Dawg, it would be one thing if nobody agreed with you (You could just say they were ignoring your side) but when people are actually agreeing with you, and still taking issue with the hyperbolic nature of your posts, you should probably at least consider the possibility. I know I can frequently ignore those who are totally on the other side as me, (Granted, I LISTEN but I may not see the substance in their arguments, whether it exists or not) but if someone who basically agrees with me calls me out, I generally find that they were right.
I don't see what you're saying. Should I modify my opinions to be more like yours?
I should say I was joking in that post above. Obviously somebody arguing against circumcision isn't going to make me want to allow it, especially if other posters in thread are arguing the same thing in a more reasonable manner in the same thread. What I AM saying is that I am already pro-circumcision and your posts are so extreme its hard for me to even want to consider them.
You haven't pointed out any specifics of why my posts are supposedly extreme, you've just whined incessantly about them. I've shown you with credible scientific research why Circumcision is abusive and detrimental, and all you're responded with is jokes and accusations.
Impotence and sexual dysfunction. The nerves in the foreskin apparently provide an impulse to aid erection. Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence. Glover (1929) reported a case.2 Winkelmann (1959) suggested impotence as a possibility,6 as did Foley (1966).10 Stinson (1973) reported five cases.13 Palmer & Link (1979) reported two cases.14 More recently, additional evidence of sexual dysfunction after circumcision has emerged. Coursey et al. reported that the degradation in sexual function after circumcision is equivalent to the degradation experienced after anterior urethroplasty.47 Fink et al. reported statistically significant degradation in sexual function.49 A survey carried out in South Korea found that circumcised men reported painful erections, and diminished sexual pleasure, and a few reported curvature of the penis upon erection.48 Shen et al. (2004), in a study carried out in China, reported erectile dysfunction in 28.4 percent of the men in the study after circumcision, and 'weakened erectile confidence' in 34.7 percent.59
Premature ejaculation. Lakshmanan & Prakash (1980) report that the foreskin impinges against the corona glandis during coitus.15 The foreskin, therefore, tends to protect the corona glandis from direct stimulation by the vagina of the female partner during coitus. The corona is the most highly innervated part of the glans penis.19 Zwang argues that removal of the foreskin allows direct stimulation of the corona glandis and this may cause premature ejaculation in some males.32 O'Hara & O'Hara (1999) report more premature ejaculation in circumcised male partners.41 The presence of the foreskin, therefore, may make it easier to avoid premature ejaculation, while its absence would make it more difficult to avoid premature ejaculation. Masood et al. report that circumcision is more likely to worsen premature ejaculation than improve it.64 The Australian Study of Health and Relationships found that "26% of circumcised men but 22% of uncircumcised men reported reaching orgasm too quickly for at least one month in the previous year."65 Kim & Pang (2006) reported decreased ejaculation latency time in circumcised men but the decrease was not considered statistically significant.66
Inability to ejaculate or delayed ejaculation. While some circumcised males may suffer from a tendency toward premature ejaculation, others find that they have great difficulty in ejaculating.50 The nerves in the foreskin and ridged band are stimulated by stretching,18 57 amongst other movements. If those nerves are not present, Money (1983) argues that excision of these stretch receptors by circumcision may make ejaculation take longer.18. Some circumcised males may have to resort to prolonged and aggressive thrusting to achieve orgasm.40 49 Shen et al. (2004) reported that 32.6 percent of the men in his study reported prolonged intercourse after circumcision.59 Senkul et al. (2004) reported an appreciable increase in ejaculatory latency time (time to ejaculate).60 Thorvaldsen & Meyhoff (2005) reported that circumcised males have more difficulty with ejaculation and orgasm.63 Kim & Pang (2006) reported that circumcised men have more difficulty with masturbation.66 Solinis & Yiannaki reported that 65 percent of circumcised men in their study reported increased ejaculation time in their study.69
