Circumcision

[prepstudinsc]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@Oct 23 2005, 08:59 AM
Prepstud and Sam, I find it of interest that the only part of that post you focused on was the "trauma" part, which I think is the least of the problems in the issue. A newborn experiences lots of trauma early on - the birth process itself is traumatic (the reason a baby has a soft spot on his head is so that the skull can flatten out to get through the birth canal). The part that I found especially disturbing is that the doctors are expected to sneak in a consent form amongst a pile of other paperwork, with NO discussion, and get a mother to sign it (most likely when she is really not in any condition to be reading and understanding and signing consent forms.) A woman giving birth for the first time probably has no clue what is going on.

Even so, no supporters as yet have answered the questions I posed in my posts #39, #68, #70, and #73. Will anyone take a stab at it?

[post=354505]Quoted post[/post]​

Do you think that parents have not talked about this beforehand? A circumcision is something that is usually talked about before the baby is born, just like names are discussed. It's not like it's a last minute decision. Parents usually have decided if they are going to have their baby boy cut or not.

 

[prepstudinsc]

Originally posted by Pye@Oct 23 2005, 01:48 PM

And Prepstud? If you had known about your friends' intention to circumcise their infant did any of what has been written in this post even give you any pause to inform your friends about the circ debate? Or are you dismissing this as foolishness by a bunch of angry guys?

My main concern lies with the lack of CHOICE and the general acceptance of this as a standard practice.

[post=354559]Quoted post[/post]​

A bunch of us had talked about this before their baby was born. They had decided before that he would be cut. All the guys of our group are cut and we talked that if we had babies we would all have them cut, too.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by prepstudinsc+Oct 23 2005, 02:57 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prepstudinsc &#064; Oct 23 2005, 02:57 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DC_DEEP@Oct 23 2005, 08:59 AM

Even so, no supporters as yet have answered the questions I posed in my posts #39, #68, #70, and #73.  Will anyone take a stab at it?

[post=354505]Quoted post[/post]​

Do you think that parents have not talked about this beforehand? A circumcision is something that is usually talked about before the baby is born, just like names are discussed. It&#39;s not like it&#39;s a last minute decision. Parents usually have decided if they are going to have their baby boy cut or not.

[post=354573]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
I feel fairly comfortable saying that some have probably discussed it, and some have not. Not everyone is as well-informed as are you and I. Some expectant parents just do not have a clue. That&#39;s one of the reasons I find the "no discussion" aspect of handing them the consent forms to be a bit unethical. And still no takers on the aforementioned posts. I doubt I will get any response.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by prepstudinsc@Oct 23 2005, 07:00 PM
A bunch of us had talked about this before their baby was born. They had decided before that he would be cut. All the guys of our group are cut and we talked that if we had babies we would all have them cut, too.

[post=354574]Quoted post[/post]​

why am I not surprised that all your friends are equally retarded. what a depressing display.

 

[prepstudinsc]

Hmmmm.....a bunch of retarded people with 6+ years of college, Masters degrees and IQ&#39;s all above 150.

I don&#39;t think that wanting a baby circumcised makes anyone retarded. It&#39;s a choice. You feel it&#39;s a wrong one, I happen to feel that it is fine and nothing will make me change my mind. Considering that my father and mother are (well, my father was before his death) medical professionals and they found no problem with the procedure, I have had no problems being cut, and I like the way it works and feels, being cut is just fine for any of my offspring.

 

[GoneA]

The whole of circumcision, to me, seems pretty random. I agree with Matthew, to say it is mutilation is quite an overstatement. However, doing it seems a bit much and unnecessary.

 

[Irvy]

Perhaps, if I have children, since I can do whatever I want to their bodies until they&#39;re old enough to decide for themselves, I&#39;ll have them all circumcised, male or female.

And why stop there? It&#39;s my body, legally, so I can do as many permanent and irreversible things as I wish. I think I&#39;ll have 666 tattooed on all of their foreheads, and "No Entry" tattooed on their ass cheeks. I know the peer pressure a young person can feel when all their friends have tattoos, and they don&#39;t, so I&#39;ll save them that, and make the other bastards feel jealous of my kids.

