POll: Did you circumcise your son, if he was born in the past 5 years?

[MotionMan]

So, I am getting the impression is is not the "mutilation" issue, per se. It is the "parents making a choice for the child" issue.

Interesting.

MotionMan

 

[GiggleGirl]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I just had a thought:

Are people who are against circumcision because it is mutilation also necessarily against tattoos?

I would appreciate a response from the anti-circumcision crowd in this thread, please.

MotionMan

If you want to tattoo or circumcise a baby, I'm opposed to that. If you want to get a tattoo or circumcision when you're an adult, go for it.

Most of the people you would label "anti-circumcision" are only anti-circumcision when it comes to minors. Adults can do whatever the fuck they want to their own bodies.

your reasoning is flawed in that adults are proxies for children who aren't old enough yet to make decisions about their health or well being. if we were to use your logic babies would never be vaccinated because they aren't old enough to give consent.

Tattoos and newborn circumcision aren't necessary for health. You could argue that down the road, a minor might need a circumcision or other surgery, but surgery is done when there's a problem, not as a preventative. We don't remove tonsils at age 5 routinely anymore.

Vaccinations, on the other hand have decades of proven benefit around the world. No one who gets their MMR gets the measles anymore and measles are a lot worse than any shot.

a 5 yr old *may* need his/her tonsil removed and a parent is there to give consent and do what he/she believes is right for the child. you saying that things should be put off until someone is an adult makes no reasonable sense.

You're talking need vs. want. If a 5 year old NEEDS to have his tonsils out for a valid medical reason, that's one thing. If daddy WANTS his newborn to have cosmetic surgery on his genitals, that's different.

some people view both of those procedures as needs whether you do or not.

so you say this but there is NO medical NEED to remove the foreskin. it does no harm and has a ton of reasons for being there. in actuality, the body has these things because they serve a purpose...

 

[adlep]

To all those idiots who say that the cook looks nice when cut, let me reveal the secret ->
When in an erection, there is no visual difference between cut and uncut penis, because the foreskin just slides out.
So both set of penises look the same

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: GiggleGirl

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I just had a thought:

Are people who are against circumcision because it is mutilation also necessarily against tattoos?

I would appreciate a response from the anti-circumcision crowd in this thread, please.

MotionMan

If you want to tattoo or circumcise a baby, I'm opposed to that. If you want to get a tattoo or circumcision when you're an adult, go for it.

Most of the people you would label "anti-circumcision" are only anti-circumcision when it comes to minors. Adults can do whatever the fuck they want to their own bodies.

your reasoning is flawed in that adults are proxies for children who aren't old enough yet to make decisions about their health or well being. if we were to use your logic babies would never be vaccinated because they aren't old enough to give consent.

Tattoos and newborn circumcision aren't necessary for health. You could argue that down the road, a minor might need a circumcision or other surgery, but surgery is done when there's a problem, not as a preventative. We don't remove tonsils at age 5 routinely anymore.

Vaccinations, on the other hand have decades of proven benefit around the world. No one who gets their MMR gets the measles anymore and measles are a lot worse than any shot.

a 5 yr old *may* need his/her tonsil removed and a parent is there to give consent and do what he/she believes is right for the child. you saying that things should be put off until someone is an adult makes no reasonable sense.

You're talking need vs. want. If a 5 year old NEEDS to have his tonsils out for a valid medical reason, that's one thing. If daddy WANTS his newborn to have cosmetic surgery on his genitals, that's different.

some people view both of those procedures as needs whether you do or not.

so you say this but there is NO medical NEED to remove the foreskin. it does no harm and has a ton of reasons for being there. in actuality, the body has these things because they serve a purpose...

Just like the appendix and tonsils?

MotionMan

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: GiggleGirl

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I just had a thought:

Are people who are against circumcision because it is mutilation also necessarily against tattoos?

I would appreciate a response from the anti-circumcision crowd in this thread, please.

MotionMan

If you want to tattoo or circumcise a baby, I'm opposed to that. If you want to get a tattoo or circumcision when you're an adult, go for it.