Loss of sexual pleasure. Denniston reported that some circumcised men would not have the operation again because of loss of sexual pleasure.61 Kim & Pang (2006) reported that 48 percent of Korean men in a survey experienced loss of mastubatory pleasure after circumcision as compared with 8 percent that experienced increased pleasure and 8 percent reported improved sexual life, but 20 percent reported worsened sexual life.66 Solinis & Yiannaki reported that 16 percent of the men in their study reported a better sex life after circumcision but 35 percent reported a worsened sex life.69
Sexual behaviour. The alteration to the sexual organ causes many circumcised males to change their sexual behavior. Foley reported that circumcised males are more likely to masturbate.10 Hooykaas et al. (1991) reported that immigrant (mostly circumcised) males have a greater tendency to engage in risky sexual behavior with prostitutes as compared with Dutch (mostly normal intact) males.23 The U. S. National Health and Social Life Survey found that circumcised males have a "more elaborated" set of sexual practices, including more masturbation, and more heterosexual oral sex.30 The British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (2000) reported that circumcised males were more likely to report having a homosexual partner and more likely to have partners from abroad as compared with normal intact males.56 Circumcised men are significantly less likely to use condoms.38 50 Many men in the Solinis and Yiannaki study reported decreased sex life after circumcision.69
Value to female partners. The foreskin has long been known to be valuable to the female partner.8 16 The presence of the foreskin is reported to be stimulating to the female.41 45 55 Women are more likely to experience vaginal dryness during sex with a circumcised partner.24 28 62 The unnatural dryness may make coitus painful and result in abrasions.28 41 50 The vaginal dryness may be mistakenly attributed to female arousal disorder.55 62 O'Hara & O'Hara report that the female partner is less likely to experience orgasm when the foreskin is not present and more likely to experience orgasm or even multiple orgasms when the foreskin is present.41
Recent studies. Solinis & Yiannaki (2007) found that 46 percent of men in their study reported a worsened sex life for their partner while 33 percent reported that that their partner's sex life had improved.69 Frisch et al. (2011) studied the effects of circumcision among Danish people and reported:
"Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment."70
I'm not entirely sure those nerve endings are dead (though I don't really know). It seems like they could easily reform lower down. I can assure all that I've never thought of my 'circumcised' sex as being worse than the uncut.
I know of no such way that nerves can "reform" elsewhere. Nerve endings do not grow back.
If you currently enjoy your sex life as a circumcised man, that's great! I'm not trying to belittle you. However, what you must realize is that you are somewhat lucky. Many circumcised men are not happy with their sex life and function and are angry that something so important has been taken away from them at birth without their consent.
Circumcision is a very extensive procedure that removes the vast majority of pleasurable nerve endings from the penis, and for many men this results in difficulty obtaining erection, premature ejaculation, anorgasmia, pain during sex, bent-erections, excessive scarring, skin adhesions, partial glans amputation, and countless other complications.
I think the issue is that it sheathes nerve endings and protects them. So assuming circumcision actually does decrease the sensitivity of some nerves by leaving them without their raincoat while they bump about the world, it might make you last a bit longer on average during the act. Wait, no wonder women prefer... nevermind. They could always just not have sex with 6 second college boys too I guess.
The foreskin doesn't "sheath" nerve endings, the foreskin itself contains the nerve endings. The glans penis itself is far from being the most erogenous, nerve-laden part of the penis. The foreskin is by far.
* Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skin cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.[31]The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.
Why? Circumcision is after all very profitable for the doctors and cosmetic companies that benefit from purloined erogenous tissue.
Deaths are also very often concealed from the public, and attributed to secondary causes, such as attributing the death of an infant to an "infection" without mentioning that the infection was the direct result of circumcision.
Some babies die of complications of circumcision.1 There has been a need to assemble information concerning death from complications of circumcision in one convenient location. This page is designed to fill that need.
Deaths occur secondary to loss of blood or systemic infection from the circumcision wound.