I&#39;ll give all the boys PA&#39;s, and clitoral piercings for the girls. No particular reason, I&#39;ve just decided that that&#39;s what I want for my kids, since I can do whatever I want with them. I&#39;ll also pierce their nipples, but that&#39;s for sound safety reasons. See, since I have full control over their lives, I&#39;m going to start them to work cleaning chimneys when they&#39;re 5, and we can attach a safety harness to the piercings, to ensure their safety.

Since they&#39;ll be in hospital anyway, I&#39;ll save myself some time, and since they won&#39;t remember the pain, I&#39;ll have their appendix, tonsils and anything else that they don&#39;t really need and could do without removed. After all, I&#39;m their father, and I&#39;ve had both my appendix and my tonsils removed, so they&#39;d find it hard to relate to me if they were left in possession of those organs.

It&#39;s so great that, being a parent, you can choose to permanently scar and alter your children&#39;s bodies with no consent, no thought for their future wishes, and nobody can ever say a thing about it&#33;

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by prepstudinsc@Oct 23 2005, 11:22 PM
Hmmmm.....a bunch of retarded people with 6+ years of college, Masters degrees and IQ&#39;s all above 150.

[post=354649]Quoted post[/post]​

well, they certainly don&#39;t get much more retarded than that.

 

[robertomuro]

Originally posted by Irvy@Oct 24 2005, 04:15 AM
Perhaps, if I have children, since I can do whatever I want to their bodies until they&#39;re old enough to decide for themselves, I&#39;ll have them all circumcised, male or female.

And why stop there? It&#39;s my body, legally, so I can do as many permanent and irreversible things as I wish. I think I&#39;ll have 666 tattooed on all of their foreheads, and "No Entry" tattooed on their ass cheeks. I know the peer pressure a young person can feel when all their friends have tattoos, and they don&#39;t, so I&#39;ll save them that, and make the other bastards feel jealous of my kids.

I&#39;ll give all the boys PA&#39;s, and clitoral piercings for the girls. No particular reason, I&#39;ve just decided that that&#39;s what I want for my kids, since I can do whatever I want with them. I&#39;ll also pierce their nipples, but that&#39;s for sound safety reasons. See, since I have full control over their lives, I&#39;m going to start them to work cleaning chimneys when they&#39;re 5, and we can attach a safety harness to the piercings, to ensure their safety.

Since they&#39;ll be in hospital anyway, I&#39;ll save myself some time, and since they won&#39;t remember the pain, I&#39;ll have their appendix, tonsils and anything else that they don&#39;t really need and could do without removed. After all, I&#39;m their father, and I&#39;ve had both my appendix and my tonsils removed, so they&#39;d find it hard to relate to me if they were left in possession of those organs.

It&#39;s so great that, being a parent, you can choose to permanently scar and alter your children&#39;s bodies with no consent, no thought for their future wishes, and nobody can ever say a thing about it&#33;

[post=354670]Quoted post[/post]​

My point exactly.. I would be interested to know why the pro-circ guys here don&#39;t do the tonsils, the appendix and give them gromits at the same time.

 

[Pye]

Originally posted by prepstudinsc@Oct 23 2005, 07:22 PM
Hmmmm.....a bunch of retarded people with 6+ years of college, Masters degrees and IQ&#39;s all above 150.

I don&#39;t think that wanting a baby circumcised makes anyone retarded. It&#39;s a choice. You feel it&#39;s a wrong one, I happen to feel that it is fine and nothing will make me change my mind. Considering that my father and mother are (well, my father was before his death) medical professionals and they found no problem with the procedure, I have had no problems being cut, and I like the way it works and feels, being cut is just fine for any of my offspring.

[post=354649]Quoted post[/post]​

You&#39;re post shows that you have either not read all the posts here or that you are completely ignorant. Yes you might have over a 150 IQ...doubtful considering this post you made. Good for me good enough for my kids...most people want better for their children. Why would you have your children circed? Just because you are? I hope you see there is a fault in your logic. As an intelligent person you should see it.

I don&#39;t think circumcision is a right or wrong choice-- it&#39;s just not one that parents should be making for their infants. I believe that it should be beyond their realm.

 

[GoneA]

Originally posted by Irvy@Oct 24 2005, 02:15 AM
Perhaps, if I have children, since I can do whatever I want to their bodies until they&#39;re old enough to decide for themselves, I&#39;ll have them all circumcised, male or female.

