EPTSan Fran May Propose Banning Circumcision - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
| ||
|
njnick
United States176 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: 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. So you don’t mind losing a whole sensation you will never feel? | ||
|
McDonalds
Liechtenstein2244 Posts
Secondly, circumcision is put forward as a response to the spread of HIV in countries with dystopian levels of HIV where people flat-out refuse to use condoms and often don't have the resources to take care of their bodies. We don't need to be talking about that now, unless California has really gotten that bad. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45937 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:59 Ferrose wrote: http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/cansever/ That article has a plethora of information on the psychological effects of circumcison. Which is why you get it as a baby, instead of as a five year old  You don't remember a thing, and you certainly don't become upset and psychologically damaged. | ||
|
Malarkey817
United States163 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45937 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:01 Krigwin wrote: 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. Your literary manipulation excites me  I can do it too I beg to differ. I'm advocating a procedure that's harmless to the vast majority of those who receive it, in return for the possible medical benefits of a plethora of terrible diseases. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Which is why you get it as a baby, instead of as a five year old You don't remember a thing, and you certainly don't become upset and psychologically damaged. The article mentions that being circumcised can have psychological and developmental impacts on people after the procedure: "In order to evaluate the psychological effects of circumcision, a small study was arranged in which twelve children, from average and low socio-economic level, were given Goodenough and DAM test, CAT, Rorschach and two sets of stories, prior to the operation and following it. The results of the tests showed that circumcision, performed around the phallic stage is perceived by the child as an act of aggression and castration. It has detrimental effects on the child's functioning and adaptation, particularly on his ego strength. By weakening the controlling and defensive mechanisms of the ego, and initiating regression, it loosens the previously hidden fears, anxieties, and instinctual impulses, and renders a feeling of reality to them. What is expressed following the operation is primitive, archaic and unsocialized in character. As a defensive control and protection against the surge of the instinctual forces coming from within and the threats coming from outside, the ego of the child seeks safety in total withdrawal, this isolates and insulates itself from disturbing stimuli." | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45937 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:01 njnick wrote: So you don’t mind losing a whole sensation you will never feel? What sensation is that? My penis is still extremely sensitive. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45937 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:09 Ferrose wrote: The article mentions that being circumcised can have psychological and developmental impacts on people after the procedure. The study was done on kids, not on babies. Unless a kid is told he was circumcised as a baby, he's going to have no idea it ever actually happened. He's certainly not going to remember it. Heck, kids can have psychological trauma from realizing that + Show Spoiler + Santa isn't real! | ||
|
us.insurgency
United States330 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:01 Krigwin wrote: 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. That is for the parents to decide. All of the men i have seen in the shower (lol no homo) after football is circumsized. It is normal for our culture to get circumsized, and nobody felt mutilated or damaged. I dont want the government to tell me how to raise my children. It looks normal to me and thats my choice. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The study was done on kids, not on babies. Unless a kid is told he was circumcised as a baby, he's going to have no idea it ever actually happened. He's certainly not going to remember it. Heck, kids can have psychological trauma from realizing that + Show Spoiler + Santa isn't real! But eventually you'll find out that you're circumcised. And that can have psychological effects on you. On November 29 2010 15:13 us.insurgency wrote: That is for the parents to decide. All of the men i have seen in the shower (lol no homo) after football is circumsized. It is normal for our culture to get circumsized, and nobody felt mutilated or damaged. I dont want the government to tell me how to raise my children. It looks normal to me and thats my choice. But why is it normal? Peer pressure? Socialization? I don't think that circumcison is a common practice in America because it's great for our health. And what flawed logic. You could just as easily say "Everyday I beat my children and lock them in the basement with no food. Then one day the child protection agency took them away, because I'm an abusive parent. How dare that government tell me how to raise my kid!" The kid should have a say in whether or not he's circumcised. | ||
|
Tarbosh
United States127 Posts
| ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
It makes no difference whether you are cut or not, so who cares? Freedom and liberty and all that jazz. | ||
|
blitzkrieger
United States512 Posts
You cant just "get circumcized when ur 18" because it is really painful, expensive, and requires surgery when you get to that age. I remember it hurt SOOOO bad to pee like someone sticking a knife in ur dick and I didn't want to drink liquids because it hurt so bad to pee. As a baby there is no pain b/c there are no nerves there. I think we should pass a law that SF can't pass any laws. The religious reason is a mark to show that the Jews are God's people. I'm not sure what the Christian one is, prob simimlar. This just seems like liberals trying to keep God out of society for the billionth time. And LOL @ mutilation... you guys are idiots. Its absolutely fine. The female circumcision where they cut off the clit is mutilation, this isn't. If done right as a baby there are only health benefits for male circumcision. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45937 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:13 Ferrose wrote: But eventually you'll find out that you're circumcised. And that can have psychological effects on you. Both positive and negative. Just like finding out that you're uncircumcised, I'm sure. I don't see a problem there. | ||
|
AJMcSpiffy
United States1154 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:13 us.insurgency wrote: That is for the parents to decide. All of the men i have seen in the shower (lol no homo) after football is circumsized. It is normal for our culture to get circumsized, and nobody felt mutilated or damaged. I dont want the government to tell me how to raise my children. It looks normal to me and thats my choice. But why should it be your choice and not your child's? I assure you, what looks normal to you may not look normal to someone who was not circumcised. That is not to say it looks better one way or the other, that's purely opinion. But to say it looks normal to you because you have lived your whole life with it is not a fair reasoning. Anything you see multiple times a day is gonna look normal eventually. I say leave it as the child's decision when he is old enough to be made fully aware of the difference, and when any possible benefits of the procedure will really come into effect. On November 29 2010 15:16 blitzkrieger wrote: And when ur a baby it doesn't hurt at all You have obviously never heard the screams from a baby being circumcised. Not remembering the pain != not having any pain | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
/contribution | ||
|
Tarbosh
United States127 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:13 Ferrose wrote: But eventually you'll find out that you're circumcised. And that can have psychological effects on you. I'd be curious if there has ever been a single person that has been circumcised at birth and then suffered psychologically at the discovery of being circumcised. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:16 blitzkrieger wrote: Wow my home town is so dumb. My younger brother got circumcized as a baby by a rabbi and I got circumsized when I was like 7-9 or so in a hospital for medical reasons. My mom and some stupid woman doctor said it hurts the baby and they wouldn't let my dad have it done. And when ur a baby it doesn't hurt at all but it was a huge pain for me that lasted a long time since I had to get it done for medical reasons. You cant just "get circumcized when ur 18" because it is really painful, expensive, and requires surgery when you get to that age. I remember it hurt SOOOO bad to pee like someone sticking a knife in ur dick and I didn't want to drink liquids because it hurt so bad to pee. As a baby there is no pain b/c there are no nerves there. I think we should pass a law that SF can't pass any laws. The religious reason is a mark to show that the Jews are God's people. I'm not sure what the Christian one is, prob simimlar. This just seems like liberals trying to keep God out of society for the billionth time. And LOL @ mutilation... you guys are idiots. Its absolutely fine. The female circumcision where they cut off the clit is mutilation, this isn't. If done right as a baby there are only health benefits for male circumcision. Yep, trying to keep God out of a government with a constitutional clause for a separation of church and state is so wrong  | ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27173 Posts
On November 29 2010 15:01 Krigwin wrote: 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. Hyperbole is a big part of the problem in this debate. | ||
| ||
