Should parents have the right to have their infant son circumcised? (pay, issues)

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

That comparison is not even worth taking seriously.

And why not?

Originally Posted by Trimac20

'Believed to' is the key word here. I haven't done much research myself, but in 25 years I haven't suffered any of those weird diseases, nor, I would suspect, are they rampant in the 70% of the world which does not cling to meaningless traditions.

No one is calling it absolutely necessary. But there is a mountain of evidence (conspiracy, if you insist) in the medical field suggesting that circumcision helps prevent a wide array of conditions and diseases.

I'll go ahead and answer your question, though you're not answering mine. The reason some parents choose to have their son circumcised rather than leave it up to him is that in the event circumcision should be medically necessary, it's much more of an ordeal (emotionally, physically, and financially) for a grown man to undergo circumcision than for a newborn. Some men in their anxiety may even refuse to have it done, even if it's without a doubt in their best interest. And of course, after having it done, they are much more likely to feel the loss than someone who's been circumcised all their life.

By default, something like this (where there is no definite right or wrong) is left up to the parents to decide what is best for their child. You said you didn't know what to say about posts #570 and 572. Does that mean you acknowledge there is little to no consequential difference between the natural foreskin and a restored foreskin? If so, then you are arguing for the sake of very little. A personal value of "physical intactness", perhaps, like some others here. A claim that because it's not your body, that somehow separates it fundamentally from every other decision you make for the child as his parent.

The fact is, no matter what you choose, there's a chance your son will suffer for it. The question is, what sort of suffering would you put your son at risk of?

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

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

Yeah I mean retracting the foreskin makes it feel naked. I can't imagine going around all day like that. The foreskin is obviously there for a purpose, I doubt God designed it merely to be chopped off.

I read that many circumcised guys need some kind of lubricant to masturbate. If that isn't kind of screwed up, I'm sorry to say, I don't know what is. Thank God I was left intact and natural.

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

And why not?



No one is calling it absolutely necessary. But there is a mountain of evidence (conspiracy, if you insist) in the medical field suggesting that circumcision helps prevent a wide array of conditions and diseases.

I'll go ahead and answer your question, though you're not answering mine. The reason some parents choose to have their son circumcised rather than leave it up to him is that in the event circumcision should be medically necessary, it's much more of an ordeal (emotionally, physically, and financially) for a grown man to undergo circumcision than for a newborn. Some men in their anxiety may even refuse to have it done, even if it's without a doubt in their best interest. And of course, after having it done, they are much more likely to feel the loss than someone who's been circumcised all their life.

By default, something like this (where there is no definite right or wrong) is left up to the parents to decide what is best for their child. You said you didn't know what to say about posts #570 and 572. Does that mean you acknowledge there is little to no consequential difference between the natural foreskin and a restored foreskin? If so, then you are arguing for the sake of very little. A personal value of "physical intactness", perhaps, like some others here. A claim that because it's not your body, that somehow separates it fundamentally from every other decision you make for the child as his parent.

The fact is, no matter what you choose, there's a chance your son will suffer for it. The question is, what sort of suffering would you put your son at risk of?

Your point is moot. Clearly, moving to another state has nothing to do with something that is almost mutilation of a normal, functioning organ. Moving to another state does not impede one's natural functioning, what a lame comparison.

I don't know about 'restored' foreskins. I said nothing about those posts, btw.

If I have a son I will leave that decision up to him. If he wants to do it in later life, that's up to him. I won't condemn him for it, but I don't feel the need to impose my own beliefs on another. By that reasoning why not get the appendix removed at birth, since the prevalence of appendicitus is far higher than anything serious or life threatening that could come about from not being circumcised. Anyway if you're hygenic it shouldn't even be an issue...those arguments probably apply to guys who never wash down there anyway.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Your point is moot. Clearly, moving to another state has nothing to do with something that is almost mutilation of a normal, functioning organ. Moving to another state does not impede one's natural functioning, what a lame comparison.