Most of the people you would label "anti-circumcision" are only anti-circumcision when it comes to minors. Adults can do whatever the fuck they want to their own bodies.

your reasoning is flawed in that adults are proxies for children who aren't old enough yet to make decisions about their health or well being. if we were to use your logic babies would never be vaccinated because they aren't old enough to give consent.

Tattoos and newborn circumcision aren't necessary for health. You could argue that down the road, a minor might need a circumcision or other surgery, but surgery is done when there's a problem, not as a preventative. We don't remove tonsils at age 5 routinely anymore.

Vaccinations, on the other hand have decades of proven benefit around the world. No one who gets their MMR gets the measles anymore and measles are a lot worse than any shot.

a 5 yr old *may* need his/her tonsil removed and a parent is there to give consent and do what he/she believes is right for the child. you saying that things should be put off until someone is an adult makes no reasonable sense.

You're talking need vs. want. If a 5 year old NEEDS to have his tonsils out for a valid medical reason, that's one thing. If daddy WANTS his newborn to have cosmetic surgery on his genitals, that's different.

some people view both of those procedures as needs whether you do or not.

so you say this but there is NO medical NEED to remove the foreskin. it does no harm and has a ton of reasons for being there. in actuality, the body has these things because they serve a purpose...

Just like the appendix and tonsils?

MotionMan

That is not the same. Seriously...
A better analogy is an eye lid...
Every day you wake up with a bunch of an organic material in your eyes. Solution? Blame the eyelids...Just remove them so that you will not have to deal wit the dirt every day. Also, you will look very cool and women will love it...
Your eyes will be nice, shiny, and clean, just like your circumcised dick
:disgust:

I can bet that with an organized propaganda, you could actually make that happen - you could tell the stupid US society that the eyelids are bad and it is medically and esthetically desirable to remove those "dirty" parts of your body that protect a SENSITIVE organ because of some "medical" reasons. And of course the "women" love men with no eyelids....

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: GiggleGirl

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I just had a thought:

Are people who are against circumcision because it is mutilation also necessarily against tattoos?

I would appreciate a response from the anti-circumcision crowd in this thread, please.

MotionMan

If you want to tattoo or circumcise a baby, I'm opposed to that. If you want to get a tattoo or circumcision when you're an adult, go for it.

Most of the people you would label "anti-circumcision" are only anti-circumcision when it comes to minors. Adults can do whatever the fuck they want to their own bodies.

your reasoning is flawed in that adults are proxies for children who aren't old enough yet to make decisions about their health or well being. if we were to use your logic babies would never be vaccinated because they aren't old enough to give consent.

Tattoos and newborn circumcision aren't necessary for health. You could argue that down the road, a minor might need a circumcision or other surgery, but surgery is done when there's a problem, not as a preventative. We don't remove tonsils at age 5 routinely anymore.

Vaccinations, on the other hand have decades of proven benefit around the world. No one who gets their MMR gets the measles anymore and measles are a lot worse than any shot.

a 5 yr old *may* need his/her tonsil removed and a parent is there to give consent and do what he/she believes is right for the child. you saying that things should be put off until someone is an adult makes no reasonable sense.

You're talking need vs. want. If a 5 year old NEEDS to have his tonsils out for a valid medical reason, that's one thing. If daddy WANTS his newborn to have cosmetic surgery on his genitals, that's different.

some people view both of those procedures as needs whether you do or not.

so you say this but there is NO medical NEED to remove the foreskin. it does no harm and has a ton of reasons for being there. in actuality, the body has these things because they serve a purpose...

Just like the appendix and tonsils?

MotionMan

That is not the same. Seriously...
A better analogy is an eye lid...
Every day you wake up with a bunch of an organic material in your eyes. Solution? Blame the eyelids...Just remove them so that you will not have to deal wit the dirt every day. Also, you will look very cool and women will love it...
Your eyes will be nice, shiny, and clean, just like your circumcised dick
:disgust:

I can bet that with an organized propaganda, you could actually make that happen - you could tell the stupid US society that the eyelids are bad and it is medically and esthetically desirable to remove those "dirty" parts of your body that protect a SENSITIVE organ because of some "medical" reasons. And of course the "women" love men with no eyelids....

