First referendum on banning circumcisions performed on minors

[Godfrd824]

So, let's just cut off part of everyone's penis so they don't have to shower every day. And I don't think the dick rash relates to your foreskin. I've never heard of that issue with foreskin.

It's totally to do with the foreskin, it's always moist under there, BTW, can't use soap on my dick either, because then it dries the glans up and the foreskin sticks to the glans and it hurts like hell.

[RBLOCK]

It's totally to do with the foreskin, it's always moist under there, BTW, can't use soap on my dick either, because then it dries the glans up and the foreskin sticks to the glans and it hurts like hell.

I won't dispute that there are occasional problems with the foreskin. They're pretty rare though, and that supports the fact that the foreskin is a natural feature of human anatomy. Close to 100% of the male population in Europe is intact, and I never hear about any dire penile problems over there.

[JoshSP1985]

Good decision. Minors cannot consent to surgery, and as such, they should not be subject to any surgery that is not medically necessary.

This.

There are medically necessary reasons to perform a circumcision and that act being performed under the parents consent on an un-consenting minor should only happen in the case where is is medically advised.


Yea I just said the same thing you said in a different way.

[Tiffany Wantsmore]

No.

Does anyone know what percentage of kids are still getting cirsumcised in the us? I remember reading a study in aus saying that only ~1% of kids are still getting it.

It is most certainly genital mutilation and should be left with the individual once they reach the age of consent.

There was a poll in the Misc the other day asking whether guys were cut or not. Last time I looked it was about 55% uncut, 45% cut - much less than I would have expected, seeing as most of the members are from the US.

I won't dispute that there are occasional problems with the foreskin. They're pretty rare though, and that supports the fact that the foreskin is a natural feature of human anatomy. Close to 100% of the male population in Europe is intact, and I never hear about any dire penile problems over there.

Exactly. If the pro-circ lobby were to be believed, the majority of English men would have suppurating infected willies and the incidence of STIs would be far higher here. But it isn't.

[Plainandtall]

This is again, anecdotal - but the maternity ward nurses and pediatricians told us the boys who don't get circ'd end up with lots of urinary infections and complications from that, which is a reason why lots of parents get their male infants circ'd.

Take it as you will. Not a definitive study of course.

Rdez- The great increase in UTI is like... ten times more than next to nothing. Females get more UTIs than intact males ever get. Thomas Wiswell, who was the Dr. behind the infamous UTI myth, was working in a military hospital and compared boys who were circumcised to those who hadn't been... the catch? The policy was to circumcise all boys- so the only boys who had escaped the knife were the ones who were too sick or too fragile to handle the circumcision trauma. This study is the foundation of the great UTI fear. In other countries no parents of newborns worry about the risk of UTI being human poses to their child. They just take the whole baby home... but in the USA UTI is presented like this giant boogeyman that any responsible caring parent will try to proactively defeat.

What is odd is that 9%-10% of circumcised boys will develop a urinary problem called meatal stenosis... which needs surgery (not antibiotics) to correct. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1016016-overview
They never mention the risk of meatal stnosis to parents dead set on circumcising... in fact- in the AAP circumcision policy statement- they fudge the numbers in the complications summary- by including meatal stenosis in a list of twenty other things that could possibly go wrong- but offer a total risk of complication less than half of one percent- this is an outright lie.

So in order to prevent one UTI through circumcision, you would have to circumcise 100 boys- 10 of them would wind up with meatal stenosis, and at least one of them would be circumcised a second time... yes, more circumcised boys are circumcised twice- than intact boys ever need to be circumcised a first time.

Fear of the natural male body is a meme in the minds of a circumcised culture, not based in logic or reasons, but born of our fear of the unknown and desire for what was done to us to have been good for us. It's worse than being scared of your own shadow.

[Blindead]

My son had squint surgery at 7 years old. The difference is, having a lazy eye will negatively impact someone's whole life. Having a foreskin won't.

Goofy looking eye, goofy looking dick. Both are purely cosmetic.

[bigkarl]

Good.


Stop religious child abuse!

[illriginalized]

This.

There are medically necessary reasons to perform a circumcision and that act being performed under the parents consent on an un-consenting minor should only happen in the case where is is medically advised.

Bingo.

