Circumcision in America: Should it be the parents choice? - General

[QUOTE=Megafan;36140425]In that case, I assume you'd approve of parents getting their kids tattoos or other cosmetic surgeries without their consent?[/QUOTE] I'm anti-circumcision, but a significant number of children get braces and further orthodontic treatment. Plenty also have their ears pierced, and so on. We're pretty guilty in the West actually

[QUOTE=Megafan;36140425]In that case, I assume you'd approve of parents getting their kids tattoos or other cosmetic surgeries without their consent?[/QUOTE] Obviously there are extremes to it, and you've named a few. I could tell you that I approve of parents piercing their kids ears. In this sense, the 'limits' to aesthetics seem to be based on "acceptable" cultural standards. I could ask you a similar question: are you again removing extra limbs, or surgically repairing things like cleft lips? Its a thin line, I'll admit. But I think circumcision, because it is such a small deal, can be grouped with the former and away from the extremes. Also @Bletotum, no I don't.

[QUOTE=Contag;36146238]I'm anti-circumcision, but a significant number of children get braces and further orthodontic treatment. Plenty also have their ears pierced, and so on. We're pretty guilty in the West actually[/QUOTE] Braces are not a permanent cosmetic option, they provide a useful function, and are then removed. I don't think unwanted ear piercing is a widespread practice of any concern. [editline]31st May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Neolk;36148419]Obviously there are extremes to it, and you've named a few. I could tell you that I approve of parents piercing their kids ears. In this sense, the 'limits' to aesthetics seem to be based on "acceptable" cultural standards. I could ask you a similar question: are you again removing extra limbs, or surgically repairing things like cleft lips? Its a thin line, I'll admit. But I think circumcision, because it is such a small deal, can be grouped with the former and away from the extremes. Also @Bletotum, no I don't.[/QUOTE] Additional limbs do not function properly, only causing harm to the child. If anything, the foreskin is helpful. Why is it the parent's decision to force anything on the child's body, if the kids are not property? At what age does this become not okay? 18?

i read a huge comment thread about this on cracked yesterday, and here's an argument i heard: "Foreskins are gross, i would never have sex with an uncut guy" Saying that guys should have their foreskins cut off because some girls don't like them is like saying that all women should be really thin and have big breasts.

[QUOTE=supersnail11;36149236]i read a huge comment thread about this on cracked yesterday, and here's an argument i heard: "Foreskins are gross, i would never have sex with an uncut guy" Saying that guys should have their foreskins cut off because some girls don't like them is like saying that all women should be really thin and have big breasts.[/QUOTE] Most people who think foreskins are gross have never actually seen one in real life. As long as you take a shower more than once a week, you're golden (And most people do that anyway, so I don't understand the arguement "BUT IT'S SO INCONVENIENT TO CLEAN YOUR DICK ALL THE TIME"). Also an uncircumcised penis looks almost exactly the same as a circumcised penis when it's erect.

I've never understood how there can even be a pro-circumcision argument (aside from medically necessary operations, but I mean that's like anything else really). People get so mad at countries that practice female genital mutiliation, but mutilating a boy's penis is ok? You can make the argument about severity all you want, you're still removing part of the penis and you're still going to affect their sensitivity later in life. The action is religiously motivated and meant to curb the appeal of sex. That should be enough reason alone to put an end to the argument. Why it isn't I will never know.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;36148874]Braces are not a permanent cosmetic option, they provide a useful function, and are then removed. I don't think unwanted ear piercing is a widespread practice of any concern. [/quote] The point is that its the same thing - its an irreversible process done to the ear of a child. [quote] Additional limbs do not function properly, only causing harm to the child. If anything, the foreskin is helpful. Why is it the parent's decision to force anything on the child's body, if the kids are not property? At what age does this become not okay? 18?[/QUOTE] Why does that mean it causes harm? If a kid is born with webbed toes, or an extra finger, or another nose on their forehead, there 'could' be scenarios in which that harms the child, but more often that not, even if the extra limb was completely safe, most parents would opt to remove it from their child for cosmetic reasons. Having a foreskin is no more helpful than not having one. No one is saying kids don't have rights until they are 18, I am just saying you shouldn't stop parents from circumcising their kids for medical/aesthetic/or religious reasons.

Seriously why is there even a debate? Everybody who was snipped will defend it, people who weren't snipped will defend their side as well. With a couple outliers in there. Honestly you shouldn't give a shit. You are trying to impose your look on people, getting a tiny piece of skin cut off your dick won't change anybody's life unless you are a very rare case and have complications. And stop calling it "mutilation" because you aren't disabling anybody or crippling them. Like I said, unless you are a member of a rare case of complications, you will live your life entirely fine without caring that you had a piece of skin removed.

