>> ^hpqp:

Yes, because parents should make irretrievable decisions about their child's future sex life and "porn star" qualities.
>> ^IAmTheBlurr:
>> ^Kalle:
The loss of sensitivity is welcomed here
Two minutes in heaven are better than one minute in heaven..

Exactly. Living in the US and having traditionalist parents (Christian), I can say that I'm happy with their choice. Sensitivity can be great but being able to last is more important to get a girl off. Besides, I'd prefer to look like a porn star than sea tube worm.


Way to go on reading what you were thinking into what I said. Quit projecting. I didn't make any comment about what parents should or shouldn't do.

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

I think it could be that STDs have evolved quicker than us. Therefore we use culture as a way to beat their faster microbial evolution. The same goes for dietary laws. There were probably pretty good reasons for not eating shellfish, if you lived in the desert without refrigeration. >> ^notarobot:

I've never understood the argument that a normal body part, found on pretty much every mammal species on earth, evolved over millions and millions of years is flawed.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!

>> ^Kalle:

The loss of sensitivity is welcomed here
Two minutes in heaven are better than one minute in heaven..


Exactly. Living in the US and having traditionalist parents (Christian), I can say that I'm happy with their choice. Sensitivity can be great but being able to last is more important to get a girl off. Besides, I'd prefer to look like a porn star than sea tube worm.

I merely stated my opinion on what I view as an easy moral dilemma. No need to call me names. You seem to base your argument on freedom. That's exactly what I do too: The freedom of males to make their own choices regarding cosmetic surgery on their genitals. It seems to me you value the freedom of the parents higher. I can see where you're coming from, but to me the individual concerned always weighs heavier in such moral arguments.

Let it be known that I don't want a ban on circumcition per se. If someone wants to make that decision for themselves when he comes of age, for religious reasons or otherwise, I have no problem with it. My problem is when someone else (in this case parents) removes irreversibly the opportunity to choose yourself.
>> ^VoodooV:

Fortunately for the rest of the world, you don't get to judge, oh arbiter of what is good and bad. This reinforces why I'm an independent. Both left and right have their lunatic fringe. and arbitrating circumcision is definitely lunatic.
and xxovercast, I never said YOU were pro-ban. nice try though. This perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy of both left and right. pro-choice for certain things....not so much other things. You don't get to cherry pick what choices you approve of and which ones you don't. It's all ok or none of it is.
As I have repeatedly stated, Unless you can show that the majority of those who have had circumcision without consent are under some sort of significant duress or their lives are significantly been infringed upon. You've got nothing.

>> ^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


I had mine removed when I was about 6 for medical reasons. Never missed it. However, if it were removed for anything other than valid medical reasons that would be wrong. I can't stand parents who have their young child's ears pierced either. Mutilation is mutilation.

>> ^Ornthoron:

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.


Fortunately for the rest of the world, you don't get to judge, oh arbiter of what is good and bad. This reinforces why I'm an independent. Both left and right have their lunatic fringe. and arbitrating circumcision is definitely lunatic.

and xxovercast, I never said YOU were pro-ban. nice try though. This perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy of both left and right. pro-choice for certain things....not so much other things. You don't get to cherry pick what choices you approve of and which ones you don't. It's all ok or none of it is.

As I have repeatedly stated, Unless you can show that the majority of those who have had circumcision without consent are under some sort of significant duress or their lives are significantly been infringed upon. You've got nothing.

>> ^VoodooV:

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.


Because I don't want a ban, stupid. You made the assumption from the start that I did when I never said anything of the sort.

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.

Oh wow, thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by lavoll:
*promote

>> ^Ornthoron:

Your hair grows back. Your foreskin doesn't.
>> ^VoodooV:
Your hair was designed to keep you warm too. Hope you anti-mutilation people aren't cutting yours to stay consistent in your views.
What's that? you cut your kid's hair without their consent?!?!! you animal!!!



Oh, you're splitting ball hairs to fit your agenda and you know it!

[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.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!

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.