|
On November 29 2010 14:42 Tarbosh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:42 Dance. wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't mind that I'm circumcised? No, I'd be pissed if I was uncircumcised.
Why would you be pissed if you were not circumcised?
|
On November 29 2010 14:38 shawster wrote:
stop comparing circumcision to things like shots or stuff like that. there is pretty much no health benefits from circumcision, whereas shots and braces obviously do something. i was never cut and i don't want to be, kids should be able to make a decision. i still don't think it matters that much anyways
imagine if you had pubes as a kid and your parents controlled whether they would be shaved or not, and they can't grow back. basically it doesn't matter much but i would like to have control of what i do with my body when it doesn't really affect my well-being.
Even the AMA recognizes potential health benefits from circumcision -.-'
And a cursory Google search on medical sites or books could net you a bunch of other references that suggest a reduced risk of urinary tract infection, penile cancer, HIV, balanitis, posthitis, phimosis, and prostate cancer.
Does it automatically prevent them? No.
Are there slight risks involved? Yeah.
I just don't think it's so clear-cut (no pun intended) of a bad practice that we should be banning circumcision.
It's not mutilation in the image of negative connotation, where the penis can't perform functionally or the genitals get maimed.
I don't see how someone could say, "Oh, it's going to hurt the baby so we shouldn't do it!", because that doesn't stop us from giving them shots or performing other operations on them that we feel are in their best interest medically.
I can't see it getting banned until age seventeen, because many of the above diseases can be contracted as a baby or adolescent. It would be nice to have a lowered risk even as an infant.
|
On November 29 2010 14:45 njnick wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:42 Tarbosh wrote:On November 29 2010 14:42 Dance. wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't mind that I'm circumcised? No, I'd be pissed if I was uncircumcised. Why would you be pissed if you were not circumcised?
Because it is extra shit to clean.
|
On November 29 2010 14:50 Tarbosh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:45 njnick wrote:On November 29 2010 14:42 Tarbosh wrote:On November 29 2010 14:42 Dance. wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't mind that I'm circumcised? No, I'd be pissed if I was uncircumcised. Why would you be pissed if you were not circumcised? Because it is extra shit to clean.
Your life is so interesting that you hate losing even half a second of it?
And is it weird that I'd care more if my kid was an innie or outie than if he was circumcised? I don't wanna raise no dirty outie under my roof.
|
On November 29 2010 14:42 Dance. wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't mind that I'm circumcised?
According to this thread you're a horrible abomination MUTILATED by your parents without your knowing, you will forever live the rest of you're life shunning and being ridiculed by those who had the good fortune of having parents who did not want circumcision!. I'm circumcised and I have never even thought about it until this thread. Do other men look down at their cocks and curse at their parents for getting them circumcised? Is there an alarming statistic of circumcisions gone horribly awry with penis' flying everywhere?
User was warned for this post
|
On November 29 2010 14:42 RowdierBob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:32 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
AMA's stance on circumcision (also from same article):
"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."
Even the AMA doesn't think we should circumcise children. From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents.... I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either. I'm sorry, I guess I phrased it wrongly. D: To me, it seems like the AMA is acknowledging that there are benefits, but they feel that it's better to let the parents decide, and that it's not beneficial enough to directly encourage it. Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. I understand what you're saying but coming from someone who has had it done, it's really not that big a deal. Unless of course it goes horribly wrong. At the end of the day though it's just an inconsequential piece of skin. I think people make way too much out of circumcision..
does the fact that you don't remember it somehow make it so it didn't happen? do you think it didn't hurt when you are a baby? think about what you are saying
(unless of course u are saying u had it done when u are old enough to remember...
in which case, wtf
|
On November 29 2010 14:42 Dance. wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't mind that I'm circumcised?
I'm quite content with my circumcision, which I got as a baby. I never held a grudge against my parents for removing my foreskin, nor would I have cared if they didn't. I'm really not all that offended.
|
On November 29 2010 14:53 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:42 RowdierBob wrote:On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:32 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
AMA's stance on circumcision (also from same article):
"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."