A few deaths are reported in the medical literature. Other medical literature discusses the frequency of those deaths. A few deaths are reported in the popular press.
There is reason to believe that many deaths from circumcision are attributed to other causes. For example, if a baby were to die of meningitis that was contracted through the circumcision wound, the death may be attributed to meningitis while ignoring the fact that the baby would not have had meningitis if he had not been circumcised.
Circumcision originated before the dawn of history. There was no knowledge of sanitation or the need for a sterile operating environment. Jews have traditionally performed circumcision on the eighth day after birth for many thousands of years. The medical literature was still reporting numerous deaths from ritual circumcision in the early twentieth century.2, 3 There must have been vast numbers of babies who died under those conditions through the centuries. Jewish law allows parents who have had three sons die from circumcision to leave the fourth son intact.6
Doctors are highly motivated to conceal the true cause of circumcision death. Neonatal circumcision has no medical indication and is now considered to be an unnecessary7 non-therapeutic8 operation. It is unethical to carry out such operations on minors who cannot consent for themselves.9 Consequently, most doctors who have a baby die after a circumcision would prefer to attribute the results of his unethical operation to secondary causes, such as infection or bleeding, while ignoring the primary cause, which is the circumcision that resulted in the infection or bleeding. It is, therefore, very hard to identify the total number of deaths that occur from circumcision. One senses that one may be seeing only the "tip of the iceberg," with the vast majority of deaths from circumcision being concealed. The deaths undoubtedly cause an increase in infant mortality. Male infant mortality is higher than female infant mortality. It is not known how much of this increased mortality is due to the practice of male circumcision.
Several doctors have given estimates of the number of deaths that occur each year. Douglas Gairdner reported 16-19 actual deaths a year in England and Wales from neonatal circumcisions in the 1940s.10 Sydney Gellis believed that "there are more deaths from complications of circumcision than from cancer of the penis.11 There are various figures for the number of deaths from penile cancer ranging from 200 to 480 deaths per year. Robert Baker estimated 229 deaths per year from circumcision in the United States.12
Since there have not been a terribly large amount of directly related to deaths dealing with the issues of circumcision, such a point is invalid to make.
It is never invalid to bring up deaths as a result of a procedure that is completely unnecessary from a medical standpoint and performed without the consent of the patient.
You got it?
Most of the people in the world are circumcised, doesn't seem like a problem to them for the most part.
And here is where you are completely wrong. Anywhere from 70-80 percent of the world's men are intact and suffer no ill-effects as a result of having their foreskin.
Whereas there are many men who suffer the ill-effects of infant circumcision, some of which we do not yet understand.
PUBMED seems to agree with me, but I only spent 10 min looking. In principle, I agree with anti-circ people: it's an improper thing to do. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. In the grand scheme of things, I think it's worse to not get your kid braces if they need them, for example.
Why do you keep making these ridiculous comparisons? Orthodontic braces don't involve massive genital surgery and actually provide some measure of medical benefit, unlike circumcision which has no medical benefits at all, only detriments.
At least if you don't get a kid braces, he won't run the risk of dying or losing his genitals. Whereas if you choose to circumcise...
Not an absurd analogy at all. Fingers and the foreskin both contain Meissner's corpuscles, the most delicate and perceptive type of nerve endings. The foreskin contains more of them (~20,000) than any other part of the body, so it could be argued that cutting off the foreskin is worse than cutting off a finger.
The claim that circumcision will solve the problem of AIDS in Africa is pure and utter nonsense, especially when it was proven that circumcision didn't solve AIDS in our country at all. Certain parts of the United States have as bad a problem with HIV/AIDS as some parts of Africa, and we have one of the highest circumcision rates in the world.
It is true in practice as well, it's just that circumcised men are often scared to disclose their dissatisfaction with a practice that is so commonplace and so tacitly accepted in our society.
Thank you for not starting to swear for what apparently is a stupid analogy. Now about why it is stupid.