And why stop there? It&#39;s my body, legally, so I can do as many permanent and irreversible things as I wish. I think I&#39;ll have 666 tattooed on all of their foreheads, and "No Entry" tattooed on their ass cheeks. I know the peer pressure a young person can feel when all their friends have tattoos, and they don&#39;t, so I&#39;ll save them that, and make the other bastards feel jealous of my kids.

I&#39;ll give all the boys PA&#39;s, and clitoral piercings for the girls. No particular reason, I&#39;ve just decided that that&#39;s what I want for my kids, since I can do whatever I want with them. I&#39;ll also pierce their nipples, but that&#39;s for sound safety reasons. See, since I have full control over their lives, I&#39;m going to start them to work cleaning chimneys when they&#39;re 5, and we can attach a safety harness to the piercings, to ensure their safety.

Since they&#39;ll be in hospital anyway, I&#39;ll save myself some time, and since they won&#39;t remember the pain, I&#39;ll have their appendix, tonsils and anything else that they don&#39;t really need and could do without removed. After all, I&#39;m their father, and I&#39;ve had both my appendix and my tonsils removed, so they&#39;d find it hard to relate to me if they were left in possession of those organs.

It&#39;s so great that, being a parent, you can choose to permanently scar and alter your children&#39;s bodies with no consent, no thought for their future wishes, and nobody can ever say a thing about it&#33;

[post=354670]Quoted post[/post]​

lmao, if you wanted to know.

 

[13788]

Jace: I had to laugh at the"doctors) response. How the hell can ANY female know whether there is a decrease in sensitivity in a circumcised penis?? How many females do you know that have a penis to know anything at all about one. You can read all you want and talk to as many men as you want but you NEVER know for sure until you have a penis of your own.

I also think it&#39;s a bit strange that this "Doctors" views are so paralell to those of the poster.

Irvy, why are you so angry?? Any one that was cut at birth can go through restoration of their foreskin if having one is so important. I have lived both ways and know thw agony first hand of having problems with a foreskin. I can only wish that my parents would have had me and my brothers cut at birth. Mine was done when I was 14 and my brothers have all had theirs done since they left home. I like mine much better and so do my brothers, yes we have discussed it at great length. I have 4 nephews and they were all cut at birth at their fathers request. If I ever have a male child, which I doubt will happen, he will be cut at birth and there is nothing anyone can say to get me to change my mind. Remember I have been on both sides and remember very vividly the pain I had to endure for 14 years.
One more thing, when they did my circumcision, I didn&#39;t feel a thing, in fact I laid on the table and watch the doctor do it. I wasn&#39;t traumatised by having it done either.

 

[Pye]

Originally posted by Jace@Oct 24 2005, 01:08 AM
I had to laugh at the"doctors) response. How the hell can ANY female know whether there is a decrease in sensitivity in a circumcised penis?? How many females do you know that have a penis to know anything at all about one. You can read all you want and talk to as many men as you want but you NEVER know for sure until you have a penis of your own.

I also think it&#39;s a bit strange that this "Doctors" views are so paralell to those of the poster.

Irvy, why are you so angry?? Any one that was cut at birth can go through restoration of their foreskin if having one is so important. I have lived both ways and know thw agony first hand of having problems with a foreskin. I can only wish that my parents would have had me and my brothers cut at birth. Mine was done when I was 14 and my brothers have all had theirs done since they left home. I like mine much better and so do my brothers, yes we have discussed it at great length. I have 4 nephews and they were all cut at birth at their fathers request. If I ever have a male child, which I doubt will happen, he will be cut at birth and there is nothing anyone can say to get me to change my mind. Remember I have been on both sides and remember very vividly the pain I had to endure for 14 years.
One more thing, when they did my circumcision, I didn&#39;t feel a thing, in fact I laid on the table and watch the doctor do it. I wasn&#39;t traumatised by having it done either.

[post=354725]Quoted post[/post]​

Was your pain due to you having a foreskin that was too tight? If you had been educatied about a foreskin you would have known all about how to take care of that-- maybe your parents could have been more open about it-- instead you choose to decide FOR your children

 

[13788]

Jace: No, my foreskin was attached to the coronal ridge as well as the meatus of my penis, There was no retracting my foreskin. And I don&#39;t think there was anything that I could do to correct that, even if I had as you say "been educated about foreskin". You see a little cream and stretching exercises is not a cure all for problematic foreskin. And just for the record, my penis almost doubled in size after my foreskin was removed. Don&#39;t try and put that increase on puberty either as I did not get pubic hair or pit hair until I was 17, I was a very late bloomer. I&#39;m not sayin that circumcision is a cure all for anything but it would at least eliminate any future problems with a childs foreskin.
That&#39;s my opinion and it differs with a lot of other people here but we are all entitled to our opinions.