Even the AMA doesn't think we should circumcise children. From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents.... I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either. I'm sorry, I guess I phrased it wrongly. D: To me, it seems like the AMA is acknowledging that there are benefits, but they feel that it's better to let the parents decide, and that it's not beneficial enough to directly encourage it. Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. I understand what you're saying but coming from someone who has had it done, it's really not that big a deal. Unless of course it goes horribly wrong. At the end of the day though it's just an inconsequential piece of skin. I think people make way too much out of circumcision.. does the fact that you don't remember it somehow make it so it didn't happen? do you think it didn't hurt when you are a baby? think about what you are saying
If there is no memory of pain and no subconscious trauma from it (I'm assuming this, but really have no idea) then what does the fact that the pain did occur matter?
|
On November 29 2010 14:53 genwar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:42 Dance. wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't mind that I'm circumcised? According to this thread you're a horrible abomination MUTILATED by your parents without your knowing, you will forever live the rest of you're life shunning and being ridiculed by those who had the good fortune of having parents who did not want circumcision!. I'm circumcised and I have never even thought about it until this thread. Do other men look down at their cocks and curse at their parents for getting them circumcised? Is there an alarming statistic of circumcisions gone horribly awry with penis' flying everywhere?
such a productive post you've made
seriously.. pretty much no one is saying this shit, and lots of people are arguing on either side.
|
On November 29 2010 14:56 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:53 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:42 RowdierBob wrote:On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:32 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
AMA's stance on circumcision (also from same article):
"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."
Even the AMA doesn't think we should circumcise children. From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents.... I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either. I'm sorry, I guess I phrased it wrongly. D: To me, it seems like the AMA is acknowledging that there are benefits, but they feel that it's better to let the parents decide, and that it's not beneficial enough to directly encourage it. Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. I understand what you're saying but coming from someone who has had it done, it's really not that big a deal. Unless of course it goes horribly wrong. At the end of the day though it's just an inconsequential piece of skin. I think people make way too much out of circumcision.. does the fact that you don't remember it somehow make it so it didn't happen? do you think it didn't hurt when you are a baby? think about what you are saying If there is no memory of pain and no subconscious trauma from it (I'm assuming this, but really have no idea) then what does the fact that the pain did occur matter?
why does it matter what is happening to you right now then?
.....
|
On November 29 2010 14:40 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:33 Roe wrote:On November 29 2010 14:25 Jibba wrote:
Children don't have full rights, and even if it's based in ignorance or misinformation, parents do have the rights to fuck up their children in a myriad of ways and I'd still rather have them doing it than incompetent ex-business owners and school board members who became city council people. why do you think that? Which part? That children don't have full rights? Because they don't. That most city council people are unqualified for real work? Because in New York and Detroit and Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and Albion, they aren't. Or that parents fuck up their kids in a myriad of ways? That's just basic socialization.
that's pretty fucked up. but i guess it's the truth that most people are dumb enough to do these things. i meant more, why do you think they have the right to do it, not in terms of whether it happens or not, but more in terms of what we do with the law to change people.
|
On November 29 2010 14:53 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:42 RowdierBob wrote:On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:32 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
AMA's stance on circumcision (also from same article):
"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."
Even the AMA doesn't think we should circumcise children. From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents.... I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either. I'm sorry, I guess I phrased it wrongly. D: To me, it seems like the AMA is acknowledging that there are benefits, but they feel that it's better to let the parents decide, and that it's not beneficial enough to directly encourage it. Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. I understand what you're saying but coming from someone who has had it done, it's really not that big a deal. Unless of course it goes horribly wrong. At the end of the day though it's just an inconsequential piece of skin. I think people make way too much out of circumcision.. does the fact that you don't remember it somehow make it so it didn't happen? do you think it didn't hurt when you are a baby? think about what you are saying (unless of course u are saying u had it done when u are old enough to remember... in which case, wtf
Well ignoring the pain the baby would probably get over in a hour(I'm sure if the kid was in horrible life ending pain for a week we'd all be aware of this, he clearly says his circumcised penis is not a big deal. Do you think of the doctor doing the circumcision as a madman covered in blood, blindfolded carrying machete hacking away madly?
|
On November 29 2010 14:53 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:42 RowdierBob wrote:On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:32 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
AMA's stance on circumcision (also from same article):
"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."
