# Keep Your Hands Out of My Son's Diaper



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Coming to a state near you. I thought this was strictly MORE California taking away of rights, but turns out, several more states are trying for this as well. I could really care less about opinions for and against circumcision, for every argument you put forth against the practice I will put forth one FOR the cleanliness and health benefits of it. Isn't this also a violation of Jewish faith?

http://www.newsy.com/videos/california-s-controversial-circumcision-ban/

Let's see...smoking, Happy Meals, now this. And still people won't see where the world is heading right now. :shrug:
------------------

May 25, 2011|By Martha Groves, Los Angeles Times
Performing a circumcision on a boy under age 18 â even for religious reasons â would be illegal under a measure that a San Diego group hopes to place on Santa Monica's November 2012 ballot.

A similar initiative this month from the anti-circumcision group known as MGM Bill garnered enough signatures in San Francisco to place it on that city's November ballot. MGM stands for "male genital mutilation."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/25/local/la-me-circumcision-ban-20110525 For those with dial up, it is a written blurb.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Proving once again that there is no end to the ridiculous lengths some people will go to involve the government in every single minute detail of your life. We need to start making laws that restrict the government to only a certain role within society. As it stands, these things threaten to pile up and become oppressive.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

I wonder what supporters of sharia law in this country would have to say about the so-called female 'circumcisions', where the clitoris is removed (sometimes surgically, sometimes by home-made means) for religious reasons? 

No doubt they will still demand it.


----------



## Becka (Mar 15, 2008)

I wonder, do these folks think it's okay to get their baby girls' ears pierced without the child's permission? Just saying. . .


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Are we proposing that we should be able to surgically alter our offspring for purely cosmetic reasons. Would it be allright if I crop my sons ears to make them pointy if I found that pleasing to my eye?


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

JuliaAnn said:


> I wonder what supporters of sharia law in this country would have to say about the so-called female 'circumcisions', where the clitoris is removed (sometimes surgically, sometimes by home-made means) for religious reasons?
> 
> No doubt they will still demand it.


A federal law prohibiting female circumcision was enacted in 1996.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kirkmcquest said:


> Proving once again that there is no end to the ridiculous lengths some people will go to involve the government in every single minute detail of your life. *We need to start making laws that restrict the government to only a certain role within society.* As it stands, these things threaten to pile up and become oppressive.


We did that already..... its called our Constitution. What we need to do is elect leaders that will obey the laws we already have. Article one, section eight provides for those powers that congress should be involved with. Section nine provides for the limits placed upon Congress and the tenth amendment, the last amendment in the bill of rights reaffirms those limits so as to eliminate any possible confusion. Congress is to have no powers other than those specifically granted in the Constitution. All state and local laws are to be in accordance with the limits imposed upon them by our Constitution as well.


----------



## therunbunch (Oct 5, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We did that already..... its called our Constitution. What we need to do is elect leaders that will obey the laws we already have. Article one, section eight provides for those powers that congress should be involved with. Section nine provides for the limits placed upon Congress and the tenth amendment, the last amendment in the bill of rights reaffirms those limits so as to eliminate any possible confusion. Congress is to have no powers other than those specifically granted in the Constitution. All state and local laws are to be in accordance with the limits imposed upon them by our Constitution as well.


That's what I was about to say.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

I am the first to not want the government in our personal lives - but I'd be ok with this. Because you can call it whatever you want, but it boils down to the fact that it _is_ genital mutilation. That it is a widely practiced and accepted mutilation doesn't make it any less a mutilation.
All children used to get their tonsils out, often without anesthetic. It was thought to be medically necessary. But no more. And in cases where it is medically necessary, it can be done. I don't see this as much different.

As far as the religious aspect of it - your right to your religion ends where another person's rights begin.
Or, as my father used to put it "Your right to swing your fist ends an inch away from the other person's nose."

Religion does not give us the right to sell our daughters or mutilate our sons. Raise them, teach them, and if THEY want to choose YOUR religion, they may do so when they come of age, and marry an elder or be circumsized if they so choose.

No one is telling consenting adults that THEY have no right to be circumsized or are forbidden from circumcision. Therefore, no government intrusion into freedom of religion is being practiced. Only protection of children.
I do not believe that religion ever should be used a shield to cover child abuse. Back in biblical times, circumcision was for adults when they became believers. No reason for it not to be so today.

And, if you're wondering, no I didn't pierce my DD's ears as a baby. I'm against it. I told her she could get it done at 10 if she wanted to and she did. Ears close back up, that's why she could do it so young.
I didn't have DS circumsized. Penile tissue does NOT grow back.Should he choose to convert _as an adult_, I'll drive him to the doctor and support his decision. 
Because it's his body, it should be his choice. Should it become medically necessary for him as a child, it will be my duty as a parent to care for him. But as an optional procedure? I have no right.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We did that already..... its called our Constitution. What we need to do is elect leaders that will obey the laws we already have. Article one, section eight provides for those powers that congress should be involved with. Section nine provides for the limits placed upon Congress and the tenth amendment, the last amendment in the bill of rights reaffirms those limits so as to eliminate any possible confusion. Congress is to have no powers other than those specifically granted in the Constitution. All state and local laws are to be in accordance with the limits imposed upon them by our Constitution as well.


 Hows that working out for us


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

kirkmcquest said:


> We need to start making laws that restrict the government to only a certain role within society.


I thought that was addressed by the constitution?


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

You can also google information about challenges to the federal law that bans female 'circumcision'.


----------



## snoozy (May 10, 2002)

JuliaAnn said:


> I wonder what supporters of sharia law in this country would have to say about the so-called female 'circumcisions', where the clitoris is removed (sometimes surgically, sometimes by home-made means) for religious reasons?
> 
> No doubt they will still demand it.


So-called female "circumcision" has no basis in the Sharia and is not an Islamic practice, fear not.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Circumcision from the time it was given to Abraham straight on through to today has always been done on the 8th day after birth. The only time adults were circumcised was if they came to Judaism as an adult.



> Genesis 17:9 And God said to Abraham, âAs for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 *He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. *Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.â


This law is silly and it intrudes on people's faith and it should be shot down. It is not mutilation. All three of my sons were circumcised in accordance with our religious faith and it is none of the state's business to interfer. The only time they should interfere in a religious practice is if actual harm is being done to a child. Since the medical benefits of circumcision have been amply proven they have no grounds whatsoever.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

What gives anyone the right to lop off another person's body part? Even if you gave birth to that person ... hmmm, I don't think so.

Not wanting to get too graphic, but I've had lovers who were 'cut,' and some who weren't. There is a definite difference in sexual response. Circumcised guys are missing out, IMO! That's a terrible thing to do to your child.

At least let him make up his own mind when he's old enough to do so. Sheesh!


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

I think parents should have the right to choose or not choose any medical procedures for their offspring. But, that said, my kids are in their late 20s to late30s, and none of the boys were circumsized. I think it is genital mutilation unless done for reasons of faith. But it's not the business of government to interfere with parenting.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

||Downhome|| said:


> I thought that was addressed by the constitution?


It's supposed to be but there is no enforcement. When a representative of any branch doesn't follow the constitution...what are the legal consequences? None. We hope that they will not win re-election, but often they do anyway because the people don't understand the constitution or the role of government.

It seems to me, that a representative, breaking the supreme law of the land ( the constitution ) should face serious legal consequences. But they don't, which means the constitution essentially has no teeth.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

Patt said:


> The only time adults were circumcised was if they came to Judaism as an adult.


That's what I said.
Freedom of religion means freedom for EVERYONE. That includes your sons, my sons, they get to have the same freedom as we do.

YOUR freedom to practice YOUR religion does not give you the right to do something permanent and irreparable to anyone else, whether you gave birth to them or not. To do so takes away THEIR freedom of religion - which is to practice any religion they so choose once they are old enough to choose.

My cousin converted to Judaism from Catholicism. She was free to do so. Sure glad Catholics (or any other religion) don't cut off the pinky fingers of their girl babies to permanently mark them Catholic - aren't you?

By the way. In the scripture you quoted - it is illegal to buy babies now - no uproar from that? Do we get to pick and choose? 

I really, truly don't understand. I don't need to force my son to take my faith or mutilate him to remind him of it. I believe that if I raise him right, he'll see that this is the right path and choose it for himself. Isn't there a bible verse for that too?
If everyone doesn't have the same faith in their faith, how faithful are you really? I don't need to lop bits off of my children to prove my faith or brand them with my faith, and I have no right to do that to them.

Once again, YOUR freedom to practice YOUR religion - and a precious, _precious_ freedom it is - ENDS where someone else's freedom of religion begins.
Whether you gave birth to them or not. They get to choose upon adulthood.

God (or whatever deity you believe in) bless the USA. If you don't want to give your children _their_ freedom of religion - move.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Otter what you said was in biblical times only adults were circumcised. That is untrue. See the Bible passage above. Cutting off a pinky finger vs. a small piece of skin in no way, shape or form compares. Stop the hysterics for goodness sakes!


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Why am I not surprised at all the anti-Jewish comments. 

Just because you don't understand Judaism or think you know more than God doesn't mean that you have the right to enforce your pagan beliefs on my family.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

Otter said:


> Back in biblical times, circumcision was for adults when they became believers.



I didn't say only. I said WHEN. Since we have freedom to choose, we *all* have freedom to choose, WHEN we become adults.


It doesn't matter how much or little you're cutting off, and it doesn't matter how much or how little I understand your religion. You are using religion to justify cutting a piece off a baby.

I understand the Constitution, and you don't have the freedom to force your religion on anyone else or interfere with their freedoms and we don't have the right to mutilate or abuse children and cry out that it's part of our religion to do so. No hysteric, just facts. 

And what anti-Jewish comments? All I am doing is saying that everyone else, _including your children and mine_, have the right to choose their religion for themselves. If they want to say, upon reaching the legal age of maturity, "Yes, my parents were right, this faith is the right one, I want to be circumsized to show my faith and keep my covenant with God" then more power to them!
They are free to do so.


----------



## Ode (Sep 20, 2006)

It isn't just a small piece of skin, it is full of nerve endings and plays a role in protecting the glans from irritation. It removes a great deal of the sensitivity, and can cause problems with scarring in some cases. And let us not forget the few, rare but preventable, cases of accidental amputation or infection resulting in the need for amputation. The foreskin is far more than just a bit of skin. 

And female circumcision is not nearly the same thing. Male circumcision at least leaves sexual functioning intact. Female circumcision is the equivalent of penile amputation. And the more extreme versions remove the vulva and labia as well. Usually this is done without anesthetic or sterile conditions, often with a dirty instrument (usually a knife, scissors, or broken glass). The young girls have an unacceptably high rate of infection and death from this, and have permanent pain during marital relations and childbirth. They will frequently also suffer from fistulas after childbirth due to the scarring from their circumcision.

Hence the term Female Genital Mutilation being the more accurate term rather than circumcision. These poor women have genitals that look like a newborn baby.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Sorry, no matter how highly you might think of your opinion, you still don't trump God!


