It should be illegal for parents to have their children circumcisedPosted by: BblackkBbirdd
51 Total Votes
There's no negative to being circumcised. Many men are circumcised and couldn't care less.
The foreskin is ugly and I'm happy mine is gone! I don't want that weird disease!
@BblackkBbird Your a woman so how would you know anything about it?
Shadowpon - I like having feeling in my penis, you should try it out sometime OH WAIT YOU CAN'T.
@ Philocat Some aren't happy with it. What's wrong with allowing choice? Nobody is saying we should ban adult circumcision.
And smegma can be washed away. Just pull back the foreskin while you are in the shower. It's easy.
The point is that Jewish law requires circumcision on the 8th day. Jews are happy that they are circumcised on the 8th day. So let them have it, it's not your problem. Besides that, adult circumcision is a painful experience, but circumcised children won't remember their circumcision.
Shadowpon, are you saying I'm a troll? And Etagnard, when it comes to religion it's hard to say, but mutilating your child's penis because your religion told you so is still hurting your kid and taking away their freedom of choice.
Let the infant decide when he is older, I usually condemn this procedure
Its biblical, reasonable, and a huge pain to clean down there otherwise.
It's also painful, permanent and done without our consent.
@MasturDbtor, adult circumcision is generally more painful than infant circumcision. I find it odd how many people are saying that it shouldn't be done because it is unconsensual, but loads of things done to babies are unconsensual - vaccines, medicines etc... As long as something isn't harmful, such as circumcision, then the fact that it is unconsensual does not render it an immoral practice.
A having a vaccine in different from having part of your body removed.
The principle remains the same; it is a medical alteration of the body, it should not matter whether this is taking something away from the body or adding something into the body.
"It's also painful, permanent and done without our consent." If I only did what my child would consent to, he'd only have eaten cookies and juice ever, he'd still be pissing and crapping his pants, he'd never have gone to school, and he'd grow up to be an uneducated spoiled person.
"A having a vaccine in different from having part of your body removed." Changing your kid at a cellular level should in no way be viewed any different than circumcision except by the most narrow minded of individuals. They are both done for health reasons and only at the option of parents.
1. Vaccines prevent disease almost totally. Circumcision has a questionable and at most marginal health benefit. I did read about the studies in Africa on HIV prevention, and it seemed poised to manufacture a result. They canceled the study before it was completed to offer the procedure to the control group. Furthermore, they failed to consider that maybe it was the behavioral effects of adult circumcision that caused the reduction in HIV. People who get circumcised will need to heal and so will be less likely to have sex in the weeks following surgery. Even if some time passes and they will no longer be in pain having went through a period of abstinence it may be easier to have less sex in the future. They should also consider whether having the procedure done made people more open to converting to faiths that require the procedure (such as Islam), as conversion to a religion that is rather strict about sexual activity could have an effect on STDs. Even if there is some marginal protection it is made irrelevant if you properly use condoms, and nobody should rely on being circumcised as a contraceptive method, since the protection circumcision provides is small if existent at all. 2. Then there is what the two medical treatments do to you. The foreskin prevents the penis from becoming desensitized. Circumcision will cause a reduction in sensitivity. Always. In fact a big reason why it was promoted in America in the first place was to discourage masturbation. Of course that doesn't work, but it does reduce sensitivity. Vaccines very rarely have side effects and even when there are side effects they are usually mild and temporary.
1) I doubt very seriously that circumcision was ever adopted to curb masturbation. 2) This non sex/healing period is a moot point since it is being performed on children at birth and the people getting it when older are of consenting age, which makes them outside the scope of the arguments ive seen here. 3) Who is calling this a form of contraception? Ive never seen anyone make that claim before. Vaccines effects and side-effects are temporary in most cases. They need to be given multiple times just to keep up with the evolution of strains of virus/bacteria. Circumcision is a 1 time thing that helps with multiple sexual related issues and lasts a lifetime. I don't see it as any worse than getting your wisdom teeth removed. You can still perform and get the job done with everything your left with and save yourself any hardship later on down the line. I don't see why this can't be left an option for anyone who wishes to do it. Theres no harm in it.
