PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Girls - Infant Circumcision


NewLeafsFan
August 1st, 2017, 09:19 PM
Most guys will base their decision on there own experiences but I'm very curious as to if girls think it's necessary.

WhoWhatWhen
August 2nd, 2017, 12:43 AM
I believe they should not. There is no substantial evidence to show any difference in disease/std's between circumcised and uncircumcised men. And why do it just for tradition? I don't believe that's a real reason to mutilate someone else's genitals. If a grown man wants to get circumcised, that's fine. It's his educated decision.

Barbara.
August 2nd, 2017, 12:39 PM
Undecided, the pros and cons are the same either way.

Human
August 2nd, 2017, 04:59 PM
why does the opinion of girls matter? it should be up to the baby boy having his genitals altered no one else

Babs
August 2nd, 2017, 07:31 PM
why does the opinion of girls matter? it should be up to the baby boy having his genitals altered no one else

because he originally posted it in p101 and it got archived so now he's posting it in rotw as if there isn't already a debate on circumcision on the first page

RainbowLove
August 3rd, 2017, 08:32 PM
Yes, absolutely. It's cleaner and healthier for the kid, it should be done, and it should be a lot more common than it is where I live. One thing, is it should be free - instead of like it is now where parents have to pay for it.

Diana2002
August 18th, 2017, 08:50 AM
I do not suport circumcision

Murk.T.M
August 18th, 2017, 02:58 PM
Damnit I'm posting! Haha.... There's also the factor of the surgeons reputation, how clean, and what kind should matter too. I'm a lucky one, but I've seen a lot of kids with 'messed up' circumcisions... Had to put that one out there.(it also puts reproduction at risk, so it shouldn't be free, as it is it only costs $10)

RainbowLove
August 28th, 2017, 02:57 AM
I do not suport circumcision

Why not? It's much healthier for the boy and better for his future partners too (lower risk of diseases, etc).

Flapjack
August 28th, 2017, 05:16 AM
Why not? It's much healthier for the boy and better for his future partners too (lower risk of diseases, etc).
The health benefits are marginal at best, the needless cosmetic operation also has its own risks and what would you say to the boy when he grows into a man and wishes he wasn't circumscribed?

Diana2002
August 28th, 2017, 05:20 AM
Why not? It's much healthier for the boy and better for his future partners too (lower risk of diseases, etc).

Circumcision is not natural. We are already born perfect the way we are, there is no need to cut parts of us. I would never circumcise my kids if i'll have boys.

Uniquemind
September 5th, 2017, 02:42 AM
I'm not for genital mutilation of either sex, only if medically necessary would I begrudgingly support it.

Cultural reasons for it be damned, and it also costs $ for the procedure which is a double insult when those parents need that $10 to help raise the kid these days, babies are expensive.

jhardy
September 8th, 2017, 06:26 PM
I just don't see the benefit to it. As a religious practice fine, but otherwise I don't see a need for it.

jamie_n5
September 8th, 2017, 06:51 PM
I'm not for genital mutilation of either sex, only if medically necessary would I begrudgingly support it.

Cultural reasons for it be damned, and it also costs $ for the procedure which is a double insult when those parents need that $10 to help raise the kid these days, babies are expensive.

These are my feelings on the subject too. Also I would like to find a doctor in the USA that would do it for $100 let alone $10. It's not the cost anyway it's the idea of violating some ones human rights in my opinion.

Uniquemind
September 9th, 2017, 12:42 AM
These are my feelings on the subject too. Also I would like to find a doctor in the USA that would do it for $100 let alone $10. It's not the cost anyway it's the idea of violating some ones human rights in my opinion.

They exist.

Also remember we live in a world where laws are only as valid as the country's borders.

Many families, will take their children overseas, have the procedure done, and then fly them back to the main country they reside in.

maddogmj77
September 9th, 2017, 03:01 PM
Circumcision is not natural. We are already born perfect the way we are, there is no need to cut parts of us. I would never circumcise my kids if i'll have boys.

This is actually an Appeal to Nature Fallacy (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/36/Appeal-to-Nature). There are several things wrong with the human body, from the eyeball to the testicle.

Aside from that, I don't believe it's ethical to chop off parts of a baby while the kid gets absolutely no say in it.

There is no health benefit to circumcision; so that argument is void.

As for "religious beliefs", I don't believe we should entertain religious practices which require us to chop off baby body parts.
We certainly don't let Nazis with their "religious belief" that Jews should be exterminated do that.
There's a limit.

