The Circumcision Debate

[dantheman931]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/874/slice-of-life-the-circumcision-debate

I'm circumcised, and honestly I've never had a problem with it, plus I'm glad I never had to worry about "cleanliness." My folks were (sort of) practicing Jews at the time, but I'm pretty sure they would have made thed same decision even if they weren't.

 

[bjj hero]

I've not had my son done. Its a minor surgery and I dont feel the need to risk any surgery that is not needed, its purely cultural/cosmetic. If he needs it for medical reasons at a later date, Ill have no issue with it.

It is not done in the UK outside of the jewish/islamic community.

i am against anything that is done to someone that is not life-saving without their approval.


circumcision and baptism are at the top of my "will not do to my little one" list for when i have kids.

baptism? whats really so wrong with it, take away all the religious parts of it and all its doing is putting someone in water, babies don't even get fully submerged when baptized. i guess you problem with this one is the religious part.

I think the problem is that a baby or child doesn't have a religion. Just like they dont have political/idealogical affiliations. They aren't old enough to have decided. Saying a "christian child" is like saying a marxist child, socialst child, republican child etc. Sure some get brain washed in to Christianity etc. I feel its a form of child abuse similar to putting a child into the hitler youth, they are still too young to have made up their mind on such complex ideas.

Ill encourage my son to take RE in school along with science, the arts etc. Ill encourage him to think and work things out himself and not to accept the answers hes given blindly. I wont be deciding for him. If he becomes a reigious adult, its his choice, just like he may subscribe to communism/scientology etc.

If people had such faith in their religion being the truth, they'd let their child make up his/her own mind and not force feed it him/her from day one.

 

[Jepix]

A.. cut prick? -winces- I hope you don't mean that literally. Cos I'm pretty sure I'd look at it and say "ugh" as well, if I did.

You know, if you pull back the skin, an uncircumcised penis looks exactly like a circumcised one. Oh, and outside of the U.S., you might get the "ugh"s for being circumcised.

That's actually true
/European

 

[Lord George]

It's not like there's really a choice in the matter these days. It's slandered practice unless someone bothers the doctor with it.

Its only standard practise in America and the Middle East actually, over here in England we like to avoid mutilation.

 

[Stevedave00]

It's not like there's really a choice in the matter these days. It's slandered practice unless someone bothers the doctor with it.

Its only standard practise in America and the Middle East actually, over here in England we like to avoid mutilation.

As if tony Blair could breath....

 

[Grampy_bone]

I don't know, I'm pretty suspicious of any religion which mandates its followers to mutilate their genitals.

The problem with baptism is, if someone is baptized, no matter by whom, or how, or when; with or without their consent, out in the open or secretly and clandestinely, the Catholic Church then considers them permanently and irrevocably Christian. Depending on the country, it was legal up until very recently for the Catholic church to abduct children who had been baptized and take them away from their biological family in order to raise them "properly" as Christians. The church didn't see anything wrong with this and generally defended this monstrous act as "saving" the child.

 

[vampirekid.13]

i am against anything that is done to someone that is not life-saving without their approval.


circumcision and baptism are at the top of my "will not do to my little one" list for when i have kids.

baptism? whats really so wrong with it, take away all the religious parts of it and all its doing is putting someone in water, babies don't even get fully submerged when baptized. i guess you problem with this one is the religious part.


also, to the OP. USE THE SEARCH BUTTON

so if its just putting someone in water, then i can just take the kid home and wash it and it can choose to get baptized on its own when its older yes?


yea i thought so too, ill do that rather than volunteer himself to a life he may or may not agree/believe in.


personally i was baptized when i was little. i think its stupid, because i dont believe in god, and i think religion is a waste of time. i dont actively go out and bash it, but ill never be religious, if you are thats ur business not mine, however baptizing someone when they are not aware of what it is or means is just not right.

also im having this fight with my mom atm, my grandma wants my new born baby baptized.

my mom is indifferent.

i am extremely opposing the idea.

i hope i win >.<

 

[dantheman931]

I've not had my son done. Its a minor surgery and I dont feel the need to risk any surgery that is not needed, its purely cultural/cosmetic. If he needs it for medical reasons at a later date, Ill have no issue with it.

It is not done in the UK outside of the jewish/islamic community.

i am against anything that is done to someone that is not life-saving without their approval.


circumcision and baptism are at the top of my "will not do to my little one" list for when i have kids.

baptism? whats really so wrong with it, take away all the religious parts of it and all its doing is putting someone in water, babies don't even get fully submerged when baptized. i guess you problem with this one is the religious part.