I find it ironic that you said that whether someone has their child circumcised or not doesn't affect me, when your're against gay marriage and abortion, how do these issues affect you exactly?
Because of affirmative action against me.
In the act of circumscising my child, I do not intend to force any sort of legislation on you requiring it, protecting certain individuals against anything, promise funding in support of or against, nothing. I do what I do without affecting you or your investments in any way. Most healthcare plans do not even cover circumcision ... It is funded out of pocket. Also circumcision remains completely personal and no one outside of myself, my wife, and my son would ever know it had occurred. We don't intend to make it public, and we don't feel wronged because we aren't public about it.
It shouldn't be ironic. There is a line there.
@ FreedomBeforeEquality There are people who grow up and who wish they hadn't been circumcised. So yes it does do harm. And how are gay marriage and abortion forcing legislation on you requiring it? Nobody is saying you must have an abortion or that you must get gay married.
No definitely not like that. But our city would have to fund a gay pride parade on my dime. My insurance is affected because I now have to pay more to cover a group known to spread STDs like the plague. Just consider all the things a minority group starts wanting to have segregated for themselves. Special programs and benefits. Special education in schools. All the forms of exclusivity that they'd try to implement. Special commissions through the government whos focus is solely bringing money and privilege to a particular group (like the NAACP is to African Americans). These forms of sponsorship cost me money that goes directly to the pockets of others. They are not forms of bettering the entire community as a whole.
I'd just hate to see people segregate themselves after spending years trying to come together as one people. Society is so fickle.
@ FreedomBeforeEquality Legal gay marriage doesn't effect any of that. Gay marriage could never be allowed anywhere and they could still require more coverage for STDs, and besides that it's not straight people never get STDs. Furthermore I'm sure teachers will get paid the same whether there are gay education programs or not, so you won't be paying more for it. In fact the marriage penalty will mean you will be paying less in taxes. And considering abortion since it's not going to become illegal anytime soon why not advocate a tax on abortion? Then you pay less in taxes.
That funding would be considerably less if government wasn't going out of their way to promote a lifestyle that is more susceptible to it.
I'm paying more for education in the sense that High school education is so flooded with pointless subjects that I now have to supplement that with college just to be in any way educated enough for society. It didn't always used to be so ineffectual.
Idk where the abortion part came in ... But I would support a tax on it as long as you promise not to subsidize the poor people who can't afford it. Because then you're just taxing us middle class exclusively again, like this whole healthcare BS.
@ FreedomBeforeEquality 1. What if the abortion tax was high enough that the people who could afford the tax subsidized those who couldn't and so people not getting abortions didn't have anything to do with it?
Youre saying, so that only the people who partake in the abortions would be paying at all? It sounds like that model would open up a whole new can of worms since statistically speaking the people who cannot afford it are in much much greater supply than those who can pay. Consequently those who can also seem to be the ones smarter and less likely to be in that situation unless it was forced on them. Id have to be against your model because youd be making people in the 'justified' category (rape victims and people doing it because of health reasons for the mother) pay more and subsidize the irresponsible ones of the unjustified category. Thats not a burden they should have to bear. Each person should be held equally accountable for their share of this behavior, only because the reasons for doing it are not evenly distributed amongst that group of people.
I liked where you were going with it though. It would not help so much though since basically youd be pushing the tax burden from non aborters and placing it solely on a much smaller group within the aborters, ones that I believe are justified and have a better reason for it than the ones that cant afford it.
Just gonna butt in here and direct this to everyone who voted "no" or answered because they themselves are mutilated and are trying to find a way to make the unmutilated people feel bad - enjoy having a mutilated penis. That is all.
Or a mutilated mouth ... In instances where you get your wisdom teeth removed or tonsils removed right? They in fact do 'enjoy' having those things been 'mutilated' much more after the fact ... Since it is a long term health risk not to.
