking people to get circumcised, and it's not really dehumanizing if you think about it. Castration? Yes, that's dehumanizing if someone is forced to be castrated, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that being circumcised is dehumanizing. I'm all for rights, so if there's some plight in your country that is forcing males to be circumcised, I'm all for you wanting to be able to no be circumcised if you or your parents choose it for you.

Health benefits aren't excuses, I'm not sure where you've found anything that has proven that circumcision does absolutely nothing. Circumcision has been going around since before the rise of Rome. I'm not sure where you're getting the whole "it started in 1860", but that's false information unless the article is saying it rose to popularity in Europe during that time or something along those lines. You can be militant about it if you want, but I'm just saying they both have pros and cons, and I was attempting to show you the benefits of circumcision opposed to not being circumcised.
2267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/12 , edited 6/3/12

The foreskin can also trap dirt and other particles leading to infection. It's a double edged sword. Pathogens can only enter the incision at a very early time, like I've said before. A month or so after circumcision the penis is fine and not prone to infection due to the incision. A dessicated or keratinized penis is not caused by circumcision, nor does it increase the chance of either of these, but is a problem due to improper hygiene or the side effect of an autoimmune problem or possibly an STD.



a woman's genitals also trap dirt and other particles that lead to infections . i and other uncircumcised men have no problem rolling back the foreskin and cleaning the area underneath and replacing the skin back to it's original position that only takes a few seconds.


care of the uncut male


http://www.cirp.org/library/hygiene/


When does the foreskin become retractable?

There is no "right" time for the foreskin to become retractable. Two things must happen before the foreskin becomes retractable and each usually takes many years.1

The fusion between the glans penis and the inner surface of the foreskin must become separate.
The narrow tip that prevents retraction must become large enough in diameter to permit retraction.

The time varies widely from individual to individual. Complete separation of the foreskin from the glans may not occur until after puberty.1 20 About 44 percent of boys have a fully retractable prepuce by age 10, by age 16, 90 percent, by age 18, 99 percent.1
Care before puberty

No special care is necessary.7 14

The infant male has a non-retractile self-cleaning foreskin. In most boys no preputial space exists because the foreskin is fused with the glans penis.7 The tip of the foreskin is flushed out several times a day by sterile urine. The protective functions of the foreskin work best if it is left alone and not disturbed.

Parents and caregivers should wash only the outside.7 10 No attempt should be made to retract the foreskin.10 14 15 "Leave it alone" is good advice.7 8 Only the child will know when his foreskin can be retracted without pain and trauma,10 so the first person to retract the foreskin should be the child himself.14 15 20

The foreskin protects the glans penis from the ammonia that is formed by chemical action in the diaper (nappie). One may see some redness of the foreskin from exposure to ammonia while an infant is still in diapers (nappies).15 Frequent diaper changes may prevent this. In severe cases, a protective barrier ointment may be necessary.16 20

In older boys the foreskin may be retractable. Older grammar school boys may be taught to retract their foreskin,7 14 20 rinse the area, and return the foreskin to its normal forward protective position.15 20 If the foreskin is non-retractile, there is no cause for concern. Only the outside needs to be washed.7 10

When visiting the doctor, the doctor should be instructed that the child's foreskin is not to be touched or retracted.10 Parents should remain with the child and physically protect the child from a possible forcible premature retraction by the physician.10
Care after puberty

If the foreskin has not been retractable before puberty, it usually becomes retractable when puberty is complete.1 7 10 15 20

The foreskin keeps the mucosal surfaces moist, emolliated, and maintains optimum health,10 while preventing drying, and keratinization of the mucosa.17 The sub-preputial moisture contains pathogen-fighting substances.17

Washing becomes more important for the sexually active adult male.7 15 After washing, the foreskin should be returned to its normal forward protective position.15 20 If the individual is a smoker, washing removes carcinogens that may be excreted in urine.13 Also, washing removes any accumulation of HPV, the viral carcinogen.
Excessive washing and the use of soap