On a different note, I have a friend whose Dad was born (in 1942) without a foreskin, so what choice did he have?? He was born at home and had never been to a doctor when he was drafted. I&#39;ve seen his medical records from the Army and it is documented in those records that he never had a foreskin. His penis looks cut but there is absolutely no scar tissue to be found on his penis. How many times has something like this happened?? I don&#39;t know, but it blows the hell out of "the way it&#39;s supposed to be" theory.
There is a theory in the medical community that if a body part is not needed anymore that it will eventually disappear from newborns. There have been reported cases of people being born without an appendix and some without tonsils.
Maybe the same thing will happen with foreskins??

 

[prepstudinsc]

One of my friends was born without a foreskin, too. It&#39;s a genetic condition that all the men in his family have. His father, uncle, and all his brothers have it.
One day at the gym, while changing, he said something about being uncut. I looked over at him and said, "you&#39;re not uncut." He showed me his dick, and said, " where&#39;s the scar?" I said, "well, I don&#39;t see one, but they often fade--mine is very light." So he proceeded to show me that he has just the most minute amount of foreskin--it just barely covers the coronal ridge when he&#39;s soft. It looks like he&#39;s loosely cut. He said that it&#39;s a genetic condition that runs in his family, and that even one of his nephews had it, too. He said he was glad because it spared him having to be circumcised, but that the rest of his family was all cut.
Strange situations...

 

[robertomuro]

Originally posted by Jace@Oct 24 2005, 07:35 AM
No, my foreskin was attached to the coronal ridge as well as the meatus of my penis, There was no retracting my foreskin. And I don&#39;t think there was anything that I could do to correct that, even if I had as you say "been educated about foreskin". You see a little cream and stretching exercises is not a cure all for problematic foreskin. And just for the record, my penis almost doubled in size after my foreskin was removed. Don&#39;t try and put that increase on puberty either as I did not get pubic hair or pit hair until I was 17, I was a very late bloomer. I&#39;m not sayin that circumcision is a cure all for anything but it would at least eliminate any future problems with a childs foreskin.
That&#39;s my opinion and it differs with a lot of other people here but we are all entitled to our opinions.

On a different note, I have a friend whose Dad was born (in 1942) without a foreskin, so what choice did he have?? He was born at home and had never been to a doctor when he was drafted. I&#39;ve seen his medical records from the Army and it is documented in those records that he never had a foreskin. His penis looks cut but there is absolutely no scar tissue to be found on his penis. How many times has something like this happened?? I don&#39;t know, but it blows the hell out of "the way it&#39;s supposed to be" theory.
There is a theory in the medical community that if a body part is not needed anymore that it will eventually disappear from newborns. There have been reported cases of people being born without an appendix and some without tonsils.
Maybe the same thing will happen with foreskins??

[post=354740]Quoted post[/post]​

Adhesions are most commonly caused by forced retraction at a young age before the foreskin has seperated by itself. It occurs commonly in the USA due to the fact that parents & doctors quite often do not know any better and forcibly try to retract it for "cleaning" and other interesting things like that.

Your points are actually quite humerous, let me deal with them quickly:

1) The female doctor has studied and done research in human anatomy. She even stated it was a personal interest of hers. There have been various studies on sensitivity as well as pretty much every aspect of the Circ vs Uncirc debate. I don&#39;t think it takes much of a degree in anything to see what that happens though. Between the frenulum (to various degrees) and the muscosal tissue being removed as well as the keritinisation of the glans it would seem a pretty logical statement to me.

2) People are born without various things including hearts, brains, livers etc etc.. This does not mean these people are the next evolutionary step anymore than a lack of foreskin or tonsils especially as tonsils have now been recognised to have a function in the body. The only difference being that people born without tonsils, foreskins etc.. tend to live whereas those withouts hearts etc don&#39;t. Secondly, if you are born without something then that&#39;s the way you were born and none of your rights were violated. So in summary, WTF are you trying to get at?

