oh i dont read other ppls posts

i had foreskin until i was 17 and have been much happier with my unit after the circumcision. aside for a couple of barely noticeable scars it looks and feels much better without the skin... and the ladies do love it, especially the ones who had to deal with the uncut ones.

American women dont like uncut AT ALL.

thisthreadisbadandyoushouldallfeelbad.jpg

seriously, this thread is terrible....far too many serious responses, and actual debating going on ITT. not nearly enough meme's either afaik

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/unhygi...sk-of-hiv.html

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1831748

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=8105119

http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Networ...curcumsion.htm

conflicting evidence ITT. haha that last link spells circumcision wrong

WE HAVE A WINNER!

A+

obv fyp

Is it mean to kill ants just because they feel pain? (as opposed to killing plants which don't feel pain)

No because I'm not an ant.

You're not the person being circumcised either. Pain is not by definition detrimental to society; if you are going to oppose administering pain as a from a consequentialist perspective (rater than the absolutist "pain is bad no matter what"), you would have to demonstrate how administering pain in the particular case of circumcision creates negative consequences for the individual and society.

it's not about the pain aspect, i was just informing someone else that it is not a pain-free exercise. it's about whether or not parents have the right to customize their child's body (without their consent) for aesthetic/cultural/religious reasons. particularly in this case, where the procedure has such a permanent drastic effect on the physical appearance (and function, but that's another argument all together) of the person.

In my mind just the possibility that a person may grow up and regret that it was done to him is reason enough to simply not do it in the first place without his consent.

The positive consequence of pain is that it conditions us not to do harm to ourselves and it alerts us to biological needs that needs to be addressed.

The negative consequence of pain is that it f-ing hurts.

If pain is being caused without positive consequences, then all it is doing is hurting someone.

Hurting someone is wrong, unless you are hurting them to serve a greater good (like vaccinating someone.)

Circumcision serves no greater and it hurts someone.

Therefore, circumcision is wrong.

I defy anyone to search google for

"botched circumcision pictures"

- go to the first link

- look at the numerous f***ups that can be caused

- look at the the Gangrene gallery - you will puke.

- then come on here and say that putting your baby boy through any procedure, where there is even a 1% chance of some of these things happening to your child, is a good and proper thing to do.

Seriously - only a moron would put their childs penis through an operation that wasn't 100% essential. Do your research before making a decision like this FFS.

Someone could just as easily regret that it hadn't been done, because if they want to do it as an adult it will not only hurt, but inconvenience them and possibly be prohibitively expensive for them (I don't know how much it costs tbh).

I return to my example of killing ants, or flies. It hurts them, does that make it wrong? And even if the reason for circumcision is only aesthetic, one could argue that that alone constitutes greater good. Quality of life isn't just about how long you live or how healthy you are during your life.

The question I have is, how many of these botched circumcisions are the result of incompetence on the part of the person performing the procedure? Of course it's stupid to allow someone who is unreliable to perform circumcision, just as it would be stupid to entrust your baby to an unreliable doctor for any kind of medical procedure. How often do complications result when someone performs the circumcision using proper technique and preparation?

It's wrong to kill ants and flies imo. Unless of course there is a good reason for it, like the ants or flies are invading your home (clean your dang home).

+1

If you wanna go back to my argument, I would say that you are hurting something, but usually when you do it there is a greater good (my 4th premise). By killing the fly, I am saying that the pain (and death) I'm causing him, is less important than the greater good of keeping flies out of my house or off my person.

If I were to go out into the woods specifically to kill flies for no reason, then it would be wrong.

if a person regrets not having it done as a baby he technically always the option to have it done later. if someone regrets that it was done, he never has the opportunity to have that undone (regrown skin is not the same).

if he elects to have it done during adulthood, sure, it does hurt after the anesthesia has worn off and it begins to heal (as does all cosmetic surgeries). however, the actual procedure itself doesn't hurt because of anesthesia. a newborn being circumcised goes through it without anesthesia because using anesthesia on a baby has a huge risk of killing him.

your argument is: harm the kid early so he won't be harmed later. its the same harm, just at a different time. on an earlier page we already established that it's not okay to harm someone just because they won't remember it. so it's just a matter of timing. therefore in your argument it does not matter if the person is 1 week old, 18 years old, or 40 years old. it doesn't matter when the inconvenience is because there will always be an inconvenience. it just has to be worked around like for any surgery, elective or not.

as for the financial burden, your argument is basically that a parent should pay for it when the kid is born so that he won't have to pay for it later if he wants it done. why should parents have to pay in advance "just in case" the kid grows up and wants it done? the parents are paying for a service they want (in this case: mutilated baby penis). if they don't want the service, then they don't pay. if the guy grows up and doesn't want the service, he doesn't have to pay. if he does want the service, he has to pay for it. if he can't afford it then he can't get it. like if he wants an expensive car but he doesn't have the money to buy it. that's capitalism.