It's kind of different removing something that is a serious health risk and something that presents no health risk.
Do I really have to say it? Foreskin presents health risks ... Yes. It has more health risks associated with it than the alternative which is to remove it. Same goes for excess teeth.
However if you wash your dick like a normal human, you'll be fine.
Apparently it wasn't 'normal' attention that was needed or else there wouldn't have been a measurable amount of occurrences to say it was beneficial to do so. Someone out there was not washing themselves then, and coincidently it was your side that proved to be the dirty ones, since you want to make it about normal personal hygiene and all.
This may be late but, FreedomBeforeEquality, you always have something to say to me and, as always, it never makes any damn sense. It is almost always asinine comparisons and faulty logic.
Ok so shoot. Hit me back with some logic Brian. How is my stance on this wrong?
Oh hey by the way ... Slightly on topic ... My son had a birth defect where his lip did not form properly. Guess what we did as responsible parents permanently and without his consent?
The pain it saves him later is far more than the few moments it took to do either of the procedures.
What about vaccinations? You a big proponent for those as a social responsibility?
Are these all asinine comparisons to you? Are you not able to connect the dots?
I never said it was your stance that was wrong, it was your ridiculous refutation to my stance that was wrong. I oppose circumcising children because it is painful, permanent, and done without or before the child can consent to it. As soon as I said that, here you come making asinine comparisons between mutilating a child's genitalia and letting them pee and take a crap on themselves. That is simply ridiculous, and invalid. Not to mention a blatant red herring, seeing as I said nothing about letting children do whatever they wanted, just that I believe it is wrong to make such an important decision for them before they are old enough to realize how damaging it is/can be. So yes, that is why I said what I said, because this is not the first time you responded to me with ignorance.
And thanks for proving my point by making more asinine comparisons. Circumcision, most of the time, is not medical necessity. A foreskin is not a deformity. So you comparing that to your son's birth defect is, again, another ridiculous comparison that holds NO water in an actual argument and has nothing to do with the point I made. Case in point.
I agree with Brian completely. And that's something big here, lol.
Theyre exactly the same! The child would have been able to function perfectly fine on his own. In regards to the lip it was purely cosmetic in fact and didn't even need to be backed by scientific evidence of medical benefits to be worth doing. And yes the pissing and shitting themselves is a factor ... Since the first part of their lives they are sullying themselves, and as Mister_Man pointed out, can catch infections from being unclean. If you wait for them to be consenting age, they are already past one of the times they are most prone to those infections. They don't have the capacity to know that and make a choice for themselves ... That's why it has to be done early and without their consent.
I take it neither of you have kids. That's probably a good thing. But I'm sure when that time comes youll consider those types of things a little more instead of trying to make political statements through your children at their expense. You begin to have to give up those types of stances when you get older and have to put someone else first in your life. Youll get there.
FBE, quote where I said they'll catch infections. I dare you. I said if you wash your dick you'll be fine and I said having a foreskin presents no health risk. So I'd love to see where I said you can catch infections from being unclean.
They cant wash their dick, they wont be fine. So your acknowledgement of that reality was totally implied.
I had to give you the benefit of the doubt that you knew the relationship between being dirty and it causing an infection ... Since you made reference to it.
Lol, out of everything both of us said, you consider that simply "making political statements"? Either you're a troll or you have zero reading comprehension skills. The nerve endings in the end of the penis are desensitized if the foreskin is removed. That's a reason that isn't blankly making a political statement.
However they can wash their dick... Even if you are circumcised you should wash your dick... What the hell are you saying, lol.
No, they aren't the same because one is not a deformity, the other is regardless of whether or not it was a medical necessity. All males are born naturally with a foreskin on their penises, it is there for a reason. Saying it "may cause infection" is simply fallacious. Why? Because you can wash your cock that's why! Unless the foreskin poses a potential harm to the child, there is no point in removing it. And no, I may not have children but if I did I surely wouldn't mutilate his or her genitals. What next? Are you going to cut out your daughter's clitoris like they do in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Southern Asia? Why not? By the same logic, both should be okay with you.
