What is your evidence that this is "barbaric"? I have seen it and do not agree. What exactly makes is barbaric? And while you are at it, what is the irreparable damage done to these little boys.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
wow...every excuse you just gave are disgusting.
STD's...realy? How many new borns are having sex that require it? Plus the studies were massivly flawed and highly dubious, and the benefit if anything was so minor it's hardly worth counting. And guess what they should be using a condom, not being circumcised as a way to avoid std's.
And seriously, the, "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] my child will think he's a freak." another...how pathetic, you know what, growing up I was circumcised, and I saw more children that were not then were, and I was confused about it, but didn't care. This is the worst argument, because you really think a kids going to be bothered by this?
A child has a right to their bodies, and a birth mark? I wouldn't recomend a birth mark removed either, but that hardly compares to cutting off majority of sensations from a males body part. There is no defense against it, I think people like you defend it because you realize how barbaric it is and can't handle that. Funny how many that will attack female, then defend to the death male, are they nescarily as severe in males, no. But they are both still disgusting procedures that do ireperable harm to a child.
My information on the reasons to get it are from the American Academy of Pediatrics, not me. The pediatrician recommended the birthmark removal. And thank you so much for saying my daughter ought to have grown up with a red blotch that turned out was easily removed. There is some vascular component that means it could have caused some issues because the red spot was a highly vascularized. And since I have actually witnessed both procedures, there is nothing barbaric about either of them.
If a baby was born with an extra finger that is non-functional, do you believe that it is barbaric to remove that too? (they tie a simple string around it...cut off the blood supply...and it falls off).
I beg to differ on the "permanent damage" to either of my kids from the procedures we opted to have done. And neither is harmed but both are happy successful young adults.
What is your evidence that this is "barbaric"? I have seen it and do not agree. What exactly makes is barbaric? And while you are at it, what is the irreparable damage done to these little boys.
your cutting off 2/3rds of the feelings, that causes for many males erectile problems and so on, wich can lead to depression and other problems. if there wasn't religion there would be none of these nonsense excuses done because no one would think of them, they are adhoc rationaliziations for something that should have been droped ages ago.
Thanks for your posts on this topic. Its nice to see what a medical professional has to say on the subject, without resorting to emotionalism and fear mongering based on one or two extreme You-tube videos. I also think your opinion as a female refutes any claim that you have a pre-existing bias (which is often used against us men due to being snipped soon after birth).What blood filled diapers? I am a postpartum nurse and there are no blood filled diapers...at most a tiny dot on the dressing and healed within 24 hours. We use pain meds when it is done and the only time I see the baby really uncomfortable is at diaper change when the fresh skin is exposed to air. Again, for 24 hours.
A bit closer to the mark than comparing snipping a loose bit of unneeded skin with breast enlargement. Probably wart, mole or ingrowing toe-nail removal would be a more accurate comparison.Of course not, but maybe stop them from shaving their infants armpits without medical reason?
Really, this is the worst analogy I've seen in a while.
The sign is not required for Christians, as it is fulfilled in Christ. However, if God chose circumcision to be the sign of His covenant, and He is a good God, He would not command something so debilitating as anti-circumcision activists make it out to be. In the New Testament, Christians are referred to as being "circumcised of the heart". If the foreskin were so useful for males, why would it be used as a symbol of the sinful nature that needs to be removed in the hearts of both men and women?Honestly, I don't care what kind of sign for what it is. If a religion had the ritual slitting of newborns left earlobe in it's tennants, I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't support it, as well. And you're not stoning your disobedient children or women who get raped without crying loud enough, so why keep the baby mutilation?
If Jews, Christians and Muslims practice circumcision, which tribe does one belong to when one is circumcised? And what about the women? Why are so many women in favour of circumcision, if they themselves can't be circumcised, and so can't be part of the tribe? Could it be the health benefits and symbolism associated with circumcision? Finally, I don't know any men who go about looking at other men naked to determine tribal relationships. This whole line of argument is just silly.I can tell you why, it is (as I said) to brand the children as a member of your "tribe". All those religious trappings and rituals and prayers are just part of rite of passage and to ensure that the new member of the tribe doesn't get unfaithfull later in life, because he can never go anywhere without his mark showing his allegiance.
Not sure if they still use this method. It would certainly take the sails out of the last of the anti-circumcision group's objections. No pain, no blood, all the health benefits... What's the issue again?When my son was born 30 years ago, he was circ'd by the dr placing a small plastic cap over his male part that had a groove in it. A silk thread was tightly tied in line with the groove. In about 3 days time the cap and the foreskin fell off. No crying. No blood. And the groove was a guide to keep it from being cut off to tightly.
Again, such a sensible post. No one complains about warts being burned off, ingrowing toe-nails being removed, birth marks being lasered. But an unneeded piece of skin that is responsible for more than its fair share of disease in men and women - can't touch it?!?My daughter had twp birth marks removed. It took two laser treatments. There was no sound medical reason except her ego growing up with a huge red mark on one of her pretty little legs. I waited for the longest time but my husband said she deserved not to have to worry about it for the rest of her life...and insurance woudn't pay after her 2nd birthday.
