|
ok ok. first of all, i'm uncut. this has already been discussed at length in the last circumcision thread, but again i must reiterate:
circumcision is not ideal, because it's painful, gives no benefit to hygiene (the cleanliness issue has been proven time and time again that it's negligible) and it's unethical. i'm going to argue my point, counter-argue, and then counter the counter-argument.
it's painful. (but babies don't remember it!) doesn't matter, it still hurts. you'd be hard-pressed to find a baby who doesn't cry when their foreskin is lopped off. (but- err- um... memory- durr dur durr gurgle blargh). if you're drugged and raped, but don't remember it, does it make it okay? (igk and jay.. and bas, are not allowed to answer this due to conflict of interest. and maybe stu.)
it gives no benefit, cleanliness-wise, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. if it smells funny, you're doing it wrong. and you can't argue with an association of professional pediatricians that basically dictate what should and should not be done in the world of pediatrics. source: http://aappolicy.aappublications.or...trics;103/3/686
it's unethical. you don't give the infant male the choice to modify his body. we don't allow that in our society. (what about ear piercing at infancy?) it's reversible, circumcision is not.
people need to realize that the foreskin isn't just a piece of unnecessary flesh, like an earlobe, or a wart. it's a protective covering. equate the foreskin to your eyelid; both protect a very sensitive part of your body. would you want someone removing your eyelid? especially without permission?
i posit that parents should leave their kids uncircumcised and give them the choice later on in life, unless it's a potential health issue (i.e. phimosis).
|
