routine infant circumcision

[lurscher]

the circumcision is harmless and does not hurt the function or the enjoyment during sex.

 

simply not true. At worst based on cultural assumptions. categorically not a fact.

[mooeypoo]

being a chick i can only say that i have no idea what to compare that to but i do know it would probably be like..........having a breast removed and that would be really awefull experiance....

 

Actually, it would not.

 

It would be more like piercing your ear. As a chick who actually have 98% of her male friends HAVING GONE THROUGH this procedure, spoken to them (with and without joking around), I can tell you that your comparison is extremely flawed.

 

Here's a few reasons why this is a wrong comparison:

 

1. Taking a breast off is painful not only at the instant of the act, but for a long long time after that, having your tissue heal. Circumcision is only painful at the instant done, and speaking with a few friends who undergone that procedure while being adults, it's also not as painful as anyone would imagine.

 

2. Cutting a breast off is NOTABLE-- you SEE when a woman has a missing breast even before speaking to her. Cutting the tip of a man's penis is something you don't see straight away, so it doesn't have a visible mutilative sign to it socially.

 

3. Breasts are vital organs for women in terms of childbearing. They have a clear purpose: breastfeeding. Taking one off will hurt that, while the circumcision hurts no processes or purposes.

 

So it's a wrong comparison.

 

I can understand people not wanting to have it, and I can also understand the discussion on its ethics. I have a view on the matter, obviously, but I can see why people find it unethical. However, it is not as BAD of a procedure as you make it sound by comparing it to these things.. and it is very important for me to stress it STRONGLY.

 

Circumcision sounds more horrible than it is, because men - having a well known phallic syndrom - tend to be scared shitless of anything touching their beloved organ. It's understandable, and hence the discussion on its ethics is understood, but please put things into proportion. We're not talking about major pains here (speaking to adults who underwent the procedure will tell you that, and plus a baby is getting a bit of wine before so he is numb to lessen any kind of pain), there are no aftereffects (if the procedure is done correctly, of course, which is why i said i want my child to go to a doctor and not a rabbi), and it is not something that cuts down ones ability to either HAVE or ENJOY sexual experiences.

 

Speak ethics, but please also get things into proportion... I know your organ is important to you, men, but try to avoid having your own organ spasm in spontaneous pains (i know its hard.. ) and try to view the subject a BIT more objectively.

 

 

~moo

[mooeypoo]

simply not true. At worst based on cultural assumptions. categorically not a fact.

 

Did you check it?

Did you have sex with a great partner WITH your penis tip, cut it off and tried without it? That would be the only way to prove your point.

 

See, I lived my life in the jewish state of Israel. MOST of the men here have had that procedure done, either at birth or at a later age (by choice!).

 

Also, check out sites that deal with statistics, because researches WERE done on the matter, and found that it is not true; circumcision and the lack of one is NOT changing (either way) the sexual experience. Both type of men (with and without their penis tip) enjoy sex the same way.

 

Here, a nice site I found in only 2 seconds of google searching:

http://www.nocirc.org/

 

If you claim I don't know what I'm talking about, do yourself a favour and check if YOU know what you're talking about first.

 

 

But I agree that this subject is not completely in agreement in the scientific arena, however, it is a fact (FACCTTTTT) that it doesn't HURT the sexual experience. At worst, (and I doubt that, but still) a man with his penis "whole" is having 100% enjoyment while a man with a circumcision has 97% enjoyment. So big friggin what. They both ejaculate at the end, and I can ASSURE YOU that circumcised men enjoy, search, and try to have sex as MUCH as men with their penis "intact".

 

I actually did have the experience with both types, and I can promise you I got no complaints from circumcised men. None.

 

~moo

[lurscher]

there are no aftereffects (if the procedure is done correctly' date=' of course, which is why i said i want my child to go to a doctor and not a rabbi), and it is not something that cuts down ones ability to either HAVE or ENJOY sexual experiences.

[/quote']

 

there is strong evidence that is not true what you assert.

 

Speak ethics' date=' but please also get things into proportion... I know your organ is important to you, men, but try to avoid having your own organ spasm in spontaneous pains (i know its hard.. ) and try to view the subject a BIT more objectively. [/quote']

 

from where are you getting your facts? rumours are not facts, which is what you seem to be quoting.

the sex experience is by definition subjective so your final request is absurd.

 

Did you check it?

