'Intactivists' to San Francisco: Ban circumcision

[red '00]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'm in favour of anything that makes babies cry. Toughen those little punks up and let 'em know they are going to be MEN, not freaks with some sort of smocks 'round their.... jocks.

Haha jeez, I can see you hitching your wagon on the frozen prairie, all gruff, beard and all. Gonna build a log cabin after you skin that elk Michael Landon? Oh that's not an elk, that's a...

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SebC

You clearly don't understand the argument being put forth whatsoever. It is a libertarian argument: that it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not they get circumcised. That can only happen if the individual's parents aren't permitted to impose a decision on him when he is too young to consent.

So is it still a libertarian argument if are talking 2 weeks earlier and mommy wants an abortion?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So is it still a libertarian argument if are talking 2 weeks earlier and mommy wants an abortion?

Abortion issues: a women's right to her own body vs. the fetus's right to life.

Circumsion issues: a man's right to his own body vs. the parents' right to religion (typically).

As I've said before, religious rights have to be low priority because one can make up a religion that allows them to do whatever the heck they want. Placing religious rights at the top is a form of anarchy.

If Canucks fans wanted to tatoo fail whales onto their sons' penises, would so be against passing a law to prevent them from doing so?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SebC

Abortion issues: a women's right to her own body vs. the fetus's right to life.

Circumsion issues: a man's right to his own body vs. the parents' right to religion (typically).

As I've said before, religious rights have to be low priority because one can make up a religion that allows them to do whatever the heck they want. Placing religious rights at the top is a form of anarchy.

If Canucks fans wanted to tatoo fail whales onto their sons' penises, would so be against passing a law to prevent them from doing so?

I wouldn't be against that law because the boy would probably grow up to hate the choice. The same isn't true regarding circumcision. Nobody is growing up resenting their parents choice for them. This is true regardless of what choice they would make for their own sons.

The moral outrage being generated in this thread is typically by uncircumcised men. Also, the impact on little Johnny is also being overstated. There are 3 or 4 of us in this thread who stood beside our sons when the procedure was done. In my case I was there with both of my sons. The baby hardly notices what is going on. Honest.

[ricoFlame]

I don't care what you or your son's dicks look like. get over it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by ricoFlame

I don't care what you or your son's dicks look like. get over it.

I didn't start this thread. Obviously whoever did is deeply concerned about penises.

[ricoFlame]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I didn't start this thread. Obviously whoever did is deeply concerned about penises.

wasn't talking to you specifically, moreso everyone which is why I quoted no one...why do people feel the need to give a crap about a harmless procedure.

Who cares if it is or isn't done to someone else. Worry about your own junk, not anyone else's.

[Nage Waza]

I think my son threw a bigger tantrum any time he wanted to eat then during his circumcision. There was a moment of crying, and then nothing, he went with mommy to get some milk and all was forgotten. There was nothing really that bad about it, but I am sure it hurt. And there may be some risk of infection, but we are a pretty resilient species, I was not worried about that at all.

You either have it done or you don't have it done, not a hug deal overall.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I wouldn't be against that law because the boy would probably grow up to hate the choice. The same isn't true regarding circumcision. Nobody is growing up resenting their parents choice for them. This is true regardless of what choice they would make for their own sons.

I agree that in most cases it doesn't really matter (and where there is a clear medical imperative for circumcision, I think we're all in favour). Given that, how is it preferable to give the choice to the parents rather than to the individual?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

You have no idea what the Rabbi or Priest or Imam will say. That's like saying you know the Rabbi will tell the Jewish girl not to inter-marry. If Reform Rabbi is willing to conduct inter-marriages, same-sex marriages, s/he may even be open to no circumcision or rituals like the one posted above.

Who cares what a religious leader has to say about it...they aren't the authority you should turn to when it comes to hacking off parts of your kid's body.

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

In this case it is a spiritual issue.

No, cutting off part of a baby's penis is not a spiritual issue.

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

And if the Doctor says it is a great idea. I guess your advice would be to seek out a different doctor until he found one to agree with him.

Not really, but I'm fairly confident most doctors would say it's an unnecessary procedure based on my own experience asking what we should do with my son.

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Have you seen a birthing video? after seeing one of those I'm surprised women still go through natural childbirth.

Birth is a fairly necessary part of life. Cutting the tip off your d!ck isn't.

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

And talking with doctors and clergy may help bring some reason to it.

Again, very few people have these conversations when courting. The only life cycle event they can comprehend is their wedding. everything else can be worked out later in the name of love!

You might be right, but I'd hope couples also discuss the practical side of things before they tie the knot.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by red '00

If this thread is any indication I'd say CP has more hoodies than helmets.

Is that so surprising?

Won't be long before the majority of Canadian males are unmutilated. May even be now.

Like someone mentioned before, if you mutilate your son, he will be the "weird one" in the locker room (as if that's a legitimate reason to do anything).

[ResAlien]

Damn, you guys put a lot of thought into dicks. Umm, ok? I dunno. Rock on then I guess.

[red '00]

Originally Posted by evman150

Is that so surprising?

