Amazon.com Widgets

Is male circumcision beneficial and/or ethically sound?

  • Beneficial defiantly/ Ethical its just a piece of skin...

    Honestly I'm 22 years old come from the Midwest and I am uncircumcised. I feel that it is necessary to be circumcised. There are many benefits to being circumcised. First off it is cleaner, we can have this debate all day long with the same results. I wash on a daily basis and sometimes even more and still have a moist odor when I pull back my foreskin. My wife does not find the odor very attractive. I don't believe that your going to get HIV or a UTI because your uncircumcised but I do believe circumcised is cleaner. Second a circumcised penis is better looking if you were to ask my wife and I. The foreskin covers up the best looking part of the penis which is the head and sometimes has quite a bit of overhang which looks funny. Also if you are from the Midwest and uncircumcised be prepared to have funny looks in the locker room. According to a recent study 85% of boys are circumcised in the Midwest which means more than likely your son is going to be the lone ranger like I was. I also got the nickname flappy because of my uncircumcised penis which was quite embarrassing throughout high school. To recap I am uncircumcised and believe that infant boys should be circumcised because the penis looks nicer and is cleaner. I have yet to decide whether to get circumcised as an adult because of the pain and complications that can occur to an adult penis. But if we have a baby boy he will be circumcised.

  • Yes, I believe circumcision is beneficial.

    I don't see a problem with circumcision at all. It is much more hygienic, and prevents disease. I really can't think of a reason why it would be unethical. I believe that young men will appreciate having the procedure done when they were babies. The health benefits far out way any ethical concerns.

    Posted by: BriaBlacken
  • Save your son's life - circumcise.

    Some religions mandate circumcision of all males. It has been found in many medical journals that circumcision reduces the rate of sexually transmitted diseases for such males. This indirectly helps the females by reducing their risk of picking up the disease. It also reduces the men's' rate of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and other infections. The most powerful argument for circumcision is the 30% and higher reduction in AIDS rates for those who have had a circumcision. This benefit is higher than safe sex (which should still be practiced) and trial vaccines. Circumcise your son, and possibly save his life.

    Posted by: Pir4And
  • What harm does it do, that is my answer.

    Why does a male need to have more skin on his penis. It only gets in the way, and is harder to clean, so as a result there is no ethic behind it, its just a convenience to. Religion gives the choice to, if you do not believe in them. So for those born it is all about future considerations.

    Posted by: Bear
  • It is beneficial for keeping clean.

    Many people no longer have their babies circumcised because they feel it is unnecessary, or even "mutilation" of the body. However, it is minor surgery that is minimally painful and it can help in keeping clean. I don't feel that there is anything ethically wrong with it, and it should be the parents' choice.

    Posted by: N Schroeder 60
  • Male circumcision is both ethically sound and beneficial; the medical benefits have been verified by science.

    A male who has not been circumcised is known to experience a great deal of urinary tract infections due to the breeding of bacteria that is likely to grow in the folds of excess skin. Additionally, there is nothing abnormal about a circumcised penis, as some men are born naturally with the extra skin.

    Posted by: daveyxh
  • I am in favor of male circumcision, because it is not harmful to the males genital area or sexual performance.

    Circumcision is not harmful to a male. Whenever this decision is made, either at birth by the mother, or when the male becomes an adult, it does no harm. Having this procedure does not make the male unable to function any less than with an uncircumcised penis. Therefore, I believe this choice causes no harm and causes no conflicts.

    Posted by: RodFreak
  • Uncircumcised individuals are in risk of health problems which are only curable with a circumcision.

    Circumcision should not be enforced but should not be banned due to the health risk involved in not having the procedure for some individuals.

    Posted by: JamesonF
  • I don't feel that male circumcision is beneficial or ethical. Under what argument is it ethical or beneficial? Is there any evidence that a man's life will be any different?

    In essence, when it comes to the human body, there are many procedures that have religious or social foundations. In the Bible, it was imperative that men be circumcised because it represented a covenant. In today's society, religion is not even held with such high regard. Circumcision does not mean someone is ethical and it isn't necessarily beneficial.

    Posted by: QuinnFraser
  • I believe that it is beneficial because that it is easier to keep the penis cleaner if a man is circumcised.

    I think that being circumcised is a lot easier for a man to keep himself clean. I also knew someone that waited until they were 30 years old until he got circumcised. He said that it was very painful and he was very sore for three weeks after he has it done, but as stated above it was much simpler for him to keep it clean.

