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.
I didn't say it was. How is this arguing what I've said, exactly?
Your idea of recovery was the issue. You can't "recover" everything. If it were just a piece of skin with no characteristics of its own, sure. And it ain't.
Interestingly, more men die in the US from breast cancer than from penile cancer. I think it's safe to say that preventing penile cancer is a non-factor for Americans (and Europeans, btw) when deciding whether or not to circumcise your infant son.
Quote:
The most recent American Cancer Society estimates for penile cancer in the United States are for 2012:
About 1,570 new cases of penile cancer will be diagnosed
About 310 men will die of penile cancer
versus
Quote:
The most recent American Cancer Society estimates for male breast cancer in the United States are for 2012:
About 2,190 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed among men
Your idea of recovery was the issue. You can't "recover" everything. If it were just a piece of skin with no characteristics of its own, sure. And it ain't.
Then what is it specifically that cannot be recovered? Unless you're still arguing for the sake of "physical intactness", which has no value in and of itself, foreskin restoration does recover all that is valued for good reason. It even recovers some functions that are valued subjectively.
Interestingly, more men die in the US from breast cancer than from penile cancer. I think it's safe to say that preventing penile cancer is a non-factor for Americans (and Europeans, btw) when deciding whether or not to circumcise your infant son.
Do more men die from breast cancer than from penile cancer and HIV/AIDS combined? Not to mention all the other medical problems circumcision is believed to minimize or prevent. Because that would be a much more accurate way of comparing circumcision with the removal of a man's nipples.
Do more men die from breast cancer than from penile cancer and HIV/AIDS combined? Not to mention all the other medical problems circumcision is believed to minimize or prevent. Because that would be a much more accurate way of comparing circumcision with the removal of a man's nipples.
Again, I don't know any sexually active infants at higher risk for contracting HIV because of their foreskin. It makes no sense to use HIV as an argument for allowing infant circumcision. (adult circumcision, sure)
Again, I don't know any sexually active infants at higher risk for contracting HIV because of their foreskin. It makes no sense to use HIV as an argument for allowing infant circumcision. (adult circumcision, sure)
And again, parents have their infants circumcised so they won't have to endure circumcision as adults to reap this benefit.
Compare my earlier posted penile cancer stats in men to vulvar cancer in women:
Quote:
The American Cancer Society's most recent estimates for vulvar cancer in the United States are for 2012:
About 4,490 cancers of the vulva will be diagnosed
About 950 women will die of this cancer.
That's a big difference. Perhaps this could be a compelling reason among pro male-circ parents to get a comparable procedure, say circumcision of the clitoral hood (and perhaps labia?), for their infant daughters. The clitoral hood does cause problems for some females. Proper hygiene to wash away smegma is usually the answer, just like with the foreskin of the penis, but if circumcision is deemed an appropriate preventative health measure for infant boys, why not infant girls?
Then what is it specifically that cannot be recovered? Unless you're still arguing for the sake of "physical intactness", which has no value in and of itself, foreskin restoration does recover all that is valued for good reason. It even recovers some functions that are valued subjectively.
Limbs can be restored too. But wouldn't a person rather have the untouched original, and for good reasons?
PS. And thank you for bringing up restoration aspect of foreskin. It only demonstrates why parents should stay out of trimming body parts, as they deem fit, for their children outside of threatening medical needs.
Do more men die from breast cancer than from penile cancer and HIV/AIDS combined? Not to mention all the other medical problems circumcision is believed to minimize or prevent. Because that would be a much more accurate way of comparing circumcision with the removal of a man's nipples.
I'd be interested to find that out. But the only research I can find was done on circumcised adult males in Africa. And I suspect that uncut men in the US use condoms more than uncut men in Africa as a means of protecting themselves against contracting HIV, so it may be another non-issue.
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.
