Medical Questions > Debate Forums > General Debate Forum

Circumcision: What Do You Think? (Page 5)

Must Read
A definition of the medical practice of infant male circumcision....
Is circumcision required for male babies? Why are boys circumcised? A quick review of the medical benefits of circumcision here. ...
What happens during a routine circumcision for a male child? Read more about this common procedure....

User Profile
February 15th, 2008
Community Volunteer
I know what you are saying, sometimes a mans foreskin is so tight that it causes trouble and that isn't good...
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 16th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
this may not be the best comparison, but HOW MANY young babies died from this operation? It's almost like saying you'll die from AIDS the first time you have sex. The doctors know EXACTLY what they are doing because of the fact they do it so often. I'd rather have this done to my son than some odd operation that the doctor has never done before. It's hardly an operation either (never had a baby yet, so not sure) but don't you take your baby home 5 minutes after it's done? doesn't sound that big of deal to me if they don't have to be watched closely after it's done.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 16th, 2008
Community Volunteer
If your Jewish then you get a Moil and they do it at home, its a party! So I dont think it is a life threatening operation, its just a snip. Its a big deal if you have it done when you are already grown...thats a different story.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 16th, 2008
Especially eHealthy
my son screamed bloody murder.. i heard him clear across the dr's office as they wouldn't let me be in the room.

no nerves my ass.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 17th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Anyone who thinks it isn't an extremely painful, cruel, horrific procedure when done to an infant is a complete fool.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 17th, 2008
Experienced User
i got my son circumcised and i did that because if you dont they could develop an infection down there
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 17th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Well, most men in the world are NOT circumcised, and they do not get infections.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 18th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Georgia59 wrote:
I never understood the argument that it's cleaner. Women have tons of folds and crevices down there, and no one ever suggested that we cut them off for the sake of hygeine.


wow I didn't realize this was on the first page... but I came up with a nice argument toward this...

when was the last time you seen a man wipe it off after he's done peeing? Woman do. That way the urine doesn't sit in there in that nice damp dark place festering away. The way I see it, if a man in uncircumcised, there's more room for the urine to stick to and stay there, therefore more chance of a UTI.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 18th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
I read up on the jewish tradition of circumcision and realized it actually involves the Moel to suck on the child's penis to clean the wound of blood. Many infants have had herpes infections transmitted in this manner and then some have died of the infection. Google it. I knever knew such a thing occurred, but now that I know, I am even angrier!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 18th, 2008
Community Volunteer
yuck Shocked
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 18th, 2008
Supporter
Lilly Ivy wrote:
Georgia59 wrote:
I never understood the argument that it's cleaner. Women have tons of folds and crevices down there, and no one ever suggested that we cut them off for the sake of hygeine.


wow I didn't realize this was on the first page... but I came up with a nice argument toward this...

when was the last time you seen a man wipe it off after he's done peeing? Woman do. That way the urine doesn't sit in there in that nice damp dark place festering away. The way I see it, if a man in uncircumcised, there's more room for the urine to stick to and stay there, therefore more chance of a UTI.


well the guy can wipe if he wants to, then?

you're totally missing the point. anyone who is pro infant circumcision always harps on about all these infections and diseases that the baby will get if it is not circumcised. but this is all based merely on speculation and presumption.

even if this were true and there is a chance the child might develop problems with his foreskin, this is still NOT THE POINT. it works on a really basic and fundamental level, and the point is this: you do not have the right to mutilate another human being. you cannot cut off part of a baby boy's penis on 'medical' and 'health' grounds that are unfounded. how can you cut off a part of another person's body as a preventative measure?? preventing some hypothetical infection that will most likely never happen?

my boyfriend is uncut and has never had an infection in his life. nor have any of my exes or family who are also UNCUT.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 18th, 2008
Community Volunteer
Yeah, my LTP is uncut and he has never had a problem with it...man, he would kill me for saying that...he is very shy sometimes.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 19th, 2008
Experienced User
Lilly Ivy wrote:
Georgia59 wrote:
I never understood the argument that it's cleaner. Women have tons of folds and crevices down there, and no one ever suggested that we cut them off for the sake of hygeine.


wow I didn't realize this was on the first page... but I came up with a nice argument toward this...

when was the last time you seen a man wipe it off after he's done peeing? Woman do. That way the urine doesn't sit in there in that nice damp dark place festering away. The way I see it, if a man in uncircumcised, there's more room for the urine to stick to and stay there, therefore more chance of a UTI.


UTI infections don't come from urine. That wouldn't make a lot of sense seeing as the urinary tract carries the urine out of the body. Urine is sterile. It is bacteria from the outside that gets in to cause a UTI. That is why women get them more often because the urethra is closer to the anus which is a source of bacteria. You could just as easily say that the foreskin would keep bacteria from getting in. Boys very rarely get UTIs compared with girls anyway. Plus, UTI's are easily treated. I don't think it justifies circumcision but that's just me.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 19th, 2008
Active User, very eHealthy
I really don't know what I think.

