Tide turning on Circumcision, Push to circumcise all male infants

Such over heated rhetoric. There are benefits to circumcision and, as a result, the CDC is now encouraging the procedure. Parents make these kind of decisions all the time. Consider a child born with ambigous genetals, the parents choose the sex. Or a child that would normally be abnormally short, the parents may well decide to give the child growth hormone. Parents decide whether Siamese twins should be separated. The parents decide what language the child speaks. What religion it practices. Whether or not the child engages in sports. What school it goes to. What time it gets up. What time it goes to bed. What it eats. They can abort the child if it's the wrong sex or if its birth is in any way inconvenient. One day soon parents will likely choose what traits their children have on a genetic level. Yet you get all workd up over a tiny flap of skin?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How would you know that? How many studies on reduction or removal of sexual pleasure have been done on women who have had their clitoris removed? If done in sterile conditions, by a medical professional female circumcision isn't life altering either. I have the pleasure of knowing a woman who wanted to be circumcised, here in the US before she got married. She finally found a cosmetic surgeon who was willing to perform the changes she wanted, had one follow up visit and hasn't had any problems since, no infections and no complaints about her sex life. But unlike most little girls who are forced into it and cut by some woman with a piece of glass, my friend made her own choice and is glad she did.
When I wrote my paper on circumcision I came across many personal testimonies of circumcised women, who were highly offended that so many Americans (mostly feminists) assumed that they couldn't reach orgasm or didn't enjoy sex. I think the only real complaint that we should have as another culture butting in, is that the circumcisions are done in such poor conditions by untrained persons. And if those conditions are met then both male and female circumcision should be placed in the same boat.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

those who advocate circumcision advocate rape and pedophilia

once you have evolved enough mentally you will finally realise the link.
until such time your morals and ethics remain in the stone age.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which is why we routinely entrust that little infant's parents with these types of decisions. The infant can't consent to vaccination, or any other medical procedure. Legally speaking, no minor (let alone, infant) can consent to (almost) any medical procedure without parental involvement.

 

err orleander thats what both he and i were arguing. Eliminating sex would eliminate STD's, but is that a good option?

FUCK no, Female genital mutilation is a crime (BTW one for which there is NO exception including "religious and cultural reasons"), MGM should be punished just as harshly and with NO EXCEPTIONS ether, INCLUDING for religion.

The studies which seem to suggest it a) have serious methodology issues b) were carried out on the African strain of HIV (which is alot less easerly transmitted) and c) in areas where condoms might not be readerly avilable

 

Basically, it does remove your penis, the most sensitive part. Given that sex is a big part of being human, shouldn't we keep all of it? Who cares if it requires more maintenance?

 

That is a bold-faced lie, Anthony. The CDC doesn't recommend circumcision. Its last statement on the matter was that circumcision (quote) "carries risks and costs that must be considered in addition to potential benefits" and (quote) "has only proven effective in reducing the risk of infection through insertive vaginal sex with only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures."

That's the CDC's *OFFICIAL* statement on the matter as of now, and that isn't a recommendation. It's a warning to have the procedure done at your own risk.

The religious argument does not hold water either, however. I have already cited a precedent. Mormons believe in polygamous marriages... yet they are legally forbidden to do so in this country. Circumcision should be no different... and as for what the Jews and the Muslims think about it..? They can go blow goats. Mutilate YOURSELF if you need to, but leave the baby alone. No one should have the right to perform such cruel and pre-emptive acts of sexual barbarism upon their own children.


If you're going to ban polygamy amongst Mormons -- then you need to ban circumcision, too.

If you are going to ban stoning adulterous women (an ancient Muslim punishment) -- then you need to ban circumcision, too.

If you are going to frown upon religious groups that force their women to cover themselves in public -- then you need to frown upon circumcision, too.

If you are horrified by female genital infibulation ( aka "female circumcision" ) -- then you should be horrified by male circumcision, too.