In fact, why don't all parents just chop off their children's pinky fingers. Why not? They can live without them. Or maybe their toes? One of their eyeballs? Where does it end?
"However they can wash their dick... Even if you are circumcised you should wash your dick" We are still talking about kids here. Kids incapable of responsibly keeping themselves clean.
Lol, out of everything both of us said, you consider that simply "making political statements"? Brians words 'without consent' make this a political agenda. I'm sorry I have to keep jumping back and forth from your points to his ... They are coming from two different directions ...
"Unless the foreskin poses a potential harm to the child, there is no point in removing it." Surprise! It does! Because kids are unclean individuals that eat dirt, rub snot everywhere, cough, piss/shit themselves.
In fact, why don't all parents just chop off their children's pinky fingers. Why not? They can live without them. Or maybe their toes? One of their eyeballs? Where does it end? Were it that removing the foreskin presented any reduction in a persons capability to perform a task with that thing, you might have a case. Peter North has made millions with his circumcised penis, capabilities fully intact. Zero loss of ability.
"Kids incapable of responsibly keeping themselves clean" - DUH, that is why you, as a parent, have to TEACH THEM HOW TO WASH THEIR ASSES. I mean really...
And again ... Both procedures ... My sons lip and his circumcision ... Both were not required ... He could have had a long full life without either of them. Doing them both increased his quality of life.
"Peter North has made millions with his circumcised penis, capabilities fully intact. Zero loss of ability." - Nice to know you know and pay so much attention to porn stars' penises. As if that is relevant anyway.
"Kids incapable of responsibly keeping themselves clean" - DUH, that is why you, as a parent, have to TEACH THEM HOW TO WASH THEIR ASSES. I mean really..." That comes in time. Time enough for them to have caught infections before they learn how.
And by the way ... You can lose permanent sensitivity to varying degrees from infections there as well. So theres that. Just weigh the pros and cons ... And once you realize that there aren't really any cons to note of ... You have to choose circumcision. Its only reasonable.
"That comes in time." - No it doesn't. You wash them from birth to about 3. After that you supervise them, and teach them how to wash themselves as they grow up. This doesn't require mutilation of their penises.
Have a kid Brian. I dare you. I wish I could be there when you reality hits. Those are fun times.
Where is the evidence? You can get infections while circumcised as well. That is why you wash your cock and wear condoms during sex. Saying that chopping off your son's foreskin and stripping him of sensation is okay because he may get an infections and POSSIBLY lose sensation from that is stupid as hell.
And stop with the anecdotal nonsense. We know you have a kid, good for you, that doesn't mean you know everything about children. You damn sure don't know anything about penises and I am sure you have one of those too.
Its not stupid ... Its all based on possibilities. You have to make calculated thought out decisions on the matter. Do you think non religious doctors would continue to recommend getting the procedure if there was no benefit to doing it outside of cultural norms? It seems like if they wanted a repeat customer theyd just let you keep it ans say "see you back in a few months".
Calculate the decisions? You mean like what I said about not mutilating your child, leaving their penis alone, then teaching them how to wash it when the time comes? Religious "doctors" recommend the procedure because they are required to do so. It is in their doctrine to approve of genital mutilation, because to them, foreskins (and often times clitorises) are considered unclean and should be removed, like eating shellfish, pork etc... It has nothing to do with medical "benefits" because there aren't many at all.
I find it highly unlikely that all the doctors at the hospital in my city are all religious or are doing it for religious reasons. They dont even have a priest present during the birth or come to you with a pamphlet asking for you to baptize your kid. I think there are other practices that theyd promote also were they allowed to spread religious ideas via the hospital. Circumcision on its own does nothing in the way of conveying the message of Jesus to a person ... It'd be a pretty inefficient way of impressing those ideas on the public. Your link between doctors and religious missionary types is unreasonable, really.