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

kirkmcquest said:


> It's supposed to be but there is no enforcement. When a representative of any branch doesn't follow the constitution...what are the legal consequences? None. We hope that they will not win re-election, but often they do anyway because the people don't understand the constitution or the role of government.
> 
> It seems to me, that a representative, breaking the supreme law of the land ( the constitution ) should face serious legal consequences. But they don't, which means the constitution essentially has no teeth.


so if it has no teeth, and all authority to govern and make law is derived from it.
what will making more laws accomplish? they will just be circumvented or ignored.
I was always under the Impression that a contract,which is how I view the constitution. but should you not honor any one part of a contract the whole thing is void.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

It's genital mutilation. I don't know what else you can call it. There is absolutely no justification for it; religious or otherwise.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

I am not Jewish. People choose circumcision for reasons other than religion also. Where exactly are you going to draw the line on this sort of thing? Kids should never receive any surgery until they are adults? Should we put them through the pain of braces or wait until they are adults and can make their own choice? Parents choose circumcision for a wide variety of reasons from medical health ones to religious beliefs, it is no ones business but the parents, their Doctor and their religious practioner.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Have you ever met a guy who wishes his parents hadn't had him circumcised? I haven't. I think you are making a serious tizzy over nothing.


----------



## gone-a-milkin (Mar 4, 2007)

Patt said:


> Have you ever met a guy who wishes his parents hadn't had him circumcised? I haven't. I think you are making a serious tizzy over nothing.


I most ceratinly have heard numerous men say they wish they hadn't been circumcised. 
Most men I have ever asked, in fact.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

When we chose to get Ethan circumcised, I did a TON of research on the subject.

I discovered (and I spoke to health experts, doctors, etc.) that the vast majority of the 'pros' on the subject had to do with actual, tangible results (e.g., a marked decrease in the occurrence of this or that kind of cancer, decrease in infections, etc.).

The vast majority of the 'cons' had to do with either PERCEIVED or POSSIBLE problems. E.g., 'possible' amputations or mistakes; or 'fear of' being made fun of, or 'fear of' being made to conform to religious ideals, etc.

This being said, I think either way is fine.

I WILL post one bit of information, however, that I find fascinating. When a child is first born, the reason so many babies are 'jaundiced' is because the liver and other systems are just getting kick-started; one of those processes is the one responsible for producing Vitamin K, which is responsible for the production of prothrombin. Together, those two substances cause blood coagulation. So many babies ALSO get Vitamin K shots the day after birth; and we told them we absolutely did not want him getting those shots. We believed sunlight plus normal feeding would take care of it.

I got ALL sorts of junk for it. We took Ethan home, spent time with him in the sunlight (not direct, of course) and brought him back 3 days later. He went from jaundiced to absolutely normal. Amazing. 

Anyways, it just so happens that those two substances mentioned above are not only present, but ABOVE 100% of 'normal' amounts in the human body. That day is the eighth day after birth. We chose that day to have Ethan circumcised; our doctor thought we were nuts until I explained the above to her; to which she responded "Ok....I've actually never heard that." She then told us we were literally the first to come at her with not only religious BUT ALSO scientific reasons.

She ended up giving him a Vitamin K shot anyways, but even she admitted that it was sort of a knee-jerk reaction, because he 'oozed' a small amount of blood. This being said, when she performed it, she applied a small amount of topical anesthetic, waited 5 minutes, and did the circumcision, through which Ethan slept. LOL

I find it interesting that God also specified the 8th day as the day to perform circumcisions for the Jews.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

I find some of this funny, many get all hysterical because they dislike the way some cultures based on religious belief handle things. oh for instance young women being stoned for transgressions? seems many would force their will in that area if they could. but let someone speak out against their practice for the voiceless. 

we protect children from many things but not this huh? makes you wonder.

I am circumcised, per my mothers belief. think if I had a choice I would of opted out.
I left the decision to my son, should he choose so he can have it done, anesthetic and 
all, pain meds after if necessary. newborns don't get that at least not in my generation.

I see all this sharia law stuff and yes it scares me a little but this seems a double standard here. 

I'm a little torn on this but I can see both sides. 

though if your Christian and can teach your son good hygiene,there is is no need to circumcise.Jews do so to honor the covenant God made with Abraham. it was never required of Christians and Paul in the new testament preached against it. I'm pretty sure I'm not of Abraham's house,in the same respect I'm not Jewish. so why was I mutilated?
Oh ya my mother thought it was the thing to do based on flawed beliefs, shes not Jewish either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Have you ever met a guy who wishes his parents hadn't had him circumcised?


I've never asked, nor wanted to know


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

I chose not to have my son circumcised due to the fact that I have problems myself. My skin is too tender and fine down there due to the foreskin being cut off slightly wrong and I frequently get skin that peels off and that's NO fun! Also when the foreskin is cut off, basically the child loses up to 30-40% of nerve endings! Not worth it. It doesn't look horrible. Looks fine and you do have to teach the child to clean his privates more closely.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> What gives anyone the right to lop off another person's body part? Even if you gave birth to that person ... hmmm, I don't think so.


Strange question coming from you. What gives anyone the right to kill another person? Yet, you are pro abortion which is infinitely more severe than circumcision. May be you would feel better about it if we didn't call it foreskin. Would calling it just " extra tissue " make it better?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

It's interesting to see how this thread shifted, from challenging State's rights, to decide what best for your children, to challenging Parent's rights, to decide whats best for their children.

We should probably let our kid's decide, on whether they want to be immunized, or not.

It funny that most circumcised men, probably didn't even know that they had been "mutiliated", until someone else told them.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've never asked, nor wanted to know


I think conversation in some circles must go in some weird directions. I've was in the Army for over 2 decades and around thousands of guys in that time, been fishing and hunting with lots of guys over the years, sat on bar stools next to lots of guys in my younger days talking about all sorts of things, and I can honestly say the subject of circumcision never came up that I remember.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

What I find strange is how this issue seems to be split along party lines.


----------



## gone-a-milkin (Mar 4, 2007)

poppy said:


> I think conversation in some circles must go in some weird directions. I've was in the Army for over 2 decades and around thousands of guys in that time, been fishing and hunting with lots of guys over the years, sat on bar stools next to lots of guys in my younger days talking about all sorts of things, and I can honestly say the subject of circumcision never came up that I remember.


The question came up for me when I learned that I was pregnant with my first son, and agonizing over the decision to have the procedure done or not.
It wasn't any type of perversion, just figured I would ask the GUYS their opinions about it.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Nevada said:


> What I find strange is how this issue seems to be split along party lines.


In my case it's got nothing to do with party lines; it had mainly to do with science.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Kung said:


> In my case it's got nothing to do with party lines; it had mainly to do with science.


I don't think the issue is whether it's a good idea to do it, the issue is whether the parent has the right to make that decision. Most on the right seem to think so, most on the left don't. I find that curious.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

Patt said:


> ? Kids should never receive any surgery until they are adults? Should we put them through the pain of braces or wait until they are adults and can make their own choice?


Seriously? But I'm hysterical??

Very, very simple. If it is medically necessary, then yes. 
Can a foreskin get infected? Yes, but until and unless it does - leave it alone. The appendix serves no function whatsoever, and appendicitis is a more real threat then any foreskin issue, but we don't knee jerk perform surgery on all of our children just in case.

So if it was purely a medical decision, did you have your child's appendix out too? How about their tonsils? No, you left it alone, and will continue to do so until there is a medical necessity for it.

And by the way, yes, my husband wishes he had never had it done, along with every man I've ever asked save one cousin. The subject seems to come up every time someone gets pregnant.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Oh, this is a fun thread... 

Folks who are FOR killing babies are against circumcision.

Indeed truth is stranger than fiction.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Ok, a follow-up question - WHY are guys who have been circumcised, but who wish they'd never had it done, wishing that? I'm genuinely curious; I've not once said "Man, I really wish I had more of my family jewels." LOL

I'm not lobbing grenades; I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

For Jewish parents to have their son circumsised is one thing. For Christian parents to do so for religious reasons is absurd.

Galatians 5:1-11 (New International Version 1984)

Galatians 5
Freedom in Christ
1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. 

7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 &#8220;A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.&#8221; 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11 Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

I don't really consider it a religious thing... just a streamlining thing. It's all about the aerodynamics.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

So the people that are up in arms about circ - are you just as up in arms about the MURDER of a yet to be born child?


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

that we've actually agreed on a subject.
******************


Patt said:


> Circumcision from the time it was given to Abraham straight on through to today has always been done on the 8th day after birth. The only time adults were circumcised was if they came to Judaism as an adult.
> 
> 
> 
> This law is silly and it intrudes on people's faith and it should be shot down. It is not mutilation. All three of my sons were circumcised in accordance with our religious faith and it is none of the state's business to interfer. The only time they should interfere in a religious practice is if actual harm is being done to a child. Since the medical benefits of circumcision have been amply proven they have no grounds whatsoever.





willow_girl said:


> What gives anyone the right to lop off another person's body part? Even if you gave birth to that person ... hmmm, I don't think so.
> 
> *Not wanting to get too graphic*, but I've had lovers who were 'cut,' and some who weren't. There is a definite difference in sexual response. Circumcised guys are missing out, IMO! That's a terrible thing to do to your child.
> 
> At least let him make up his own mind when he's old enough to do so. Sheesh!


***********************************
Whoops.....too late for that now!!!
**************************


Otter said:


> *That's what I said.*
> Freedom of religion means freedom for EVERYONE. That includes your sons, my sons, they get to have the same freedom as we do.
> 
> YOUR freedom to practice YOUR religion does not give you the right to do something permanent and irreparable to anyone else, whether you gave birth to them or not. To do so takes away THEIR freedom of religion - which is to practice any religion they so choose once they are old enough to choose.
> ...


*******************************************
No, actually that's _*NOT*_ what you said. I direct you to your previous post wherein 
you stated the following: "Back in biblical times, circumcision was for adults when they became believers." 
Of course we are now left with the question of what you meant by that statement: "became believers"? 
It is not generally recognized as referencing JEWS in the New Testament; unless they became Christians. 
The term is not used in the Old Testament where the rite of circumcision was done both as an outward 
sign of separation from the heathen nations surrounding them and submission to God, who had 
commanded it to be done. So.... to which are you referring?

St. Paul presents an excellent treatise on the subject; primarily from Romans the 2nd chapter .....
on thru to Galations and beyond. Circumcision will NOT save you, nor will it prevent you from being 
saved. Only Christ can do that. But the state should have no power decided who can or 
cannot practice their faith; whether it be a child of 8 days and that operation is performed 
or when he is of an age of accountability (whenever that magical age is reached.....again, 
something that the state would no doubt get to decide) No thanks. Freedom of religion is 
conversely also freedom from the 'religion' imposed by the state......deciding who does what to whom.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

Kung said:


> Ok, a follow-up question - WHY are guys who have been circumcised, but who wish they'd never had it done, wishing that? I'm genuinely curious; I've not once said "Man, I really wish I had more of my family jewels." LOL
> 
> I'm not lobbing grenades; I'm genuinely curious.


LOL, so I called DH over and asked him. He said, he would have liked to experience his life with his whole body, and not had part of it removed before he was old enough to choose or realize. He also said that he never thought about it much, until he had a son, and that he couldn't do that to his son - not without a very real reason and "maybe" wasn't good enough. 
He actually called his mother once and asked her why.

The subject makes him kind of uncomfortable - even though he is normally rather bold, if you know what I mean. Most guys I've talked to about it have a sense of being violated.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Kung said:


> Ok, a follow-up question - WHY are guys who have been circumcised, but who wish they'd never had it done, wishing that? I'm genuinely curious; I've not once said "Man, I really wish I had more of my family jewels." LOL
> 
> I'm not lobbing grenades; I'm genuinely curious.



