Do you notice that people who are opposed to circumcision used words like “human rights violations” and “mutilation.” Guess what, hypocrites? I don’t feel violated in the slightest, and I certainly don’t feel mutilated. Don’t put words into my mouth. Don’t tell me that I should be scarred for life because of this. Mind your own damned business.
Maybe I am scarred for life. I do have this penis preoccupation, where I just like to stick it in things repeatedly. Oh, the humanity!
Keen observation doog. As I always say, I’m pro-choice: the choice is made by the woman to have sex. After that, the choice has been made and one must deal with the consequences of their actions, rather than to deprive life at the convienence of the selfish mother. One of the many lies that are becoming a reality due to the spreading attitude of our “me” generation. (This is an offical tangent…sorry.)
To Another Girl: Yes, I would apply that logic to a wife or girlfriend. The cost of removing a perfectly healthy breast outweighs the benefits of removal. In addition to the moentary cost, difficulty of removal, etc. there is also the inability to breast feed. Not to mention the fact that it's often easier to remove a tumor than remove the entire breast. Problems with the foreskin are not rare. Penile cancer is not caused solely in the foreskin, but 20% of all cases do occur there. Penile cancer rates may be low in the United States and Europe, but they account for 20-30% of cancer cases in SE Asia, South America, and parts of Africa, where circumcisions are rare. As for trauma, I cannot remember my circumcision and have never heard of anyone "traumatized" by circumcision as a newborn. As for children being raped as infants, that's rarely the sole cause of their phobias. More often than not there is a series of abusive acts, of which rape is one. To compare infant rape to a medical procedure performed on a newborn is ludicrous. And the reason men think of their penis as their best friend is because for some reason men equate their self worth with their penis size/sexual prowess, etc. There are a host of reasons why, but I guarantee you circumcision is not one of them.
To Kahuna: The amount of foreskins causing problems is not a miniscule amount. From the statistics I've seen it's anywhere from 5-10% or more. Circumcision later in life has also been shown not to be as effective in preventing medical problems as neonatal circumcision.
To Anonymous: The reason foreskins don't cause as many problems as wisdom teeth do is (surprise!) there aren't that many foreskins. The fact that wisdom teeth are located inside the mouth also makes removal far more difficult, therefore the reason dentists recommend removal only in problem cases. So again, looking at it from a cost-benefit standpoint, circumcising all foreskins makes sense, while removing all wisdom teeth does not.
Your comparison of circumcision to female genital mutilation is just an attempt to smear circumcision by associating it with a universally reviled practice. That doesn't cut it. For one thing the labia majora is not just a piece of skin, it has a protective function, which the male foreskin does not. It protects the vagina and the urethra, so removing the labia would most likely lead to a greater possibility of infection. The STD argument is really irrelevant; if you don't want STDs, don't have sex. The vagina will always be able to host bacteria, both good and bad. It has to remain moist in order to facilitate reproduction. Removing the labia to dry out a woman makes about as much sense as removing the buttocks to dry out the anus.
First off, I’m annonymus…I meant to sign that last post “HB,” but forgot.
You said “For one thing the labia majora is not just a piece of skin, it has a protective function, which the male foreskin does not. It protects the vagina and the urethra, so removing the labia would most likely lead to a greater possibility of infection.”
Wait just a minute. My foreskin protects my glans which holds most of the nerve endings that result in my enjoyment of sex, and I too have a urethra - don’t you? Based on that argument alone, I would guess that my foreskin is there for a reason. As for trying to correlate the penile cancer rate of third world nations with their general population’s lack of circumcision, you neglect the fact that livng conditions are not as sanitary there as they are in Europe and the US. Furthermore, incidents of infection and other complications rising from circumcision would likely be higher there as well, also as the result of less sanitary living conditions.
At any rate, the fact of the matter remains that it is elective surgery that is not necessary - otherwise your doctors wouldn’t ASK if you wanted it done to your newborn child.
Whiskey the Pooh, sure knows how to stir up some controversy.
Well, I suppose every foreskin is different, but the penile anatomy drawings I’ve seen show that the foreskin doesn’t completely cover the penis, the urethra is still exposed, therefore the urethra is not protected by the foreskin. Furthermore, as the anti-circumcision advocates state, the glans hardens after circumcision, therefore there is no need for a foreskin to protect the glans.
As for the penile cancer rates, I did take into account sanitary living conditions. The reason there may be negligible differences in penile cancer rates between the US and Europe is because we keep ourselves clean. The penile cancer rates I quoted were not from the Third World as a whole, they were from SE Asia, South America, and parts of Africa, where circumcision is rare. As far as I can tell, rates of penile cancer in the Muslim world (where circumcision is the norm) are not as high as in the above-quoted areas. And yes, infections and complications from circumcision would be greater there, as would complications and infections from any other surgical procedure. That's an argument in favor of more sanitary hospital conditions, not an argument against circumcision.
Well, I guess in the end it’s good that we’re all different anyway.
I just want all of you that elect to have the procedure done to your children to watch it being done and look at the child’s face as it happens. If the kid takes it without any problem, Great. If the doctor uses enough anesthesia (local or otherwise) great, at least the child doesn’t have to suffer any direct trauma from it. I still think it’s needless and being done just because everyone else is doing it. As far as it being preventative medicine, so was bloodletting before anybody knew any better.
Are you stupid? What the hell was that? The intent of circumcision was to keep guys in the U.S. from masturbating…Now I’ve heard it all. That’s as wrong as two boys holding hands naked in the woods. My God have mercy on your soul.
