As far as I'm concerned, circumcision is just a form of branding. Might as well get the branding iron and apply it to the infant's buttocks. If he decides to change or shun religion, he's still going to feel that he "belongs" to the religion that branded him every time he sees that mark.
If, in theory, we have this teenage Sikh* who, at the age of eighteen, does not want to be a Sikh anymore, he can get a haircut, right? The circumcised guy can't just put the flap of skin back on.
I agree that parents have to make decisions on the child's behalf. After all, if someone doesn't take responsibility for him while he's unable to make decisions, then who will? (For example, the MMR vaccine.) However, I think scarring your child isn't guardianship. It's taking advantage of your child's vulnerability, which is a different matter.
<!--QuoteBegin-Boy who lost his wings+May 24 2004, 01:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Boy who lost his wings @ May 24 2004, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Children are too stupid to think for their own, so their parents must decided for them. yes even in religion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you're not going to read the whole thread, don't even bother posting. Especially one-liner comments.
What if a religion says that parents are allowed to decide for the life of their children, so unwanted babies can be killed? Are you saying parents should decide for everything concerning their children? Government has no say in this? Is killing wrong but mutilation is ok? Where do you draw the line?
I think the clearest way is to ban all unnecessary hurting of your child, religion or no religion involved.
Edit: If you have a problem with this and are a devout follower of religion X, move to a country that doesn't restrict your parental rights. However common sense says that all modern countries should take action against child mutilation.
WTH?!? People are actually comparing female circumcision to male circumcision?!? Female circumcision, that is to say, removal of the clitoris usually, can commonly renders a woman infertile as well as incapable of any orgasms or sinfections. Female circumcision is plain and simply barbaric. Look at any studies or talk to any (rare in the US) circumcized woman, they will tell you how much they hate it and wish it hadn't happen and how it still causes pain years after the procedure was made. Talk to someone who has undergone male circumcision, they probably have never given a second thought to it after they first found out what it was. Further more, increased risk of keratinization? You sir have no idea what you are saying. Female "circumcision" is more akin to slicing off the entire glans of the **** that present day male circumcision.
Here it is, Wikipedia's definition of keratinization, a process we all go through every day of our lives.
Skin is composed of the epidermis and the dermis. Below these layers lies the hypodermis, which is not usually classified as a layer of skin. The outermost epidermis is made up of stratified squamous epithelium with an underlying basement membrane. It contains no blood vessels, and is nourished by diffusion from the dermis. The main type of cells which make up the epidermis are keratinocytes, with melanocytes and Langerhans Cells also present. The epidermis can be further subdivided in to the following strata (beginning with the outermost layer): corneum, lucidum, granulosum, spinosum, basale. Cells are formed through mitosis at the innermost layers. They move up the strata changing shape and composition as they differentiate and become filled with keratin. They eventually reach the corneum and become sloughed off. This process is called keratinization and takes place within days (check?).
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+May 24 2004, 10:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ May 24 2004, 10:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just read through this topic, and although he pretty much said everything I was going to say, I put my full support behind Scinet. Excellent post! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Excellent perhaps, but i don't think much of it is true. Keep in mind that because of google's method of ranking pages even links condemning a page boosts its google rank. Typing in jew in google will turn up jewwatch.com near the top, a highly rascist anti-semitic conspiracist site. TBH all those sites saying all those things about circumcision is utter nonsense. Honestly, when has circumcision ever stopped men from masturbating. Further more, if botched circumcision causes 2400 mutilations per year, what about all the people who are similarly crippled by too long or too tight foreskin? How much more percentage wise. I actually saw a site saying long foreskins that hid the glans even during erections was good as it stopped nighttime erections from exposing the head. This same condition is a common complaint among uncircumsized males as it greatly decreases sexual pleasure and functionality by partially hiding the glans during intercourse. Seriously, all this circumcision discussion is making a mountain out of a molehill
Oookay, answering multiple posts of yours in one, so I won't be branded a spammer <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-ElectricSheep+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Keep in mind that because of google's method of ranking pages even links condemning a page boosts its google rank. Typing in jew in google will turn up jewwatch.com near the top, a highly rascist anti-semitic conspiracist site. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I'm sure it does. However, we are not debating Google's method of ranking sites. I could understand the relevance of the above statement if we both would make up our minds by what Google tells us is popular or much linked to. I suppose neither of us does.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> TBH all those sites saying all those things about circumcision is utter nonsense. Honestly, when has circumcision ever stopped men from masturbating. Further more, if botched circumcision causes 2400 mutilations per year, what about all the people who are similarly crippled by too long or too tight foreskin?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is not that circumcision stops men from masturbating, which is indeed a very queer supposition. The point is that's the way they thought back in the 19th century. Circumcision as masturbation prevention tool is just one more of the bizarre thesises put forward by doctors of a bygone era to discourage sexual behaviour, since what we now hold as a norm would have seemed highly deviant and perverse to them. Remember that the methods employed to discourage the layman's sexual appetite were, until very recently, mostly rather unpleasant and actually downright unnatural, which has as a result promoted both sadistic and masochistic behaviour as means of trying to find an outlet for repressed sexual urges.