Good question. Now that we've been told how our parents mutilated us as infants and ruined our sex lives, can we claim victim status and get some money from the government? I feel the fortunate uncircumcised among us should pay into a fund for us out of fairness.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Otter said:


> LOL, so I called DH over and asked him. He said, he would have liked to experience his life with his whole body, and not had part of it removed before he was old enough to choose or realize. He also said that he never thought about it much, until he had a son, and that he couldn't do that to his son - not without a very real reason and "maybe" wasn't good enough.
> He actually called his mother once and asked her why.
> 
> The subject makes him kind of uncomfortable - even though he is normally rather bold, if you know what I mean. Most guys I've talked to about it have a sense of being violated.


Hrm. I guess I've never thought about it; in my case, as I've stated, for me it was not at all a religious decision. I will grant that guys aren't dying of infections or 'penile cancer' in droves or anything, however, as a result of not getting circumcised.


----------



## gone-a-milkin (Mar 4, 2007)

Kung said:


> Ok, a follow-up question - WHY are guys who have been circumcised, but who wish they'd never had it done, wishing that? I'm genuinely curious; I've not once said "Man, I really wish I had more of my family jewels." LOL
> 
> I'm not lobbing grenades; I'm genuinely curious.


Several of the men I have talked to about it do have some scarring or peeling/ chapping issues. More than you might imagine. Really.
I know it is not something they go to the doctor for, they just 'deal with it'. 

The others all either felt oddly violated or at least wonder if they are missing some sensation. 

I do believe it is a parent's right to make the decision for their child. 
Part of making choices is being informed. 
Hence the need to be able to TALK about 'uncomfortable' topics. <w/o it being deemed 'dirty' or 'perverted'.


----------



## ghmerrill (Feb 22, 2011)

Its a family decision, its none of your business, stay out of it.

when did this website become a liberal hangout?


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

Copperkid3, in answer to your question towards me. _Of course we are now left with the question of what you meant by that statement: "became believers"?_

Here in the US we have the freedom of religion, which is the freedom to choose our own religion and not have it chosen for us.

Which, to me means, you can raise your child in your faith, but have no right do do anything permanent, life-altering, damaging, etc. 

_By all means_, teach them, guide them, take them to worship, dress them how you wish, socialize with who you choose - but don't permanently alter them to mark them of your religion. Clothes can be changed, hair can be grown or cut - but skin can't be regrown, tattoos can't be erased, virginity can't be re-given. _In giving you the freedom to pursue your religion, we must all give our children the freedom to choose their own._

Which means after the age of consent. That is the _when_ I am referring to. WHEN they are old enough to choose their path, they can get circumsized then, if that is their religious choice. When they become adults and can fully exercise their freedoms, the freedoms we all enjoy.

So yes, in biblical times, should an adult want to join a religion that required it, he could be circumsized as an adult and that was acceptable. Now, in the USA, to ensure that every individual has their freedom of religion, if the religion requires something so permanent of it's members, we must wait until the member is old enough to decide for themselves.

Otherwise, we have taken their freedom of religion away from them.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

gone-a-milkin said:


> Several of the men I have talked to about it do have some scarring or peeling/ chapping issues. More than you might imagine. Really.
> I know it is not something they go to the doctor for, they just 'deal with it'.


ROFL - not EVEN going down that road.

Seriously, though, I guess I've just never thought about it. I've never dealt w/any of those issues; any problems I've ever had in that area had more to do with the mishandling of wiffle ball bats as a child, or slipping off of bike pedals, than they have to do with circumcision. 

I absolutely agree with making informed choices, however.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> It's interesting to see how this thread shifted, from challenging State's rights, to decide what best for your children, to challenging Parent's rights, to decide whats best for their children.
> 
> We should probably let our kid's decide, on whether they want to be immunized, or not.
> 
> It funny that most circumcised men, probably didn't even know that they had been "mutiliated", until someone else told them.


Same thing I was thinking and I don't ever remember being :gasp: _mutilated_. :yawn:


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

I am going to have to say this whole thread is just downright bizarre.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Otter said:


> Which means after the age of consent. That is the _when_ I am referring to. WHEN they are old enough to choose their path, they can get circumsized then, if that is their religious choice. When they become adults and can fully exercise their freedoms, the freedoms we all enjoy.


Aside from this discussion, there's only one problem with that.

At 8 days old, as much as that probably DOESN'T feel good, it causes NOWHERE NEAR the pain that it does as an adult. As a baby, a circumcision will heal in a few days, and does not cause them much discomfort or pain - especially considering how it is done nowadays (via the 'ring' method).

An ADULT, however, takes a *LOT* longer, and EVERY single person I've EVER known who has gotten a circumcision as an adult said it was EASILY the longest and most painful procedure they had ever gone through. The doctors I've asked who have done this to adults, as well as my wife and a few nurses, all concur.

(I'm not posting this as an argument 'for' circumcision at an early age; I'm simply stating fact.)


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

willow_girl said:


> What gives anyone the right to lop off another person's body part? Even if you gave birth to that person ... hmmm, I don't think so.
> 
> Not wanting to get too graphic, but I've had lovers who were 'cut,' and some who weren't. There is a definite difference in sexual response. Circumcised guys are missing out, IMO! That's a terrible thing to do to your child.
> 
> At least let him make up his own mind when he's old enough to do so. Sheesh!


I finally found something we agree on 100% :shocked:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Otter said:


> He actually called his mother once and asked her why.


I did that too. She claimed ignorance. Being the son of a doctor, that's just a little difficult to believe.

I believe that any legal basis for a parent authorizing genital mutilation is on thin ice. Other than the fact that parents have gotten away with it for a long time, I can't imagine what the legal theory behind it might be.


----------



## katy (Feb 15, 2010)

Nevada, Quote{I believe that any legal basis for a parent authorizing genital mutilation is on thin ice. Other than the fact that parents have gotten away with it for a long time, I can't imagine what the legal theory behind it might be. }

Depending on the OBGYN, it has been presented as a health / cleanliness issue, nothing more nor less. Don't know if that is the case today.


----------



## PrettyPaisley (May 18, 2007)

8 days is because the baby's blood clots (since they had no Vit K shot back then)-it has nothing to do with pain. 

I'm anti-abortion, anti-circ. Go figure.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I did that too. She claimed ignorance. Being the son of a doctor, that's just a little difficult to believe.
> 
> I believe that any legal basis for a parent authorizing genital mutilation is on thin ice. Other than the fact that parents have gotten away with it for a long time, I can't imagine what the legal theory behind it might be.


It's obviously a conspiracy. I think it is somehow tied to 911 and an investigation is in order. I also think Bush and Cheney are involved somehow and I think they both will end up in prison as a result. I notice you said your mom claimed ignorance. Is that hereditary?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

gone-a-milkin said:


> Several of the men I have talked to about it do have some scarring or peeling/ chapping issues. More than you might imagine. Really.
> I know it is not something they go to the doctor for, they just 'deal with it'.
> 
> The others all either felt oddly violated or at least wonder if they are missing some sensation.
> ...


What you choose to discuss with " several men " is your own business but I would feel oddly violated if some woman started asking about my private parts.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

poppy said:


> Strange question coming from you. What gives anyone the right to kill another person? Yet, you are pro abortion which is infinitely more severe than circumcision. May be you would feel better about it if we didn't call it foreskin. *Would calling it just " extra tissue " make it better?*


**************************************
How about if you tried something in their own vernacular and called it: "_*UNWANTED*_ tissue"??? 
That way, when it's still in the womb and attached to the rest of the unwanted baby........
it can all be disposed of at once......nice and easy. The *UNWANTED* tissue doesn't even get 
a say in the matter, as he won't ever reach the age of accountability to make his own decision in the question at hand.

However, the irony (not to mention hypocrisy) of the situation is that 
once it gets *OUTSIDE* the mother's body, then they will defend that 
individual's right to keep his foreskin attached; whereas if the mother 
hadn't wanted either; i.e. baby boy with attached * UNWANTED* 
tissue, then it would be *HER* right to dispose of both. 

We live in a truly *SICK SOCIETY* that can't see the difference between believing on the 
one hand that the gooberment shouldn't interfere with a woman's right to dispose of an *UNWANTED *
tissue, because it is part of _*HER *_body, and on the other hand, states that the gooberment 
should interfere; mandating against a particular groups' right to practice their religion by the removal of 
a small amount of unwanted tissue, or for that matter anyone who wants it done for their own personal beliefs.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

poppy said:


> What you choose to discuss with " several men " is your own business but I would feel oddly violated if some woman started asking about my private parts.


*****************************
those Vagina Monologues we've been hearing so much about. Might prove interesting.ound::hysterical:eep:


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Kung said:


> Hrm. I guess I've never thought about it; in my case, as I've stated, for me it was not at all a religious decision. I will grant that guys aren't dying of infections or 'penile cancer' in droves or anything, however, as a result of not getting circumcised.


******************************************
of having the 'procedure' done. Thank you for the opportunity to get the ball going in another direction.

In 2002, a large, well-designed multinational study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer 
published in the New England Journal of Medicine has irrefutably implicated the foreskin in cervical cancer 
[Castellsague et al., 2002]. This involved 1,913 couples in 5 global locations in Europe, Asia and South 
America. Penile HPV was found in 20% of uncircumcised, but only 5% of circumcised men (odds ratio
= 0.37). The women were more than 5.6 times more likely to have cervical cancer if their partner was 
uncircumcised. This was seen in monogamous women whose male partner had had 6 or more sexual 
partners (adjusted odds ratio = 0.42), but circumcision was also protective in women whose partner had 
an intermediate sexual behavior risk index (odds ratio = 0.50).
*
http://www.circinfo.net/cervical_cancer_in_female_partners_of_uncircumcised_men.html*

And here's an article advocating 'universal' circumcision.
*
http://mandatorycircumcision.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html*


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Strange question coming from you. What gives anyone the right to kill another person? Yet, you are pro abortion which is infinitely more severe than circumcision. May be you would feel better about it if we didn't call it foreskin. Would calling it just " extra tissue " make it better?


For the record, I think abortion is a terrible thing, and when I was faced with an unwanted pregnancy, I decided to carry to term, even though I really didn't want a child. That was probably the toughest decision I've ever had to make. I don't feel it is appropriate for me, via the long arm of the State, to make that decision for another woman whose circumstances might be different. (I had a good man who was more than happy to marry me. That's not always the case.) 

Generally, our society confers 'personhood' at birth. That is a construct, but a reasonable one, IMO. I do not think children should be regarded as the property of their parents, but rather as individual citizens with full protection of the law. 



> Ok, a follow-up question - WHY are guys who have been circumcised, but who wish they'd never had it done, wishing that? I'm genuinely curious; I've not once said "Man, I really wish I had more of my family jewels." LOL
> 
> I'm not lobbing grenades; I'm genuinely curious.


Obviously I can't speak from the male perspective, but as a woman who is highly experienced in this area  I have observed a definite difference in sensation. Uncut men get a lot more pleasure from 'the act,' I believe for two reasons. One is that the tissue removed during circumcision is filled with nerve endings that experience pleasurable sensation if left intact. Also, the intact foreskin shields an exquisitely sensitive part of a man's anatomy, which becomes LESS sensitive if the shield is removed and that part is constantly exposed to friction from clothing, etc. 

