Agit8r
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2010
- 12,141
- 2,209
- 245
Well, I didn't even have anything about God on my mind. What I responded to is a medical fact. Were you to visit a medical website and actually do some medical research on the subject, you would readily find that the uncircumcised male is more prone to infections from and to infect more with everything from common yeast infections to HIV. The bacteria from these things are more easily trapped within the foreskin. It's a common sense thing as I pointed out.
I am well aware of the medical benefits of a circumcised adult male and the problems associated with the uncircumcised adult male. Common sense is that such problems do not apply to infants who do not have sex making the purported benefits of circumcising infants absurd not to mention that their mothers keep infant penises much cleaner than adult males even if their diapers are filled with crap five times a day..
Sexually transmitted diseases, bacterial infections, and smegma can result from a unclean uncircumcised penis but isn't that really a problem of the mind of the person who doesn't have the sense to keep clean or refrain from risky sexual behavior that only requires a condom to avoid spreading disease even if the person has no compunction about having sex with a funky penis?
Again, whatever the reason, whether for health benefits or that the ladies prefer it circumcision should be the informed choice of an adult that infants are incapable of making. Lopping off the foreskins of infants is morally and ethically reprehensible especially if the practice is blamed on God.
I'm not arguing with you about anything except it has been proven to help in matters of sexually transmitted disease. That was my main point and is well proven. I also just today read that since many major insurers are no longer covering circumcising of new-born males. This has resulted in fewer parents taking the expense onto themselves and has resulted in a large growth in the number of uncircumcised males in this country. Insurers, being loaded up with actuaries on their payrolls, are now passing on the added risks of exposure to sexually transmitted disease among both males and females as direct result of this increase in the numbers of uncircumcised males, are increasing insurance premiums to all subscribers by a half billion dollars a year.
So if I'm understanding correctly, the people cannot be trusted to take necessary precautions, so society (in most cases a parent or parents) has the right to amputate half of an individual's penis without consent? Talk about fucking tyranny!