|
Post by zAkAtAk on Apr 8, 2010 22:34:26 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. source.
|
|
|
Post by ninjaearl on Apr 8, 2010 22:38:03 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. source. www.circinfo.net/risks_in_adults_and_older_children.htmlsauced
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 9, 2010 1:21:14 GMT -5
You know when it come to the violation aspect of it, yes parents do have to change diapers for the first 2-3 years of the child's life however this can not be avoided unless the child is some how born with an instinctive ability to use the toilet and wipe their own butt.
Circumcision however is not a needed violation of the child's private area. It's a CHOSEN violation of the child.
No one chooses to change their kid's diapers, no one like's changing diapers. Have you ever changed a kid's diaper, it's worse than cleaning a toilet. At least with a toilet most of the human waist is flushed down before you ever get near it. (unless some jerk forgets to flush.) With a kid's diaper there is no flushing involved, it's all there and it's disgusting.
Circumcision is a contious choice not only to make a perminate change to another person's body causeing them sever pain, but it also requires the parent to clean the wound while it's healing. So there are at least 3 adults who now have to touch a kids penis and there's no reason any adult should ever touch a boy there.
Of course this doesn't really stop at circumcision, threwout a child's entire life every choice is made for them by their parents without their concent regardless of weather or not they're old enough to voice an opinion.
I don't mind so much when the choice is only going to effect that present moment such as what to have for dinner, picking out cloths, or weather or not it's OK to go over to a friend's house on any particular night. That kinda stuff is well within the parent's rights. However when the choice is going to effect the rest of their life it should be their own choice and no one elses.
The parent may have authority over a child for the first 17 years but anything that still effects them after they turn 18 when they are first legally responsible for themselfs, that's when it becomes an issue and circumcision is one of thoughs things that is perminate for the child's entire life well beyond the parent's legal rights.
This to me seems like a total violation of our rights as Americans. It honestly seems like no one is really a legal American until they turn 18 and anyone 17 and younger is basically treated just as badly as women and blacks use to be.
Shockingly even after getting their rights I've found women and blacks still have a harder time in the U.S. than white adult men.
You know one thing I would like to understand... how can any man be pro circumcision? That's basically the same thing as being kicked in the balls, I get why women don't understand it but seriously how can another man not understand how much that hurts?
Oh and in terms of things for girls. I've noticed some mothers have their daughter's ears pierced when their infants because "they look to much like boys without their ears pierced" which in a way is much worse than circumcision.
Obvious this person at least seems to believe that there is a medical reason for it. (even though I don't agree) So it's basically like getting a shot, as long as it's for a good medical reason that could help prevent a much worse illness it's OK. (except if it were me I would need 100% accurate results in order to put a kid threw that. Any less and that means they could still get sick afterwards anyway.)
With ear piercing there really is no reason for it. It is simply just a cosmetic change and should only be done at the request of the person getting it done.
|
|
Engesa Green once more
Meteor
Once upon a time there was a suggestion that we should all write our names on our profile. I'm Ebbe.
Posts: 89
|
Post by Engesa Green once more on Apr 9, 2010 4:06:41 GMT -5
Really, there is one thing i don't understand about this topic. you focus alot more on male circumcision than on female. the male has upsides and downsides obviously but they aren't so big that it really matter compared to the female.
When a girl is circumcised, she loses all feeling in her vagina and therefore can no longer enjoy sex. Also, it is a very dangerous procedure especially compared to the male version.
I think we should lay low on the male circumcision for now and instead focus on the female since it (atleast for me) seems like a way bigger problem.
ps. for the "It looks like a mutilation" argument that was posted on some earlier page: If you walk in on surgery midways, it looks like murder.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Apr 9, 2010 7:33:03 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. You mean THIS isn't as prone to infection as a f*cking foreskin??? http:// AWHELLNAW.JPG -BreepopListen, bro. I'm circumcised. As a little kid, I noticed that it really didn't look circumcised. I realized as I got older that it's because the doctor isn't going to just cut it all off, he/she's going to leave some there you can actually grow into it, instead of growing up to have some sort of stretched out junk. So basically, you still have a foreskin as a little kid. Circumcision isn't going to help you stay more hygienic at an early age, because of that reason. Older males will know to clean that area, anyway. Believe me, just about every male on Earth ( and on the moon!) is going to be focused on grooming that thing at one point of the day.