I hope that wasn't too graphic -- if so, please feel free to poke your eyes out with a sharp stick.


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

I faced incredible opposition when I decided to leave my son intact in 1994. Despite the fact that my family is European and most of the men are not circ'd my inlaws were after me for 4 months after the birth to do the "right" thing. I do not believe in genital mutilation and feel that since female mutilation is illegal male should be too.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

copperkid3 said:


> Saint. Paul presents an excellent treatise on the subject; primarily from Romans the 2nd chapter .....
> on thru to Galations and beyond. Circumcision will NOT save you, nor will it prevent you from being
> saved. Only Christ can do that. But the state should have no power decided who can or
> cannot practice their faith; whether it be a child of 8 days and that operation is performed
> ...


From how I read it it does not matter in what state you become a member of the New Covenant, but if after becoming a member a believer returns to the cerimonial requrements of the Law his faith in Christ is useless and he is required to uphold the Law to perfection for salvation. Something Paul indicates is not possible. So in fact a believer does lose his salvation.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Hmmm...... Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day according to the commands of God. 

If you are a follower of his then why would you be against circumcision?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

copperkid3 said:


> *****************************
> those Vagina Monologues we've been hearing so much about. Might prove interesting.ound::hysterical:eep:



I was hoping she would reply because I am getting old and may be out of the loop. Perhaps such matters are normal in conversation today and I need to get into the swing of things. I know a few women and next time we are chatting about the weather or something, I will ask them about their breasts. I will ask if they are original equipment or whether they have been surgically altered to reshape them or make them larger. I will also ask how it affected their sex lives and whether they have any chaffing or peeling skin issues. I'll compile a report and post a new thread with the results. It may be a while though because I will likely be spending some time either in jail or the loony bin.:gaptooth:


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Wags said:


> Hmmm...... Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day according to the commands of God.
> 
> If you are a follower of his then why would you be against circumcision?


Actually I am an Agnostic from a very religious background.

Christ upheld the requirements of the Law to perfection and ushered in the New Covenant at his death and resurection.

Romans 7
An Illustration From Marriage
1 Do you not know, brothersâfor I am speaking to men who know the lawâthat the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. 
4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

postroad said:


> From how I read it it does not matter in what state you become a member of the New Covenant, but if after becoming a member a believer returns to the cerimonial requrements of the Law his faith in Christ is useless and he is required to uphold the Law to perfection for salvation. Something Paul indicates is not possible. So in fact a believer does lose his salvation.


*****************************************
sentence to agree with and which part to attack......
while ignoring the vital portion that would have 
*AVOIDED* any discussion on the matter at all.

That portion where I mentioned "Only Christ can do that", happened to be the trump card; I mentioned 
nothing else concerning being circumcised *AFTER *receiving Christ as a form of 'double insurance'......
Paul had already covered that section pretty well. So I'm thinking (after reviewing several of your 
numerous posts on similar matters) that you simply like to argue for the sake of arguing; as you certainly 
don't comprehend nearly as well as you profess to read what you do, into a subject. Paul's indication 
was pretty clear on the matter; that so-called "believer" was *NEVER* saved to begin with. 
Going thru the 'motions' of snip-snip, didn't save him and it never could.

Now here's some more food for thought: Try reading Titus 3: 9-11. If you get nothing else out 
of the passage beyond this important point; just remember this: that's #1.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

> Galatians 5
> Freedom in Christ
> 1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
> 2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
> ...


What part of this text did I misunderstand?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

katy said:


> Nevada, Quote{I believe that any legal basis for a parent authorizing genital mutilation is on thin ice. Other than the fact that parents have gotten away with it for a long time, I can't imagine what the legal theory behind it might be. }
> 
> Depending on the OBGYN, it has been presented as a health / cleanliness issue, nothing more nor less. Don't know if that is the case today.


How does purporting genital mutilation to be a hygiene measure make it legal? Cleaning up excess tissue around female genitalia may also be more hygienic, so does that make female genital mutilation legal? I think not...


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

poppy said:


> I was hoping she would reply because I am getting old and may be out of the loop. Perhaps such matters are normal in conversation today and I need to get into the swing of things. I know a few women and next time we are chatting about the weather or something, I will ask them about their breasts. I will ask if they are original equipment or whether they have been surgically altered to reshape them or make them larger. I will also ask how it affected their sex lives and whether they have any chaffing or peeling skin issues. I'll compile a report and post a new thread with the results. It may be a while though because I will likely be spending some time either in jail or the loony bin.:gaptooth:


*********************************************
hospital's intense care unit. :bash::stars:




ETA: I'll be sure to send flowers......


----------



## DavidUnderwood (Jul 5, 2007)

Today, 12:15 AM 
seedspreader 
Team USA. We're small! Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NW Pa./NY Border.
Posts: 12,345 

Oh, this is a fun thread... 

Folks who are FOR killing babies are against circumcision.

Indeed truth is stranger than fiction. 
__________________

What I thought.
For a group bent on less gov intrusion in
our everyday lives, it's interesting what
some are willing to give up to Uncle Sam.
Its a family matter. I don't feel mutilated.
I never heard a single man say he did, nor
wish he'd never been circumcised.
Mind your own buisness and leave others alone.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DavidUnderwood said:


> Its a family matter.


Is female genital mutilation also a family matter?



DavidUnderwood said:


> I don't feel mutilated.
> I never heard a single man say he did, nor
> wish he'd never been circumcised.


That's not true and you know it. I've said that I wish it was never done to me.

The fact that circumcision has become customary has warped your sense of right and wrong. What this proves is that you can get used to most anything. Circumcision is deliberate mutilation, it's wrong, and there is no legal basis for it.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Is female genital mutilation also a family matter?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


****************************************
that there is no legal basis for the *GOOBERMENT* to poke their fingers into our pants to check on 
whether we have or haven't......in fact, there's *MORE* than ample legal basis (and I might add; 
protection) from the state from interfering with the people from practicing their religion!!! Lest 
some of us forget.... here's a little reminder from the Constitution of the U.S.:

_"*Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion, 
*or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; 
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; 
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and 
to petition the government for a redress of grievances."_

Pay particular attention to the highlighted portion.......:whistlin::clap::clap:


So I guess this means......get used to it; 
it's not like you can go back and have it sewn back on......


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

postroad said:


> Actually I am an Agnostic from a very religious background.
> 
> Christ upheld the requirements of the Law to perfection and ushered in the New Covenant at his death and resurection.



Better read up on the New Covenant - heaven and earth are still here for starters so the New Covenant is not yet in effect.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

copperkid3 said:


> _"*Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion,
> *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*;
> or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
> or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
> ...


Good! I just established my own religion where we do genital mutilation on girls. Does that make it legal?

But we've been down this road before. Native Americans used to have "rites of passage", which included girls having sex upon reaching puberty with a man known to be good at that sort of thing. Rites of passage was considered part of their religion, and the girls actually looked forward to it. Of course that was considered statuary rape by our laws, so they put a stop to it.

So what religion is the infant being circumcised? How do you know that he won't grow to become agnostic, or even convert to a different religion? Where is the infants right to practice his own religion -- or not?

On its face, circumcision is both wrong and illegal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> On its* face*, circumcision is both wrong and illegal


They aren't circumcising anyone's face.

No wonder you stay confused.

And it's not illegal

You're just being foolish now


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't circumcising anyone's face.
> 
> No wonder you stay confused.



Completely unexpected Spew Alert.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Wags said:


> Better read up on the New Covenant - heaven and earth are still here for starters so the New Covenant is not yet in effect.


Does that make Paul a liar and a false prophet?

1 Corinthians 11:24-26 (New International Version 1984)
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, âThis is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.â 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, âThis cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.â 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lordâs death until he comes. 

2 Corinthians 3:6-8 (New International Version 1984)
6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenantânot of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 

The Glory of the New Covenant
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 

Hebrews 8:12-13 (New International Version 1984)

12 For I will forgive their wickedness 
and will remember their sins no more.â[a] 

13 By calling this covenant ânew,â he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't circumcising anyone's face.
> 
> No wonder you stay confused.
> 
> ...


*********************************************
*NOW* is rather specific and all exclusive to a certain point in time......
And while I wouldn't disagree with your present assessment, I believe it's already been proven that
he's been described as such, in an earlier era. Tomorrow probably won't change him much either. :cowboy:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

But it is interesting that no one has offered a legal theory as to why circumcision isn't a crime.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Why in the world do you think is should be a crime to have the procedure done?


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Nevada said:


> But it is interesting that no one has offered a legal theory as to why circumcision isn't a crime.


You want a legal theory as to why it's not a crime? Here's mine:

Because it hasn't been made one yet. :shrug: 

The reasons for and against it have been discussed ad infinitum here; they pretty much mirror the arguments on websites out there, such as Wikipedia and other circumcision-focused websites.

I will note that most of the problems experienced related to circumcision in the US of A have more to do with problems related to informed consent, than they do with any problems stemming from circumcision.

Your argument seems to center around the idea that if someone can't offer a 'final' or 'conclusive' argument as to why it should be done, then there's no justification for it, and it's not legal, etc. The problem is that there's no clear-cut answer one way or the other, regardless of how you may see it. There are those who have problems with the fact that they've been circumcised; there are those who have had problems UNTIL they have been circumcised.

Frankly, if it were outlawed, I don't see it as being that big of a deal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But it is interesting that no one has offered a legal theory as to why circumcision isn't a crime.


There's no reason to offer a "theory" because you are the only one who considers it a "crime"



> Is female genital mutilation also a family matter?


No logical, intelligent person would equate cuttng off a small piece of skin to cutting off an entire sexual ORGAN.

Silly arguments like that are why you lose credibility


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

I got thinking about this thread, and this thought occurred to me.

I'm really against state sponsored stuff,government interference and in my previous post said I was torn on the issue. I also pointed out,how it seems many are hypocrites when it comes to religious and cultural practices. we can do as we please and dont interfere but we will tell you how and what to do.

but the thought was, there are many here (me included) that do not want anothers belief system pushed upon us though some of these people feel its ok to do so to others.
there is some outrage, but as student of history it seems that religion has been pushed down peoples throats.many different nations and nationality's. Many never wanted to be Christians it was forced on them. Over the centuries it was just accepted and the reason lost to antiquity. Like so many other things, look around sometime there are lots of people that do lots of things. Even though they may know how to do it they do not know the reason why, ask and they will more then likely reply "that's just the way it is" 
or "its always been like that way". 

So I wonder how many people of "the three faiths" that share the first testament would be practicing those faiths had it not been forced upon their ancestors.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Why in the world do you think is should be a crime to have the procedure done?


For the same reason female genital mutilation is a crime. It's painful, it's disfiguring, it's irreversible amputation, and there is no medical justification for it whatsoever. Circumcision violates the fundamental sense of right & wrong for any reasonable person.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nev. Why did you Just Answer my post, instead of the 3 others that had better explanations? Just because you don't agree with me?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Nev. Why did you Just Answer my post, instead of the 3 others that had better explanations? Just because you don't agree with me?


You were my first reply, so I answered it. That offends you?


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Kung testified that his son slept through the procedure that was done correctly on the 8th day. My son didn't sleep through it, but he also didn't cry. 