Circumcision helps reduce disease. Anti-circumcision advocates would have you believe that there are no bonafide medical reasons for being circumcised. But such is not the case. Lise Johnson M.D. the director of healthy-newborn nurseries at Boston’s Brigham Women’s Hospital said recently, “The weight of scientific evidence might be shifting in favor for circumcision.” Here are the reasons backing up such a statement:

A study carried up by the National Institute of Health reports that circumcision can prevent a man’s acquiring of HIV by up to 64%. (NIH)

Circumcised men have a reduced risk of contracting syphilis. (APA)

Uncircumcised male infants have as much as a 10 times greater risk of getting a urinary tract infection than their snipped brethren do. (APA)

Uncircumcised men have a 3 times greater risk of developing penile cancer. (APA)

Circumcised penises reduce the rate of cervical cancer in women. (BMC)

God & Science.. isn't it beautiful?

[b3rtstare]

Reps to OP. I fully support this. Newborns should not have circumcision forced on them.

[Rdez]

ITT: Men are overly concerned with little boy penises.


Worry about your own junk, or that of your OWN child. Otherwise, Get over it !

[Layziegtp]

Circumcised and perfectly happy. Kinda glad I don't have to deal with smegma and cleaning that **** out and having a smelly dick. Plus it's aesthetic imo, so I ain't even mad at ya mom and dad.

[b3rtstare]

Circumcised and perfectly happy. Kinda glad I don't have to deal with smegma and cleaning that **** out and having a smelly dick. Plus it's aesthetic imo, so I ain't even mad at ya mom and dad.

Im circumcised too and hate every second if it. I was cut as a baby and would do anything to have a fully functional foreskin. We cut brahs will never know what it's like to have sex the way it was meant to be, unless you restore your foreskin throug non surgical methods which can take years.

[Beeewbs]

ITT: Men are overly concerned with little boy penises.


Worry about your own junk, or that of your OWN child. Otherwise, Get over it !

Sounds like you're just as worried, since you keep posting in here and arguing about it.

[southeastoz]

Bingo.




God & Science.. isn't it beautiful?

A beautiful contradiction you mean.

Not sure why you quoted that other bloke, he was disagreeing with your position you know.

Goofy looking eye, goofy looking dick. Both are purely cosmetic.

Wat

[Godfrd824]

Im circumcised too and hate every second if it. I was cut as a baby and would do anything to have a fully functional foreskin. We cut brahs will never know what it's like to have sex the way it was meant to be, unless you restore your foreskin throug non surgical methods which can take years.

You aren't missing out, I'm telling you.

[mistercollie]

So, instead of fighting for the rights of people we all agree are people, you instead want to criticize pro-choicers for the time window in which they consider people people and ignore the rights they're trying to protect? Wouldn't it be more productive to address issues on which we can agree first?

I should be allowed to criticize the number of voices involved in the argument, for I feel a pro-choicer is simply guilty of a double standard and therefore should not be allowed to participate in determining the future of my child - as I do not decide theirs.

As for the "rights" you're protecting, this was the argument I have been making the day threads like this came about: What you define as a constitutional "being" is simply transferred to the post-birth state of a human, and is still, therefore, a parent's right to conscience and responsibility. All you have done is redefined that act as "mutilation", as if the circumcision is completely obscene, godless, a religious apostatizing against human rights. You have taken parental rights away and put them into the hands of government.

What I am rightfully against is the insistence of others to unilaterally convince the state and local governments to impede, even further, such conscience decisions of parents. Do not even minors require parental consult for such things as tattoos, piercings, drinking, etc? They decide everything for their children, from what they eat to what school they go to. When did infant penises leave the gray area, and become a black & white issue? What a beta generation...

[GrokTheCube]

There's a lot of things done to minors that aren't medically necessary.

Also, medically necessary is just a matter of opinion, ultimately.

This is nothing more than an attack on Religious freedom and Parental rights by left wing statists.

I'd say its an effort to preserve an individual's right to their body by libertarian types.

[illriginalized]

A beautiful contradiction you mean.

Ya... I don't listen to peons who make such ludicrous claims.. sorry. God commands us to circumcise the males and there's scientific reasons why we should. That doesn't seem like a contradiction.. now does it?

Not sure why you quoted that other bloke, he was disagreeing with your position you know.

I know.. but he said as long as it was, "medically advised".


I guess your reading comprehension skills fail.

[Rdez]

Sounds like you're just as worried, since you keep posting in here and arguing about it.

