Lets try this again. European countries (UK/Germany)are contemplating banning circumcision for humanitarian purposes (disfigured the boy without his consent). Should this be considered in the US?
I think it's kinda disgusting myself. Let him decide if he wants the preceding when he grows up.
Parents have the consent. This shouldn't even be an issue at all. Circumcision isn't anything major but mostly cosmetic and religious. Stop making this an issue.
Have you ever watched a circumcision?
Have you ever looked at the statistics?
The benefits out weight the cons. That aside it should be the parents decision. Not yours or the governments.
Get the government out of family decisions and my pants!
No intent to interrupt religious practice, but would you be willing to perform the surgery. It really only takes a couple to figure it out. Or you could help tie the boy in the restraints.
The World Health Organization recommends infant circumcision, and the American Academy of Pediatrics says the benefits outweigh the risks.
I'm not surprised to see that most of the Democrats voting thus far adhere to the anti-science position.
It's true that the AAP did modify its position this year. They haven't said that the benefits overwhelmingly outweigh any risks, though. Just sorta barely, enough to justify social & religious reasons for doing it. I imagine the WHO's position
is based on world-wide risks, which can be quite different in 3rd world countries.
Risks are way less when hygiene (shower) is available.
Yep, doc. Also with proper hygiene in general, which I understand can be a problem if pediatricians & their nurses haven't dealt with uncircumcised boys much, & aren't able to inform parents how -and WHEN (not before about age 1, I think) how to
retract the foreskin & clean themselves. At least, that was the situation when my younger friends were having babies in the 80s. I really thought things would have changed a lot by now, as they have with breastfeeding.
Im circumcised and I don't remember any pain. I also think it looks better than the alternative. I might have gotten it due to religious reasons, but I've heard many benefits from it health wise and given the chance, wouldn't choose not to get it.
I think it looks terrible and now I'm stuck with something I didn't want
If there's a good enough option in the next few years, I may even try to have it restored
I wish you the best of luck with that. I guess I'm just lucky that I got mine the way I want.
I don't think Ive ever seen one "with" and I dated a lot of Christians.
Circumcision is not required in the Christian religion. It symbolizes a covenant with God in the Jewish religion.
Well I dunno but those Italian guys from Brooklyn...
NO NO NO NO NO. I didn't suffer any permanent trauma from circumcision; neither did my son; neither have 5,000 years of Jewish males nor most of the men half my age and older. This is a ridiculous new fad foisted on society by the human equivalent
of PETA nuts.
"Liberal nutbags" like me.
Boy, I'm glad I didn't say that. Susan, what do you have against circumcision?
Well, if a mom can kill her unborn child then she ought to be circumcise him. It's just another case of nutbag liberals trying to tell people how to live. It's similar to the sugary drink "do gooders."
As I've said, I wouldn't ban it (any more than I would ban large - or any size - sugary drinks), I just wish people didn't feel it ought to be done. I don't think there's any reason to do it. It's probably difficult to do a comparison test
but I understand men who are uncircumcised are thought to have greater sensitivity in the area.
I just don't understand lopping off part of the human body (almost) at birth. If it WEREN'T a custom & someone suggested doing it, how would you
feel about it? Seriously. What if I suggested lopping off earlobes at birth because people could probably hear a little better? I know you are both deeply religious: Do you think that God made humans *almost* perfect, except for that one little bit
of skin - which just happens to be covering the most sensitive part of a man's body? I don't mean any disrespect by that; just trying to understand how it seems to you.
Reading your comment again, tlaney, it seems to me that the "fad" is the act of cutting off part of the body. An old fad, yes (although not, I don't believe all *that* old, except for Jews, & a somewhat newer fad for men in the US, for some reason).
Funny thing about liberals is they are against anything that prevents disease.
That's really one of the silliest statments I've ever seen about liberals.
I'm aware of the stats about circumcision, & that the AAP has modified its position just this year. They have not said there is an overwhelming health benefit to it, though.
It seems difficult to engage in any actual discussion here without encountering stereotype-bashing. I'm thinking there isn't much point to being here at all. One feels a little... unwelcome, as if I'm interrupting something.
susan, just between you and me here, (!) the act was originally symbolic. It represents, according to the Bible, the "circumcision of the heart," or the removal of some sort of spiritual pericardium which supposedly renders us less sensitive to God.
Now, I heard you say that intact males are supposedly more sensitive, but if you examine the analog of the female foreskin, when it retracts during arousal is apparently the time of maximum sensitivity, and I think the same goes for the male
foreskin. (whew! Hot in here!) so the analogy of a circumcised heart being sensitive to God is the whole symbolic point. On another level, a really raw emotional level, the first males circumcised were adults, and thereafter, adult converts to
Judaism had to submit to it too. The most basic insting of a man is "Get that knife the Hell AWAY from my junk!" So this became a tremendous sign of obedience and commitment to God. In the Early Christian church, public baptism by full immersion was
a similar step of courage, because the Church was under persecution and a public profession of faith could mean death. So circumcision carried symbolism and also represented a life's commitment. Modern Christians continue the practice for
the same reasons that Jews do. The health claims are really secondary for those of us who see circumcision as an act of obedience. Many "mainstream" Christians (Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc.) have never heard
what I just told you, and if they circumcise, it's only for assumed health benefits.
Hope this clears up some of your questions, and I apologize for the unwelcome reception you got. ❤️
tlaney - Thanks for your kind explanations. Steelcity's poll has closed, so I don't know if you'll see this or not. I would have a couple of responses, if there were some way to do it. I'll try to find you somewhere else, as well.
Not only is it a religious right it also tremendously cuts down on stds which apparently Europeans and liberals don't mind spreading around.
No it doesn't. It's called a bath. We now get the water necessary for a bath directed straight to our houses nowadays (in most places).
It's called smegma.
Yes, which forms when we disregard our body parts.
Bathing prevents STDs . . . ?
the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at STD clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.
It does not "tremendously" cut the risk of STDs. I would like the reference on increased risk of HIV because I don't believe that is the case at all.
Hygiene is not a problem when the person cleans under the foreskin while bathing.
"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%."
Most of the data for the information at both of those links was collected in & is more pertinent to 3rd world countries in Africa, & I believe are regarding unprotected (by condom) sex. The situation in the US is a little different & some of the
studies (the US ones) cited at one of those links said there was no statistically significant decrease in HIV infection.
We don't need government to ban a common practice.
Keep them circumcised! They look better! ;)
How many have you seen? Lol
Wouldn't you like to know!
You actively champion mutilation? :(
Why not, we do all kinds of things to our bodies for men, they can get cut for us!
If you can't tell, I'm in a goofy mood & am totally messing around.
Well, yes, they can, but parents shouldn't choose that.
I see.. It's okay.
They look mutilated to me
Immensely prefer the uncut
No, it shouldn't be banned. I just wish parents wouldn't choose to do it, but it's been a convention in the US for enough decades that people haven't figured out it's not necessary yet. There are potential advantages & disadvantages, but overall
it can't be argued that it's necessary - but I don't think public opinion has changed enough to allow a ban. (I could maybe be persuaded the other way, though, if it were likened to a civil right.)
What about Jews, though? It's a religious thing.
Sacrificing children at the alter is a religious thing. I'm 100% okay with that being illegal!
Yeah, so am I, actually. Of course.
You could convince ME, because I already think it's stupid. I just don't think American society in general, & Jews in particular, will see it that way.
I just don't understand their logic. " I have the right to cut off my son's foreskin as a sacrifice to God".