Sorry, your ONE source doesn't cut it. Almost all doctors agree, as well as the AAP. https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/Newborn-Male-Circumcision.aspx - - - Updated - - - The benefits outweigh the risks. - - - Updated - - - I've never seen an uncircumcised penis, but I've heard that they are ugly.
The American Medical Association currently does not recommend the practice of routine circumcision, calling it "non-therapeutic". In fact, before 1999, the Association explicitly recommended against routine circumcision. In it's entire 75 year existence, the American Academy of Pediatrics has never recommended infant circumcision. One thing that needs to be considered is that there are a lot of Jews in medical practice in the U.S., especially in the field of Obstetrics and Urology, so that no doubt probably has an influence on the views held by the medical community. The Sweden Medical Association, which counts 85% of the country's physicians as members, recommended setting twelve as the minimum age for the procedure and requiring a boy's consent in a resolution which was unanimously passed by the ethics council. That's what some men say in muslim countries where they circumcise their girls.
Yeah, but I think it's unfair to take off an inch or so before they know how long it's going to be. Enjoy!
Post a link from a valid source please. Female circumcision is completely different thing. A female circumcision is designed to take away sensation, and it is literally a mutilation.
That is not female circumcision. Female circumcision is cutting off the clitoris. That is a Muslim thing, so that the women can't get any pleasure from sex. Because you know, those insecure Muslim men . . . women must be covered and also have no pleasure from sex because that's the ONLY way they can keep a woman around. Educate yourself.
wrong. there are various levels of female genital mutilation. but the point it, the basis of both male and female child genital mutilation is to reduce sexual pleasure, not for health reasons. - - - Updated - - - i have no problem with forced circumcision upon male infants, as long as there is anesthesia used.
Not according to ANY of the articles about I've read. It is removal of the clitoris and is all about oppressing women. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/female-genital-mutilation/Pages/Introduction.aspx - - - Updated - - - Prove it.
It permanently takes away sexual sensation from the child for the rest of his life, without his consent. Isn't this the type of thing feminists should get outraged about? Oh wait, it's done on little boys, so feminists don't care. The foreskin is not merely just "a little extra skin". The foreskin is a double-layered, highly innervated (filled with sensitive nerve-endings) and vascularized structure that is an integral part of the penis. Did you know that the amount of skin removed in a circumcision on an average adult male is the equivalent of 15 square inches – the size of a 3 x 5 inch index card ?
No it doesn't. That is a completely ignorant comment. - - - Updated - - - This comment is so ridiculous that I have to laugh. Ha-ha! You have no clue what you're talking about. That much is obvious. Not even worth arguing it with you anymore until you learn more about the topic. Men who have had circumcisions get plenty of pleasure from sex. Lol.
Of course, it doesn't take away all the sexual sensation, just takes away some of it. A man doesn't need very much sensation to dump his load (in contrast to a woman).
Nope. It reduces the risk of UTI and other infections, is easier to clean, and looks better. As long as its done early, and the child is given pain relief, I don't see the issue. - - - Updated - - - But then unless the man was circumcised as an adult, how could he know how much sensation he is losing? You cannot miss what you have never had.
You cannot regret circumcision if you had it done as a child. You don't know what you missed - you can only rely on the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) others tell you.
Your arguments are incredibly silly, you know that? - - - Updated - - - It doesn't take away enough to even notice, according to most doctors. What is the deal here anyway? If you are uncircumcised, then you don't know how it feels for a circumcised male. If you are circumcised, then you don't know how it feels for an uncircumcised male. Your argument is bogus, all around.
It would be like if one of your toes got chopped off when you were a little infant. What would be the big deal?
I have never known even one that celebrates the feast of the circumcision on Jan 1st, so I think your numbers are greatly exaggerated - lol no one has ever said to me, have a great "feast of the circumcision" either... might of been popular at one time, now it's just a sick memory of a failed holiday .
It's not religious freedom to do it to your child, especially when they are too young to even talk or give their consent. How can you be sure your child will share the same beliefs as you? Forcing your religious beliefs on others... sounds more like Islam to me.
Banned? That's ridiculous. But I do have to question whether it should be done to children who have no say in the matter.