That is a TERRIBLE analogy.

MotionMan

 

[surfsatwerk]

The eyeball analogy is utter nonsense.

I don't have a foreskin and I have a healthy and fulfilling sex life.

If I don't have eyelids I will probably go insane and kill myself.

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: GiggleGirl

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I just had a thought:

Are people who are against circumcision because it is mutilation also necessarily against tattoos?

I would appreciate a response from the anti-circumcision crowd in this thread, please.

MotionMan

If you want to tattoo or circumcise a baby, I'm opposed to that. If you want to get a tattoo or circumcision when you're an adult, go for it.

Most of the people you would label "anti-circumcision" are only anti-circumcision when it comes to minors. Adults can do whatever the fuck they want to their own bodies.

your reasoning is flawed in that adults are proxies for children who aren't old enough yet to make decisions about their health or well being. if we were to use your logic babies would never be vaccinated because they aren't old enough to give consent.

Tattoos and newborn circumcision aren't necessary for health. You could argue that down the road, a minor might need a circumcision or other surgery, but surgery is done when there's a problem, not as a preventative. We don't remove tonsils at age 5 routinely anymore.

Vaccinations, on the other hand have decades of proven benefit around the world. No one who gets their MMR gets the measles anymore and measles are a lot worse than any shot.

a 5 yr old *may* need his/her tonsil removed and a parent is there to give consent and do what he/she believes is right for the child. you saying that things should be put off until someone is an adult makes no reasonable sense.

You're talking need vs. want. If a 5 year old NEEDS to have his tonsils out for a valid medical reason, that's one thing. If daddy WANTS his newborn to have cosmetic surgery on his genitals, that's different.

some people view both of those procedures as needs whether you do or not.

so you say this but there is NO medical NEED to remove the foreskin. it does no harm and has a ton of reasons for being there. in actuality, the body has these things because they serve a purpose...

Just like the appendix and tonsils?

MotionMan

That is not the same. Seriously...
A better analogy is an eye lid...
Every day you wake up with a bunch of an organic material in your eyes. Solution? Blame the eyelids...Just remove them so that you will not have to deal wit the dirt every day. Also, you will look very cool and women will love it...
Your eyes will be nice, shiny, and clean, just like your circumcised dick
:disgust:

I can bet that with an organized propaganda, you could actually make that happen - you could tell the stupid US society that the eyelids are bad and it is medically and esthetically desirable to remove those "dirty" parts of your body that protect a SENSITIVE organ because of some "medical" reasons. And of course the "women" love men with no eyelids....

That is a TERRIBLE analogy.

MotionMan

No, yours is a terrible analogy. Both Appendix and Tonsils are internal organs that actually DO serve a purpose and they are NOT removed by default. Furthermore, to remove the appendix they really have to cut your internal organs open. It is a serious operations.

On the other hand, both eye lids and foreskin have one, single job to do: To protect very sensitive organs on your body that are exposed to the outside's damage.

My analogy is very logical, I am curious to learn why do you have a problem with my comparison?

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
The eyeball analogy is utter nonsense.

I don't have a foreskin and I have a healthy and fulfilling sex life.

If I don't have eyelids I will probably go insane and kill myself.

You don't know...
Maybe if someone would remove you eyelids as a toddler, you would be fine. Your eyes would get used to it after a while and you wouldn't know any better
Your eyes would be less sensitive, but cleaner and more desirable by women. You would also argue that you eyes are just fine - and you can see as well as any person with eyelids.

Latter on some medical group would come up with a study that actually, removing your eyelids makes your entire body better and the procedure helps to prevent cancer...

After that some new religion would start claiming that removing your eyelids helps you to be connected with God better because you can see HIM all the time...

 

[Kirby]

This thread has become dull.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
The eyeball analogy is utter nonsense.

I don't have a foreskin and I have a healthy and fulfilling sex life.

If I don't have eyelids I will probably go insane and kill myself.

