It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Efforts to Defund or Ban Infant Male Circumcision Are Unfounded and Potentially Harmful, Experts Arg

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
As others have said it is nothing but the mutilation of a child's genitalia for no other reason than 'supposed' cosmetics reasons that the parents deem to be necessary, you lose about one third of the most sensitive nerves also which robs them of a good chunk of sexual pleasure when they are older. Pointless and barbaric practice which for some reason is still prominent in America, mostly because people still believe the myths regarding it, only about 1% or so of British people get circumcised...and even then the government would rather it were none. Most European countries are the same.
edit on 5-10-2011 by Solomons because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I agree, it's not apples to apples. I meant figuratively, *if* they had a type of foreskin like a male, and it was removed at birth for the same reasons as a male. Maybe a stretch to compare, I usually use it as a metaphor when explaining to women..
Although I've never heard of women being circumcised either, so

It would take away from the sensitivity if constantly exposed, and I'm not cool with that.

Although if there was a sound medical reason to perform a circumcision of course that is a different story, having a healthy baby is priority. And if it was needed at birth, I wouldn't fault the parent.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
His circ came with baby numbing creme that doubled as a neosporin type of thing. with todays tech i wanted him to have some form of relief from pain. but I have no regrets of having him circ'd.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Mellok
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



I'm in total agreement with that sentiment. For a clear and proven medical reason, then yes of course do the proceedure, however just to do it for the sake of doing it, is child abuse.

~Keeper

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Still, I stand behind my comment.

All I have seen thus far is only fear of what COULD happen. A rock could fall out of the sky too.

I still do not see any definitive proof of problems. Sure, there may be a handful of issues but nothing that stands out as a call that it is extremely dangerous and should be discontinued. I still say this simply boils down to people not agreeing with other peoples views and seeking to impose their beliefs upon others.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Mellok
 


its called labiaplasty and its to clean up the mess after children. my girlfriend had it done because her husband said her woman parts looked used and abused they have 3 kids. she'd come over and cry i went with her when she had it done. she's happier now that her husband is happier to have that 18 looking (female part) looking good as new.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Look, IMO it's child abuse, pure and simple.

There's no need to run around and cut up people's junk. I know if a doctor came near my newborn with a scaple he'd be eating it.

~Keeper

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 10/5/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)


Child abuse? I think that's going a little too far.

Whatever the reasons for getting circumcised ......none of them are for bad reasons.

That being said ..... medicaid should not pay for you sons circumcision.


And just to note: My son had a plastic ring put around the "said" area and it simply just fell off.... absolutely Painless.

It is considered a cosmetic surgery ..... I payed for my sons.... and I am sure he will be just fine with it when he grows up.

To each their own.
edit on 5-10-2011 by dplum517 because: added



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Genital mutilation is genital mutilation


I compared it to female genital mutilation as its the same thing. You are removing part of a childs body without their consent.

You lose millions of nerves when you chop off the foreskin...despite what the circumcised people BELIEVE, you are wrong and have FAR less sensation than a person WITH the skin intact.

Lets start chopping off kids feet encase they may get a verruca....or maybe remove an eye just encase they may grow up to be short sighted.

We have evolved into what we are today because...IT WORKS.
If nature intended us to be cut at birth we would be born with no foreskin.

Its wrong...its mutilation...there is no consent...



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 


Well you COULD catch HIV if you arn't circumcised...and you COULD die whilst being circumcised, and it has happened.

So it all comes down to what COULD happen. and just as I can pretty much avoid HIV by using a condom, you could avoid those few unfortunate babies dieing by not circumcising them.

Obviously if it then become their choice to have it done, they have chosen the risk, just a they chose the risk by having unprotected sex...but the fact is by the time they are having sex they are old enough (hopefully) to make such a decision by themself. So what has been gained by circumcising them as a child? Nothing at all.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I understand where you are coming from, but you are causing physical and emotional distress to a newborn for no real reason ( unless as stated above there is a valid medical requirement) other than to satisfy a religious belief, or a cosmetic one.

If you gave a kid botox at 5, that would be considered child abuse. If you made a 12 year old get a tummy tuck because you thought he was too fat, that would be child abuse.