Did you have sex with a great partner WITH your penis tip' date=' cut it off and tried without it? That would be the only way to prove your point.[/quote']

yes. it was a day-to-night difference

[mooeypoo]

there is strong evidence that is not true what you assert.

Do provide it.

 

from where are you getting your facts? rumours are not facts' date=' which is what you seem to be quoting.

the sex experience is by definition subjective so your final request is absurd.[/quote']

 

This entire debate is absurd.

When I have a man having gone through circumcision telling me full heartedly he is enjoying, loving and adoring the sexual experience, and I have another man without undergoing through this procedure claiming the same, I -- and YOU -- have no way of comparing the two.

 

We can, however, know that both enjoy sex. How much they enjoy it percentagewise and in comparison is irrelevant, since it is impossible to check.

 

yes

That, actually, explains everything.

 

Well I did too: I had a boyfriend who underwent the procedure late in life. He actually claims he feels a lot BETTER in sex. What do you say about that? He's lying?

 

Sexual experience is SUBJECTIVE. Comparing those, when science failed to prove either way (and theres a reason why, clearly) is absurd.

 

 

Let's get back into the topic of ethics, it was a much better and beneficial and good discussion when we dealt with ethical comparisons than with subjective treatment to sexual experiences.

 

~moo

[mooeypoo]

Oh, another thing.

 

I take the time to answer your claims, sir, I would expect you give me as much respect as I give you. I disagree with you, but I answer to the best of my ability, and try to explain myself.

 

Don't throw a "yes" empty answer into the air, or a claim that "there are evidence that prove you wrong" without giving any. It's childish and inappropriate for a debate.

 

You have a claim? explain it, don't just throw it into the air and expect me to accept it.

 

Have some degree of debate respect, please.

 

~moo

[lurscher]

Let's get back into the topic of ethics' date=' it was a much better and beneficial and good discussion when we dealt with ethical comparisons than with subjective treatment to sexual experiences.

[/quote']

 

Since there is no way to determine a priori if the subjective experience will be crippled, the ethical stand is that in lack of such required knowledge, the choice should be left to the affected individual.

[lurscher]

Don't throw a "yes" empty answer into the air' date=' or a claim that "there are evidence that prove you wrong" without giving any. It's childish and inappropriate for a debate.

 

You have a claim? explain it, don't just throw it into the air and expect me to accept it.

[/quote']

 

Ok, you're right. I won't bring directly the quotes of researchs pointing to possible aftereffects of medically "correct" procedures, but i will argue that is well known the skin comprising the ridged bands and the frenum contain 60 ~ 70% of the total of sensitive corpuscles in the penis, and that they connect directly to the dorsal/pudendal nerve, which is directly responsible for erogenous arousal. the glans also networks from this nerve, but only from a subset of the neural fibers (the pudendal nerve spans like a tree). the fibers that branch from the dorsal nerve into the skin to be removed become crippled after the procedure (they don't map to the skin anymore). So what actually would require explanation (scientific explanation) is any claim that the experience is NOT crippled, since whatever subjective, the experience is somehow related to the nervous sensitivity

 

There is also a problems of mechanics involved which is not well understood and poor agreement about. But it's surely a polemic topic (in the medical research) and not one where widespread agreement exists.

[mooeypoo]

I thought you were against "well known facts"..

 

It is a well known fact in places that circumcision is done, that you are wrong. Arguing "well known facts" is moot. There are no facts on the matter, since - again - it is a subjective experience.

 

I understand what you are saying, having heard that many times before, and I don't disagree with it, I am simply saying that factually, men that underwent this procedure --- even men that did that in a later age, so they have ways to compare it -- don't suffer great differences.

 

The same things you bring, I can also tell you that it is known (and I stress "known", not fact, since I am at the moment with lack of time to search the facts.. so don't concider this a fact, like many of the other debate points we have here, for the sake of fairness), that the removal of the foreskin can prevent health issues later in life. I actually did have some sites explaining this, but at the moment I must run to save my roomate from getting lost in New York (good title for a movie so this will have to wait.. I promise I will post my resources though, asap.

 

My point, however, is that it is hard arguing on the practical "damage" of circumcision. The bigger debate is the ethics behind it. Whether a baby should undergo the procedue if he has no way of concenting to it. If you speak to adults that did this procedure - whether by choice or by necessity - you should have no ethical problem, or any other for that matter, since they knew the "risks/rumors/known-facts" on the matter, and decided to do it regardless.

