It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 07:46 AM
Just reread all of my posts on this and realized I forgot to mention some things.

No, I don't beleive circumsion should be government funded, unless medically required.

I also am not a supporter of neonatal circumsion, I personally think it should be your child's choice later in life, but I DO support parent's choice to make medical decisions for their children

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 07:49 AM
reply to post by RogerT

You should probably do the same and not force your opinion on anyone else for something you have not experienced or understand.

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:12 AM
The infection/bacteria argument is equally applicable to women who are generally more prone to yeast infections than men.

Accordingly, advocating male natal circumcision is essentially advocating female natal circumcision likewise. Yet why is noone in here arguing for that?

Because culturally we all abhor the concept.

Finally, its unlikely to be accurately determined which is subjectively "better" since neither camp has conscious experience of the other.
edit on 6-10-2011 by naghammadi because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:18 AM
I wouldn't have the heart to subject a son to it. Thankfully, I have a daughter and didn't have to fend off the knife. I don't remember the pain, but I can't be certain it didn't leave a psychological scar. My mental damage may have come from the rest of my parents' behavior. As far as the bedroom goes, I have control, so I can't say anything bad about the nerve situation. I would think a foreskin would be irritating and time consuming, but this is just my imagination. As I am, I never think about my penis until it's time.

Religion seems to me an early attempt at science, law, and crowd control. It's a bit painfully primitive to read, but here's some New Testament stuff. It gets pretty silly.

But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
edit on 6-10-2011 by gentledissident because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Mcupobob
Well there is medical reasons for it. If you don't get circumcised it can lead to complications later on and end up having to doing it anyways.

The medical reasons are relatively small and when you get outside of America the medical information seems to dry up, curiously. The historical reasons for it it alone are enough to take a closer look at it. I'm aware of the issues, many of which clear themselves up on their own without intervention. The reasoning is little consolation when considering cutting part of the penis off before any known problem occurs.

Again circumcision does not reduce pleasure. The foreskin is there to protect the penis and rolls back when harden and has nothing to do with intercourse.

There's a number of people who disagree with you, so don't hold it against me if I don't take your word for it. I could provide a number of sources and reasons why it does, but google is a handy tool.

Hygiene is also easier to maintain compared to uncircumcised penis, which means you don't have to worry about a little boys tackle getting infected because a dirty foreskin. You will say its not hard to keep up on washing but try telling that to little kid.

Well, I have 4 children, 3 of whom are boys (11, 8, and 2 years old). None of them are circumcised and all of whom I've taught how to clean and care for their penises (well the 2 year old still has me do it, but you get my point). We aren't living in caves, so cleanliness is not a difficult problem to overcome. The vagina can become quite the dirty area too if not kept clean. If anything, women have more problems with cleanliness than men do and I don't see people advocating prevention by the knife.

The points are moot and the evidence is lacking on the side of circumcision, at the very least in respect to it not being needed at birth. It certainly is something that can wait, at the very least, until the child is able to help in the choice for themselves.

The penis is among the most important element to any man's body, so I'm not eager to have a doctor cut at it unless I really feel it's needed.

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:19 AM
one of my sons circumcision did go wrong .
And honstly even though 17 years have going by I am still mad .First I singed off on a male doctor to do it.
No offense ladys but equality only goes so far . anyway this nurse decided she would do it instead used a old tool that is no longer used and cut more off then just the foreskin.
Yea she cut off the tip theres one persons name ill never forget.
needless to say my 17 is very well off .
But If i was having another male child I would Have it done with him as well> I would just insist on being in teh room to be sure no mistakes like this happened.
No matter which way you CUT it (lol) it does help prevent sickness .You talk about being sure its kept clean well tahts a fine ideal to have but almost impossible to live up to .
Face it man (yes i am one can be slobs can skip showers . Can shake but not stir the water after .
My belief is your rights end were someone elses rights begin and you dont have the right to infect someone just because you forgot to wash

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:29 AM

Originally posted by A-Dub
Jeez people want to argue about this when there are much more important things in the world.

Uncirced units look uglier to most girls in the modern world (go ahead and ask them if you dont believe me) they smell worse, and are definitely more prone to yeast and urinary tract infections.

Hard to say about the sensitivity, it still feels great to me so no problems there. Id imagine having it done later it life would decrease sensitivity.

And a lot of people like to say "its so painful look at the baby just cry away!" well... I sure dont remember getting it done and I guarantee not a single one of you remember it getting done at birth either, and id prefer it that way.

So I dont know about all of you but im thankful my parents decided to have it done for me.

