He's absolutely right in that many studies show that not being circumcised is a risk factor for carcinoma of the penis. They are easy enough to search for but the results do vary aside from the risk factor. And penile cancer is rare, so nobody really makes the argument anymore that circumcision can eliminate it, although they used to. Most of the studies I've seen say that although circumcision is shown to lower the risk factor, the instances of penile cancer in countries with low rates of circumcision remain about the same as the US.

>> ^dag:

I've honestly never heard of penile cancer. Ball cancer sure
>> ^hpqp:

[citation needed]
>> ^TangledThorns:
There many studies showing showing that uncut penises are more likely to have cancer than those that are circumcised. That is why you rarely if not never hear about penile cancer in the United States. In Europe there is a good chance you know someone who may have had suffered or died from penile cancer.

[citation needed]

>> ^TangledThorns:

There many studies showing showing that uncut penises are more likely to have cancer than those that are circumcised. That is why you rarely if not never hear about penile cancer in the United States. In Europe there is a good chance you know someone who may have had suffered or died from penile cancer.

You are right, there are many decisions parents make that will affect a person for life. Some are good and some are bad. I am for those that are good and against those that are bad. For instance, I am also opposed to parents sending their kids to religious schools that teach the kids only one narrow way to look at the world, because I believe they will suffer for it later in life.

For some decisions it is easy to separate between what's bad for the child long-term and what's good. In other cases it is not so clear cut (no pun intended). It is not easy being a parent, and everyone will make wrong decisions once in a while.

However, when it comes to male (and female) circumcision, where there are miniscule to none positive effects and some very real negative effects, the decision should be easy. We don't allow parents to perform any other type of plastic surgery on infants, so why should this be allowed? Many other religious views can be overruled by the state if it's in the best interest of a person too young to make decisions for themselves.

>> ^VoodooV:
There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^VoodooV:
splitting hairs to fit your agenda and you know it.
but even if I were to concede that. There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.
You've lost perspective. You're focusing on this one single issue without considering the wider implications here. Separation of church and state swings BOTH ways. Church is not supposed to interfere with the state, State doesn't interfere with church. And for many, circumcision is religious issue. The people who have remorse over their circumcision are in the minority, when that changes, give me a call. You haven't sufficiently proven that those who have received circumcisions without their consent are significantly harmed or that their quality of life is lowered in any measurable way. It's issue only because a vocal minority have made it an issue.
If you're pro-choice, guess what...that means supporting choices you don't always approve of. Deal with it. Freedom is a bitch, ain't it.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me; foremost, that I have an agenda and subsequently, that you know the details of said agenda.
Also, you can't open with a coup de grâce; you've got to inflict some wounds first. To the matter at hand.
Every day more and more people are learning that circumcision is an archaic practice that is about as likely to have positive effects as it is to have negative effects. Routine circumcision is no longer recommended by pediatric associations and some are even beginning to come out against it.
There is no good reason to perform it routinely and new parents should be taught why. That's my agenda.


you just demonstrated why a ban is stupid and unnecessary. If circumcision is declining on it's own. Why is it necessary to ban it?

You haven't made ANY case for why gov't should get involved, quite the opposite in fact. You haven't refuted ANY of my arguments. It simply not being necessary is not reason enough to ban it. You simply have NOT made your case....at all. This is a perfect example of less is more when it comes to laws.

If you don't like it, you have the freedom to not do it...allow others the same freedom, thank you.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I've honestly never heard of penile cancer. Ball cancer sure.>> ^TangledThorns:

There many studies showing showing that uncut penises are more likely to have cancer than those that are circumcised. That is why you rarely if not never hear about penile cancer in the United States. In Europe there is a good chance you know someone who may have had suffered or died from penile cancer.

There many studies showing showing that uncut penises are more likely to have cancer than those that are circumcised. That is why you rarely if not never hear about penile cancer in the United States. In Europe there is a good chance you know someone who may have had suffered or died from penile cancer.

