That is puritans (no "t") and that largely false, themajority of people who have it doen that aren't jeweish do it for a hygiene matter rather than a masturbation matter. As a matter of fact I don't know anyone whos parents did it for that reason.
That is puritans (no "t") and that largely false, themajority of people who have it doen that aren't jeweish do it for a hygiene matter rather than a masturbation matter. As a matter of fact I don't know anyone whos parents did it for that reason.
Why do you say this? I've always been under the impression that it does have medical advantages to be circumcized.
I think thats hardly accurate.
Are you saying that, perhaps, having your apendix removed would be mutilation as well?
It's relatively useless, you certainly won't miss it when it's gone.
Or how about breast reduction surgery? Is that mutilation? If you gain some benefit from it's removal?
your parents did it because it is a custom or tradition, not for health, cleanliness or masturbation reasons.
HOWEVER, there is a good chance that prevention of masturbation did have a part in STARTING the custom of circumcisions 150 years or so ago.
if we did it as a practice for all infants, would you call it mutilation?? what about cutting off all ear lobes like was mentioned earlier. would that be mutilation??
Who said anything about taking pleasure in the procedure?
Your comments are classic of irrational thinking. "It made me feel horrible to watch, therefore, it must be bad, evil, and unnecessary." PURE EMOTIONAL DRIVEL.
I was watching a show the other day, and they were showing video of a small cruise ship that was sinking. One woman was 'frozen' with fear. If she didn't jump into the water, she would die. Still she refused to jump into the water. Because of her irrational state, she couldn't make the simple choice between LIFE and DEATH!
Some people don't have the intestinal fortitude to treat a scrape or abrasion on their child. Some people can't watch their children being immunized or have blood drawn.
Your irrational reaction is not uncommon, and was in fact similar to my reaction the first time I watched a surgeon take a surgical blade and make a 12" incision into a patient's abdomen. I had never seen surgery in person before, and I nearly passed out. It happens.
What wouldn't be normal is for an individual to find it impossible to reconcile this purely emotional reaction with rational thought, to get over it, nor would it be normal for that person to engage in rationalizations such as 'I am normal, its everyone else who has the problem'.
Neither a cleft palate nor a cleft lip are life-threating congential defects. In fact, children in third-world countries get along just fine with cleft palates and lips. It is purely a cosmetic defect.
I can think of nothing more frivolous than forcing a child to undergo a purely cosmetic procedure, a rather 'barbaric' procedure if you've even seen it, with all of the post-operative pain and potential complications. Can you?
So tell me, if your child was born with a gaping hole in its head, one that was purely cosmetic in nature, would you elect yourself the absolute arbitor of your child's fate and force him or her to have cleft lip repair surgery?
tcsenter - <<So tell me, if your child was born with a gaping hole in its head, one that was purely cosmetic in nature, would you elect yourself the absolute arbitor of your child's fate and force him or her to have cleft lip repair surgery?>>
Of course I would. Whether you agree or not, it's my opinion that correcting disfigurements (cleft palates, cleft lips, large facial birthmarks, etc.) increase the chances for happiness and success in life.
Of course I would. Whether you agree or not, it's my opinion that correcting disfigurements (cleft palates, cleft lips, large facial birthmarks, etc.) increase the chances for happiness and success in life.
For purely cosmetic reasons, you would risk your babies life with the complications of surgery and force him undergo all that pain and suffering?
You heathen, you barbarian, you Nazi!
Your argument is irrational because FORESKIN IS NOT A DEFECT. You are not correcting anything by removing it. There is nothing irrational about not wanting to put a child through something that causes more suffering than it cures. Removing the foreskin to prevent health complications is akin to staying inside on a sunny day to keep from getting struck by lightening.
UglyCasanova
Lifer
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
The baby does not remember a thing. I'm not sure if I would have it done now if it hasn't been done already, but I am glad that my parents decided to get me cut. And no, it's not for religious reasons, merely cosmetic.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
For purely cosmetic reasons, you would risk your babies life with the complications of surgery and force him undergo all that pain and suffering?
You heathen, you barbarian, you Nazi!
You're comparing a birth defects with foreskin on your penis? So, you are saying that ALL of us are born with birth defects? You got some issues.
Ok, let's start amputating ears at birth then. After all, ears are ugly. And you can still hear without them. And they are pain in the ass to wash. And the baby won't remember having them removed.
Gonad the Barbarian - <<There is nothing irrational about not wanting to put a child through something that causes more suffering than it cures. Removing the foreskin to prevent health complications is akin to staying inside on a sunny day to keep from getting struck by lightening. >>
You forgot to add 3 little letters to your comment. Here, let me correct it for you...
"There is nothing irrational about not wanting to put a child through something that causes more suffering than it cures. Removing the foreskin to prevent health complications is, IMO, akin to staying inside on a sunny day to keep from getting struck by lightening."
I still don't understand why people are saying the health benefits are minimal. Is it just because those who were not 'cut' want to believe the studies that say the benefits are minimal, and those who were 'cut' want to believe those that say otherwise?
You forgot to add 3 little letters to your comment. Here, let me correct it for you...
