Poll of the Day > Why do they call it circumcision instead of male genitalia mutilation?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Read the whole post before quoting.

I did. And I stand by what I said. The penis still works, which is the important part. Not the foreskin.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The finger is the analogue of the foreskin. Your foreskin stopped working when it got snipped.

Yeah. And...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's nice, dear.

Meaning we're still getting pleasure. You were the one saying we we're getting enough pleasure. Wanted to make sure you knew we were.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Eliminating non-issues with potentially fatal surgery is negligent behaviour.

Like other surgeries. There are plenty of surgeries to help with many different things. And most can still end up in death. Even though the problem they were correcting wasn't life threatening.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

And plenty of terrible parents don't bother, that doesn't mean circumcision isn't a terrible act.

But getting your child circumcised doesn't automatically make you a bad parent, which is what it seemed like you were suggesting.
---

LinkPizza posted...

But getting your child circumcised doesn't automatically make you a bad parent, which is what it seemed like you were suggesting.

I don't know man. Unless for medical reasons I wouldn't want to chop bits of my baby off.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

But getting your child circumcised doesn't automatically make you a bad parent, which is what it seemed like you were suggesting.

I don't know man. Unless for medical reasons I wouldn't want to chop bits of my baby off.

That's fine for some. I'm glad mine was chopped off. And if I didn't lose the foreskin, chances are I'd probably still like the penis I grew up with (The uncircumcised one). Still doesn't automatically make someone a bad parent for getting a child circumcised.
---

LinkPizza posted...

And if I didn't lose the foreskin, chances are I'd probably still like the penis I grew up with (The uncircumcised one).

This is all it really boils down to. In most cases most folk are content with what they have as they have known no different. I however believe it should be the choice of the individual what they want and wouldn't try and inflict my own preferences onto my own children. Ultimately though I don't really care what other guys penises look like.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

And if I didn't lose the foreskin, chances are I'd probably still like the penis I grew up with (The uncircumcised one).

This is all it really boils down to. In most cases most folk are content with what they have as they have known no different. I however believe it should be the choice of the individual what they want and wouldn't try and inflict my own preferences onto my own children. Ultimately though I don't really care what other guys penises look like.

I just feel that the reason you cant give them a real unbiased choice is because not snipping will let them grow up with an uncircumcised penis, which means the favor is always for uncircumcised. So, while they technically have the choice, its almost like you really are choosing for them to remain unsnipped. That why I feel like by not choosing, they still are choosing...

I mean, it may not be a popular opinion, but I really feel like that.
---

By the way, I haven't been saying that there is anything inherently wrong with circumcision in and of its self.

Just that it's wrong to circumcise an infant who can't consent.

If you want to have a less sensitive penis that "looks more appealing" you're more than welcome to do so. Just leave the poor little babies out of it.
---

LinkPizza posted...

I did. And I stand by what I said. The penis still works, which is the important part. Not the foreskin.

The hand still works without a finger, don't be dense.

LinkPizza posted...

Yeah. And...

So cutting off a penile extremity is like cutting off a hand extremity.

LinkPizza posted...

Meaning we're still getting pleasure. You were the one saying we we're getting enough pleasure. Wanted to make sure you knew we were.

I'm saying you get reduced pleasure. Good on you turning mutilation in to a premature ejaculation cure though.

LinkPizza posted...

Like other surgeries. There are plenty of surgeries to help with many different things. And most can still end up in death. Even though the problem they were correcting wasn't life threatening.

Surgery is a last resort and is only done when necessary. As it happens, foreskins are natural and provide a useful function.

LinkPizza posted...

But getting your child circumcised doesn't automatically make you a bad parent, which is what it seemed like you were suggesting.

It makes you a worse parent. So a perfect parent becomes good and an average parent becomes bad.

LinkPizza posted...

I just feel that the reason you cant give them a real unbiased choice is because not snipping will let them grow up with an uncircumcised penis, which means the favor is always for uncircumcised. So, while they technically have the choice, its almost like you really are choosing for them to remain unsnipped. That why I feel like by not choosing, they still are choosing...