Won't be long before the majority of Canadian males are unmutilated. May even be now.

Like someone mentioned before, if you mutilate your son, he will be the "weird one" in the locker room (as if that's a legitimate reason to do anything).

Not really. Guess I used the wrong smiley.

I'm pretty sure it's close to 50-50 in Canada right now, with very few newborns these days currently being circumcised.

So I agree in ten years most kids in the locker room or wherever won't be cut. I know for myself growing up, there were probably more circumcised kids, but not being circumcised wasn't that uncommon so it wasn't too big an issue.

I personally also wouldn't circumcise my son. I don't think there is a good enough reason to hurt my kid and have to pay for it. I wasn't cut myself, and can't complain. (Also never had any complaints, either)

Although at the same time I think if parents make an informed decision and have it done it isn't a huge unjustified tragedy. I don't think it's scarring to the child, and I don't think they will care later in life.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Who cares what a religious leader has to say about it...they aren't the authority you should turn to when it comes to hacking off parts of your kid's body.

The couple in the scenario seem to care since it seems to be a religious issue for them, not a health issue.

No, cutting off part of a baby's penis is not a spiritual issue.

Well we disagree.

Not really, but I'm fairly confident most doctors would say it's an unnecessary procedure based on my own experience asking what we should do with my son.

The five doctors i spoke with all said it wasn't really an issue and had health benefits. Again, we disagree.

Birth is a fairly necessary part of life. Cutting the tip off your d!ck isn't.

But women do not have to go through natural childbirth. They can have cesarean sections is they so choose. They can have the whole lower half of their body anesthetized. And yes, they have a choice and the babies do not. At some point parents have a right to decide what is best for their children. Kids are not raised in a vacuum and given a plethora of choices when they turn 18. Did/does your son have a choice to be poked with a needle and get immunized? (I got reams of paper from my left-wing Mother-in-law citing the link between the MMR vaccine and autisim.) Maybe you should wait until he is 18 and ask him if he wants to be immunized?

I understand that you see this as "mutilation" and you are entitled to your opinion, but since the studies seem to go both ways, with health benefits on both sides, we can agree to disagree. Outlawing the procedure essentially says Muslims & Jews change your ways or go live somewhere else.

You might be right, but I'd hope couples also discuss the practical side of things before they tie the knot.

You would think so, but if you listen to a few talk shows you will find a lot of young couples in lust for awhile and then reality smacks them in the forehead. Love will conquer all is great and a wedding is a fun party until someone asks who's paying the bill, why are we going to your parents house for thanksgiving again, You want how many kids, why didn't you tell me you were Episcopalian?!

[SportsJunky]

I just saw this on Cracked.com and I don't think it has been posted yet.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18840...r4=recommended

[burn_this_city]

Hahah "mutilated", sure whatever. From what I've seen, no one on here whos been "mutilated" is particularily upset about it. Why can't people just mind their own business? Too many Nannies out there who can't find enough to do with their owns lives, so they feel inclined to tell everyone how to live theirs.

[Thor]

Mutilated is a silly word for it, pointless and unnecessary risk is much better

From that Cracked article:

The practice was popularized in recent times by, no kidding, cereal magnate John Harvey Kellogg. In addition to making breakfast fun, he embarked upon a crusade to eliminate the evil of masturbation through the two-pronged approach of feeding young boys Kellogg's Corn Flakes and chopping parts of their dicks off without anesthetic. Absolutely none of this is made up.

This is the face of a man who hasn't had a single good blowjob in all his life.

Today, the pro-circumcision camp says the procedure can lower the risk of things like penile cancer and decrease the chances of getting HIV, but on the other hand, you have rare-but-documented botched procedures that can result in death, or even worse, loss of the penis.

But overall, despite the popularity of the procedure, there isn't a single medical authority anywhere that will recommend it. Not because of any overwhelming negative side effects, but simply because it's a completely pointless medical procedure that just kind of caught on, like skintight jeans. It's medically comparable to removing a male baby's nipples at birth -- sure, they're useless, but all things considered, why add expense and/or risk if you don't have to?

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_18840...#ixzz1681qyQMu

[Neeper]

I just had my son on Saturday, and my super religious mother in law asked why we haven't circumsised our new boy. She said it was cleaner. I told her it was barbaric and I won't put him through that. I'll teach him how to pull it back to clean it instead.

[Vulcan]

My daughter gave me a grandson last February, so while talking on the phone tonight I asked her if she had it done to her boy and mentioned this thread. She said from what she read about, it didn't seem necessary and in Saskatchewan it's elective surgery. I think she mentioned it would cost $300 but whatever it costs it would have to be pretty important to you to have it done nowadays, so the idea seems to be going the way of the dodo birds.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Hahah "mutilated", sure whatever. From what I've seen, no one on here whos been "mutilated" is particularily upset about it. Why can't people just mind their own business? Too many Nannies out there who can't find enough to do with their owns lives, so they feel inclined to tell everyone how to live theirs.

Not making decisions for others is precisely the point of banning circumsions: it prevents parents from making a decision that could be left to the sons.