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.
Because of STDs- I'll teach my son to use protection. Circumcision should not be used/seen as some sort of built-in condom.
Because of UTIs- Also bunk. The numbers don't show a very high incident rate. And what about UTIs in women? Are we cutting off anything to prevent these?
With the mounting evidence that male circumcision decreases viral STIs, genital ulcer disease, and penile inflammatory disorders in men, and bacterial vaginosis, T vaginalis infection, and genital ulcer disease in their female partners
They add that while neonatal circumcision carries a complication risk of between 0.2% and 0.6%, that figure jumps to 1.5% to 3.8% among adult males.
hmmm... I've asked for links to reputable sources on the case against it, and still have yet to see anyone with some back up to their statements. Can you provide anything that says that this information is incorrect like you claim?
Interesting also, that it's more important for you to allow your son to make the decsion for himself on something so simple and non-lethal, but i wonder, do you feel that parents should allow their girls to make their own choice on gettin gthe HPV vaccine? Which is MUCH more deadly than a circumcsion, and a circumcision actually helps to prevent more of the HPV virus than the vaccine does!
Quote:
So, to get a permanent tattoo, you actually talk to your child about it, get his input and let it be something that is his decision since it is permanent? Makes A LOT sense...I wonder why you don't apply that same logic to his penis?
Because it has to do with his health before he's old enough to make that decision... AND the tatoo, until he is of age, is still ultimately MY decision. Getting a tatoo or not is not going to have the potential to harm him, but not getting circumcised can, long before he's old enough to make that decision for himself.
Among infants? I don't know about you, but I don't know many infants (or children of any age) who are at increased risk of contracting STDs, including HIV, because of their foreskins.
Well aren't you just the cutest little thing.
You do realize that those itty bitty babies turn into children who turn into grown men, right? Grown men, most of whom will have multiple sex partners and too many of whom will have unprotected sex and contract and pass on disease to others. I admit, it's a bit dark to circumcise an innocent little boy just in case he grows up to be irresponsibly promiscuous, but it's for the best.
You do realize that's exactly the reason we started circumcising boys in the US? Prior to the mid-1800s, you'd be hard pressed to find a circumcised male anywhere in the United States. Then came the Second Great Awakening and it's associated sexual purity movement. The medical community (greatly influenced by the Church) began aggressively trying to prevent the disease of "masturbatory insanity" in male children. The recommended treatment of the day - preventative circumcisions shortly after birth. It also became standard medical practice that uncircumcised boys of any age caught masturbating should be circumcised right away to prevent future occurrences.
Neato. We circumcise today because it reduces the spread of STIs and HIV. Isn't it funny how some things change while others stay the same?
Yes, they will regress, but what full grown adult, without mental issues, chooses to not wash their a$$? Young girls have labia which can harbor smegma, odor and more...should we cut that off as well to avoid them potentially being smelly later in life?
re: female circumcision. And it's not an illogical leap. Folks just don't like to make the comparison because they will then be forced to admit that both practices are barbaric and totally unnecessary.
Actually, as far as a females body is concerned (which part of me is surprised you don't understand this as a woman and part of me isn't) but our bodies are designed much better than men's to flush things out. Not to get too TMI (can that happen on a thread discussing penises? peni?), but our bodies are constantly flushing out things that don't belong there. The foreskin is not designed to do that. One of the things that can happen, even with very diligent cleaning, is that the foreskin can become "glued" to the penis. Which means not only is it painful to try to clean, but also almost impossible to do it... and as the boy gets older, this can cause tearing (did I just hear all the men in the room flinch?) along the shaft. God forbig that happens during intercourse! Circumcision is the only thing that can prevent this from happening.
Are our expectations of a man's ability to clean himself so low that in order to ensure he clean his penis, we must cut off a part of it?
That's really quite sad. I will teach my intact son about hygiene the same way I will teach my daughters.
Both men and women have smegma and both is removed and cleaned the same way. Why is female smegma okay while men smegma is seen as some sort of gross thing that should be avoided at all costs?
Women who have a problem with an uncirc penis for reasons like: it looks weird sound really immature and prima-donna'ish.
heh. Well the record speaks for itself. It would not be a recommended procedure if there was any faith that all men would take proper care of their hygiene. It's easier for women to remove their smegma in the shower then it is for an uncircumcised male.
Thanks. I did read it and don't have time to respond as you deserve. Sorry about that. But it still didn't answer my fundamental question: why is the physical elevated in importance over the non-physical, in your view, when comparing permanent choices made on behalf of children? If you answered that I must have missed it.
Well, I think addressed that when I talked about permanence and impermanence. It's not that I elevate the physical over the non-physical, it's that they are two completely different things. I don't agree with you when you try to conflate them and treat them the same.
When it comes to physical things, there are some that are permanent and some that are impermanent. It's perfectly fine to attempt to instill, or even to dictate your standards and norms on your child when dealing with physical things: appropriate hair lengths, finger nail lengths, make-up wearing, general hygiene, etc. You're imposing (or suggesting) your values in the hopes your kids will grow into adults who choose the same or similar values. While hopefully raising them to agree with you, you've done nothing to take away their free-will or freedom of self-determination if by chance they don't. Once he turns 18, your son can grow his hair to his knees, never cut his fingernails again, and start wearing eye liner if that's what he chooses (presumably against your wishes).
That's different from a permanent physical alteration. If you cut your son's foreskin or nipples off, they are gone forever. If you have your daughters clitoris removed, she's never getting it back. If you have laser hair removal done on your kids' heads, then they are bald for life. You'd taken away their free will. You've denied them the freedom of self-determination. I find that to be highly immoral.
When it comes to non-physical things, there is no permanence/impermanence distinction. As such, they are unlike the physical in that there is no way to do away with your son's free will or his freedom of self-determination. There's no permanent way to set your son's religion - as an adult, he can choose whatever religion (or no religion) he wants. There's no permanent way to set your son's name - as an adult, he can go by whatever name he chooses. And on and on and on.
You do realize that those itty bitty babies turn into children who turn into grown men, right? Grown men, most of whom will have multiple sex partners and too many of whom will have unprotected sex and contract and pass on disease to others. I admit, it's a bit dark to circumcise an innocent little boy just in case he grows up to be irresponsibly promiscuous, but it's for the best.
Why not educate your son on the risks of foreskins and STDs and then let him make the decision for himself when he comes of age?
So we should mutilate a newborn's genitals on the off chance that they become incapacitated later in life? My son will have at least 40 decades of adulthood to make this decision all on his own. It does not have to be decided within the first few hours of his birth.
It's not the same thing and you know it.
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.
Well aren't you just the cutest little thing. 
