Charles Finn
Expert Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2006
- Posts
- 2,431
- Media
- 26
- Likes
- 202
- Points
- 193
- Location
- Toledo Ohio
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I imagine if he were sick, he'd probably not have a problem with that. Comparing that to removing healthy, highly functional tissue is another ridiculous analogy.Parent's have a right to have medical procedures performed if they feel it in the best interest of their child. What child do you know that would consent to removal of his tonsils?
No one's shoved any views down anyone's throat. Instead of popping up in every circumcision thread with the same predictable rudeness and vitriol, you should really consider taking your own advice.Here's an idea...MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. You don't have the right to tell parents not to circumcise their sons. If you don't want to have your sons(s) circumcised, good for you, don't shove your views down the throats of others.
I assume you're referring to RIC (routine infant circumcision) and not medically necessary or elective adult circumcision? What do you think the prospects are for something like that passing in San Francisco, or Berkeley for that matter? I'm not sure that a legal ban is wise or even feasible at this point either, certainly not nationally, though if I were in SF I would sign the petition and vote for it, to make a statement if nothing else.I was asked on Castro St. on Sunday to sign a petition to put on the fall ballot a measure to ban circumcision in San Francisco. I've been told that circumcision removes a lot of potential sexual pleasure from a male, but I'm still not ready to commit to having it legally banned, so I didn't sign.
...
Circumcision is primarily cosmetic in nature when you really think about it. It is supported by other reasons, such as social, medical, preventative etc. Biut at the end of the day, it is because parents prefer the cut look and want their son to have that improved look. They don't see it as mutilation, they see it as an improvement...
Can you provide any independent data, such as was provided in that other thread, to support your opinions? Why are you so intent on trying to discount the fact that fewer and fewer infant circumcisions are performed every year -- basing your belief on nothing but your own intuition and personal bias? What do you have to gain from that?The 33% number exists because it doesn't count circumcisions done seperately from the childbirth "contract". So it is underreporting the real number of boys getting the snip shortly after birth. What the real number is, I don't know. I think it is closer to 50 or 60%, and in some areas would still be at 80%.
This is probably the only thing you've ever said on this issue that I agree with.Circumcision is primarily cosmetic in nature when you really think about it.
How do you "improve" on nature? Don't you think that smacks of hubris? Can you name a few more perfectly healthy, functional body parts that are routinely chopped off in order to "improve" the human animal? Can you name even one?It is supported by other reasons, such as social, medical, preventative etc. Biut at the end of the day, it is because parents prefer the cut look and want their son to have that improved look. They don't see it as mutilation, they see it as an improvement.
You say it has "medical benefits" as if that's a given. It's not. The conclusions that suggest circumcision has any medical benefit whatsoever are based on weak and suspect science at best, if not totally bogus. There is other evidence to suggest that circumcision may actually result in the opposite effect put forward in those very limited recommendations. Furthermore, the recommendations are for a very few, very specific sub-Saharan African societies and don't translate to American social/sexual/hygienic practices at all. Advancing this as a justification for routine infant circumcision in the US is just clutching at straws.Considering that it does have medical benefits, when parents choose to get son done for cosmetic reasons, then the medical benefits are added for additional benefits.
Just because medical benefits alone do not justify widespread circumcision does not mean that when combined with other reasons, circumcision becomes justified. But this also means that the other reaons come from non medical (aka parents).
The 33% number exists because it doesn't count circumcisions done seperately from the childbirth "contract". So it is underreporting the real number of boys getting the snip shortly after birth. What the real number is, I don't know. I think it is closer to 50 or 60%, and in some areas would still be at 80%.
Circumcision is primarily cosmetic in nature when you really think about it. It is supported by other reasons, such as social, medical, preventative etc. Biut at the end of the day, it is because parents prefer the cut look and want their son to have that improved look. They don't see it as mutilation, they see it as an improvement.
Considering that it does have medical benefits, when parents choose to get son done for cosmetic reasons, then the medical benefits are added for additional benefits.
Just because medical benefits alone do not justify widespread circumcision does not mean that when combined with other reasons, circumcision becomes justified. But this also means that the other reaons come from non medical (aka parents).
Thus we can go to infinity. Most discussion theme in fact is personal-family decision.
Nobody can not refute the opinion of the other.
Facts are that circumcision is several thousand years old tradition,Jews and Muslims do it always,Americans do it about 100 years.Almost 70% african people are circumcised without religious reason.On the other side Latin-Americans and Europeans are never circumcised,except Bosnia and Turkey.
In this way we only can (personaly) agree or disagree with circumcision,Of course without insulting someone's feelings or tradition.