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.
Alrighty then. It's about more than personal choice, after all: it's about the physical intactness of one's physical self. Because there is something good about that, right? Or at least, in your view, there is something good about the desire for physical intactness of one's physical self. Am I close?
Help me out here. I need to get a handle on what you actually believe in - and why you believe it - before I know how to effectively argue with you. I get the personal choice bit, but for you it's personal choice plus something else I can't put my finger on.
I'll try and explain my position as fully as I can. I believe every person is endowed with certain fundamental rights (natural rights, human rights, God given rights - however you want to think of them): life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, all that jazz. Way up there among them is the right to have control over one's own body - especially its physical intactness. That's so basic it seems strange to even have to say it outloud. I don't think this is a wacky idea - go ask 100 people on the street if other people should be allowed any control over their physical bodies (let alone be allowed to cut parts of it off) and I bet all 100 will say no.
I see no reason that this right is something gained only once adulthood is reached: that prior to 18 somebody else can forcibly cut off my foreskin, but that the day I turn 18 I magically gain this fundamental right to control the physical intactness of my body.
I understand that children are not adults and that children need guidance and in many instances (nearly all instances when younger) decisions to be made for them. However, parents do not have total dominion over their kids - kids are not property. These decisions and points of guidance should not take away or violate the fundamental rights that person, albeit not yet an adult, possesses. Part of a parent's job is to protect and preserve the rights of a child so that he has the ability to exercise them once he's capable of doing so.
At this point I think the distinction between permanence and impermanence is important. It's perfectly fine for an adult to dictate and have control over impermanent aspects related to their kids' bodies: hair length, fingernail length, makeup usage, matter's of hygiene, etc. Doing so does not take away the fundamental right - it's simply instilling (or at least trying to) your values and standards. Your kid, when older, can choose to maintain the standards and norms you instilled, or he can reject them. You have done nothing to take away his freedom or free will. The same argument can be made for the other issues you brought up in a previous post: name, languages spoken, country of citizenship, style of dress, etc. A permanent change, especially a complete removal of a body part, cannot be undone. You have forever taken away that person's right to self-determination over that aspect of his physical body. To me, that's a gross violation of a fundamental right and a failure as a parent (since the duty of a parent is to protect the rights of the child, not willfully violate them).
If you really want your son to be circumcised, try to impress upon him why it's a good thing as he grows up. Tell him about how it will impress your God. Show him the studies about how it will reduce his risk of contracting certain diseases if he chooses to be a sexually promiscuous man. Tell him how much easier cleaning himself will be once that flap of skin is gone. Don't make a permanent decision for him during the first few weeks of his life that can never be undone. Let him, through your guidance, come to it himself - or not.
Last edited by hammertime33; 02-21-2012 at 02:18 PM..
No, it's about me doing what's right for MY child and YOU doing what's right for yours!
Yet, you can't handle the same when applied to another person.
PS. To Jews, Muslim and (some Christians, who believe in circumcision): Was Adam circumcised? Were Cain and Abel? What is the first instance of circumcision documented in respective religious scriptures?
Of course they can't. You can't lose what you can't recall having. Except if the unnecessary procedure turns into a debacle for any reason, then the child must live forever with it.
That makes for a poor excuse. There are many surgical procedures deemed necessary, and many that never are. Then why subject everybody to a procedure? It makes no sense to fix something that ain't broke... much less when there is a risk involve (and there is, with any surgery).
Circumcision on an infant is a 2 minute procedure. Circumcision on an older child or adult is an hour long surgery under general anesthesia.
Quote:
Benefits include pro-tections against UTI in infancy, prevention from balanoposthitis (common around age 3-5 years) and prevention of true phimosis or paraphimosis. Genital hygiene is a non issue in circumcised males. There is no question that circumcision is prophylactic against penile cancer later in life. There have been over 50,000 cases of documented penile cancer in the United States since 1930, of which only 9 occurred in circumcised men. Whether this is attributable to poor hygiene or the mere presence of foreskin is still debatable. Finally, newborn circumcision avoids possible later circumcision under anesthesia which carries its own risks.
Circumcision on an infant is a 2 minute procedure. Circumcision on an older child or adult is an hour long surgery under general anesthesia.
