|
Post by ninjaearl on Apr 8, 2010 18:21:27 GMT -5
Later circumcision increases the risk for complications, and also defeats a lot of the purpose of it as far as enlargement goes. Neonatal circumcision has a <0.5% chance of complication when performed by a trained physician. Honestly though, if my kid can't respect 18 years of love, time, and provisions enough for it to outweigh something like being upset over circumcision, I would feel like I failed both myself and my child anyway. From what I've managed to find on the internet, there's only rumoured to be a slight size difference. Other than that, there's no concrete evidence. And even then, why would you care? Again, it's their body, why would you care about their penis size? If they want body modifications like penis enlargement, then they'll get it themselves. Why would you do it for them if they clearly might not appreciate it. And you have the right to feel like a failure. I would definitely feel like a failure for letting someone mutilate my child's most sensitive body part. As I said, not everyone appreciates it. Go ahead and circumcise your kids, but if they corner you because in the locker room, they noticed that they look different than all their friends, don't say I didn't warn you. Forgive me, because as I said, I feel violated, humiliated and abused based on the mutilation performed on me. I feel sickened and it makes me nauseous that anyone would do it to their child. It's proof that not everyone appreciates it. I'm TERRIBLY sorry if I'm showing concern because I don't want anyone else to experience the feelings I've had. The majority of U.S. childbirths receive circumcision last I checked. Also, when is anyone ever naked in a locker room? lolwot. Honestly, it comes down to preference, and if my child wants to nitpick so thoroughly about something that, on the large scale, is trivial, then he'd be free to wallow in his self pity all he wanted. As far as violation goes, parents are in charge of your feces for like a year and a half as well as most personal stuff; with that in mind, the idea of circumcision not being my choice doesn't really bother me. And as far as loss of nerve endings goes, I also could not really care less about my own personal pleasure as far as those ordeals go. But you're free to your own. If you feel like it was a violative choice, then be the change you want to see in the world and don't have your children be circumcised. There's nothing practical to be done about it now, and even if left uncircumcised later circumcisions simply just aren't as effective as neonatal ones :\ For the decision to be effective it really does, at least in my opinion, need to be made at birth, and so it boils down to the preference of parents. I don't usually let my outer appearances bother me, however, so even if I wasn't circumcised, I'm sure I'd be perfectly happy either way.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 8, 2010 18:28:26 GMT -5
The majority of U.S. childbirths receive circumcision last I checked. Good for you for finding that fact. It has nothing to do with anything, just more of an example of America's conservativeness. Also, when is anyone ever naked in a locker room? lolwot. You've obviously never played sports, gone swimming, etc. Honestly, it comes down to preference, and if my child wants to nitpick so thoroughly about something that, on the large scale, is trivial, then he'd be free to wallow in his self pity all he wanted. In other words, you just don't give a damn. A fine parent you would be, sir. [/sarcasm] As far as violation goes, parents are in charge of your feces for like a year and a half as well as most personal stuff; with that in mind, the idea of circumcision not being my choice doesn't really bother me. But the point is that it bothers OTHERS. Just because you could care less does not mean that others feel the same. You have to REALIZE this. Or maybe you just don't understand how a REMOVAL OF A BODY PART could possibly impact certain people. And as far as loss of nerve endings goes, I also could not really care less about my own personal pleasure as far as those ordeals go. But you're free to your own. If you feel like it was a violative choice, then be the change you want to see in the world and don't have your children be circumcised. I'm not having children. There's nothing practical to be done about it now, and even if left uncircumcised later circumcisions simply just aren't as effective as neonatal ones :\ For the decision to be effective it really does, at least in my opinion, need to be made at birth, and so it boils down to the preference of parents. I don't usually let my outer appearances bother me, however, so even if I wasn't circumcised, I'm sure I'd be perfectly happy either way. Some people have poor body images. You're going by the idea that EVERYONE wants to be circumcised. It's clearly not the case. Just because you don't have a problem with it doesn't mean other people will feel the same. HOW MANY TIMES MUST I REPEAT MYSELF? You just can't understand this and that's why I feel that you should never be a parent. You have no sympathy and no empathy and I hope I never speak to you in real life. You sir, frankly, disgust me.
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on Apr 8, 2010 18:31:20 GMT -5
I am not circumcised, and i like it that way. Just like some women fight for the right to choose, telling other people to stay away from their personal lives... I think people should stay away from my penis. Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by ninjaearl on Apr 8, 2010 18:36:13 GMT -5
I cited that the majority are circumcised because you gave an example where the circumcised were being ostracized as a minority.
