did you get the cut?

[SkydiveMonkey 0]

Mine went a loooooong time ago.

____________________
Say no to subliminal messages

[mayday 0]

I kinda like 'em cut because then they look like Darth Vader. Otherwise they look like a one-eyed worm But either will do, depends on who it's attached to

peace out...
May ;-)

"saving the world before bedtime..."

[Casch 0]

Quote

circumcised men were more likely to engage in various sexual practices. Specifically, circumcised men were significantly more likely to masturbate and to participate in heterosexual oral sex than uncircumcised men.

Me thinks being cut isn't all bad

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Where is your evidence? The American College of Pediatricians doesn't agree with you.

For example:

New England Journal of Medicine article about increased risk to women through viruses transmitted from men. The transfer rates are substantially higher from uncircumcised men.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/346/15/1105

But that isn't really the point. I'm no circumcision crusader. I'm just commenting that there are pros and cons on both sides of the issue. There are health benefits of circumcision, along with health risks.

Quote

Parents have a right to subject a child to disfiguring, painful and unnecessary surgery? I don't think that they do.

"Disfiguring" is more an objective measure than anything else. As to subjecting children to painful and unnecessary procedures, why is circumcision different than a number of other ones? A flu shot falls into that category too, but lots of people do it.

Maybe we should castrate boys at birth, due to the increased risk of rape from uncastrated males. Cut off their fingers too, in case they shoot someone.

Surgical mutilation to protect against a low possibilty of damage to a third party is totally unethical.

A flu shot hardly falls in to the category of mutilation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[bigben 0]

Quote

Push,

That is certainly your right. But I think the links you posted are fairly biased. There is also a substantial body of medical knowledge that does support it. It isn't a clear-cut issue. (Sorry, I had to!)

I think it all boils down to the parents right to choose for their boys.

Looking on this with outside eyes it seems fairly barbaric to me. There's no compelling medical evidence to do it at birth. It'd be better to do it later in life, say before puberty, then the kid could choose.

I'll take any extra protection the old chap can get, I'm keeping mine.

Ben

[jfields 0]

Quote

Maybe we should castrate boys at birth, due to the increased risk of rape from uncastrated males.

No. That seems a bit harsh. We should give conservative children mandatory vasectomies and hysterectomies at puberty to prevent them from reproducing. I'd say we should give them lobotomies too, but it is too late. Someone beat me to it. Two can play at meaningless sarcasm, Kallend.

Quote

Surgical mutilation to protect against a low possibilty of damage to a third party is totally unethical.

*Mandatory* circumcision would be unethical. I've never advocated that. But what happened to all the big words about rights, freedoms and choice? They get tossed around in the firearms debate, along with nasty warnings about the evil oversight of big brother, but why can this not be the parents choice, for religious, ethical or health reasons?

Quote

A flu shot hardly falls in to the category of mutilation.

Please reread what I wrote. I didn't call it mutilation. But it is both painful and frequently unnecessary. While it may help some people, for most it is neutral, and some otherwise healthy people will get very sick from it.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Maybe we should castrate boys at birth, due to the increased risk of rape from uncastrated males.

No. That seems a bit harsh. We should give conservative children mandatory vasectomies and hysterectomies at puberty to prevent them from reproducing. I'd say we should give them lobotomies too, but it is too late. Someone beat me to it. Two can play at meaningless sarcasm, Kallend.

Quote

Surgical mutilation to protect against a low possibilty of damage to a third party is totally unethical.

*Mandatory* circumcision would be unethical. I've never advocated that. But what happened to all the big words about rights, freedoms and choice? They get tossed around in the firearms debate, along with nasty warnings about the evil oversight of big brother, but why can this not be the parents choice, for religious, ethical or health reasons?

[

Mutilation at the parents' request is child abuse. Parents don't have the right to abuse their children purely for cosmetic or social reasons. The health excuse is bogus - if there's a legitimate health concern it can be done later in life, when the individual can consent for himself (and I doubt that many would).

Female circumcision (removal of labia and clitoris) reduces promiscuity in societies where it is performed. Do you condone that practice too on account of the social benefit?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jfields 0]

Quote

Mutilation at the parents' request is child abuse. Parents don't have the right to abuse their children purely for cosmetic or social reasons.

