Decline in circumcision rate could cost billions

[jmdrake]

http://www.viafin-atlas.com/senslip.php

Well I guess that proves that you can find anything on the Internet.

 

[jmdrake]

Chart says girth, and the measurement is taken flaccid. Just for you, I measured myself flaccid. I fit in the chart.

Erect, you may have a point.

LOL. Okay. Now this is appropriate.

 

[LBennett76]

I didn't have my son circumcised and my doctor was extremely happy I made that decision. My dad isn't circumcised nor is my boyfriend. None have had any problems. Just got make sure you keep it clean. Soap and water.

 

[Fort Lauderdale]

Any doctor caught performing circumcision on a minor should be given the death penalty.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Any doctor caught performing circumcision on a minor should be given the death penalty.

A little extreme, don't you think?

3 felonies a day? You wanna add one to that list?

 

[tod evans]

I've gotta wonder how there can be 165 posts about somebody elses decision relevant to their child...

It's not my business whether or not you choose to circumcise your son, so stay the hell out of my business please.

 

[low preference guy]

I've gotta wonder how there can be 165 posts about somebody elses decision relevant to their child...

It's not my business whether or not you choose to circumcise your son, so stay the hell out of my business please.

it is not your business whether i cut my child's fingers or arms, so you would stay the hell out of my business?

 

[phill4paul]

Seems MSM will try to drum up more business. With irrelevant factoids....

http://news.yahoo.com/5-things-didnt-know-circumcision-121207406.html

5 Things You Didn't Know About Circumcision

1. It was once touted as a cure for paralysis
2. The foreskin is more complex than you might think
3. The first-recorded circumcision happened in Egypt
4. It may have caught on as a status symbol
5. Circumcisions leave unique marks

 

[Pericles]

Indeed! I have not said anything about male circumcision protecting females from HIV, because that's not true. It is uncircumcised men who are at risk, probably for the same reason - the foreskin hides all kinds of crap inside it.

Facts don't matter to true believers. The question is whether the benifits outweigh the risks. The balance is very slightly in favor, but not overwhelming.

 

[Pericles]

That has as much validity as male circumcision, if not more. It's about social norms. This is not about legitimate science.

After the successful jihad, this will be a moot issue.

 

[tod evans]

it is not your business whether i cut my child's fingers or arms, so you would stay the hell out of my business?

If you want to do that to your child then you live with it, and the consequences.

If you'd like to add another law to the volumes we currently have get your happy ass out and campaign for one..

For the record I'd vote to leave the decision to circumcise up to the parents. (No new laws!)

(These ridiculous analogies are quite the stretch)

[edit]

If i saw you either circumcising or amputating limbs I would stop you.....I believe however we are talking about a medical procedure......And that IS none of my business.

 

[low preference guy]

(These ridiculous analogies are quite the stretch)

The analogy shows that it's not as simple as saying "what you do to your child is none of my business!". Where is the line that is crossed by cutting an arm but is not by cutting a prepuce? Your "what you do to your child is none of my business" argument provides no way to answer that question. You need to try a different argument.

 

[tod evans]

The analogy shows that it's not as simple as saying "what you do to your child is none of my business!". Where is the line that is crossed by cutting an arm but is not by cutting a prepuce? Your "what you do to your child is none of my business" argument offers no way to answer that question. You need to try a different argument.

No actually I don't.

I'm quite satisfied with my position thank you.

 

[jmdrake]

The analogy shows that it's not as simple as saying "what you do to your child is none of my business!". Where is the line that is crossed by cutting an arm but is not by cutting a prepuce? Your "what you do to your child is none of my business" argument provides no way to answer that question. You need to try a different argument.

Would you want a law preventing a parent from having a preventive tonsillectomy or an appendectomy on his/her child? Because that's a much better analogy than an arm amputation.

 

[low preference guy]

Would you want a law preventing a parent from having a preventive tonsillectomy or an appendectomy on his/her child? Because that's a much better analogy than an arm amputation.

In that post I was explaining why his argument was bad, not arguing in favor of any position.

 

[anaconda]

Q: How much does a circumcisor earn?

A: $20 bucks per hour, plus tips..

 

[jmdrake]

In that post I was explaining why his argument was bad, not arguing in favor of any position.

Okay. Well I'm explaining why the cutting off arm or finger analogy is bad.

 

[low preference guy]

Okay. Well I'm explaining why the cutting off arm or finger analogy is bad.

The argument of the poster only said that what you do to your child is none of other people's business. From that argument's perspective, cutting a prepuce or an arm is the same thing in that it is none of other people's business, so a different argument is needed.

 

[jmdrake]

The argument of the poster only said that what you do to your child is none of other people's business. From that argument's perspective, cutting a prepuce or an arm is the same thing in that it is none of other people's business, so a different argument is needed.

Okay. Well here's how I would frame the argument. In cases where the known harm is small and/or there is a potential benefit the government/larger society should not be the ones making the decision. Someone mentioned baby ear piercing. Small benefit (too small to measure IMO) but also extremely small harm. The "harm" in circumcision is anecdotal at best. The "benefit" is the subject of raging "journal wars" with each side posting their own position and discounting the counter. For me that leaves it squarely in the "leave it to the parents" domain.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Okay. Well here's how I would frame the argument. In cases where the known harm is small and/or there is a potential benefit the government/larger society should not be the ones making the decision. Someone mentioned baby ear piercing. Small benefit (too small to measure IMO) but also extremely small harm. The "harm" in circumcision is anecdotal at best. The "benefit" is the subject of raging "journal wars" with each side posting their own position and discounting the counter. For me that leaves it squarely in the "leave it to the parents" domain.

How so? I would regard the unnecessary amputation of an organ (the foreskin is considered an organ, like the rest of the skin) as quite obviously harmful. The problem with the argument for leaving it to the parents is that it's not the parents' body ("property" if you prefer) to decide what to do with except in truly important procedures (like some exotic surgery to save the child's life) which the child is too incompetent to decide on.