Men, post your rants for or against circumcision.

[Emily B]

You may claim a parent has that right - but I do not believe they do.

My dear Colonel: If you think that the world is interested in your particular deluded view of human rights, then you really belong in a third world country where you can propagate your views with the point of a gun. We understand that you have peculiar opinions, but you are obviously suffering from a pathological impairment of some kind if you believe your delusions trump rights of the rest of us.

[H. Franklin Layne]

would you actually do that to your kids?

Colonel, I hold a certain level of skepticism when it comes to doctors. One month they are telling you eggs are miracle food, the next they are saying they are deadly. Circumcision is pretty much in the same boat with eggs. Before I made the decision, I would try to read up on the current pro's and con's to it, to make the best decision I could. My whole thing, as is yours, is about choice. You don't want someone telling you what is best in the raising of your child, neither do I. I don't have kids atm, but if I did, like I said, anyone getting in my face about it, better have a lot of friends at hand.

[The Colonel]

would you actually do that to your kids?

Colonel, I hold a certain level of skepticism when it comes to doctors. One month they are telling you eggs are miracle food, the next they are saying they are deadly. Circumcision is pretty much in the same boat with eggs. Before I made the decision, I would try to read up on the current pro's and con's to it, to make the best decision I could. My whole thing, as is yours, is about choice. You don't want someone telling you what is best in the raising of your child, neither do I. I don't have kids atm, but if I did, like I said, anyone getting in my face about it, better have a lot of friends at hand.

Some people do need to be told how best to raise their kids. So I disagree with you there.

[Mooncat]

More info on why American 'health' workers are so fond of removing the best part of a new-born boy's penis:


http://www.gale-edit.com/products/volumes/skin.htm

(Raw materials [second paragraph-second sentence] (neonate foreskins) for skin graft)

and:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/02/17912

Though the reports are old, I have no reason to believe things are any different now.

I am working on a website, "Bitter Harvest", which will present the information in a consistent format.

[The Colonel]

Very sad.

What more can you expect from Americans anyway?

[The Woodsman]

[quote="The ColonelWhat more can you expect from Americans anyway?

[The Colonel]

More sour grapes from another unhappy Brit w*****. Time to get over it, you old limey loser. Get a life.

Sour grapes?

Over what exactly?

Your thick people? Your thick President? Your childish military? Your lack of education? Your violent and prejudiced society?

Britain has been the only important world power since 1484.

[H. Franklin Layne]

would you actually do that to your kids?

Colonel, I hold a certain level of skepticism when it comes to doctors. One month they are telling you eggs are miracle food, the next they are saying they are deadly. Circumcision is pretty much in the same boat with eggs. Before I made the decision, I would try to read up on the current pro's and con's to it, to make the best decision I could. My whole thing, as is yours, is about choice. You don't want someone telling you what is best in the raising of your child, neither do I. I don't have kids atm, but if I did, like I said, anyone getting in my face about it, better have a lot of friends at hand.

Some people do need to be told how best to raise their kids. So I disagree with you there.

No names mentioned, I see. You're a class act, Colonel!

[The Colonel]

would you actually do that to your kids?

Colonel, I hold a certain level of skepticism when it comes to doctors. One month they are telling you eggs are miracle food, the next they are saying they are deadly. Circumcision is pretty much in the same boat with eggs. Before I made the decision, I would try to read up on the current pro's and con's to it, to make the best decision I could. My whole thing, as is yours, is about choice. You don't want someone telling you what is best in the raising of your child, neither do I. I don't have kids atm, but if I did, like I said, anyone getting in my face about it, better have a lot of friends at hand.

Some people do need to be told how best to raise their kids. So I disagree with you there.

No names mentioned, I see. You're a class act, Colonel!

Well you might guess the names I might be talking about, but in general I was referring to those who simply don't think about being a parent and just do what they damn well like.

Relating this to the topic, I really do not believe that parents have the right to do this to their children. If it is about religion, then how can a baby choose what religion, if any, to be in? The child cannot be presumed to be of his parent’s religion. That is absurd.

If it isn’t about religion then it as also absurd to do it without their consent. Some of the reasons I’ve come across are, to put it politely, ludicrous. The one that really astounds me (which Fred subscribes to) is the principle that boys should look like their father “down there”. Why? That doesn’t make sense to me. Why should my boys’ penis’ have to look like mine? Is it really a big deal? It is a lame idea.

Without doing into very much detail, I think it may have been a good idea to have had all my boys circumcised at birth. But, the one thing I cannot reconcile is the issue of consent. I really cannot place myself in that position, where I irreversibly alter their genitals without permission. I do not believe I have that right over their bodies. To illustrate this idea, I do not like tattoos, and of course, I would not tattoo my children. However, it is possible that some, or all, of them may get tattooed – even with objections from me. I would be thinking of their best interests, but at the same time, I would have to respect that it was their body – which they are at liberty to do as they wish with. If a parent has a right to alter their children’s genitals, what other rights must they have? It is this logic which says abortion is OK.

