U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should parents be able to circumcise their son?
Yes 206 75.74%
No 66 24.26%
Voters: 272. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-24-2012, 10:03 AM
 
Location: DFW
2,265 posts, read 2,767,823 times
Reputation: 1289

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
HIV and Paraphimosis are just the tip of the iceberg. Check the link for a more comprehensive (though probably still incomplete) list of the benefits of circumcision.

From the link below:

"Recently, however, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males."

Circumcision: Medical Pros and Cons--Infections, Disease, Hygiene and Cancer on MedicineNet.com

Though you are correct about alternative and admittedly BETTER ways of protecting yourself from STDs, clearly the reality of it is that the difference still exists. For whatever reasons, men are less likely to get HIV if they are circumcised.

Also from the article:

"The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. Cancer of the penis carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the penis."

Might I add that you can die from both AIDS and penile cancer, surpassing the importance of every pro you mentioned about the foreskin.

I won't deny that the foreskin is functional, but I decided with my son that its functions pale in comparison to the benefits of circumcision. There are medical reasons galore, in addition to hygienic and aesthetic reasons to have this done.



For the same reason parents have a right to move their infant out of state. Though this may just be a regretted and despised action when the child gets older (moving out of state poses so many risks of some part of it being seen as a negative) and though it can easily be more "permanent" than the loss of parts of the foreskin from which the desired functions can be regained through foreskin restoration,

it is the parent's right, because there is nothing to show that this will necessarily be a bad thing. Infant circumcision is even MORE justified than moving your family of state in some cases, in that there is more to show objectively that it can be beneficial.
Circumcision has never been popular in continental Europe. Shouldn't there be many STDs and penis problems going around because circumcision isn't routinely preformed? It's sad that people like you have to resort to no substance propaganda in order to defend your position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2012, 10:21 AM
 
Location: TX
6,493 posts, read 5,217,417 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Limbs can be restored too. But wouldn't a person rather have the untouched original, and for good reasons?
Good reasons including they want FULL use of their limb and not to have to go out of pocket or endure surgery to get it. Sorry, but that isn't comparable to circumcision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
PS. And thank you for bringing up restoration aspect of foreskin. It only demonstrates why parents should stay out of trimming body parts, as they deem fit, for their children outside of threatening medical needs.
And why is that? Because the child just might grow up to have a problem with being circumcised? Can YOU answer my question, as to what gives a parent the right to move their child out of state as an infant yet doesn't give them the right to have them circumcised? Please review the last few pages before answering. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by notyouraveragebear View Post
I'd be interested to find that out. But the only research I can find was done on circumcised adult males in Africa. And I suspect that uncut men in the US use condoms more than uncut men in Africa as a means of protecting themselves against contracting HIV, so it may be another non-issue.
As I told hammertime, regardless of the reason, the reality is that uncircumcised men tend to contract HIV more often than circumcised men. While it most certainly should never take the place of sex education and contraception, it does in practice lower the risk of getting HIV, in addition to penile cancer, in addition to many medical problems that aren't life-threatening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 10:26 AM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,134,860 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Good reasons including they want FULL use of their limb and not to have to go out of pocket or endure surgery to get it. Sorry, but that isn't comparable to circumcision.
It's more extreme, but it's certainly comparable (much more comparable than state of residence to circumcision). I think a very good reason in the foreskin debate is wanting FULL use of a REAL AND COMPLETE foreskin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,830,503 times
Reputation: 12162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
Good reasons including they want FULL use of their limb and not to have to go out of pocket or endure surgery to get it. Sorry, but that isn't comparable to circumcision.
The focus is on restoration versus untouched originality, not on specific purpose of those body parts. You can restore, but wouldn't you rather have untouched original?

Quote:
And why is that? Because the child just might grow up to have a problem with being circumcised? Can YOU answer my question, as to what gives a parent the right to move their child out of state as an infant yet doesn't give them the right to have them circumcised? Please review the last few pages before answering. Thank you.
Obviously that the child has a problem with growing up circumcised. Otherwise, there would be no need for restoration procedures you quoted to make a different point, but now must defend against.

