The Absurd Reason Why America Circumcises Baby Boys

[Ockie]

There are many reasons why a parent chooses to circumcise their baby - religious beliefs, concerns about hygiene, or cultural or social reasons. The medical evidence supporting the use of circumcision to prevent STDs, penile cancer, and to reduce UTIs is overwhelming.

We have been over this. Religion and culture does not trump a individuals right to bodily integrity. Too many wrongs in this world is committed in the name of religion and culture.

 

[Ancalagon]

Moral and ethical arguments about the pros and cons of circumcising children are not relevant to the myth of reduced sensitivity.

If you don't want to circumcise your children don't, no problem but don't judge and hate on people who do choose to do so, as many on thread seem intent on doing.

I will judge people who force any unnecessary surgery on their children. Circumcision is unnecessary and it should not be forced.

I don't see anybody arguing in favour of female circumcision? Is that not the same? Medically unnecessary and potentially harmful?

we could argue that clothes are not a vital part of the child's upbringing - people would disagree. i'm sure grantza and i grew up just as well as you and another random person from the forum because we're still here and still alive

"forced" on your son the same as calling abortion "murder", you're exaggerating the effects and severity of it. as a a parent, you can make a decision to nor circumcise your son, but that remains your decision, just as you may choose to vaccinate your child. the parent that raises their kid best passes on their genes and for the amount of time people go on about natural selection and its merits on this forum, people should leave parents and their kids alone. i can't even take a naked photo of my son now playing in the bath tub without being branded a pedophile according to a new law, so i have little respect for other people's opinions.

what about circumcising your son based on a medical decision as i mentioned before? what gives you the right to make a decision for your child when it's the situation is serious that personal preference? let the child die/get sick/suffer? will you apologise to your son one day saying "i'm sorry i mutilated your penis, but you were sick"

Yeah vaccination and circumcision are completely different. Vaccination can and does save lives from a very early age. If your child is worried about contracting HIV, they can use condoms. Or get circumcized - at their own choice!

Obviously with a medical decision it is completely different because it affects the childs welfare. Circumcision, in most cases, is completely unnecessary. Where it is necessary, do it, where it is not necessary, allow the child to choose. Why is that so difficult?

Where discipline is necessary, provide discipline. Where education is necessary, provide education. Where religion is necessary, provide religion.

Yet somehow when it comes to circumcision, the whole necessary part gets thrown out the window, and people do it just because it is the done thing to do.

 

[Sherbang]

We have been over this. Religion and culture does not trump a individuals right to bodily integrity. Too many wrongs in this world is committed in the name of religion and culture.

I know we've been over it. Your opinion doesn't trump the decisions I make about my children's health and religious upbringing.

 

[bokdrol]

I see it this way. Aren't the majority of American males circumcised? This has to be the most neurotic and "pieperige" nation on earth, so if they can handle it, it can't be too much of a big deal, can it?

 

[Sherbang]

Many people feel they can help their son avoid some of the inherent health risks of having a foreskin, once and for all by having him circumcised early in life (the best time in the healthy baby is 7-10 days old). Not only is it a simpler procedure, needing no stitches, but he will not remember the event. He will also grow up never knowing anything different. Boys circumcised later in life may find it a more embarrassing experience. For a while afterwards they will feel the sensitivity of the permanently exposed glans, but will gradually adapt to it. Thus, circumcision in babyhood can be a very sensible decision - especially for a single mum with a boy and no man around the house. If you do circumcise your son, you must explain as soon as he is old enough to understand, what happened and why it was done. This helps acceptance and avoids ignorance.
http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

 

[Nerfherder]

To cut the skin off ones slong is to hate bacon.

This is a cardinal sin.

 

[Nick333]

I know we've been over it. Your opinion doesn't trump the decisions I make about my children's health and religious upbringing.

Um, actually it does in many cases. Try denying your child life saving medical intervention on religious grounds.

 

[Ockie]

I know we've been over it. Your opinion doesn't trump the decisions I make about my children's health and religious upbringing.

I will have no respect for a religion or culture that practices cruelty and justifies cutting a baby with no medical justification.

There seems to be actual groups and organisations out there of men that are resentful of being cut as babies and are trying to restore their foreskins. Go tell your story to them.

 

[Sherbang]

I don't see anybody arguing in favour of female circumcision? Is that not the same? Medically unnecessary and potentially harmful?

If you have to ask that there is no hope for you. Do you really think male circumcision, a procedure so minor that it doesn't even require stitches when done on a baby boy is the same as female circumcision which may include removal of all or part of the clitoris and clitoral hood; all or part of the clitoris and inner labia; and in its most severe form (infibulation) all or part of the inner and outer labia and the closure of the vagina.

Really?

While male circumcision may be medically unnecessary it offers multiple health benefits and carries few risks if done properly while female circumcision offers NO health benefits and incredibly high risks, even when done properly.