Trish_Lynn
September 10th, 2017, 12:54 AM
No way no how. I think it is mostly done for religious reasons and even then it's not when the boy is a newborn but when he's a young boy.

There are so many uncircumcised men in the world and they seem to be getting along just fine. You are born that way for a reason or else evolution would have gotten rid of one's foreskin.

jacob.neruda
September 19th, 2017, 08:43 PM
I am completely against surgical procedures unless performed with a valid medical reason. Religion is not valid, nor is culture.

sazzzo
October 4th, 2017, 09:19 AM
I don't understand why anyone would want to do this kind of thing ever

Brigje
October 4th, 2017, 01:58 PM
Why not? It's much healthier for the boy and better for his future partners too (lower risk of diseases, etc).

Let people decide for themselves when they are adults.

It is unbelievable that these days parents don't inform themselves better and still believe this kind of BS.

adtse
November 7th, 2017, 07:43 PM
I believe this should be considered child abuse. Most boys wish they weren't cut as they were as an infant. And babies experience a lot of pain (many people think babies get very little pain, however that is not ture).

Stronk Serb
November 16th, 2017, 11:59 AM
No. Just no. If the boy when he grows up wants to do it, let him. This should be classified as abuse. If for religious reasons people say it's like baptism, it's not. Baptism is dipping a person, usually baby into a body of water with chanting. It's nothing permanent. Circumcission is literally getting the tip of your perfectly healthy willy chopped off and discarded like it were a cigar.

maddogmj77
November 16th, 2017, 08:06 PM
The claimed "health benefits" are completely false. There is not a single study to prove that circumcision works any better than regular cleaning.

The whole idea was made up as a religious tradition in order to reduce sensitivity for boys, and stop them from masturbating. (It didn't work)

The skin on my dick got chopped off (without my consent), due to some crazy religious tradition with NO proven health benefits, and it reduced my sensitivity. :mad:

This should be illegal.

Stronk Serb
November 16th, 2017, 10:00 PM
The claimed "health benefits" are completely false. There is not a single study to prove that circumcision works any better than regular cleaning.

The whole idea was made up as a religious tradition in order to reduce sensitivity for boys, and stop them from masturbating. (It didn't work)

The skin on my dick got chopped off (without my consent), due to some crazy religious tradition with NO proven health benefits, and it reduced my sensitivity. :mad:

This should be illegal.

Even if it did help with a minor margin with preventing infection and STD-s, the things that 100% prevent it are protection and hygiene. Before it made sense when people were covered in dirt, but now when many have access to clean water and protection, it doesn't make sense anymore.

Brigje
November 17th, 2017, 08:59 PM
The claimed "health benefits" are completely false. There is not a single study to prove that circumcision works any better than regular cleaning.

The whole idea was made up as a religious tradition in order to reduce sensitivity for boys, and stop them from masturbating. (It didn't work)

The skin on my dick got chopped off (without my consent), due to some crazy religious tradition with NO proven health benefits, and it reduced my sensitivity. :mad:

This should be illegal.

I am a girl but I sympathize with you and all other "victims"
This should be illegal and I hope all future dads and moms read this.

NewLeafsFan
November 19th, 2017, 04:30 AM
As a male that was circumcised at 18, I have to say that I prefer it. The sensitivity thing is entirely false. The only thing that I miss is urinating with foreskin which probably sounds strange to most people but it feel warm and kind of comforting.

I plan on having my kids circumcised as infants. I will be very responsible with who and how it is done and pain management. And if they have an issue with it years after the fact I'm sure it will only be attention seeking which there is clearly too much of these days.

EvaNL
November 19th, 2017, 08:51 AM
There are only two situations a boy should get circumsized:
1) medical reasons. This can only be determined by a doctor.
2) if the boy wants it himself. Of course, he can only legally choose to do this when he's of legal adult age. Similar to getting a tattoo.

Religious reasons are never a reason to mutilate a child. It is child abuse.

jacob.neruda
November 19th, 2017, 08:14 PM
There are only two situations a boy should get circumsized:
1) medical reasons. This can only be determined by a doctor.
2) if the boy wants it himself. Of course, he can only legally choose to do this when he's of legal adult age. Similar to getting a tattoo.

Religious reasons are never a reason to mutilate a child. It is child abuse.

Couldn't agree more. You put it very succinctly.