There is plenty of medical justification for it to be done, (but again God's commands supersedes any medical justification) and when asked my dh said it was ridiculous to think that it was "mutilation" and he doesn't think he is missing out at all.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Wags said:


> Kung testified that his son slept through the procedure that was done correctly on the 8th day. My son didn't sleep through it, but he also didn't cry.
> 
> There is plenty of medical justification for it to be done, (but again God's commands supersedes any medical justification) and when asked my dh said it was ridiculous to think that it was "mutilation" and he doesn't think he is missing out at all.


Was Paul a liar and a false prophet?


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

postroad said:


> Was Paul a liar and a false prophet?


Clarification?


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Kung said:


> Clarification?


Wags indicated that the New Covenant was not yet in effect. IMO Paul indicates that it was or so imenent that the written code (Law) was "canceled" and "obsolete" 

Of particular interest to this thread is the issue of circumcision which Paul vehemently opposed.

Now if the Old Covenant is still in effect to this day that leaves a lot of people who believe they are saved as heirs to the promise to Abraham through the body of Christ cut off from that promise due to their lack of upholding the Law and particular the cerimonial circumsision demanded by the Law.

Genesis 17:13-15 (New International Version 1984)
13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.&#8221; 

15 God also said to Abraham, &#8220;As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.

Disregarding for the moment the troubling language "everlasting" lets look again at on what Paul indicates 

Galatians 5:1-6 (New International Version 1984)

Galatians 5
Freedom in Christ
1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

What you don't hear much about is too much skin being cut off or the tip of the penis being cut off by accident or the child bleeds to death. They are out there but just not recorded due to the fact the doctors don't want the general public to know it does happen. They happen to have good malpractice insurance for this reason. Also was told that some doctors are known for leaving too much skin resulting in the child having to undergo the surgery a few years down the road.

Was told that in the old days (Victorian Era) that the boys were circ'd due to the mistaken belief that it cuts down on masturbation. Everyone knows that's not true!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wags said:


> Kung testified that his son slept through the procedure that was done correctly on the 8th day. My son didn't sleep through it, but he also didn't cry.


Then it wasn't done correctly. The procedure is designed to be done without anesthetic, in a way that will leave psychological scars. If it doesn't, they won't get the desired effect. The boy is first immobilized on a circumcision board with Velcro straps.

http://yhst-48470439171043.stores.yahoo.net/cibocineim.html

Here is how Dr. Kellogg described the procedure and the desired effect.

_"The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."
_


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Considering kids don't recall a thing about their first weeks of life, that is a pretty ludicrous comment for that doctor to make, no?


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Also wanted to add that the "agitaters" which Paul wished would go all the way and cut their balls off were most certainly Jewish followers of Christ sent by the Jerusalem Church led by individuals who actually had known Christ.

Paul certainly had no problem lieing to them.Acts 21:20-24 (New International Version 1984)

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: &#8220;You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

What does Paul do even though he was teaching exactly what he was being accused of?

And what does he tell the Galatians about this incedent.

Galatians 2:1-6 (New International Version 1984)

Galatians 2
Paul Accepted by the Apostles
1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. 
6 As for those who seemed to be important&#8212;whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance&#8212;those men added nothing to my message.


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no reason to offer a "theory" because you are the only one who considers it a "crime"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tell that to a friend of mine whose son's penis was amputated at the tip during his circumcision-she was against it and her Dh family was not listening. The DR who took a look at it after she took him to the office after 3 days of screaming was shocked that one of his collegues had done such a botched job...


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

beccachow said:


> Considering kids don't recall a thing about their first weeks of life, that is a pretty ludicrous comment for that doctor to make, no?


Maybe subconcious?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

postroad said:


> beccachow said:
> 
> 
> > Considering kids don't recall a thing about their first weeks of life, that is a pretty ludicrous comment for that doctor to make, no?
> ...


Kellogg believed that the psychological scars would last into adulthood. He promised parents that their sons would be less preoccupied with sex. That's what this is really all about.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

I am just amazed at how people are OK with the government....let me repeat that, the GOVERNMENT...would possibly pass a law telling YOU what you may or may NOT do with your child. I didn't intend for the religious debate, I was simply astounded that they would have the audacity to even try it. And now I am even MORE astounded that folks are OK with it!!! This is the same government that in California banned toys in Happy Meals because they didn't think YOU could make an informed nutritional choice for your child. The same government infringing on free enterprise by trying to ban Ronald McDonald!! Do people not see that if you give an inch, they will infiltrate into every crevice of your life? Is that really OK?

Sure, things can go wrong...things go wrong in every type of surgery you can imagine. Those mistakes are few and far between. The health benefits vs the risks...shouldn't that be up to the parent to decide, NOT the government?? Next they will ban ear piercing, I suppose, would that be ok, too?

Again, I BEG you all, look at the big picture. Take religion OUT of this for a second, and look at the BIG PICTURE. Next the government will tell you you cannot own a cocker spaniel because they tend to bite children; are you ok with that, too??


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Kellogg believed that the psychological scars would last into adulthood. He promised parents that their sons would be less preoccupied with sex. That's what this is really all about.


Isnt he the guy who invented corn flakes as an anti masterbation food?

Although what difference that would make I do not know.

Was the premice that having to pull back the foreskin for cleanining would encourage masterbation?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Tell that to a friend of mine whose son's penis was amputated at the tip during his circumcision-she was against it and her Dh family was not listening. The DR who took a look at it after she took him to the office after 3 days of screaming was shocked that one of his collegues had done such a botched job...


There are 3 words that cover *that* situation, and NOT a normal circumcision


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

postroad said:


> Isnt he the guy who invented corn flakes as an anti masterbation food?


Yeah. He was a bit of a nut over the topic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Kellogg believed that the psychological scars would last into adulthood. He promised parents that their sons would be less preoccupied with sex. *That's what this is really all about*.


Wrong yet again.

Kellogg was wrong too, and needs to stick to Corn Flakes


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by postroad
> Isnt he the guy who invented corn flakes as an *anti masterbation food*?



He was correct about that.

I've never had the urge to masturbate while eating Corn Flakes


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beccachow said:


> I am just amazed at how people are OK with the government....let me repeat that, the GOVERNMENT...would possibly pass a law telling YOU what you may or may NOT do with your child.


Okay, who do you suggest pass laws preventing parents from abusing and mutilating their kids?

We've got to draw the line on that someplace. Laws already exist to prevent abuse and mutilation. We're just moving the line a little.


----------



## gone-a-milkin (Mar 4, 2007)

beccachow, my view is that people already take the 'common practice' of circumcision w/o even batting an eyelash. Lots of folks just do what was done to them.
I would like to see people THINK about things for themselves.

Yes, it is a parents right (along w/ schooling, religion, ear-piercing, immunizations, etc) to have the procedure done.

In a world where they want to outlaw docking ears and tails on pets and livestock, to me this really falls into a different category. 
Even though to many it is ALL "no big deal, they get over it". 
I guess you hit a button for me, is all. 

More govt and more laws are never my preference.
On this topic (and all the others) I just feel it is important to really do your research and make your choices yourself.
Dont just do 'what everybody else does'. Dont assume that since it has been done before, that makes it okay.
Lots of things that used to be legal are considered highly immoral now. 
Times change and some of those changes are for the good. 

I have enjoyed this thread immensely.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He was correct about that.
> 
> I've never had the urge to masturbate while eating Corn Flakes


Oddly enough, neither have I.

Although I was forced to eat so much Corn Flakes growing up that It took years for me to want to try it again.

Not bad with some brown sugar.

Still no urges.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Okay, who do you suggest pass laws preventing parents from abusing and mutilating their kids?
> 
> We've got to draw the line on that someplace. Laws already exist to prevent abuse and mutilation. We're just moving the line a little.



Nevada, you are waaaay better than this. :nono: :hammer:. Beating your child unconscious with a belt is abuse. You are right...laws are already in place to protect from abuse and mutilation. This is a medical procedure. The only sticking point is some feel strongly that it is not necessary, others feel strongly that it IS. No need to move the line just because some people want to rule every aspect of YOUR life. Do you REALLY not see this??? You know what, I think it is TREMENDOUSLY dangerous to talk on a cell phone, hand held, bluetooth or otherwise. This can and DOES kill people, proven fact. Is it within my right to make it a law what you can and can't do in your car just because I disagree with it? And cell phone usage while driving has a MUCH higher incidence of death than does circumcision. Do you follow my point? I know what I am trying to say, might not be making the smae sense as it does in my head.

I will agree with Gone-a-Milkin that you DO need to research first. Let me repeat that....YOU need to research and come to an informed decision, after discussing with wife, hubby, partner, whoever. But that is for YOU to decide after researching, not for some government official to decide FOR you.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

PS: Thanks to everyone for making me NEVER want to eat another bowl of cornflakes again, ever, as long as I live.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beccachow said:


> Nevada, you are waaaay better than this. :nono: :hammer:. Beating your child unconscious with a belt is abuse. You are right...laws are already in place to protect from abuse and mutilation. This is a medical procedure.


Nonsense. There's nothing medical about it.

To some it's a way to curb sexual behavior, to others it's a way to wield control. Some may even believe that it's cleaner. But no one is even pretending that it has a medical purpose.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I've never had the urge to masturbate while eating Corn Flakes


ound: ound: ound:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beccachow said:


> PS: Thanks to everyone for making me NEVER want to eat another bowl of cornflakes again, ever, as long as I live.


His theory was pretty rudimentary. He reasoned that semen fat content was high, similar to typical breakfast foods like eggs & sausage. Therefore, he believed that eating a breakfast lower in fat (like corn flakes) would lower semen production, which would lower sex drive.

You'd think a doctor would know better...


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He was correct about that.
> 
> I've never had the urge to masturbate while eating Corn Flakes


LOL. Now, Fruit Loops are another matter.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

beccachow said:


> Nevada, you are waaaay better than this. :nono: :hammer:.


No he ain't.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

http://www.circinfo.net/position_statements_by_national_pediatric_bodies.html

Browse and weep.  This is a compilation of hundreds of bits of research, also goes through the debate surrounding it. I will let you all draw your own conclusions from the article. And call into doubt the hundreds of reference materials used to compile the page as well .


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Not wanting to get too graphic, but I've had lovers who were 'cut,' and some who weren't. There is a definite difference in sexual response. Circumcised guys are missing out, IMO! That's a terrible thing to do to your child.
> 
> At least let him make up his own mind when he's old enough to do so. Sheesh!


I agree also based on personal experience dating natural european men. Tissue becomes granulated causing loss of sensation when the protective sheath is removed.

I am all for outlawing cosmetic procedures like this, however, I am not in favor when the laws jump to animals we own as property. Tail docking for example.


----------



## LoneStrChic23 (Jul 30, 2010)

Hmmmm.... I found out I was having a boy December 2002. He was due at the begining of May, but came in all his 6lb 4oz glory on March 7th.

Between December & March I spoke to several men, both circumcised & not to get opinions....talked to my husband, my doctor & did research.

We decided to have him circumcised. It was done when he was 4 days old.... My husband & I were present. DS squirmed when they unwrapped him, scrunched his face up when they applied the anesthetic & laid there quietly chewing his fist while it was done.....Not a single wimper. Recovery was fast, uneventful.... I don't regret it.

I'm all for parents making choices they feel are best for their children.....have nothing against those who choose not to do it. I just don't see why the government has to stick their fingers in this as well..... I thought we had enough of our lives regulated??


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I just don't see why the government has to stick their fingers in this as well..... I thought we had enough of our lives regulated??