My concern is about the incremental attempts to erode parental rights and the creeping nanny state mentality in this nation.

That this thread is about little wangs is irrelevant to that concern really.

The notion of individual rights is worth of note, but, historically, minors have never really had much in the way of rights that their parents couldn't trump. The ability to exercise certain rights depends on the ability to consent or form an intelligent thought about those rights.

It gets complex, but parents have always held rights over their children until they reach the age of consent.

[RBLOCK]

God & Science.. isn't it beautiful?

If by "beautiful" you mean "mutually exclusive" then yes.

Every piece of evidence put forward to medically justify circumcision has been debunked as superstition and wishful thinking. The only reason circumcision became secularly popular in the USA was the belief that it "cured" masturbation. Which, in turn, was believed to cause insanity and blindness.

UTI myths debunked:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html#cause
AIDS study rebutted:
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA-garenne.html

Also...about 50% of the human population overall carries the HPV virus. Circumcision won't help you.

One of the wacky theories coming out of the pro-circumcision lobby is that the inner mucosal skin of the penis is responsible for transferring disease during sexual contact. If that's true, then it makes no logical sense to reduce the surface area of mucosal skin for males only. If that's really the goal, and we want to protect everyone from STIs, why not amputate the labia too? Do you really think ****lian-style mucosal tissue reduction represents cutting edge medical science?

It seems somewhat more likely that it's just a barbaric sexually repressed society trying to lessen sexual sensation for twisted religious reasons.

Here's a list of some of the countries with high rates of infant circumcision:

Yemen
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
****lia
The United States of America

Great places with which to share cultural practices, right?

[RBLOCK]

My concern is about the incremental attempts to erode parental rights and the creeping nanny state mentality in this nation.

That this thread is about little wangs is irrelevant to that concern really.

The notion of individual rights is worth of note, but, historically, minors have never really had much in the way of rights that their parents couldn't trump. The ability to exercise certain rights depends on the ability to consent or form an intelligent thought about those rights.

It gets complex, but parents have always held rights over their children until they reach the age of consent.

You're rationalizing child abuse here. Maybe you should go ahead and not.

[RBLOCK]

I should be allowed to criticize the number of voices involved in the argument, for I feel a pro-choicer is simply guilty of a double standard and therefore should not be allowed to participate in determining the future of my child - as I do not decide theirs.

As for the "rights" you're protecting, this was the argument I have been making the day threads like this came about: What you define as a constitutional "being" is simply transferred to the post-birth state of a human, and is still, therefore, a parent's right to conscience and responsibility. All you have done is redefined that act as "mutilation", as if the circumcision is completely obscene, godless, a religious apostatizing against human rights. You have taken parental rights away and put them into the hands of government.

What I am rightfully against is the insistence of others to unilaterally convince the state and local governments to impede, even further, such conscience decisions of parents. Do not even minors require parental consult for such things as tattoos, piercings, drinking, etc? They decide everything for their children, from what they eat to what school they go to. When did infant penises leave the gray area, and become a black & white issue? What a beta generation...

What you've just said basically boils down to "If other people get to kill their babies, then by golly, I should be able to do genital surgery on my babies!"

Somehow you don't seem to be on the moral high ground. I wish people didn't abort babies. I also wish that they didn't cut baby genitals. If I can stop the genital cutting then I'll do it.

[illriginalized]

UTI myths debunked:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html#cause

This is where I call bull****.. my little cousin, who was not circumcised (against doctor's recommendation), ended up with UTI within 1 year. He never cried when he peed / crapped his diapers... until one morning, according to my aunt, he started to cry like he has never cried before. My aunt wasn't sure as to what happened since there wasn't any sort of markings on him.. a few hours later, again he cried intensively... finally after the 4 time (the next day), my aunt realized that every time we cried it was when he urinated.

Because of his young age (small appendage, thus bacteria can reach bladder much faster), they also had to check his bladder to make sure that wasn't infected, since apparently the first stages of UTI isn't even painful, it's when it starts to infect large portions is when it really becomes painful... After all said and done, she had him circumcised.

[southeastoz]

Ya... I don't listen to peons who make such ludicrous claims.. sorry. God commands us to circumcise the males and there's scientific reasons why we should. That doesn't seem like a contradiction.. now does it?

