Amazon.com Widgets
  • It is a matter of opinion.

    In My opinion, circumcision is healthier, but then, I am a woman, so I don't know firsthand. However, i do have two sons and I had them both circumcised. Boys don't tend to properly wash when they are young. (no offense) They don't don't to pull back the foreskin and wash, and then bacteria gets into the area and starts to smell bad. There have been cases of men getting circumcised when they are older because of health reasons.

  • Islam argue circumcision

    Male Circumcision is a basic act in Islam, it is one of the major issues that differentiate Muslims from other. Like any other teaching of Islam, it was proven scientifically healthier. It reduces STDs by 50%. It lowers the inerobic bacteria on penis by 81%. Which may explain why it is a strategy to fight STDs.

  • Yes it is healthier long term

    Circumcision is healthier long term then not circumcised. It is shown that if you are not circumcised you have to work extra hard to keep clean and free from infection. A one time surgery when you are too young to remember is worth having an easier life dealing with infections.

  • Yes it is.

    Getting a circumcision is healthier for you then not getting one. It makes it much easier to clean as you do not have to focus as much on it. This makes it easier to prevent infections and many other things that could happen so obviously it is a lot more healthier.

  • Yes it is a hygeine issue.

    Yes, circumcision is healthier, because it is easier to keep a young boy clean. Without a circumcision, it is a lot easier for a boy's private areas to become dirty and infected. It says in the Bible that boys should be circumcised. God only put directions in the Bible that are healthy for us, so it is a good thing.

  • Circumcision is cleaner.

    Getting circumcised when you are young is a good decision because it will lead to a long term healthier life for your genitals. By removing the excess skin you will be able to clean easier and disallow any bacteria to start growing inside of the folds and causing issues down the line.

  • I don't believe so.

    I don't believe there are enough health benefits or evidence to justifying maiming a child in the name of hygiene or in the name of religion or cultural norms. It is really a barbaric ritual, particularly when done by rabbis rather than by a medical professional. One can simply wash themselves to stay clean. It should be the decision of an adult if they want to have this procedure done to them.

  • Less bacteria doesn't mean anything if you don't live through the procedure. And it is wrong in the first place.

    Babies are killed every year from the circumcision procedure. Not only is it putting your child at risk, you are taking away their right, and choice, of being circumcised. Coming from a circumcised, college student, I can't believe that I wasn't allowed to make this decision for myself. My parents should not have been allowed to have any part of my body cut off. Only I should be able to make that decision. There is no doubt that my rights were stepped on. Even for religious purposes, parents don't choose their children's religion.
    -Chase from Oklahoma

  • A washcloth before or after sex and a douche for the woman

    A wash cloth before and after sex or oral sex from a clean mouth are equally effective and leave the pleasure zones intact! Or castration! That would eliminate any kind of danger from that source!

    Http://www.Circumcisioncomplex.Com/fundamentals/

    http://eewiki.Newint.Org/index.Php/Is_male_circumcisionyou%3F_bad_for_

    Making it a taboo to compare male with female sexual mutilation is the biggest scandal of the controversy. In both instances the most sensitive and most erogenous zone of the human body is amputated and severely damaged. In both instances, what counts primarily is the cutting of human sexuality. The imposition of control by the patriarchy. A good look at a book on embryology will show the development of the nerves and tissue and how they are the same.

    What is lacking in all the talk about circumcision is discussion of its archeological dimension - that it is the left over of human sacrifice. What kind of god is it that demands that of an infant? If the Bris constitutes the identity of the male, what about the identity of a Jewish girl? Or is this an entirely homosexual ceremony?

    Http://analytic-comments.Blogspot.Com/2012/08/the-circumcision-debate-links-and.Html

    http://analytic-comments.Blogspot.Com/2012/10/michael-wolffsohns-foreskin-of-heart.Html

    Also, unfortunately it is / has been circumcision that has MADE for no end of anti-semitic sentiments. Freud found that it was the chief reason for unconscious anti-Semitism. And the myths surrounding it are at the core of the “blood libel.” Thus, it's time to eliminate the Brit Milah because if that is the chief reason for being anti-Semitic or anti-Abrahamic [Islam too practices the rite] then why hang on to this left-over of human sacrifice? That traumatizes the child, cutting off 5,000 nerves, that is the equivalent of female circumcision in the sense that it eliminates everything but the clitoris,and only serves the Ultra Orthodox to maintain their power? After all, reform Judaism sought to eliminate the rite in the 19th century, and Jewish identity depends on being born by a Jewish mother, or converting. Here a link to an archive of the entire German and then some debate, note especially Michael Wolffsohn's two pieces . Circumcision has been controversial also within Jewry forever.

    Http://www.Facebook.Com/mike.Roloff1?Ref=name

  • Human rights trump marginal/dubious "health benefits"

    There is no question that circumcision is not much healthier than intactness, since two billion men worldwide, including most of the developed world (just not most of the USA), manage perfectly well without it. The benefits claimed - debatable, slight reductions in always-rare diseases of late onset that can be readily prevented by other means or treated as they occur - are exaggerated when they are not completely bogus.

    Of far greater weight should be individual rights to autonomy of the person. Cutting part off a baby's penis affects not just the child but the man he is to become, lifelong. That man should be the only persons with any right to make such a significant decision about such an intimate matter.

    The foreskin is sexual tissue, and any man who has one will not dispute for a moment that it has an important role in his sexual functioning, just as the lips have an important role in kissing. Much of the "debate" on this issue is between the blinded and the blinded, men angry or glad to be lacking this organ, neither with first-hand knowledge of it. Men who still have it are virtually unanimous. We want to keep it!

  • It's an unnecessary risk

    There have been infants who wound up losing their penis because the circumcision went wrong. When you can simply teach your kid to wash themselves down there to keep it clean and when any AIDS prevention is insignificant if you have access to condoms there's no point. As for people getting them for health reasons as adults, similarly sometimes people have to have other things removed for health reasons. Maybe my baby will get pinkie cancer as an adult. Should I have the pinkie cut off while he's a baby so it will be less painful? That would actually make more sense than circumcision. The foreskin is sensitive skin that adds to sexual enjoyment. The pinkie doesn't really do much of anything. Even without it you can still grasp things as easily. It's just sort of there. But we still don't cut it off a baby just in case it will prevent health problems in the future.

  • Studies show it does not.

    The so-called "reduction of disease" from circumcision is so statistically insignificant that it is actually dwarfed by the complications OF circumcision.
    One in 100 boys will have a complication from the circumcision itself. The most common "prevention" from circumcision is a reduction in the incidence of urinary tract infections. Hover, since it only reduces it from 5 in 1000 boys to 2-3 in 1000 boys, that is less than the number of boys adversely affected by the procedure itself.

    Other developed nations do not circumcise, and yet they have no higher incidence of the diseases circumcision claims to prevent than we do- in fact, in many cases it is lower.

    The only time circumcision benefits is on adult males in regions like sub-Saharan Africa where cultural and religious issues keep them from using condoms. Not to mention the ridiculous nature of amputating a body part in order to prevent a disease that may or may not happen. LESS than 1 in 100 uncircumcised boys will have a condition that could have been prevented by circumcision. 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer in their lifetimes- should we now cut off their breasts preemptively? Should we remove the appendix just in case?

    Any "benefit" from circumcision is negated by washing the penis and using a condom- and you don't have to subject your infant son to a painful and unnecessary surgery.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.