Apparently, a few adult males wash under their foreskin quite frequently with the use of soap.12 We cannot define excessive washing, but over washing can deplete the natural oils from the mucosa of the inner lining of the foreskin that covers the glans penis.12 Depletion of natural oils causes non-specific dermatitis (NSD) that may be mistaken for balanoposthitis.12 Excessive washing and the use of soap generally should be avoided15 because it may cause balanoposthitis or yeast overgrowth. If soap is used, any residual soap should be rinsed away before the foreskin is returned to its forward protective position.
Penile hygiene for the adult male with a non-retractable foreskin

In one to two percent of males, the foreskin does not spontaneously become retractable. The swirling of the sterile urine under the foreskin usually keeps that area free of smegma buildup.2 Nevertheless, a non-retractile foreskin is listed as a risk factor for penile cancer in the adult male, apparently because removal of HPV and tobacco carcinogens may not be fully accomplished.12 Adult males who have a non-retractile foreskin (phimosis) should consider having their foreskin made retractable. See phimosis for options. Circumcision should be avoided because of pain, trauma, loss of erogenous tissue, and diminished erectile function. If desired, adult males with a non-retractile foreskin may irrigate and flush the sub-preputial cavity with a rubber bulb syringe. Some men healthily and happily live their entire lives with a non-retractile foreskin.15




A dessicated or keratinized penis is not caused by circumcision,


here are pictures showing circ on the left and uncircumcised to the right


notice the circumcised ones are rough looking and notice how dried up it looks

to the right is the naturally uncut notice how smooth the glands is.


warning not safe for work

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yVQUvFQapVE/TliZpff8l7I/AAAAAAAAB8U/6NLCxIWZmRQ/s640/cutintact02.jpg


1. circumcision is not crippling to the sexual function of a male.

2. There is no damage (reduce the value or usefulness of) caused to the sexual organ by circumcision.]

3. The penis is not perfect either uncircumcised or circumcised.



a recent study in Denmark show that circumcision reduce sexual pleasure another earlier study in New Zealand show that women with circumcised partners are less satisfied sexually, find it hard to reach orgasms and report higher incidents of vagina dryness



CONCLUSIONS:

Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21672947






No, not at all. Read the literature on why women should not be circumcised if you don't believe me, but it is an evident health issue with them. There is no "right" given to women and not men, it's not a law that circumcision must happen to a man in most countries. I'm not sure why it's such a personal issue with you, and I'm sorry if you were circumcised and hate it, but really, I don't think there is a huge problem with either like I first said.


it is hypocrisy for calling to cut men and not women and no i am not circumcised i am tired of reading the news and constantly see news stories with BS medical excuses for circumcision women are told to practice good hygiene, see a doctor when they get an infection, etc while men constantly told to cut their organs and dehumanized and censored by the pro-circ lobby when they object. the latest excuse is prostate cancer. women have issue with pro FGM groups and get angry when folks advocate FGM. I as a man have issues with male genital mutilation



was calling on the benefits of circumcision. In my first post I said I really don't care either way, because either option is valid. I took a stance in giving the benefits for it because you seem so militant and offended at the very idea of circumcision I was attempting to show you that it's not as terrible as you're saying, though it's not as helpful as it was once thought. I'm not asking people to get circumcised, and it's not really dehumanizing if you think about it. Castration? Yes, that's dehumanizing if someone is forced to be castrated, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that being circumcised is dehumanizing. I'm all for rights, so if there's some plight in your country that is forcing males to be circumcised, I'm all for you wanting to be able to no be circumcised if you or your parents choose it for you.



they are excuses and there are big business interests which benefits from infant male circumcisions

The $140-million foreskin
How San Diego biotech benefits from circumcision

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-7356-the-$140-million-foreskin.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/17/EDVU1KAUOE.DTL




Health benefits aren't excuses, I'm not sure where you've found anything that has proven that circumcision does absolutely nothing. Circumcision has been going around since before the rise of Rome. I'm not sure where you're getting the whole "it started in 1860", but that's false information unless the article is saying it rose to popularity in Europe during that time or something along those lines. You can be militant about it if you want, but I'm just saying they both have pros and cons, and I was attempting to show you the benefits of circumcision opposed to not being circumcised.



yes they are excuses this has been going on in the last 100 years first it's masturbation, mental illness, penile cancer, cervical cancer, penile cancer. UTIs, HIV/STDs and now prostate cancer

and i said MEDICAL EXCUSES for circumcision started in the 1800s to stop boys from masturbating. for the last 140 years new excuses constantly popping up. do some research on the history of circumcision in the U.S.A



John Harvey Kellogg MD (1852-1943) publishes the first edition of "Plain facts for old and young: embracing the natural history and hygiene of organic life", in which child (but not infant) circumcision is promoted to "cure" masturbation.