That seems both silly and extremely ethnocentric. So you are saying that any form of elective medical or cosmetic procedure performed on a person under the age of 18 is child abuse? No ear piercing, no breast reduction surgery, no immunizations, no cosmetic reconstruction after an accident, no palate surgery to correct a lisp, etc.? And the fact that some of those procedures will be unavailable by the time the child is old enough to choose is just a mere technicality. So the burned child must live with the scars because the parents didn't have the right to choose [a painful procedure] to correct them while they could still be healed?

Quote

Female circumcision (removal of labia and clitoris) reduces promiscuity in societies where it is performed. Do you condone that practice too on account of the social benefit?

I wouldn't do it to my girl and I don't like the idea of it, but who am I to say that people I don't know thousands of miles away are forbidden to do it? How would you feel if a country halfway around the world said that any use of alcohol, tobacco or firearms was unethical and tried to force you to stop using them? I think we've answered that pretty definitively in the firearms threads.

Perhaps I just don't have the conceit needed to think that my beliefs are those that the entire world should live by. There are a lot of strange customs and cultures around the world. I think it would be a tragedy if we were to blot them all out of existence in favor of bland, middle-of-the-road, white-bread, homogenous values as defined by one small group. We fought a World War against the last group that tried to do that.

[Tonto 1]

Well... I was not happy with it, until I was in the military and it some guy lost his dick cos it was hard to keep clean. Never minded the snip after that.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Push 0]

I don't know, but mandatory preventative surgery seems too unethical to me. If the parents elect to cut off the kid's earlobes, it's called barbarism. If they elect to cut off a bit of his dick, it's called cultural values. Values are one thing. Removing a valuable body part because someone thinks it's ugly before the kid can decide is another.

Also, immunizations and the like are a different case. This is because immunizations are non-invasive, and the risk mitigating factor is much greater. Palate surgery is fixing an existing problem. Ear pearcing, boobie surgery, or anything of the sort, is done after the kid is old enough to choose.

Basically, my point of view is, regardless of cultural values, if you're doing something to a person's body without their consent that will last them for the rest of their lives, you'd better have a damn good reason.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[Sebazz1 2]

I was not cut at birth. Not my choice. But I've made it this far with my hood and there aint no chance in hell I will willingly let some knife get close to my pee pee now... My parents made it a point from when I was very young to be extra dilligent when bathing to clean under the hood. So I do... And my wee wee is extra squeeky clean

Cut or no cut... It's still a pee pee

[Jib 0]

[replyFemale circumcision (removal of labia and clitoris) reduces promiscuity in societies where it is performed. Do you condone that practice too on account of the social benefit?

[Steel 0]

[the UK doesn't feel the need to remove this protective layer. ]
Protective, NOT. I think that is as protective as hair, not very. I only see negative effects with both. Foreskin obviously heats that whole area up which is probably followed by sweat producing bad smell and I know for a fact it causes yeast infections. A problem we should not have as men. Hair creats a shadow to cover up muscular definition and hurts when you get it caught on something. So I don't see no protection there either.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[SBS 0]

Yeah, I have a thought...I think I never wanted to know ANYTHING about your penis.

:)

-S

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[annaandbob 0]

I agree with you sebazz1. There is no way I would give up my hat. I think the hygeine argument is a bunch of crap. It only takes a few seconds to give the old boy a good scrubbing under his hat. LONG LIVE THE SKIN...............

[Push 0]

Quote

I think that is as protective as hair, not very

They think otherwise.

Quote

Foreskin obviously heats that whole area up which is probably followed by sweat producing bad smell and I know for a fact it causes yeast infections

http://www.circumcision.org/benefits.htm

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[jfields 0]

Quote

Removing a valuable body part because someone thinks it's ugly before the kid can decide is another.

Part of the dilemma is in the value placed on the part being removed. I say little to none, or even negative, but that is just my opinion.

Quote

Also, immunizations and the like are a different case. This is because immunizations are non-invasive, and the risk mitigating factor is much greater.