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by prepstudinsc
Hmmmm.....a bunch of retarded people with 6+ years of college, Masters degrees and IQ&#39;s all above 150.

Using IQ scores as a gross index to assess this rarity, those with IQ&#39;s of 150 and above occur about 5-7 times out of 10,000 persons.

Ivy Leaguers, I reckon?

 

[prepstudinsc]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick+Oct 24 2005, 08:35 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Oct 24 2005, 08:35 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-prepstudinsc
Hmmmm.....a bunch of retarded people with 6+ years of college, Masters degrees and IQ&#39;s all above 150. 

Using IQ scores as a gross index to assess this rarity, those with IQ&#39;s of 150 and above occur about 5-7 times out of 10,000 persons.

Ivy Leaguers, I reckon?

[post=354812]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

All private schoolers...and other than the females, all circumcised.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Jace+Oct 24 2005, 01:08 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jace &#064; Oct 24 2005, 01:08 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I had to laugh at the"doctors) response. How the hell can ANY female know whether there is a decrease in sensitivity in a circumcised penis?? How many females do you know that have a penis to know anything at all about one. You can read all you want and talk to as many men as you want but you NEVER know for sure until you have a penis of your own.

I also think it&#39;s a bit strange that this "Doctors" views are so paralell to those of the poster.

Irvy, why are you so angry?? Any one that was cut at birth can go through restoration of their foreskin if having one is so important. I have lived both ways and know thw agony first hand of having problems with a foreskin. I can only wish that my parents would have had me and my brothers cut at birth. Mine was done when I was 14 and my brothers have all had theirs done since they left home. I like mine much better and so do my brothers, yes we have discussed it at great length. I have 4 nephews and they were all cut at birth at their fathers request. If I ever have a male child, which I doubt will happen, he will be cut at birth and there is nothing anyone can say to get me to change my mind. Remember I have been on both sides and remember very vividly the pain I had to endure for 14 years.
One more thing, when they did my circumcision, I didn&#39;t feel a thing, in fact I laid on the table and watch the doctor do it. I wasn&#39;t traumatised by having it done either.

[post=354725]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

A female can know about desensitization because of her training and her clinical experience. Do you claim that childbirth is not painful, simply because you have never given birth? And what is strange about the doctor&#39;s views being parallel to mine? Implying I lied? If your circumcision was so painless, then why not allow the person who owns the foreskin make the decision? You keep reinforcing my point. Your circumcision was obviously medically necessary. That is not what we have been discussing here, if you failed to realize that. We are discussion the routine removal, not medically necessary removal. By the way, I find it more than just a little strange that you will not address the questions I raised in an earlier post. I have asked 4 time for you to address those questions. Do you have no answer at all?

<!--QuoteBegin-Jace@Oct 24 2005, 01:35 AM
On a different note, I have a friend whose Dad was born (in 1942) without a foreskin, so what choice did he have?? He was born at home and had never been to a doctor when he was drafted. I&#39;ve seen his medical records from the Army and it is documented in those records that he never had a foreskin. His penis looks cut but there is absolutely no scar tissue to be found on his penis. How many times has something like this happened?? I don&#39;t know, but it blows the hell out of "the way it&#39;s supposed to be" theory.
There is a theory in the medical community that if a body part is not needed anymore that it will eventually disappear from newborns. There have been reported cases of people being born without an appendix and some without tonsils.
Maybe the same thing will happen with foreskins??

[post=354740]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]
Good for your friend&#39;s dad. No one altered his penis, he got to keep it just the way he was born with it. And the theory in the medical community that if a body part is no longer needed, it will eventually disappear, also reinforces my points. Can it be argued that the converse is true? That if it has NOT disappeared, then there is a reason for it still to be there? Is that a basis for playing god and modifying the body in a way that you KNOW god or evolution will eventually take us?

 

[Irvy]

I&#39;m not angry at all. It&#39;s this funny thing called humour, perhaps they&#39;re still rolling that out in the US.

The point I was making is that if now, as an adult, someone came along and forced a medical procedure on you against your will, and that procedure was permanent, it would be a violation. There&#39;s nothing wrong with getting tattoos, or piercings, but to have it forced on you against your will would be wrong. Why then do we defend our rights to permanently scar our childrens bodies based on what WE want, not on what they want, or may want in the future? How many things do we cut off in the slim chance that they may develop a problem with it in 20 years time?