I'm not willing to dig pages of postings to answer a question here. If you want it answered, present it in a manner that makes it convenient. Otherwise, deal with something that is convenient to me. And that is... circumcision dates back to a tribal ritual. One could argue that other tribal rituals like neck rings are great too as the parents believe it "enhances beauty".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 10:51 AM
 
Location: TX
6,493 posts, read 5,217,417 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
It's more extreme, but it's certainly comparable (much more comparable than state of residence to circumcision).
Not at all. Getting full use of an arm or leg, if that's even possible after it's been completely removed, would have to be a surgical procedure, costing you thousands of dollars and lots of time in the hospital. Foreskin restoration can be nonsurgical, costing you little to no money. And I repeat (because you guys are picking and choosing what you want to try and counter), every desired function (with intrinsic value) of the natural foreskin can be restored. This is hardly the case when you remove someone's arm or leg. Even some desired functions of the foreskin that do NOT have intrinsic value can be restored. Check the link I gave you just a few posts ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
I think a very good reason in the foreskin debate is wanting FULL use of a REAL AND COMPLETE foreskin.
You can think that all you want, but it'd be wrong of you to suggest circumcision of infants be made illegal because you happen to worry about a small segment of the foreskin which serves little to no purpose (aside from posing a health risk, along with the rest of the foreskin, of course).

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
The focus is on restoration versus untouched originality, not on specific purpose of those body parts. You can restore, but wouldn't you rather have untouched original?
That is YOUR focus. Obviously, I don't care about something being "untouched" or "original" just for the sake of that itself. This is a purely subjective value, and it should have no influence over whether OTHER parents should be able to circumcise their children. All that DOES define a "right" is the question of what harm/risk it causes vs. what harm/risk the absence of it might cause. Do you people understand yet? "It should be the original", "physical intactness", these are non-reasons to call someone else wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Obviously that the child has a problem with growing up circumcised. Otherwise, there would be no need for restoration procedures you quoted to make a different point, but now must defend against.
Defend against what? I never denied that some guys have a problem with being circumcised. As you said, I brought attention to that myself. However, I also brought attention to the fact that there are MANY things parents decide for their children which their children may come to despise. Check the question that's remained unanswered, with an answer that can be defended, that is.

The question is:

What gives a parent the right to move their infant son to another state or country? There is a huge difference between the life that boy would've lived and the life he will now live, much bigger than the difference between being circumcised and uncircumcised. Further, it would be very expensive to move back (especially from another country), and he would have to wait until he was around 18. Theoretically, a boy could begin the process of nonsurgical foreskin restoration as a child or teenager. Thus, moving your kid out of state is both more "denying them the right to choose" due to all the changes you are in fact making, and more "permanent".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,830,503 times
Reputation: 12162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
That is YOUR focus. Obviously, I don't care about something being "untouched" or "original" just for the sake of that itself. This is a purely subjective value...
Correct, it is MY focus, because I prefer to stick with the aspect of restoration and its "highlights" and needs, as opposed to deflecting by switching to comparison between parts.

Likewise untouched versus restored has quite a bit more than just a subjective value. It is also about practical value.

Quote:
Defend against what? I never denied that some guys have a problem with being circumcised. As you said, I brought attention to that myself. However, I also brought attention to the fact that there are MANY things parents decide for their children which their children may come to despise. Check the question that's remained unanswered, with an answer that can be defended, that is.
To those people, those were terrible decisions made by parents on their body. There are other children who can't speak for or against these decisions because they have nothing to compare to. Fortunately, more people are realizing that the ritual is rather intrusive and are staying out.

Quote:
What gives a parent the right to move their infant son to another state or country? There is a huge difference between the life that boy would've lived and the life he will now live, much bigger than the difference between being circumcised and uncircumcised. Further, it would be very expensive to move back (especially from another country), and he would have to wait until he was around 18. Theoretically, a boy could begin the process of nonsurgical foreskin restoration as a child or teenager. Thus, moving your kid out of state is both more "denying them the right to choose" due to all the changes you are in fact making, and more "permanent".
Your question isn't very clear. I'm assuming the parents are moving, hence the infant? With that in mind, how in the world did you manage to equate the need to move with the parent with a tribal ritual that plays with the body parts of a child? Would you make that same comparison to the idea of neck rings I presented previously?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 11:34 AM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,134,860 times
Reputation: 4828
I'd like to touch on a different, but I feel related, topic: intersex conditions and childhood surgery. A small percentage of people, somewhere between 1-2%, are intersex - neither male nor female, but an intermediate biological sex. Some of the intersex have ambiguous genitals. For instance, XY-females who are born with, and will always have, a micropenis despite (mostly) developing hormonally as a female (breasts, female pelvic structure, etc). Often times, these conditions are "treated" surgically when the child is an infant; often not though - it's common to look at a group of kids with a certain intersex condition and find that half are raised as girls and half are raised as boys.