"There is nothing irrational about not wanting to put a child through something that causes more suffering than it cures. Removing the foreskin to prevent health complications is, IMO, akin to staying inside on a sunny day to keep from getting struck by lightening."
I still don't understand why people are saying the health benefits are minimal. Is it just because those who were not 'cut' want to believe the studies that say the benefits are minimal, and those who were 'cut' want to believe those that say otherwise?
If we cut off your earlobes and then use that memory eraser from MIB, I suppose you wouldn't mind. But people sure would look at ya funny!
Because they ARE minimal. Where are all the related health problems of the 86% of the men on this planet that have not been cut?
I haven't been shown any evidence that there are health risks involved w/ non circumcision.
what health risks are you talking about?? is it something that is killing the 82% of the male population that isn't circumcised?? enlighten me here.
here's the thing, you circumcision people seem to think that the burden of proof is on the NO circumcision people BUT IT ISN'T.
the burden of proof should be on any doctor who want's to perform the surgery. the doctor for my 2 sons had ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to substantiate CIRCUMCISION and in his opinion IT WAS PURELY THE DECISION OF THE FATHER.
so, if there is really that little evidence, than WHAT do you have that my doctors DIDN'T HAVE??
show me any other surgery that happens w/o the EXPRESS desire of the individual OR a good reason, be it cosmetic or otherwise. IF IT IS JUST COSMETIC, than there is no argument that supports circumcision, if not then give me something.
my 2 sons had different doctors and BOTH AGREED there is no real reason to circumcize and that the child would be just as healthy w/ or w/o circumcision.
Maybe you are right...I have had it done and I like it. I have been taught that there are medical benefits to circumsision, but I haven't ever researched it myself. Here's the thing, if you aren't circumcised it's not a big deal, you just have to be careful to keep it clean. Being circumcised is just a little bit more convinient.
But I don't agree with the idea that it is an initiation ritual, I had it done when I was a baby because my parents were looking out for my best interest. It's a parental preferance. Just ask PlatinumGold, he has sons (aparently) and he knows what he's talking about, except when went off saying anyone who is circumcised and non-jewish is a "Freak".....that was a pretty stupid episode. But other than that he's alright I guess.
your approval warms my heart.
obviously the freak thing was just said in jest.
but seriously, why can't we admit that the burden of proof for the circumcision thing should lie with those that want circumcision and not the other way around.
if a doctor came to you and said, in my opinion, i don't think i should cut your babies ear lobes off, would you want proof?? NO of course not. No parent in their right mind would think or say that. Now, if that same doctor came and said The earlobes on your son reach the ground and he will constantly trip over them making his life MISERABLE, I think we should cut them off, would you consider it then?? well mb.
so, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the party that wants to do INVASIVE surgery right?? why shouldn't it be. americans circumcize w/o asking the questions and i find it irresponsible. I think if you asked ANY doctor, if I choose not to circumcise my son, will he have significant health problems, their response will be NO. and even w/ Medical malpractice what it is, they will CHOOSE to let you opt out of circumcision. NOW, given the medical malpractice in the US today, do you honestly think doctors would let parents OPT OUT of a surgical procedure that was necessary for HEALTH??
END OF DISCUSSION.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
A link to health benefits of circumcision
From another site (same study as the news story I linked to):
Circumcision does make it easier to keep the penis clean, though washing the area under the foreskin thoroughly achieves the same result. In a 1989 study by the AAP, uncircumcised boys were found to be more likely to develop urinary tract infections, sometimes serious ones (although the risk of a UTI for any male, circumcised or no, is at most 1 percent). Other arguments in favor of circumcision include concerns that an uncircumcised child will be seen as different from his friends or will feel different from his father who may be circumcised. Arguments against circumcision include the fact that the procedure is not medically necessary. Some parents believe circumcision is a form of mutilation that's painful and emotionally harmful to a child.
Again, there is evidence that there is a benefit, but every major medical doctor association I know about have concluded that the benefits are not to the point where they view it to be medically necessary.
Michael
From another site (same study as the news story I linked to):
Circumcision does make it easier to keep the penis clean, though washing the area under the foreskin thoroughly achieves the same result. In a 1989 study by the AAP, uncircumcised boys were found to be more likely to develop urinary tract infections, sometimes serious ones (although the risk of a UTI for any male, circumcised or no, is at most 1 percent). Other arguments in favor of circumcision include concerns that an uncircumcised child will be seen as different from his friends or will feel different from his father who may be circumcised. Arguments against circumcision include the fact that the procedure is not medically necessary. Some parents believe circumcision is a form of mutilation that's painful and emotionally harmful to a child.
Again, there is evidence that there is a benefit, but every major medical doctor association I know about have concluded that the benefits are not to the point where they view it to be medically necessary.
Michael
Also, after reading up a little bit on Female circumcision...I have decided that while I think it's fine with males, female circumcision doesn't really dearve any logical purpose.
What's your definition of minimal? If, by being circumsized, my kid is at less of a risk to have heath problems, I would say that's a good thing.
exactly.
couldn't you say that about a lot of other things as well?? if cutting of earlobes were proven to reduce a small percentage of ear infections in some kids, would you want that done also??
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter