Yes, it does. Says who? You? or the Law? What quote? Who said it? Who decided that it was the PROVENANCE of the child? Since it's not been proven to effect the sexuality of the child, beyond your selectively quoted anecdotal evidence, one can be certain (and take it from a cut man) that the penis functions just fine. I derive a GREAT deal of pleasure from it, despite my missing foreskin. Prove it. ~String
Jeez why even have children anymore if we can't even make any decisions about their well being. A baby can't make any decisions, but as a mother who just carried him for 9 months I can. There are debates that it is horrific to put a baby through that. Well I can tell you that childbirth is probably a lot more horrific and painful. I wouldn't tell anybody what they should or shouldn't do when it comes to this. But if a new mother asked me what I thought, I would tell her my experience with my boys. It is up to them to decide what they think is right. If my older one has to have some sort of surgery to fix this REALLY TIGHT SKIN not retracting problem, don't you think it will be more traumatic later on in life then as a baby when they can't even remember it?
If it's so real can you back it up with any evidence? studies? polls?..... Yeah they do need to grow some balls String.....
Yeah. If you haven't figured it out yet, Asguard either makes things up completely, or applies blatantly exaggerated claims that just don't apply. I think, sometimes, I'm listening to Ross Perot back in the '92 election. ~String
Evidence? I can't pull up a reference but John Safran ( very intelligent Jewish, provocative documentary maker ) did apiece on circumcision and there certainly was a group of disgruntled(Jewish) men who were desperately triyng to stretch their remaining skin to envelop their knobs. He was asked by a Rabbi if he had any 'play' in his skin on his cock. He had none, to which the Rabbi commented " wow, that's a tight cut" I felt very sad for him at that point, imagine having no loose skin! To make a graphic point ( oh, the tragic use of language), the skin over my knob can stretch all the way to the base of my penis ( even when erect) and no, I do not have a small dick. I cannot imagine having a tool with a skin like a bratwurst.
I'm not familiar with Ross Perot, but I get your drift I guess Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! On the other hand.. if he can substantiate it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
enmos, gum and teeth disease go hand in hand with stroke and heart disease. Of course the majority of people suffering these problems are in there 70s but hey whats a UTI compared with the risk of stroke right? (Its actually one of the arguments which is being used to set up a national dental programe in Australia as a way not just to help with detal health but with whole of body health)
The way I understand it, gum infections, if left untreated, might get into the bloodstream and infect other organs such as the heart. But that is a far cry from what you just claimed.
http://www.dentalwellness4u.com/dentaldisease/stroke.html http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-147871921/research-brief-tooth-decay.html http://www.abc.net.au/overnights/stories/s1406260.htm http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/162165/tooth_decay_and_gum_disease_has_now.html what? ripping out peoples teeth to prevent what is "an important risk factor for stroke, even when controlled for other established risk factors of stroke, including hypertension, smoking, and alcohol use." (first link) When compared to mutilating a penis to provent a mild infection that effects alot more women and apart from some pain in the majority of cases no further treatment is needed or at most an oral antibotic? Whats that compared to a risk of DEATH
Asguard--- I can tell this is an issue about which you have strong opinions. Why don't you try to rationally look at the pros and cons of the procedure, instead of making tangential arguments? The thread isn't about the risks that having teeth poses, its about the merits of circumcision. Shall we stay with that topic?
because its just as stupid a propersition to remove peoples teeth as soon as they get them to prevent stroke as it is to remove someones forskin without there consent to prevent the tiny risk of a UTI. the only reason i bothered to get evidence on it was because i was challanged to prove it (which i did) Further more i dont recall anyone ever dying from a UTI, it has probably happened once or twice (say someone suffering AIDs or Lukimia) but it would be very rare. However people HAVE died from circumcisions (as spud stated) Of course that wanders away from the centeral point of the right to consent. Any medical procidure performed on a child which will have life long implications should be left up to the decision of the child when they are able to make that desion themselves unless there is an urgent medical nessecity for the procidure to be carried out imidiatly. There was an interesting story i saw a while ago about a boy whos legs were basically dead (in the sense of having no ability to function or feel, and being totally deformed) and wether that boy should have them removed now or wait till he can make that decision. If i rember correctly the case went to court with the father demanding that the decision be the childs because it would have life long implications and i belive the courts sided with him for that very reason (i wish i could rember more about the story but thats all unfortunatly and probably enough for this thread anyway under bens point). This is not just a legal point but a medical one, the hypocratic oath says "First do no harm", in nursing the first principle is patient autonomy unless there is a driving need which has to override it. Therefore the decision to remove or leave the forskin should be left to the child to make when they become an adult. As to shorty's point that "she cant think of why anyone would do it as an adult". If no one would chose to do it as an adult why is it "good' to inflict it on a child? Further more to string and shortys dismissive attitude to those who feel that they HAVE been inflicted with this, what right have you to judge whats important to someone else? Hell you could (and sadly alot have) said the same thing to rape victoms and victoms of child abuse "you should harden up" "grow some balls" ect.
Of course it wasn't, because Will's answer show's how stupid your question was. Vaccines are given based on risk/benefit analysis. Circumcision has almost zero benefit. I had to be circumcised because I had a medical problem. It irks me a little, but I couldn't piss without it hurting, so needed it doing. If my parents had had it cut off because they wanted it, I'd have done it to both of them in their sleep, so they understood what they'd done. There really is no excuse for mutilating child's sex organs. None.
Firstly, the link between circumcision and UTI is not right. It was based on a 1982 study which made the offhand comment that ``95% of the babies with UTI were found to be uncircumcised''. What they failed to mention is that in the hospital where they did the survey, NONE of the babies were circumcised. On the contrary: UTI is a complication of circumcision. If you will re-read my post, I was careful NOT to mention that circumcision is not a way to prevent UTI. I spent 20 minutes or so looking for studies which showed the benefits of circumcision, versus the risks thereof. I found only studies which show that circumcision prevents STDs from developing later in life, which is the REAL point of my argument. You promptly ignored my argument, and made one of your own, and then refuted that. People also die from AIDS, and studies have shown that transference of AIDS from female to male is LOWER (i.e. LESS AIDS) when the male is circumcised. Firstly, as a matter of public health, should there be a right to consent? As Baron points out, what about vaccinations?
If someone had cut off your clitoris when you were a baby, to stop you from enjoying sex, to prevent you from being promiscuous, so you ran a lower rick of catching an STD, would you accept their reasoning? Or is it that you just can't empathise?
I love this anology. Problem is, the removal of foreskin doesn't prevent or even hamper sexual pleasure, lest all those Male dominated societies would have thrown it off eons ago. Take it from a cut man, sex is great. ~String