You don't know...
Maybe if someone would remove you eyelids as a toddler, you would be fine. Your eyes would get used to it after a while and you wouldn't know any better
Your eyes would be less sensitive, but cleaner and more desirable by women. You would also argue that you eyes are just fine - and you can see as well as person with eyelids.
Latter on some medical group would come up with a study that actually, removing your eyelids makes your entire body better and the procedure helps to prevent cancer...

What you clowns that are so up in arms about cutting a guy's dick lack is perspective. When you start using extreme and sensationalist analogies to support your position then you are usually treading on thin ice. Eyeballs and a dick are not comparable organs with comparable functions.

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
This thread has become dull.

Sorry to break it to you all, but the only reason why most of you are mutilated is because some huge asshole in a desert few thousand years ago could not be bothered with personal hygiene...

Lesson: It is there for a reason. Don't fuck with a nature...

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
The eyeball analogy is utter nonsense.

I don't have a foreskin and I have a healthy and fulfilling sex life.

If I don't have eyelids I will probably go insane and kill myself.

You don't know...
Maybe if someone would remove you eyelids as a toddler, you would be fine. Your eyes would get used to it after a while and you wouldn't know any better
Your eyes would be less sensitive, but cleaner and more desirable by women. You would also argue that you eyes are just fine - and you can see as well as person with eyelids.
Latter on some medical group would come up with a study that actually, removing your eyelids makes your entire body better and the procedure helps to prevent cancer...

What you clowns that are so up in arms about cutting a guy's dick lack is perspective. When you start using extreme and sensationalist analogies to support your position then you are usually treading on thin ice. Eyeballs and a dick are not comparable organs with comparable functions.

They are both:
1. Very sensitive
2. Exposed to an outside environment
3. They are obviously not the same, although some guys see with their dicks
4. They are both protected by a thin layer of a PROTECTIVE skin
5. Both of them accumulate a SMALL amount of an organic residue every day/night
6. You don't have problems with skin protecting one organ, but remove it from a 2nd organ
7. Both skins have nerve endings. If someone pinches you in your eyelid, you feel it, the same is true for a foreskin...

So here. My arguments are logical. Not sensationalist or extreme. I am not treading in a thin ice as well, as the "nature" has my back. The skin is there for a reason. Don't fuck with it.

Edit: Don't be so upset with my argument. Just accept it and think about it. I know that it is not easy, still if you think about it, as some point of your life you will make a right choice for your little one.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: GiggleGirl

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I just had a thought:

Are people who are against circumcision because it is mutilation also necessarily against tattoos?

I would appreciate a response from the anti-circumcision crowd in this thread, please.

MotionMan

If you want to tattoo or circumcise a baby, I'm opposed to that. If you want to get a tattoo or circumcision when you're an adult, go for it.

Most of the people you would label "anti-circumcision" are only anti-circumcision when it comes to minors. Adults can do whatever the fuck they want to their own bodies.

your reasoning is flawed in that adults are proxies for children who aren't old enough yet to make decisions about their health or well being. if we were to use your logic babies would never be vaccinated because they aren't old enough to give consent.

Tattoos and newborn circumcision aren't necessary for health. You could argue that down the road, a minor might need a circumcision or other surgery, but surgery is done when there's a problem, not as a preventative. We don't remove tonsils at age 5 routinely anymore.

Vaccinations, on the other hand have decades of proven benefit around the world. No one who gets their MMR gets the measles anymore and measles are a lot worse than any shot.

a 5 yr old *may* need his/her tonsil removed and a parent is there to give consent and do what he/she believes is right for the child. you saying that things should be put off until someone is an adult makes no reasonable sense.

You're talking need vs. want. If a 5 year old NEEDS to have his tonsils out for a valid medical reason, that's one thing. If daddy WANTS his newborn to have cosmetic surgery on his genitals, that's different.

some people view both of those procedures as needs whether you do or not.

so you say this but there is NO medical NEED to remove the foreskin. it does no harm and has a ton of reasons for being there. in actuality, the body has these things because they serve a purpose...

Just like the appendix and tonsils?