The issue for me is this. If one is left uncircumcised, then that person can choose to dispose of their foreskin if they wish. If they are circumcised, they cannot have anything replaced.

If it was somehow possible to re-grow a foreskin (I am not talking about foreskin restoration here, I mean literally re-grow it, like hair or fingernails) then I certainly would have had all my boys circumcised. They could then “opt out” if they wanted when they were older. The fact this is not possible prevents me from doing it. (Really bad example I know, but I hope my meaning is clear – that since one cannot “opt out” they should be able to “opt in” for themselves.)

I have no issue with circumcision in general. If one wishes to be – that’s fine. If any of my boys want to (one has shown an interest) then they can. But it must be up to them.

Widening the issue out, I believe it is important for parents to give children as much choice, freedom and control over their lives as possible. This is not to say the parenting should be slack, but so they can make their own decisions. I do not believe in being a dictator to one’s kids. Half the things I have allowed my kids to do my father would have killed me over. That is why I think some people do need to be told how to parent.

[Guest]

If it was somehow possible to re-grow a foreskin (I am not talking about foreskin restoration here, I mean literally re-grow it, like hair or fingernails) then I certainly would have had all my boys circumcised.

Respect. But you still should have had them done IMO.

[Tsuba]

If it was somehow possible to re-grow a foreskin (I am not talking about foreskin restoration here, I mean literally re-grow it, like hair or fingernails) then I certainly would have had all my boys circumcised.

Respect. But you still should have had them done IMO.

Because...?

There are far more potential complications with circumcision as opposed to not circumcision. The weeks following the procedure, the infant is highly prone to infection, much more so than the dubious "risk of infection in an intact penis at SOME point in life". Furthermore, the glans will be in direct contact with urine and feces in the diaper, something which absolutely will never happen with an intact penis (the foreskin is fused to the glans for several years, thus making the risk of unwanted bacteria contacting the glans practically zero). This is also why circumcision is far MORE painful for an infant, because the first thing done during neonatal circumcision is to forcibly remove the foreskin from the glans, which is akin to skinning.

All the arguments I have come across pertaining to these so-called health benefits of circumcision are so marginal that they certainly do not outweigh the risk. Sure, over the course of an entire lifetime, it does appear that circumcized men suffer fewer infections. But UTIs are extremely rare in men anyway, as is penile cancer and all those other things that are supposedly prevented with circumcision. I say supposedly, because the instances are so rare that it really is debateable whether or not the differences bewteen intact or circumcized are even statistically significant. At any rate, I will certainly NOT allow extremely sensitive tissue to be removed to prevent things that will likely never happen to me anyway.

What's more, the alleged health benefits of circumcision keeps changing with the times. A hundred years ago it was a cure for the "unhealthy" habit of masturbation. It was also at one point claimed as a cure for bad backs and epilepsy. Then it was claimed to prevent syphilis, and now that HIV/AIDS is the big boogeyman, circumcision is claimed to be good for that, too (even though when you compare Europe with the US, uncircumcized Europe actually has a lower infection rate). The research supporting circumcision is, as always, extremely biased and shoddily executed. Yes, even the one conducted by the WHO (the circumcized population was given safe sex tips and condoms, the uncircumcized control group was not). All in all, there is absolutely nothing to justify routine circumcision, much less neonatal circumcision.

[Guest]

If it was somehow possible to re-grow a foreskin (I am not talking about foreskin restoration here, I mean literally re-grow it, like hair or fingernails) then I certainly would have had all my boys circumcised.

Respect. But you still should have had them done IMO.

Because...?

Just think it is nicer for boys to have it done.

[Guest]

If any of my boys want to (one has shown an interest) then they can.

Oh??? Who has asked. What are u going to do about it.

[The Colonel]

If any of my boys want to (one has shown an interest) then they can.

Oh??? Who has asked. What are u going to do about it.

My second eldest (aged 16) has asked about it. If he wants it done he can have it done. I'll gladly book it, pay for it, take him for it, and look after him. I don't mind that at all. All he has to do is say the word.

Some might know my eldest (aged 18 ) is circumcised, due to having phimosis.

As I said, if they want it, they can have it.

This is what I was on about before when I said it may have been easier and better to have had them all done as infants.

[The Woodsman]

Sour grapes? Over what exactly?

Yer ticked that a nation of circumcised ex-Brits is leading the way in everything important in the world: sports, science, arts, technology, fast cars, and airplanes The reason is that Brits have to spend so much time scrubbing their uncircumcised dicks and getting gooned afterward that they don't have time to think. This is the real reason that Brits are so retarded as a cultural force in the world. Brits even had to hire Germans to show them how to build a Rolls-Royce. The sour grapes is that you spend too much time thinking up reasons why a nation of circumcised guys shouldn't be the great leaders that they really are.