I won't keep listing examples. I'm just trying to put all of this into perspective. These sexually-based traditions have their origins in the primitive tribal barbarism of ancient and superstitious cultures. Well... if something is wrong, then it is always wrong. I don't wanna hear anyone angry rants about women being abused in Saudi Arabia... only to see that same person turn around and defend the unnecessary mutilation of their baby boy's primary sex organ. Hypocrisy is worthless. Either stick to your morals, or don't.

"If it was good enough for my father, and if it was good enough for me, then it's good enough for my son."
-- the sign of a truly broken man who has allowed himself to be destroyed --

 

Who wants a smaller penis?

 

dude that post was really bad, your examples suck. poligamy SHOULDN'T be illegal. it is an autonomous choice. torturing babies SHOULDN'T be legal anymore than FGM or witholding blood products for the children of JW is or should be

 

Not ones regarding surgical procedures for primarily cosmetic reasons. Because that's what it boils down to: Circumcision is most often performed due to cultural and aesthetic reasons. The HIV debacle is neither here nor there, the jury is still out on the matter, and parents were circumcising their children long before the emergence of AIDS.

Either way, the child is unlikely to be having unprotected sex for at least 14 (?) years, so why not leave their penis intact, and allow them to make an informed decision about their wang at that age?

So you would have no problem with parents removing their childrens teeth for purely cosmetic reasons? I mean, they are only tiny chunks of enamel. No big loss.

 

question for orleander, what would you say to a guy who said "hey your a great girl but i wouldnt fuck you unless you get breat implants". more importantly what would you THINK of him?

 

What about killing a child still in the womb because it's the wrong sex? What about giving a child that would otherwise be short growth hormone? Providing a deaf child with a cochlear implant? Removing a sixth finger from a child's hand? The removal of a vestigal tail from an infant? The seperation of webbed toes? The seperation of Siamese twins knowing full well that the surgery may well kill one of them? The surgical"correction" of typical Down's Syndrome facial features in a child with that disorder?

Clearly, parents do this sort of thing all the time. Circumcision is no different. Hell, it might even save the child's life one day.

 

so mad, you surport a parent's "rights" to perform female genital mutilation to there child for religious reasons that the child might not even surport then?

 

Circumcision saving someone's life really, please.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's so unlikely it's funny. Like my short nails might one day save my life. Hey anything could happen.

 

Before throwing around accusations of lying, why don't you read the article referenced in the OP? Or at least read the section of the article quoted there? Is that too much to ask before you start hurling insults? To save you the trouble of going back to the first page:

Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

The topic is a delicate one that has already generated controversy, even though a formal draft of the proposed recommendations, due out from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by the end of the year, has yet to be released.
​

You see, the public health officials who want to promote routine circumcision are with the CDC. What you quoted is out of date.

 

Is that true for all Egyptian medicine or only circumcision? Did the Egyptians know that there were health benefits to their medicine at all?

 

There's no comparison between the two procedures, and you know it.

 

In Egypt 90% of women are cicumcised. I would assume that they are so accustomed to the practice that inspite of the al Azhar university [biggest Islamic university in the world, based in Egypt] denouncing it as an un-Islamic practice it has had virtually zero effect on the people practising it.

I guess you could say, its too deeply entrenched in their society. So what you asked madant, you should ask an Egyptian.

 

If it decreases the risk of aquiring HIV, it's going to save some lives. I never said it was likely to save any particular person's life; but it will save some (unless the science regarding decreased rates of HIV transmission in circumcised men is incorrect, that is).

 

there is no difference, they are both mutilation of the sexual organs, causing reduced sesation, performed on unconsenting babies. actuslly level 1 FMG where its just a symbolic nick in the skin is actually more tame that MGM. further more its often done without anasetic and even when it is, it leads to long term irritation to the gland, leading to a reduction in sexual sensation. Further more the skin itself that you dismiss in an attempt to justfy your own childrens multilation has more nerve endings in it than your finger tips. why do you think that is