Parents face so many difficult decisions when it comes to having a child: decisions about nursing, sleep patterns, discipline, teaching methods and, in the case of boys, whether or not to circumcise. In addition to being the most common surgery for males in the U.S., circumcision has been practiced in various cultures for centuries. Yet when it comes to the health and best interest of your newborn, is circumcision the way to go?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
13
8
8
9
11
2
1
2
7
4
4
3
5
4
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
The Long-Term Physical and Emotional Consequences are Well Documented
- From Doctors Opposing Circumcision
By Doctors Opposing Circumcision - Physicians For Genital Integrity
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What about male pleasure
You know the pro circ is desperate when they pull out the vaccination argument. The only more ridiculous circ freak argument is that humans wear clothing now and NO LONGER need the foreskin . The mutilated that can’t feel the pleasure are ignorant in denying the pleasure of the partS of the foreskin.
Of course there are two basic reasons that vaccination is not analogous.
1) Circumcision does not provide any benefits. If it did, there would be vaccination type observations in the real world. The highly mutilated US would have had very little HIV and Europe would have been hit much harder. There would be no difference between Africa HIV studies and other studies that DID NOT find the risk reduction (alleged risk change of from 3.4% risk to 1.7% risk). The Army study and many US studies and real world don’t show that risk reduction. The STI Africa data would match the New Zealand data and US data (which show natural men have same or less STIs). The mis match of data instead shows fraud Another fraud is that mutilated men often like orqal more than vaginal sex and Herpes especially affects circ scar with result being blow jobs and circumcision spreading STIs in the US.
2) Circumcision takes away the main male sexual pleasure zones. This is huge and no vaccination does anything as horrible as this. Morris and other circumfreaks cannot deny the nerve endings – touch and stretch sensitive– that give pleasure and are taken away by this heinous mutilation. Or can they deny them like color blind people denying the joy of color sight?
If this can be compared to a vaccination that does nothing but take away pleasure senatation, then the analogy is correct and of course this is unethical.
- Jacknoknife
June 9, 2009 2:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.