So can we say that the general consensus here is that the medical consequences, both positive and negative, of circumcision are negligible and probably cancel each other out? From a medical standpoint, it seems to be a case of "Might just as well do it. Then again, might just as well not."
What's left is the ethical aspect, which was mentioned before everyone started talking about medical implications and cultural differences. Most people have a pretty intense relationship with their genitalia, as evidenced by this thread. If for the sake of argument we assume that there indeed are no medical consequences of any kind to circumcision, isn't it in principle unethical for parents to make irreversible cosmetic changes to their chilren's genitalia without their consent?
So can we say that the general consensus here is that the medical consequences, both positive and negative, of circumcision are negligible and probably cancel each other out? From a medical standpoint, it seems to be a case of "Might just as well do it. Then again, might just as well not."
What's left is the ethical aspect, which was mentioned before everyone started talking about medical implications and cultural differences. Most people have a pretty intense relationship with their genitalia, as evidenced by this thread. If for the sake of argument we assume that there indeed are no medical consequences of any kind to circumcision, isn't it in principle unethical for parents to make irreversible cosmetic changes to their chilren's genitalia without their consent?
Does any rational person really have an opinion on themselves being circumcised? Pine for their lost foreskin? As long as it's the social norm in one's cultural group, couldn't it be more ethical to let your child fit in instead of creating an outcast?
So can we say that the general consensus here is that the medical consequences, both positive and negative, of circumcision are negligible and probably cancel each other out? From a medical standpoint, it seems to be a case of "Might just as well do it. Then again, might just as well not."
What's left is the ethical aspect, which was mentioned before everyone started talking about medical implications and cultural differences. Most people have a pretty intense relationship with their genitalia, as evidenced by this thread. If for the sake of argument we assume that there indeed are no medical consequences of any kind to circumcision, isn't it in principle unethical for parents to make irreversible cosmetic changes to their chilren's genitalia without their consent?
Does any rational person really have an opinion on themselves being circumcised? Pine for their lost foreskin? As long as it's the social norm in one's cultural group, couldn't it be more ethical to let your child fit in instead of creating an outcast?
Agreed. And the norm for the world--and very-soon-to-be the norm for the U.S.--is uncircumcised.
Outcast is a bit much. I mean, if that many people know what your penis looked like, chances are you'd be an outcast regardless of what it looked like anyway.
Outcast is a bit much. I mean, if that many people know what your penis looked like, chances are you'd be an outcast regardless of what it looked like anyway.
Or a smash with the ladies :winky:
Anyways, it's largely an issue of personal choice among the parents, and to me, the benefits outweigh the negative possibilities.
Yes, you can argue that the same effect can be achieved with just good parenting, but why not add the extra layer of protection. It's a fact that Teenagers are fucking stupid -- I know I was.
Outcast is a bit much. I mean, if that many people know what your penis looked like, chances are you'd be an outcast regardless of what it looked like anyway.
Or a smash with the ladies :winky:
Anyways, it's largely an issue of personal choice among the parents, and to me, the benefits outweigh the negative possibilities.
Yes, you can argue that the same effect (prevention of crotch rot) can be achieved with just good parenting, but why not add the extra layer of protection.
Because of the people who get fucked up dicks because of it? One method puts the responsibility on the person when they're older. The other puts it on the parents who have no idea what the child will want in 15 years.
Does any rational person really have an opinion on themselves being circumcised? Pine for their lost foreskin? As long as it's the social norm in one's cultural group, couldn't it be more ethical to let your child fit in instead of creating an outcast?
Thing is that anyone who we point at as having an issue with it will be automatically labeled irrational.
Fitting in?
1) The practice is dying out. So now the circumcised kids are the freakjobs.
2) How many people see a kid's penis, exactly?
3) Boob jobs and penis implants would help even more.
Posts
Here's a study:
This dude wouldn't have gotten crotch rot.
Apologies to KJ01, who would probably be completely embarrased if he were reading this.
What's left is the ethical aspect, which was mentioned before everyone started talking about medical implications and cultural differences. Most people have a pretty intense relationship with their genitalia, as evidenced by this thread. If for the sake of argument we assume that there indeed are no medical consequences of any kind to circumcision, isn't it in principle unethical for parents to make irreversible cosmetic changes to their chilren's genitalia without their consent?
Not a single person, anywhere, at any point in this thread has stated that it should be kept on there if it would pose a problem.
Does any rational person really have an opinion on themselves being circumcised? Pine for their lost foreskin? As long as it's the social norm in one's cultural group, couldn't it be more ethical to let your child fit in instead of creating an outcast?
Anyways, I've got a phalla role to research.
Maybe it's really big and you want to impress all the other guys who work at Smart Tech.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Or a smash with the ladies :winky:
Anyways, it's largely an issue of personal choice among the parents, and to me, the benefits outweigh the negative possibilities.
Yes, you can argue that the same effect can be achieved with just good parenting, but why not add the extra layer of protection. It's a fact that Teenagers are fucking stupid -- I know I was.
Best to get out.
Thing is that anyone who we point at as having an issue with it will be automatically labeled irrational.
Fitting in?
1) The practice is dying out. So now the circumcised kids are the freakjobs.
2) How many people see a kid's penis, exactly?
3) Boob jobs and penis implants would help even more.