MotionMan

That is not the same. Seriously...
A better analogy is an eye lid...
Every day you wake up with a bunch of an organic material in your eyes. Solution? Blame the eyelids...Just remove them so that you will not have to deal wit the dirt every day. Also, you will look very cool and women will love it...
Your eyes will be nice, shiny, and clean, just like your circumcised dick
:disgust:

I can bet that with an organized propaganda, you could actually make that happen - you could tell the stupid US society that the eyelids are bad and it is medically and esthetically desirable to remove those "dirty" parts of your body that protect a SENSITIVE organ because of some "medical" reasons. And of course the "women" love men with no eyelids....

That is a TERRIBLE analogy.

MotionMan

No, yours is a terrible analogy. Both Appendix and Tonsils are internal organs that actually DO serve a purpose and they are NOT removed by default. Furthermore, to remove the appendix they really have to cut your internal organs open. It is a serious operations.

On the other hand, both eye lids and foreskin have one, single job to do: To protect very sensitive organs on your body that are exposed to the outside's damage.

My analogy is very logical, I am curious to learn why do you have a problem with my comparison?

Because your comparison is TERRIBLE. If you cannot see that, then nothing I can say could help you.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
The eyeball analogy is utter nonsense.

I don't have a foreskin and I have a healthy and fulfilling sex life.

If I don't have eyelids I will probably go insane and kill myself.

You don't know...
Maybe if someone would remove you eyelids as a toddler, you would be fine. Your eyes would get used to it after a while and you wouldn't know any better
Your eyes would be less sensitive, but cleaner and more desirable by women. You would also argue that you eyes are just fine - and you can see as well as any person with eyelids.

Latter on some medical group would come up with a study that actually, removing your eyelids makes your entire body better and the procedure helps to prevent cancer...

After that some new religion would start claiming that removing your eyelids helps you to be connected with God better because you can see HIM all the time...

You obviously have no clue what your eyelids do. Or what foreskin doesn't.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: nkgreen
This thread has become dull.

Sorry to break it to you all, but the only reason why most of you are mutilated is because some huge asshole in a desert few thousand years ago could not be bothered with personal hygiene...

Lesson: It is there for a reason. Don't fuck with a nature...

:Q

Well, that explains it.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
The eyeball analogy is utter nonsense.

I don't have a foreskin and I have a healthy and fulfilling sex life.

If I don't have eyelids I will probably go insane and kill myself.

You don't know...
Maybe if someone would remove you eyelids as a toddler, you would be fine. Your eyes would get used to it after a while and you wouldn't know any better
Your eyes would be less sensitive, but cleaner and more desirable by women. You would also argue that you eyes are just fine - and you can see as well as person with eyelids.
Latter on some medical group would come up with a study that actually, removing your eyelids makes your entire body better and the procedure helps to prevent cancer...

What you clowns that are so up in arms about cutting a guy's dick lack is perspective. When you start using extreme and sensationalist analogies to support your position then you are usually treading on thin ice. Eyeballs and a dick are not comparable organs with comparable functions.

They are both:
1. Very sensitive
2. Exposed to an outside environment
3. They are obviously not the same, although some guys see with their dicks
4. They are both protected by a thin layer of a PROTECTIVE skin
5. Both of them accumulate a SMALL amount of an organic residue every day/night
6. You don't have problems with skin protecting one organ, but remove it from a 2nd organ
7. Both skins have nerve endings. If someone pinches you in your eyelid, you feel it, the same is true for a foreskin...

So here. My arguments are logical. Not sensationalist or extreme. I am not treading in a thin ice as well, as the "nature" has my back. The skin is there for a reason. Don't fuck with it.

Edit: Don't be so upset with my argument. Just accept it and think about it. I know that it is not easy, still if you think about it, as some point of your life you will make a right choice for your little one.

You obviously have no clue what your eyelids do. Or what foreskin doesn't.

MotionMan

 

[GiggleGirl]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Just like the appendix and tonsils?

MotionMan

for the sake of this argument, i looked up the reason for having the tonsils and there are three parts and they do have uses. educate yourself as well

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: GiggleGirl

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I just had a thought:

Are people who are against circumcision because it is mutilation also necessarily against tattoos?