Then stop trying to run from it. Let's see, the closest thing to an answer is what I put in bold. In response to this, I ask, what specific natural functioning are you worried about? Anything necessary that can't be regained? You go on to say,

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Anyway if you're hygenic it shouldn't even be an issue...those arguments probably apply to guys who never wash down there anyway.

A guessing game is no basis for calling something wrong.

I might suggest that keratinization doesn't affect guys who use soap with a moisturizer, or the vast majority of circumcised men whether they do this or not, as I haven't had any problems in going on 30 years. And as I've said, in the unlikely event a man should have this problem, he has options. He can start using moisturizer or he can look into foreskin restoration (surgical or nonsurgical, the latter, in addition to being much cheaper is actually preferred). But there are medical problems that can make circumcision necessary, meaning those men have no other option but to get it. This side of the argument has gone completely ignored, that a man must suffer much more should circumcision be medically necessary after he's grown up - before, during, and after the surgery (comparing what is with what was, and men who have been circumcised their whole life have to deal with no such aftermath).

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Then stop trying to run from it. Let's see, the closest thing to an answer is what I put in bold. In response to this, I ask, what specific natural functioning are you worried about? Anything necessary that can't be regained? You go on to say,



A guessing game is no basis for calling something wrong.

I might suggest that keratinization doesn't affect guys who use soap with a moisturizer, or the vast majority of circumcised men whether they do this or not, as I haven't had any problems in going on 30 years. And as I've said, in the unlikely event a man should have this problem, he has options. He can start using moisturizer or he can look into foreskin restoration (surgical or nonsurgical, the latter, in addition to being much cheaper is actually preferred). But there are medical problems that can make circumcision necessary, meaning those men have no other option but to get it. This side of the argument has gone completely ignored, that a man must suffer much more should circumcision be medically necessary after he's grown up - before, during, and after the surgery (comparing what is with what was, and men who have been circumcised their whole life have to deal with no such aftermath).

Er okay, if we were face to face and you had a gun I'm afraid you'd point it to my head to force me to answer your nonsensical question, as if it's so clever and you've got me check-mated .

The vast majority of uncircumcised men DO NOT have specific problems related to or caused by their foreskins. Circumcised men have the same problems, HIV, STD's, whatever. So far there have been no statistics to prove that the rates of those diseases are higher in Europe than in the US or say Iran. What do you have to say to that?

The whole premise that circumcision is 'preventative' again is like talking about appendicitus, yet it's not even a fraction of the 'threat' - nay, not even a threat at all unless the man has some rare problem anyway. Again, it's your turn, why not remove the appendix if it's got the potential to cause health problems later? We don't really need the appendix, right?

The foreskin contains many nerve endings so obviously a circumcised man will never know what he's missing out on. The foreskin actually has functions of it's own, including natural cleaning functions.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Er okay, if we were face to face and you had a gun I'm afraid you'd point it to my head to force me to answer your nonsensical question, as if it's so clever and you've got me check-mated .

Both your assumptions about me personally and the cleverness of my question are irrelevant. Please answer, if you can.

Originally Posted by Trimac20

The vast majority of uncircumcised men DO NOT have specific problems related to or caused by their foreskins. Circumcised men have the same problems, HIV, STD's, whatever. So far there have been no statistics to prove that the rates of those diseases are higher in Europe than in the US or say Iran. What do you have to say to that?

Given that nations differ in a great many other ways, I find that a silly basis for thinking circumcision makes no difference. There could be literally countless explanations for any differences or similarities between any two countries. Perhaps we should make all other factors closer to equal, except the one we're examining? Perhaps we should compare men who live in the SAME country to determine what the difference between circumcised and uncircumcised is - oh wait, they've already done that

I've already agreed that infant circumcision is not medically necessary in most cases. Obviously, no, the majority of uncircumcised men do not experience problems related to or caused by the foreskin. But then, NONE of the circumcised men do. While your point beats to death the fact that infant circumcision is not often medically necessary, mine shows why parents should have the right to make the decision. Circumcision can prevent MAJOR problems, while risking minor ones. Not being circumcised prevents MINOR problems, while risking major ones.