My daughter is 13 months old. We read all the literature about the immunizations, including the disclaimers about the small risk of reaction, up to and including death. We judged that the benefits outweighed the risks and had her immunized. Was that abusive?

Immunizations are invasive, but we chose to have it done. I think that is our right. We could have chosen otherwise (perhaps foolishly), then had to bear the responsibility of our actions.

Quote

Ear pearcing, boobie surgery, or anything of the sort, is done after the kid is old enough to choose.

Not in the eyes of the law. If they aren't 18, they aren't old enough to choose. The decision is still legally that of the parents, as the children aren't yet to the age of consent. If you are interested in changing that, then that is an entirely different discussion.

It is both amusing and sad that with all the real child abuse and neglect in the country, people are perseverating on circumcision. At worst, it is medically neutral. Can we save the "mutilation and abuse" accusations for people that shoot their kids, give them in-utero crack addictions, transmit HIV to them or leave them unattended in boiling hot cars?

[annaandbob 0]

Apart from all the medical arguments there are many benefits to having a foreskin. Below are just a few. Please feel free to add more
1. if caught out in the wilderness without shelter, climbing into your foreskin may save your life
2. you can use it to keep spare change, cell phones, spare keys etc etc
3. if in the future you are unfortunate to require plastic surgery you already have a supply of spare skin
4. it's fun to play with

[Push 0]

Quote

I say little to none, or even negative, but that is just my opinion.

The webpage I have posted shows that the opinion of a lot of doctors and doctor societies swings in the other direction.

Quote

At worst, it is medically neutral

Nope, it isn't. See webpage.

I remember my grandfather in Russia, head surgeon of our 850,000 people town, participating in an argument about the appendix. It was thought at the time that it was a useless appendage and it's removal is "at worst, medically neutral", so why not remove it at an early age to prevent appendicitis? They ended up not recommending early removal because:

a) The surgery would be removing an organ which is perfectly healthy at the time.
b) Appendicitis is not life threatening and easily treatable with antibiotics and minor surgery.
c) Just because they don't know what it is for now, doesn't mean that it's useless. All it means is that they don't know yet.

Quote

Immunizations are invasive, but we chose to have it done

Not half as invasive as circumcision. Immunization also has a significant, demonstrable benefit, and is in no way cosmetic.

Quote

If they aren't 18, they aren't old enough to choose

Then noone should perform cosmetic circumcision on them until they do turn 18 and can decide for themselves. Yep, that's 18 years.

Quote

Can we save the "mutilation and abuse" accusations for people that shoot their kids, give them in-utero crack addictions, transmit HIV to them or leave them unattended in boiling hot cars?

I'm not trying to belittle the horror stories, but some people having AIDS doesn't mean that the doctors shouldn't treat the flu as well. Just because there are big wrongs doesn't mean we shouldn't right smaller wrongs.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[sfc 1]

Quote

Yeah, I have a thought...I think I never wanted to know ANYTHING about your penis.

:)

-S

It ok SBS, you can admit it, you've been after my penis ever since you first met me all those years ago in marina.

[jfields 0]

Quote

The webpage...
See webpage.

Those links to a very biased advocacy website. In reference to Kallend, I put a link to a medical study referencing a positive of circumsision. The truth is that there are still valid points in both directions. It is not foregone conclusion that it is or is not medically beneficial.

Quote

Immunization also has a significant, demonstrable benefit, and is in no way cosmetic.

Agreed, but it is potentially hazardous. While low, there is a rate of adverse reactions. There is also a rate of preventable illness that they eliminate. Isn't it my perrogative to learn about both and make the best decision I can for my children's well being? As I said, my daughter has been immunized, but I did have the choice.

Quote

If they aren't 18, they aren't old enough to choose
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then noone should perform cosmetic circumcision on them until they do turn 18 and can decide for themselves. Yep, that's 18 years.

Then they shouldn't get the immunizations until they are 18 either. Either the parents have the right to choose, or they don't. Who has the right to cease life support for their comatose child? The parents. On the flip side, who has the right to insist on every measure possible being used to prolong the life of a child? Also, the parents.

Quote

Just because there are big wrongs doesn't mean we shouldn't right smaller wrongs.

