It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And if you wouldnt, you would die. So it is still a huge benefit. My point stands.
The probability of getting these diseases is already low, and circumcision lowers it by some small percentage. Not worth it, as most pediatric institutions state. Also, STDs are mostly irrelevant, because these are a risk during puberty and on, when the boy can already give consent to circumcision informed enough, IMHO.
As I said - no significant permanent mark. Antibodies in system dont count, that changes nothing for you, except immunity for smallpox. Analogy fail.
It protects the glans from outside, keeping it lubricated and more sensitive. The risk of pathogens is minimal with good hygiene.
Well, some people believe that there needs to be compelling medical reasons when deciding in favor of such significant and permanent body modifications for children. I personally am not in favor of a ban, but I understand both sides of this argument, and both have merit.
Yes I do... one is painless the childs experience, beneficial to a degree, and probably part of a custom... and the other one is painful, really has to do more with psychological issues probably developed at a young age about sexuality.
Babies do not feel it
Most pediatric institutions have been supporting circumcision.
That is far more than a cosmetic 'mark' - that's a functional and practicality mark.
I think, with that - we can come to the agreement that it's not the business of government (at any level) to decide whether or not a child should be circumcised.
Originally posted by AngryOne
The fact that people actually debate this subject is insane. Circumcision is unnatural and just deplorable; I mean, think about it: CUTTING OFF PART OF A KID'S WANG, AT BIRTH, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT (AND WITHOUT ANESTHESIA, CORRECT?).