I mean, it may not be a popular opinion, but I really feel like that.

By that logic you're doing the same thing, only you're happy to pay money to potentially kill your child for something that doesn't matter.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

By that logic you're doing the same thing, only you're happy to pay money to potentially kill your child for something that doesn't matter.

Also, by choosing not to have it done, they retain the ability to choose for themselves.
By choosing to have it done, you take away their choice. So in that regard, choosing not to is morally the better choice.

Think of it like this, you hear people talk about pizza (read: foreskin) and how good it is all the time, but you can never experience pizza because your parents took away that right by deciding when you were an infant that you can never have pizza because one day you may or may not end up being lactose intolerant. You don't know that pizza is amazing because you never had it to begin with because you lack perspective, so you don't see it as a loss.

The problem is that your parents made that choice for you, without you having the ability to consent.

Do you see the inherent problem in that logic now? For all you know, you might not even have ever been lactose intolerant, but because your parents made that choice for you. You can't even ever try pizza to know for yourself.

[Edit] Also, Pizza (read: foreskin) makes you fat (read: have a smeggy dick) and most people find fat people gross, even though you only get fat from eating too much pizza (read: not washing yourself and/or having proper hygiene).
---

LinkPizza posted...

I just feel that the reason you cant give them a real unbiased choice is because not snipping will let them grow up with an uncircumcised penis, which means the favor is always for uncircumcised. So, while they technically have the choice, its almost like you really are choosing for them to remain unsnipped. That why I feel like by not choosing, they still are choosing...

Yet getting them cut takes the choice away completely and you would be forcing your beliefs on another person. While you look at it as choosing for them to be uncut it really doesn't matter as said person get get the cut anytime they want. They can't grow another foreskin. I know what's the better option.
---

LinkPizza posted...

I just feel that the reason you cant give them a real unbiased choice is because not snipping will let them grow up with an uncircumcised penis, which means the favor is always for uncircumcised. So, while they technically have the choice, its almost like you really are choosing for them to remain unsnipped. That why I feel like by not choosing, they still are choosing...

If you feel that they'll want to remain uncut if they aren't cut as a baby, how can you possibly justify cutting them as a baby? It doesn't matter how biased that later decision might be, it is 100% their decision to make for whatever reasons they want.

Easier to say and less PC would be my guess.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I just feel that the reason you cant give them a real unbiased choice is because not snipping will let them grow up with an uncircumcised penis, which means the favor is always for uncircumcised. So, while they technically have the choice, its almost like you really are choosing for them to remain unsnipped. That why I feel like by not choosing, they still are choosing...

If you feel that they'll want to remain uncut if they aren't cut as a baby, how can you possibly justify cutting them as a baby? It doesn't matter how biased that later decision might be, it is 100% their decision to make for whatever reasons they want.

still 100% behind my dad to make that decision for me, ok?
---

Aculo posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I just feel that the reason you cant give them a real unbiased choice is because not snipping will let them grow up with an uncircumcised penis, which means the favor is always for uncircumcised. So, while they technically have the choice, its almost like you really are choosing for them to remain unsnipped. That why I feel like by not choosing, they still are choosing...

If you feel that they'll want to remain uncut if they aren't cut as a baby, how can you possibly justify cutting them as a baby? It doesn't matter how biased that later decision might be, it is 100% their decision to make for whatever reasons they want.

still 100% behind my dad to make that decision for me, ok?

And I'm glad that you're happy. I'm less glad that you don't seem to value giving people agency over their own bodies.

people should get over it, ok?
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Aculo posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I just feel that the reason you cant give them a real unbiased choice is because not snipping will let them grow up with an uncircumcised penis, which means the favor is always for uncircumcised. So, while they technically have the choice, its almost like you really are choosing for them to remain unsnipped. That why I feel like by not choosing, they still are choosing...

