Making it illegal.....lol?

(October 7, 2016 at 10:49 am)Rhythm Wrote: Making it illegal.....lol?

There are a looooot of folks who want it illegal, or even categorized like fgm - and most of the people I've met who hold this viewpoint are atheists.

I can see why people who don't believe in a god might feel like mutilating your child for that god should be illegal...but I don't think it has to be to have it stopped. I think that calling it what it is, and getting the people who make those decisions to understand what and why it is, would handle the trick nicely. A mothers faith is, usually, weaker than her love for her newborn. God himself could come into the ER and damn the child, and it won't matter to most mommys. For those who have no belief, they're just doing it because it;s something that's done, and because it has been done for so long they don't see it for what it is.

There's no malice, it doesn't endanger anyone (obviously if done right, and it overwhelmingly is done right, hre..anyway). It's just one of those weirdass things we do because we think there are reasons for it, and people accept it unquestioningly. When my sons were born, they repeatedly asked us, and had us sign papers that indicated we -wouldn't- be circumsizing our sons. Every new nurse asked, and brought new papers. My wife started to worry they would do it on accident. Bit like dropping fries when none have been ordered. You do it because you do it all day.

It -should- be categorized alongside fgm - it's mgm..................? Whatever anyone's reasons for having it done, whatever the level of acceptance it has in society...that's what it -is-. We get worked up about fgm cheifly because it;s botched almost as a rule in the instances which we consider...but if it were performed here, in the us, with the same level of professionalism and clinical safety...it didn't endanger the female, would we still have a problem with it? What problem? The arguments -for- fgm are the same as those leveraged for circumcision. Either a god wants it done, or it's a cultural tradition grounded in that former belief.

(October 7, 2016 at 10:54 am)Rhythm Wrote: I can see why people who don't believe in a god might feel like mutilating your child for that god should be illegal...but I don't think it has to be to have it stopped.

Ditto.

My mother in law is a doctor. I talked to her about it and asked for her opinion when I found out my baby was a boy. I know everyone has a different opinion about this, but based on her own experiences of what she's seen and dealt with, she's very much in favor of circumcision.

According to her, when a man is young and sexually active, a circumcised penis stays cleaner and thus reduces the chances of spreading STD's or giving a woman UTI's. When they are older and can't clean themselves as well (or at all), having an uncircumcised penis increases their own chances of infections. She says she's had to have several of her elderly patients circumcised because of this. And that while it's a quick and simple procedure when it's done on a baby, when it's done on a grown and mature penis, it is a lot more severe.

My take is that there are pros and cons to both sides. When a parent is faced with the decision to either cut or not cut their baby boy, they must weigh the benefits of both options and do what they think is best for their son.

...That's really all there is to it. All this hate and anger being thrown to parents who choose differently from what you would have chosen, and calling them bad parents or horrible people, is very uncalled for imho.

(October 7, 2016 at 10:50 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(October 7, 2016 at 10:49 am)Rhythm Wrote: Making it illegal.....lol?

There are a looooot of folks who want it illegal, or even categorized like fgm - and most of the people I've met who hold this viewpoint are atheists.

Yeah, I had no idea this was such a hot button topic for atheists until my one thread about it. Hoooollllyyyyy crap.

(October 7, 2016 at 11:04 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: My mother in law is a doctor. I talked to her about it and asked for her opinion when I found out my baby was a boy. I know everyone has a different opinion about this, but based on her own experiences of what she's seen and dealt with, she's very much in favor of circumcision.

According to her, when a man is young and sexually active, a circumcised penis stays cleaner and thus reduces the chances of spreading STD's or giving a woman UTI's. When they are older and can't clean themselves as well (or at all), having a circumcised penis increases their own chances of infections. She says she's had to have several of her elderly patients circumcised because of this. And that while it's a quick and simple procedure when it's done on a baby, when it's done on a grown and mature penis, it is a lot more severe.

My take is that there are pros and cons to both sides. When a parent is faced with the decision to either cut or not cut their baby boy, they must weigh the benefits of both options and do what they think is best for their son.

...That's really all there is to it. All this hate and anger being thrown to parents who choose differently from what you would have chosen, and calling them bad parents or horrible people, is very uncalled for imho.

I'll just say that most of the time the reduction in risk for STDs is very slight in the studies that show a reduction, and some studies don't show any reduction in risk at all (depending on the disease).  But otherwise I agree with you.

Is your mother in law a christian or jew?

(October 7, 2016 at 11:13 am)Rhythm Wrote: Is your mother in law a christian or jew?

Er..whose, mine or CL?

EDIT: Just saw the "in law" part. I'm a dummy. I ain't got a MIL.

(October 7, 2016 at 11:08 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(October 7, 2016 at 11:04 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: My mother in law is a doctor. I talked to her about it and asked for her opinion when I found out my baby was a boy. I know everyone has a different opinion about this, but based on her own experiences of what she's seen and dealt with, she's very much in favor of circumcision.

According to her, when a man is young and sexually active, a circumcised penis stays cleaner and thus reduces the chances of spreading STD's or giving a woman UTI's. When they are older and can't clean themselves as well (or at all), having a circumcised penis increases their own chances of infections. She says she's had to have several of her elderly patients circumcised because of this. And that while it's a quick and simple procedure when it's done on a baby, when it's done on a grown and mature penis, it is a lot more severe.

My take is that there are pros and cons to both sides. When a parent is faced with the decision to either cut or not cut their baby boy, they must weigh the benefits of both options and do what they think is best for their son.

...That's really all there is to it. All this hate and anger being thrown to parents who choose differently from what you would have chosen, and calling them bad parents or horrible people, is very uncalled for imho.

I'll just say that the reduction in risk for STDs is very slight in the studies that show a reduction, and some studies don't show any reduction in risk at all (depending on the disease).  But otherwise I agree with you.

Yeah I can see the STD reduction not being all too great. 

But the UTI reduction does make sense. Unless a man showers and cleans under his foreskin right before he has sex, it is going to be a little gritty under there if it was cleaned in the morning and had all day to accumulate sweat and bacteria before having sex in the evening.