I would appreciate a response from the anti-circumcision crowd in this thread, please.

MotionMan

If you want to tattoo or circumcise a baby, I'm opposed to that. If you want to get a tattoo or circumcision when you're an adult, go for it.

Most of the people you would label "anti-circumcision" are only anti-circumcision when it comes to minors. Adults can do whatever the fuck they want to their own bodies.

your reasoning is flawed in that adults are proxies for children who aren't old enough yet to make decisions about their health or well being. if we were to use your logic babies would never be vaccinated because they aren't old enough to give consent.

Tattoos and newborn circumcision aren't necessary for health. You could argue that down the road, a minor might need a circumcision or other surgery, but surgery is done when there's a problem, not as a preventative. We don't remove tonsils at age 5 routinely anymore.

Vaccinations, on the other hand have decades of proven benefit around the world. No one who gets their MMR gets the measles anymore and measles are a lot worse than any shot.

a 5 yr old *may* need his/her tonsil removed and a parent is there to give consent and do what he/she believes is right for the child. you saying that things should be put off until someone is an adult makes no reasonable sense.

You're talking need vs. want. If a 5 year old NEEDS to have his tonsils out for a valid medical reason, that's one thing. If daddy WANTS his newborn to have cosmetic surgery on his genitals, that's different.

some people view both of those procedures as needs whether you do or not.

so you say this but there is NO medical NEED to remove the foreskin. it does no harm and has a ton of reasons for being there. in actuality, the body has these things because they serve a purpose...

Just like the appendix and tonsils?

MotionMan

That is not the same. Seriously...
A better analogy is an eye lid...
Every day you wake up with a bunch of an organic material in your eyes. Solution? Blame the eyelids...Just remove them so that you will not have to deal wit the dirt every day. Also, you will look very cool and women will love it...
Your eyes will be nice, shiny, and clean, just like your circumcised dick
:disgust:

I can bet that with an organized propaganda, you could actually make that happen - you could tell the stupid US society that the eyelids are bad and it is medically and esthetically desirable to remove those "dirty" parts of your body that protect a SENSITIVE organ because of some "medical" reasons. And of course the "women" love men with no eyelids....

That is a TERRIBLE analogy.

MotionMan

No, yours is a terrible analogy. Both Appendix and Tonsils are internal organs that actually DO serve a purpose and they are NOT removed by default. Furthermore, to remove the appendix they really have to cut your internal organs open. It is a serious operations.

On the other hand, both eye lids and foreskin have one, single job to do: To protect very sensitive organs on your body that are exposed to the outside's damage.

My analogy is very logical, I am curious to learn why do you have a problem with my comparison?

Because your comparison is TERRIBLE. If you cannot see that, then nothing I can say could help you.

MotionMan

OK. I just presented out my arguments point by point. You on the other hand brought up an appendix...
:frown:

Appendix is located INSIDE of your body. Do you know any basic human biology? If you do, why do you bring up the appendix?
My argument is "terrible", but how do you classify your "analogy"? Apples to Oranges argument?

Bottom line: There is a purpose to foreskin. Leave it alone.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: nkgreen
This thread has become dull.

Sorry to break it to you all, but the only reason why most of you are mutilated is because some huge asshole in a desert few thousand years ago could not be bothered with personal hygiene...

Lesson: It is there for a reason. Don't fuck with a nature...

Why did you quote me? What you said has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: nkgreen
This thread has become dull.

Sorry to break it to you all, but the only reason why most of you are mutilated is because some huge asshole in a desert few thousand years ago could not be bothered with personal hygiene...

Lesson: It is there for a reason. Don't fuck with a nature...

Why did you quote me? What you said has nothing to do with what I said.

It has happened by mistake. I pushed the wrong button.
Edit: adlep's out. Gotta go on a service call. Sorry about your lost foreskin you all. You have lost a lot. Your penis lost it's best friend.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: adlep
They are both:
1. Very sensitive
2. Exposed to an outside environment
3. They are obviously not the same, although some guys see with their dicks
4. They are both protected by a thin layer of a PROTECTIVE skin
5. Both of them accumulate a SMALL amount of an organic residue every day/night
6. You don't have problems with skin protecting one organ, but remove it from a 2nd organ
7. Both skins have nerve endings. If someone pinches you in your eyelid, you feel it, the same is true for a foreskin...