    Posted by: steinex81
  • Benifits Vs Risks

    Simple thing is the benifits of circumcision do not exist, they are all false truths. The risks of circumcision, on the other hand, are many and very real. Any religous reasons should not be arguments for circumcision as that would be saying stoning women to death is fine, religon says so.

  • I do not think that male circumcision is beneficial, because it is not necessary for good health.

    I am not against male circumcision, overall. I think it is up to the parents and/or man, himself, if it should be done. Therefore, I am not really sure how I feel about it ethically. That being said, I do not think it is necessary. Men can be healthy and clean, without having been circumcised.

    Posted by: BashfulEmil60
  • I feel that male circumcision is based solely on tradition.

    I don't know if I would consider circumcision an ethical decision, but I do feel that it is a decision based more on tradition, than it is a medical one. Having 5 boys of my own, not one doctor has said that it's actually beneficial, but rather done for vanity. I chose not to have my last 4 boys circumcised, and I'm glad to have made that decision.

    Posted by: FanaticalAvery71
  • I oppose male circumcision, as it has no true unique benefits, and it is a barbaric practice.

    Circumcision is a form of mutilation, because you are removing a piece of the body. Circumcised men are no cleaner than those who are not circumcised, and they have no other health benefits either. The studies showing reduced HIV/AIDS infection would show the same thing with any male that uses a condom. Which is also what all males should be using, if they are practicing safe sex with untested people anyway.

    Posted by: TMacias
  • There have been no proved medical benefits to male circumcision.

    Male circumcision started as a religious ritual/practice. It serves no other purpose than to "mark" a group of people. It in fact can cause health problems. The skin of the penis can become too tight and cause it to bend in an unnatural way and the skin of the gleans can become dry and rough. Male circumcision is about as ethical as female circumcision.

    Posted by: RayEar
  • I oppose circumcision, and I do not think it is ethically sound and beneficial.

    Most of the men that I know are not circumcised, and they live a normal life. I believe that they are as much likely to suffer any infections or other health problems related to intimate parts as the man who has been circumcised. So, I believe that since there is no significant difference whether a man is circumcised or not, circumcision is not a good choice. God made man like that, there is no need to change this part of tour body.

    Posted by: XmcRio
  • Male circumcision is not beneficial and/or ethically sound as there aren't many advantages.

    Male circumcision is not beneficial and/or ethically sound as there aren't many advantages. Hygiene can be taught to combat possible bacteria, etc., that might get caught in the foreskin. It can cause permanent damage to the boy and that should be an adult's decision towards his own body, not one his parents make for him.

    Posted by: H0bi3Invader
  • Making the decision to circumcise a baby boy is comparable to giving a baby girl collagen injections.

    There are some risks that come with deciding not to circumcise a child. However, they are limited, and the risks of getting the procedure done are just as bad, if not worse. Most parents who decide on the procedure do so without thinking about why, and without having any knowledge as to why it is even done. Most state medical plans no longer cover this procedure. This is due to the fact that it is considered a cosmetic procedure, and not medically necessary. Performing a painful procedure like that on a helpless child is cruel and unnecessary.

    Posted by: TownNoam
  • I oppose male circumcision, it's just another form of body mutilation.

    I believe male circumcision, especially as practiced today, is no more than body mutilation. The foreskin is a highly sensitive and important membrane, that both protects the penis and adds to sexual experience. By removing it, the male is deprived of an essential part of his human experience. What's more, the 'medical reasons' that are given for the necessity of this procedure are entirely unscientific and have been debunked not only by real science but generations of men. While it is true that infections can occur in the region, daily maintenance is all that is needed to prevent that. No different than exercise or any other chore we undertake to keep our body healthy.

    Posted by: R0II4Icy
  • Circumcision is unethical unnecessary

    In contrast to the other side of the isle. Intact. Men do not have odor. It's easy to keep the penis clean. Cutting off the sex organs of babies is totally wrong! Cutting anyone else's sex organs is always wrong. The function of the foreskin is to cover and protect the glans or penis head. It is filled with nerves. Lots of guys when erect the head is totally uncovered. Though the extra skin allows the penis to glide and self lubricate itself. You no longer have to use lube bought at the store. Mother nature put it there for all the right reasons. Only 30% of boy get cut, so your kids won't get looks in the locker room when they grow up. Women will become used to touching and how to play with a natural penis, one that's not cosmetic ally altered. Plus babies we know today feel pain from the moment they are born. I cannot imagine the pain of having your sex organs cut off without any anesthetic. Babies cannot be anesthetized cause they're too small.


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