One of these helps to reduce the spread of life threatening disease while the other is performed so your sons dick matches yours. You honestly think these are the same?
Obviously not, but the point is similar.
What's the cut-off point (hehe) for when kids should be respected to make these decisions? Because the decision is always going to be "go away doctor," as a heads up ().
So, why not expend the time and energy correcting prejudices as opposed to exaggerated vilification of the procedure which appears predominantly benign?
I can agree from a traditional or religious perspective circumcision is creepy and unnecessary. But after reading a tonne of the material posted in this thread it seems to me that there is no clear consensus about risks v. benefits of being or not being circumcised. I think in the end we are left with vague and highly subjective notions about aesthetics and pleasure enhancement, but until there is clear science to show one way or the other that there is a superior moral decision to be made here, I remain convinced that decrying circumcision as "abhorrent" is more than a little over the top.
If you are using "abhorrent" because I did much earlier I would encourage you to go back and read how I used it. It was not actually used to describe circumcision itself but a line of thinking that simply discarded another poster's thought and offered little in return.
If there is no clear consensus between risks v benefits why are we performing it at all? Seems rather unnecessary if that is where we sit doesn't it? Then the guys who want to be circumcised later in life still have that option and those who do not are not left stranded by a permanent procedure done without consent.
What's the cut-off point (hehe) for when kids should be respected to make these decisions? Because the decision is always going to be "go away doctor," as a heads up ().
So, why not expend the time and energy correcting prejudices as opposed to exaggerated vilification of the procedure which appears predominantly benign?
I can agree from a traditional or religious perspective circumcision is creepy and unnecessary. But after reading a tonne of the material posted in this thread it seems to me that there is no clear consensus about risks v. benefits of being or not being circumcised. I think in the end we are left with vague and highly subjective notions about aesthetics and pleasure enhancement, but until there is clear science to show one way or the other that there is a superior moral decision to be made here, I remain convinced that decrying circumcision as "abhorrent" is more than a little over the top.
I wonder if the another angle to this discussion is after the fact:
Who regrets having been circumcised at birth, and why?
Who regrets not having been circumcised at birth, and why?
There most certainly is a clear medical consensus that circumcision drastically prevents your risk of getting HIV, herpes, infections, etc...:
Quote:
There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.
The issue is that the prevalence of HIV transmission via vaginal intercourse in Canada is so low that a nationwide promotion of circumcision is not being done from a policy perspective:
While we're at it. Parents who chose to circumcise their children, were you watching when it happened?
Yeah, I held my son during the procedure. It wasn't that bad. Same cry as when he got his immunization shots or when he'd get fussy. Not a big deal or life altering for the parent.
If I had a son, I would not get him circumcised. Without strong medical evidence that it is a benefit, I would not do something irreversible to my child. Just because people don't remember pain from the procedure doesn't mean they don't feel it. Why would I put my child through that without good reason?
I'm also opposed to piercing babies' ears.
As a woman, by the time I'm interested in seeing your penis, whether you're circumcised or not will make no difference.
Both sides of the coin need to stop trying to make analogy’s. It’s either: none of your strong suits, or this just isn’t a case where you can do so effectively to make a point.
Puns on the other hand... keep em coming.
Last edited by Scroopy Noopers; 08-08-2018 at 04:43 PM.
Its funny whenever this thread comes up. The No crowd dominates the conversation calling it barbaric and posting a bunch of studies, while the Yes crowd keeps quiet not wanting to say the real reason they’re in favour.
Its funny whenever this thread comes up. The No crowd dominates the conversation calling it barbaric and posting a bunch of studies, while the Yes crowd keeps quiet not wanting to say the real reason they’re in favour.
I don’t even see a “yes” side. It’s basically a “no” side and a “meh, whatever” side.
Its funny whenever this thread comes up. The No crowd dominates the conversation calling it barbaric and posting a bunch of studies, while the Yes crowd keeps quiet not wanting to say the real reason they’re in favour.
I like how each side thinks the other has a weird looking wiener. For a bunch of straight guys there sure are a lot of opinions about how dicks look round these parts. Saddledome trough urinals must be a friggin adventure eh boys?
This is probably the most emotionally charged topic when it comes up because everyone takes it so personally. “How dare you mock my tactical turtleneck!” and “I just had a quick trim job on my baby dong and it’s pretty like other ones now, what’s the big deal?”
I have two sons, adults now. I deferred to their Dad in that decision and both were circumcised. At the time I thought it was the better choice. In the present time I would have argued against doing it. It’s medically unnecessary IMO.
My son just had a baby boy and they elected not to have him circumcised.
Circumcision in any infants male of female is wrong, anybody who supports it is also wrong. Male circumcision is done for purely cosmetic reasons (with a 0.1% medical exception). It robs men of thousands of nerve endings that are for pleasure, makes it so lube is a necessity. Recent studies suggest it is in fact very traumatizing to baby boys and can lead to lasting changes in the brain.
I've know at least 2 people now who've had their child cut and have to take their kids to emergency later because of blood loss due to improper technique right here in Calgary hospitals.
If you choose to cut your son, you are evil. Their body Their choice is their basic human right as well.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Grimbl420 For This Useful Post:
Circumcision in any infants male of female is wrong, anybody who supports it is also wrong. Male circumcision is done for purely cosmetic reasons (with a 0.1% medical exception). It robs men of thousands of nerve endings that are for pleasure, makes it so lube is a necessity. Recent studies suggest it is in fact very traumatizing to baby boys and can lead to lasting changes in the brain.
I've know at least 2 people now who've had their child cut and have to take their kids to emergency later because of blood loss due to improper technique right here in Calgary hospitals.
If you choose to cut your son, you are evil. Their body Their choice is their basic human right as well.
I personally disagree with circumcision, but I think you're going overboard on this.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
I personally disagree with circumcision, but I think you're going overboard on this.
strapping helpless babies down and removing part of their penis for cosmetic reasons while they scream and cry? you can call it whatever you want. I'll stick with evil.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Grimbl420 For This Useful Post:
).