So here. My arguments are logical. Not sensationalist or extreme. I am not treading in a thin ice as well, as the "nature" has my back. The skin is there for a reason. Don't fuck with it.

Edit: Don't be so upset with my argument. Just accept it and think about it. I know that it is not easy, still if you think about it, as some point of your life you will make a right choice for your little one.

Really the only point you have is the sensitivity (beating dead horse again) which has been proven to not be an issue for babies-->adults. In addition, someone in this thread already mentioned that they wanted to reduce sensitivity so they got rid of the foreskin so they could last longer during secks.

Last, protection? What does your cck need protection from (other than the hordes of women who want to taste it!) that your underwear doesn't already provide? My body temp already runs a degree or two hotter than normal people, the last thing I need is hotness down there.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: GiggleGirl

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I just had a thought:

Are people who are against circumcision because it is mutilation also necessarily against tattoos?

I would appreciate a response from the anti-circumcision crowd in this thread, please.

MotionMan

If you want to tattoo or circumcise a baby, I'm opposed to that. If you want to get a tattoo or circumcision when you're an adult, go for it.

Most of the people you would label "anti-circumcision" are only anti-circumcision when it comes to minors. Adults can do whatever the fuck they want to their own bodies.

your reasoning is flawed in that adults are proxies for children who aren't old enough yet to make decisions about their health or well being. if we were to use your logic babies would never be vaccinated because they aren't old enough to give consent.

Tattoos and newborn circumcision aren't necessary for health. You could argue that down the road, a minor might need a circumcision or other surgery, but surgery is done when there's a problem, not as a preventative. We don't remove tonsils at age 5 routinely anymore.

Vaccinations, on the other hand have decades of proven benefit around the world. No one who gets their MMR gets the measles anymore and measles are a lot worse than any shot.

a 5 yr old *may* need his/her tonsil removed and a parent is there to give consent and do what he/she believes is right for the child. you saying that things should be put off until someone is an adult makes no reasonable sense.

You're talking need vs. want. If a 5 year old NEEDS to have his tonsils out for a valid medical reason, that's one thing. If daddy WANTS his newborn to have cosmetic surgery on his genitals, that's different.

some people view both of those procedures as needs whether you do or not.

so you say this but there is NO medical NEED to remove the foreskin. it does no harm and has a ton of reasons for being there. in actuality, the body has these things because they serve a purpose...

Just like the appendix and tonsils?

MotionMan

That is not the same. Seriously...
A better analogy is an eye lid...
Every day you wake up with a bunch of an organic material in your eyes. Solution? Blame the eyelids...Just remove them so that you will not have to deal wit the dirt every day. Also, you will look very cool and women will love it...
Your eyes will be nice, shiny, and clean, just like your circumcised dick
:disgust:

I can bet that with an organized propaganda, you could actually make that happen - you could tell the stupid US society that the eyelids are bad and it is medically and esthetically desirable to remove those "dirty" parts of your body that protect a SENSITIVE organ because of some "medical" reasons. And of course the "women" love men with no eyelids....

eyelids ? foreskin

some of your guys are really reaching.

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: adlep
They are both:
1. Very sensitive
2. Exposed to an outside environment
3. They are obviously not the same, although some guys see with their dicks
4. They are both protected by a thin layer of a PROTECTIVE skin
5. Both of them accumulate a SMALL amount of an organic residue every day/night
6. You don't have problems with skin protecting one organ, but remove it from a 2nd organ
7. Both skins have nerve endings. If someone pinches you in your eyelid, you feel it, the same is true for a foreskin...

So here. My arguments are logical. Not sensationalist or extreme. I am not treading in a thin ice as well, as the "nature" has my back. The skin is there for a reason. Don't fuck with it.

Edit: Don't be so upset with my argument. Just accept it and think about it. I know that it is not easy, still if you think about it, as some point of your life you will make a right choice for your little one.