>> ^VoodooV:

splitting hairs to fit your agenda and you know it.
but even if I were to concede that. There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.
You've lost perspective. You're focusing on this one single issue without considering the wider implications here. Separation of church and state swings BOTH ways. Church is not supposed to interfere with the state, State doesn't interfere with church. And for many, circumcision is religious issue. The people who have remorse over their circumcision are in the minority, when that changes, give me a call. You haven't sufficiently proven that those who have received circumcisions without their consent are significantly harmed or that their quality of life is lowered in any measurable way. It's issue only because a vocal minority have made it an issue.
If you're pro-choice, guess what...that means supporting choices you don't always approve of. Deal with it. Freedom is a bitch, ain't it.


You're making a lot of assumptions about me; foremost, that I have an agenda and subsequently, that you know the details of said agenda.

Also, you can't open with a coup de grâce; you've got to inflict some wounds first. To the matter at hand.

Every day more and more people are learning that circumcision is an archaic practice that is about as likely to have positive effects as it is to have negative effects. Routine circumcision is no longer recommended by pediatric associations and some are even beginning to come out against it.

There is no good reason to perform it routinely and new parents should be taught why. That's my agenda.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^VoodooV:
This is where I have to channel QM a bit.
If it's ok to choose to kill your unborn baby without it's consent, it's certainly OK to choose to cut a tiny portion of his wang off without his consent.

False equivalency. A baby is a person; a fetus is not.


splitting hairs to fit your agenda and you know it.

but even if I were to concede that. There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.

You've lost perspective. You're focusing on this one single issue without considering the wider implications here. Separation of church and state swings BOTH ways. Church is not supposed to interfere with the state, State doesn't interfere with church. And for many, circumcision is religious issue. The people who have remorse over their circumcision are in the minority, when that changes, give me a call. You haven't sufficiently proven that those who have received circumcisions without their consent are significantly harmed or that their quality of life is lowered in any measurable way. It's issue only because a vocal minority have made it an issue.

If you're pro-choice, guess what...that means supporting choices you don't always approve of. Deal with it. Freedom is a bitch, ain't it.

Wikipedia has a really solid article on the effects and side-effects, both real and mythological, of circumcision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision

>> ^Ornthoron:

Even without considering the pros or cons of having a foreskin, I am simply unable to understand how anyone can condone removing a piece of an infant boy's body before he can consent.
quality


Exactly. I don't really give a shit about sensitivity or "dryness". Clearly males have been perfectly happy to be circumcised for generations untold. What I car about it the genital mutilation of infants.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'foreskin, circumcision, penis, skin, head, intact, unintact' to 'foreskin, circumcision, penis, skin, head, intact, unintact, anteater, helmet' - edited by calvados

you're never going to convince enough people it's bad to justify a ban.

you can scream mutilation all you want but even if you're right, it's still too much of a victimless crime. Sure there are exceptions, but the general rule is that either people don't even miss the foreskin, or they don't even know what circumcision is until much later in life so they don't even know they were missing anything so it's an "out of sight, out of mind" situation.

Yes, I'm aware that there have been cases of doctors botching the procedure and there are life long complications, but that's an individual screwing up, not a problem inherent with the procedure itself.

Where's the outrage over mutilation due to body piercings? tattoos?

This is something that should be left up to the parents to choose. This is also where separation of church and state kick in.

If there was some worldwide epidemic of complications due to circumcision running rampant then that would be a different issue, but that isn't happening so.... In other words...where's the fire?

In a perfect world, I would agree that it probably shouldn't happen, there shouldn't be any stigma one way or the other about it. But we don't live in a perfect world and you can't work backwards on something like that. People have to choose. It's the same with abortion, it's the same with smoking, etc. If it's ok to choose to have an abortion, then it's ok to choose to have a circumcision done to your kid.

>> ^dag:

I'm with you there. Also suffering from foreskin envy.>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
20,000 nerve endings?!?!?! makes me angry every time I learn more about it.


"Hi, my name is Jon. I don't have a foreskin either and I'm mad as hell at my ancient Egyptian ancestors and the book of Genesis about it."


*crowd* "Hi Jon."

It brings up an interesting point. Recently in the Bay Area, there was an initiative on the next ballot about banning circumcision within city limits, but I think it got removed after multiple religious representatives in partnership with the ALCU threatened to sue the city.

And how long had he been circumcised when he told you that? The loss of sensitivity doesn't happen over night. It's a process of probably some years.


>> ^wormwood:

I know a guy who was circumcised as an adult. He told me that sex felt just as good after the operation as before. So cheer up, fellas.