If Not Medically Indicated or Religiously Mandated, Would You Circumcise Your Ba

1. 76

   Shil1978posted 13 years ago

   If Not Medically Indicated or Religiously Mandated, Would You Circumcise Your Baby Boy?
   
   If you would, why would you? What are the factors that would determine your decision?

   replyreport
2. 60

   swb64posted 13 years ago

   No, In my opinion male and especially female circumcision is not required at all, the female circumcision is an act of butchery.

   replyreport
3. 62

   win-winresourcesposted 13 years ago

   Wow Shil-
   
   This is a real hot-button.
   
   Circumcision on a baby boy is the parents choice.  This is not a legislative or legal issue, nor should it ever be.  Each parent already has absolute control over this matter as it applies to their child.  Forcing one's belief on others, through legislation or statute, is controlling, manipulative and arrogant.
   
   There is a body of knowledge that indicates that circumcision is a healthy option as it promotes easier cleaning of the genitals.  That said, proper hygiene can be effectively  done regardless.
   
   This is a personal choice.  I would have done so even if it wasn't part of my religion.
   
   -DW

   replyreport
4. 74

   Patty Inglish, MSposted 13 years ago

   A while ago, a virus was discovered to be harbored by the foreskin; it was linked to cervical cancer in women. Then new studies proclaimed that the virus did not cause cervical cancer. After this, the government placed Public Service Announcements on TV and radio, encouraging parents to have their daughters injected with serums that fight this and similar viruses. Next, PSAs suggested that parents of male children have them receive the same serums. In light of all this, if I bore a male child, I would choose circumcision very early in order to prevent cancers, and avoid all the injections. As a side bar, a sex partner with a foreskin may not be the best health choice.  At least Ohio hospitals ask the parents what they want done now - they previously circumcised all infant boys and in the case of the presence of sex organs of both genders in a single infant, always chose the female set to retain.
   
   Of course I agree that female circumcision is ghastly; it is done to prevent female pleasure and to prevent female adultery and has nothing to do with health, except maybe for the husband, who would not catch STDs from other men via his wife. I have heard many horrid tales from my African friends. Some African women have fled their countries and if they return they would be circumcised. While many people consider male circumcision barbaric, until conflicting evidence stops shifting back and forth, I would do what I considered healthiest for my infant - and for myself in terms of partnering/marriage.

   replyreport
5. 0

   erickcbposted 13 years ago

   Why destroy something you are born with. Circumcision in my opinion is totally wrong on all levels. For religious folk, If God made u perfect, why would he make u remove a part of yourself.
   I do not think this practice makes any "good" sense.
   Just my two cents worth.

   replyreport
6. 0

   Old Empresarioposted 13 years ago

   You mean would I mutilate his genitals just for fun?--no, I would not.

   replyreport