If you feel that they'll want to remain uncut if they aren't cut as a baby, how can you possibly justify cutting them as a baby? It doesn't matter how biased that later decision might be, it is 100% their decision to make for whatever reasons they want.

still 100% behind my dad to make that decision for me, ok?

And I'm glad that you're happy. I'm less glad that you don't seem to value giving people agency over their own bodies.

They get less control when their babies. Just like parents make all the child's decisions. Which makes sense. Once their old enough to make decision, that when they can start choosing what to do. But until then, parents have control.
---

LinkPizza posted...

They get less control when their babies. Just like parents make all the child's decisions. Which makes sense. Once their old enough to make decision, that when they can start choosing what to do. But until then, parents have control.

By cutting them as a child, you deprive them of choice as an adult.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The hand still works without a finger, don't be dense.

Depending on what your doing. Playing an instrument can be come hard (or impossible for some depending on the song). And depending on whether finger or thumb, could lose something even worse. The hand itself still functions, but the fingers are actually important, unlike the foreskin.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

So cutting off a penile extremity is like cutting off a hand extremity.

Except it's not. Depending on what finger and what you're doing, it might actually be important. But the foreskin actually isn't important. And getting rid of it actually has medical benefits.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I'm saying you get reduced pleasure. Good on you turning mutilation in to a premature ejaculation cure though.

A little. Probably not that much, though. It's not like it seems to be a problem with most people. Who very much enjoy sex the way they have it. You could be uncut and still have a shitty partner who can still make it the worst feeling ever. Most people who are circumcised don't go around saying, "Sex would good, but I wish I could feel it more." Because it still feel amazing to most."

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Surgery is a last resort and is only done when necessary. As it happens, foreskins are natural and provide a useful function.

Not always. When I had an incident with my finger, they didn't have to do surgery. They could have pretty much bandaged it. But they said we can do surgery. And did. It's not always a last resort. Depends on what the issue is.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It makes you a worse parent. So a perfect parent becomes good and an average parent becomes bad.

No it doesn't. Just because it's something you don't agree with, you're saying it makes you a bad parent. I would need hard evidece that it makes you a bad parent. And so far, in this whole thread, I haven't heard one thing piece of evidence that proves that. Just the same old your parents made a choice for you like they did for years of your life.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

By that logic you're doing the same thing, only you're happy to pay money to potentially kill your child for something that doesn't matter.

My whole point is, either way, you're basically choosing for them. That was my whole point. By not choosing, you're still basically choosing. That's why I said, just let people do what they're going to do. It' easy for people against circumcision to say let the person choose, because it's always biased in their favor since most people would not want to change the one they grew up with. The only way to make it fair would be for parents to choose whichever and let the child go back in time as an adult to choose whether they'll stay the same or go back and change it. But since those don't exist, and may not ever exist, that's not an option.
---

DrCidd posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

By that logic you're doing the same thing, only you're happy to pay money to potentially kill your child for something that doesn't matter.

Also, by choosing not to have it done, they retain the ability to choose for themselves.
By choosing to have it done, you take away their choice. So in that regard, choosing not to is morally the better choice.

Think of it like this, you hear people talk about pizza (read: foreskin) and how good it is all the time, but you can never experience pizza because your parents took away that right by deciding when you were an infant that you can never have pizza because one day you may or may not end up being lactose intolerant. You don't know that pizza is amazing because you never had it to begin with because you lack perspective, so you don't see it as a loss.

The problem is that your parents made that choice for you, without you having the ability to consent.

Do you see the inherent problem in that logic now? For all you know, you might not even have ever been lactose intolerant, but because your parents made that choice for you. You can't even ever try pizza to know for yourself.

[Edit] Also, Pizza (read: foreskin) makes you fat (read: have a smeggy dick) and most people find fat people gross, even though you only get fat from eating too much pizza (read: not washing yourself and/or having proper hygiene).

People literally do that. All the time. People choose their children diet's and school's and literally everything else. People choose whether to get their children vaccinated or not. Like everything. For better or for worse, parents choose everything for their children. And can until the child is old enough to make their own decisions.
---

LinkPizza posted...