So very religious of you to pass judgment like that. LOL at RBLOCKs post and the thousands of other contradictions to fairytale. And LOL at posting one atypical instance and generalising based on that instance, then implying it disproves a scientific study. ****ING LOL.

I know.. but he said as long as it was, "medically advised".


I guess your reading comprehension skills fail.

Benefits =/= medically necessary. Basic logic fail.

[OLDW]

I'm glad as **** that my parents gave my foreskin the chop when I was a baby. My dick is 100 times better looking and girls aren't groced out and afraid of it. I have also heard that the foreskin can cause infections and hold diseases easily. Any truth to that non-cut ***s?

[sy2502]

My concern is about the incremental attempts to erode parental rights and the creeping nanny state mentality in this nation.

That this thread is about little wangs is irrelevant to that concern really.

The notion of individual rights is worth of note, but, historically, minors have never really had much in the way of rights that their parents couldn't trump. The ability to exercise certain rights depends on the ability to consent or form an intelligent thought about those rights.

It gets complex, but parents have always held rights over their children until they reach the age of consent.

First thing first, I am sure glad that as a little girl, nobody took sharp implements to my privates, thank you very much!

Some people here are mentioning freedom of religion, and I have a point to make here. Your freedom of religion ends where the freedom of other people begins. If your religion tells you that the only way to get to heaven is to beat random strangers across the skull with a baseball bat, your freedom of religion is NOT protected. You are free to do TO YOURSELF whatever your personal beliefs tell you will please your deity. People (including children oddly enough) have a right to the integrity of their body, and your freedom of religion should not infringe that right.

Second is the concept of "parental rights". Your child is another human being and as such, does not BELONG to you. You are legally entrusted with the well being of a person who cannot take care of him/herself and while you are given some latitude on how to do that, it's not "everything goes". It doesn't matter that you think the best form of parental discipline is chaining them to the bed and burning them with a cigarette, you don't have the right to do so and the government can (and imo should) come after you for it. Of course I am using extreme examples on purpose, I don't think snipping is the same of beating the crap out of a kid, but the principle remains.

[illriginalized]

Benefits =/= medically necessary. Basic logic fail.

...

fukin' lol.


Oh and I'll pass judgment on someone like yourself... who perverts science by believing that the subject only exists to disprove, "God". That my friend, is what I call a peon. A slave to a subject for the wrong reason(s).

[Rune]

I'm glad as **** that my parents gave my foreskin the chop when I was a baby.

I'm sure you are.. now you would be much more aware of how it hurt like fuk.

Any truth to that non-cut ***s?

My dick is 100 times better looking and girls aren't groced out and afraid of it.

nope... it retracts, when errect I would bet most women couldn't tell the diff.

I have also heard that the foreskin can cause infections and hold diseases easily.

and nope.

[RBLOCK]

This is where I call bull****.. my little cousin, who was not circumcised (against doctor's recommendation), ended up with UTI within 1 year. He never cried when he peed / crapped his diapers... until one morning, according to my aunt, he started to cry like he has never cried before. My aunt wasn't sure as to what happened since there wasn't any sort of markings on him.. a few hours later, again he cried intensively... finally after the 4 time (the next day), my aunt realized that every time we cried it was when he urinated.

Because of his young age (small appendage, thus bacteria can reach bladder much faster), they also had to check his bladder to make sure that wasn't infected, since apparently the first stages of UTI isn't even painful, it's when it starts to infect large portions is when it really becomes painful... After all said and done, she had him circumcised.

I'm not going to dismiss the possibility that some uncircumcised boy somewhere had a urinary tract infection one time. Seems totally possible. But justifying the systematic circumcision of millions of people because of one family anecdote isn't reasonable, and reason is of utmost importance.

Muslim men are supposed to be circumcised as a religious covenant, right? Don't you think that covenant would be more meaningful if someone chose to have it done, instead of undergoing it when they have no clue what's happening or why it's supposed to be significant?

Just out of curiosity, would you cut your son's genitals at birth and inform him as he grows up that the penalty for apostasy from Islam is death? I'll bet he would want to be a good muslim if he knew that.

[illriginalized]

Just out of curiosity, would you cut your son's genitals at birth and inform him as he grows up that the penalty for apostasy from Islam is death? I'll bet he would want to be a good muslim if he knew that.

1. Yes I will have him circumcised.

2. There is no death penalty for apostate.

3. You mad?