I think the problem is that a baby or child doesn't have a religion. Just like they dont have political/idealogical affiliations. They aren't old enough to have decided. Saying a "christian child" is like saying a marxist child, socialst child, republican child etc. Sure some get brain washed in to Christianity etc. I feel its a form of child abuse similar to putting a child into the hitler youth, they are still too young to have made up their mind on such complex ideas.

Ill encourage my son to take RE in school along with science, the arts etc. Ill encourage him to think and work things out himself and not to accept the answers hes given blindly. I wont be deciding for him. If he becomes a reigious adult, its his choice, just like he may subscribe to communism/scientology etc.

If people had such faith in their religion being the truth, they'd let their child make up his/her own mind and not force feed it him/her from day one.

you had a good point until you stated that religion is like the Hitler youth. you might want to change that.

Godwin ftw.

 

[sirdanrhodes]

Actually we've already had a circumcision debate.
*sips soda.*

YOU BASTARD... That's my soda...

Anyway, as I said in the other thread, I wanted free will, so much for fucking that(!)

 

[Doug]

I was circumcized. I don't really care; I fap just as well as anyone. It's nice not having a flap of basically pointess skin hanging at the end of my fella. I get as much pleasure from coughsplutter as I ever have. If there's more, I don't know about it, and I really couldn't care less. I'd rather have less chance of my thing falling off than less pleasure, thanks.

Ok, but where you circumcized shortly after birth or was it a conscious decision when you were older?

If young, then you have no point of comparsion - i.e. you've not wanked off with your foreskin and without and hence can't draw a comparsion - same with me, I'm not circumcized (and frankly, most of the modern world isn't), so can't really say if circumcizion would reduce pleasure or not.

If older, fair enough, you can draw a valid comparsion.

 

[gdnvs]

Circumcision was a practice thought up by people living in the dessert. They required a lot of water to wash their genitals and there wasn't much to go around. Modern showers mostly fix this problem, so if you own a fully functional shower then there is less point to cut in your genitals, I'd fancy. Plus I get nervous of the Idea of holding sharp implements near someones penis.

 

[Doug]

i am against anything that is done to someone that is not life-saving without their approval.


circumcision and baptism are at the top of my "will not do to my little one" list for when i have kids.

baptism? whats really so wrong with it, take away all the religious parts of it and all its doing is putting someone in water, babies don't even get fully submerged when baptized. i guess you problem with this one is the religious part.


also, to the OP. USE THE SEARCH BUTTON

Bleh, some hardline atheists (I think of them as extremist atheists) think that baptism shouldn't be done whilst the child is too young to accept or deny a religious association. I accept that's true, but the way I see it as its just abit of water on the forehead, nothing is loped off, and if you don't follow that faith later in life, no biggy (and no surgery to repair it).

I can understand their desire to avoid having any religious association for their whole lives, but too me, these people take atheism one step too far into the realm of banalness or puritanism. If it really bothers people, they can ask to be un-baptised for no money and very little time. I was baptised, but am I a Roman Catholic? Hell no. Do I care or am I affected by a non-surgerical drop of water on my forehead when I was tiny? Nope.

 

[Doug]

I was circumcized. I don't really care; I fap just as well as anyone. It's nice not having a flap of basically pointess skin hanging at the end of my fella. I get as much pleasure from coughsplutter as I ever have. If there's more, I don't know about it, and I really couldn't care less. I'd rather have less chance of my thing falling off than less pleasure, thanks.

Ok, but where you circumcized shortly after birth or was it a conscious decision when you were older?

If young, then you have no point of comparsion - i.e. you've not wanked off with your foreskin and without and hence can't draw a comparsion - same with me, I'm not circumcized (and frankly, most of the modern world isn't), so can't really say if circumcizion would reduce pleasure or not.

If older, fair enough, you can draw a valid comparsion.

Just after birth, and I know I can't make the comparison. What I'm saying is, I don't really care whether I could have had extra pleasure if my mum and dad hadn't had it cut off or not. It doesn't bother me in the slightest either way.

Fair enough. Although your 'thing' isn't going to fall off, with or without that 'pointless fap of skin'.

 

[Yankmy Armoff]

medical circumcision, fair enough (my cousin had his removed at about 15 yrs old, it apparently wasnt stretching like it should and was cutting off blood supply, ouch) but signing children up to religious organisations without their input or agreement is exactly like the hitler youth. taking children with no way of knowing what they're getting into, telling them it's a positive thing and priming them to attack non-members. sound familiar?

give children the right to choose their faith/lack of faith without prematurely forcing their hand.

its only fair

 

[Doug]

Circumcision was a practice thought up by people living in the dessert. They required a lot of water to wash their genitals and there wasn't much to go around. Modern showers mostly fix this problem, so if you own a fully functional shower then there is less point to cut in your genitals, I'd fancy. Plus I get nervous of the Idea of holding sharp implements near someones penis.