If female circumcision were popular in America (or if you were born into a subculture that practices it) would you have wanted the government to protect you? Or would you be content to go through life with the loss of part of your genitals, because it was what your parents decided was best for you?


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement0.html

For those wishign to examine th eopposing parties an in depth examination of the different studies quoted in the other link.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Kung said:


> I WILL post one bit of information, however, that I find fascinating. When a child is first born, the reason so many babies are 'jaundiced' is because the liver and other systems are just getting kick-started; one of those processes is the one responsible for producing Vitamin K, which is responsible for the production of prothrombin. Together, those two substances cause blood coagulation. So many babies ALSO get Vitamin K shots the day after birth; and we told them we absolutely did not want him getting those shots. We believed sunlight plus normal feeding would take care of it.
> 
> I got ALL sorts of junk for it. We took Ethan home, spent time with him in the sunlight (not direct, of course) and brought him back 3 days later. He went from jaundiced to absolutely normal. Amazing.


very few babies have jaundice to the point where doctors need to intervene. mainly premature babies and sometimes breastfed babies. yes, sunlight is always recommended , unless the levels are really high.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

beccachow said:


> I am just amazed at how people are OK with the government....let me repeat that, the GOVERNMENT...would possibly pass a law telling YOU what you may or may NOT do with your child. I didn't intend for the religious debate, I was simply astounded that they would have the audacity to even try it. And now I am even MORE astounded that folks are OK with it!!!



the government does it anyway. you may not abuse your child. lock them up..force them to work 18 hour days in a factory. you may not abuse your animals. 

people are stupid. Circumcision is NOT medically necessary. period. it is there for a reason. it is mutilation for cosmetic reasons. no different than that woman claiming to have given her daughter botox. whats the difference other than botox isnt permanent? yet everyone was horrified


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Nonsense. There's nothing medical about it.
> 
> To some it's a way to curb sexual behavior, to others it's a way to wield control. Some may even believe that it's cleaner.
> *But no one is even pretending that it has a medical purpose.*


****************************************************
that you don't even bother to read any opposing viewpoint; let alone take in *ANYTHING *that goes 
against the agenda that you've 'chosen' for the world to follow......is that not a fair statement???? 
Isn't *ALSO *a fair statement, that for anyone on the lunatic left......they 'choose' _*NOT*_ to listen 
to the other side.....just keep repeating the mantra that they've been told to speak.....then _*ALL*_ 
the nice little zombies will believe it to be true. Case in point.....you "apparently" skipped right by 
post #65, as evidenced by your outrageous embolded (and enlarged) statement above.

Rather than cause you undue discomfort at going back to search for it......
I've taken the time to repeat the hyperlinks for your benefit alone.

_*READ THE*_M this time before making claims you can't back up. This is just 
getting plain ridiculous......fair and balanced .....what a crock!!!


*http://www.circinfo.net/cervical_can...cised_men.html*

And here's an article advocating 'universal' circumcision.
*
http://mandatorycircumcision.blogspo...1_archive.html *


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

copperkid3 said:


> ****************************************************
> 
> Isn't *ALSO *a fair statement, that for anyone on the lunatic left......they 'choose' _*NOT*_ to listen
> to the other side.....just keep repeating the mantra that they've been told to speak.....then _*ALL*_
> ...


 BULLPUCKEY! there is NOT any medical reason for it to be done. unless one is just a dirty guy..which even circumcision isnt going to make a difference. I have spoken to many doctors. many were appalled at the practice in america to mutilate our infant boys. 
many young men want it done because of how it looks. doctors tell you it is better because they want your money

from webmd.com

circumcision is not usually medically needed. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for newborn males. When making this policy, the AAP looked at the possible benefits, risks, and costs of the procedure.2 Other major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, agree with the AAP policy. webmd.com


the only time it is recommended is when there are problems with the foreskin as an adult.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

spouting off......(must have taken some offense to the lunatic left comment) seeing as how 
you responded _*BEFORE*_ you had time to actually read the articles. Carry on then.......:sob:
************************************************


lilmizlayla said:


> BULLPUCKEY! there is NOT any medical reason for it to be done. unless one is just a dirty guy..which even circumcision isnt going to make a difference. I have spoken to many doctors. many were appalled at the practice in america to mutilate our infant boys.
> many young men want it done because of how it looks. doctors tell you it is better because they want your money
> 
> from webmd.com
> ...


**************************
It would have been nice to have read first and _*THEN *_commented on what
it is that you disagreed with. It seems that the evidence would be pretty convincing for the 
'female' part of the equation.......seeing as how they are the ones to most benefit by the 
procedure over the course of time.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Kellogg believed that the psychological scars would last into adulthood. He promised parents that their sons would be less preoccupied with sex. That's what this is really all about.


Uhm, no. At least, that sure as heck wasn't the reason Ethan was circumcised.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Nonsense. There's nothing medical about it.
> 
> To some it's a way to curb sexual behavior, to others it's a way to wield control. Some may even believe that it's cleaner. But no one is even pretending that it has a medical purpose.


Baloney. The doctors I've spoken to disagree with you. Being as they're doctors and you're not.... :shrug:


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> If female circumcision were popular in America (or if you were born into a subculture that practices it) would you have wanted the government to protect you? Or would you be content to go through life with the loss of part of your genitals, because it was what your parents decided was best for you?


Bluntly put, having read into the subject of female circumcision, it is VASTLY more painful and unnecessary than male circumcision, both for the reasons it is done and the means by which it is done (almost always w/o painkillers, in non-sterile conditions, etc.)


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

lilmizlayla said:


> very few babies have jaundice to the point where doctors need to intervene. mainly premature babies and sometimes breastfed babies. yes, sunlight is always recommended , unless the levels are really high.


Exactly. That's what I figured out, and so we didn't give him the Vitamin K shot. They made me feel like absolute crud - I held my ground.

He was fine 4 days later. lol


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

lilmizlayla said:


> Circumcision is NOT medically necessary. period. it is there for a reason. it is mutilation for cosmetic reasons.


First, I assure you we did not get our son circumcised for aesthetic reasons.

Second, unless I'm missing something, I don't think anyone has argued that it is medically NECESSARY.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

IMO, most people who circumcise their sons have it done for one of three reasons: religion, so he will look the same as his dad, or because they're squeamish about handling a penis.

The medical professionals I talked to about my son recommended it if I wanted him to look like dad, to avoid infections, and for cleanliness. It's easy enough to keep the area clean but you have to get hands-on, which is why I mention parents not wanting to handle a penis. It's just like so many other issues in America. Certain body parts are for sex. Some people - often the same ones who have a problem with breastfeeding - are uncomfortable with certain body parts unless they are using them for sexual purposes.

As for the procedure being all sunshine and rainbows, my nurse told me (I was in surgery when it took place) that my son screamed and was in pain.  I regret it. I especially regret that it was because my husband wanted DS to look the same as he did.  I wouldn't make my son wear his hair in a combover, why should I expect him to be the same as his father in other ways?

I had no experience with the uncircumcised penis back then. I do now, and I too believe there is loss of sensation with the procedure. I'm all about leaving things the way God intended and I'm ashamed I didn't leave my son the way God made him.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

JanS said:


> IMO, most people who circumcise their sons have it done for one of three reasons: religion, so he will look the same as his dad, or because they're squeamish about handling a penis.
> 
> The medical professionals I talked to about my son recommended it if I wanted him to look like dad, to avoid infections, and for cleanliness. It's easy enough to keep the area clean but you have to get hands-on, which is why I mention parents not wanting to handle a penis.


Well, I don't fall in any of those. I'm Christian but wouldn't do it just for religious reasons; I could care less if he looks like me; and I'm the one who has to teach him to hold it down when he whizzes so he doesn't get it on everything BUT the toilet. :happy0035:



> As for the procedure being all sunshine and rainbows, my nurse told me (I was in surgery when it took place) that my son screamed and was in pain.


That's why we insisted on BEING THERE for the procedure; they had a problem with it, but we flat out told them "With all of the controversy surrounding it we want to MAKE SURE it goes well." We had to scrub out, but who cares.

It went just fine. :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I think this is all moot discussion. The handwriting is on the wall; circumcision is on its way out. Within a few decades the practice will be illegal and universally condemned. When that happens we won't be able to find a single conservative who will admit ever being in favor of it.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Nevada said:


> When that happens we won't be able to find a single conservative who will admit ever being in favor of it.


It's so easy for you to make obviously subjective statements like this; it's so far in the future we'll all be dead, and won't care.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Kung said:


> Baloney.


Heads up; we should have CentOS 6 by this time next week. If it passes QA this Friday the mirrors are scheduled to start syncing Monday (June 6).


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Maybe God made a mistake when he created Adam with a foreskin?


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

HOTW said:


> http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement0.html
> 
> For those wishign to examine th eopposing parties an in depth examination of the different studies quoted in the other link.


Thank you. I admit that when I found the first link, being at work, I breezed through and read here and there, saw there was a TON of info, and thought it would be a balanced investigation as it seemed to debate both sides. If you guys read it and found it NOT to be fair, I apologize. I personally am off to read HOTW's link as well.

As for the female circumcision, there is NO benefit to that, whatsoever, that has ever even been attempted to be argued. The young girls have that done to encourage them not to be promiscuous and to assure their husbands they are virgins. They are sewn SHUT, with a small hole for female functions, usually after having the clitoris sliced off. This happens in late grilhood, early teenhood, when they have full awareness and it is done with no anesthetic at all, not even a local.. They experience horrific pain during marital relations, and if they are pregnant and not sliced back open, they will tear open, perforate and die. They have no end of UTI's and other infections due to the procedure. Sorry, with all due respect to everyone, this is apples and oranges. At least some doctors think there is benefit to male circumcision, you will not find ANY doctor to claim the same regarding female circumcision.

So you all think it is ok to legislate a law based on YOUR dislike of it? you don't see the hypocrisy behind this? On one hand, it is "Leave my body alone, I am a woman, I have a right to choose" and on the other, it's "you have no right to choose what you do with your son." 

You guys will allow this intrusion, and be ripe for the next because it is happening so slowly you don't even REALISE your freedoms are being taken away. 

As for circumcising to "curb sexual thoughts," I have NEVER met ANYONE who would do it for that reason, that must be an archaic train of thought. I have never even HEARD of such a thing until this thread. I was under the impression that Jews did it because they considered themselves "unpure" if left intact. Don't let one crazy lunatic speak for all Jews or parents, there is way more to this then is being quoted here. 

As usual, you all have astounded me with being pretty civil with what is a hot button topic. :kiss: That is why I love it here.


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

I will say this when my son was born(well even during prenatal visits) there was always pressure to circ him from the Dr's office. My midwife agreed with my decision(unofficially) saying I did my homework and that I made the right decision. That the Dr office was about the money($200) and she felt there was no reason for it.
The foreskins are used for research in stem cell, for growing graft tissue and certain cells are used to make anti wrinkle creamand are used in certain drugs. Is it any wonder there is a huge machine wanting to keep the foreskins on the medical waste market?


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

There's another point ont he female genital mutilation laws- if you have an intersex child whose right is it to determine the sex? And why is it the Dr's are STILL changing female organs thru surgery to make them "more feminine" despite the law? Any change to a female genital is considered a violation yet here in the USA they do it every single day.