That treatment took time and more anesthesia than a newborn circumcision. I cried many tears for her. She didn't cry so much except from being held still. She has grown up to be a figure skater with no evidence of either mark. She has no memory of it beyond pictures.
I thought the newest data was that doctors were even going to start suggesting circumcision for adult males, but I could be wrong.If a family wants to circumcise because they want their little boy to look like the other boys in the locker room, who cares? It isn't major surgery and there really are more medical reasons (like less UTIs, less chance of being an STD carrier, and less chance for penal cancer) for a circumcision than having my daughter's birth mark removed. The data isn't significant enough to justify the recommendation of circumcisions but there is medical evidence that it may improve health.
Another difficulty is the embarrassment issue. I know a number of men who wished they had been circumcised as babies, as there is minimal fuss (no memory of it), no embarrassment etc. As adults, if brave enough to go through with it, its time off work and explaining that time off to colleagues, and then there was no health benefit for the man or his wife for that period of his life he was not circumcised.To get a circumcision as a man requires the patient pay for it because insurance covers only baby circumcisions. It also is a much bigger and significant surgery where the man is put all the way under anesthesia....so bears more risks.
Funny how most in favour of circumcision don't demand that all men be circumcised, but those who are anti-circumcision don't want anyone given the option of circumcision. This alone shows their true colours.You are free to not circumcise your child. I will not make recommendations either way for my patients. I will simply ask them what are their wishes and tell them both the pros and cons if they aren't sure.
Circumcision at 8 days old or thereabouts, as in the bible, is the most caring and kindest way to go in my view.I do not understand why this is such a controversial issue. You can't give me evidence on why not circumcising is the better option ... because it is a very small procedure (not brutal or barbaric at all) ... and a lot less traumatic that the act of being born. There is no medical evidence that it is better to not do it...so again, I think that means we are allowed to make our own decisions based on our cultural and religious beliefs.
your cutting off 2/3rds of the feelings, that causes for many males erectile problems and so on, wich can lead to depression and other problems. if there wasn't religion there would be none of these nonsense excuses done because no one would think of them, they are adhoc rationaliziations for something that should have been droped ages ago.
I read somewhere that the increase in men unable to last during the marriage act (premature [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]) may be linked to increases in the rate of uncircumcision. Do you know if this is true? (I'm not sure if this is medically confirmed, or just another rumour).Medical study that shows no increased risk in erectile dysfunction in men who were circumcised.[Male circumcision is not associated with an increased prevalence of erectile dysfunction: results of the Cottbus 10,000-men survey]. - PubMed - NCBI
(I had actually never heard anyone claim this before. Erectile dysfunction is related to circulation so heart disease and diabetes. It has nothing to do with circumcision).
I agree. Especially when they use it to demonise parents and denigrate the bibleI do get upset with people make up information that isn't true to scare either way though.
Surely the whole reason why this discussion continues is that neither point of view has evidence that the other finds sufficiently persuasive.
I think the reason the discussion continues is that some people don't like and don't want to accept the medically proven and documented facts, and they don't want anyone else to benefit from them, either.I already posted why the American Academy of Pediatrics supports circumcision. Which includes lifelong health advantages of the practice. Now I just posted medical studies that have shown that it doesn't reduce sensitivity if done as newborn and doesn't cause erectile dysfunction.
I didn't post sooner because I was at work...taking care of postpartum moms and newborns.
I read somewhere that the increase in men unable to last during the marriage act (premature [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]) may be linked to increases in the rate of uncircumcision. Do you know if this is true? (I'm not sure if this is medically confirmed, or just another rumour).
I think the reason the discussion continues is that some people don't like and don't want to accept the medically proven and documented facts, and they don't want anyone else to benefit from them, either.
The sign is not required for Christians, as it is fulfilled in Christ. However, if God chose circumcision to be the sign of His covenant, and He is a good God, He would not command something so debilitating as anti-circumcision activists make it out to be. In the New Testament, Christians are referred to as being "circumcised of the heart". If the foreskin were so useful for males, why would it be used as a symbol of the sinful nature that needs to be removed in the hearts of both men and women?
If Jews, Christians and Muslims practice circumcision, which tribe does one belong to when one is circumcised?
And what about the women? Why are so many women in favour of circumcision, if they themselves can't be circumcised, and so can't be part of the tribe? Could it be the health benefits and symbolism associated with circumcision?
Well, I have this skin, and I need it and wouldn't part with it for anything less than a yuge amount of money, thank you very much.A bit closer to the mark than comparing snipping a loose bit of unneeded skin with breast enlargement. Probably wart, mole or ingrowing toe-nail removal would be a more accurate comparison.
Doubtfull. They could just make it an ellective procedure that someone pays out of his own pocked, like a beauty OP.I don't know why people get their panties up in a wad over this. It is a private decision.
To be fair, the Canadian Board of Pediatrics doesn't recommend circumcision. However, I wonder if is could just be a cost savings decision since the government would have to pay for all those circumcisions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?