[QUOTE=Neolk;36149798]The point is that its the same thing - its an irreversible process done to the ear of a child. Why does that mean it causes harm? If a kid is born with webbed toes, or an extra finger, or another nose on their forehead, there 'could' be scenarios in which that harms the child, but more often that not, even if the extra limb was completely safe, most parents would opt to remove it from their child for cosmetic reasons. Having a foreskin is no more helpful than not having one. No one is saying kids don't have rights until they are 18, I am just saying you shouldn't stop parents from circumcising their kids for medical/aesthetic/or religious reasons.[/QUOTE] You avoided considering my points. Ear piercing is usually done with the child's consent, not at birth. Usually, extra limbs are not properly functional. That makes it harmful. As for that last part of yours, you are making blind excuses. It is NOT the parent's choice what aesthetic changes should be made to the child. There is no avoiding that fact unless you consider the child to be property or to otherwise not have rights. [editline]31st May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Webby2020;36150175]Seriously why is there even a debate? Everybody who was snipped will defend it, people who weren't snipped will defend their side as well. With a couple outliers in there. Honestly you shouldn't give a shit. You are trying to impose your look on people, getting a tiny piece of skin cut off your dick won't change anybody's life unless you are a very rare case and have complications. And stop calling it "mutilation" because you aren't disabling anybody or crippling them. Like I said, unless you are a member of a rare case of complications, you will live your life entirely fine without caring that you had a piece of skin removed.[/QUOTE] Regardless of any benefits lost to circumcision or not, the base of the argument is whether the parents should have this say-so.

Parents should have this say-so because it is totally insignificant to other decisions and effects a parent has on a child's life.

I honestly think it should only be removed if it's causing problems. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I know some people that had foreskins which wouldn't stretch properly and caused discomfort and pain when they got an erection, so they had it removed. Nothing wrong with that. But to have it pointlessly removed on religious grounds is just absurd. Quite simply another case of religion forcing its views upon people.

[QUOTE=DanTehMan;35870189]Would you enjoy a porn actor with a amputated leg or one with a whole leg? Obviously you'd prefer the natural one. Then why doesn't this hold true to circumcision in pornography? I didn't realize I would have to spell things out for you. According to wikipedia:[/QUOTE] Leg amputations aren't a cultural norm. In America uncircumcised would probably be viewed as more unusual than circumcised.

Let's review the arguments before the fallacies come rolling in. FOR: * Skin can be harmful * Many consider it unattractive * Sand in your dick AGAINST: * Deprives infant of choice * Decreases sexual pleasure * Foreskins are sexy~~ I've taken out the "if it ain't broke" arguments from both sides, each side employs quite a bit of dogma and the argument stemming from this dogma isn't the soundest.

[QUOTE=Tinker Toy;36152212]Let's review the arguments before the fallacies come rolling in. FOR: * Skin can be harmful * Many consider it unattractive * Sand in your dick AGAINST: * Deprives infant of choice * Decreases sexual pleasure * Foreskins are sexy~~ I've taken out the "if it ain't broke" arguments from both sides, each side employs quite a bit of dogma and the argument stemming from this dogma isn't the soundest.[/QUOTE] Don't forget the counter-argument. For instance, "Sand in your dick" isn't a valid argument. [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Webby2020;36150583]Parents should have this say-so because it is totally insignificant to other decisions and effects a parent has on a child's life.[/QUOTE] Posts like this are utterly useless. Read the thread and make a point against an opposing view, or choose to be ignorant.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;36152976]Don't forget the counter-argument. For instance, "Sand in your dick" isn't a valid argument. [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] Posts like this are utterly useless. Read the thread and make a point against an opposing view, or choose to be ignorant.[/QUOTE] In truth, I mostly just put in the third of each category to be silly, and sand in the dick is a reference to an earlier post about the medical reasoning that once dominated foreskin removal.

Oh okay.

[QUOTE=Neolk;36148419]Obviously there are extremes to it, and you've named a few. I could tell you that I approve of parents piercing their kids ears. In this sense, the 'limits' to aesthetics seem to be based on "acceptable" cultural standards. I could ask you a similar question: are you again removing extra limbs, or surgically repairing things like cleft lips? Its a thin line, I'll admit. But I think circumcision, because it is such a small deal, can be grouped with the former and away from the extremes. Also @Bletotum, no I don't.[/QUOTE] Even in those circumstances, why should it be the parent's decision? At least with the child you can say it's an issue of control over one's own body, but when you claim that the parent should decide it what is your reasoning?