To me any altering of the genitalia of a minor is a violation of their body a choice made as an adult is different. Even in the Jewish faith there are now adult Jews who have a ritual cut made that fuflfillls the law and it is a growing movement.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Heads up; we should have CentOS 6 by this time next week. If it passes QA this Friday the mirrors are scheduled to start syncing Monday (June 6).


I don't think it's an automatic upgrade...and I sure as heck am not about to upgrade ours until all the bugs are worked out.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

We had our son done and I am glad for it.
I spoke to the doctor (my doctor) beforehand and told her I wanted it to be 'baggy' and she did a great job.

We did it because of issues later on with transference of HPV etc.. and I have known men who have had issues with the foreskin thing later on in life. Foreskins served a great purpose back when they were needed for keeping the penis nice and safe and dirt and sand free. But they are not worth the trouble now.


And we had it done because a foster child we had when I was a teen had to be circumcised at age 5.
His foreskin was not growing properly and was too tight etc..
I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever want my child to go through that.
That poor kid.. you wouldn't believe the pain and agony of a circumsion later on.

My son was content all the way through the procedure and had no real issues afterwards.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

postroad said:


> Maybe God made a mistake when he created Adam with a foreskin?


*********************************
And *THAT*, my friend......is #2!!!


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I think this is all moot discussion. The handwriting is on the wall; circumcision is on its way out.
> *Within a few decades the practice will be illegal and universally condemned.
> *When that happens we won't be able to find a single conservative who will admit ever being in favor of it.


**********************************
are the only ones who get circumcised. 
Aren't you forgetting that when Sharia law comes to America......
your statement will be the only thing moot???

Remember that Abraham was also father to Ishmael; who in turn became the father of _*ALL *_
the Arab peoples.......then guess what??? God commanded him to be circumcised as well. 
*Genesis 17:25 - And Ishmael his son [was] thirteen years old, when he was circumcised 
in the flesh of his foreskin. * It gets better.......Abraham, along with ALL his male servants, 
slaves, etc. were circumcised at the same time.......Issac came much later, since he hadn't yet 
been born. *Genesis 17:23 - And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, 
and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised 
the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.*

If you think that that the practices of Islam are going to cow-tow to the likes of the left's thinking 
(or lack thereof).......you're sadly mistaken. Be sure and keep your eyes wide open.....you're 
about to see a *LOT* that you won't believe in the next few 'decades'....if you should live so long:smack:help::run:


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

copperkid3 said:


> *********************************
> And *THAT*, my friend......is #2!!!


Make it three. You never did answer the question anyway

As if Paul was not divisive himself. He did not accept anyones opinion but his own either and got run out of Jerusalem by none other than the Jewish followers of Christ.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes what Copper said. +1000


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

My grandad had to be circumcised in his 70's for medical reasons and it like to killed him. He said after that he wished they had done it when he was a baby.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Wags said:


> Kung testified that his son slept through the procedure that was done correctly on the 8th day. My son didn't sleep through it, but he also didn't cry.
> 
> There is plenty of medical justification for it to be done, (but again God's commands supersedes any medical justification) and when asked my dh said it was ridiculous to think that it was "mutilation" and he doesn't think he is missing out at all.


Just for clarification do you believe that Christians are still obligated to follow the ritual requirements of the Mosiac covenant in order to become heirs to the promise?

Perhaps I jumped the gun with your comment "but again God's commands supersedes any medical justification"


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Kung said:


> I don't think it's an automatic upgrade...and I sure as heck am not about to upgrade ours until all the bugs are worked out.


You can't upgrade from CentOS 5 to CentOS 6. It requires a fresh install. If you have a server with CentOS 5 you're pretty much frozen in time.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

copperkid3 said:


> ******
> 
> **************************
> It would have been nice to have read first and _*THEN *_commented on what
> ...


baloney. one can contract infections, STDs just as easily as with circumcision. every woman i know who has gotten an STD, infections, came from those who were cut. 1 in 4 women has HPV. now, when you figure most men are cut....thats not a good case for circumcision. 

its mutilation. if they dont need it..it wouldnt be there. PLUS..young boys who are cut still need to have their foreskin pulled back to clean. it isnt until they are older that it retracts. so..whats the point?


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

copperkid3 said:


> spouting off......(must have taken some offense to the lunatic left comment) seeing as how
> you responded _*BEFORE*_ you had time to actually read the articles. Carry on then.......:sob:
> ************************************************
> 
> ...


 your links are not working


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

lilmizlayla said:


> your links are not working


**************************************************
They *WERE* working.....what did you do to them to make them *NOT* work?!!! And.....*HOW *did you do it???

All kidding aside.....

Someone told me a *LONG TIME AGO*......"I'm not your google mommy!" By the same token, I could 
also say, "I'm NOT your google daddy!" Still, in the interests of trying to educate just one person 
(you may or may not fall into that category), I'll post this hyper-link and we'll all hope that it stays up.

*http://www.everydayhealth.com/sexual-health/circumcision-and-hpv-risk.aspx*

After that, you're on your own.......although here's a hint: try googling the
words: circumcision helps prevent HPV. You'll get about 144,000 hits; most 
of which will show that it not only helps prevent the transmission of HPV, but 
for a number of other STD's as well, including HIV.......however, syphilis doesn't 
seem to be one of them. Just a FYI......

*Research shows that circumcision can have several medical benefits,
including reducing the risk of contracting the human papillomavirus (HPV).

Most importantly, circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk associated 
with high-risk subtypes of HPV, those associated with cervical, penile, and other 
cancers, says Anna R. Giuliano, PhD, program leader of the risk assessment, detection, 
and intervention program at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Fla.

Three large studies were conducted in Africa and published within the last few years. 
&#8220;One was in Uganda, one in Kenya, and one in South Africa, and all three showed the 
same benefits: a 50 to 60 percent reduction in HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) 
and a significant reduction in HPV infections,&#8221; Giuliano says. &#8220;It really does look like 
circumcision is protective, not only against HIV infection, but also against HPV.&#8221;

The health benefits of circumcision also extend to women who have sex with 
circumcised men. Studies show that female partners are less likely to get HPV,
cancer, and bacterial infections as well, Giuliano says. *


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

according to the AAP the risk is only slightly higher for unclipped boys..not enough to make it a factor in deciding. as far as STD's, AAP reports sexual habits are the deciding factor in contracting such, NOT whether they are clipped.


3 out of my four sons are....because my ex insisted on it. though it caused issues with my father, who believes it to be butchering. i dunno....i still think it is an unnecessary procedure. 

i still believe its because of most womens reaction to a man being unclipped that they want it done. it looks funny..it isnt clean..etc etc.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

says such and such .....and therefore it _*MUST*_ be so??? As we have your word on it?!!! 
I'm a bit disappointed in you for fudging like that......as I've got a source that says that the AAP 
hasn't even updated their opinion on circumcision in the *LAST* 5 years despite the 'new evidence'....
and that neither the AAP, nor the CDC recommend that infants receive circumcision, but don't 
discourage it either. That isn't quite what you had us believe now, is it??? 


*http://www.webmd.com/cancer/cervica...circumcision-cuts-womens-cervical-cancer-risk *


_*Neither the CDC nor the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 
recommend routine circumcision of male infants, but the groups do not discourage the practice either.

New figures from CDC released in August confirm that fewer babies in the U.S. 
are being circumcised. Between 2006 and 2009, the circumcision rate among
male newborns declined from 56% to 33%.

Both the CDC and the AAP are reportedly considering revisions to their infant
circumcision policies in light of the new research.

The CDC is also considering whether circumcision should be recommended 
for adult men at high risk for HIV infection, according to a statement issued in August 2009.

It has been five years since the AAP last updated its infant circumcision policy, 
which calls the evidence regarding the impact of circumcision on sexually
transmitted disease risk &#8220;complex and conflicting.&#8221;

The studies by Tobian and colleagues were published after 2005, and Giuliano 
says the AAP policy statement should be changed to reflect the new research.*_

I think that it's clear from the evidence in the reduction of folks who have 
'decided' not to have their sons clipped, that the AAP is NOT being totally 
honest with their statement of 'not discouraging the practice'.....parents 
look to their doctors for advice in these matters. And it's clear that advice 
is to *NOT* snip-snip.....now they're going to be eating a bit of crow.
*****************************************


lilmizlayla said:


> according to the AAP the risk is only slightly higher for unclipped boys..not enough to make it a factor in deciding. as far as STD's, AAP reports sexual habits are the deciding factor in contracting such, NOT whether they are clipped.
> 
> 
> 3 out of my four sons are....because my ex insisted on it. though it caused issues with my father, who believes it to be butchering. i dunno....i still think it is an unnecessary procedure.
> ...


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

beccachow said:


> Coming to a state near you. I thought this was strictly MORE California taking away of rights, but turns out, several more states are trying for this as well. I could really care less about opinions for and against circumcision, for every argument you put forth against the practice I will put forth one FOR the cleanliness and health benefits of it. Isn't this also a violation of Jewish faith?
> 
> http://www.newsy.com/videos/california-s-controversial-circumcision-ban/
> 
> ...


ROFL... I was circumcised sometime after I was born, don't remember it, I fail to see a big deal..

After age 18? Your asking for a ton of trouble on that one... No way, no how.. would never have happened, just the thought of a blade down there.. aack..

I don't have kids, but my oldest nephew wasn't circumcised and they had all kinds of issues with hygiene with him for years.. My brother's next 2 boys were circumcised.. 

My father btw was not cut.. Him and mom just celebrated their 57th anniversary this memorial day weekend..


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

lilmizlayla said:


> baloney. one can contract infections, STDs just as easily as with circumcision. every woman i know who has gotten an STD, infections, came from those who were cut. 1 in 4 women has HPV. now, when you figure most men are cut....thats not a good case for circumcision.
> 
> its mutilation. if they dont need it..it wouldnt be there. PLUS..young boys who are cut still need to have their foreskin pulled back to clean. it isnt until they are older that it retracts. so..whats the point?


Very young boys maybe.. younger than I can remember if ever for me...

The way I see it if I was a hunter gatherer naked or in a loin cloth running around in the bush after animals with my nads hanging all out in the breeze as they were intended, a foreskin would make a difference in protection, I would want and need it.

But put on underpants and pants and add in a some heat and sweat and it's just about the absolute best place imaginable for icky bacteria and such to have a huge party... Not needed anymore, my jeans protect me far better and I'm better off without it.

I cut my hair, I guess I never should and should just let it and my nails grow till they won't grow no longer, beard and mustache too.. Better let that ear and nose hair grow on out as well and go totally cavemen.. As you said, if I didn't need it, it wouldn't be there..


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

copperkid3 said:


> After that, you're on your own.......although here's a hint: try googling the
> words: circumcision helps prevent HPV. You'll get about 144,000 hits; most
> of which will show that it not only helps prevent the transmission of HPV, but
> for a number of other STD's as well, including HIV.......however, syphilis doesn't
> ...


As with anything argued on the internet, you will find just as many hits on articles saying circumcision is unnecessary.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

Everyone in America today seems to share one fatal characteristic (fatal to freedom, at least). We all want government to stay out of our lives, as long as it regulates our neighbors to make them just like us.

These issues (abortion, gay marriage, finance regulation, gun control, environmentalism, etc) all seem the same. The person giving the opinion is almost never effected by the proposed regulation.

If you don't like it, don't do it. What gives anyone the right to control what anyone else does or doesn't do?