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Again, it's your turn, why not remove the appendix if it's got the potential to cause health problems later? We don't really need the appendix, right?

I have no idea. Haven't studied up on that. But I might guess that at least part of the "why not" has something to do with it being a less practical and/or a slightly more risky surgery.

Originally Posted by Trimac20

The foreskin contains many nerve endings so obviously a circumcised man will never know what he's missing out on.

Exactly. And at first glance, it seems this serves to support both our arguments equally. But there's still the fact that those men who have to have their foreskins removed for health reasons later in life, have to deal with considerable anxiety, much higher financial costs, and the sense that they've lost something important and are no longer "whole". Men who were circumcised as infants don't have to worry about any of that.

Originally Posted by Trimac20

The foreskin actually has functions of it's own, including natural cleaning functions.

Okay, so it cleans. At very least, this and the beliefs of medical professionals that uncircumcised men are at greater risk of contracting certain diseases, cancel each other out. What else ya got?

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Both your assumptions about me personally and the cleverness of my question are irrelevant. Please answer, if you can.



Given that nations differ in a great many other ways, I find that a silly basis for thinking circumcision makes no difference. There could be literally countless explanations for any differences or similarities between any two countries. Perhaps we should make all other factors closer to equal, except the one we're examining? Perhaps we should compare men who live in the SAME country to determine what the difference between circumcised and uncircumcised is - oh wait, they've already done that

I've already agreed that infant circumcision is not medically necessary in most cases. Obviously, no, the majority of uncircumcised men do not experience problems related to or caused by the foreskin. But then, NONE of the circumcised men do. While your point beats to death the fact that infant circumcision is not often medically necessary, mine shows why parents should have the right to make the decision. Circumcision can prevent MAJOR problems, while risking minor ones. Not being circumcised prevents MINOR problems, while risking major ones.



I have no idea. Haven't studied up on that. But I might guess that at least part of the "why not" has something to do with it being a less practical and/or a slightly more risky surgery.



Exactly. And at first glance, it seems this serves to support both our arguments equally. But there's still the fact that those men who have to have their foreskins removed for health reasons later in life, have to deal with considerable anxiety, much higher financial costs, and the sense that they've lost something important and are no longer "whole". Men who were circumcised as infants don't have to worry about any of that.



Okay, so it cleans. At very least, this and the beliefs of medical professionals that uncircumcised men are at greater risk of contracting certain diseases, cancel each other out. What else ya got?

I've already answered your 'question' as best as one can. Not that I have to give you the answer you want just to satisfy you.

So now you acknowledge it's not medically necessary? Again, no study has showed any significant positive benefits of circumcision. It's all smoke and water. Again, I never hear about any weird problems with guys my age here, who are mostly uncut...maybe they're all hiding, wishing they were circumcised .

If removing foreskin does reduce natural sexual enjoyability (did you know a common reason cited for circumcision in the late 19th and early 20th century was to curb masturbation?), then what right have parents to deny that to their sons in the future? I think everyone has the right to fully enjoy their body as it was made.

Anyway my argument is more specific about rights, and the right of the child to not be physically violated against the supposed right of parents to modify their child. The former clearly takes precedence over the latter because circumcision is NOT considered medically necessary by the medical community or common sense. I also agree that parents should not be allowed to name their kids Lucifer - again some will selfishly agree for parental rights, as if parents created their children out of nothing. Parents do not own their children, they are merely another link in the chain. If they want kids, it's their responsibility for them to grow up happy and healthy. Sure some might not know any better, but circumcision is taking away something that is not yours to take away.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

I've already answered your 'question' as best as one can. Not that I have to give you the answer you want just to satisfy you.

Certainly not. But not being able to specify why the two are different should kinda tell you something...

Originally Posted by Trimac20

So now you acknowledge it's not medically necessary? Again, no study has showed any significant positive benefits of circumcision. It's all smoke and water.

I acknowledged that it isn't medically necessary a few posts ago. And as I've been saying, it's up to the parent to determine whether the positive benefits to circumcision are "significant".