Brigje
November 19th, 2017, 09:29 PM
As a male that was circumcised at 18, I have to say that I prefer it. The sensitivity thing is entirely false. The only thing that I miss is urinating with foreskin which probably sounds strange to most people but it feel warm and kind of comforting.

I plan on having my kids circumcised as infants. I will be very responsible with who and how it is done and pain management. And if they have an issue with it years after the fact I'm sure it will only be attention seeking which there is clearly too much of these days.

As I read it and understand, You had a choice.
But you don't want to give that same opportunity to your own children.
And will the mother of your child have some say in it?

NewLeafsFan
November 20th, 2017, 03:36 AM
As I read it and understand, You had a choice.
But you don't want to give that same opportunity to your own children.
And will the mother of your child have some say in it?

If I was dating someone that understood my experience and that I only want the best for that child and they said had such little care for my opinions we wouldn't be together long enough to have kids.

If I was with a girl and there was a female practice that was commonly done here in north america similar to circumcision and she said she wanted it done to our daughter I wouldn't have a problem with it.

EvaNL
November 20th, 2017, 07:56 AM
If I was with a girl and there was a female practice that was commonly done here in north america similar to circumcision and she said she wanted it done to our daughter I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I truly want to write a whole bunch of very bad words here, but those will get me banned.
Never, NEVER EVER do ANYthing that has even remotely to with female "circumcision". Cutting away the clitoris and/or labia has NO use at all. NONE.
Except for the one doing it feeling superior to that girl. And that is a TERRIBLE reason.

The only reason for surgery on female genitalia is medical. Which has to be determined by a licensed doctor.
ANY other reason is child molestation, abuse and mutilation.
I CANNOT believe you don't have a problem with this.

You, Sir, disgust me.

NewLeafsFan
November 21st, 2017, 01:45 AM
I truly want to write a whole bunch of very bad words here, but those will get me banned.
Never, NEVER EVER do ANYthing that has even remotely to with female "circumcision". Cutting away the clitoris and/or labia has NO use at all. NONE.
Except for the one doing it feeling superior to that girl. And that is a TERRIBLE reason.

The only reason for surgery on female genitalia is medical. Which has to be determined by a licensed doctor.
ANY other reason is child molestation, abuse and mutilation.
I CANNOT believe you don't have a problem with this.

You, Sir, disgust me.

I agree with you completely. I said that "if there was something comparable to male circumcision for females" and there is not. Female circumcision is not in anyway comparable to the removal of foreskin. That's my whole point.

EvaNL
November 21st, 2017, 06:33 AM
I agree with you completely. I said that "if there was something comparable to male circumcision for females" and there is not. Female circumcision is not in anyway comparable to the removal of foreskin. That's my whole point.

Boy mutilation is just as bad and should be banned!!
<insert another bunch of bad words here>

NewLeafsFan
November 22nd, 2017, 01:26 AM
Boy mutilation is just as bad and should be banned!!
<insert another bunch of bad words here>

Mutilation is defined as inflicting serious damage on something

I am circumcised but I am NOT mutilated. That suggestion is ridiculous.

maddogmj77
November 22nd, 2017, 04:19 AM
As a male that was circumcised at 18, I have to say that I prefer it. The sensitivity thing is entirely false.
Because you were not circumcised at birth, your dick-head has been shielded your entire life. It has retained your sensitivity; you're not just going to lose it all at once.

I was circumcised at birth, so my head has been exposed my entire life. Rubbing up against any diaper, underwear, towel, hand, or anything that it's ever come into contact with for the the last 17 years.
That has 'significantly' reduced it's sensitivity.

It is not false, it is fact. And it's really fucked up that circumcised guys don't get to enjoy the same stimulation that everybody who wasn't circumcised at birth gets to.

It's horrible that people still think this is actually okay.

I am circumcised but I am NOT mutilated. That suggestion is ridiculous.
You had a piece of your dick CUT OFF! (At least you got to decide for yourself.)

I know you may be desensitized to the idea because circumcision has become so commonly accepted in society.
But seriously, just think about this for a moment. We're cutting off pieces of baby's penises, reducing their sensitivity, for..... no logical reason.

Are we really going to let parents do this to their kids, on the grounds of "religious tradition"?
It's child abuse. It's painful. It reduces sensitivity. It serves NO health benefits.
It should be illegal.

NewLeafsFan
November 22nd, 2017, 06:46 AM
Because you were not circumcised at birth, your dick-head has been shielded your entire life. It has retained your sensitivity; you're not just going to lose it all at once.

I was circumcised at birth, so my head has been exposed my entire life. Rubbing up against any diaper, underwear, towel, hand, or anything that it's ever come into contact with for the the last 17 years.
That has 'significantly' reduced it's sensitivity.

It is not false, it is fact. And it's really fucked up that circumcised guys don't get to enjoy the same stimulation that everybody who wasn't circumcised at birth gets to.

It's horrible that people still think this is actually okay.


You had a piece of your dick CUT OFF! (At least you got to decide for yourself.)

I know you may be desensitized to the idea because circumcision has become so commonly accepted in society.
But seriously, just think about this for a moment. We're cutting off pieces of baby's penises, reducing their sensitivity, for..... no logical reason.

Are we really going to let parents do this to their kids, on the grounds of "religious tradition"?
It's child abuse. It's painful. It reduces sensitivity. It serves NO health benefits.
It should be illegal.

You think that its a bad thing to lose sensitivity. I wish I lost more. Do u have any idea how sensitive it is with foreskin? Just touching it slightly hurts like hell.

You think I have no logical reason to have my kids circumcised? I had to go through penis surgery at 18 years old. There is a decent chance that it was hereditary meaning that my kids could experience the same misfortune. I also experienced an injury when I was 10 as it somehow got partially caught in my bathing suit liner. When I finally got it out it was sore for days. My entire life my foreskin was just a pain in the ass.

As far as making it illegal goes, if you life in the United States and have any understanding of history or politics you would understand that it is unconstitutional as it goes against several amendments.

EvaNL
November 22nd, 2017, 07:50 AM
Mutilation is defined as inflicting serious damage on something


Chopping off part of someone's body without their consent is not inflicting serious damage? Removed unnecessary comment. ~Elysium


You think I have no logical reason to have my kids circumcised?
There ARE no logical reasons to have kids circumsized, except for medical reasons.
I had to go through penis surgery at 18 years old.
So you had yourself circumsized for medical reasons. Nothing wrong with that.

There is a decent chance that it was hereditary meaning that my kids could experience the same misfortune.
Why don't you let doctors decide that when the time comes?
Your kid may get an ingrown toenail.. are you gonna lop off his foot at birth too?

As far as making it illegal goes, if you life in the United States and have any understanding of history or politics you would understand that it is unconstitutional as it goes against several amendments.
Changing the law is possible, you know. In fact, laws are changed every day.
That's the whole point of making something either legal or illegal.

maddogmj77
November 22nd, 2017, 04:13 PM
You think that its a bad thing to lose sensitivity. I wish I lost more. Do u have any idea how sensitive it is with foreskin? Just touching it slightly hurts like hell.
Yes, it is a bad thing, for most people.

Just because 'some' people are overly sensitive, doesn't mean we should make EVERYONE less sensitive.

If someone is overly sensitive, then they should be able to consent to their own circumcision when they become of age.

You think I have no logical reason to have my kids circumcised? I had to go through penis surgery at 18 years old. There is a decent chance that it was hereditary meaning that my kids could experience the same misfortune. I also experienced an injury when I was 10 as it somehow got partially caught in my bathing suit liner. When I finally got it out it was sore for days. My entire life my foreskin was just a pain in the ass.
So you had a medical reason for circumcision, that's fine. I'm all for circumcision when it has a proper medical reasoning behind it.
You consented to a surgery when you turned 18, that's great. I'm all for circumcision when the person getting it done consents to it.

But circumcising someone at birth without their consent, for no reason? That's illogical, child abuse, and should just be illegal.

As far as making it illegal goes, if you life in the United States and have any understanding of history or politics you would understand that it is unconstitutional as it goes against several amendments.
And could you please specify exactly which amendment that is?

I didn't know we had a constitutional right to cut off our baby's penis skin.

As Eva said, laws can change. Even the constitution can be amended.

NewLeafsFan
November 23rd, 2017, 03:56 AM
Chopping off part of someone's body without their consent is not inflicting serious damage? In which messed up state of mind do you live?

No, that does not necessarily mean serious damage. I'm very happy with the mind I live in.

There ARE no logical reasons to have kids circumsized, except for medical reasons.

Like most of ur arguments, this is also false. Many people do for religious and social reasons. Religious freedom is a different issue and if you wish to discuss it plz do so in ur own thread.

So you had yourself circumsized for medical reasons. Nothing wrong with that.

Thank you. I'm happy that you approve.

Why don't you let doctors decide that when the time comes?
Your kid may get an ingrown toenail.. are you gonna lop off his foot at birth too?

No. That's why I'm not getting his entire penis cut off. If my kid, or myself for that matter had an ingrown toenail I would see to it that the correct surgery involving removing the root of part of the nail removed. No reason to decapitate someone when they could have a brain tumour.

Changing the law is possible, you know. In fact, laws are changed every day.
That's the whole point of making something either legal or illegal.

I'm so glad that you know that laws don't always stay the same. Unfortunately, you don't know that laws are made to upkeep the constitution. Give that law change a try in court, its not going anywhere.

The way this come out my response appears in the quote.

Living For Love
November 23rd, 2017, 12:35 PM
Contrary to female circumcision, male circumcision has some health benefits, the thing is that there are other better, simpler, safer, less invasive, less traumatic and non-permanent procedures males can do to obtain the same health benefits with the same efficiency (such has having good genital hygiene etc...). There is also this huge problem named religious freedom, and how a ban on male circumcision would ultimately deny people their religious freedom. Whether we want to accept it or not, the main reason why most religions enforce circumcision is to deprive boys of having sexual pleasure during masturbation. Period. There's absolutely no need to sugar coat it because it's a fact and the Catholic Church (and other religions) have never even tried to conceal it. Now, this begs the question: apart from circumcision done voluntarily or due to health-related reasons, why should we allow male circumcision for religious purposes and ban female circumcision? Because when it comes to religion, both are done because of this whole "sexual modesty" value that religions hold in such high regard, yet people tend to see male circumcision less problematic when it comes to religious purposes.

NewLeafsFan
November 24th, 2017, 02:05 AM
Contrary to female circumcision, male circumcision has some health benefits, the thing is that there are other better, simpler, safer, less invasive, less traumatic and non-permanent procedures males can do to obtain the same health benefits with the same efficiency (such has having good genital hygiene etc...). There is also this huge problem named religious freedom, and how a ban on male circumcision would ultimately deny people their religious freedom. Whether we want to accept it or not, the main reason why most religions enforce circumcision is to deprive boys of having sexual pleasure during masturbation. Period. There's absolutely no need to sugar coat it because it's a fact and the Catholic Church (and other religions) have never even tried to conceal it. Now, this begs the question: apart from circumcision done voluntarily or due to health-related reasons, why should we allow male circumcision for religious purposes and ban female circumcision? Because when it comes to religion, both are done because of this whole "sexual modesty" value that religions hold in such high regard, yet people tend to see male circumcision less problematic when it comes to religious purposes.

That is only true in some cases. Jews are circumcised on the eighth day of life. The Catholic Church does not consider circumcision in any way mandatory and they never did.

Matryoshkasystem
November 24th, 2017, 03:53 AM
It's esentially only aesthetic, the heealth benifits are non-existent if you take proper care, and aren't stupid-use protection-, very rarely ACTUALLY needed. Plus cultural reasons aren't enough, we don't allow people to be thrown in asylums, even though it was culturally acceptable. Cultures change, and it seems that culture is turning away from Circumcision. There are even Jews who disagree and have refused to circumcise their Sons-though really moslty Reform ones from what I know, don't keep up to date-, and have, in fact created their own cerimonies in place of it called Brit Shalom. In fact in those groups who are stopping circumcision see it as a old,barbaric tradition. Only muslims are still adamant about circumcision-though apparently they too aren't requiring it for converts-or at least some have stopped requiring it-, though I don't know about people born into it.

EvaNL
November 24th, 2017, 10:13 AM
Which deity wants its subjects to get a piece of their body cut off? Of children who have no idea of religion whatsoever nonetheless. Without their consent. It is an idea made up by people, not by any deity.
Really, how stupid can people be?

If there is a medical problem, yes, fix it. I have no problem with that.

Religious freedom.. what a farce. What if I believe ("my deity tells me") that I have to cut off a finger from any non-believer.. because of "religious freedom" I should be able to do that.
People who circumsize boys at birth do the same: they cut off a part of someone's body who is a non-believer.

I don't care what people believe in. People can believe whatever they want. THAT's religious freedom.
Cutting off someone's bodypart is NOT.

maddogmj77
November 25th, 2017, 01:38 PM
NewLeafsFan
Living For Love

Religious Freedom DOES NOT MEAN "I can do whatever I want in the name of my religion."


That idea has been ruled by the supreme courts over & over again:

An employer is not allowed to deny birth control because of "religious beliefs."
A parent is not allowed to sacrifice their child even though "god told me to."
Religious Racists (KKK) are not allowed to make black people slaves even though "God intended it that way"
A parent is not allowed to mutilate a child, starve, or physically hurt them in any other way, even if it's a "religious tradition".
A person is not allowed to kill or harm anyone "in the name of god".



You do NOT have a "constitutional right" to chop off parts of baby's dicks.
Or maybe I just missed that line in the constitution somewhere. . .

NewLeafsFan
November 26th, 2017, 02:26 AM
Which deity wants its subjects to get a piece of their body cut off? Of children who have no idea of religion whatsoever nonetheless. Without their consent. It is an idea made up by people, not by any deity.
Really, how stupid can people be?

If there is a medical problem, yes, fix it. I have no problem with that.

Religious freedom.. what a farce. What if I believe ("my deity tells me") that I have to cut off a finger from any non-believer.. because of "religious freedom" I should be able to do that.
People who circumsize boys at birth do the same: they cut off a part of someone's body who is a non-believer.

I don't care what people believe in. People can believe whatever they want. THAT's religious freedom.
Cutting off someone's bodypart is NOT.

It's called Judaism. I guess you've never heard of it.

NewLeafsFan
Living For Love

Religious Freedom DOES NOT MEAN "I can do whatever I want in the name of my religion."


That idea has been ruled by the supreme courts over & over again:

An employer is not allowed to deny birth control because of "religious beliefs."
A parent is not allowed to sacrifice their child even though "god told me to."
Religious Racists (KKK) are not allowed to make black people slaves even though "God intended it that way"
A parent is not allowed to mutilate a child, starve, or physically hurt them in any other way, even if it's a "religious tradition".
A person is not allowed to kill or harm anyone "in the name of god".



You do NOT have a "constitutional right" to chop off parts of baby's dicks.
Or maybe I just missed that line in the constitution somewhere. . .

Clearly you did. It's a sacrament, not a sacrifice. In the eyes of both religion and the law its few as the same as baptism.

Living For Love
November 26th, 2017, 04:26 AM
Clearly you did. It's a sacrament, not a sacrifice. In the eyes of both religion and the law its few as the same as baptism.
May I ask you what is your opinion on:
- female circumcision;
- burqa/niqab/hijab bans on France and other European countries;
- blood transfusion refusal;

NewLeafsFan
November 26th, 2017, 04:37 AM
May I ask you what is your opinion on:
- female circumcision;
- burqa/niqab/hijab bans on France and other European countries;
- blood transfusion refusal;

Of course!

I disagree with female circumcision because it is pointless while most educated people agree that male circumcision has some benefits even if minimal. Also, female circumcision is not part of any faith but unfortunately it does seem to be a social thing.

The burqa, niqab, and hijab bans go too far. I understand for security issues such as a passport. However, to not allow someone to use a bus with it on is going way too far.

I understand that some religions do not allow blood transfusions and if you would rather die than be saved with someone elses blood than i guess that is your choice. I consider myself a left wing progressive.

If anyone wants to debate these issues anymore plz create a different thread. I responded because someone was curious about my opinions because of stuff I have said under this thread.

Living For Love
November 26th, 2017, 05:22 AM
I disagree with female circumcision because it is pointless while most educated people agree that male circumcision has some benefits even if minimal. Also, female circumcision is not part of any faith but unfortunately it does seem to be a social thing.
I agree with what you have said, but still, if I want to circumcise my female daughter for any irrelevant reason under my religious freedom, why shouldn't I have the right to do it, in your opinion? (note that in most states, if I had a son instead of a daughter, I'd be able to do it). I'm not talking about health benefits or any other kind of justification for the act, I'm talking about doing it just because I have that freedom. I believe that in most countries, similarly to abortion, if it is your desire to be circumcised as a male, you don't need to give any justification. You want to do it because you want to do it, and that's it. And honestly, I'm fine with it, because it is your desire. So why shouldn't I be able to circumcise my daughter?

Also, you mentioned "social thing". How exactly does that differ from religion? Note that religion is part of culture, and even if we establish that female circumcision is not related to religion (which I believe that, in most cases, it is), what about the freedom I have to participate and celebrate my culture? If it's a cultural thing, shouldn't I have the right to celebrate it and have my daughter also be part of it? (we can compare this to the Indian bindi, for instance).

NewLeafsFan
November 26th, 2017, 06:41 AM
Also, you mentioned "social thing". How exactly does that differ from religion? Note that religion is part of culture, and even if we establish that female circumcision is not related to religion (which I believe that, in most cases, it is), what about the freedom I have to participate and celebrate my culture? If it's a cultural thing, shouldn't I have the right to celebrate it and have my daughter also be part of it? (we can compare this to the Indian bindi, for instance).

Why? Because as I have stated more than once in posts under this thread, female circumcision is entirely different. You're comparing apples and orange.

Male circumcision has been done since well before common era as a sacrament of marking Jews as followers of or descendents of followers of Abraham. For a brief time many religions encouraged it because they believed it prevented masturbation which is false because contrary to current popular believe it does not make masturbation any less pleasurable. There are also believed to be many health benefits that are minimal but enough the the American Academy of Paediatrics has stated that the benefits of it outweigh the risks.

Female circumcision has no health benefits and is very dangerous. Many females have bleed to death from the procedure as the risks are much higher than male circumcision. It is common by several tribe groups in the middle east because they do not believe that females should be able to experience sexual pleasure. The surgery is usually carried out without any form of anaesthesia in unsafe environments such as the outdoors. The procedure involves removing the entire clit and other parts. The clitoris is the main area where females experience sexual sensations. Cutting it off would be comparable to removing the entire penis and possibly part of the scrotum.

This is the last time that I will respond to anything related to female circumcision under this thread as that isn't what the thread was intended to debate. If anyone has any trouble seeing the difference between the two I recommend that you do more surgery or go see your doctor to get your head examined.

maddogmj77
November 27th, 2017, 03:08 AM
In the eyes of both religion and the law its few as the same as baptism.

No. There is a difference between peacefully dipping a baby's head in water. . .

AND CHOPPING OFF THEIR DICK SKIN!!!

There are 0 proven health advantages over proper cleaning. That argument is null.

Why are you not okay with Female circumcision, but okay with Male circumcision?
They're both religious traditions, they're both painful, they both have 0 proven medical benefits, they're both unnecessary.
What's the difference?

The ONLY difference is that Male Circumcision has become accepted in society because it has such a long history.
We rejected Female Circumcision because it was not part of American's Christian religious traditions.

NewLeafsFan
November 27th, 2017, 11:00 PM
No. There is a difference between peacefully dipping a baby's head in water. . .

AND CHOPPING OFF THEIR DICK SKIN!!!

There are 0 proven health advantages over proper cleaning. That argument is null.

Why are you not okay with Female circumcision, but okay with Male circumcision?
They're both religious traditions, they're both painful, they both have 0 proven medical benefits, they're both unnecessary.
What's the difference?

The ONLY difference is that Male Circumcision has become accepted in society because it has such a long history.
We rejected Female Circumcision because it was not part of American's Christian religious traditions.

I'm honestly not trying to be rude but you need to look this up with credible sources. I am actually quoting the American Academy of Paediatrics.

Moriya
November 28th, 2017, 02:35 AM
To be honest I feel like circumcision should be decided by the man in question and no one else. If he wants his foreskin removed, that's fine. If he doesn't, that's fine as well.

maddogmj77
November 28th, 2017, 07:27 AM
I'm honestly not trying to be rude but you need to look this up with credible sources. I am actually quoting the American Academy of Paediatrics.

Alright, well I guess I missed it.

Please quote scientific evidence in favor of Male Circumcision, and source it.

nat2003
November 28th, 2017, 06:18 PM
Alright, well I guess I missed it.

Please quote scientific evidence in favor of Male Circumcision, and source it.
The article is about sensitivity in males circumcised at birth.
http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(15)05535-4/abstract
With FGM, when they removed the clitoris, which would be the equivalent of removing the entire glands of the penis. In a circumcision you arent cutting anything of the penis only the skin that covers it.
However in my opinion i wouldnt circumcised my sons at birth. I would try to explain the advantages and some disadvantages of circumcision when they were about 8-12 and if they want they would be circumcised. That way they can decide if they want or not and they arent very old(better cosmetic result, less pain etc..)

NewLeafsFan
November 29th, 2017, 02:49 AM
To be honest I feel like circumcision should be decided by the man in question and no one else. If he wants his foreskin removed, that's fine. If he doesn't, that's fine as well.

Alright, well I guess I missed it.

Please quote scientific evidence in favor of Male Circumcision, and source it.

This is the article that I had in mind.

https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/newborn-male-circumcision.aspx

I'll paraphrase the opening paragraph, "The benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks but not by enough to recommend universal infant male circumcision." In other words, it is more beneficial to have the procedure done but it can't be recommended or it would likely lead to health insurance companies requiring to pay for the surgery.

Jinglebottom
November 29th, 2017, 03:21 AM
How about keeping the integrity of your baby boy's body? Is that too much to ask for?

Matryoshkasystem
November 30th, 2017, 12:22 AM
Then if it's so useful, why can't any baby born with a health problem have it.literally ask any doctor, let there be a problem, and they LEGALLY CANNOT CIRCUMCISE CAUSE THE RISKS-death, infection, etc- and yet it still has benifits that outweigh the risks? I know cause I can NEVER be circumcised due to the fact my health issues make it too risky. If it's so benifical how can health conditions stop doctors right in their tracks? Try and have a son born with health problems get circumcised, they will tell you no, and if you continue to push, will threaten and will-if you don't give in- take the baby boy away. Tell me if it has so many benifits, then why are doctors legally not allowed to if they are born with health conditions as a baby, and potentially never? The sources online don't tell you everything, cause they don't know everything.

NewLeafsFan
December 1st, 2017, 05:26 AM
Then if it's so useful, why can't any baby born with a health problem have it.literally ask any doctor, let there be a problem, and they LEGALLY CANNOT CIRCUMCISE CAUSE THE RISKS-death, infection, etc- and yet it still has benifits that outweigh the risks? I know cause I can NEVER be circumcised due to the fact my health issues make it too risky. If it's so benifical how can health conditions stop doctors right in their tracks? Try and have a son born with health problems get circumcised, they will tell you no, and if you continue to push, will threaten and will-if you don't give in- take the baby boy away. Tell me if it has so many benifits, then why are doctors legally not allowed to if they are born with health conditions as a baby, and potentially never? The sources online don't tell you everything, cause they don't know everything.

Most often these health issues don't develop until long after birth. There was no sign that I had an issue until the start of puberty.

How about keeping the integrity of your baby boy's body? Is that too much to ask for?

That would imply that there is something embarrassing about being circumcised. I assure you that there is not.

Lillynet
December 6th, 2017, 02:53 PM
Well i think the parents should choose about that.... i dont have an opinion about htis :o

maddogmj77
December 7th, 2017, 07:15 PM
This is the article that I had in mind.

https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/newborn-male-circumcision.aspx

I'll paraphrase the opening paragraph, "The benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks but not by enough to recommend universal infant male circumcision." In other words, it is more beneficial to have the procedure done but it can't be recommended or it would likely lead to health insurance companies requiring to pay for the surgery.

They never quoted any actual studies. That's just an argument from authority.

Here's the AAP again, and look at the only benefits they reference: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686\

"In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks."

1.) Urinary Tract Infection rates are low, and can be easily stopped with antibiotics.

2.) The difference between STD/HIV rates are slim and only particularly prevalent in third-world countries. Condoms are the only way to guarantee yourself against STD's, and they're much less harmful.

So the only benefits they claim are unnecessary.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a published study showcasing the statistics of complications from circumcision:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20158883

The median frequency of any complication was 1.5% (range 0-16%).
Child circumcision by medical providers tended to be associated with more complications (median frequency 6%; range 2-14%).
[1.5% of circumcisions have complications.]

Here is a published study showcasing reduced penile sensitivity in circumcised men:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102

"For the glans penis, circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations."

Now show me a published study showcasing the benefits of circumcision. and then we can compare them.

But if circumcision doesn't have a significant health/medical benefit, then we shouldn't let parents do this to their kids.

Fiona2
January 13th, 2018, 07:35 AM
No way no how. I think it is mostly done for religious reasons and even then it's not when the boy is a newborn but when he's a young boy.

There are so many uncircumcised men in the world and they seem to be getting along just fine. You are born that way for a reason or else evolution would have gotten rid of one's foreskin.

This is very well stated.

boy05
February 1st, 2018, 04:01 PM
The girls who voted no, do you mind if your boyfriend is circumcised then?