Really the only point you have is the sensitivity (beating dead horse again) which has been proven to not be an issue for babies-->adults. In addition, someone in this thread already mentioned that they wanted to reduce sensitivity so they got rid of the foreskin so they could last longer during secks.

Last, protection? What does your cck need protection from (other than the hordes of women who want to taste it!) that your underwear doesn't already provide? My body temp already runs a degree or two hotter than normal people, the last thing I need is hotness down there.

I take a cushion of my dear foreskin any day over an underwear. Also, the foreskin slides out during the intercourse. When it stands, it looks no different from yours.

In addition, someone in this thread already mentioned that they wanted to reduce sensitivity so they got rid of the foreskin so they could last longer during secks.

No thank you. There are other ways of doing it. It seems like a terrible, terrible idea. Reducing pleasure and sensitivity around my dick? Nope. That is just...wrong.

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: adlep

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: GiggleGirl

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I just had a thought:

Are people who are against circumcision because it is mutilation also necessarily against tattoos?

I would appreciate a response from the anti-circumcision crowd in this thread, please.

MotionMan

If you want to tattoo or circumcise a baby, I'm opposed to that. If you want to get a tattoo or circumcision when you're an adult, go for it.

Most of the people you would label "anti-circumcision" are only anti-circumcision when it comes to minors. Adults can do whatever the fuck they want to their own bodies.

your reasoning is flawed in that adults are proxies for children who aren't old enough yet to make decisions about their health or well being. if we were to use your logic babies would never be vaccinated because they aren't old enough to give consent.

Tattoos and newborn circumcision aren't necessary for health. You could argue that down the road, a minor might need a circumcision or other surgery, but surgery is done when there's a problem, not as a preventative. We don't remove tonsils at age 5 routinely anymore.

Vaccinations, on the other hand have decades of proven benefit around the world. No one who gets their MMR gets the measles anymore and measles are a lot worse than any shot.

a 5 yr old *may* need his/her tonsil removed and a parent is there to give consent and do what he/she believes is right for the child. you saying that things should be put off until someone is an adult makes no reasonable sense.

You're talking need vs. want. If a 5 year old NEEDS to have his tonsils out for a valid medical reason, that's one thing. If daddy WANTS his newborn to have cosmetic surgery on his genitals, that's different.

some people view both of those procedures as needs whether you do or not.

so you say this but there is NO medical NEED to remove the foreskin. it does no harm and has a ton of reasons for being there. in actuality, the body has these things because they serve a purpose...

Just like the appendix and tonsils?

MotionMan

That is not the same. Seriously...
A better analogy is an eye lid...
Every day you wake up with a bunch of an organic material in your eyes. Solution? Blame the eyelids...Just remove them so that you will not have to deal wit the dirt every day. Also, you will look very cool and women will love it...
Your eyes will be nice, shiny, and clean, just like your circumcised dick
:disgust:

I can bet that with an organized propaganda, you could actually make that happen - you could tell the stupid US society that the eyelids are bad and it is medically and esthetically desirable to remove those "dirty" parts of your body that protect a SENSITIVE organ because of some "medical" reasons. And of course the "women" love men with no eyelids....

eyelids ? foreskin

some of your guys are really reaching.

They are both:

1. Very sensitive
2. Exposed to an outside environment
3. They are obviously not the same, although some guys see with their dicks
4. They are both protected by a thin layer of a PROTECTIVE skin
5. Both of them accumulate a SMALL amount of an organic residue every day/night
6. You don't have problems with skin protecting one organ, but remove it from a 2nd organ
7. Both skins have nerve endings. If someone pinches you in your eyelid, you feel it, the same is true for a foreskin...

So here. My arguments are logical. Not sensationalist or extreme. I am not treading in a thin ice as well, as the "nature" has my back. The skin is there for a reason. Don't fuck with it.

Edit: Don't be so upset with my argument. Just accept it and think about it. I know that it is not easy, still if you think about it, as some point of your life you will make a right choice for your little one.

Edit2: The general, underlying principle of both eyelids and foreskin is the same: To protect a very sensitive organ. What is so difficult to understand?