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Apr 9, 2010 7:46:41 GMT -5
Please......
I'm at work.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Apr 9, 2010 10:13:55 GMT -5
Sry, I got carried away, lol. Point made, tho.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 9, 2010 13:33:08 GMT -5
Really, there is one thing i don't understand about this topic. you focus alot more on male circumcision than on female. the male has upsides and downsides obviously but they aren't so big that it really matter compared to the female. When a girl is circumcised, she loses all feeling in her vagina and therefore can no longer enjoy sex. Also, it is a very dangerous procedure especially compared to the male version. I think we should lay low on the male circumcision for now and instead focus on the female since it (atleast for me) seems like a way bigger problem. ps. for the "It looks like a mutilation" argument that was posted on some earlier page: If you walk in on surgery midways, it looks like murder. The reason this topic doesn't focus on the female version is because unless you live in some backwards culture the female version is useually frowned apon while the male version is still accepted culturally. The issue the OP originally brought up is why is male cicumcision accepted while female isn't and the answer has allready been posted a few times so it's not really an issue anymore.
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Apr 9, 2010 13:47:10 GMT -5
Sry, I got carried away, lol. Point made, tho. The only point you made is: OMG LOOK WHAT COULD HAPPEN. Obviously we shouldn't have sex because OMG STDs Obviously we shouldn't shave because OMG CUTS CAN LEAD TO INFECTIONS Obviously we shouldn't eat candy because OMG CANDY CAN CHOKE YOU AND YOU CAN DIE. LOOK AT THIS PICTURE!!!
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Apr 9, 2010 13:50:54 GMT -5
The reason this topic doesn't focus on the female version is because unless you live in some backwards culture the female version is useually frowned apon while the male version is still accepted culturally. The issue the OP originally brought up is why is male cicumcision accepted while female isn't and the answer has allready been posted a few times so it's not really an issue anymore. Something I think members aren't understanding (and you by far are not the only one, and of course I may have just misread your post) is that we are about open discussion. The question in the OP may have been answered, yes, but it also incited a full-out debate on circumcision. That's great! Well, the discussion anyway. There is nothing wrong with discussing the topic at large (or a different aspect of the topic, or a completely different topic) as long as it is a productive and intelligent debate.
|
|
Camoon
Star
[AWD:01020307]
Trust your pilot, respect your monkey.
Posts: 574
|
Post by Camoon on Apr 9, 2010 14:35:39 GMT -5
[toomuchinformation]I was circumcised when I was a kid. I had faulty foreskin when I was like 5 so they lopped it off. Yeah.
So I tend not to get into these debates. I really don't know where I stand.[/toomuchinformation]
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on Apr 9, 2010 14:39:08 GMT -5
This topic is just the same argument as other topics - is it worth bothering about? I see people like alex in this topic who are all against such a thing as circumcision, so much that they fail to approach the topic with an open mind. Some arguments in this topic really made me ... "face palm". I mean, wtf @ being cornered in a locker room? Get real.
People who realise they are circumcised do so at an age that would prove that they are mature enough to accept the fact that their parents are the people who made them who they are today and they should appreciate it. They would be mature enough to consider that any friends, employers or organizations who discriminate them on such terms are not worth even dealing with anyway. They are circumcised because their parents decided to, deal with it!
I see people getting ranting and getting frustrated in this topic, I really don't see any reason in stopping people from circumcising their children... but lets say we had to make it illegal, how would we stop parents from circumcised their children? how would we punish those who do? and how would a baby (which is so young) decide if it wants to be circumcised or not?
I am not circumcised myself, neither am I Jewish, but I certainly don't want some random stranger deciding what I should do with MY children. They are MY children and it is my choice to circumcise them or not because they are still under my responsibility and I would want the best for them and if circumcision is what I believe is best, then so be it.
Whoever says accepting circumcision is too conservative and that it should be prohibited is ALSO a conservative because they are conforming to their own beliefs. As for female circumcision, I am still to do my research on it.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 9, 2010 14:44:53 GMT -5
[toomuchinformation]I was circumcised when I was a kid. I had faulty foreskin when I was like 5 so they lopped it off. Yeah. So I tend not to get into these debates. I really don't know where I stand.[/toomuchinformation] Thanks for the "too much information" tags but I think anyone walking into a discussion like this should allready be exspecting too much information. Honestly the title itself is too much information. I really wish I had no idea what that ment. But there are worse kinds of information... Aren't you glad you're not a dog or cat owned by a Bob Barker fan.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 9, 2010 15:35:56 GMT -5
For this debate to really work, I think we need to get more information -- from unbiased sources -- on the potential benefits of circumcision. If there is a significant reduction to, say, the odds of getting cancer or something then it's warranted. If the benefits are negligible or non-existent, then there is no need for it.
I wonder at how important the AIDS aspect of it even is, personally. Is the average person likely to be exposed to AIDS? I don't really know the numbers here.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 9, 2010 15:45:09 GMT -5
I am not circumcised myself, neither am I Jewish, but I certainly don't want some random stranger deciding what I should do with MY children. They are MY children and it is my choice to circumcise them or not because they are still under my responsibility and I would want the best for them and if circumcision is what I believe is best, then so be it. Um... You made one valid point in there and then contridicted your own argument. I'll quote below everything you said that I agree with and then exsplain the contridicting parts. I certainly don't want some random stranger deciding what I should do with MY children. they are still under my responsibility and I would want the best for them Now this I can understand and agree with. Now in order to exsplain the other part try to keep an open mind and think about this from a different perspective. What if it wasn't some random stranger what you should do with your children? What if it was a close friend, family member, or even your spouse who dissagreed on what to do? Are you willing to go agenst all of them to do what you think is best? And from the child's perspective, this actully goes beyond your responsibility. They are only under your responsibility untill they turn 18, after that they're legally responsible for their own actions and their own body. Circumcision is not something that you can do to a child while it's in your care that can be reversed if they don't like it as an adult therefore it shouldn't be your choice to do it. The pro side seems to only be thinking of this as a "parent's choice" like the child can never choose on their own but that's only true if you do it. If you don't do it then they have a choice to do it or not to do it. And because it's a choice they have to live with it should be their choice. Think of it like arranged marriage. In some culters they still practice this, parents will meet with other parents who have children of the oppisite gender and choose a future spouse for their child useually based on how much money the family has. It's alot like breeding dogs really. Your contiously trying to pair your child up with another child who you think comes from a good family and you want your grandkids from. And these people believe that they are doing the right thing for their children. However love is not an issue as the marriages are useually arranged well before the kids even have such interests and they never even see eachother their entire lives untill the wedding day. Sounds crazy right. But it is a way to ensure a strong family line and make money. Marry into a rich family. Now why is that this sounds so crazy? Because you're making a choice that your child may not like, a choice that does not effect you or your child as he or she is in your care. It only effects your child after they are legal adults and capable to choose for themselfs. At least with arranged marriage you can allways get a divorce afterwards if you really hate eachother but with circumcision you can't reverse it. That's a choise your parent makes that you'll allways be stuck with. Worse yet, and this is rare, what about children born with both genders. Assumeing they are otherwise healthy there's no reason a parent should have authority to choose boy or girl. The choice does have to be made before puberty but it doesn't have to be made right after birth. From my understanding they would phsically just look like boys anyway because the female sex organs are on the inside and they'd be too young to develop breasts. It'd only be physically noticable that they're shemales when puberty starts. Of course allowing them to make the choice would require exsplaining the difference in gender so they know what they're getting and looseing. It's also possible that a shemale might not care that they're different and wouldn't even want to be fixed. At that point if the parent makes the choice for them it's not even a matter of what's best for the child but just the parent feeling imbarrised that their child is different and wanting to make them normal. Honestly after they turn 18 it doesn't matter what the parent thinks. If a child wants remain a shemale knowing they're most likely going to be made fun of for it then let them. You're not the one that has to deal with it for the rest of your life. You only have to deal with them for 17 years. Or what if your child chooses to be a boy and then while they're being put under, would you think it right to tell the doctor you want a girl? They may have decided they don't want to deal with things that come with being a girl and you may of decided that removeing the outer sex organs was an easier surgery but is it an easier life? If the child chooses boy and you choose girl they can get it changed again after they turn 18 and then they'll be threw 2 surgeries because you didn't give them what they wanted the first time so it's really not that easy. Any choice that effects the child as an adult should be their own. The only time you should really make the choice for them is not because "you think" that is what's best. "You think" really isn't good enough. If "you know" that's what's best that's a different story. If a doctor told me that I had to choose to put my kid threw because there was a chance he might die without it I wouldn't do it because there's also a chance he might die with the surgery. However if a doctor told me beyond any doubt that he will die without and will survive with the surgery then I would give consent knowing I was doing the right thing. Not thinking I'm doing the right thing. When it comes to someone elses life thinking just isn't good enough. You have to know. The same could be said of any adult who isn't contious as an infant. Why would any make any choice for them if they weren't sure what they were doing is right and that person, not the one making the choice, is the one that has to live with it. Unless I know my choice is the right one my answer is allways going to be "It's not my choice to make, it's not my life. Ask him/her when he/she is ready."