Way to go for not reading the thread! (or ignoring more than half the posts).
American, Jewish and Muslim girls might like a cut dick better (source?) but I can assure you, in countries/cultures that don't routinely remove useful healthy pieces of flesh from newborns, it's not a given.
Uncut dicks may smell worse if the person doesn't clean themselves, that's valid. From the posts here, it seems that pro-circ people are not all that keen on the requirement of hygeine for disease and infection control, they would rather use the knife. Is that lazy, mis-informed or just really f'd up?
Prone to disease? Where is your evidence? Many here will not agree with that point and no-one has brought forth any convincing evidence to back up your (false?) belief.
Of course it is hard to say for you about sensitivity, you have nothing to compare with. The study conducted and published in BJU Intl. did have comparitive samples and the conclusion was not in favor of your belief, sorry.
Not remembering the pain does not mean the baby doesn't experience it. Aren't psychologists mostly in agreement that subconscious memories are far more powerful at influencing our lives than conscious ones?
According to some research (see Bruce Lipton as a starting point), our subconscious beliefs about life (which control most of our behaviour, health and ideas) are pretty much fully formed by the age of 6, and possibly 50% formed in utero, so it may well be a pivotal moment in life to be strapped to a surgical bench under bright lights without anasthesia and have a slice of your body removed by massive scary beings wearing masks.
How this might manifest in later life you simply don't know.

And for what? So your son can look less natural and more 'Barbie and Ken' like you and the other kids? Shame!
edit on 6/10/11 by RogerT because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:34 AM
This is one of the first times (certainly not the first) that I have regretted offering up a topic for discussion.

Let me explain why.

There's a difference in the world between what people want, and what they need.

There are reasons which might compel someone to make a choice, or not.

Oddly, those who chose one way as opposed to another seem to find some sense of emotional and social gratification in characterizing those who choose differently as either wrong or stupid. Further, as the group in the discussion coalesces, those looking for affirmation and recognition, seem inclined to, almost gleefully, extend the boundary of the disagreement by casting personal aspersions on those who disagree.

Describing the act of circumcision as abuse or mutilation is clearly hyperbole. If the goal is to assess the true need for circumcision, one has to eliminate the desire to speak in memes and characterizations and recognize the disagreement for what it is.

So far we have seen statistics both for and against the practice; neither of which either side will accept as valid. We have seen comparisons of 'ritual' circumcision which - because it is religiously inspired, cannot be rationally discussed. We certainly know that in either case, there are risks which exist independently of the act. Any surgical procedure, no matter how minimally invasive or common, has risks associated with it, and similarly, other than abstinence, there are no guarantees that any sex is safe.

I see both sides of the argument stretching and reaching for justifications why the other side is abjectly devoid of validity.

In the end however, few are convinced either way. I suspect that this argument, relying on everything from exaggerations to broad generalizations, to state that it is a 'wrong' to either do it, or not do it. People (men) who are and aren't circumcised do not want to be told that theirs is the 'wrong' way. Understandable if we associate the event with some value outside the factors the other side is willing to accept as relevant.

Is their ego involved in the debate. Apparently so. No one seems to appreciate their 'decisions' for their child or themselves, to be subject to such a determination as 'should have' or 'shouldn't have.'

I propose that this is an emotional topic, not immediately pertinent to more pressing items in the pantheon of demons haunting the human condition.

When I contributed this topic for discussion, I was interested only in the idea that the medical community seems to be zeroing in on a 'policy' and they are using the preferred statistical tools to make their case more compelling. All I have managed to discover is that there are - within the medical community - those who are not of like mind from the medical community. Perhaps this can be revisited when the rebuttal statistics are published; as I am certain they will be. Dare I post that? I may not. I'm not interested in watching us bicker and argue over insubstantial elements of subjective opinions and ethical dogmas that we don't all share.

At any rate, thanks everyone for the exchange. Day by day we are learning to better communicate with each other; I think that's the beginning of progress.

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:35 AM
I wonder how many right wingers who are against a "welfare state" are pissed off because the state will no longer be funding circumcisions.

You can't have it both ways, JesusFreaks!

Ok, there's my abrasive and short sighted comment for the day. Phew, good to get that out before the sun has fully risen. Now I'm off to MARCH!
edit on 6-10-2011 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:40 AM

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
reply to post by RogerT

You should probably do the same and not force your opinion on anyone else for something you have not experienced or understand.


I corrected a guy who stated that the foreskin isn't involved in the sexual act because it doesn't cover an erect glans.
He's wrong - it does.
OK, so it's my opinion but it's also fact, unless you'd like to correct my lack of understanding with an explanation of how one can have sex without involving the foreskin (without being cut or mechanically covering up the foreskin in some way)?

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:42 AM
reply to post by Maxmars

After recent stubbies carried out in the us and abroad. The US government knows that a certian area under the foreskin is highly suceptable to HIV infection. By pulling back the area and removing it via circumcision it removes this highly infecious piece of skin.

Men usually are infected at this location due to female secretion with the infection which is absorbed into this area of the penis.