As far as not giving a damn goes, I would care dearly for my children, but if they lack the ability to get over how they appear outwardly then there's nothing to be done that can change someone's mind.
I am actually on multiple sports teams, and underwear stays on in the locker rooms. It might be different where you are, but here nothing gets seen.
I completely understand that it bothers others, but my point is that it shouldn't. It shouldn't really make that big of a difference in the way someone lives their life. It's not a necessary body part, so it's not with malicious intent. I never said that everyone wants to be circumcised, I said it's the parents specific preferences and when it boils down to it, there's pretty much a 50% chance that the child will be upset no matter which option you take, further based upon the child's specific preferences. Honestly, the appearance of my genitalia doesn't really change the way I live my life, so, like I said, I would be happy either way. The only thing I may be failing to understand is how it can wind up actually affecting your life, since I've never worried too much about outer appearances. It sounds like you and I just have different prioritizing of values :\
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 8, 2010 19:27:59 GMT -5
It sounds like you and I just have different prioritizing of values :\ And because of that, I would heavily insist on you not imposing those values upon your children without their consent through an irreversible change.
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Apr 8, 2010 19:32:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 8, 2010 19:33:53 GMT -5
Show's over. I'm done. I don't want to talk about it anymore, it's pissing me off too much.
|
|
|
Post by ninjaearl on Apr 8, 2010 19:37:56 GMT -5
That's exactly it, though. If you don't get your child circumcised, then they are more or less stuck with being uncircumcised as much as you're stuck with being circumcised. Sure you can get it cut off later, but the growth aspect of it is out the window, and doing so after becoming sexually active also eliminates the benefit of reduced risk for AIDs. Either option you choose, your child is essentially stuck with that option, with room for only little variation from their predetermined appearance.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 8, 2010 19:46:54 GMT -5
That's exactly it, though. If you don't get your child circumcised, then they are more or less stuck with being uncircumcised as much as you're stuck with being circumcised. Sure you can get it cut off later, but the growth aspect of it is out the window, and doing so after becoming sexually active also eliminates the benefit of reduced risk for AIDs. Either option you choose, your child is essentially stuck with that option, with room for only little variation from their predetermined appearance. One last comment: Nothing you've said has ever been proven. Not one bit. The most I've ever found was from biased pro-circumcision sources. Aesthetically: Not everyone finds it attractive. It can be cut off later with less scarring. Length: Is a playground myth as far as I know. There is no credible source on it, and why are you concerned about your kid's penis length anyway? Some people don't care about length and others do. Those procedures to alter length can be done by the kids when they're older as their choice. AIDS: (see this link, it has a lot of good information: www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html). Final summation: Doctors shouldn't touch kid's dicks unless its an examination or there is an evident medical issue, not just possibly preventing a future medical issue. I don't think ANY part of a normal human body should be removed unless there's something wrong with it to the degree that it needs removal (i.e. appendectomies).
|
|
|
Post by ninjaearl on Apr 8, 2010 19:55:30 GMT -5
You're asking me why I care about lengths, while you bring up aesthetics as an issue. I threw out citing sources after I cited a government agency and you discarded it as "lolsuperbiased"
Oh, speaking of biased, >doctorsopposingcircumcision Seems legit.
Like I said, having it cut off later eliminates the benefits of it. Also, increasing length was the whole purpose of circumcision in the first place. While I'm all with you as far as not having anything altered, if there's something I can do to protect my child against diseases that won't have side effects on how he lives his life, I will opt to do what I can to protect him.
Regardless, some people are going to be upset either way you choose. Simply because you can cut it off later when uncircumcised does not change the fact that growth remains stunted and the risk for complications are increased. It's just as much of a trap to circumcise as it is not to circumcise, and it boils down to preference.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 8, 2010 19:59:53 GMT -5
Well, as I said, I'm done talking to you. I'm frustrated enough and I already hate my appearance enough and this has made it worse.
I should not have made this topic at all, because clearly what the parent wants with the child's body is more important than what the child wants with their own body. Obviously people shouldn't have a right to have their body intact. It's a vile, ancient tradition of amputation based around ancient superstition that needs to die.
With that said, I think your belief is disgusting and primitive and that consenting to circumcise your child is as good as cutting off their legs. If you want to put a newborn infant though all that pain based on what YOU want, then you are horrible, selfish, despicable and you don't deserve to be a parent.
