Circumcision
Do you think it would be better if boys were born without a foreskin as opposed to circumcising it? If so, why?
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
View 4 more replies »
PoizonApple · 41-45, F
MsLibrarian · 31-35, F
@PoizonApple Neither do I.
SW-User
Parents are assumed to have the child's best interests in mind.
But some parents request to have their newborn or older child circumcised for non-therapeutic reasons, such as the parents' desires to adhere to family tradition, cultural norms or religious beliefs.
In considering such a request, the physician may consider (in addition to any potential medical benefits and harms) such non-medical factors,
Equally, without a clear medical benefit relative to the potential harms, a physician may take the ethical position that non-medical factors do not contribute enough as benefits to outweigh the potential harms and refuse to perform the procedure.
Medical organization such as the Medical Association state that their member physicians are not obliged to perform the procedure in such situations.
But some parents request to have their newborn or older child circumcised for non-therapeutic reasons, such as the parents' desires to adhere to family tradition, cultural norms or religious beliefs.
In considering such a request, the physician may consider (in addition to any potential medical benefits and harms) such non-medical factors,
Equally, without a clear medical benefit relative to the potential harms, a physician may take the ethical position that non-medical factors do not contribute enough as benefits to outweigh the potential harms and refuse to perform the procedure.
Medical organization such as the Medical Association state that their member physicians are not obliged to perform the procedure in such situations.
MsLibrarian · 31-35, F
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
alan20 · M
@MsLibrarian Interesting. I know most doctors opposed the introduction of the NHS because they felt they'd make more money without it. It was only when too many of their colleagues followed their consciences first that the rest had to give in though they agreed to a compromise with hospital consultants, allowing them to practise privately as well. Some of these abuse the system by using NHS facilities for their private work and passing NHS patients over to deputies. Its one of my biggest problems with the Irish Republic. Despite prosperity during the Celtic Tiger years, they did little to introduce proper free health care.
fazer1k · 56-60, M
@MsLibrarian
The reason the NHS refused to pay for circumcision was that the reasons for doing it were not sound (some of the original reasons for circumcision seem like quackery in modern times).
[quote]Circumcision became "routine" (i.e. done by adults to children showing no signs of disease or abnormality) and widespread among the rich at the end of the nineteenth century as a result of a combination of several factors, any one of which would not have been enough. It received an immense boost from the claim that it provided significant protection against syphilis, the AIDS of that era. The rate of infant circumcision in Australia doubled between 1910 and 1920, the decade which marked the height of the syphilis scare, and increased substantially in Britain. (There’s a parallel here with AIDS today). [b]Circumcision was recommended as a preventive of masturbation, nervous diseases, syphilis, and cancer, not to mention bed-wetting, epilepsy, pimples and hip joint disease, all of which were equally important in securing its widespread acceptance[/b]; by itself, none of these factors could have tipped the balance.[/quote]
Except from: http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=7&id=72&Itemid=51
The reason the NHS refused to pay for circumcision was that the reasons for doing it were not sound (some of the original reasons for circumcision seem like quackery in modern times).
[quote]Circumcision became "routine" (i.e. done by adults to children showing no signs of disease or abnormality) and widespread among the rich at the end of the nineteenth century as a result of a combination of several factors, any one of which would not have been enough. It received an immense boost from the claim that it provided significant protection against syphilis, the AIDS of that era. The rate of infant circumcision in Australia doubled between 1910 and 1920, the decade which marked the height of the syphilis scare, and increased substantially in Britain. (There’s a parallel here with AIDS today). [b]Circumcision was recommended as a preventive of masturbation, nervous diseases, syphilis, and cancer, not to mention bed-wetting, epilepsy, pimples and hip joint disease, all of which were equally important in securing its widespread acceptance[/b]; by itself, none of these factors could have tipped the balance.[/quote]
Except from: http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=7&id=72&Itemid=51
AlphaCuckTX · 56-60, M
snowangelashley · 26-30, F
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
froggtongue · M
swirlie · 31-35, F
@froggtongue
I am still awaiting nadine's answer to my own response, which so far, she has not bothered to respond to for some reason. I must therefore reiterate that if a woman actually knew what a male's foreskin was for in the first place, she would not feel the need to ask such an obtuse question in an open forum such as this.
But in all fairness to those, including nadine, whom do not know the reason a male comes equipped with a foreskin, the primary reason they do not know is because of the cultural biases held within their own culture's state of awareness regarding a male's penis, as well as the level of sex education their respective culture provided for them on this issue.
One's understanding therefore, lies purely within the difference found between one living in a culture that does NOT promote male circumcision nor makes circumcision readily available immediately after a child is born (Scandinavian countries), versus living within a sexually un-educated culture that ABSOLUTELY DOES encourage male circumcision as a matter of unsubstantiated, albeit standard medical protocol (all of North America).
When anyone, male or female, does not know the reason for a male's foreskin, I will only say that they have unknowingly deprived themselves of one of God's many Gifts to our human species. When we know better, we do better. But if we don't know of the difference OR are way too afraid to find out those differences for ourselves, then we become victims of our culture's status quo.
I am still awaiting nadine's answer to my own response, which so far, she has not bothered to respond to for some reason. I must therefore reiterate that if a woman actually knew what a male's foreskin was for in the first place, she would not feel the need to ask such an obtuse question in an open forum such as this.
But in all fairness to those, including nadine, whom do not know the reason a male comes equipped with a foreskin, the primary reason they do not know is because of the cultural biases held within their own culture's state of awareness regarding a male's penis, as well as the level of sex education their respective culture provided for them on this issue.
One's understanding therefore, lies purely within the difference found between one living in a culture that does NOT promote male circumcision nor makes circumcision readily available immediately after a child is born (Scandinavian countries), versus living within a sexually un-educated culture that ABSOLUTELY DOES encourage male circumcision as a matter of unsubstantiated, albeit standard medical protocol (all of North America).
When anyone, male or female, does not know the reason for a male's foreskin, I will only say that they have unknowingly deprived themselves of one of God's many Gifts to our human species. When we know better, we do better. But if we don't know of the difference OR are way too afraid to find out those differences for ourselves, then we become victims of our culture's status quo.
smileylovesgaming · 31-35, F
Yea it wouldn't be a problem then
melbeacher · 56-60, M
I am cut and I love it !
Jonjdw · 46-50, M
I think so.
SW-User
Yes
Lanyx · 41-45, M
I would say yes. That way all men would be 'equal'. I would go for a partial natural circumcision, where the head comes out on erection.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Fluffy407 · 41-45, F
😐
unknownpoetx · 36-40, M
I think you should get a female genital mutilation just for suggesting that
Sharky86 · 36-40, M
What about feet? And ears? They're ugly!
swirlie · 31-35, F
Nadine, do you know 'why' a male is born with a foreskin in the first place?
What I mean is, do you comprehend what the benefits of a fully intact foreskin are to both a male and a female during sexual intercourse for example?
I think you need to first clarify your understanding of a male's foreskin before you embark upon asking questions about a foreskin's relevance within human evolution, or before making somewhat of a natural assumption that a foreskin is 'meant to be circumcised at first opportunity'.
What I mean is, do you comprehend what the benefits of a fully intact foreskin are to both a male and a female during sexual intercourse for example?
I think you need to first clarify your understanding of a male's foreskin before you embark upon asking questions about a foreskin's relevance within human evolution, or before making somewhat of a natural assumption that a foreskin is 'meant to be circumcised at first opportunity'.