I agree. I just don't consider circumcision a wrong. I think that the government overly interfering in the role of parenting would be the injustice. Where there is no harm, why should the goverment dictate the relationship between mother, father and child?

[Push 0]

Quote

I put a link to a medical study referencing a positive of circumsision

I chose that page because I've looked over several and this one is the most conclusive. Case in point:

http://www.medicirc.org/major_benefits.html

All points except one were addressed on the previous site, including women being safer with circumcised men.

As to it being medically neutral, here are a ton of webpages for the functions of the foreskin and general commentary:

http://www.noharmm.org/morepages.htm

Quote

Either the parents have the right to choose, or they don't. Who has the right to cease life support for their comatose child? The parents. On the flip side, who has the right to insist on every measure possible being used to prolong the life of a child? Also, the parents.

Parents with the aid of competent medical personnel. I think that if someone were to disconnect their child from life support when the doctors said that the kid will be fine he will find himself in jail.

Quote

Isn't it my perrogative to learn about both and make the best decision I can for my children's well being?

Not just your perrogative, but your duty to your child. Which is exactly why I'm banging on my shield here.

Quote

I think that the government overly interfering in the role of parenting would be the injustice

I don't think the government is planning to regulate circumcision one way or the other yet, are they?

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[jfields 0]

Quote

As to it being medically neutral

The fact that we can both find tons of references to support our views leads me to believe that the debate is valid and that there are elements of benefit to both perspectives.

Quote

Isn't it my perrogative to learn about both and make the best decision I can for my children's well being?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not just your perrogative, but your duty to your child. Which is exactly why I'm banging on my shield here.

Me too. We just have different opinions. At least we both have the positive intent of family well-being at heart.

Quote

I think that the government overly interfering in the role of parenting would be the injustice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think the government is planning to regulate circumcision one way or the other yet, are they?

I hope not. I think the parents should have the right to choose.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Mutilation at the parents' request is child abuse. Parents don't have the right to abuse their children purely for cosmetic or social reasons.

That seems both silly and extremely ethnocentric. So you are saying that any form of elective medical or cosmetic procedure performed on a person under the age of 18 is child abuse? No ear piercing, no breast reduction surgery, no immunizations, no cosmetic reconstruction after an accident, no palate surgery to correct a lisp, etc.? And the fact that some of those procedures will be unavailable by the time the child is old enough to choose is just a mere technicality. So the burned child must live with the scars because the parents didn't have the right to choose [a painful procedure] to correct them while they could still be healed?

Circumcision is not corrective action for an injury or a genetic defect (unless you consider being male to be a defect). Your argument is totally fallacious. THERE IS NO MEDICAL BENEFIT TO THE VICTIM.

All male mammals have a forskin or equivalent. You are very arrogant to suggest that 50 million years of evolution got it wrong.

Quote

Quote

Female circumcision (removal of labia and clitoris) reduces promiscuity in societies where it is performed. Do you condone that practice too on account of the social benefit?

I wouldn't do it to my girl and I don't like the idea of it, but who am I to say that people I don't know thousands of miles away are forbidden to do it? How would you feel if a country halfway around the world said that any use of alcohol, tobacco or firearms was unethical and tried to force you to stop using them? I think we've answered that pretty definitively in the firearms threads.

Perhaps I just don't have the conceit needed to think that my beliefs are those that the entire world should live by. There are a lot of strange customs and cultures around the world. I think it would be a tragedy if we were to blot them all out of existence in favor of bland, middle-of-the-road, white-bread, homogenous values as defined by one small group. We fought a World War against the last group that tried to do that.

We fought WWII against a group that believed in mutilation and surgery without anaesthetic as part of "medical" experiments. Ever heard of Dr. Mengele?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

[the UK doesn't feel the need to remove this protective layer. ]
Protective, NOT. I think that is as protective as hair, not very. I only see negative effects with both. Foreskin obviously heats that whole area up which is probably followed by sweat producing bad smell and I know for a fact it causes yeast infections. A problem we should not have as men. Hair creats a shadow to cover up muscular definition and hurts when you get it caught on something. So I don't see no protection there either.

So 50 million years of mammalian evolution got it wrong?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.