Selden 
13075 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Ered Gorgoroth
Offline
Posted 6/3/12 , edited 6/3/12
Yes. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. There are very valid reasons women do not get circumcised and that it is frowned upon nearly unanimously, while with men there are benefits to both circumcision and not being circumcised. That's the last time I'm saying either of those things.

I've seen multiple images of both circumcised and uncircumcised males and females, and the image you showed me of the circumcised penis is not dessicated or keratinized. Is it as moist as the other? No, but it is not a medical worry.

Hmmm, I never researched orgasms relating to circumcision, so that's an interesting article you posted, I'll read it thoroughly later and do some research for myself before I make a direct correlation between the two.

See my first paragraph in this reply. So how would you fix this circumcision plight? As a man I say they can do whatever they want. I was circumcised as a child. I'm not freaked out that it happened. I would have rather not been circumcised if I was given a choice (natural is the natural path for me), but I don't really sweat it because it was out of my control. Just like I don't freak out my parents gave me allopathic medicine as a child.

Indeed there are. I don't agree with them, and I acknowledge the fact that there are companies pushing circumcision as a money industry, just like chemotherapy. The difference is until circumcision is shown to definitely have a serious effect on the life of the patient, I don't see a problem with it.

Uncircumcised males do have a greater likelihood of contracting certain illnesses regarding the penis. I'm not saying it's horrendous therefore everyone should be circumcised. I'm saying there is a valid reason for people to get their child circumcised, or for an adult to want to get circumcised. Medical issues and circumcision date back to the Egyptians, so again, that's way earlier than the 1800's.

I personally am in total agreement with the last image posted. I know not everyone is though, and again, if someone wants to have their child circumcised or if someone wants to be circumcised because they would rather have the benefits of circumcision (and take the cons) instead of leaving their child alone (and have the benefits and cons of uncircumcision), let them. I would like parents to put serious thought on the matter before deciding of course. I personally would probably not have my child circumcised, but I'll probably never have children, so I haven't thought on it too much.
Posted 6/6/12 , edited 6/6/12
It is not child abuse, it is responsible.

Bacteria Is also less likely to grow due to overlapping skin where moisture accumulates.

Not to mention sex is probably less physically awkward.

Women are exposed to many more physical alterations than men. Just an example here, I know this thread is NOT about BC: but how likely is it that your boyfriend or husband will use condoms for the rest of your lives? Not likely, the woman typically has to undergo tube ties, or hysterectomies. If not that, birth control with affiliated health risks.
Posted 6/6/12 , edited 6/6/12



I disagree with this graph, maybe some men have difficulties sure. If it is done correctly, skin elasticity stays tolerable, and makes for fully sexually capable men. I also believe It is more pleasurable for women with circumcised partners, sex needs friction.
12223 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / California
Offline
Posted 6/6/12


So true. Note the 'PRESSING' medical need, not the phantom threat of diseases that may or may not manifest under mysterious circumstances later on.
2267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/6/12 , edited 6/6/12

It is not child abuse, it is responsible.


cuting healthy genitals from non consenting children is mutilation it's not responsible


Bacteria Is also less likely to grow due to overlapping skin where moisture accumulates.


a woman's vulva is also prone to bacteria and other infections good hygiene without cutting helps prevent infections most of the world's males are not circumcised and are not having problems with bacteria


Not to mention sex is probably less physically awkward.


and how do you know this? you live in America where most males are circumcised


Women are exposed to many more physical alterations than men. Just an example here, I know this thread is NOT about BC: but how likely is it that your boyfriend or husband will use condoms for the rest of your lives? Not likely, the woman typically has to undergo tube ties, or hysterectomies. If not that, birth control with affiliated health risks.


so men not using condoms is an excuse to cut males? men can also undergo vasectomies the woman don't have to tie her tubes or undergo hysterectomies



