• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Circumcision should be banned

A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
mattmcneal31 said:
When I was married, me and my now ex-wife discussed if we would circumcise. We were both against it. Now, I'm not as "militant" (for lack of a better word, my ex-wife is extremely against circumcision) about it as some other people might be, but I see no need to put a child through this process. My son is not circumcised. And as far as there being studies in favor of it, me and my ex found many more that were against it. I myself am circumcised, I don't remember the procedure, and I have had no problems sexually. But I have to agree with the person here who asked why this is in religious debate instead of sexuality or some other place more appropriate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if a person wants to be circumcised later in life, the less the merrier.:D
 
I

iholdit

Active Member
fallingblood said:
My son isn't circumcised. I figured there was no reason to. There is a slight risk that it will cause problems in the future, but there is really no reason to worry about that. All the doctors I've asked said that really, it comes down to a personal choice.

As for it ruining one's infancy, that is just dishonest. Yes, the baby feels pain. Yet, it has no long terms effects on them. They have no memory of it, and really isn't something ever thought about.

As for circumcision helping prevent STD's, that is doubtful. A circumcision removes protective foreskin. Having it removed means that STD's are more likely to occur; however, the difference is extremely small.
Click to expand...

You can believe what you want but if you are really interested you might want to see what the center for disease control has to say. cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision
I still cant post studies so you are going to have to put a www . in front of that and a . htm at the end yourself if you are interested.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Diogenes_the_cynic said:
It is a horribly painful procedure that likely ruins one's infancy.

It removes the vast majority of nerve endings which are highly specialialised from the penis. It leaves the glans bare and open to keritanization which furthers the loss of sensitivity. In addition, it ruins the gliding action of the foreskin and the mechanical functioning of sex.

It should be banned worldwide and all practicioners should be tried for assualt and torture of an infant (it's not like they can't tell the baby is in pain).:mad: Okay I'll admit that might be taking it too far, since this is basically a cultural evil.

[youtube]tPYtu2FimdU[/youtube]
YouTube - Cynic - Uroboric Forms (Live 2007) Pro-Shot
Click to expand...

Banned from what?
Legally to ban something you needs present a legitimate legal argument.
You have not done so thus far.

On a side note:
What does the video have to do with circumcision?
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
iholdit said:
You can believe what you want but if you are really interested you might want to see what the center for disease control has to say. cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision
I still cant post studies so you are going to have to put a www . in front of that and a . htm at the end yourself if you are interested.
Click to expand...
As has been stated before, the studies are iffy. I can find studies that state the exact as well. However, most agree that the non-use of condoms is the major factor here, not whether one is circumcised or not. So really, the point is moot either way.
 
I

iholdit

Active Member
fallingblood said:
As has been stated before, the studies are iffy. I can find studies that state the exact as well. However, most agree that the non-use of condoms is the major factor here, not whether one is circumcised or not. So really, the point is moot either way.
Click to expand...

The center for disease control takes into account alot of studies on the subject. They go through most of the studies on the link i tried to post. Overall they suggest the link between being uncircumcised and being more likely to contract stds is legit. But you can judge for yourself if you look at the link, if you havent already.
The studies are showing major differences. For example most of the studies are showing like a 30%-40% reduced risk of certain stds for those who are circumcised. I have not seen studies that say the exact opposite but there are some studies that show little difference in risk between circumcision and uncircumcision.
Condoms can break and there is still always risk even with condoms. If circumcision gives a fairly significant advantage in hiv prevention like most of the studies suggest then it is still an extra benefit.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Circumcision is a matter of fashion only.

Dedicating any more thought to it is just silly. People have been doing it for thousands of years, from the ancients right up through the development of medicine to today. If there were danger in it, we would have found it by now.

And there is nothing wrong with going natural... we're made that way.

Circumcision is just a minor way to accessorize the penis.
 
Penumbra

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This thread grossed me out a bit more than I had expected. :(

I don't really feel that circumcision is that big of a deal, but I guess men would have the more relevant opinion on the matter. It's one of those gray areas where it doesn't make much sense but isn't some great evil.

One could argue that it's a messed up that a religious ritual that involves cutting and permanently altering the body is done on infants. But it may be an instance where perceived sanitation or health issues became an aspect of religion and could still have some merit today.

:shrug:
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Diogenes_the_cynic said:
Well it's gotta be perfect, otherwise I'd say it's damaged. And nobody should be subjected to the effort/cost to restore even if it was perfect.
Click to expand...

Well a plastic surgeon can do it nicely.

If they can make a fake penis, they can make a real one look nice.
 
Rakhel

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
Well there is this
Study Shows Circumcision May Help Reduce Spread of HPV
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD
Jan. 6, 2011 -- Circumcising men can reduce cervical cancer risk in women, a new study shows.
The study involved more than 1,200 HIV-negative, heterosexual couples living in Uganda, where circumcision of male adults is increasingly encouraged as a means of slowing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Half the men received the surgical procedure at enrollment and the other half were scheduled for circumcision after their participation in the trial ended.
Two years later, the female partners of the men who remained uncircumcised were more likely than the partners of the circumcised men to be infected with human papilloma virus (HPV) types most often associated with cervical cancer.
In earlier trials, Johns Hopkins University researcher Aaron A.R. Tobian, MD, PhD, and colleagues showed that male circumcision reduces HIV infection, HPV in men, and genital herpes.
The new study appears online Friday in TheLancet.
"It is now clear that male circumcision can reduce HPV in females and possibly prevent cervical cancer in settings where HPV vaccines are not available," Tobian tells WebMD
Click to expand...
Male Circumcision Cuts Women's Cervical Cancer Risk - Cancer Information (Cancers, Symptoms, Treatment) on MedicineNet.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top