 

[Sherbang]

I will have no respect for a religion or culture that practices cruelty and justifies cutting a baby with no medical justification.

There seems to be actual groups and organisations out there of men that are resentful of being cut as babies and are trying to restore their foreskins. Go tell your story to them.

I was also cut as a baby, people just love being 'victims' - so they can blame their problems on something outside of their control.
If you don't respect it fine. Your disrespect still doesn't trump the decisions I make about my children's health and religious upbringing.

 

[porchrat]

I was also cut as a baby, people just love being 'victims' - so they can blame their problems on something outside of their control.

If one regards being circumcised as a baby as a problem then it seems perfectly rational to place the blame on something outside one's control. After all one was a baby when it happened and little is within the control of a newborn baby.

While I agree your statement holds true for many people in many circumstances, in this particular circumstance it was a silly thing to say.

 

[Sherbang]

Um, actually it does in many cases. Try denying your child life saving medical intervention on religious grounds.

Not in this case it doesn't. And in the case of denying your child life saving medical intervention on religious grounds, it's not your opinion that trumps the decisions I make for my children, it is the law that trumps it.

 

[Sherbang]

If one regards being circumcised as a baby as a problem then it seems perfectly rational to place the blame on something outside his control. After all he was a baby when it happened and little is within the control of a newborn baby.

Yes, I'm sure it's made their live's a living hell being circumcised.

 

[porchrat]

Yes, I'm sure it's made their live's a living hell being circumcised.

I'm just pointing out that for those that consider it a problem they are indeed being perfectly rational in blaming things beyond their control. In this particular instance your statement was pretty flawed.

 

[HapticSimian]

It doesn't effect sensitivity as both the research shows and as YinYang confirmed based on personal experience

I provided you with the research you asked for indicating it does, over and above the infantile logic necessary to understand the likely correlation between loss of nerve endings and loss of sensation / sensitivity. Yet here you are, still, just proclaiming your position to be correct in spite of evidence to the contrary. Why?

Notwithstanding the fact that there are numerous other facets under discussion...

 

[Ancalagon]

Many people feel they can help their son avoid some of the inherent health risks of having a foreskin, once and for all by having him circumcised early in life (the best time in the healthy baby is 7-10 days old). Not only is it a simpler procedure, needing no stitches, but he will not remember the event. He will also grow up never knowing anything different. Boys circumcised later in life may find it a more embarrassing experience. For a while afterwards they will feel the sensitivity of the permanently exposed glans, but will gradually adapt to it. Thus, circumcision in babyhood can be a very sensible decision - especially for a single mum with a boy and no man around the house. If you do circumcise your son, you must explain as soon as he is old enough to understand, what happened and why it was done. This helps acceptance and avoids ignorance.
http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

What inherent health risks are there? I have had a foreskin for 29 years and never had a single problem. Nor have millions of other men.

Sure, I'm sure some problems can occur. Why didn't you remove your babies appendix and tonsils immediately then? They won't remember right? And those things cause problems far more often.

Its easier to have it done when your child is young? Isnt it easier to just not have it done at all, and leave the choice to him?

And you are also running the risk of permanent damage. Remember the recent case where a baby had to have his penis amputated because of a botched circumcision? This happened in a modern hospital in South Africa, not a traditional circumcision.

I have never heard a good argument as to why it must be forced on a child.

 

[Ockie]

I have never heard a good argument as to why it must be forced on a child.

Because religion and culture! DUH! Now STFU :erm:


ai ai ai.

 

[Nick333]

If you have to ask that there is no hope for you. Do you really think male circumcision, a procedure so minor that it doesn't even require stitches when done on a baby boy is the same as female circumcision which may include removal of all or part of the clitoris and clitoral hood; all or part of the clitoris and inner labia; and in its most severe form (infibulation) all or part of the inner and outer labia and the closure of the vagina.

Really?

While male circumcision may be medically unnecessary it offers multiple health benefits and carries few risks if done properly while female circumcision offers NO health benefits and incredibly high risks, even when done properly.

As was stated earlier in this thread there are types of female circumcision that are are on a par with male circumcision. I. assume you're OK with those types of female circumcision.

 

[ShaunSA]

It doesn't effect sensitivity as both the research shows and as YinYang confirmed based on personal experience

And here you conveniently forget my own personal experience detailed especially for you.

Anything to justify your flimsy arguments I guess.

 

[Dubes]

I provided you with the research you asked for indicating it does, over and above the infantile logic necessary to understand the likely correlation between loss of nerve endings and loss of sensation / sensitivity. Yet here you are, still, just proclaiming your position to be correct in spite of evidence to the contrary. Why?

Notwithstanding the fact that there are numerous other facets under discussion...

And yet you continue to ignore my counter argument as to why you feel "better sensitivity" is something to repeatedly brag about? I'll repeat again that I have rarely heard complaints about sex lasting too long...