Well, apparently even so there is a tiny benefit from having circumcizion in terms of STD protection (although the evidence is as muddled as hell), but the benefit is so small that the UK health department has basically said 'The odds of getting complications from circumcizion are high enough to mitigate the benefit'. Also, I've just noticed that alot of these studies are conducted in Africa, where hygiene standards aren't particularly high anyways.

Basically, you can get far better protection from a condom anyway; so a layer of paper mache, whilst it theorically could deflect a bullet fired at the right angle, it is always going to be better to were proper body armour.

 

[veryboringfact]

Now there are tons of threads about abortion and other rights, but what is the escapists general consensus of circumcision?
Now, in case you're not familiar with it, supposedly the foreskin is the part of one's manhood with the most nerve endings, and thus is the source of the most pleasure. In many cases this part is removed, either for religious reasons or possible medical reasons. Now it hasn't been 100% proven yet and tests have been inconsistent, but there is evidence leaning towards the possibility that the lack of foreskin can result in less chance of obtaining STDs.

The main problem with this is that it is usually done in infancy, and the child has no say in the matter. Obviously if anyone had a choice during the stage where they where coherent and aware of the options they're going to be opposed to a medical procedure in which part of their dick is removed.

So I ask you escapists, what is your opinion on this?
Should we remove possible pleasure to reduce the risk of possible STDs?
Should the child have a say in the matter, even though this would result in circumcisions being very rare?

I personally say leave it there. What do you think?

What ? in which budget parish newsletter did you read that circumcision reduces the chance of STDs ? The foreskin serves a specific purpose, it protects the glans from infection and abrasion, there is no reasonable justification to removing it, and if you are circumcised and not jewish then your parents are morons.

 

[Yankmy Armoff]

...if you are circumcised and not jewish then your parents are morons.

i assume you meant to add 'unless it was done for reasonable medical purposes'

 

[riskroWe]

If you want to protect your son from STDs, educate the little bastard.
If you want to mutilate your son so he fits in with the other mutilated boys, you're an idiot.

 

[psijac]

If I ever accidentally fall back in time to Nazi Germany. I want to have my foreskin to prove I'm not a Jew.......

That sentence probably could have come out better

A better argument follows.

When I was in the Virgina I heard a story about this young couple that got their son circumcised. They were gainfully employed and had full medical insurance. Just a normal procedure right? Well turns out the Doctor accidentally made a small nick in the main vein. The nurse who checked them out and sent them home without notice a thing.

Late into the night the baby was crying and bleeding, so they called the hospital and the Nurse there told them that they didn't need to come in and just to just tighten the diaper to stop the bleeding. By morning their son had bleed out.

They wanted to sue the doctor but they were both enlisted in the military (gainfully employed and full medical remember?)and as an enlisted person you can not sue any of your physicians ever no matter how bad they messed things up. You basically wave that right

They couldn't go after the doctor so they tried to find the nurse that cleared the child to be sent home. Unfortunately the signature was illegible on the sign out sheet. Eventually they lined up every single person on duty that day and asked who signed this baby out? No one came forward.

The straw that breaks the camels back in this story is that when they got on the plane to take their child back to their home state. They were arrested by the local D.A. for child neglect. I cannot imagine being arrest for alleged murder of my future offspring. I wince to imagine what it must have been like to get escorted off a plane in cuffs in our post 9/11 world.

Anyway FORESKIN ROCKS! every boy should have one and every girl should prefer one

 

[PurpleLeafRave]

Now there are tons of threads about abortion and other rights, but what is the escapists general consensus of circumcision?
Now, in case you're not familiar with it, supposedly the foreskin is the part of one's manhood with the most nerve endings, and thus is the source of the most pleasure. In many cases this part is removed, either for religious reasons or possible medical reasons. Now it hasn't been 100% proven yet and tests have been inconsistent, but there is evidence leaning towards the possibility that the lack of foreskin can result in less chance of obtaining STDs.

The main problem with this is that it is usually done in infancy, and the child has no say in the matter. Obviously if anyone had a choice during the stage where they where coherent and aware of the options they're going to be opposed to a medical procedure in which part of their dick is removed.

So I ask you escapists, what is your opinion on this?
Should we remove possible pleasure to reduce the risk of possible STDs?
Should the child have a say in the matter, even though this would result in circumcisions being very rare?

I personally say leave it there. What do you think?

The less plesure things a load of crap by the way, it feels the same before and after youve been circumcised. Im glad i got it done, it was annoying anyway