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 9, 2010 15:59:36 GMT -5
BTW I would like to point out that I don't think anyone in here is being completly unbiased as everyone has at one point or another just said what they personally feel about it. (I'm guilty of that myself)
|
|
|
Post by ninjaearl on Apr 9, 2010 16:12:55 GMT -5
However when the choice is going to effect the rest of their life it should be their own choice and no one elses. That's my point. It really does not affect the outcome of your life, circumcised or not.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on Apr 9, 2010 16:25:47 GMT -5
What if it wasn't some random stranger what you should do with your children? What if it was a close friend, family member, or even your spouse who dissagreed on what to do? Are you willing to go agenst all of them to do what you think is best? The final decision is of the parent. Whoever it is, it won't matter but close friends, family members our spouses usually respect you for that decision, random stranges don't. and that is why i mentioned strangers. And from the child's perspective, this actully goes beyond your responsibility. They are only under your responsibility untill they turn 18, after that they're legally responsible for their own actions and their own body. Circumcision is not something that you can do to a child while it's in your care that can be reversed if they don't like it as an adult therefore it shouldn't be your choice to do it. The pro side seems to only be thinking of this as a "parent's choice" like the child can never choose on their own but that's only true if you do it. If you don't do it then they have a choice to do it or not to do it. And because it's a choice they have to live with it should be their choice. Sounds crazy right. But it is a way to ensure a strong family line and make money. Marry into a rich family. Now why is that this sounds so crazy? Because you're making a choice that your child may not like, a choice that does not effect you or your child as he or she is in your care. It only effects your child after they are legal adults and capable to choose for themselfs. Re-read the first bit of my post: "People who realize they are circumcised do so at an age that would prove that they are mature enough to accept the fact that their parents are the people who made them who they are today and they should appreciate it. They would be mature enough to consider that any friends, employers or organizations who discriminate them on such terms are not worth even dealing with anyway. They are circumcised because their parents decided to, deal with it!"
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 9, 2010 18:04:23 GMT -5
BTW I would like to point out that I don't think anyone in here is being completly unbiased as everyone has at one point or another just said what they personally feel about it. (I'm guilty of that myself) Indeed, it's nearly impossible for people to be unbiased, but it's very possible for data to be unbiased. I'd like to see some of that unbiased (relatively or totally) data before forming a position, personally.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Apr 9, 2010 21:45:12 GMT -5
Sry, I got carried away, lol. Point made, tho. The only point you made is: OMG LOOK WHAT COULD HAPPEN. Obviously we shouldn't have sex because OMG STDs Obviously we shouldn't shave because OMG CUTS CAN LEAD TO INFECTIONS Obviously we shouldn't eat candy because OMG CANDY CAN CHOKE YOU AND YOU CAN DIE. LOOK AT THIS PICTURE!!! >.> I said I was sorry for being irrational. But, I'll also apologize for being the "Yeah, but" guy I promise not to rage again like I did, lol
|
|