People literally do that. All the time. People choose their children diet's and school's and literally everything else. People choose whether to get their children vaccinated or not. Like everything. For better or for worse, parents choose everything for their children. And can until the child is old enough to make their own decisions.

And this is for worse and you know it, but you don't care as you like to look at your kid's dick.

You are legally allowed to be a shit parent, but you aren't morally.
---

*popcorn*
---

LinkPizza posted...

Once their old enough to make decision, that when they can start choosing what to do.

Unless you take that choice away from them by making an irreversible change.

I agree that parents should have control over their children for matters of medical necessity, because of course they should. Children would die if doctors had to wait for their fully-informed consent to provide necessary care, and using parental consent as a proxy for their consent is the best way to ensure that doesn't happen (there is ample room to argue that children understand their conditions better than we give them credit for and could decide more for themselves, but that's obviously irrelevant to talking about newborns). This is not a matter of medical necessity (in the vast majority of cases and the only ones we're talking about). This is a cosmetic procedure. You wouldn't give a newborn a nose job (even ignoring the fact that you'd need several more surgeries over the course of their life to keep up with their growth). Why, then, is it so acceptable to perform another cosmetic surgery?

LinkPizza posted...

My whole point is, either way, you're basically choosing for them.

And that point is absolute nonsense. Whatever you choose as a parent will dictate whether or not your son has a foreskin for the duration of their childhood. That's all. After that, if you didn't circumcise them, they're free to choose. If they're more likely to choose what they already have? That's irrelevant. They are still 100% able to choose for themselves, which is what's important. If you did circumcise them, however, you've decided that they aren't going to have one for the rest of their life, and they don't get a choice at all.

LinkPizza posted...

The only way to make it fair

Fair? It's not a competition. This isn't about winning an internet argument about which dicks are better, it's about not performing cosmetic surgery on newborns. Ensuring "fairness" in the outcome couldn't possibly matter less. Just let people decide for themselves what they want their junk to look like and stop mutilating baby dicks.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

People literally do that. All the time. People choose their children diet's and school's and literally everything else. People choose whether to get their children vaccinated or not. Like everything. For better or for worse, parents choose everything for their children. And can until the child is old enough to make their own decisions.

And this is for worse and you know it, but you don't care as you like to look at your kid's dick.

You are legally allowed to be a shit parent, but you aren't morally.

I dont think its worse. And I dont think youre any qualified to tell anyone how to be a good parent. Or would be the judge of that. Or that literally one thing (circumcision) is the line between good or bad parent.

adjl posted...

Unless you take that choice away from them by making an irreversible change.

I agree that parents should have control over their children for matters of medical necessity, because of course they should. Children would die if doctors had to wait for their fully-informed consent to provide necessary care, and using parental consent as a proxy for their consent is the best way to ensure that doesn't happen (there is ample room to argue that children understand their conditions better than we give them credit for and could decide more for themselves, but that's obviously irrelevant to talking about newborns). This is not a matter of medical necessity (in the vast majority of cases and the only ones we're talking about). This is a cosmetic procedure. You wouldn't give a newborn a nose job (even ignoring the fact that you'd need several more surgeries over the course of their life to keep up with their growth). Why, then, is it so acceptable to perform another cosmetic surgery?

Because it can always be a medical procedure. And well never know why most people do it. It could be tradition, or it could be because it takes away the chance of a medical problem later.

adjl posted...

And that point is absolute nonsense. Whatever you choose as a parent will dictate whether or not your son has a foreskin for the duration of their childhood. That's all. After that, if you didn't circumcise them, they're free to choose. If they're more likely to choose what they already have? That's irrelevant. They are still 100% able to choose for themselves, which is what's important. If you did circumcise them, however, you've decided that they aren't going to have one for the rest of their life, and they don't get a choice at all.

As I said, they technically do get to choose. But its literally in favor or uncircumcised. For the main reason that people dont normally want to change they dick unless necessary after having it for so long.

adjl posted...

