Circumcision: a medically unnnecessary scam!

Sure, I could believe and accept that. Just as a lot of prisoners actually like being "on the inside" because it provides structure. Some people can't handle freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. Indeed, some people like to "outsource" important decisions to others.

No. It really isn't.

Some would have argued that Copernicus' theory was "an attack on religion as well". What a mess indeed.

 

Never really understood the concept of circumcision outside of religious reasons. Here in New Zealand, next to no one is circumcised (Even one of my best friends who is Muslim is uncircumcised). From what I have read, The health benefits, if any, are tiny.

 

What are you talking about?

 

LOL, as far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to lose a functional part of his old fellow, is welcome to got to it - no skin of my nose (so to speak)! My only concern with circumcision is when it is performed neo-natally, or upon young children who are incapable of informed consent. If I had the power, I would make all such procedures illegal and punishable by a custodial sentence - other than those medically necessary to rectify an existing condition.

 

Yeah and the same for parents who let their children mutilate themselves.

 

i don't think I'm free and brave enough to handle that.

 

I had to do it.

 

Thank goodness it isn't, because if I have a son, he shall be circumcised by the time he is a week old, even if I have to travel interstate to do it.

 

Why? Are you incapable of taking care of an uncut penis? Do you want to take a chance of having your son mutilated?

 

It's not mandatory. That's for each family to decide. If you don't want it, don't have it done. let other people do as they see fit.

is that so hard?

 

Let other people do as they see fit.

I quite agree!

No circumcisions on babies, infants, toddlers or teenagers -- if not for medical reasons.

 

very funny.

it's a health issue for me. Done on all boys and will continue to be done so.

 

Why do you care? If you are against circumcision, then don't get your boy circumsized... Pretty simple. Nobody is forcing it on your child, so why should you force your views on another persons child?

I am circumsized. I don't even remember it happening, and everything functions properly.

If it is so unecessary, why make such a big deal about it?

 

You are not making any sense at all...

How embarrassing that "a foreigner" is actually better informed than you...

U.S. Circumcision Rate Falls to 32%

​

 

so. what?

 

they should cut your labia off so you can keep that thing fresher and looking dapper.

 

that was uncalled for.

Maloe circumcision protects the guy from infections, especially fungal infections and a lot of other stuff. I repeat, if you don't want it, don't get it. or maybe the problem is that you've already had it? Try to find something else to be outraged over.

 

perhaps you can present that data in a scientific manner ?

the queen of "looks funny and smells" can fight for herself

 

it's easy enough to find. Try wiki if yer arms broke.

 

People don't own other people. Slavery was abolished in the West a long time ago.

Indeed, parents don't own their child.

The choice for an individual to mutuluate himself by cutting of their foreskin should be made by the concerned individual itself. And not by some deluded parent who's ready to be admitted to the crazy house.

 

You sound wildly irrational. The law currently allows you to mutilate babies. Why do you want to do that so much? Is it something about men, perhaps, or what? I am not emotionally involved in this issue, but I assume that you are presumably a rightist American or a zionist, and I find such people very hard to understand. Clearly this matter is very big with you, and I'd like to know why.

 

there is no law. It is a medical decision between parents and their obstetrician.

You want ANOTHER law on the books?

 

Yes, parents are legally permitted to have their children mutilated: that is the law. Why should not the child decide to have the parents or the obstetrician mutilated? Americans are keen enough, so I understand, on the rights of the unborn child. What about the born one?

 

awe shucks, you were just repeating stuff you heard.
That's so cute.

Perhaps you can share an anecdote told to you by your great aunt Ethel's neighbor's daughter, who knows somebody married to a physician's assistant.

 

The healthcare value of circumcision is a matter open to debate. There are scholarly treatises written about the advantages of circumcision, and there are equally informed articles written about the advantages of the foreskin. But the vast majority of mankind is as nature intended, with no dire consequences. In a court of law, that would be considered overwhelming evidence of the lack of necessity for removing healthy and functional tissue.

My approach to the question is that of human rights. Nobody (and certainly not his parents) has the right to mutilate a baby, because of their own societal or religious beliefs. Every man has the right to mutilate his body in any way he sees fit - whether it be piercings or cutting off his foreskin. But nobody has the right to mutilate a child who is incapable of informed consent. It is because it is an unnecessary, and barbaric, abrogation of the rights of the child, that people do make a big deal of it.