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.
What I mean is do the benefits really outweigh the risk? Removal of female ovaries and breast also cut risks of cancer and people do this. But, they don't do it to their kids, even if they are at a higher risk of cancer from the family gene pool.
No no. Ovaries are comparable to testes, not the foreskin. Not at all. And both the ovaries and breasts serve a much bigger function than the foreskin. My being circumcised did not prevent me from conceiving a child, didn't alter my appearance in public (especially not in such a way that would make me less popular) and of course did not keep my wife from having the decision to breastfeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
The risks aren't high enough to warrant cutting your kids body parts off the lower it.
Obviously, I disagree. Well, it's not so much how high the risk is, as it is what the risk is of. Penile cancer and HIV are deadly! BTW, did you know that if a man gets a circumcision, he will not reap the same protective benefits in regards to penile cancer as he would have if he'd been circumcised as a newborn? Indeed, it's even suggested that a man getting a circumcision may even heighten the risk of penile cancer. This... sort of flies in the face of that whole "Let him choose when he's a full-grown man instead!" argument, eh?
nor do most other countries perform it for medical reasons routinely at birth. It remains for largely religious reasons.
Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't automatically mean there aren't better reasons to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
The degree of incident is so low that it hardly seems worth considering. Especially since we have no conclusive studies done in the U.S. on the subject. We've borrowed most of these studies from Africa.
Which changes what, exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
A child who wasn't circumcised doesn't have a risk of infection from circumcision. No risk of Meatitis. They don't run the risk of a botched circumcision either. You have to add all the variables in. I'm just glad more parents are becoming informed before they decide on matching dad.
That's preposterous. More education on this subject will not necessarily lead to people agreeing with you. At most, it will lead to people taking it more seriously, which I am all for. I don't think parents should choose it for aesthetic or religious reasons at all. But I don't think they are, either. I think it's probably more often about hygiene or the very same medical reasons that convinced me.
This is just another decisions that parents can and should make for their children that will affect them throughout life. There are pros and cons that parents should consider pros include a greatly decreased risk of penile cancer, along with a decreased risk of UTIs, STIs and other illnesses. It also eliminates the possibility of getting the foreskin infected later in life and having to get it painfully remove. The kid will not have to deal with the smell and gunk that comes with not being circumcised. Cons include not feeling "natural" and a perceived decrease in sensation.
funny how left wingers are all about choice until the disagree with it.
I'm a left winger, and I'm absolutely for "choice" in this matter. The choice should belong to the man whose penis it is. That choice should not be taken away from him - it should be preserved.
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.
Sort of like putting a chip under their skin, right?
I still see the scar, is that enough for you? "you know it" and then you call me "presumptuous"? LMAO!
Male circumcision is firmly rooted in Americanized Judeo-Christian belief. Please, prove me wrong. You won't be able to. If you ACTUALLY research the practice, that is. It's barbaric.
You know, I find it SO IRONIC that right-wingers scream about freedom and liberty while at the same time whacking part of their non-consenting son's penies off. It's comedy GOLD!
Progressive would order policing officials shoot those exercising their 2A rights. Find some of those rabid threads on this site and tell me which is the true comedy gold.
Don't be ridiculous. There isn't a good reason to circumcise.
You should do some reading on the subject. It will do you good.
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.
