That may be true, but how many of them have been presented with information (and pictures) on what the foreskin is, and what its function is? It's the same thing if you go to parts of Africa where many women have been subjected to FGM as a baby. The majority of them don't care, everyone around them has been subjected to FGM too, and they don't know any different.
Men do seem to enjoy sex just fine and they certainly can perform well enough to populate the country, and studies have I have seen have not shown any decrease in sexual pleasure that can be tied to circumcision so in that regard the drama is a bust. That just leaves aesthetics, medical considerations and the ethics issues, which the men I talk to are well acquainted with, in theory and completely unconcerned about. We don't seem to recall any negative outcomes from urine or feces exposure to the glans during our pre-toilet training days either. Sorry its all big fat nothing burger either way, and a total wash as far as I can tell. If I saw a ballot measure in front of me to ban the practice throughout Oregon absent it as part of a medically prescribed treatment plan, sitting in a medical chart, secondary to a diagnosis certified by two physicians, I honestly don't know how I'd vote, but I'd probably keep the law as its stands allowing parents to make the call. Its just not something worth getting all worked up over.
Of course they "don't care" since they never had a chance to know anything else. What you are saying here is totally beside the point anyways since the issue is one of morality -- It is simply immoral to cut off healthy body parts of a newborn baby.
Agree 100%. Male Circumcision has saved millions or tens of millions of people from STDs. Definitely Spanish Inquisition was wrong to ban Judaism and Islam.
It is not even remotely true that circumcision has prevented the spread of STD:s, The study used to justify this claim is one of shady statistics from a survey in Africa.Data also shows that America (where circumsion is prevalant) has a higher rate of STD:s than does Europe (where circumcision is very rare) and I am not seeing anyone make the claim that not circumcision prevents STD:s. Religion does not need rationale to be proven true and religious circumcision is just a rite with no connection to science. USA is the only country on Earth that practises routine infant circumcision for no real medical reason at all and is today basically just a cultural thing that Americans do to conform to the cultural norm of their people. I am not claiming you are a terrible parent if you choose to do it to your child(ren), but the procedure as such is objectively immoral.
1) Circumcision lowers transmission rate for AIDS -- thus tens of millions of lives have been saved. 2) We, Jews, are descendants of Jacob, Abraham's grandson. Muslims are descendants of Ishmael -- Abraham's son. America also has a heritage for which they should be proud. American people are the biological and ideological descendants of Esau. He was Jacob's twin brother. He was a great warrior.
That's just a myth and those studies have been debunked. Besides, female circumcision probably lowers transmission rates for AIDS as well.
According to World Health Organization, circumcision decreases HIV transmission rate by 60%. Here. Thus, tens of millions of lives have been saved. Here. Banning practices of Judaism and Islam is very undemocratic. Thomaso Torquemada:
I don't think we're talking about if an adult wants to do this to themselves. I won't get into an argument with you about that here, which would derail this thread. But there have been older threads in this forum debating this. I'm pretty confident the evidence is not adequate that it has any significant effect on reducing HIV. And in any case, that seems like just an excuse to me.
No, this is not at all true and there is no actual proof of it being the base either. There is neither reason nor rationale to justify the practice of strapping up baby boys to slice off fully healthy body parts of their. It goes against everything that is individual autonomy and bodily integrity. What ae you talking about? Americans the descendants of a mishmash of starving Europeans, Calvinist cult members and Italian mafiosi.
Alot of the members of the WHO council are Americans, Jews and Muslims and thus have an obvious bias to not use the same rhetorics against male circumcision as they do against female circumcision, but in reality there is not much difference between the two as both are products of barbaric practices of the past of with no scinetific ground only backed up by the unscientific phenomenon that is culture; that justfication that back up the two are exactly the same - "hygiene, religion, culture and aesthetics". If it was indeed true that circumcision prevented HIV, HIV would be running rampent in the West, but data shows that HIV is actually more common in the regions that practice circumcision and I do not see anyone making the case the circumcision increases HIV. There simply is no data to prove that it prevents it and there is no data to support that it causes it. The only reason it is used to support it is because practitioners know that it has no medical validity and just need a scientific rationalisation to justify it. No one has asked for it to be banned. It is a cultural problem and not a political one - For it to be stopped, culture has to change. What we can see when looking at the US - the only Western country to practice it - is that the States that do not fund it have a lower rate than those that do and this really tells a lot. There is no American medical association that recommends it.
Of course it is a myth. The only fact about circumcision is that it was introduced to control male sexuality because Victorians believed masturbation caused all sorts of medical problems. Once the era ended, it had become part of "cultural consensus" and people made up new reasons to justify it. Nowadays, they only "valid" rationale to support it is the highly perverted one of "aesthetics" where Americans are so culturally conditioned to view it as "prettier" that they are prepared to put their newborn boys in unnecessary and extreme pain to conform to the norm. If one believes in individual autonomy and bodily integrity, it is very hard to justify the practice. If one opposes female circumcision on basis of these notions, it is highly hypoicritcal for them to support male circumcision. Yes. Just like amputating arms prevents people from getting cancer in their arms.
Circumcision is the Law in Judaism and Islam. It is The Law of Old Testament. I advocate for many issues facing men. Presumption of Guilt violates Old Testament. But I am 100% against making Old Testament practices illegal. I am not on the side which supports Spanish Inquisition.
Circumcision lowers HIV transmission rate by 60%. Thus, AIDS epidemic has been half as devastating as it could have been. Tens of millions of lives have been saved.
Circumcision takes away much of the sensitivity of the penis . It removes the rich nerves and other parts . You have no frenulum . I feel like mine is dead