Fair? It's not a competition. This isn't about winning an internet argument about which dicks are better, it's about not performing cosmetic surgery on newborns. Ensuring "fairness" in the outcome couldn't possibly matter less. Just let people decide for themselves what they want their junk to look like and stop mutilating baby dicks.

Fair as in a fair choice. Thats all.
---

I know a few uncircumcised people, and they've never once expressed any unhappiness over the state of their dicks.

In fact there's one in particluar whose wife likes to brag about how awesome her husband's uncut dick is.
---

Reported, that level of idiocy has to be trolling.
---

Mover_of_Zigs posted...

I know a few uncircumcised people, and they've never once expressed any unhappiness over the state of their dicks.

In fact there's one in particluar whose wife likes to brag about how awesome her husband's uncut dick is.

I dont know many people who dont like the state of the dick penis they grew up with. Which is what I said earlier. People will normally keep whichever one they grow up with. Which is why not circumcising is almost like making the choice for them.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Which is why not circumcising is almost like making the choice for them.

You can stop saying "almost" now because it isn't anything like it. Not circumcising at birth isn't deciding they can't, by their own choice, later.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Which is why not circumcising is almost like making the choice for them.

You can stop saying "almost" now because it isn't anything like it. Not circumcising at birth isn't deciding they can't, by their own choice, later.

ok bro, enjoy your balantis, hypospadias, phimosis and paraphimosis, ok?

when your wangus is in pain, inflamed and smelling awful, you can say it was all your choice, ok?
---

Aculo posted...

ok

SunWuKung420 posted...

Aculo posted...

Preventing balanitis
You can reduce your chances of getting balanitis by:

-keeping your penis clean
-avoiding harsh soaps and other skin irritants
-using soap substitutes, such as an emollient
-practising safe sex to avoid an STI
-using latex-free condoms if you have a latex allergy

*circumcision not listed*

Hmmm?

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Aculo posted...

ok

SunWuKung420 posted...

Aculo posted...

Preventing balanitis
You can reduce your chances of getting balanitis by:

-keeping your penis clean
-avoiding harsh soaps and other skin irritants
-using soap substitutes, such as an emollient
-practising safe sex to avoid an STI
-using latex-free condoms if you have a latex allergy

*circumcision not listed*

Hmmm?

Aculo posted...

ok bro, enjoy your balantis, hypospadias, phimosis and paraphimosis, ok?

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Which is why not circumcising is almost like making the choice for them.

You can stop saying "almost" now because it isn't anything like it. Not circumcising at birth isn't deciding they can't, by their own choice, later.

I would stop saying it if it wasnt almost like it.
---

LinkPizza posted...

would stop saying it if it wasnt almost like it.

Except, you know, for that fact that circumcision can still be chosen later, while having a circumcision 100% reversed isn't possible.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Because it can always be a medical procedure.

And nobody's suggesting that medical circumcisions be stopped. That would be idiotic. This is entirely about the elective ones.

LinkPizza posted...

it takes away the chance of a medical problem later.

In which case, if circumcision is the only viable treatment for that medical problem, they just get circumcised then (except by then, they'll be old enough to agree to that themselves).

LinkPizza posted...

As I said, they technically do get to choose. But its literally in favor or uncircumcised.

And that could not possibly matter less. Once again: the end result doesn't matter. Only that they are given the choice. There is no right or wrong choice for them to make for themselves, so trending one way or another is not a bad thing. What's bad is taking away the choice entirely.

LinkPizza posted...

Fair as in a fair choice. Thats all.

In what sense does the choice need to be "fair"? Why do you think that concept has any value here?

Aculo posted...

ok bro, enjoy your balantis, hypospadias, phimosis and paraphimosis, ok?

when your wangus is in pain, inflamed and smelling awful, you can say it was all your choice, ok?

