Circumcision

strollingbones:
penile cancer
is rare in all males, circumcised or not, rarer in non-circumcising Denmark than the US, rarer than male breast cancer. We could cut off boy babies' nipples to prevent that (they won't be needing them) but we don't.
See www . circumstitions . com / Images / looklike.gif (no spaces)

That's a very rare condition (called BXO) which can be treated without surgery.

Huh?

midcan5:

This seems to be a variant of "Parents make many decisions for their children" Short answer: ... but no decision quite like this, about what parts of his own body he is allowed to keep.

A better analogy is: when the child is born, does the doctor ask us if we want his pinky fingertips, earlobes, tonguetip, eyelids, or her little clitoral hood, clitoris or labia trimmed? What's so special about his foreskin that parents even get asked? (In the rest of the English-speaking world, they used to, but they found circumcising doesn't do any good, so now they don't. In most of the world they've never done it. Seven out of ten men in the world are intact.)
No, on the contrary they improve with use and experience.

xotoxi:
Boys should be circumcised as it is the only thing that distinguishes them from animals.
belongs on the list at www . circumstitions . com / Stitions&refs.html .

Bottom line: in the US, home of the free, all people should be allowed undisturbed ownership all of the healthy non-renewable parts of their bodies they were born with. If you don't own your own body, what do you own?

Sure thing, of course you only apply this to the babies that are not murdered before they are ever born right? Those that have a mother that for convenience seek decides carrying a baby full term will impact her life in a negative manner and so has a doctor murder the unborn baby, right?

So one must not circumcised at birth but can be terminated before birth just fine? Have I got your argument down about right?

Ladies and gentlemen this is what we call grasping at straws hugh has posted 3 things here and not one of them even mentioned abortion yet RGS is somehow able to psychically figure out that hugh's pro-choice?

Although even if he was that doesn't really address any of his arguments

This would be like assuming every pro-lifer was for the death penalty and then making them defend their dual positions before we discuss either.

Oh and I see little hypocritical about not giving fetuses rights (up to a point) because they're insignificant (the argument I hear most from pro-choicers) but giving newborns rights. For the most part they're not the same.
 
When the hell does a baby change from a non-baby into a baby?

That's about the stupidest thing I've heard.
 
Uncircumcised penises are ugly. Or so I've been told. lol

My doctor claimed that it is cultural. The only boys he hadn't done were Hispanic. He didn't want my children to be laughed at in the locker room. That was good enough for me. The procedure took five seconds. Their births took 24 hours. I felt no guilt.
 
Do you think infant circumcision should be banned?

Should it be legal to physically hurt and permanently disfigure a baby who could not possibly consent to it.

The questionable medical benefits (STD protections mostly) can easily be substituted with a condom. So should this be considered infringing on a baby's rights?

if you can kill em before they are born you should certainly be able to trim the anteater.....
 
Uncircumcised penises are ugly. Or so I've been told. lol

My doctor claimed that it is cultural. The only boys he hadn't done were Hispanic. He didn't want my children to be laughed at in the locker room. That was good enough for me. The procedure took five seconds. Their births took 24 hours. I felt no guilt.

The entire procedure, including strapping their arms and legs down, takes longer than five literal seconds. They do feel pain, but we assume they forget or get over it rather quickly.

Would you feel guilty if the births took much less time? Say, one hour of being in active labor. Would you then consider not having them circumcised?

How much different is circumcision in boys from piercing an infant girls' ears because someone thinks it's cute. That is inflicting pain, modifying their body solely for appearances. There is not even any argument that it has health benefits or makes the child feel more comfortable amongst others of their same gender.
 
How much different is circumcision in boys from piercing an infant girls' ears because someone thinks it's cute. That is inflicting pain, modifying their body solely for appearances. There is not even any argument that it has health benefits or makes the child feel more comfortable amongst others of their same gender.


At least ears can heal.
 
When the hell does a baby change from a non-baby into a baby?

That's about the stupidest thing I've heard.

I don't know, but apparently it changes from an animal to a human when you mutilate its genitals, to hear you tell it :cuckoo:


Well that might be the way you read it...but what I SAID was animals don't circumcise their young.

Which, of course, they don't. I probably should have dumbed it down. Just when I think it's stupid enough to be understood by even the most dim witted, I can count on you to prove me wrong.
 
That's not what you said. You said that mutilating your boys' genitals is what or made them any different than the animals and that you liked the way their cocks look now
 
Uncircumcised penises are ugly. Or so I've been told. lol

My doctor claimed that it is cultural. The only boys he hadn't done were Hispanic. He didn't want my children to be laughed at in the locker room. That was good enough for me. The procedure took five seconds. Their births took 24 hours. I felt no guilt.

The entire procedure, including strapping their arms and legs down, takes longer than five literal seconds. They do feel pain, but we assume they forget or get over it rather quickly.

Would you feel guilty if the births took much less time? Say, one hour of being in active labor. Would you then consider not having them circumcised?

How much different is circumcision in boys from piercing an infant girls' ears because someone thinks it's cute. That is inflicting pain, modifying their body solely for appearances. There is not even any argument that it has health benefits or makes the child feel more comfortable amongst others of their same gender.


The babies are too young for regular anesthesia. They cry out in pain.
 
Yeah, go ahead and link that comment, dumbfuck.



Circumcision is the only thing that makes a dick worth looking at.

My boys all had them. It's what distinguishes them from animals.

Ritualistic circumcision separates men from animals.

If you find an ancient corpse and it's impossible to tell what it is, if it's circumcised, you can be fairly certain it's a man and not an orangutuan.
Of course, this implies that a non-circumcised penis can only be non-human


Of course, there is an explanation for why you're so fucking stupid

drinking makes me smarter.

my inability to make sense explains all the responses.



:lol



Of course, you're the stupid bitch who compared foreskin to spinal bifida

That is hardly a reason for subjecting a newborn to such a trauma. It's actually pretty simple... all you have to do, is wash your dick properly every single day and you shan't have a problem with any infections.

I don't care either way - circumcised or not... Besides, when the penis is completely erect, you can hardly tell whether it is circumcised or not because all of the foreskin retracts from the head. My ex who was circumcised used to have a problem with dry skin on the head of his penis, which I thought was a bit... 'ewey.' But my current boyfriend (who is not circumcised) doesn't have that problem and I also think his penis is more sensitive since I don't have to literally 'suck the paint off the truck to finish him off' :rofl: So I'd argue that leaving the foreskin on makes for more sensitivity. I actually read somewhere, that by the head being continuously exposed and rubbing against clothes, etc. it becomes less sensitive...

Yeah, so there...

TMI anyone ;)
so, just how far "natural" do you like?
do you want men to have beards too, since shaving is not natural?
and what about all the places women shave, thats not "natural" either ;)


Having crooked teeth and spina bifida is natural too. As is nail fungus.

We still like to avoid and correct them if we can.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top