This is why the were pushing heavly to circumsize young african boys to reduce the infection rates.

edit on 6-10-2011 by Rocky Black because: typos

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:55 AM
That sounds like a crock. I'd like to see the data from those studies. Source please

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:29 AM
Well as a Brit, I really don't see the point. It's not done over here generally, other than for religious or medical reasons. We don't have a higher or lower STD rate than most of the western world and as for doing it for hygiene reasons.. just WASH for Christ's sake! It could also be argued (and I think this is the general European view) that the foreskin is there for a reason, to protect the glans and keep dirt etc away.

The way I see it, if you're born with it and it's not causing problems, keep it! I know, lets start cutting off babies ear lobes. There's an extra bit of skin they don't really need!

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:34 AM
Girls get yeast infections. Why don't we cut off their labia?

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:43 AM
I am not circumcised and I have never had any problems or infections, unless it was given by my partner because she got one after changing the scent of the fabric softener!

The trick: WASH YOURSELVES!!! Or your kids, and teach them the importance to clean that part of the body, as is any other one. If you want to use soap, use a non-perfumed one.

Have a healthy sex life, be cautious. And if you want to go to the sack with someone that screws everything that moves, well... I hardly see how circumcision will protect you.

Also, I remember the argument about the skin protecting against infections. Now it is served the other way around? And you have to make a clear decision based on that?

I say: Nature put it there for a reason. All the rest, aside from religious reasons, are strictly monetary ones...

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:48 AM
This is directed more so to the women here, which do not really have a stake in this debate as it is.

But, I wonder how many of you women out there are actually supporting this practice by putting it all over your faces.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:14 AM
IMO - If there is nothing wrong with it, don't "fix" it.
edit on 6/1010/11 by Elentarri because: link issue

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:20 AM
idk but i bet most of the world is not circumsised. i know im not and im still here.

no medical procedure should be caried out on anyone that isnt medicaly necasary without consent period.(atleast 18 yrs of age)(yes i include nose jobs etc)

non medicaly necasary procedures should not be paid for by insurance or tax money. individual choice =individual payment.

if circumsicion is such a good/beneficial idea than where are all the adults beating a path to the doctor for such a miracle panacea?

what about complications from medical procedures? if a few lose its ok according to a study we helped prevent stds maybe. not everyone is a slut and circumsised men carry pass on stds all the time. so sorry junior you died/got an infection/lost your willy as an infant but look at this study that concludes a lower % chance for transmission of a diseases that could easily have been prevented by handing out condoms in schools??? i cant believe anyone defends this barbaric practice. look up death stats from medical misadventure or presription drugs or incurable infections from unclean hospitals and realise any surgery is really big decision with some really big risks.

p.s. if your not cut you can lower these risks by simply wearing your junk with the turtle neck pulled down leaving the head exposed. duhh!!
edit on 6-10-2011 by citizen3273676 because: p.s.

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Elentarri
IMO - If there is nothing wrong with it, don't "fix" it.
edit on 6/1010/11 by Elentarri because: link issue

That's a great source of information.
Here is a snippet from that link - the original has a lot of supportive reference:

most men in the world and the great majority of men in Europe, Scandinavia, Central and South America and Asia are not circumcised?
"medical" infant circumcision was introduced to prevent masturbation?
until a few decades ago, female genital cutting was promoted in the western world for many of the same reasons as male circumcision?
infant circumcision was fashionable in the English-speaking world 50 years ago but is now rare (except in the US)?
babies are strapped down to be circumcised?
circumcision with a PlastiBellTM does involve cutting?
before the foreskin can be cut (or crushed) off, it must be torn away from the glans?
circumcision removes 50% of the skin of the penis?
circumcision removes the most sensitve part of the penis?
no national medical association anywhere in the world supports non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision (male or female) on medical grounds?

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by Maxmars

Describing the act of circumcision as abuse or mutilation is clearly hyperbole.

I get the feeling that you would not see it this way if we were discussing a small isolated culture that had just been discovered. If we came from a society that would never think of doing such a thing then wouldn't we find the practice barbaric? Like female 'circumcision'?

It is the commonality of circumcision that allows you to characterize the application of the words 'abuse' and 'mutilation' as hyperbole.

I propose that this is an emotional topic, not immediately pertinent to more pressing items in the pantheon of demons haunting the human condition.

I would like to suggest that you are just plain wrong. Circumcision has everything to do with the 'demons' haunting the human condition.

First off it is a cosmetic procedure; and an extremely painful one, to boot. A decision that should be left to each individual.

Secondly, why, why, why must this be a male child's introduction to the world? To have a steel clamp placed on his dick in order to have part of his sexual apparatus removed forcibly with no anesthesia?

Nothing to do with the demons haunting the human condition?

This is jaded and short sighted at best.

edit on 6-10-2011 by Frater210 because: ?>

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in