I understand well that if child has problems with his/her health, parents should make decisions that take care of that problem, without the cost of normal functioning of the body, if possible.
Cutting off healthy bodypart is not justified. It clearly violates human rights. Yes, there are many other violations of human rights, but this thread is about circumcision. NO point of comparing it to abortion or raping. I exaggerated on purpose on one of my messages when I compared “evil countries” that violate human rights and USA. Of course I know that there are really evil countries, that systematically torture people and they have no right for free speech. But my comparison was just meant to make you people think about that how free people in the USA really are, when it does not protect the right of boys having 100% natural genitals?
Circumcision does change the body from natural to more unnatural direction. Everyone has the right to natural, complete body!
Comparing the health care systems in Africa and South America to the health care in the US is assinine. European health care is on par with the US and most of Europe does NOT circumcise their children. There is no signifigant difference in penile problems between Europe and the US, so that in itself shows that penile cancer, etc has nothing to do with circumcision. Sorry to point out your flawed logic here.
To Another Girl: No one was comparing the health care systems of any countries. To sum up what I said in the last post, the negligible difference in penile cancer rates between the United States and Europe can be attributed to personal cleanliness. Where cleanliness is not up to First World standards, penile cancer rates are higher in non-circumcising areas (SE Asia, South America, parts of Africa) than they are in circumcising areas (the Muslim world.) Learn to read before you accuse people of flawed logic.
Paul-Martin, I can read very well thank you. So what you are saying is that because people don’t clean themselves well in some areas of the world (areas with a lower standard of living and poor health care) that justifies ciscumcision. You are comparing apples to oranges.
You can NOT compare disease rates in underdeveloped countries to disease rates in the US and Europe. If I was to follow your 'logic' then based on the fact that people in underdeveloped nations can't/don't clean themselves well they should be circumcised. I'll bet these other areas you mention have higher rates of cavites as well - due to poor dental hygene. Maybe we should pull all of their teeth before they get the cavities just to spare them the possible pain.
If you want to compare diesase numbers, find some signifigant ones from countries that have the same living standards. Your problem is that you can not do this - because those signifigant numbers do not exist. Europe and the US are polar opposites on circumcision, and both the US and Europe have readily available disease records. So go for it - find something signifigant from the developed areas of the world, good luck.
Anyone want to go and workout? HAHA! But seriously with all of these tangents coming off from discussing the issue of circumcision it would appear that people need to let this issue go. I have no opinion one way or the other. I am a circumcised male, but I have never thought or cared about the implications. Work with what you have, and have fun. Peace!
Paul Martin said nothing of the kind. He merely stated a simple fact. Additional skin and uncleanliness can lead to disease. He never used this fact as an excuse for any surgical procedure. Learn to read.
Whether you’re cut or uncut, for it or against, it doesn’t fucking matter! It’s up to the parents of the child to decide what they want to do. And however you are is the only way you’ve known, so who’s to say one way is better than another?
So stop using all these other reasons why it’s so wrong (or so right) to do. It doesn’t fucking matter. Human rights violation? Oh Jesus Fucking Christ. Give me a break.
S-Lifter - and I quote “Penile cancer rates may be low in the United States and Europe, but they account for 20-30% of cancer cases in SE Asia, South America, and parts of Africa, where circumcisions are rare.”
Let me try to use small words here:
Paul-Martin is using the disease rates (here it is penile cancer) in underdeveloped countries (here those countries would be Africa, South America and SE Asia) to prove that circumcision (the removal of the forskin) helps to prevent diesase. However, the problem with that arguement is that in the countries stated they have many other health problems as well which are directly realted to low standards of living and poor health care.
What I said was unless there are signfigant differences in disease rates in countries that have decent health care (here the US and Europe) you can not say that circumcision a cause for any health problem.
Wow, somebody’s tone is getting a might bit arrogant here. Another Girl, let me ask you an honest question. Do you think access to and quality of health care make a difference in cancer rates?
What would Another Girl know about circumcision anyway? She’s a girl, and as far as I know, girls don’t have dicks. She’s just using this irrelevant information to spurn more debate about cut or uncut wangs (or in this case, the cancer rates of populations depending on if they have access to health care or if they are “dirty” compared to other countries and cultures).
Besides, she doesn’t care if they are cut or uncut as long as they work properly. And since she doesn’t have a wenus, she can’t really say what would be better to have because she has no freakin’ clue!
If you guys aren’t sick of this topic yet, check out this link dispelling the myth of correlation between foreskins and penile cancer.
http://www.cirp.org/library/ disease/cancer/
Here is a summary for the rest of you.
"It is now clear that the major risk factors for both penile cancer and cervical cancer are the use of tobacco,27,33 which spreads carcinogens throughout the body via the bloodstream, and the presence of the human papillomavirus,35 which is communicated through sexual activity.
Abraham Wolbarst's promotional claims that circumcision prevented penile cancer were false and mislead the medical community for decades. Circumcision does not prevent penile cancer in men and it does not prevent cervical cancer in the female partner.
However, phimosis, or a non-retractile foreskin, is a risk factor in adult males who are sexually active, because a non-retractile foreskin is more difficult to clean. There are many non-traumatic, non-distructive methods for conservative effective treatment of phimosis available to the male with phimosis. Circumcision is neither required nor recommended to treat phimosis. Cancer may form on the circumcision scar.
Fear of cancer cannot be used to support the practice of male circumcision."
And here is a letter from The American Cancer Society blowing those false statements out of the water.
www.fathermag.com/health/circ/acs/
Anyway, the moral of the story is if you don't want your child to have one, cut it off. However, there is no medical justification.