I disagree with this graph, maybe some men have difficulties sure. If it is done correctly, skin elasticity stays tolerable, and makes for fully sexually capable men. I also believe It is more pleasurable for women with circumcised partners, sex needs friction.



sex needs lubrication NOT friction. vaginal secretions naturally provide lubrication


THE NEW ZEALAND
MEDICAL JOURNAL
Vol 116 No 1181 ISSN 1175 8716 shield
Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm

While vaginal dryness is considered an indicator for female sexual arousal disorder,1,2 male circumcision may exacerbate female vaginal dryness during intercourse.3 O'Hara and O'Hara reported that women who had experienced coitus with both intact and circumcised men preferred intact partners by a ratio of 8.6 to one.4 Most women (85.5%) in that survey reported that they were more likely to experience orgasm with a genitally intact partner: `They [surveyed women] were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.88–40.77).' 4


http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1/



2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/7/12

shinto-male wrote:


It is not child abuse, it is responsible.


cuting healthy genitals from non consenting children is mutilation it's not responsible


Yes it is! It is the responsibility of the parents to decide what is best for the child, and studies have shown the circumcision offers a myraid of benefits.



Bacteria Is also less likely to grow due to overlapping skin where moisture accumulates.


a woman's vulva is also prone to bacteria and other infections good hygiene without cutting helps prevent infections most of the world's males are not circumcised and are not having problems with bacteria


And circumcised penises are great for spreading those bacteria to other women- don't tell me you want to infect other women and spread bacterial vaginosis amongst women.

http://www.circinfo.net/bacterial_vaginosis_in_women.html



Not to mention sex is probably less physically awkward.


and how do you know this? you live in America where most males are circumcised


There he goes again hating America.



Women are exposed to many more physical alterations than men. Just an example here, I know this thread is NOT about BC: but how likely is it that your boyfriend or husband will use condoms for the rest of your lives? Not likely, the woman typically has to undergo tube ties, or hysterectomies. If not that, birth control with affiliated health risks.


so men not using condoms is an excuse to cut males? men can also undergo vasectomies the woman don't have to tie her tubes or undergo hysterectomies


No, it is just an example to show that women routinely alter their body in much more dangerous ways than a man does with circumcision.




I disagree with this graph, maybe some men have difficulties sure. If it is done correctly, skin elasticity stays tolerable, and makes for fully sexually capable men. I also believe It is more pleasurable for women with circumcised partners, sex needs friction.



sex needs lubrication NOT friction. vaginal secretions naturally provide lubrication


THE NEW ZEALAND
MEDICAL JOURNAL
Vol 116 No 1181 ISSN 1175 8716 shield
Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm

While vaginal dryness is considered an indicator for female sexual arousal disorder,1,2 male circumcision may exacerbate female vaginal dryness during intercourse.3 O'Hara and O'Hara reported that women who had experienced coitus with both intact and circumcised men preferred intact partners by a ratio of 8.6 to one.4 Most women (85.5%) in that survey reported that they were more likely to experience orgasm with a genitally intact partner: `They [surveyed women] were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.88–40.77).' 4


http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1/





No, there is no conclusive evidence that circumcision affect either male or female pleasure, it's pure nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/7/12 , edited 6/7/12
To all the people who are against Circumcision: Why should something relatively minor as circumcision, something that is has not been shown conclusively detrimental to the development of the child or to the enjoyment of more carnal things, be assailled with such vehemence, that parents should not allowed to have such a surgery upon the child if they so choose, while things such as where the lad's to go to school, how he is to be raised, where he lives, etc., all of which far more important than a minor piece of skin, be devolved onto the parents without so much a thought?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/7/12 , edited 6/7/12

Morbidhanson wrote:



So true. Note the 'PRESSING' medical need, not the phantom threat of diseases that may or may not manifest under mysterious circumstances later on.


1. Children typically do not know what is best for themselves, which is why parents are allowed full authority on this issue. Thus the first question is irrelevent.

2. Children are not allowed freedom based upon wants, because what they want are not usually what is best for them, it is the job of the parents to decide what is best for the children, hence, parenting.

3.Preventative measures are done without any need of 'pressing medical need'- children have been vaccinated for various diseases that they are unlikely to encounter.

Therefore, the chart is full of shit.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.