• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Circumcision

Thanks Ivor and Linda - and this does somewhat hold with my crappy data - all of the uncircumcised males were born in the West.
 
Z said:
Pierce ears, noses, and belly buttons, give tattoos, etc. As long as it's all done hygenically, with as much pain relief as is available, and cared for properly, I'm all for it. Children are the responsibility of their parents, and the right for cosmetic and perceived hygenic alterations of the children belongs to the adult, and always has.
Click to expand...

You make a good point. My parents had my ears pierced when I wasn't old enough to make the decision (still pierced, too!)

Some parents take their children to tanning salons. Other parents dye their childrens hair to match their own.

Some parents still spank. Heck, some parents still used whipping rods and birch branches.

I don't personally agree with all these actions, but then again this (theoretical) child isn't mine. I'm not raising it, and I'm not responsible for it. None of these actions are necessarily illegal, so there's not much I can do about it but whine annoyingly.
 
Z said:
and male circumcision, when done properly using modern techniques, does no permanent functional damage.
Click to expand...
New thread, same lies. This was demonstrated quite definitively in the other thread, yet you persist with spreading false information. The foreskin is functional, and loss of it always results in permanent damage and loss of function. You even cited some of the sources yourself, mistakenly thinking they supported your fantasy.
Earlobes, pinky toes, appendices, wisdom teeth, foreskins - whack'em all off.
Click to expand...
I just love how you're so hasty to chop extra bits off of unconsenting innocent children, with little to no regard for the harm you may cause.

You remind me of those deaf parents who sought to ensure their child was born deaf as well. Your penis is less than fully functional, made so against your will, and now you're a rather extreme advocate for that same injury being inflicted on others. Yeah, I'd say you're responding to very 'primative' instincts when it comes to this issue.
I don't abuse women or children
Click to expand...
Based on the standard you've articulated, nobody ever does. As long as proper pain relief is available.
 
"At present, there is controversy over whether or not circumcision is advisable from a medical standpoint. New information suggests there are potential mdical benefits to circumcision. Recent studies have concluded that male infants who are not circumcised may be more likely to develop urinary tract infections than those who are. Further studies are needed to confirm this observation." The American Academy of Pediatrics, Caring for Your Baby and Young Child 10 (Bantam Books, 1998 ed.).
"The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages, as well as inherent disadvantages and risks. Therefore, we recommend that the decision to circumcise is one best made by parents in consultation with their pediatrician." Id.
 
Andronicus said:
"At present, there is controversy over whether or not circumcision is advisable from a medical standpoint. New information suggests there are potential mdical benefits to circumcision. Recent studies have concluded that male infants who are not circumcised may be more likely to develop urinary tract infections than those who are. Further studies are needed to confirm this observation." The American Academy of Pediatrics, Caring for Your Baby and Young Child 10 (Bantam Books, 1998 ed.).
"The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages, as well as inherent disadvantages and risks. Therefore, we recommend that the decision to circumcise is one best made by parents in consultation with their pediatrician." Id.
Click to expand...

In all honesty, I think that is merely a matter of conciliation on the part of the AAP. If you are determined to justify your decision (either as a parent or as a doctor performing the procedure), you can use the medical data. But from a neutral position, it's not good enough to over-rule "do no harm". I just don't think the AAP wants to come right out and say some people are Wrong, as physicians in the US operate in a somewhat different political climate.

Linda
 
Incidentally, the countdown clock to my own son's circumcision stands at about twenty-two days, eleven hours.
 
I think the AAP is saying medically it is not necessary, however it is not harmful and there could be minor benefits. I don’t think fear of political repercussions is the cause. It would be just as easy to say there is no medical necessity but also no harm if there are religious or cultural reasons. Also, it is my understanding the AAP originally said in
1971 there is no medical benefit to circumcision. It was only in the late ‘80s through the ‘90s that the AAP stated there may be some medical benefit to circumcision. Online source: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/ (marked edits very anti-circumcision).

Anecdotally, I have had two acquaintances who decided not to circumcise at birth and then changed their minds when their boys were older. The most recent was about six months ago when a friend at work had her six year old boy circumcised. After two urinary tract infections, the doctor stated it would be a good idea. She absolutely regretted not doing it at birth.
 
fls said:
In all honesty, I think that is merely a matter of conciliation on the part of the AAP. If you are determined to justify your decision (either as a parent or as a doctor performing the procedure), you can use the medical data. But from a neutral position, it's not good enough to over-rule "do no harm". I just don't think the AAP wants to come right out and say some people are Wrong, as physicians in the US operate in a somewhat different political climate.

Linda
Click to expand...

I have to agree with that assessment. The AAP won't come out and flatly state that they believe circumcision to be harmful, even if it is harmful, until the general public view on circumcision shifts dynamically to a similar view as Europe holds.

To Skepticybe: Tell me one - just one! - relevant thing that I cannot or have not done or been able to do, having been circumcised. Just one. IF you can do that, I'll reconsider; if not, I'll stand by my opinion that a properly circumcised penis is unimpaired.
 
For the record, I live in Australia, I'm 37, and I'm circumcised. Not for any particular reason that I'm aware (although I've never talked to my parents about it), but I think it was just the thing that was done to male babies in 1969. I'm not Jewish, and neither are my parents. I've never experienced any "loss of function" from not having a foreskin, nor have I experienced any medical difficulties whatsoever.

My son, however, is not circumcised. I just didn't see any point.
 
Z said:
Earlobes, pinky toes, appendices, wisdom teeth, foreskins - whack'em all off. Pierce ears, noses, and belly buttons, give tattoos, etc. As long as it's all done hygenically, with as much pain relief as is available, and cared for properly, I'm all for it. Children are the responsibility of their parents, and the right for cosmetic and perceived hygenic alterations of the children belongs to the adult, and always has.

And with that, I'll make my hasty retreat, as I'm about to be labelled eleven kinds of evil monster now... :D

Keep in mind, though, I'm also the guy that thinks the death penalty should be by publicly broadcast executions, that rapists should be castrated on first offense, etc...
Click to expand...

Only 11 kinds of evil monster? You're an eternal optimist too!

May I ask, what cosmetic 'alterations' did your loving parents violate (sorry, adorn) your body with, as a child (in addition to the apparent brain cavity reduction)?

Have you thought of emigrating to Iran, or Saudi? I think the 'way-of-life' might suit you better there!
 
Z said:
To Skepticybe: Tell me one - just one! - relevant thing that I cannot or have not done or been able to do, having been circumcised. Just one. IF you can do that, I'll reconsider; if not, I'll stand by my opinion that a properly circumcised penis is unimpaired.
Click to expand...

So why not have your nipples removed. They're more 'superfluous' than your foreskin.
 
As a circumcised man, it never really occured to me that I was missing out on anything. My dad told me I was better off because its useless and just tends to get infected, like wisdom teeth or an appendix.

OTOH, my son was born here in Japan where circumcision is not a common practice, so he is uncircumcised.

Unalienable: I would like to know: What's so great about a foreskin that someone would have to pay you a million dollars to remove it? Does it increase sexual pleasure that much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom