Circumcision Fight

Circumcision?

  • YES

    Votes: 6 24.0%

  • NO

    Votes: 20 80.0%
  • Total voters
    25
D

D'ster

Registered Senior Member
Parents take circumcision fight to court

Thursday, June 15, 2006
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Groups opposed to circumcision are watching the case of an 8-year-old suburban Chicago boy whose divorced parents are fighting in court over whether he should have the procedure.

The child's mother wants him circumcised to prevent recurring, painful inflammation she says he's experienced during the past year. But the father says the boy is healthy and circumcision, which removes the foreskin of the penis, is an unnecessary medical procedure that could cause him long-term physical and psychological harm.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/circumcision.feud.ap/index.html?section=cnn_us
 
I had to have mine removed, as it was too small, and was restricting the flow of urine when I was trying to pee. I know of several other people who have had to have their foreskin either removed or altered because of the similar problems, so if that is the 'inflammation' mentioned, then dad is perhaps being irresponsible if there is genuine medical need.

I would vote against routine circumcision however. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

There's no 'psychological harm' associated with circumcision either, so the dad claiming so is trying to make an issue that doesn't exist. Put it this way, weigh up alleged psychological harm, vs tearing the foreskin during sex, (which happened to a friend of mine because his too was too small). Now, do you want to get rid of your foreskin, or dread having sex because it's always painful and your foreskin keeps tearing? Medical reasons outweigh this 'psychological harm' bullshit. I've have never had a sexual partner who was bothered that I was circumcised, so what 'harm' can it do?
 
I voted for both because the poll is flawed... make it bubble next time, instead of checkmarks.

I have no idea where to stand on this.
 
thedevilsreject said:
if anyone is going to tamper with my dick i would to be made aware of it
Click to expand...


Believe me this is something you'd rather have done when you were not "aware" of it, its NOT a painless procedure
 
Its easier to beat off if you're not circumsized. Men are also believed to have more powerful orgasms if they've never been circumsized.
 
samcdkey said:
Believe me this is something you'd rather have done when you were not "aware" of it, its NOT a painless procedure
Click to expand...
Not a painful procedure? Are you kidding me? The baby is not given any form of anaesthetic. A baby does feel pain.. try seeing a baby have a blood test and you'll see how much pain the baby feels when that needle goes into his/her foot. Now you're telling me slicking into and removing a piece of their skin is not painful to them? Riiigghhhtttt...

If the child is not sick and has no problems, he should not be circumcised. It is an unnecessary procedure and is NOT beneficial in nature to the baby boy. If on the other hand the boy does have a medical reason for the circumcision, then yes.. but only if it is absolutely medically necessary.
 
Bells said:
Not a painful procedure? Are you kidding me? The baby is not given any form of anaesthetic. A baby does feel pain.. try seeing a baby have a blood test and you'll see how much pain the baby feels when that needle goes into his/her foot. Now you're telling me slicking into and removing a piece of their skin is not painful to them? Riiigghhhtttt...

If the child is not sick and has no problems, he should not be circumcised. It is an unnecessary procedure and is NOT beneficial in nature to the baby boy. If on the other hand the boy does have a medical reason for the circumcision, then yes.. but only if it is absolutely medically necessary.
Click to expand...


Err, I think you were in a hurry, read my post again.

Also, all males in my family are circumcised and it was ALWAYS under some form of anesthesia.

In the link I posted:
"Most pediatric urologists believe that the use of local penile anesthesia prior to surgery decreases pain and should be used. It can be given by injection at the base of the penis, into the tissue to be cut, or topically with an anesthetic cream. An infant undergoing circumcision can be comforted by sucking on a nipple with sugar solution, and this also helps with pain. "
 
Possumking said:
Its easier to beat off if you're not circumsized. Men are also believed to have more powerful orgasms if they've never been circumsized.
Click to expand...

which of course justifies anything :rolleyes:
 
samcdkey said:
Err, I think you were in a hurry, read my post again.

Also, all males in my family are circumcised and it was ALWAYS under some form of anesthesia.

In the link I posted:
"Most pediatric urologists believe that the use of local penile anesthesia prior to surgery decreases pain and should be used. It can be given by injection at the base of the penis, into the tissue to be cut, or topically with an anesthetic cream. An infant undergoing circumcision can be comforted by sucking on a nipple with sugar solution, and this also helps with pain. "
Click to expand...
Oops.. sorry about that. Lack of sleep due to a child with a throat infection.. :( .. My apologies for my mistake.

Sadly most circumcisions are performed on a newborn and anaesthesia in a child that young is rarely given. While a topical cream is sometimes used, in many cultures and with many religious practices, this is not the case. A friend of mine had her son circumcised without any form of pain relief during the procedure because her religious practice did not call for one. I find it appalling that any parent would want to put their child through that much pain.. religion or not. From what I understand, he did not breastfeed during the procedure. The worst part of it is that he then had an infection at the site and had to be admitted to hospital for a few days. I don't know, but I find this kind of practice barbaric.

As I said above, if it is medically necessary, then yes it should be performed with an anaesthetic to reduce any pain the baby might feel.
 
The crusade against circumcision is one of my pet issues.

Unless there are religious (of course) or CLEAR medical reasons (vague mumblings about "hygiene" don't qualify as clear), circumcision is should not under any circumstances be inflicted upon a poor, unsuspecting child. This is something I am adamant about and have always been.
 
the boy is 8....

has he ever had an orgasm??? if not.. he'll never know the difference.

but doing so... is robbing him of half his life of orgasms... literally...


and since the parents we so stupid as to wait that long... they should leave it up to the boy...

he doesnt have to worry about it for along time.. and if he does so.. he should do so for his wife... if she is worthy of it... period.

other than that... the stupid kid needs to learn to keep it clean...


that is the reason for it.... A SMART HUMAN GOT TIRED OF THE PROBLEM AND CUT IT OFF... AND discoverED it solved the problem...

and made it look cooler... better.. in the ego mind of a man.

it became tradition... it became jewish...

it became popular world wide... cause no one wants that problem.

it has continued... because men are dirty... and are better off.

but it should be up to the boy... and if i was him... id say NO.
BUT ITS TOO LATE.
-MT
 
Are there benefits from circumcision?
There are several:

1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.
 
Circumcision for the purpose of religious ritual is equivalent to sacrificing virgins to a volcanoe, you sacrifice a small portion to the gods in order to preserve the rest. This has no bearing on any medical benefits or problems as a result of the circumcision and most likely was never considered.

Theists who look towards medical benefits do so merely attempt to justify those rituals. Even if they were presented evidence to the contrary, they most likely would still choose circumcision for their children in order to preserve the ritual.

Mosheh said:
the benefits of the covanent with the lord....
Click to expand...

The honest theist's response.
 
D'ster said:
6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to reply to the other things because in my opinion mutilating yourself to lower your health risks is mind-bogglingly silly. Yes, if you amputate your foreskin it won't get cancer. That is also true about breasts, and kidneys. Should we get rid of those too?

The appearance of the penis is of course a matter of taste, but I think circumcized penises just look silly. A circumcised penis is basically a stick. The foreskin is the whole point (pardon the pun) of the penis, as women who are skilled at manipulating it know well. As for the odour, some people find it very erotic.

But really, the idea that circumcised people enjoy better sex is just ridiculous. The foreskin sheathes the head and thus protects it from the desentization that occurs with circumcized penises.

Yes, "awareness of a good body image is good at building self confidence," but studies actually show that uncircumcised men are actually more likely to have self confidence, because the pain and subsequent chafing that comes with circumcision can be traumatic to some children and make them very uncomfortable.
 
Dr Hannibal Lecter said:
Solution: classify imposing religion on children as abuse.
Click to expand...
Problem is most circumcisions these days aren't done on religious grounds but rather on pseudo-medical grounds that are really pushing up hospital bills or raging dumbassery grounds.
 
I voted NO. Though I was as an infant and thankfully can't remember it I could never do that to my own child or condone the practice. It's rooted in religion and like religion it is barbaric and un-necessary. I think the uncut look is less attractive (if you will) but doing that to someone with no way to protest is like mentioned by a poster above; Child Abuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top