 

And again - sexual experience is subjective. Smoking gets a man to feel orgasm less powerfully too, and pollution has the same effect, and stressful life same and so on and so forth. It's hard to compare sexual experiences with men with and without their foreskin, since many other aspects affect this experience.

 

And your last paragraph - which i completely agree with - is exactly the reason why I think the discussion on "sexual experience" is a redundant irrelevancy here.

 

~moo

[ecoli]

Ok, you're right. I won't bring directly the quotes of researchs pointing to possible aftereffects of medically "correct" procedures, but i will argue that is well known the skin comprising the ridged bands and the frenum contain 60 ~ 70% of the total of sensitive corpuscles in the penis, and that they connect directly to the dorsal/pudendal nerve, which is directly responsible for erogenous arousal. the glans also networks from this nerve, but only from a subset of the neural fibers (the pudendal nerve spans like a tree). the fibers that branch from the dorsal nerve into the skin to be removed become crippled after the procedure (they don't map to the skin anymore). So what actually would require explanation (scientific explanation) is any claim that the experience is NOT crippled, since whatever subjective, the experience is somehow related to the nervous sensitivite.

 

Then again, science has not shown any relationship to the number of nerves and the level of sexual experiance.

 

Mooey has circumstantial evidence that shows it doesn't affect the level of sexual pleasure. You haven't shown anything to that affect.

[Mokele]

Wikipedia has a fairly complete survey of the literature on the topic of the sexual effects of circumcision.

 

The punchline: so far, the studies are inconclusive and contradictory, preventing a strong consensus from being reached.

 

Frankly, I doubt there's any medical reason behind most infant circumcision; it's more social or religious. I just can't imagine Joe Sixpack researching this before the decision.

 

So, if we ignore the medical benefits/harms, what do we have? A surgery being performed on individuals without their consent for social or religious reasons.

 

Mokele

[mooeypoo]

True, it is the bottom line of what we have, and it is also the ethical question.

 

Is performing this action on a non-concenting child an ethical act? That is the question.

 

I have to say that even though I am a jewish person, I too (and many of us) deal with this type of question. I think, however, that the situation in israel, for instance, and the fact that it is so widespread and common and concidered to be such an obvious action to perform even within the secular jewish communities, that this question - though dealt with - seems different than if asked within a society that is not used to performing it.

 

I'm not saying this makes it more ethical, I am just trying to show the difference in cultures, as we discussed in many other "ethics-dealing" threads. Ethics comes mainly from society and upbringing, and when something is being past down through generations as being the healthy thing to do to a child (over the fact that it is passed down through religious groups as being the bond with god), and since no proof AGAINST this has been produced, it is - currently - concidered the ethical thing to do to a baby.

 

I agree that this still has some very fundamental ethical issues within it, but we also need to remember that ethics is not "black and white".

 

Like my example with the babies that have their ears pierced; in Russia it is more than common to do, and after this is done, by the time a child with earings in her ears grows up to have any kind of sense of self awareness to decide if she wants ones or not, her earing holes will not heal anymore. Is that ethical to do to her without her concent? In my view, it is the same type of situation.

 

Since both are "body mutilation", or can be viewed as such, but either one has strong proof against (or for) the health benefits, it all comes down to social ethics. While I wouldn't do that to my baby, I might very well commit circumcision to my baby, for social ethical background that I was raised to believe in.

 

This, pretty much, sums up my 2 and a bit more cents on the matter.

 

~moo

[lurscher]

True' date=' it is the bottom line of what we have, and it is also the ethical question.

 

Is performing this action on a non-concenting child an ethical act? That is the question. [/quote']

 

I feel that it's an error to try to view this problem as entirely ethical, when the emphasis should be put on the potential practical implications. The ear ring example may be equivalent ethically, but not functionally, just like an apendectomy at birth would also be equivalent ethically but not in practical terms. Sex function is a very crucial and sometimes defining aspect of human life, so there is more implied in this problem that just abstract idealistic philosophy of equalness or naturalness or whatever you want to call it.

 

In a point where i think we can all agree is that from the biomedical point of view, the procedure (and the philosophy implicitly assumed by currently acceptable performers of these procedures) is that the skin that must be removed must be removed and we don't have to worry much about what is going on below that skin. More or less like they were removing some fat from a steak. And my point (and of many researchers that polemize on this topic) is that is not as simple as that, and surgeons that do this procedure should NOT think it to be as simple as that. I think today the doctors don't consider this much of a problem so they don't do their best to minimize the impact the surgery will sooner or later inflict. If you are not entirely convinced of the fact that the medical stablishment doesn't give the required importance to what is really needed to be cut and what should not be touched, please refer to the heaps more prolific industry of cosmetic surgery, specifically boob implants; not so many years ago it was accepted practice to cut around the nipples to insert the implants. Today is recognized as a BIG NO-NO because of the consequences of loss of sensibility in that erogenous area. In that case practice was shifted due to huge awareness of the problem and massive diffusion of the problems. Sadly, the problems related with circumcision doesn't get nearly the same diffusion due to the counter-noise created by cultural apologists that dismiss medical arguments in name of no much else beside tradition. Please, i don't have anything against people that believe this practice is excellent and has been super-duper for them, i only ask that we lower the political bashing level so medical science can take the problem seriously and start modernizing their approach.

[mooeypoo]

Is it just me or are we debating in circles? Didn't we agree that there ARE NO PROOF either either way towards the health ramifications?

 

I can also mention to you that the ENTIRE JEWISH NATION -- the oldest nation in the western world -- has performed this since its birth, and no harm was done to its male population. We can twist and turn this forever, having no progress. The debate on health issues is MOOT. There are no proofs.

 

Let's move on, shall we?

 

~moo

[lurscher]

Is it just me or are we debating in circles? Didn't we agree that there ARE NO PROOF either either way towards the health ramifications?

 

So you have decided to not consider reports of ANY damage as proof of a potential risk. But the potential benefits are just as "unproven" by that same standard (since apparently your standard is to consider something to be proven only when it is widely accepted and no valid rebuttals are in sight)

 

Also' date=' implicitly you seem to assume that the risk, whatever it is, it's ok, even if your children(s) are the ones that are going to suffer it, just because you consider that potential damage unbindable to the procedure by current knoweledge. So you seem more worried about your childs not having legal grounds to sue you, instead of what would be best for them?

 

 

I can also mention to you that the ENTIRE JEWISH NATION -- the oldest nation in the western world -- has performed this since its birth, and no harm was done to its male population.

 

well, you said you don't consider a man saying that the procedure had profoundly undesired effects as a proof of it being harmful. But you now state that a man (or a thousand) saying that the procedure had only beneficial effects is a proof of it NOT being harmful?

 

Your assert about the jewish nation is ill, because on the same vague grounds one could assert that womens in Zambia have performed the procedure to its daughters since the dawn of time, and no harm was done to its female population.

 

 

We can twist and turn this forever, having no progress. The debate on health issues is MOOT. There are no proofs.

 

Since you want to focus the discussion entirely about the ethics aspect, i ask you: if the risks and benefits are both unproven, why would a sane person induce such a onerous gamble into its own child?

[ecoli]

Since you want to focus the discussion entirely about the ethics aspect, i ask you: if the risks and benefits are both unproven, why would a sane person induce such a onerous gamble into its own child?

 

You believe that it's healthier or it's for culture.

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't see why you guys are making such a big deal out of this.

[Dak]

To be perfectly honest, I don't see why you guys are making such a big deal out of this.

 

becuase it's the removal of a piece of someones body without their consent, and for no good medical reason.

 

It'd be like chopping off the dangly bit of someones ear when they were a baby. Yes, they dont perform a function (although the foreskin actually does), but you shouldn't just lopp bits off of someones body imo.

 

Like i said, if the kid, when he is an adult, choses to sacrafise his foreskin to g*d , allah, or society, then fair enough, but having it removed when he's a kid is harsh.

[ecoli]

becuase it's the removal of a piece of someones body without their consent' date=' and for no good medical reason.

 

It'd be like chopping off the dangly bit of someones ear when they were a baby. Yes, they dont perform a function (although the foreskin actually does), but you shouldn't just lopp bits off of someones body imo.

 

Like i said, if the kid, when he is an adult, choses to sacrafise his foreskin to g*d , allah, or society, then fair enough, but having it removed when he's a kid is harsh.[/quote']

 

take from someone with first hand experiance... you don't exactly miss something you never had. At least as far as I'm concerned.

And as far as being in terms of the child's consent... big freaking deal. Parent's do stuff for their children all the time that they think is right. The kid can get over it. Life's not fair, deal with it.

 

I hope that one's biggest problem is not a bit of skin missing from the end of your penis, because then I would recomend you get out more.

[Dak]

take from someone with first hand experiance... you don't exactly miss something you never had. At least as far as I'm concerned.

And as far as being in terms of the child's consent... big freaking deal. Parent's do stuff for their children all the time that they think is right. The kid can get over it. Life's not fair' date=' deal with it.

 

I hope that one's biggest problem is not a bit of skin missing from the end of your penis, because then I would recomend you get out more.[/quote']

 

One has a foreskin, so one is not personally conserned , although i did nearly have it amputated for medical reasons; i'm not against circumsision per se, just 'unnessesary' circumsision.

 

and those same argumets you gave could be made for earlobe removal, or (the much nastyer) female circumsision, both of which are illegal, reguardless of if the parents think its in the best interests of the child.

 

You may well consider it normal as you have never (as far as you can remember) had a foreskin, and it is culturarily expected of you to have been given the snip, BUT, again, the same could also be said about earlobe-dangly-bit removal if that were the norm; that wouldn't neccesarily make it ok.

[ecoli]

One has a foreskin, so one is not personally conserned , although i did nearly have it amputated for medical reasons; i'm not against circumsision per se[/i'], just 'unnessesary' circumsision.

 

which you define as...?

 

and those same argumets you gave could be made for earlobe removal, or (the much nastyer) female circumsision, both of which are illegal, reguardless of if the parents think its in the best interests of the child.

 

True, though I hesitate to call my opinions true 'arguments.' I didn't really say very much.

 

You may well consider it normal as you have never (as far as you can remember) had a foreskin, and it is culturarily expected of you to have been given the snip, BUT, again, the same could also be said about earlobe-dangly-bit removal if that were the norm; that wouldn't neccesarily make it ok.

 

I have no doubt I would feel the same about earlobe cutting (even though it's not hidden) if that was the cultural norm.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'ok' in this sense, however. A parent is allowed some control over their child's body, so in this sense, it is 'ok.' It's not 'ok' perhaps that the kid doesn't get a choice, but like I said, life it tough, deal with it.

 

You can sue your parents for your foreskin, I suppose, but that would only be a waste of time, considering it isn't going to grow your foreskin back, and how could you place monetary value on it anyway?

[Dak]

which you define as...?

 

Well, thar be the ethical dilema (and also the reason for 'unnessesary' being in scare-marks):

 

as i see it circumsision of babys is bad in certain ways: the question is, do the religious/social reasons outway the badness?

 

In the case of 'society', i think the reason is a definate no: after all, if it were stopped, the social reasons would no longer apply. and, 'its crap but everyone does it so we should carry on doing it' is a crap reason to continue doing anything.

 

With religion, wether the reasons outweigh the baddness and make it ok is a bit less clear imo.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'ok' in this sense, however. A parent is allowed some control over their child's body, so in this sense, it is 'ok.' It's not 'ok' perhaps that the kid doesn't get a choice, but like I said, life it tough, deal with it.

 

Yeah, but there are limits.

 

i meant ok as in justifyable; the reasons for doing it outweigh the reasons against.

[mooeypoo]

So you have decided to not consider reports of ANY damage as proof of a potential risk.

 

Yup, pretty much, when your proof are not proof (since it's not really proven) and when you ignore my proof to the other side, I do.

 

You said yourself that your facts are not 100% proven, and that the issue of health in circumcision is controversial. Do you want me to accept your controversial proofs just because you insist on posting them? I can give you many proofs against what you are saying, actually stating that circumcision lowers the chances for Cancer. I am trying to be fair in the argument, and not argue on something that cannot be decided within the scientific community (so obviously won't be decided here).

 

Also' date=' implicitly you seem to assume that the risk, whatever it is, it's ok, even if your children(s) are the ones that are going to suffer it, just because you consider that potential damage unbindable to the procedure by current knoweledge. So you seem more worried about your childs not having legal grounds to sue you, instead of what would be best for them?

[/quote']

Stop using "undeniable", of course it's deniable, or it would be proven, and as we already established, it isn't. You are stating your opinion, which is fine, but don't state this as proof. it's not. Other than that, It's not what I said. Read my post again.

 

You also seem to be quite frustrating. You take only pieces of what I said and twist them slightly to fit your argument. My arguments are written quite clearly without you repeating them in the form of "so what you are saying is.." and then putting something that I didn't quite say.

 

I didn't say anything about listening to men about HEALTH issues, I said the SEXUAL EXPERIENCE is subjective. It's frustrating to argue with you if you don't read my posts properly. I don't ask men what they do with health issues, I ask doctors, but guess what: Doctors disagree on the matter. But wait.. we've been through this.. haven't we..?

 

Since you want to focus the discussion entirely about the ethics aspect, i ask you: if the risks and benefits are both unproven, why would a sane person induce such a onerous gamble into its own child?

Because a person believes that the risks are not only negligeable, but the gain is much higher in terms of health. Yes, it is based on belief. No, it's not proven. I do believe I explained what my take is on Ethics and social standards, too. If you'd have read my posts properly, you'd get that too.

 

If I BELIEVE something to be good for my child, for whatever reason, and the proof is nonexistant -- I carry proof FOR it, and you carry proof AGAINST it, but ultimately, it's undecided -- then why is it so unethical for me to use it..

 

Ethically, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.

 

If the health benefits would've been proven, then I'd be proven right. If the health issues would've been shown to be harmful, you'd be right, but the issue is undecided even after many years of study. Ethically, I may be right, and there's no proof against me being right, therefore I may perform this procedure if I believe I am right hard enough.

 

And you should have no ETHICAL trouble with this, unless you have ultimate proven non-controversial proof in the scientific community stating I am hurting my child. Which you don't.

 

becuase it's the removal of a piece of someones body without their consent, and for no good medical reason.

True, but not everything is done for medical reasons. And as I said before, it is - at least in israel - proven to be healthier in terms of preventing cancer and other conditions. Even if this is not definitive, it is surely ethical for me to do this for my son if I believe this is something that will benefit him. You think it doesn't, don't do it. I seriously fail to see a problem here. We're not hurting children, we believe that we are performing them great justice; you not only are incapable of proving us WRONG, you are also admitting that the subject is undecided, which means it may well BE good for someone.. why is that a bad thing. Yes, it's cultural, but it's HARMLESS at worst, and BENEFITIAL at best. Where's the problem?

 

 

One has a foreskin, so one is not personally conserned , although i did nearly have it amputated for medical reasons; i'm not against circumsision per se, just 'unnessesary' circumsision.

Something strikes me as extremely odd. You are the second one in this threat to tell us that you almost (or did) performed circumcision for MEDICAL REASONS... and yet people claim it to be harmful.. Is it possible that the Jewish Nation is right on this one, and this is not only NOT BAD for the child, but actually is good in preventing medical problems that may require it being performed at a later age?

 

Have you ever heard of someone saying "I had a circumcision, but almost had a skin implant for health reasons?" I actually looked it up online (or, "googled it", now that its a verb), and found none. Maybe I'm bad at googling though, try and see if you find anything, I'd love to see it

 

 

Oh wait, it deals with the phallic symbol, and you men have this ISSUE with that who here is sane enough to admit cutting his weewee off is healthy, right? ;-)

 

~moo

[ecoli]

There certainly are limits. But the way I see it, is that people have performing circumcisions for thousands of years, and if it causes any general harm, specific cases aside, I can't imagine that we wouldn't have observed them already. Please correct me if Im wrong here.

 

As for determining whether or not it's justifiable, that's pretty much beyond my scope to decide for other people.

 

I just feel that this issue is not as important as some would portray it as.

[ecoli]

Something strikes me as extremely odd. You are the second one in this threat to tell us that you almost (or did) performed circumcision for MEDICAL REASONS... and yet people claim it to be harmful.. Is it possible that the Jewish Nation is right on this one' date=' and this is not only NOT BAD for the child, but actually is good? [/quote']

 

I think that changes on a case by case basis. One may have a particular infection where the foreskin should come off to protect the health. That doesn't mean that the foreskin was necesarily the cause of this infection. I'm sure there are specific cases where the opposite is true.

 

That's why I feel the distinction between circumcision causing general harm, and circumsicion causing harm on a case-by-case basis should be made. Lifestyle and personal habits do count in this sort of thing.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, I accept your correction.

 

I was trying to show it isn't as bad as people made it.. It seems like people on this thread are quite in panic from the mere thought of their foreskin (or an innocent baby's foreskin, for that matter) is cut off. I can truely understand it, but the discussion about health is moot; there ARE no proofs either way, so the debate - if any - should be about Ethics.

 

I personally see no troubles with this operation if it is done correctly with a person that is qualified to do that.

 

I think that if people are to argue Ethics it is one thing, but arguing I am wrong because it's unhealthy is just the unnecessary repetition of an unbased claim.. that was my point.

 

 

~moo