"Calculate the decisions? You mean like what I said about not mutilating your child, leaving their penis alone, then teaching them how to wash it when the time comes?" This is not calculated risk decision making youve said here. This is "dont do anything and let the cards fall where they may" type of decision making.
First of all I never made an inherent link between being religious and being a doctor who supports circumcision. I simply misread your previous comment and assumed you made that link. Second, how exactly do you know the doctors aren't religious? And even if they weren't, they recommend it to patients because they get compensation for it. And like you, they are also completely fooled by the culture in which they live in where the practice is glorified to a much larger extent. Either way, whether or not most of the doctors in your city hospital recommend it, that is still a logical fallacy regardless. I can just as easily say that most doctors around the WORLD who don't recommend mutilating your child's penis vastly outnumber the one or two in your city who do. That is why most men in the world aren't circumcised, that is mainly a phenomena in the United States, South Korea (influenced by the U.S.), and Australia (less common but still prevalent) aside from nations where circumcision is required strictly for religious purposes.
"This is "dont do anything and let the cards fall where they may" type of decision making." - Ridiculous. There are always risks to mutilating your child. Loss of sensation being the most common issue with circumcised men who report having issues with their sex life when they got older because they lost sensitivity in their penis. Not to mention the many cases of botched circumcisions in which babies are left with terrible scarring on their penis, which is a lot more common that you think. Circumcision also strips the fluids produced naturally by the penis, that help preserve it and keep the skin healthy and nerves functioning properly.
"Either way, whether or not most of the doctors in your city hospital recommend it, that is still a logical fallacy regardless. I can just as easily say that most doctors around the WORLD who don't recommend mutilating your child's penis vastly outnumber the one or two in your city who do." Its not just two. In fact to show proof that they are overwhelmingly in support of it nation wide, why dont you look at whether or not it is covered by medical insurances. Even the government run free healthcare insurance covers it. This shows approval for it, if no other evidence will do for you. Is that a fallacy? Are you going to say there is a disconnect between what is covered by insurance and what is recognized as important enough in a medical sense to have to cover for people?
"... A lot more common that you think." But uncommon enough for us not to care. Calculated risk.
Im not getting the "loss of sensitivity" part either really. Its used on average a total of 48 days throughout your lifetime. That aside, as if men going too early wasn't enough of a problem already. Https://www.Distractify.Com/astounding-facts-about-how-we-actually-spend-our-time-1197818577.Html
But thats only addressing the few people who had botched procedures that youre mentioning. Everyone else is, of course, fine at the end of the day.
I believe circumcision requires the consent of the person getting the procedure.
This should be an argument over whether it is right or wrong, or whether it causes diseases or not. This should be an argument over whether one person has the right to tell another what they can and cant do with their own children. Just as much as I am not entitled to tell someone else how to live their life, they are not entitled to tell me how to live mine. Brian, If you dont want your child circumcised then dont have him circumcised. But, DO NOT demand that others conform to your belief and opinion. If something happens to your child because you chose not to, that is on you. Same for FBE. If something happens to his child because he decided to have the child circumcised, then that is on him. Both you and FBE are making absurd comparisons and it is very hypocritical to call his comparisons asinine when you compare circumcision to removing eyes. Take a step back and try to see his point of view.
@freedombeforeequality Good God, what is wrong with you? You had your children mutilated and you think it's OK? You are a morally insane piece of scrum.
Is this even a discussion? Circumcision consists in the removal of healthy and normal male genital tissue, which accounts for half of a males erogenous tissue, and destroys 20,000 specialized nerve endings, without medical cause. It fits the very definition of genital mutilation, and parents have no right to amputate healthy appendages off of their baby because they don't trust them to clean it, or because some quack said so. If I had a kid and I decided that he didn't need his left arm and that it was too hard to clean, and so I sawed it off without anesthetics, I would get arrested for maiming and child abuse.