Even the AMA doesn't think we should circumcise children. From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents.... I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either. I'm sorry, I guess I phrased it wrongly. D: To me, it seems like the AMA is acknowledging that there are benefits, but they feel that it's better to let the parents decide, and that it's not beneficial enough to directly encourage it. Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. I understand what you're saying but coming from someone who has had it done, it's really not that big a deal. Unless of course it goes horribly wrong. At the end of the day though it's just an inconsequential piece of skin. I think people make way too much out of circumcision.. does the fact that you don't remember it somehow make it so it didn't happen? do you think it didn't hurt when you are a baby? think about what you are saying (unless of course u are saying u had it done when u are old enough to remember... in which case, wtf
I'm pretty sure that parents who get their babies circumcised don't do it *because* it hurts the baby.
They do it because of religious reasons or because of the potential medical benefits.
Kids don't like getting shots at the doctor's, but parents make kids get them because it's good for the kids in the long run. Same mindset.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:38 shawster wrote:
stop comparing circumcision to things like shots or stuff like that. there is pretty much no health benefits from circumcision, whereas shots and braces obviously do something
Here's the thing. People need to choose which argument they're going to make.
Should involuntary circumcision be outlawed?
Yes, because it's cruel. -> Then no matter the health benefit, it should be outlawed. All those other things that cause pain to infants should be outlawed as well.
No, because it's beneficial. -> Based in weak information, but residing on the same argument used to support those other things that cause pain to infants. It may not be sound, but it's as valid as those are. EDIT: Valid meaning logically true given true premises. Sound being whether it's actually true or not.
No, but it's not beneficial. -> Argument of principle, focused on liberty.
Yes, because it's cruel and not beneficial. -> This is disguising itself as an argument of principle, but really it's not. It's a basic utilitarian calculation. If it were beneficial, then being cruel would be ok. Since it's not beneficial, being cruel is not okay. There's enough ways to dissect and manipulate 'cruel' and 'not beneficial' that I'm simply more comfortable going with principle above.
|
On November 29 2010 14:58 genwar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:53 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:42 RowdierBob wrote:On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:32 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
AMA's stance on circumcision (also from same article):
"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."
Even the AMA doesn't think we should circumcise children. From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents.... I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either. I'm sorry, I guess I phrased it wrongly. D: To me, it seems like the AMA is acknowledging that there are benefits, but they feel that it's better to let the parents decide, and that it's not beneficial enough to directly encourage it. Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. I understand what you're saying but coming from someone who has had it done, it's really not that big a deal. Unless of course it goes horribly wrong. At the end of the day though it's just an inconsequential piece of skin. I think people make way too much out of circumcision.. does the fact that you don't remember it somehow make it so it didn't happen? do you think it didn't hurt when you are a baby? think about what you are saying (unless of course u are saying u had it done when u are old enough to remember... in which case, wtf Well ignoring the pain the baby would probably get over in a hour(I'm sure if the kid was in horrible life ending pain for a week we'd all be aware of this, he clearly says his circumcised penis is not a big deal. Do you think of the doctor doing the circumcision as a madman covered in blood, blindfolded carrying machete hacking away madly?
no, did i say anything that would come remotely close to portraying it that way?
something being slightly stupid or slightly bad doesn't mean it's not worth correcting if given the opportunity
|
On November 29 2010 14:57 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:56 Slow Motion wrote:On November 29 2010 14:53 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:42 RowdierBob wrote:On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:32 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
AMA's stance on circumcision (also from same article):
"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."
