Male Circumcision - why still legal?

[FrisianDude]

It is a better choice to have it performed as an infant. The procedure when the genitals are grown becomes more complex, is more painful (at least theroized) and has a much higher chance of significant complications.

no it isn't. What you said doesn't even matter; the bearer of the wang should have some legally binding say in what happens to it in terms of what gets removed or not.

 

[Moose!]

It is a better choice to have it performed as an infant. The procedure when the genitals are grown becomes more complex, is more painful (at least theroized) and has a much higher chance of significant complications.

no it isn't. What you said doesn't even matter

Good argument.

the bearer of the wang should have some legally binding say in what happens to it in terms of what gets removed or not.

These specific ethical concerns do not necessarily overrule Dode's ethical concerns regarding the minimization of harm. That's a case you have to make.

 

[Kobrag]

If the body is a temple, then treat it like a temple.
You don't wantonly bulldoze sections of the ****ing building just because you think it might get dirty. :/

You clean it.
You CLEAN IT you lazy, unhygienic and barbaric arseholes! /Jhessial.

And the whole purpose of the foreskin is to keep out infectious and abrasive agents. =/

 

[Dodes]

It is a better choice to have it performed as an infant. The procedure when the genitals are grown becomes more complex, is more painful (at least theroized) and has a much higher chance of significant complications.

no it isn't

The procedure for newborns takes 10 minutes, adult circumcision takes about one hour. The procedure becomes riskier the older you are.

A recent meta-analysis of 16 prospective studies from diverse settings worldwide that evaluated complications following neonatal, infant, and child male circumcision found that median frequency of severe adverse events was 0% (range, 0%-2%). The median frequency of any complication was 1.5% (range, 0%-16%). Male circumcision by medical providers on children tended to be associated with more complications (median frequency, 6%; range, 2%-14%) than for neonates and infants

I would also like to emphasis that I am against circumcision, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to deny something about the facts that could potentially help the case for circumcision.

 

[FrisianDude]

It is a better choice to have it performed as an infant. The procedure when the genitals are grown becomes more complex, is more painful (at least theroized) and has a much higher chance of significant complications.

no it isn't. What you said doesn't even matter

Good argument.

the bearer of the wang should have some legally binding say in what happens to it in terms of what gets removed or not.

These specific ethical concerns do not necessarily overrule Dode's ethical concerns regarding the minimization of harm. That's a case you have to make.

No it isn't was solely in reference to it being better. Some practical advantages hardly outweigh the opinion of the person.

 

[Duke Daniel Milutin]

Some people also abort and giveaway their children without their consent and despite their right to live, but are largely approved by the same people which might condemn a such religious practice as circumsision which is at best infact a lesser evil, compared to murder and selling/giving away children.

 

[Moose!]

the bearer of the wang should have some legally binding say in what happens to it in terms of what gets removed or not.

These specific ethical concerns do not necessarily overrule Dode's ethical concerns regarding the minimization of harm. That's a case you have to make.

Some practical advantages hardly outweigh the opinion of the person.

Y'know, just asserting your opinion isn't the same as developing an argument which supports your opinion.

 

[Dodes]

Just something I found while sourcing my claim that circumcision is riskier as you age.

Basically "/thread"

Circumcision has become less common. Circumcision rates were as high as 90% back in the 1960s and 1970s (that's partly why today's adults are so... brainwashed, I supposed you could say, about thinking that circumcision is better) but they have fallen to as low as 14% in some states. Here are the statistics:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/U...

The USA is the last developed nation doing it to a large number of newborns without religious or medical needs. (Europeans, Latin Americans, Japanese, and most Australians, Canadians, and Asians don't circumcise):
http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html

Why?

In a medical study, it was found that females are more likely to hit orgasm with an uncircumcised man:
http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/...

The lubricated foreskin (on the inside... like your eyelids) slides up and down during sex and masturbation to stimulate the head (which is why you don't hear of uncircumcised guys needing lube to masturbate).
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

Studies have found that circumcision reduces sensitivity (this article also mentions how it has lost popularity in the USA in recent times):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2855...

And despite being more sensitive, uncircumcised guys still last in the same six minute range (average) that circumcised guys do:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs...