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Further more, if botched circumcision causes 2400 mutilations per year, what about all the people who are similarly crippled by too long or too tight foreskin?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like me? Well, I can indeed imagine that if I had less foreskin than now, I'd most likely opt for circumcision. But remember that this would be a choice made by me. The infant does not get a choice, and unless the child suffers from other penile dysfunctions or disfigurements like microp-enis (thanks, swear filter), a too tight foreskin becomes apparent only when the child starts having erections. I can simply not understand why someone would want preventive surgery for something that is extremely unlikely to happen to them, especially when the surgical procedure's complication rate is higher than the incidence of foreskin-related problems.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> WTH?!? People are actually comparing female circumcision to male circumcision?!? Female circumcision, that is to say, removal of the clitoris usually, can commonly renders a woman infertile as well as incapable of any orgasms or sinfections. Female circumcision is plain and simply barbaric. Look at any studies or talk to any (rare in the US) circumcized woman, they will tell you how much they hate it and wish it hadn't happen and how it still causes pain years after the procedure was made. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Can commonly render a woman infertile"? If this statement had anything to do with reality, then shouldn't FGM-practising societies have been on the decline for a long time? And yes, I am comparing them. Even though the female variant of circumcision is much more brutal and destructive, both operations share common ground in that they are unnecessary genital mutilations. Note that some circumcised males have also reported constant pain that refuses to go away even after years have passed. There's no difference whether the child under the knife is male or female. They should still be able to decide it for themselves when they are mature enough to be able.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here it is, Wikipedia's definition of keratinization, a process we all go through every day of our lives. (quote snipped)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and cancer is actually just cells undergoing uncontrollable mytosis, thus reproducing constantly. It's still harmful.
Penile keratinization means the drying and hardening of the outer shell of the head. A keratinized head looks crackled and wrinkled when not **** (what? e-rect is now a bad word?), unlike an unafflicted head which is smooth. The hardening and drying are not limited to the head alone, but that is the part where it is most noticeable. [skip the following paragraph if firsthand physical observations, which help to understand the issue under discussion somewhat, disturb you]
The foreskin protects against the drying of the head, a matter I have been able to personally observe. I am unfortunate enough not to have a foreskin big enough to cover the entire head, and also possess a skin type that dries easily, forcing me to apply skin cream to my body every morning after shower so it won't start itching. These two problems combined have resulted in a slightly keratinized head, a process I have managed to stall but not prevent with the application of aforementioned lotions. Unfortunately, nothing beats having a good ol' foreskin, so I must admit that I am somewhat envious to intact men who have a plenty of it.
I'm circumcised, I am even had my (regrettably) frenulum removed. Although the frenulum was a bad part to remove as there is no reason at all there and it defineatly decreases sensations, I'm not bitter about it. I was upset when I first found out while researching this article that I had no frenulum "commonly called the mans G-spot and crucial for enjoyment of oral sex", but it's really no big deal and my parents and doctor did not know of the frenulums sexual properties at the time. The point is I am circumcised and couldn't care less.
<!--QuoteBegin-ElectricSheep+May 24 2004, 05:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ May 24 2004, 05:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The point is I am circumcised and couldn't care less. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Someone else might. It would be awful kind of people to ask before cutting, is what I'm trying to say.
Comments
If, in theory, we have this teenage Sikh* who, at the age of eighteen, does not want to be a Sikh anymore, he can get a haircut, right? The circumcised guy can't just put the flap of skin back on.
I agree that parents have to make decisions on the child's behalf. After all, if someone doesn't take responsibility for him while he's unable to make decisions, then who will? (For example, the MMR vaccine.) However, I think scarring your child isn't guardianship. It's taking advantage of your child's vulnerability, which is a different matter.
* Sounds like a sitcom to me.
If you're not going to read the whole thread, don't even bother posting. Especially one-liner comments.
What if a religion says that parents are allowed to decide for the life of their children, so unwanted babies can be killed? Are you saying parents should decide for everything concerning their children? Government has no say in this? Is killing wrong but mutilation is ok? Where do you draw the line?
I think the clearest way is to ban all unnecessary hurting of your child, religion or no religion involved.
Edit: If you have a problem with this and are a devout follower of religion X, move to a country that doesn't restrict your parental rights. However common sense says that all modern countries should take action against child mutilation.
Skin is composed of the epidermis and the dermis. Below these layers lies the hypodermis, which is not usually classified as a layer of skin. The outermost epidermis is made up of stratified squamous epithelium with an underlying basement membrane. It contains no blood vessels, and is nourished by diffusion from the dermis. The main type of cells which make up the epidermis are keratinocytes, with melanocytes and Langerhans Cells also present. The epidermis can be further subdivided in to the following strata (beginning with the outermost layer): corneum, lucidum, granulosum, spinosum, basale. Cells are formed through mitosis at the innermost layers. They move up the strata changing shape and composition as they differentiate and become filled with keratin. They eventually reach the corneum and become sloughed off. This process is called keratinization and takes place within days (check?).
