Hey i was wondering if right now.At the very moment if you would have a boy, would you get him circumsised?If you hade to choose...Im curios about the rest...
No... A. there's no point and B. I think every person should have control over what happens to his/her own genitals, both males and females.
I guess I'd kinda want my son to look more like me, which would mean circumcised. Sorry if that sounds dumb. It's just if there's anything he ever had questions, or problems with (obviously only relating to the foreskin) I'd feel quite stupid not knowing the answers. But with consideration, only if there were medical problems and his foreskin needed to be cut off, then I'd only really go ahead with it.
Definitely circumcised. Like how it looks better, not that I will be concerned with my son's genital aesthetics, but still. My brother was un' and I remember cleaning to be a concern with him. Reduces chances of getting AIDS according to the news. And to rebut Andy's query "why change the way we were created?", assuming that picture to be of Andy . . . he appears to have a tattoo indicating that changing how one was created isn't so bad. And to address StayLoose's point, I'm happy I was cut, since I prefer it, but I wouldn't have the, uh, balls to do it now (and not because the knife slipped).
nopers, no sense in mutilating a kids gentials imho nothing - thats not andy, its a relatively famous actor, from shawn of hte dead and a few other flicks (im horribel with all celebrity names but can generaly remember what movie theyre in if i can see them)
Absolutely. It's unnecessary. It's not mutilation. If that were true, clipping a baby's tongue as soon as it comes out because the frenulum is attached too close to the tip would be mutilation. My mother refused to let them clip my tongue, even though they told her that I would probably develop a speech impediment because I can't even stick my tongue out past my bottom lip.
Ear piercings are mutilation, for no purpose other than to insert beauty enhancing instruments. Tattoos are mutilation, for whatever reasons they are done. Circumcision has beneficial health effects (less risk of penile cancer, urinary infections under the foreskin, STDs and HIV), looks better than the uncut "rocket ship" look, and makes for better sex since the glans is less sensitive and the coronal ridge has more direct contact with the vagina walls during intercourse. If it is mutilation, it has much stronger justifications for doing so than piercings and tattoos.
piercings adn tattoos can be done at the persons choice, circumsizing a newborn involves zero choice for the person being circumsized. if they wanna do it when theyre 18 or even 16, their choice, but i still dont think its necessary to do to oa newborn
Nope, I would not circumcise my son. However, if he wants to be circumcised when he's older ,18 maybe even 16, I would support him.
Don't believe anything you hear in the news...it's all lies, lies, lies, and George Bush is really a great President.
Yeah, Nalencer, you're 100% correct, I should believe only what I see out my own window and what the voices tell me to believe. Scientific studies should have no value if I choose not to believe them. I must be crazy. God help me indeed. p.s. Why are so many uncut people so defensive and oversensitive (pun intended)?
Bush bad Bush bad Bush bad!!1oneone!1 He personally cuts little boys' penises off and eats them as a side dish to the Iraqi baby heart casserole. Which he's sharing with Hitler reincarnate, discussing what horrible lies to feed to the poor American people through the big bad media next.
There is about a 2% chance that Bush is uncut, having been born in Connecticut in the 40s, like I was.
Inferno - you must live deep in the Canadian woods if you have never seen a cut penis. A lot of Canadians are, and most American guys.