Hypospadia is a birth defect (where the urethra opens somewhere further down the shaft of the penis, rather than at the head, for the medically disinclined in the audience), not something you develop. It's also not unique to uncircumcised people (except in the sense that we're all born uncut), though it is sometimes treated by circumcision. You should probably actually try to understand what you're talking about, rather than just googling health problems that are more common in uncircumcised guys and pasting the names in here.

Furthermore, being uncircumcised is not a guarantee of developing any of those, much like having teeth doesn't guarantee that you'll develop oral health problems. The logic you're employing here is literally the same as saying that it's a good idea to surgically remove people's teeth at birth so they never get cavities and are less likely to develop gingivitis. Sure, it's an effective prevention tactic, but it's also stupid.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Just the same old your parents made a choice for you like they did for years of your life.

And that's all well and good except for they're making the choice to remove a part of your body.
If they were deciding what you eat, what kind of entertainment you watch, and what kind of people you're allowed to be around, it's one thing. But when it's the choice to make a permanent change to your body, it's completely different. By choosing not to do it, the child remains to have the choice.

I haven't yet heard one good counter-argument to this. In fact, the typical reply is "well, I'm cut and I don't mind"
Imagine if you grew up your whole life with a foreskin and someone else chose to have it removed without your consent. You all chock it up to "parents make decisions for their kids and that's fine" and for the vast majority of cases, you're exactly right. It is fine. But when it comes to a permanent irreversible change, it's a different ballpark altogether. It's like if your parent decided without your consent to give you a face tattoo. It's a permanent change to your body that you have no control over. (Before you argue laser tattoo removal surgery, imagine if that technology didn't exist for this argument) The fact you don't see a problem with this says you either don't want to admit that the choice your parents made (regardless of whether or not you're okay with it now) wasn't morally okay, or you're just in denial.

This argument just shows that you're biased towards circumcision because yours is circumcised. The fact that you would take away their choice because you don't want them to be biased towards having an intact penis says that you don't care at all about their choice.

The fact of the matter is. This has less to do with circumcision and more about leaving your child with no choice in the matter.
Using your frail logic, it should be okay to cut the bottom of your baby's earlobe off at birth based on the fact that you find it more appealing to look at.

The argument isn't that making a choice for your baby is bad. It's that robbing your baby of that freedom of choice is bad.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Mover_of_Zigs posted...

I know a few uncircumcised people, and they've never once expressed any unhappiness over the state of their dicks.

In fact there's one in particluar whose wife likes to brag about how awesome her husband's uncut dick is.

I dont know many people who dont like the state of the dick penis they grew up with. Which is what I said earlier. People will normally keep whichever one they grow up with. Which is why not circumcising is almost like making the choice for them.

I said that because if uncircumcised penises were really that filthy and disease-ridden, you'd think people would be unhappy with it. The ones I know are totally cool with it. I know this because our wives talk about our penises behind our backs
---

DrCidd posted...

There's also the fact that nobody here has mentioned. Sex with a uncircumcised penis is better for women, because the gliding action of the foreskin acts as a mechanical lubricant. IE, no lube necessary for regular sex.

I remembered my girlfriend being pleased that I am cut from early in our relationship, so I asked her about this specifically.

She said that it's exactly the opposite of what you've said. The "gliding action" is exactly what makes the uncut penis feels worse. She described uncut as "sort of feeling like they always have a condom on, even when they don't."

That having been said, I've never required lube during regular sex, nor have I ever been with a girl who has told me she preferred uncut. Not that any of this is much of an argument - it is just personal experience after all. It's just odd to hear about someone else's claims being so much different from the realities that I've experienced.
---

I think your girlfriend is the exception.
---

Oy vey
---

DrCidd posted...

I think your girlfriend is the exception.

I've never heard otherwise until you claimed it. I think your claim is incorrect since the person who is saying you are wrong actually has the genitalia you claim is benefiting. If you even have any experience to back it up rather than just a random claim with pseudo-science backbone, then I'd say your experience is the exception.
---

All these arguments...

Taking a second to think: "This stuff is messed up, yo." is good enough for me.