Excellent perhaps, but i don't think much of it is true. Keep in mind that because of google's method of ranking pages even links condemning a page boosts its google rank. Typing in jew in google will turn up jewwatch.com near the top, a highly rascist anti-semitic conspiracist site. TBH all those sites saying all those things about circumcision is utter nonsense. Honestly, when has circumcision ever stopped men from masturbating. Further more, if botched circumcision causes 2400 mutilations per year, what about all the people who are similarly crippled by too long or too tight foreskin? How much more percentage wise. I actually saw a site saying long foreskins that hid the glans even during erections was good as it stopped nighttime erections from exposing the head. This same condition is a common complaint among uncircumsized males as it greatly decreases sexual pleasure and functionality by partially hiding the glans during intercourse. Seriously, all this circumcision discussion is making a mountain out of a molehill
<!--QuoteBegin-ElectricSheep+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Keep in mind that because of google's method of ranking pages even links condemning a page boosts its google rank. Typing in jew in google will turn up jewwatch.com near the top, a highly rascist anti-semitic conspiracist site. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I'm sure it does. However, we are not debating Google's method of ranking sites. I could understand the relevance of the above statement if we both would make up our minds by what Google tells us is popular or much linked to. I suppose neither of us does.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
TBH all those sites saying all those things about circumcision is utter nonsense. Honestly, when has circumcision ever stopped men from masturbating. Further more, if botched circumcision causes 2400 mutilations per year, what about all the people who are similarly crippled by too long or too tight foreskin?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is not that circumcision stops men from masturbating, which is indeed a very queer supposition. The point is that's the way they thought back in the 19th century. Circumcision as masturbation prevention tool is just one more of the bizarre thesises put forward by doctors of a bygone era to discourage sexual behaviour, since what we now hold as a norm would have seemed highly deviant and perverse to them. Remember that the methods employed to discourage the layman's sexual appetite were, until very recently, mostly rather unpleasant and actually downright unnatural, which has as a result promoted both sadistic and masochistic behaviour as means of trying to find an outlet for repressed sexual urges.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Further more, if botched circumcision causes 2400 mutilations per year, what about all the people who are similarly crippled by too long or too tight foreskin?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like me? Well, I can indeed imagine that if I had less foreskin than now, I'd most likely opt for circumcision. But remember that this would be a choice made by me. The infant does not get a choice, and unless the child suffers from other penile dysfunctions or disfigurements like microp-enis (thanks, swear filter), a too tight foreskin becomes apparent only when the child starts having erections. I can simply not understand why someone would want preventive surgery for something that is extremely unlikely to happen to them, especially when the surgical procedure's complication rate is higher than the incidence of foreskin-related problems.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> WTH?!? People are actually comparing female circumcision to male circumcision?!? Female circumcision, that is to say, removal of the clitoris usually, can commonly renders a woman infertile as well as incapable of any orgasms or sinfections. Female circumcision is plain and simply barbaric. Look at any studies or talk to any (rare in the US) circumcized woman, they will tell you how much they hate it and wish it hadn't happen and how it still causes pain years after the procedure was made. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Can commonly render a woman infertile"? If this statement had anything to do with reality, then shouldn't FGM-practising societies have been on the decline for a long time? And yes, I am comparing them. Even though the female variant of circumcision is much more brutal and destructive, both operations share common ground in that they are unnecessary genital mutilations. Note that some circumcised males have also reported constant pain that refuses to go away even after years have passed. There's no difference whether the child under the knife is male or female. They should still be able to decide it for themselves when they are mature enough to be able.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here it is, Wikipedia's definition of keratinization, a process we all go through every day of our lives. (quote snipped)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and cancer is actually just cells undergoing uncontrollable mytosis, thus reproducing constantly. It's still harmful.
Penile keratinization means the drying and hardening of the outer shell of the head. A keratinized head looks crackled and wrinkled when not **** (what? e-rect is now a bad word?), unlike an unafflicted head which is smooth. The hardening and drying are not limited to the head alone, but that is the part where it is most noticeable. [skip the following paragraph if firsthand physical observations, which help to understand the issue under discussion somewhat, disturb you]
The foreskin protects against the drying of the head, a matter I have been able to personally observe. I am unfortunate enough not to have a foreskin big enough to cover the entire head, and also possess a skin type that dries easily, forcing me to apply skin cream to my body every morning after shower so it won't start itching. These two problems combined have resulted in a slightly keratinized head, a process I have managed to stall but not prevent with the application of aforementioned lotions. Unfortunately, nothing beats having a good ol' foreskin, so I must admit that I am somewhat envious to intact men who have a plenty of it.
[edit]I am the king of broken quote tags.[/edit]
Someone else might. It would be awful kind of people to ask before cutting, is what I'm trying to say.