'Fingers' might have been a bit too extreme; but saying that the part of the foreskin is completely useless is wrong too. If I recall this correctly, people who got circumcised have a reduced sensitivity while having sex - which is probably a change for the worse. So, a part of their life just got worse. Not having fingers makes parts of your life worse too.
As already discussed, this isn't the case at all. Some circumcised men enjoy sex, you are right, just as many women who have had their clitoris, clitoral hood and labia amputated also enjoy sex. Circumcision of either gender also probably doesn't do much to dull the libido. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that millions of people aren't suffering detriment as a result.
First of all, circumcision doesn't make your life worse. If anything, it makes it slightly better (although there is a miniscule risk of serious damage being done, and the exact benefits besides aesthetics are debatable and/or trivial).
It is therefore not surprising that PTSD may result from childhood circumcision (Goldman, 1997, 1999, Menage, 1999; Ramos & Boyle, 2001), just as it does from childhood sexual abuse and rape (Bownes, O'Gorman, & Sayers, 1991; Deblinger, McLeer, & Henry, 1990; Duddle, 1991). Several researchers have concluded that PTSD may result from circumcision and/or from circumcision-related sequelae in later life. For example, Rhinehart (1999) reported finding PTSD in middle-aged men who had been subjected to infant circumcision. Circumcision involves an imbalance of power between perpetrator and victim, contains both aggressive and libidinal elements, and threatens a child's sexual integrity by amputating part of the genitalia. Some men circumcised in infancy or childhood without their consent have described their present feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation, and sexual assault (Bigelow, 1995; Hammond, 1997, 1999).
Even if the psychological sequelae of circumcision do not coalesce into a formal diagnosis of PTSD, it is possible that there may be long-lasting effects on a man's life, particularly in psychologically sensitive individuals with comorbidity factors (cf. Mezey & Robbins, 2001). Presumably responding to their current interpretation and feelings, many circumcised men who have recognised the loss of a highly erogenous, irreplaceable part of their penis have reported long-lasting emotional suffering, grief, anxiety, and depression, and a sense of personal vulnerability (Hammond, 1997, 1999). Avoidance or obsessive preoccupation with such a loss, along with anger, can be difficult to reconcile for some men depending on their particular personality (Bigelow, 1995; Maguire, 1998; van der Kolk, 1989). Emotional numbing, avoidance of the topic of circumcision, and anger are potential long-term psychological consequences of the circumcision trauma (Bigelow, 1995; Bensley & Boyle, 2001; Boyle & Bensley, 2001; Gemmell & Boyle, 2001; Goldman, 1997, 1999). In extreme cases, there might be aggressive, violent, and/or suicidal behaviour (Anand & Scalzo, 2000; Bradley, Oliver, & Chernick, 1998; Jacobson et al., 1987; Jacobson & Bygdeman, 1998).
Why should this matter at all? Many societies view the labia and clitoral hood as "icky", yet no one in this country considers allowing such people to mutilate their infant daughters.
But you cannot make this encompass a universal definition of injury with only this statement.
A malignant brain tumor is of course very harmful to a person. The removal of it is classified as an injury; the boring of two holes into the skull and the removal of said tumor is bound to become an injury, since it deprives the neurological system of its normal tissue and function. If our goal is to "first, do no harm," we would fail this goal while performing virtually every surgery that may have any potential benefit, since surgery implies the "injury" you define.
The difference in removing brain tumors and circumcising infants couldn't be more obvious.
Removal of a brain tumor is performed on an adult that can consent to the procedure, and will result in a demonstrated benefit to the patient since they will no longer have to endure a tumor in their skull.
Routine infant circumcision involves highly invasive removal of erogenous tissue in an extremely painful process that the patient has not consented to. It also provides no demonstrated medical benefit to the patient at all. In short, it is an unnecessary amputation, or mutilation.
Sounds like an injury to me.