Circumcision makes masturbation more difficult:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs...

Which makes sense, that's how circumcision was promoted in the USA:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/...

Increases erectile dysfunction rates:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez...

If too much skin is removed in circumcision, it can make the penis smaller since the penis needs some skin to expand during an erection:
http://drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=21&actio...
http://www.altermd.com/Penis%20and%20Scr...

Circumcision does not completely stop penile cancer. The American Cancer Society has already confirmed the myth that circumcision = no cancer.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/conten...

If circumcision did stop penile cancer, then penile cancer would not be more common in the USA (most circumcised adults) than in some European nations, where circumcision is not practiced other than for medical/religious reasons.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.htm...

And a new study found that circumcision does not reduce your chances to get HIV/AIDS. Unlike other studies, this one was done in a developed nation; the USA.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22096758/

 

[Moose!]

People citing the CIRP again? 

I'll have a look through those if I have the time to see if I have any critiques. Regardless, current medical consensus is that circumcision does not have significant adverse health effects, sexual or not, which is why organizations like the CDC suggest that the decision to circumcise be left up to the parents, and not a routine procedure.

Also, did you even read a single one of those sources? Because a good half of them link to nothing. 

Whatever the content may include, CDC's final circumcision recommendations will be completely voluntary. While CDC has not yet determined if male circumcision should be recommended for any population, ultimately the decision will rest with individuals and parents. CDC's public health imperative is to provide the best possible information on the risks and benefits to help inform those decisions.

 

[Dodes]

Honestly I just threw it there without looking to assert the position that I was not pro-circumcision. Yet I imagine Frisian still thinks I am because he did not reply on my follow-up to him saying that there isn't proof that it "becomes riskier the older you are".

Probably should have realized that it may have been outdated.

And yeah, CIRP. That was dumb. 

 

[rebelsquirrell]

The sole reason for this crap is that if we acknowledge that circumcision offers a horrible side effect for virtually no gain then God gets bad guy points.


Let dicks alone.

 

[Dodes]

If not for culture/religion this wouldn't have happened nor would it be happening and I think that speaks volumes.

Though props for Jews for the whole "washing your hands" thing that they had before eating, that was actually really beneficial for something that didn't have any basis that said to do so. (That I know of)

 

[Adorno]

It is a better choice to have it performed as an infant. The procedure when the genitals are grown becomes more complex, is more painful (at least theorized) and has a much higher chance of significant complications.

Have you come across studies on this? It's still a poor argument though.
It's still an unneccesary procedure with risks done to a person who can't consent.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

Some people also abort and giveaway their children without their consent and despite their right to live, but are largely approved by the same people which might condemn a such religious practice as circumsision which is at best infact a lesser evil, compared to murder and selling/giving away children.

I would agree with your statement if it weren't so loaded and biased.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

Some people also abort and giveaway their children without their consent and despite their right to live, but are largely approved by the same people which might condemn a such religious practice as circumsision which is at best infact a lesser evil, compared to murder and selling/giving away children.

I would agree with your statement if it weren't so loaded and biased.

Dude. Don't respond to him. It only encourages him to keep posting.

 

[FrisianDude]

Honestly I just threw it there without looking to assert the position that I was not pro-circumcision. Yet I imagine Frisian still thinks I am because he did not reply on my follow-up to him saying that there isn't proof that it "becomes riskier the older you are".

Probably should have realized that it may have been outdated.

And yeah, CIRP. That was dumb. 

I didn't believe you were pro-, I was attacking the position you presented; one that is often used in defence.

 

[Moose!]

Also there's large numbers of men who are traumatised by having been circumcised as a child, just fyi.

Source? Because to my knowledge, the number of men who report serious side effects later in life (particularly with regards to sexual health) isn't statistically different from those who haven't been circumcised.

 

[Moose!]

Source?

 

[Kobrag]

Not physically, emotionally.

Since babies are more sensitive in all ways (due to being the least developed of any other species), it would be more painfil

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

Not physically, emotionally.

Since babies are more sensitive in all ways (due to being the least developed of any other species)

You just made my brane implode.