I was circumcised, we circumcised my son, my daughter had my grandson circumcised. Does that knowledge change how any of you see us now? Are we freaks?

I have to go do some meaningful work now. This is too much like election cycle politics.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

JanS said:


> As with anything argued on the internet, you will find just as many hits on articles saying circumcision is unnecessary.


very very true, Jan. I still say it is up to the parents to do their research, discuss it with their pediatricians, and make up their OWN minds either way.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

I asked this before - but didn't really get a response. Are those that are anti circ also anti-abortion. 

Oh and now about piercing? If we are going to forbid circ, shouldn't we also forbid parents from having their children's ears (or other body parts) pierced? Let them decide for themselves after the age of 18. After all it is just as much a "mutilation" of the body as circ is. Same with tattoos.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

JanS said:


> As with anything argued on the internet, you will find just as many hits on articles saying circumcision is unnecessary.


**********************************************
I just googled "circumcision is unnecessary" and got about 719,000 results which doesn't surprise me.......
and wasn't the *MAIN POINT* that I was trying to make on my previous posting. The 'evidence' indicates 
that it definitely helps in the reduction of HPV, HIV and other STD with the FEMALE partners of the men 
who have been sliced and diced. Something that I would have thought that 'liberated' women would 
find somewhat comforting.......and might even *champion*, but apparently not. 


BTW: Our 'word' for the today is:

* champion*

Definition:

Person who voluntarily takes extraordinary interest in the adoption, implementation, and 
success of a cause, policy, program, project, or product. He or she will typically try to force 
the idea through entrenched internal resistance to change, and will evangelize it throughout 
the organization. Also called change advocate or change agent. :lookout:


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

copperkid3 said:


> **************************************************
> 
> Three large studies were conducted in Africa and published within the last few years.
> âOne was in Uganda, one in Kenya, and one in South Africa, and all three showed the
> ...


 africa??? One of the problems with the high rate of transmittable diseases is the TYPE of sex these women are having. DRY SEX is one of the main reasons these women are at a much higher risk for STD. The hygeine over there is not the same. so I can imagine that clipping these guys would be the best.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

copperkid3 said:


> **********************************************
> I just googled "circumcision is unnecessary" and got about 719,000 results which doesn't surprise me.......
> and wasn't the *MAIN POINT* that I was trying to make on my previous posting. The 'evidence' indicates
> that it definitely helps in the reduction of HPV, HIV and other STD with the FEMALE partners of the men
> ...


I am touched that men want to slice and dice their parts for womankind, but its unnecessary. USE A CONDOM..its easier!!

again..from my experience and from what i know....it has to do with the sexual behavior of the partners. 

when a woman goes into a doctors office to take care of a urinary tract infection, at no time does the question come up as to whether her partner is cut or uncut


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Wags said:


> I asked this before - but didn't really get a response. Are those that are anti circ also anti-abortion.
> 
> Oh and now about piercing? If we are going to forbid circ, shouldn't we also forbid parents from having their children's ears (or other body parts) pierced? Let them decide for themselves after the age of 18. After all it is just as much a "mutilation" of the body as circ is. Same with tattoos.



i am pro choice.......i dont have a problem with piercings, tattoos have to wait til they are 18. 
Piercings are not always permanant..they do close up


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Txrider said:


> But put on underpants and pants and add in a some heat and sweat and it's just about the absolute best place imaginable for icky bacteria and such to have a huge party... Not needed anymore, my jeans protect me far better and I'm better off without it.
> 
> I cut my hair, I guess I never should and should just let it and my nails grow till they won't grow no longer, beard and mustache too.. Better let that ear and nose hair grow on out as well and go totally cavemen.. As you said, if I didn't need it, it wouldn't be there..


same for us girls! clothing choices makes all the differences! cotton, breathable fibers. tight pants have always been the main culprit for yeast and urinary tract infections. 

hair grows back, though. 
i dunno..i have had 3 of my boys cut out of 4. i still think it probably has much more to do with cosmetic than preventing disease. when i broached the subject with my daughter, whom just had a newborn son, their response was more "we want him to look like dad"....okay...

i think its the american way to cut, clip and trim to make things look better. ever seen europes response to the way we dock and clip a Dobermann? their exact words were "the things you americans do to our dogs" Vets dont even bother learning it in vet school anymore. or flat out refuse to do it. AND if they do..they make it almost impossible to afford to discourage the practice.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

lilmizlayla said:


> ever seen europes response to the way we dock and clip a Dobermann? their exact words were "the things you americans do to our dogs"


The Europeans you met were being polite.


----------



## seagullplayer (Nov 6, 2008)

I would make a deal with them, stop killing babies in the womb and then we can talk about what happens after they are born.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Wags said:


> I asked this before - but didn't really get a response. Are those that are anti circ also anti-abortion.
> 
> Oh and now about piercing? If we are going to forbid circ, shouldn't we also forbid parents from having their children's ears (or other body parts) pierced? Let them decide for themselves after the age of 18. After all it is just as much a "mutilation" of the body as circ is. Same with tattoos.


Piercings can close. They don't involve removing anything that can't be put back. I don't know of any parents who have had their children tattooed. But no, I did not have my daughters' ears pierced and when they asked, they had to wait until I felt they were old enough to make an informed decision - 12 or 13.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

copperkid3 said:


> **********************************************
> I just googled "circumcision is unnecessary" and got about 719,000 results which doesn't surprise me.......
> and wasn't the *MAIN POINT* that I was trying to make on my previous posting. The 'evidence' indicates
> that it definitely helps in the reduction of HPV, HIV and other STD with the FEMALE partners of the men
> ...


Condoms do that as well, and people who save sex for marriage and remain monogamous shouldn't have to worry about any of that either. Of course some people don't want to fool with condoms or limit themselves to one partner. Would you happen to be a male?


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

seagullplayer said:


> I would make a deal with them, stop killing babies in the womb and then we can talk about what happens after they are born.


Who exactly is "them"?


----------



## Betho (Dec 27, 2006)

JanS said:


> Who exactly is "them"?


The people who want to make this law, maybe? :shrug:


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Maybe so. I just wondered because there is nothing in the article about the group being pro-life or otherwise, their political affiliation etc. Just that they are an anti-circumcision.


----------



## lamoncha lover (Mar 1, 2009)

If I were using MY religion to force you to circumcise YOUR child I could see all the drama and screaming about mutilation. Whether I chose to or not is not anyones business...including GVT.
I researched it and we made a family decision. For our child. As it should be.


----------



## Betho (Dec 27, 2006)

JanS said:


> Maybe so. I just wondered because there is nothing in the article about the group being pro-life or otherwise, their political affiliation etc. Just that they are an anti-circumcision.


I think the comment was referred to because I've noticed many posters in this thread that I know are pro-choice are anti-circ, which doesn't really make sense. So maybe it's a comment directed towards people who think that this law would be a good idea in general.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I've noticed many posters in this thread that I know are pro-choice are anti-circ, which doesn't really make sense


I can't speak for others, but I see both issues as being about having the freedom to make the best choice for ONESELF.

The freedom of a pregnant woman to sustain or terminate her pregnancy ...

The freedom of a male to decide whether he wants to keep or eliminate his foreskin ...

In both cases, the choice is best made by the people whose body parts are directly involved! (Not the government or a parent.) JMO :shrug:


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

willow_girl said:


> I can't speak for others, but I see both issues as being about having the freedom to make the best choice for ONESELF.
> 
> The freedom of a pregnant woman to sustain or terminate her pregnancy ...
> 
> ...


well then the male in the pregnancy issue should have some say.

it will be his back supporting the child that the mother chooses not to terminate. or perhaps he does not want a termination and would prefer the child not be terminated. kinda seems many fathers would prefer this had they a equal opportunity????

it takes two to make a child , just cause one got stuck with a good segment of the early part of the job does not mean they should have the whole say?


----------



## Betho (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I can't speak for others, but I see both issues as being about having the freedom to make the best choice for ONESELF.
> 
> The freedom of a pregnant woman to sustain or terminate her pregnancy ...
> 
> ...


I understand that's how you see it. It is a clear example of just how different people can think. For me, because I don't think of my pregnancy as a "thing" but pregnancy is a state of being, and the "thing" inside me is another human. I'm pregnant with a baby. Not, I'm pregnant and when I go to the hospital and give birth, then at that point will it become a baby. It's a baby now. That's just how I see it, which is why it seems double-sided to me.

But again, I know it's a matter of a difference in how we see things. That's why it would seem odd to me to be okay with a woman terminating her unborn child but not having a choice to snip off a bit of his foreskin.

And FWIW, I've also noticed the same thing you have about the difference between circed and not, and I came to the same conclusion. I myself would not choose to circ, but I don't think circing is this terribly barbaric thing that is what it's sometimes portrayed to be.


----------



## sunshinytraci (Oct 20, 2007)

What a thread!! (And this turned into a long post...)

I am not certain that there is a huge problem though....... I have had lovers in both categories and really, I don't recall any measureable difference in the experience for myself. Both categories of men seemed to enjoy the experience in the same happy state. So in my experience I haven't seen circumcision destroying the sexual experience for men or for their partners. I think sexual satisfaction is based on many, many, many factors much of them psycological.

That said, I don't believe that a comparison between male circumcision and female genital mutilation is rational. What is done to women in some cultures is done specifically TO destroy the sexual experience for women. To destroy her sexuality. Male circumcision is not-even if done solely for religious reasons. That makes the comparision between the two as an argument against circumcision somewhat of a logical fallicy. I suppose that one could argue that men in those cultures find a "circumcised" woman more attractive sexually but that is because of the psycological component of her being a "chaste" woman because she cannot enjoy sex. Most do not think of a circumcised man as chaste, pure or a less sexual being than an uncircumcised man. The only thing these procedures have in common are that they involve genitalia.

However, there is something to be said for control over one's body and there is something to be said for a parent's right to make decisions regarding the health of their children and that is where the argument should be. For myself, I have no direct knowledge of negative impacts from the procedure and there does appear to be at least some health benefits. It probably is best left for families to decide. I think most people have it done because it is a social norm. Perhaps the best thing the government can do rather than an outright ban is to provide better, more accessible information explaining the pro's and con's and let people know that not everyone in America has this procedure done. That way families can make informed decisions.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> well then the male in the pregnancy issue should have some say.
> 
> it will be his back supporting the child that the mother chooses not to terminate. or perhaps he does not want a termination and would prefer the child not be terminated. kinda seems many fathers would prefer this had they a equal opportunity????
> 
> it takes two to make a child , just cause one got stuck with a good segment of the early part of the job does not mean they should have the whole say?


Here's how I see it. It would be great if everything in life were fair, but it's not, sometimes for reasons that are beyond our control. Is it fair that a pregnant woman has to endure weight gain, whacked hormones, etc., while her partner gets off scot-free? Probably not, but that's biology, and there's no changing it (at least not yet). 

Both the male and female have choices in this matter, but they're different. Depending on the laws in her state, the woman can make her choice about the pregnancy at any point from intercourse to delivery. The man's choice ends at intercourse. Fair? Maybe not, but the 'remedies' are even worse, IMO (for instance, allowing a man to compel a woman to abort a fetus when she doesn't want to.)

I agree that it's unfortunate men sometimes get stuck supporting children they didn't want, but again, the 'remedy' (having the child supported by all of us, AKA the state) seems even less fair.


----------