the issue is that a parent is altering someone else's body for their own personal aesthetic preferences. it just comes down to whether or not you feel that is acceptable. i don't think it's acceptable. you differ. therefore when you have/had a kid, you feel you have the option and you will/did exercise that option either way. i do not feel that i have that option as a parent. so when i have a kid, the procedure won't even be considered.


every circumcision runs the risk of being "botched" whether the surgeon has done 3 of them in his life or 300. doctors who have done hundreds of surgeries without problems have screwed up and mangled a kid's ****.

every one runs the risk of being botched without the doctor doing anything wrong. the surgery involves ripping the skin off of the head of the penis (it's attached to the head for the first few years of life). then pulling it up and cutting it with a relatively large scalpel compared to a small newborn wang all while the baby is wiggling around. there are going to be times when the doctor cuts into (or off) the head or shaft or nicks a vein or ends up making it uneven or any number of other problems. it's a high risk procedure that has just been made slightly less risky due to modern technology. this is where the individual has to decide whether or not any risk large or small is acceptable for an elective surgery. i personally feel that any risk whatsoever is not acceptable. if you or someone else concludes that the risk (no matter what it is) is acceptable, then so be it. it's your option because male circumcision isn't illegal (in most countries).

even if the surgery goes completely according to plan there is still a great risk to the child. he's left with an open wound on his penis that will then be stuffed into a diaper that will constantly get soiled while the wound heals. there is a great risk of infection during this time (and during the surgery itself). there have been many cases of children dying from infection or having to have crucial body parts amputated due to infection.

on top of that, even if the circumcision goes right and the child doesn't get an infection, his **** could still end up messed up. as the wound heals if it comes into contact with the head or other shaft skin it will fuse with it because that's what it's supposed to do (google "skin tags"). this results in shaft skin permanently fused to the head or to other shaft skin which the kid will then have to have removed when he grows up, so he'll have to have another "inconvenient" surgery anyway. and even then it will still result in a permanently ugly scarred glans.

a well trained doctor who has performed many circumcisions can still **** up and cause a massive amount of damage. even if the circumcision goes perfectly according to plan a LOT can still happen that will result in permanent disfigurement or death.

I was hoping for actual numbers for success rate, I asked how likely it is not whether it ever happens at all. Of course no medical prcedure is foolproof just like there is risk in giving birth to both parties. There are risks to doing C-sections for both mother and baby and often no benefits except for not having to wait for nature's schedule, yet people do it anyway.

People put engage their kids in a lot of activities that entail latent health risks, like playing sports, omg you could blow out your knee playing basketball, no parents should allow their kids to play sports. But they do because the risk to them is acceptably small, and they feel it will improve their kid's quality of life. Whether it does or not won't be known until after the fact, but as parents they're entitled to make those decisions. If parents feel the risk to circumcision is acceptably small enough to be justified by the perceived benefits, be they health, aesthetic, or otherwise, then it's perfectly reasonable to go through with it, unless you think people should keep their kids locked up in a sterile room until they're 18 to eliminate all risk of any pain or harm at all.

Of course the crux of the issue is whether the risk is acceptably low, which is why I was hoping you would tell us what the risk of complications/permanent damage is when the prcedure is done properly. Then we could compare it to risks of other medical procedures and other generally innocuous activities with latent risks like sports.

love my foreskin

i didn't really feel like digging around for numbers. you have google, look up the stats yourself. (didn't mean for this to sound rude, i just couldn't figure out how to word it right)

as for the rest of your argument, you just said exactly what i said in my post. if you feel that it is within your right to do it to your child and you accept the risks involved, then fine, do it. it's not illegal in most parts of the world and it is socially acceptable at this current time in many countries in the world.

i disagree. and that's just where we stand on the issue. you're not going to convince me that it's not morally wrong and i'm not going to convince you that it is. it's just personal opinion.

and the sports analogy is a bad one. circumcision is (socially acceptable) intentional pain and disfigurement done to someone with the risk of more serious physical and emotional harm. playing a sport is not in itself a harmful act. it is a non-painful non-harmful act with the risk (to whatever degree) of physical and emotional harm.

If you think sports don't entail pain and discomfort, you probably haven't played sports. Ever run a mile or played a full game of basketball, football, soccer, hockey, or almost anything else? You feel pain afterward. It's not the same type of instant severe pain, but it is nevertheless pain.

Circumsion is not harmful either, when it is done correctly, unless you equate pain with harm, in which case sports are harmful too.

Now you're just grabbing for straws.

Look, silly, how would you like to have your penis cut (do you think it will feel different for a newborn baby)? There are not many ****ing things that parents do that come anywhere close to this kind of brutality.

Your argument is based on it already being a custom. But you surely agree that it's a bad custom?

In a southern states hellhole where 99% people are circumcised and noone's heard of an uncircimcised dick the kid seriously WOULD get the crap kicked out of him in the locker room and there's absolutely no way he would not do it later... Sure, in a vacuum I agree with you, it would even be irresponsible of the parents to NOT circumcise (of course then we have a question why the hell IS it a 99% thing, but that's another story).

I WISH it was the main reason why people do it though.