Removing people's genitalia is not a silly matter. Parent's may have chosen to do this back in the day when they were ignorant about the health benefits, or even mislead by their doctors, but today things are different. People know better and to do it anyway IS immoral.
Regarding tonsils, if they are going to make your kid sick, then you do the hard thing as a parent and choose, for your child, to have them removed. You protect your kid by making hard choices. Circumcision does NOT fall within that category unless there is actually something wrong with the foreskin, and almost all the time there is nothing wrong with it.
Dave I'm sorry but there is no winning this argument from your end. It cannot be justified.
But that's the whole thing: I am not arguing for circumcision! I am just trying to have a discussion about (a) whether it is moral or not and (b) whether there is conclusive evidence one way or the other. I have tried to NOT bring my personal views into it because it isn't a decision I will ever have to make.
I don't believe in objective morality, so there will never be a consensus and there is no God written law book that will ever tell us what is moral or not (despite what some think). So, it is up to me to make the judgment and I believe my views are solid and sound. That might not sound impressive, but that's the best any of us can really do when it comes to morality.
If it helps any, many agree with me and leaving baby boys intact is more and more common because the traditional aspects and religious aspects are finally starting to fade out, unlike the lifelong scars many of us have already suffered "down below" due to this immoral practice of penis skin removal.
I couldn't agree more.
And I bet people that are pro-circumcision would say the exact same thing.
Let me address this by comparing it to any other body part. Is there conclusive evidence, one way or the other, that removing the ear lobes are beneficial to a person's health? No? Lets chop them off then just in case? That's what you are saying. No offense, but its ridiculous.
So many uncircumcised men these days, especially in the less religious parts of Europe, and you don't hear of health issues with a complete penis. Why would you cut it off while you wait for evidence that might not exist? You wouldn't do that with a baby girl's vagina, right? There are people who remove that as well for "good reasons".
Right, until their kid looks down one day and wonders what that large, pink ring is there for. Then they realize it was cut off and wonder what its supposed to look like, why it was cut off etc etc. This is an old, ancient practice that will continue to fade away and become less and less common.
And yes, pro circumcision people will say lots of things. The important thing to consider here, is that they are wrong and I am right.
Will you please stop? It's a TINY section of skin on the penis. And it was believed to be a healthy practice at the time, and can still be logically argued to be a healthy practice today, although to a lesser extent since we know that it is not strictly necessary. And, it has no import. Cut penises work well and feel great and are easy to keep clean and pink and healthy. Less chance of incidental obstruction upon ejaculation means more successful reproduction per capita. Folds of skin around a waste exit harbor bacteria and smegma. That's why asses don't have a foreskin. Or noses. By circumcising, we are accelerating the evolutionary process. It probably would have happened anyway by natural selection.
And if that is not enough for you, it is GODS'S WILL DAMMIT.
LOL. I like it.
Right, until their kid looks down one day and wonders what that large, pink ring is there for. Then they realize it was cut off and wonder what its supposed to look like, why it was cut off etc etc. This is an old, ancient practice that will continue to fade away and become less and less common.
And yes, pro circumcision people will say lots of things. The important thing to consider here, is that they are wrong and I am right.
My parents did it to me. I could care less and still love them. I am glad they did what they thought was healthy and good. I agree with their decision. You are worrying about how to treat your son's penis. Did you ever think of how important it is to treat his brain? And make sure you are not introducing streams of irrationality that will ultimately hurt his life? Equating circumcision with abuse is irrational. Parents did it and do it to protect and enhance the lives of their children. Emotion is not cognition. If you don't make that distinction, you are engaging in continuous intellectual circumcision whose damage will far exceed that of a missing tiny inconsequential flap of skin.
It never has bothered me that I'm cut; I think I look rather handsome and don't miss something I was never aware that I had in the first place.
I'm not sure how circumcision is much different than rape.
If women didn't overwhelmingly prefer the sight of a circumcised penis, we would all stop doing it to our children.
I would suggest it's more of a aesthetic/cosmetic procedure, akin to braces or other minor oral surgeries. They may not be absolutely necessary, but it's possible they may provide health benefits and better living as well.
It is extremely strange, to me, that this procedure is popular in northern america.
Honestly, I've been very pleased with it and found it to be much more of a custom of this country. It's a barbaric tradition that we've passed down for thousands of years.
I'm proud of my barbarian penis! lol
So I am way too late to be worried about the intellectual circumcision. It's ongoing. Terrible. Just. Terrible.
If women didn't overwhelmingly prefer the sight of a circumcised penis, we would all stop doing it to our children.
I would suggest it's more of a aesthetic/cosmetic procedure, akin to braces or other minor oral surgeries.
Save the personal attacks for another forum. This is a serious discussion and you attempt to discredit me by saying I am incapable of responsible parenting of my children. You claim I am illogical for comparing rape to circumcision. This was my original idea and comparison, to be certain, but for the hell of it I decided to google it to see if I was alone. I am most certainly not and my reasoning is sound and the judgment is well placed.
A few results from a simple google search. If all else fails you, and it seems it has, you can think about it yourself. Circumcision is very much like rape. You force yourself upon a helpless infant, against their will, and take advantage of their private parts in a way that can never be reversed. If reverse attempts are made, its still not the same. The damage is done.
Above all else, circumcision is a blatant human rights violation.
http://www.zenparenting.us/2013/03/non-consensual-circumcision-is-rape.html
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1bidja/my_circumcision_was_my_rape/
And then, somehow, we convinced people to TOTALLY accept this and even be happy with hit.
I love our society at work!
They should've cut off your hands and legs too, after all, you can't miss something you was never aware you had in the first place.
No biggie
I'm not sure how circumcision is much different than rape. Both situations involve the violation of a helpless person's body, as well as mind, without their consent. The only significant difference is that one happens when you are a brand new infant, so you can't struggle as much and won't remember the same way. I assure you however, if you forced a young boy or grown man to have their penis skin cut, without their consent, the emotional damage and sense of violation would be very similar to that of rape, except worse because the physical scars never heal while the emotional ones may with time.
>>
more than a little bit of difference between foreskin and arms and legs
>>
Yes, the difference is that without an arm I could still halfway "function".
However, if 70%-80% of the penis' sensitivity is gone, you won't ever get this sensitivity back.
From that point of view, it IS (almost) as significant as someone having an arm/leg etc. force-amputated - the debate here what someone sees as more important...two working arms/legs...or fully working genitals. This may be in in the eye of the beholder. One might possibly say he'd be fine with one less arm as long as he functions sexually.
I can assure you circumcised men function sexually just fine.