On one hand I have read very reliable research that circumcision absolutely does reduce the risk of infections. Females do not need this because their vagina is self-cleaning. Penises are not. My husband is circumcised and glad for it. I have also heard from men who weren't who have had very painful sexual experiences because of a problem with their foreskin. Then again, I am sure it is painful and there are plenty of men who are not circumcised and have no problems, so it likely isn't necessary.

In any case, I do not agree with the comparison people make to female genital mutilation. FGM can occur all the way up until the girl it is being inflicted upon is 13. It is done in unsanitary conditions with instruments that are not intended for medical use. The reason it is done is not because it is believed to be more sanitary, but to keep females from being sexually active before marriage. I think it's actually pretty bad that people put it on the same level at all.

I think I will most likely let my husband decide if we circumcise.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 19th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
LOL Jude love-I decided to let my DH decide, too then we had two girls. After the 2nd one he looked at me and said "Dear, I don't think we should have her circumcised."

I also agree with you to a degree on comparing female and male circumcision. I think it's apples to oranges there, but personally, I wouldn't do either because I don't like the idea of any kind of surgery unless its really needed. We were made this way and done well evolutionally so far. that's just my two cents.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 19th, 2008
Active User, very eHealthy
I agree, I guess I just see both sides. I have an uncle who didn't have it done as a newborn and ended up having to do it when he was like 40 (I don't know why). So it's like I don't know what to think.

So it's his decision, haha. I'd rather have girls when I have kids.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 19th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
I don't know how anyone can justify torturing their newborn like this. It sickens me.
They are tied tied spread eagle, end part of their penis is cut off and they scream in agony.

what is wrong with some of you?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 19th, 2008
Supporter
Jude-Love wrote:
In any case, I do not agree with the comparison people make to female genital mutilation. FGM can occur all the way up until the girl it is being inflicted upon is 13. It is done in unsanitary conditions with instruments that are not intended for medical use. The reason it is done is not because it is believed to be more sanitary, but to keep females from being sexually active before marriage. I think it's actually pretty bad that people put it on the same level at all.


i think it's a legitimate comparison. yes, female circumcision is a dangerous and mutilating practise but we are not talking about the reality of the way it is carried out (in 3rd world countries, no proper medical equipment etc) we are talking about female circumcision in theory; the idea of it.

the vagina itself is self cleaning. the labia and clitoral hood are not. so shall we have all our infant girls circumcised at birth, in hospitals, with proper medical instruments? on grounds that it is 'healthier and cleaner'? what would you think about that?

anyway, why should you think that because a procedure such as this is done at birth rather than in adolescence or adulthood that it must be a less painful experience? because a baby hasn't got the ability to convey its pain through words, perhaps?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 19th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Male circumcision was started as a way to reduce sexual pleasure in men and women. It supposedly cuts down on masturbation, and cuts down on the pleasure the female gets from sex.

The only people that can judge the male pleasure factor, men that got circumcised as adults and have had sex both uncut and cut, inevitably say sex wa much more pleasurable uncut.

Women who have had sexual partners both uncut and cut report many more orgasms (vaginal orgasms without outside stimulus of the clitoris) with uncut men than with cut.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 19th, 2008
Active User, very eHealthy
fiona05 wrote:
Jude-Love wrote:
In any case, I do not agree with the comparison people make to female genital mutilation. FGM can occur all the way up until the girl it is being inflicted upon is 13. It is done in unsanitary conditions with instruments that are not intended for medical use. The reason it is done is not because it is believed to be more sanitary, but to keep females from being sexually active before marriage. I think it's actually pretty bad that people put it on the same level at all.


i think it's a legitimate comparison. yes, female circumcision is a dangerous and mutilating practise but we are not talking about the reality of the way it is carried out (in 3rd world countries, no proper medical equipment etc) we are talking about female circumcision in theory; the idea of it.

the vagina itself is self cleaning. the labia and clitoral hood are not. so shall we have all our infant girls circumcised at birth, in hospitals, with proper medical instruments? on grounds that it is 'healthier and cleaner'? what would you think about that?

anyway, why should you think that because a procedure such as this is done at birth rather than in adolescence or adulthood that it must be a less painful experience? because a baby hasn't got the ability to convey its pain through words, perhaps?


If we circumcised infant girls at birth with sanitary measures, it would perhaps be a tad bit better of a comparison. Otherwise, I don't think it would be more acceptable no. I never said either practice was acceptable at all.

When something like this is done in adolescence or adulthood, it won't be forgotten and it will be much more traumatizing. I am not discounting what circumcision must be like for an infant, but I'm certainly not going to pretend it is just as bad or worse as being held down by several people and having shard of glass shoved in your vagina without anesthetic. Please. I respect your opinion, but you obviously are a little extreme about it.
|
Did you find this post helpful?