Should parents have the right to have their infant son circumcised? (dollar, homosexual)
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.
Thanks Mom and Dad for not cutting off a piece of my member. It is said that circumcised men don't have as much of the sensation/feeling there when you have the skin chopped off early on in life-that sounds awful. Again, thanks Mom and Dad.
Like I've stated previously, circumcised male parents are not getting their sons cut.
Huh? As a circumcised father who had his son circumcised, I beg to differ!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
It's going out of practice in the U.S. because these men don't want the same for their sons. That says it all.
Not at all. Why don't they want the same for their sons? Are we now contending that the majority of circumcised males are unhappy about it? I've covered a few reasons to be happy about it, just over the last few pages. Or, is this an assumption constructed from the "Men care primarily about sex" stereotype conjoined with "Sex feels better with a natural foreskin"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
In other countries if you are cut, they assume you are of a particular faith because nobody else has this done.
Largely irrelevant, to parents like me who had it done for reasons other than appearance or "fitting in".
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
It's only normal here. But that is changing and soon more boys and men with be un-cut than cut. So, I would take out the reason "culturally normal" from your decisions. That simply won't apply down the road.
Not necessarily. People could start learning more about the benefits of circumcision, and that would mean the only change would be in the reasons people give for having it done (That's assuming the majority of them include appearance or "fitting in" in their reasons presently).
Huh? As a circumcised father who had his son circumcised, I beg to differ!
Just because you've done this doesn't mean all do it. My point is not all cut parents require their sons be "look a likes"
Not at all. Why don't they want the same for their sons? Are we now contending that the majority of circumcised males are unhappy about it? I've covered a few reasons to be happy about it, just over the last few pages. Or, is this an assumption constructed from the "Men care primarily about sex" stereotype conjoined with "Sex feels better with a natural foreskin"?
It's just an old religious practice that was adopted in the U.S. 140 years ago as a way to curb masturbation in boys. At first only the rich in this country could afford it which made it something others desired. It was simply a trend, and now that we've grown up and realized no ghosts exist we aren't so into it. Some countries actually outlaw the practice.
Largely irrelevant, to parents like me who had it done for reasons other than appearance or "fitting in".
I'm truly only aware of the religious aspects of wanting this done because removing any part of the body can free it from illness. We could continue the benefits excuse with the rest of our bodies but I'm afraid we wouldn't have enough body parts to live if we did.
You can't justify cutting off body parts to simply keep them free from the "possibility" that something might happen in the future. That reasoning could apply to any part of the body. How far should we be allowed to go with that?
If I remove my sons thumb it would surely prevent arthritis in his thumb. If I remove my eyelids, it would prevent pink eye. I mean medically speaking lets weigh out the risks of infection and medical mishaps during circumcision and the amount of harm without it.
Not necessarily. People could start learning more about the benefits of circumcision, and that would mean the only change would be in the reasons people give for having it done (That's assuming the majority of them include appearance or "fitting in" in their reasons presently).
There really aren't any proven medical facts to circumcise. Not enough to outweigh the risks of this practice. That is why other countries are starting to ban it from coverage or ban it legally. In America we are fearful of religious freedoms which is one of the biggest reasons doctors don't argue it. We have a lot of Jews and Muslims here, it would cause a lot of chaos if we advised against it. We leave it to personal choice but, more and more people who are not Muslim or Jew are opting to leave their boys penis alone and natural. These are the facts as rates are falling.
Medicare won't cover it in 1/2 of the U.S. anymore. Now you have to pay for it out of pocket like any other plastic surgery.
The tide is turning. This is a fact, look up the numbers and you will see. On the East and West coasts more people opt out than do it now, soon it will travel through the rest of the country. Just a matter of time.
Activist against it are everywhere here, it's a heated topic. Fact sheets abound. It's just a matter of time, IMO.
I think it should be left up to the parents. Many do it for religion reasons.
And it has not reduced my "sexual pleasure" or "traumatized" me like the left claims it doesn’t. that is all bull****!
And yes there are health reasons for doing and medical science has shown that whether you like or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
I'm glad I was 'un-cut', because personally I think they should not. The foreskin is part of the human anatomy, and circumcision is almost a form of multilation. I don't buy the supposed 'health benefits' which most medical professionals refute (most stick to it for personal or sometimes religious reasons, especially Muslims and Jews). Removing the foreskin has also been shown to reduce sexual pleasure, which would be a bit of a bummer. Anyway, if the boy or maybe man decides to have the procedure done for any reason it is easily done with anaesthetic. It is, practically speaking, not possible to reverse circumcision.
It's not as extreme as female circumcision, obviously, but I just feel it's a violation of someone's person to modify their body like that, with them having no say in it.
funny how left wingers are all about choice until the disagree with it.
I've spoken to many women who have been with UC men and say its nasty because they DO NOT clean it properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just a Bill
No. The child has not consented to body modification, and I think the same thing goes for piercings before a child is old enough to understand.
It's funny how the right-wingers will defend this practice while condemning female circumcision. It is the removal of flesh that is chock-full of nerve endings. "Oh yeah, if we don't circumcise, men wont clean that area!" BULL. You don't cut off our armpits, yet some men still don't bother to wash them. It's an ancient, brutal thing, which is RARELY practiced outside the US.
If you think it's wrong to kill a fetus without its consent, you shouldn't mutilate your boy's penis without his consent.
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.
Should parents have the right to have their infant son circumcised?