Even the AMA doesn't think we should circumcise children. From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents.... I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either. I'm sorry, I guess I phrased it wrongly. D: To me, it seems like the AMA is acknowledging that there are benefits, but they feel that it's better to let the parents decide, and that it's not beneficial enough to directly encourage it. Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. I understand what you're saying but coming from someone who has had it done, it's really not that big a deal. Unless of course it goes horribly wrong. At the end of the day though it's just an inconsequential piece of skin. I think people make way too much out of circumcision.. does the fact that you don't remember it somehow make it so it didn't happen? do you think it didn't hurt when you are a baby? think about what you are saying If there is no memory of pain and no subconscious trauma from it (I'm assuming this, but really have no idea) then what does the fact that the pain did occur matter? why does it matter what is happening to you right now then? .....
I don't think it does matter after I die and lose my consciousness.
|
On November 29 2010 14:53 genwar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:42 Dance. wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't mind that I'm circumcised? According to this thread you're a horrible abomination MUTILATED by your parents without your knowing, you will forever live the rest of you're life shunning and being ridiculed by those who had the good fortune of having parents who did not want circumcision!. I'm circumcised and I have never even thought about it until this thread. Do other men look down at their cocks and curse at their parents for getting them circumcised? Is there an alarming statistic of circumcisions gone horribly awry with penis' flying everywhere?
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/cansever/
That article has a plethora of information on the psychological effects of circumcison.
|
On November 29 2010 14:53 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:42 RowdierBob wrote:On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:32 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
AMA's stance on circumcision (also from same article):
"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."
Even the AMA doesn't think we should circumcise children. From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents.... I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either. I'm sorry, I guess I phrased it wrongly. D: To me, it seems like the AMA is acknowledging that there are benefits, but they feel that it's better to let the parents decide, and that it's not beneficial enough to directly encourage it. Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. I understand what you're saying but coming from someone who has had it done, it's really not that big a deal. Unless of course it goes horribly wrong. At the end of the day though it's just an inconsequential piece of skin. I think people make way too much out of circumcision.. does the fact that you don't remember it somehow make it so it didn't happen? do you think it didn't hurt when you are a baby? think about what you are saying (unless of course u are saying u had it done when u are old enough to remember... in which case, wtf
Haha, nono, I was a baby when it happened. All I'm saying is, people tend to overreact when it comes to circumcision (and it's normally those who haven't even had it done!). Coming from someone who is circumcised, I'm just saying I don't understand all the fuss -- to me it really isn't a big deal. The little fella still works (and looks) fine and that's all that matters!
|
On November 29 2010 14:53 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:42 RowdierBob wrote:On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote:On November 29 2010 14:32 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:28 Ferrose wrote:On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote:On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
AMA's stance on circumcision (also from same article):
"The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided."
Even the AMA doesn't think we should circumcise children. From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents.... I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either. I'm sorry, I guess I phrased it wrongly. D: To me, it seems like the AMA is acknowledging that there are benefits, but they feel that it's better to let the parents decide, and that it's not beneficial enough to directly encourage it. Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. I understand what you're saying but coming from someone who has had it done, it's really not that big a deal. Unless of course it goes horribly wrong. At the end of the day though it's just an inconsequential piece of skin. I think people make way too much out of circumcision.. does the fact that you don't remember it somehow make it so it didn't happen? do you think it didn't hurt when you are a baby? think about what you are saying (unless of course u are saying u had it done when u are old enough to remember... in which case, wtf
The fact that I don't remember it means the hard part is over. I don't think I care if it hurt when I was a baby.
|
On November 29 2010 14:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I can't see it getting banned until age seventeen, because many of the above diseases can be contracted as a baby or adolescent. It would be nice to have a lowered risk even as an infant.
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that it is acceptable to foist a permanent, damaging medical procedure on infants that cannot decide for themselves because it "would be nice" to have a lowered risk of some diseases, which, again, depending on the studies you want to believe, can be less than 1%. Just think about that for a second.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