You're a rare type, NeoSio.
Most people are perfectly fine mutilating their sons' genitals.
---

All I know is I decided not to have my son circumcised, and I made the correct decision. He will have all of the sensation and functionality that nature and centuries of evolution intended for him to have.

adjl posted...

Furthermore, being uncircumcised is not a guarantee of developing any of those, much like having teeth doesn't guarantee that you'll develop oral health problems. The logic you're employing here is literally the same as saying that it's a good idea to surgically remove people's teeth at birth so they never get cavities and are less likely to develop gingivitis. Sure, it's an effective prevention tactic, but it's also stupid.

except the overwhelming majority of people with those diseases still have their gross foreskin, ok?
---

the foreskin isn't gross.

Aculo posted...

adjl posted...

Furthermore, being uncircumcised is not a guarantee of developing any of those, much like having teeth doesn't guarantee that you'll develop oral health problems. The logic you're employing here is literally the same as saying that it's a good idea to surgically remove people's teeth at birth so they never get cavities and are less likely to develop gingivitis. Sure, it's an effective prevention tactic, but it's also stupid.

except the overwhelming majority of people with those diseases still have their gross foreskin, ok?

And the overwhelming majority of people with cavities still have their teeth. That's a thoroughly meaningless statement when it comes to justifying removal of the body parts involved in undesirable conditions. To justify that, you need to demonstrate that there are no other effective treatment options, as well as that keeping the body part is very likely to continue causing the conditions. You have not only thoroughly failed to demonstrate that, but have in fact demonstrated the opposite in the case of balanitis.

Furthermore, even if you can demonstrate that causal link, it should still be the guy's decision, not a prophylactic treatment done at birth just in case a problem develops. Prophylactic amputations aren't a thing, and for good reason. Prophylactic amputations without the patient's consent are even worse, and yet somehow, circumcising newborns keeps being a thing.

BeerOnTap posted...

All I know is I decided not to have my son circumcised, and I made the correct decision. He will have all of the sensation and functionality that nature and centuries of evolution intended for him to have.

Good man

adj, calm down, my bro. no hostility. you seem to be taking this rather personally, ok?

i think removing one's teeth is a much more complex, painful, and difficult process than snipping a tiny bit of foreskin that you won't even remember being removed, ok?

nothing is black and white in the world, my bro. not everything can be measured and related exactly like you think they can, ok?
---

Aculo posted...

adj, calm down, my bro. no hostility. you seem to be taking this rather personally, ok?

I am calm. You're just wrong, and it's common for wrong people to feel attacked when people tell them they are wrong.

Aculo posted...

i think removing one's teeth is a much more complex, painful, and difficult process than snipping a tiny bit of foreskin that you won't even remember being removed, ok?

Irrelevant. The logic is the same, and it's stupid. You're welcome to try demonstrating otherwise, but given your track record so far, I'm not holding my breath.

infant penis is very tiny so there has to be a lot of precision to cut off what is considered a foreskin. There's barely any consistency when it comes to circumcision since penises grow up to be various sizes. There's tons of blood vessels and nerve endings that end up getting removed and it takes weeks to heal from a circumcision. During that time the baby is in pain. Why put a baby through that much trauma in their first moments of life? there's also the risk of infection or bleeding to death.

_AdjI_ posted...

Aculo posted...

adj, calm down, my bro. no hostility. you seem to be taking this rather personally, ok?

I am calm. You're just wrong, and it's common for wrong people to feel attacked when people tell them they are wrong.

Aculo posted...

i think removing one's teeth is a much more complex, painful, and difficult process than snipping a tiny bit of foreskin that you won't even remember being removed, ok?

Irrelevant. The logic is the same, and it's stupid. You're welcome to try demonstrating otherwise, but given your track record so far, I'm not holding my breath.

hahaha, ok my bro, why don't you try talking to me when you're not so hot, ok?
---

If we let the parents choose, itll be 50-50. Which is the best case scenario. Then everyones happy. Well, eventually, about 50-50. Hard to get it exact unless we count...
---