There's no real difference between these examples and the topic in question if you are doing it not for the child's well being, but for your own personal reasons.

It's not like I look down on parents that do or anything like that, I'm not gonna call social services or look at them funny. It's just the way I perceive it.

To each his own is right and everybody has the right to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

~Keeper



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 





Circumcision, in my opinion, is not necessary. Any of the benefits the establishment claims are easily achieved by an uncircumcised male through good hygiene and safe sexual practices.


I for one can confirm that. I'm not necessarily saying it should be banned, because i don't think it should, but claiming it as a medical necessity is insanity and, honestly, irresponsible.

There are no medical benefits from doing this. Plenty of circumcised men are infected with various STDS, plenty of uncut men are unsanitary and unhygienic.

But there is a fact when talking about circumcision that seems to get left out quite a bit.

Removing the foreskin reduces the sensitivity of the penis by around 70%. Some misguided people seem to think removing the skin makes you more sensitive. Well, yes and no, yes if you get it done later in life you will notice a difference. But in realty, you are removing nerve endings. You are reducing sensations by 70% or more. It is supposed to be a membrane type material once you remove the foreskin, it changes.

Now maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think sex is a loving act and a sensual one. I see generations of young boys being brought up as "frak" machines, there's no sensuality, no love, no tenderness, just sex with anything and everything. I do personally feel the lack of sensitivity changes the dynamic. Much like wearing an extra thick condom does.

I'm not a parent yet. But, if that day comes, and it's a boy, unless they can show me an honest medical benefit from this (that can't be found practicing hygiene) I will be voting NO on lopping the end of his junk off. I believe my wife would agree but who can say until it's right there.

Now I'd like to see a random sample study showing the infection rates of cut men versus uncut men. What do I expect? no difference at all. What would I not be that surprised by? If the cut males carry more disease.

I'm not Jewish, there is no medical benefit, so I can't see a point at all.
edit on 5-10-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Well... as I said ... in my particular case ..... the type of procedure they preformed did not cause any physical or emotional distress.......

If anything..... the fricken vaccine shots he got a few months later is what cause physical and emotional distress

And wouldn't you say taking of a small piece of skin is relatively harmless .....especially if it's possible that it can cause problems later on in life?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
To each their own.


Funny coming from a person that denied that right to his own son by cutting his penis to shreds before he was able to understand what was done to him.

It IS child abuse but your cultural background prevents you from seeing OR admitting that. That's fine but don't expect non indoctrinated people to accept it as something normal.
edit on 5-10-2011 by FriendlyGopher because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Some studies used by pro-circumcision advocates may claim a risk reduction of x %, but what they wont tell you is that the likelihood of catching the penile infection in question is very low either way, not to mention that most are easily treatable. Thus the prevention factor in negligible.

On the other hand, they will state small rate for complications of neonatal cirmumcision, but ommit the crucial difference that it applies to all circumcised babies, which easily could be millions, thus even low risk will lead to thousands of affected children.

Dont fix it, if its not broken.

Studies can be found to support one or the other conclusion. Research the opinion of actual pediatric associations to reveal the truth. These usually do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
edit on 5/10/11 by Maslo because: typo



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FriendlyGopher
 





It IS child abuse


Obviously it's NOT.

Otherwise me and millions of others would be in jail.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Maybe you should have got your child pierced and a few tattoos too to go with the mutilated genitalia??

It may be legal...but its not right


If it aint broke dont fix it



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
As far as the child not having a choice.

What about the vaccinations that babies are pumped full of on a daily basis, do they get a choice on that? I think the complaints need to be streamlined, and base the decisions off of facts, not feelings.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 


Let's not talk about vaccinations, that's a whole other beast and will totally derail the thread.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skewed
As far as the child not having a choice.

What about the vaccinations that babies are pumped full of on a daily basis, do they get a choice on that? I think the complaints need to be streamlined, and base the decisions off of facts, not feelings.



Vaccinations do not have any permanent lifetime effects (except the desired immunity, of course).



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 


But vaccinations have a purpose and protect the child at the age of a child. Circumcision doesn't stop someone getting an STD until they have sex...when they should not be a child anymore...hence they don't need it at childhood.

By the time circumcision is to have an effect (which is negligible anyway) the person is old enough to decide for themself.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join