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.
Originally posted by toolstarr
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
You know damn well that breastfeeding is nature's way to feed a baby. Cutting the skin from around their penises is not natural. Apples to oranges dude. Your argument is null and void.
Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Certain STDs such as HPV and Herpes attack the foreskin more than the rest of the penis. A circumcised penis has a better chance at recovery and staying healthy because it has less foreskin. The case for AIDs reduction is simple as well. The foreskin in an uncircumcised penis has more surface area for the virus to penetrate. There is also the problem with the folding of the skin to hold in junk. Its common sense people.
I do however blame circumcision for the overpopulation of Earth, well we could blame medicine in general for that.
Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Originally posted by toolstarr
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
You know damn well that breastfeeding is nature's way to feed a baby. Cutting the skin from around their penises is not natural. Apples to oranges dude. Your argument is null and void.
Cutting the umbilical cord is not natural either, we are supposed to chew it off like animals. We are not animals however and we have recognized that our bodies have things that we do not need to survive and in some cases can make life harder, like foreskin.
Another reason to categorically reject Jesus: he wants infant boys to have their penises sliced open. SuperiorEd, you should call the big guy yourself and ask him if he needs a PR campaign. I think you'd do really, really great.
Originally posted by adraves
Originally posted by BIGPoJo
And that foreskin is analogous to a women's labia. What if cutting the labia off would prevent disease? Is it the right decision to cut it off without the child's knowledge or consent? Why can't the child be informed and make his own decision?
i know it is tradition, and there are benefits, but is it an acceptable thing to do?
Originally posted by adraves
reply to post by SuperiorEd
Based on that, then we shouldn't allow Cesarian sections because cutting women in any way isn't biblical. This is a different day and age than when the bible was written. Please stop posting replies about biblical/religious ideals.
Originally posted by SuperiorEd
LINK
Percentage decrease in HIV infections among a group of 20,000 men over age 15 from Orange Farm Township in South Africa who were offered free circumcision procedures as part of an AIDS prevention campaign that brought the proportion of circumcised men in the community from 16% to 50%. Previous clinical trials have demonstrated the protective effect of circumcision against contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections...
Genesis 17
We often wonder why God specifies the things He does in the OT. In this case, the answer is clear. It was to increase their numbers and to provide a healthier environment for childbearing. Most likely, it was also for the health of the woman as well. Yeast infections account for an entire host of problems which are solved with circumcision.
2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
Originally posted by King33
reply to post by OzWeatherman
Only if you wash it.
Originally posted by King33
reply to post by stumason
Well some people really dont,OK.
Originally posted by PaddyInf
Can't really comment on the mass gential mutilation/completely necessary removal of useless skin (delete as necessary) debate.
I was circumcised when I was in my early twenties. I had been doing what dirty little sods in their early twenties do, and was hanging out of every little scutter who would let me*.
Being from the UK I wasn't circumcised. I contracted a bit of c0ck rot, causing some rather nasty lesions in my foreskin. This created scar tissue and later some phimosis (tight foreskin). I got the infection cleared up (simple bacterial thing it turned out), and went to the doc about my now less than efficient winky. After some discussion we decided on a circumcision.
I must be honest, It wasn't the most pleasant thing to have done. My dingaling looked like it had been in a fight - bruised and swollen for a few days. After that I was hyper-sensitive around the glans for a couple of weeks. Sounds like great fun, but was at the stage where I needed to wear loose cloathes to reduce contact. However within about 2 weeks I was on top form. No problems at all. These days I have no issues. Indeed it is much easier to keep clean.
For my part I can only say that having the foreskin removed or keeping it intact makes absolutely no difference at all apart from an aesthetic point of view. No significant change in sexual feeling at all. No abdolut pros or cons of note.
To be frank I don't know what all the fuss is about.
*I no longer do such disgusting things (at least with out a little hood on!) and would not condone such actions amongst others, particularly in the Greater Belfast area.
Originally posted by PaddyInf
reply to post by FirstCasualty
No. What it means is that I believe that too many people blow the whole issue out of proportion. Surgery was sen as the least problematic of the treatment options available. Circumcision is not a big deal.