 |
|
|
|
| Circumcision Is The Grotesque And Unjustifiable Mutilation Of A Child |
| There are some religions where circumcision of children is routine. This is unacceptable in my opinion and should be outlawed. Even more grotesque, however, is the large-scale practice of circumcision among people whose religion does not require it. This is largely an American problem. Early in the 20th century, there were some quack best-selling books which claimed that circumcision had medical benefits. This was a preposterous claim without any evidentiary basis. Despite this, however, the practice took root in American culture and continues even today, leading to millions of innocent infants being senselessly mutilated for life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The foreskin is there to protect the penis. The inside of the foreskin features 40% of the erogenous
tissue in the genital area. Adults undergoing the procedure have likened the diminution of sexual
pleasure as being akin to switching from color to black and white TV.
In some very traditional circumcisions, the foreskin is bitten off. There have been horrible
infections of baby's genitals because of oral infections by the biter. As recently as New York City,
2007. Multiple cases.
Despite all the circumlocution, the true reason for circumcision is the lessening of sexual
pleasure, in the hopes that the (victim) will spend less time looking for sex and more time working
or going to war.
What a hideous thing to do to your own kids. That comes as close as anything I've ever heard to
"sin".
I personally would love to see some long-term studies of the effects of circumcision on both
individuals and society. I have a feeling when the complete truth comes out, it's going to be
shocking. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is exactly right. Circumcision is totally unnecessary in males as it has no benefits
whatsoever, and female circumcision is just plain barbaric. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Recent studies indicate that there's no reason for it. Unless it is a religious thing, and that's
their business if so it should be done in the church, not in the hospital. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't think that infants should be circumcised. If someone is 18 or older, or even over 13 or
something, and wants to be circumcised, I say go for it. But younger, especially under seven or
five, it's not right. Something like that can't be undone, and you really aren't giving the child
much of a choice.
There have been cases of people suing their parents when they grow into adults because their parents
had them circumcised, when they didn't want to be.
Something major like that should be a choice, not something that's forced on you when you're too
young to understand what's going on or to consent. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There are only two reasons male genital mutilation continues:
1) Religious garbage.
2) Money.
The foreskin is a natural part of the human body. Doctors remove it - often without parental
permission or decision and without informing them of the options - and then charge the parents for
the cost of their brutal assaults on defenseless infants.
The myth is "a baby's pain receptors aren't developed enough to feel pain". Try saying that after
listening to a baby screaming, like the screaming of someone whose foot was blown off by a bomb.
Another myth is that the foreskin is "unhealthy" and "causes cancer". There is no evidence for
either lie. Nations where male genital mutilation is uncommon do not have higher rates of such
illnesses.
There is one fact that is true about male genital mutilation which nobody talks about: Boys and men
who are mutilated have much less sensitivity in the glans, requiring much more stimulation to
achieve orgasm and ejaculation than is natural. This leads to less sexual enjoyment for both
partners, AND increases the risk of injury (and thus, infection) in women because men penetrate for
longer periods of time than they naturally would.
Male genital mutilation has only negatives. Those who disagree are liars or ignorant "people" who
think "we should keep doing it because we've always done it". |
| |
 K9  13 May 2008 17:52
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know that loads of infants had that done. I thought was just one of the few. I have no
complaints. Thanks anyway. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Female circumcision is wrong, it is an invasive surgery, and never done by doctors, where as male
circumcision can be performed by qualified doctors, with anesthetic.
Whilst volunteering at a massi school in kenya, i visited a massi village, and the girls want to be
circumcised because they believe that it is the way they become women,
it is done in the middle of the village, where the livestock are kept, with a sharp stone, and no
anesthetic and sterilized equipment.
This is most definitely wrong, but circumcision can be done for medical reasons, or just hygiene
reasons, i have had friends decide to be circumcised. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
On males its extreamly hygenic actually, so it's actually doing them a favour. How ever female
Circumcision is mutalation and is wrong and painful. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think the word "mutilation" is a bit strong. The procedure is a simple cut to remove the foreskin
from the penis. Jewish Rabbis have the proper tools and hygeine standards, and if people want it
done later in life, for religious reasons or not, then its up to them. Its on par with tattoos or
piercings: Medically useless, but sentimentally or religiously valued. Circumcision is known to
promote better genital hygeine. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with circumcision. People have been doing it for thousands of years and
nothing horrible has happened. The foreskin is an inconvenience which traps dirt and causes cancer.
Here's a fact: Muslims circumcise. Hindus don't. Hindus have a far higher rate of penis cancer. |
| |
 Mark 29 Apr 2008 21:12
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign In