So? Just because a process is quicker and doesn't require anesthetic doesn't make for a great argument against: don't fix, with risk, when it ain't broke.
No, it's about me doing what's right for MY child and YOU doing what's right for yours!
Why do Anit-Choice people always want to but their personal beliefs onto everyone else!?!
You don't like it don't get it done!
Isn't that what Pro-choicers usually say about abortion? Well, why don't you practice what you preach! BTW, in case you think I'm being hypocritical about that I'm pro-choice! Pro-Choice about EVERYTHING!!
Pro-Choice about everything, yet you've robbed your son of the choice to have his foreskin removed. How ironic.
It's just a cheap attack on religion. The same exact people who are against a little snip have no problem stabbing a baby with a coat hanger.
I'm not sure what the motivations of the anti-circ. crowd are.... I actually gather the opposite of what you said (unless I'm misunderstanding). I can't imagine anyone who thinks circumcision is a horrible mutilation without the infants' consent would also be "pro-choice" in the abortion argument. They are decidedly anti-choice and presumably anti-abortion.
I'm confident I made the best choice for my son in having him circumcised, for a myriad of reasons, none of which are religion based.
You can sense enjoyment but degree of which you can't (and neither the person who is missing it). You do know that foreskin has nerve endings, don't you? It is, technically, no different than the skin covering the clitoris. How many women wouldn't miss not having the sensation?
With a woman, the sensation is not in the skin covering and I'm still convinced that guys that are cut are just as happy as guys that are not. The bottom line is, that if you like yours, they can like theirs. Sexual excitement and stimulation also lies greatly in the brain. If a guy is sexually healthy both mentally and physically, it is for no one else to determine what it could have been like if only, etc. It's a non issue until there is an outcry from a group that hates and resents their penises. I believe that from a religion standpoint, people that practice a faith that requires circumcision, are not feeling as if they sacrificed much.
Quote:
Often times, the skin covering the clitoris may be too tight, which can lead to a disfigured shape and sexual dissatisfaction. In some cases, the clitoris can become completely covered by the fold of skin and cause extreme numbness or no feeling at all. Hoodectomy | In With Skin
Okay we're just going around in circles here. For those who are against it, it's not going to change the minds of those who are for it. And vice versa. If you as a parent are not for circumcision, then by all means you have the freedom of choice...to NOT have the procedure done. There isn't going to be any legislation of any sort to force people to not circumcise, so all this banter only serves to maybe guilt trip/persuade expectant parents or something. To wit, I am a parent of two girls, so that will not be an issue of mine
In the grand scheme of things, the big picture here, again...I have not encountered one male who has hated his parents because he got circumcised. Or one who said, "Mom/Dad..thank you for not doing it." Most men really don't think about the whatifs, or care. Circumcision isn't tantamount to neutering, but then again, I'm not male with a penis...and I do know men and their wee-wees -- very sensitive stuff.
The "barbaric" practice of circumcision isn't going to be eclipsed by uncut people. It just means that we are seeing more guys sporting "covers" so to speak than before, and you won't be totally laughed out of the shower. However, many ladies, including myself, prefer the cut variety, and that isn't a factor to just dismiss. We can talk about why ladies prefer this, and maybe they're brainwashed, etc. But it's a preference, just like blonde hair, large eyes, etc.
So, at the end of the day, let's just all agree to disagree.
And...whoever uses reps to leave me a message disagreeing with me, what's the point? Just post on here using your handle.
I find the whole 'health reasons" a bunch of crap
I have 3 boys triplets, they are 28 years old not, not cird, and have never had any type af healt problem with their penis.
so this 'for health reason" is the biggest bunch of BS ever told.
Exactly. It's just scare tactics to encourage people to participate in mutilating their own child's genitals without his consent. It's a bizarre ritual.
So? Just because a process is quicker and doesn't require anesthetic doesn't make for a great argument against: don't fix, with risk, when it ain't broke.
There is a very good reason why circumcision has been done for thousands of years and it has nothing to do with religion.
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.
would also be "pro-choice" in the abortion argument. They are decidedly anti-choice and presumably anti-abortion.