[QUOTE=Tinker Toy;36152212]Let's review the arguments before the fallacies come rolling in. FOR: * Skin can be harmful * Many consider it unattractive * Sand in your dick AGAINST: * Deprives infant of choice * Decreases sexual pleasure * Foreskins are sexy~~ I've taken out the "if it ain't broke" arguments from both sides, each side employs quite a bit of dogma and the argument stemming from this dogma isn't the soundest.[/QUOTE] Actually, the studies when it comes to increased/decreased sensitivity have been conflicting for years. Every few years, there is a study that claims that circumcision causes and decrease in sensitivity and there are studies that claim the opposite. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Satisfaction[/url] Turns out, the sensitivity and sexual performance down there has a lot more to do with whether or not you're cut.

Its purely aesthetic and really nobody should give a shit, honestly. This whole "but you don't have a choice!" argument is shit, because if you are snipped, you don't wanna change, if you are not snipped, you don't wanna change. Its a non-issue. You might as well emancipate all children at birth from their parents, because if they can't make this tiny ass decision then by you guys' logic parents should have no part in their child's life.

Absolutely wrong. Not wanting to change does not make it okay. Additionally, you used a blanket statement. Not wanting to change does not change that the choice was removed, nor invalidates it. You could use your logic to claim that religious indoctrination is okay. And no, that does not mean that children should be emancipated. Children can't take care of themselves reliably. The parent's duty is to ensure that the child develops and learns well. This does not include making permanent decisions for the child.

It's a tough decision because most people would prefer it anyway but it would hurt like all hell if you decided you wanted to be circumcised once you were aware of what was happening. I think I will circumcise my child if I ever have one (that's male of course)

[QUOTE=Bletotum;36172979]Absolutely wrong. Not wanting to change does not make it okay. Additionally, you used a blanket statement. Not wanting to change does not change that the choice was removed, nor invalidates it. You could use your logic to claim that religious indoctrination is okay. And no, that does not mean that children should be emancipated. Children can't take care of themselves reliably. The parent's duty is to ensure that the child develops and learns well. This does not include making permanent decisions for the child.[/QUOTE] Parents make thousands of permanent decisions throughout the child's time until majority. Should every one of those decisions be reversed because a bunch of angsty, controlling forum goers hate religion and a common, socially accepted, harmless procedure that comes with it? You do realize this IS their choice, should be their choice because its nothing but a harmless (Except in rare cases, like any procedure) aesthetic choice. Also you are trying to force your opinion on other people.

[QUOTE=Nearie;36173638]It's a tough decision because most people would prefer it anyway but it would hurt like all hell if you decided you wanted to be circumcised once you were aware of what was happening. I think I will circumcise my child if I ever have one (that's male of course)[/QUOTE] Anesthesia? [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Webby2020;36173674]Parents make thousands of permanent decisions throughout the child's time until majority. Should every one of those decisions be reversed because a bunch of angsty, controlling forum goers hate religion and a common, socially accepted, harmless procedure that comes with it? You do realize this IS their choice, should be their choice because its nothing but a harmless (Except in rare cases, like any procedure) aesthetic choice. Also you are trying to force your opinion on other people.[/QUOTE] You are trolling by this point.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;36174514]You are trolling by this point.[/QUOTE] no, that seems to be an honest statement from him and to stress my point: circumcision should be the decision of the individual; i still have my foreskin for protective reasons, not cosmetic reasons, but if anyone wants theirs removed, then that's their call

I would like to know these "thousands of permanent decisions". I argue that he is trolling by exaggerating to try to make a point, lashing out at anyone with an opposing view, and ignoring opposing arguments without making any reasoning to disprove them. His last sentence speaks for itself, labeling civil debate as "forcing" anything.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;36174694]I would like to know these "thousands of permanent decisions". I argue that he is trolling by exaggerating to try to make a point, lashing out at anyone with an opposing view, and ignoring opposing arguments without making any reasoning to disprove them. His last sentence speaks for itself, labeling civil debate as "forcing" anything.[/QUOTE] let's not deviate from the topic of debate, and not discuss whether if some random person is 'trolling' or not

I thought it was obvious, you corrected me, and I clarified myself as to why his argument cannot be taken seriously. However, since we seem to have the same view on the topic, I suppose there is nothing to be said until his ban wears off or another user can explain what he meant.

[QUOTE=Tinker Toy;36152212] * Many consider it unattractive [/QUOTE] Pretty sure that would only be in America. When Russian women saw the cut penises of American models in playgirl they thought it looked strange. The reason Americans consider it unnattractive is because circumcision has become such a social norm in America that it has actualy made whats natural foreign & unappealing. That said, i don't think many care. Never been with a girl who cared that i was uncut. Erect an uncut looks just like cut besides.....well having a decolored/dry head and scar.