Of course, we need to weigh the pros and cons of each operation, but do not make blanket statements that serve no purpose in arguing a position without creating fallacies in logic due to ambiguity.
I can't really comprehend much of what you're saying, but @ this:
Because it's an unnecessary, painful procedure with a few trivial benefits, obviously. I'm glad I was circumcised as a baby - I have no recollection whatsoever of any pain or trauma associated with it. However, that wouldn't be true if I waited until now, in which case I would likely not get circumcised.
You make it sound like everyone must get circumcised at some point in their life, which simply isn't the case. If you weren't circumcised at birth, the likelihood of circumcision being necessary for you later in life is miniscule at best.
Don't forget that the vast majority of the world's men live perfectly normal, happy lives with their foreskins, and to them cutting off their foreskin seems as outlandish as cutting off part of their ear, their lips or their eyelids.
An interesting tidbit is that uncircumcised men are always the ones saying circumcision is "a horribly abusive, damaging form of torture," while circumcised men generally shrug their shoulders and say "I don't mind it, and if anything I actually prefer it."
The foreskin doesn't "sheath" nerve endings, the foreskin itself contains the nerve endings. The glans penis itself is far from being the most erogenous, nerve-laden part of the penis. The foreskin is by far.
Well, the frenulum of the foreskin which attaches at the ventral side of the glans is the most sensitive according to the charts I posted, which is what I think you're getting at.
It is important to point out that circumcision inevitably leads to desensitization of the glans itself, since the glans is meant to be an internal organ that is kept moist and sensitive by the mucous membranes of the foreskin. Taking away this protection leaves the glans exposed and leads to keratinization which buries nerve endings in the glans underneath layers of calloused skin.
So, circumcision desensitizes first by taking away the nerve endings in the foreskin/frenulum itself and also by leaving the exposed glans to dry out and become cornified.
The claim that circumcision will solve the problem of AIDS in Africa is pure and utter nonsense, especially when it was proven that circumcision didn't solve AIDS in our country at all. Certain parts of the United States have as bad a problem with HIV/AIDS as some parts of Africa, and we have one of the highest circumcision rates in the world.
Did I say circumcision alone would be the solution? No, I did not. There are, as in many real life situations, many other factors that affect the situation. Circumcision wouldn't be enough if you keep jabbing yourself with dirty needles or sleeping with a lot of other men. In any case, the literature on the biological effectiveness of male circumcision on preventing HIV transmission is solid. As for your statistical claim regarding AIDS prevalence in the US vis-à-vis Africa, I'll look into it later once I get off work.
PUBMED seems to agree with me, but I only spent 10 min looking. In principle, I agree with anti-circ people: it's an improper thing to do. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. In the grand scheme of things, I think it's worse to not get your kid braces if they need them, for example.
I somewhat need braces, but told my parents I wasn't getting them. I don't want metal between my teeth
For the record, I actually think forcing braces is worse, becuase the kid is actually aware of what's being put between his teeth, and some (Well, maybe just me) don't want it.
This is wrong. Circumcised men who are educated about normal penile anatomy and know what they have lost are indeed very unhappy.Denial is a huge part of circumcision, and many circumcised men employ it extensively, especially if they are unaware of natural penile anatomy.
It seems like, more or less the circumcised people don't seem to mind, and the uncircumcised people seem to feel the need to pound in how abused they were. We don't care, or want to hear it.
I think that might be reversed GW, but I'm not sure. I am in the uncircumcised crowd and I didn't have my son circumcised. I think the most passionate on this issue tend to be men who are/were circumcised and wish they hadn't been. An uncircumcised male who is passionate about the benefits can always go rectify the situation himself and thus lacks the anger that seems to be driving parts of this thread. The most defensive in this thread will probably also be circumcised males. Those of us with foreskin just aren't going to be as personally involved, on average.