Originally Posted by Trimac20

If removing foreskin does reduce natural sexual enjoyability (did you know a common reason cited for circumcision in the late 19th and early 20th century was to curb masturbation?), then what right have parents to deny that to their sons in the future? I think everyone has the right to fully enjoy their body as it was made.

This is one of the minor problems I was referring to. Obviously, some parents see it as more important to prevent major problems like phimosis, paraphimosis, and balanoposthitis (not to mention what's said about circumcision minimizing the risk of other conditions/diseases, however questionable) than this difference in sexual pleasure. Hardly something you should call them wrong for.

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Anyway my argument is more specific about rights, and the right of the child to not be physically violated against the supposed right of parents to modify their child. The former clearly takes precedence over the latter because circumcision is NOT considered medically necessary by the medical community or common sense.

Nonsense. Once more, if the child doesn't have a right to not be moved to another state/country (a decision parents make that is likely to be both more permanent and more consequential for him than infant circumcision), what gives him the right to not be "physically violated" in this way?

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Certainly not. But not being able to specify why the two are different should kinda tell you something...



I acknowledged that it isn't medically necessary a few posts ago. And as I've been saying, it's up to the parent to determine whether the positive benefits to circumcision are "significant".



This is one of the minor problems I was referring to. Obviously, some parents see it as more important to prevent major problems like phimosis, paraphimosis, and balanoposthitis (not to mention what's said about circumcision minimizing the risk of other conditions/diseases, however questionable) than this difference in sexual pleasure. Hardly something you should call them wrong for.



Nonsense. Once more, if the child doesn't have a right to not be moved to another state/country (a decision parents make that is likely to be both more permanent and more consequential for him than infant circumcision), what gives him the right to not be "physically violated" in this way?

No I believe it should be up to the individual who has to deal with the consequences whether the risks are 'significant' or not.

Again, empty claims. Those diseases are easily preventable without cutting off perfectly healthy, functioning tissue.

Again, your last point is laughable. No one but you would even take it seriously. Are you seriously that full of yourself that you're even believing your own nonsensical arguments?

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

No I believe it should be up to the individual who has to deal with the consequences whether the risks are 'significant' or not.

Parents still have to deal with some of these risks. If the boy develops a condition where circumcision is medically necessary before he turns 18, the parent (or their insurance, if they have it) has to pay for the surgery and deal with the emotional issues plaguing their son.

Also, waiting until your son is an adult and letting him choose isn't really in effect letting him choose. Or, it is, but it's saying "You can have whichever you want, but the second option is going to cost you a lot of money and put you through a terrible ordeal". Options are less equal at that point than if you just had him circumcised at birth and then let him choose between keeping it that way or foreskin restoration (once more, much more affordable and less frightening).

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Again, empty claims. Those diseases are easily preventable without cutting off perfectly healthy, functioning tissue.

I'll assume you are talking about HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, rather than the three I mentioned which REQUIRE removing the foreskin to reliably prevent (phimosis, paraphimosis, and balanoposthitis) and penile cancer.

From the American Cancer Society's website (especially note what I put in bold letters, as it sort of diminishes the value of letting the boy choose when he becomes an adult)

"Circumcision seems to protect against penile cancer when it is done shortly after birth. Although men who were circumcised as babies have a lower chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not, studies looking at this issue have not found the same protective effect if the foreskin is removed later in life."

What are the risk factors for penile cancer?

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Again, your last point is laughable. No one but you would even take it seriously. Are you seriously that full of yourself that you're even believing your own nonsensical arguments?

Personal attacks aside, the argument stands:

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

if the child doesn't have a right to not be moved to another state/country (a decision parents make that is likely to be both more permanent and more consequential for him than infant circumcision), what gives him the right to not be "physically violated" in this way?

If anything is nonsensical, it's the prejudice against circumcision when compared to so many other decisions made for a child that affect the child SO MUCH MORE. You can't argue for the sake of the child's right to choose something that will minutely affect him, and then hypocritically ignore something that will affect him greatly.