I've done work with the LGBT community, and since many intersex people are put under the transgendered category (even though they're really not, they're intersexed), I've met a handful of intersex people, some of whom underwent surgery as a child. Every single one of them harbored extreme resentment towards their parents for doing so. They felt violated - they felt altered - they felt that an aspect of who they are had been removed and thrown in the trash.

So my question is this. Should parents have the right to have surgery performed on their children to "fix" intersex conditions?

Intersex Initiative
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 11:53 AM
 
Location: USA
19,650 posts, read 14,613,662 times
Reputation: 12698
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot View Post
Women have smegma too. Are you equally grossed out and a fan of labiaplasty for infant girls?
"labiaplasty for infant girls" If this actually happens, it is rare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 11:54 AM
 
Location: TX
6,493 posts, read 5,217,417 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Likewise untouched versus restored has quite a bit more than just a subjective value. It is also about practical value.
You going to specify as to what practical function a restored foreskin doesn't serve? One that necessarily makes a difference in quality of life would be great

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
To those people, those were terrible decisions made by parents on their body. There are other children who can't speak for or against these decisions because they have nothing to compare to.
But WHY do they say these were terrible decisions? The arguments inevitably come back to non-reasons. Made up ideals of what "should" be. And they're welcome to that way of thinking if that's what makes 'em happy, but these ideals do not give you adequate reason to call someone else wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Your question isn't very clear. I'm assuming the parents are moving, hence the infant? With that in mind, how in the world did you manage to equate the need to move with the parent with a tribal ritual that plays with the body parts of a child?
Well assume that the parents are not being FORCED to move out of state/the country, as is usually the case. They are CHOOSING to move, knowing very well that the life they'll be living will be quite different in another state or country. The boy gets absolutely no say in something that will help shape almost every aspect of his life. You have no problem with this, yet you do have a problem with something that is comparably UNLIKELY to be an issue. And if being circumcised IS ever regretted, it can be "fixed" much more easily (not in the mind of people with your agenda who look at the differences between a natural and restored foreskin as a scientist would, but in the mind of a man who gets everything he feels he missed out on by not being circumcised).

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Would you make that same comparison to the idea of neck rings I presented previously?
I'd have to hear more than "Some parents think it enhances beauty" to comment, as it doesn't come close to summing up reasons to have your kid circumcised.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2012, 12:02 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,134,860 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post
You going to specify as to what practical function a restored foreskin doesn't serve? One that necessarily makes a difference in quality of life would be great
Here again are some of its practical functions:

It's rich in nerve ending and adds to erotic pleasure, especially via the ridged band and Meissner's corpuscles. It acts as a rolling bearing in intercourse and masturbation. It prevents dyspareunia (painful intercourse). It stores pheromones and releases them on arousal. It stores, releases and helps distribute natural lubricants ("smega" and pre-ejaculatory fluid). It prevents the gl*ns from becoming keratinised, and keeps it soft and moist. It protects the thin-skinned gl*ns against injury. It protects the nerves of the gl*ns, retaining their erotic function. It provides lysosomes for bacteriostatic action around the gl*ns.

Personally, I cannot stand the feeling of when my foreskin has been retracted for longer than say 30 minutes. The gl*ns become terribly dried out and feels chapped and sandpapery. It nears the point of being unbearably uncomfortable.

I feel very sorry for men who have to put up with this feeling, thinking it's normal that their gl*ns be like a dried up sandpaper raisin, for their entire life.

warning: medical pictures of the male penis contained within link:
keratinised
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:05 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top