I don't mind a reasoned discussion, but it somewhat annoys me that some of the uncircmcised males in this thread feel the need to convince me I've been abused. Its actually a bit offensive.
Like I said, I'm just not sure. I can certainly see where you would be coming from by feeling that way. An uncircumcised coming on very strongly on this issue is essentially implying their junk is superior to yours.
Not an absurd analogy at all. Fingers and the foreskin both contain Meissner's corpuscles, the most delicate and perceptive type of nerve endings. The foreskin contains more of them (~20,000) than any other part of the body, so it could be argued that cutting off the foreskin is worse than cutting off a finger.
Please find me a medical procedure which 100% of the people it was performed on reported they were happy with the procedure.
Why should this matter at all? Many societies view the labia and clitoral hood as "icky", yet no one in this country considers allowing such people to mutilate their infant daughters.
If you don't think people would remove an unnecessary body part in order to make it more aesthetically pleasing (to clarify, in their view or if they perceive society to deem it more aesthetically pleasing), you're naive. For instance, do you shave your pubic hair? Or your face? Or do you cut the hair on the top of your head? If so, do you do so to make yourself what you perceive to be more aesthetically pleasing? That hair (in both places) serves a purpose - keeping your body warm. Does that mean they're necessary? Nope. Does that mean cutting, trimming, or shaving it to make yourself more aesthetically pleasing is wrong? Of course not.
You make it sound like everyone must get circumcised at some point in their life, which simply isn't the case. If you weren't circumcised at birth, the likelihood of circumcision being necessary for you later in life is miniscule at best.
Stop making a straw man out of me. I stated that it's not surprising that not many adults perform a medical procedure which is unnecessary, painful, and with a small amount of debatable benefits. Hell, I even said that if I wasn't circumcised as an infant, I would not get circumcised now.
How the hell is that "mak[ing] it sound like everyone must get circumcised at some point in their life"?
Stop trying to be a moral crusader and actually read my posts. Don't just radicalize my statements so you can try and show everyone how barbaric and uncultured I am.
Don't forget that the vast majority of the world's men live perfectly normal, happy lives with their foreskins, and to them cutting off their foreskin seems as outlandish as cutting off part of their ear, their lips or their eyelids.
Like I said, I'm just not sure. I can certainly see where you would be coming from by feeling that way. An uncircumcised coming on very strongly on this issue is essentially implying their junk is superior to yours.
Well, here's the thing. I don't mind if you want to say "Its not ideal" or "They shouldn't do it" or whatever. That's an acceptable viewpoint. I don't really know if I'd do it to my kid or not. If it were illegal, I definitely wouldn't do it (Though I still would for a religious reason if I had a religious reason.)
I get offended when people imply my parents abused me, doubly so when its completely bizarre and senseless. I mean, worse to lose the foreskin than a finger? REALLY?
I don't know all the facts here, but I KNOW I wouldn't trade one of my fingers, even the ring finger, for my foreskin back.
My take on the issue: irreversible medical procedures should only be conducted with the patient's consent while he is mature enough to make such a decision, or in life-threatening situations.
The actual reasons don't matter, no matter if medical, aesthetical or religious, because it wouldn't be the patient's reasons, but only his parents'.
The fact that many people are happy with the results of a procedure that was forced upon them doesn't change a bit.
The choice rests with the parents and I respect that. What I don't like is parents and people in industry who choose to do this or promote it for reasons that really have no basis.
I think circumcision happens happens (non medical/religious) due to either the view of the medical practitioner or purely because other males within the immediate family group are circed. Alot of partents dont really have a reason other than it's just done.
Circumcision is one of the more minor things a person might encounter over the course of their life but I beleive the choice to do this should not be made without serious consideration. That is why rates of this procedure for non medical reasons has dropped so significantly in the last 30 years from 80% to 10-20%.(in my country) A good percentage remaining are done for religious reasons. People are actually questioning justifications for this procedure and now choosing not to.
The difference in removing brain tumors and circumcising infants couldn't be more obvious.
