Well obviously parents need to make many decisions for their children...in the interest of protecting them and teaching them. Baseless physical mutilation is not one of these decisions.
Those are not nearly being the same thing. None of those offer any health benefits. - - - Updated - - - It's not mutilation. It's a little skin flap on the end of the penis that is removed. With all the problems we have in the world today, I really think worrying about something like this is quite silly.
They aren't dubious. There are clearly health benefits. I've already posted you a link before which outlined the health benefits. Shall I post it again?
A little skin flap that serves an array of physiological purposes including but not limited to: maintaining a moist environment for the glans and protecting it from friction and subsequent keratinization, release of certain hormones involved in the reproductive system, and harboring the majority of nerve endings of the penis. It isn't like removing a nail. It is a part of one's body, and it doesn't grow back. Not only does it serve a purpose but the removal could foster shame and resentment in the individual. There is really no point in the ritual aside from the religious basis [yes, it does reduce the chance of infection but the uncircumcised penis is no more susceptible to infection than the vagina. Still, if a man is worried about that, he can opt for a circumcision on his own terms]. So in other words, to perform the procedure on someone who hasn't consented to it is immoral and needs to be worried about.
Well, that's funny, considering that men who haven't had a circumcision tend to have many more problems than those who have. No, it is not immoral. It is a flap of skin that really doesn't serve much purpose.
how about asking the WOMEN which type of guy they'd rather have oral sex with, hmmm? I"m glad it's gone from me, but hell yes, the kid should get painkillers. why do'nt they? I had no idea that they didnt! that's a killing offense, in my book, unless there's some solid medical reason for it.
If it's just a little flap of skin, why does it have so many sexually-sensitive nerve endings (especially in the very tip, the part of the foreskin known as the ridged band) ? It's not just skin, blood comes out when it is cut. It has veins in there (not allowed to show pictures unfortunately, but the big veins are clearly visible, in many cases). Exactly what don't you understand about the concept of gliding action ?!?
Apparently, it doesn't. There have been men who said they felt no difference at all after being circumcised, and I already posted one for you where the man said he enjoyed sex more because with his foreskin, it felt like he was masturbating through a plastic bag.
These are opinions you are stating here. Because I can call on many examples of men who are uncircumcised and have never once had a problem, and men who say they are glad they still have it. So in conclusion, there is no reason parents should be allowed to make this decision for an individual before they have the chance to decide for themselves. Again, I see virtually no problem with the procedure itself when it is done to a man who WANTS to be circumcised.
Well, those men wouldn't know now would they? Lol. These are reports from adult men who have decided or had to be circumcised for some reason, so I would say that your statements are more "opinions." No? Yes, parents make decisions for their children. Besides, it's cleaner and better looking too. Take my word for it, most women would prefer a circumcised wiener, Lol.
Circumcision is targeted by "naturalist" thinkers on the base of one of these premises: * real naturalist conceptualization of life ... to modify the body without biological necessity is "unnatural" [pure naturalists are against piercing, tattoos, aesthetic surgery ...] * prejudices about Jewish culture [and in this category I put who criticizes circumcision from a malicious stance]. In this thread, because of a diplomatic attitude of mine, I will ignore this second option, reasoning about why naturalists could be right or wrong in criticizing circumcision. First of all, as mentioned, we modify out body in many ways, when we can decide to ... while [good argument] a little child cannot contrast the decision of the parents about circumcision. Anyway, as said many times, parents takes decision about their children, also to make them have not pleasant experiences ... because of tradition, culture, health conditions ... Among these experiences there are some within the limits of licit and other beyond these limits. If one of these practices exists also in medical field, as therapy, that's an evidence that such a tradition is acceptable. Actually circumcision has practiced on adults also as therapy. It can even help sexual performances [delaying the end of the game ...]. Acute inflammations and phimosis have treated usually [not often] with circumcision ... So, if this kind of local surgery is practiced in medical field as therapy, its imposition to little children because of traditional motivations is in my opinion absolutely within the limits of licit.
as someone who supports science, I find it hard to justify ritual circumcision. even with the evidence that it may provide some medical benefits. it it turns out that removing earlobes has some possible medical benefits, should we allow parents to slice them off their children's ears?
I withhold that there are varying opinions for and against having a foreskin. Which is exactly why I will repeat the central idea of my argument that it should be left up to the individual to decide if they want it or not. As we've seen in this thread, the arguments for and against foreskin are pretty much balanced.... So it should be an individual's right and personal choice to decide to get circumcised, and should not be in the hands of anyone else, especially considering the procedure is not reversible. Why can't you agree with that? Your standpoint is the forceful one here, and I am wondering why.
why should parents have the right to perform 100% medically unnecessary and permanent surgery upon a powerless child?
Some do it for religious reasons. Others do it for perceived health benefits. Like it or not, parents are the LEGAL guardians of children and make decisions for them LEGALLY. Circumcision is legal.
the pediatrics assn thinks that the health benefits do not warrant routine c i personally am not c and have never had a resulting problem and if this is a meaningless flap of skin that should be removed does that imply that the designer of our body made a mistake? and yes it is an insignificant issue imo
when you say a lot what do you mean as a lot? when you say our bodies are not perfect do you agree this implies a design flaw which is either an evolutionary anomaly or an inferior decision by the designer (god)
well, I'm agnostic, so your questioning about God I can only take with a grain of salt. Of course our bodies aren't perfect. Do you think they are? If they were, we wouldn't have any problems. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/circumcision-rates-declining-health-risks-rising-study-says/ The study says the benefits of newborn circumcision exceed the risks by at least 100 to 1. Clinical research has found circumcision can safeguard an infant from a number of health complications, most notably urinary tract infections. Kidney damage develops in about half of infants who contract a UTI. The adult lifetime risk for a UTI is approximately 1 in 3 for uncircumcised men. Additionally, circumcision has been found to lowers one's risk for contracting HIV and HPV, the human papilloma virus, which can cause genital warts and has been linked to some cancers. Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reviewed more than 500 studies, finding that circumcision reduces risk for HIV transmission in heterosexual men by 60 percent, genital herpes by 30 percent, and cancer-causing strains of HPV by 35 percent. Some research suggests that circumcision in infancy actually lowers the risk for prostate cancer in adulthood. A study of 3,400 men found those who were circumcised before their first sexual intercourse were 15 percent less likely to develop prostate cancer than men who were not.
your link refers to this from pediatric assn http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pediatr...-outweigh-risks-amid-us-decline-in-procedure/ which continues not to support routine c
Or we could routinely perform prostatectomies on newborns. That would prevent any possibility of prostate cancer whatsoever. Or we could just lop the whole organ off altogether, reducing STDs by 100 percent. Why are anti-foreskin proponents so desperate to find some dubious medical benefit to circumcision? If it's natural, why should it be routinely removed? Especially on those who do not have any choice in the matter, little vulnerable babies.
As long as we aren't talking about banning the CIRCUMCISED I think this is moot. The circumcised as an infant will never know what he's missing and the noncircumcised will never choose to miss it
