Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the lord had wanted no foreskins he would have built 'em that way.
I have a cousin close to my age whose family doctor recommended he should be Circumcised at age 12 and he got several infections afterwards. It was brutal for months afterwards for him!
Comparing FGM to circumcision is an apples-to-oranges comparison. FGM is completely different than circumcision, in many regards.
It depends on the type of FGM. Many who practice FGM remove the clitoral hood which is the same thing as the foreskin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Religiously: God commanded Abraham to circumcise himself and his descendants. Jesus was circumcised. By contrast, nowhere in the Bible is FGM practiced, called for, condoned, or tolerated.
In other parts of the world FGM is practiced, called for, condoned and tolerated for religious reasons outside of Christianity. Similarly, in other parts of the world people view male circumcision in the same way you view FGM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Medically: Can you name one single medical condition that may necessitate removal of the clitoris, or its hood? By contrast, phimosis might necessitate removal of the penile foreskin.
Yes actually. Some women need to have a labiaplasty along with a clitoral hood reduction due to having too much skin in the area. But they are adults when it is done, it is an elective surgery and no one is advocating doing this to all baby girls just in case.
Phimosis rarely requires circumcision. Is not the SOC for most cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Individually: You have made it clear that you oppose circumcision across the board. If given the chance, would you make circumcision illegal? If so, why shouldn't a mother be able to choose for her own child?
I have a cousin close to my age whose family doctor recommended he should be Circumcised at age 12 and he got several infections afterwards. It was brutal for months afterwards for him!
What is your point?
Yes, SOME people need circumcisions for a variety of reasons just like SOME people need corrective surgeries for other reasons. It doesn't mean it should be done to all babies just in case. Its a terrible approach to medical treatment.
Our modern hygienic conditions are such that circumcision is obsolete. Here in Europe it is very rare, basically limited to certain "exotic" religions.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,133,980 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal
Especially since the kid is three years old. It should have been done when he was a newborn or not at all IMHO.
I totally agree.
It is debateable whether the procedure has much of a psychological effect on an infant, but it will definately have a huge traumatic effect if the procedure is deemed necessary later in life.
I think it says a lot about both parents that they refused to come to an agreement one way or the other about this issue early on. This is not an issue that should escalate to the point of people becoming fugitives and stuff. I'm sure that will have more of a psychological effect on that child than a simple circumcision ever would have.
So you would do anything someone else told to do to your child to avoid jail time? Even if that meant hurting your child?
I get your point. I don't agree with it.
She signed the agreement. If I disagreed with something or wasn't sure, I would do the research before signing a binding document. That's really what it comes down to. It's not about avoiding jail, it's about not signing something binding that you are unsure of.
The foreskin works to keep the penis sensitive much as the clitoral hood protects the clitoris. Both keep the sensitive parts of our sexual organs at optimal warmth too. Decreased sexual sensitivity results from removing both the clitoral hood and foreskin. It protects the penis from being keratinised (similar to developing callouses). It also stimulates partners' genitals, providing increased sexual satisfaction. Foreskins also produce a natural lubricant.
Foreskins are fully functioning organs with specific roles in the health of men.
I'm not sure that's the case. For some people it may be about tradition and money but doctors have stated that it reduces the risk of STDs when it is done. Although it comes with risk, the doctors of AAP generally agree the benefits outweigh the risks. They didn't go as far as endorsing it, but it's not as black and white as you make it. There are benefits on both sides.
The dumbest argument for circumcision is "looking weird in the locker room". Followed closely by "hygiene and STD". Use soap and practice safe sex and don't be a pig. Easy.
Who cares what those other boys with the damaged penis think. If there's penis bullying, consider it a lesson to toughen up, not to chop off your foreskin.
I'm intact and gladly so. I pity the cut guys with their insensitive penis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