Removal of a brain tumor is performed on an adult that can consent to the procedure, and will result in a demonstrated benefit to the patient since they will no longer have to endure a tumor in their skull.
Routine infant circumcision involves highly invasive removal of erogenous tissue in an extremely painful process that the patient has not consented to. It also provides no demonstrated medical benefit to the patient at all. In short, it is an unnecessary amputation, or mutilation.
Sounds like an injury to me.
It's already been well established that there are no "pros" to circumcision of infants, only "cons".
Admit that your usage of the word "injury" was to describe an event that would cause any system in the body (such as a penis) to "lose its normal tissue and function;"
Admit that your use of the word "injury" to describe circumcision could not be more universally ambiguous so as to pertain to any and every medical procedure causing injury;
Admit that the removal of a brain tumor is an "injury" as described by you;
Admit that I did not compare circumcision and operation on a brain tumor in any way other than paralleling the two to both abide by the definition of "injury" as described by you;
Admit that no response was given as to why the maxim "first, do no harm" (brought up by you) has no weight in your argument due to the reality that both operations are injuries and, therefore, cause harm and, therefore, should both be forbidden in their entirety due to your vehement adherence to this maxim;
Admit that I did not discuss the topic of consent and that any argument about the topic emanates from your reasoning (not mine);
Admit that I defined circumcision as an "injury" and that any other argument directed to me concerning circumcision was instead attacking ideas that I had not endorsed;
Admit that attempting to attack a stance rooted in religion with purely logical reasoning is futile;
Admit that at least some forms of evidence used in defending your claim are exaggerated and are not universal, as you may otherwise suggest;
Admit that social stigmas associated with circumcision are also extremely prevalent;
Admit that, however correct your argument may happen to be, the execution of your claim (to allow civil and/or criminal punishment for circumcision) is virtually impossible in the majority of countries in which circumcision is practiced, due to reasons that cannot be professed logically;
Admit that, however correct your argument may happen to be, the execution of your claim (to allow civil and/or criminal punishment for circumcision) remains farfetched and extreme in developed countries in which circumcision is practiced, due to the fact that advanced medical procedure undermines your argument in certain areas.
Admit these things and refrain from the utilization of poor logic, and I'll agree with your idea.
I mean it's not like inconsequential decisions like vaccination or baptism mischief, they're making a decision that's irreversible and affect their child for the rest of its life.
Again, arguments if that's for the better or worse are meaningless. As the argument here shows, unlike vaccination, it's debatable whether it's better or worse. Therefore the decision should lie with the person who will be affected by it for the rest of his life.
I guess I'm one of these 'very few men' then, though in my case I had it done for medical reasons (phimosis), but I have to say the procedure certainly isn't that painful..there are a few days of discomfort immediately after the operation but that's about it.
That said, I still wouldn't have my hypothetical son cut and would prefer to leave the chocie up to him, but I don't think that some parents having their son cut is that big of a deal.
"Phimosis" is a lie. A friend of mine confessed to me he had the similiar problem. I said to him, pal just pull it back bit by bit. A few weeks later this lie was cured. Circumsision was completely unnecessary.
Well, maybe if we're taking this further it should go into a separate thread, but: in my opinion, a baptism is not a "permanent" thing like the removal of a body part. I mean, sure, you're technically a baptised person for the rest of your life, but that doesn't preclude you from rejecting Christianity later on, which would probably bring you into a similar situation as if you've never been baptised into the first place.
But maybe I'm assuming a lot about the meaning of baptism here; I mean I've been baptised as a child, but it didn't turn out to be negative for me, and I can't imagine how it could have (as opposed to the circumcision case). Maybe you can clear that up from a Christian perspective?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
I'm not trying to belittle you. However, what you must realize is that you are somewhat lucky. Many circumcised men are not happy with their sex life and function and are angry that something so important has been taken away from them at birth without their consent.
