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.
Also, I'd like to point out that female circumcision is a misnomer, because it typically does not entail only the removal of the clitoral hood. The three main types of female circumcision are the removal of the clitoris, the removal of one or both sets of labia, and sewing the labia almost shut. Just so we all know what it is.
Also, I'd like to point out that female circumcision is a misnomer, because it typically does not entail only the removal of the clitoral hood. The three main types of female circumcision are the removal of the clitoris, the removal of one or both sets of labia, and sewing the labia almost shut. Just so we all know what it is.
I think the point being made here isn’t the degree of cutting, or what sex the person is, but rather the fact we should let the individual make the decision as to how much of their genitals they want to remove. We waste too much time and money on things that are not necessary, and this sure looks like a prime example.
It might be best to just keep our hands off others genitals until asked.
I think the point being made here isn’t the degree of cutting, or what sex the person is, but rather the fact we should let the individual make the decision as to how much of their genitals they want to remove. We waste too much time and money on things that are not necessary, and this sure looks like a prime example.
It might be best to just keep our hands off others genitals until asked.
Exactly. An infant is a human being with all the rights and privileges afford to such. When the entity that is a newborn enters the world outside of the womb it is an individual being with a unique and seperate personality apart from it's parents, and although it is not capable of anything remotely resembling decision making or reasoning, that does not give another human being the power to make decisions in terms of depriving said infant of a part of it's anatomy.
The foreskin is not just a bunch of ugly skin that serves no purpose other than to cover the tip of the penis. The link I provided in my previous post concerns itself with describing the highly specialized function of the foreskin; how it is sensitive to temperature, how it cleans and protects the internal organ that it covers, how it has hundreds of feet of specialized nerves and nerve endings, and how it was designed (or evolved, if you will) to perform a function just as important as the eyelid.
Why would God (or nature) design such a highly specialized and sensitive organ only to have us cut it off shortly after birth?
I find it ironic how some people in this thread are saying that the anti-circumcision posters fail to see that this is a matter of personal decision. However, when they say that, they are refering to a personal decision that should be made by the person who has the foreskin in question. So I can say that I agree that it is a matter of personal decision, but let the individual in question make the decision for himself when he is capable (when he turns 18), and not his parents making it for him when he is only days old.
Last edited by NEWARK MAGIC; 09-30-2009 at 12:41 PM..
Exactly. An infant is a human being with all the rights and privileges afford to such. When the entity that is a newborn enters the world outside of the womb it is an individual being with a unique and seperate personality apart from it's parents, and although it is not capable of anything remotely resembling decision making or reasoning, that does not give another human being the power to make decisions in terms of depriving said infant of a part of it's anatomy.
The foreskin is not just a bunch of ugly skin that serves no purpose other than to cover the tip of the penis. The link I provided in my previous post concerns itself with describing the highly specialized function of the foreskin; how it is sensitive to temperature, how it cleans and protects the internal organ that it covers, how it has hundreds of feet of specialized nerves and nerve endings, and how it was designed (or evolved, if you will) to perform a function just as important as the eyelid.
Why would God (or nature) design such a highly specialized and sensitive organ only to have us cut it off shortly after birth?
I hear you, I do. I had a lot of mixed feelings about the procedure and relied on my husband to choose. If we were going to have another son, I'd probably oppose circumcision. We're not having any more children, though, so that is moot. That's about as far as I am going to take it, and unfortunately, that's probably where most other opponents stand too.
Parents do have the right to deprive their children of parts of their anatomies, however--that's obvious. Appendectomies and tonsillectomies come easily to mind. I mentioned before that my daughter was born with heart problems; she was on medication for a year that suppressed extra electrical stimuli that made her heart beat faster. Those impulses weren't part of her anatomy, per se, but they were part of how she was born and how her body developed all on its own. We had the right to change that about her.
Yes, I understand that circumcision is not medically necessary. I am just pointing out that parents do have the right to alter their kids' bodies--we are just quibbling about where that line is drawn.
<snip>Parents do have the right to deprive their children of parts of their anatomies, however--that's obvious.
In medically-necessary cases, I agree. However, routine circumcision devoid of pathology is NOT medically necessary. It is purely cosmetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia
Appendectomies and tonsillectomies come easily to mind.
The clinical indications for both procedures are typically infection (appendicitis, with or without rupture, and tonsillitis unresponsive to medical therapy). Infection is a medical necessity for intervention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia
I mentioned before that my daughter was born with heart problems; she was on medication for a year that suppressed extra electrical stimuli that made her heart beat faster. Those impulses weren't part of her anatomy, per se, but they were part of how she was born and how her body developed all on its own. We had the right to change that about her.
Of course you had that right, as arrhythmia is (again) an indication for intervention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia
Yes, I understand that circumcision is not medically necessary. I am just pointing out that parents do have the right to alter their kids' bodies--we are just quibbling about where that line is drawn.
Unfortunately, your stance is not supported by necessity; therefore, the two examples (circumcision v. medically-necessary procedures) are inconsistent.
The very thought of a knife in my child's nether regions, either my son's or my daughter's, gives me the cold shakes. Nowhere outside of the US is there a population where the circumcised male population outnumbers the intact, unless it is due to religious reasons. Even our neighbors to the north, Canada, only have 30% of the male population circumcised.
It will take a few more generations before Americans let go of their hangups about intact male members. I think many of the folks who still insist on having their sons cut are unable to come to terms with the fact that they cannot undo their own parents' choice so they hand the torch off to their own sons.
Certain countries have outlawed the practice unless it is medically necessary or if it is for religious reasons. I don't think the US needs to outlaw it, I just think doctors should do a better job of educating/informing their patients.
I'm curious. How many adult men who've been circumcised feel that they've been mutilated? Has it ruined your self image or your sex life?
I am an adult male, sexual active with only my wife, and circumcised, but to answer your question would require me to have the same experience as an uncircumcised man; which is not possible at this point. There is no way to know what was lost unless we had the chance to use it prior to having it chopped off. Mutilated? Who knows, that would be in the eye of the beholder, and my self image is not based on my penis and I suspect would not have been as an uncircumcised person also. I still think it is just unnecessary surgery.
I disagree. You and I are talking red apples and green apples. The parents who refuse to give their diabetic daughter insulin are on the "orange" side. Some people believe that their children are born according to God's will and any intervention at all defiles His design. They are the oranges, not you.
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.