- I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Apr 8, 2010 20:04:27 GMT -5
Well this has certainly become a heated debate. With neither side really caring what the other has to say! Awesome!
It seems to me that since performing circumcisions has become customary in many societies, doctors perform it without critically thinking about why (i.e. they've become zombies). It makes me wonder (and somewhat be afraid of) what other medical practices go on because of custom and escape scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by ninjaearl on Apr 8, 2010 20:09:56 GMT -5
That's what I was saying earlier though. If you're going to get hung up on outward appearances, then who's to say that if you weren't circumcised and everyone else was, you would be just as upset about not being circumcised? Honestly, I would have to say that for such a trivial matter as circumcision--which is best made at the neonatal stage--parents should have the right to choose. Either way they pick their child can *technically* alter the appearance. While you're right that you'll never get that small piece of you back, it wasn't really doing you any good to begin with. It's like crying over spilled milk, so to speak. I'm sorry that this thread has made you feel more upset with your appearance, but honestly your status of circumcision should not have that much of an influence on your life. I can't think of any situations in life where whether or not someone is circumcised is ever even called into question in a pivotal fork in the road. As far as remaining in tact goes, that's like saying you want more of your umbilical cord left hanging from your belly. I really don't see any logic behind your craving for a small flap of skin from a body part that is concealed the vast majority of your life span. Like I said, it boils down to personal preference, and I can understand your point of view, but honestly it does not make that big a difference either way. No one's life was ever ruined as a result of a--successful--circumcision procedure.
|
|
|
Post by ninjaearl on Apr 8, 2010 20:13:33 GMT -5
Well this has certainly become a heated debate. With neither side really caring what the other has to say! Awesome! It seems to me that since performing circumcisions has become customary in many societies, doctors perform it without critically thinking about why (i.e. they've become zombies). It makes me wonder (and somewhat be afraid of) what other medical practices go on because of custom and escape scrutiny. Actually, sorts of things come under scrutiny rather frequently (hence, this debate right now.) For example, some time ago--I believe the 1960's--doctors decided it'd be funsies to have mothers give birth laying down as opposed to traditional upright position that was practice for thousands of years (at the very least archived to be standard practice in the roman era.) This switch resulted in a massive spike in childbirth complications and mental retardation rates. They switched back sometime in the late '80s I believe. There are government agencies for investigating such things though, namely the center for disease control (as far as birth defects go.)
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 8, 2010 20:14:10 GMT -5
Somebody else take over in the argument, the guy clearly doesn't get it.
Either that or lock/delete the topic.
|
|
|
Post by ninjaearl on Apr 8, 2010 20:25:40 GMT -5
Somebody else take over in the argument, the guy clearly doesn't get it. Either that or lock/delete the topic. Is that some tribe level 3 I'm seeing?
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Apr 8, 2010 20:36:54 GMT -5
Alex, the point of a debate is that there is more than one side to an issue.
A debate where everyone is on one side is not a debate.
|
|
|
Post by ninjaearl on Apr 8, 2010 20:39:57 GMT -5
^ Thank you.
|
|
Silverrida
Moon
Infinity - So far away yet around us at the same time
Posts: 112
|
Post by Silverrida on Apr 8, 2010 22:15:32 GMT -5
Basically, nowadays, circumcisions aid in preventing possible infections. It is not the same as mindless torture as the OP insinuated, as it seriously thought over and, in the end, for the betterment of the child. It is not the same as the "washing behind the ear" thing because the ear is not as prone to infection nor is it in such a sensitive area.
That being said, I see no problem with letting the kids age and make a choice, but I don't really see a problem with it being done as a baby. The only argument he kid would have is for aesthetics and, presumably, most people in the US and UK are cut, meaning it is not abnormal although is is unnatural. Still, no reason to not wait until the child is old enough, unless the parent think it's better that the child literally remembers nothing about the surgery and to prevent what would probably be minor aching. It also MAY be more dangerous when older as it gets longer, but I have no research to support or deny it. It just seems more logical.
|
|
|
Post by ninjaearl on Apr 8, 2010 22:22:48 GMT -5
^ While researching, most sources indicated that it was, in fact, more dangerous to have the operation done at a later age. I'm presuming it's simply because a larger mass of flesh is being amputated and there are more opportunities for exposure to infection.
|
|