The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I listened to a podcast recently that talked about the history of circumcision and public opinion on it.  To my surprise, the rates of circumcision in the US have dropped drastically in recent years.  It used to be 3/5 boys had it done, now it's about half.

I was also surprised that female circumcision was popular in the US as well, and Blue Cross covered the procedure until the 70s, when it was made illegal.

There are some people trying to get it banned in certain states, saying that it's body mutilation, just like tattoos are illegal for babies.  Also, some medical organizations have pulled their support for the procedure.  I didn't realize that it was so split...I always assumed it was really popular everywhere in this country.

Anyway, I have said for a long time that I don't want to get my children circumcised, should I have them.  I don't think it's a good procedure, unless it's medically necessary because of abnormality.  When I said this about 10 years ago, people used to think I was a big freak.  Now, a lot of people's thoughts on it have changed.

How do you feel about it?  Would you have it done to your kids?  Why or why not?  And do you think it has any place in law?

I had heard that.

I'm all for circumcision so it seems a little odd to me. The parents that I know who did not do it were kind of strange. They felt it was too painful for the child and would cause psycological damage that would affect them later in life. The husband had it done and oddly enough he doesn't remember a thing. Anyway to each his own.

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate but it is the basis for why we Americans do it. God required people to do it in the OT but it isn't required as a Christian because they aren't under the law.  This was one of those things that He required that was to help Jews to prosper in health and multiply.  This went along with wash your hands before you eat, can't live in a house with mold, no sex for two weeks after menses etc.  Anyway I do realize Christains are free to choose though I would expect a Jewish person is not. I do know that Muslims practice it for similar reasons.

Based on my experiences with horses and other animals I just think that it is easier to keep clean and would have it done if I had a son. I can't think of any reason not to do it. Dave what do you mean by abnormality?

Not a topic I have thought much about since I don't have kids on my radar. I think the complications of doing it are overblown by the people who oppose it. I always just assumed I would do it since that was the practice when I was a kid.

For a long time I wanted to be a marriage counselor so I had to take "The psychology of human sexuality."  Along with getting a text book with a bunch of genitalia in it, we had many discussions about things like circumcision.
It is not medically necessary.  It is not any more or less clean either way.  My sister was up in the air about it with her new baby boy and finally decided not to. 
And if this were about God , Why would he put an extra piece of skin on your junk just to have it (painfully) removed?

If I have boys, they will be in tact for sure.

There are some limited benefits such as:

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

There is no medical sound research that male circumcision is harmful.

While it does cause some pain or discomfort for the child so does other thing we do to infants such as give them shots for immunization against certain diseases.  While the medical benefits of circumcision are not nearly as strong as something such as say the polio vaccination.  Not doing it is not should not be thought of as a big deal.  

As for those who oppose doing it and want to make it illegal.  I am willing to bet if you dig deeper, not withstanding their claims otherwise, the majority of those who want to make it illegal also support a Constitutional Amendment to mandate Christian prayer in public schools.  And are not people who in general promote children’s rights but have latched onto a false “mutation” issue in an attempt to make the practices of Judaism illegal.   Are those who opposing it also proposing we making earrings illegal for all children under the age of 18?  The pain threshold is about equal.  

I have only witnessed one circumcision.  (I was circumcised but have no memory of the event.)  It obviously caused some pain as he began to cry.  However the crying lasted only about 2 mins and ceased almost immediately when he got into his mother’s arms.  According to his mother this is a lot quicker than he stopped crying for getting immunized or on the various times he bumped his head on the edge of the crib before they figured out to add padding to the walls of the crib.  So the pain was obviously not extreme to him as compared to the vaccinations or bumping ones head.  

That same child was also baptized about 6 months later.  (My sister married a goy.)   He was clearly traumatized by the event.  He cried for about 20 mins.  Before the baptism he loved bath time.  Afterwards he would cry once my sister would start running the water for a bath and would fight, kick and scream until it was over.  

I would NOT support legislation outlawing baptisms even though they do traumatize some children.      

With my sister’s first child, my bother-in-law not too keen on the idea of circumcision having not had one himself and believing it would cause too much pain for the child.  But he agreed to it on the compromise of both a Bris (Yiddish word and generally used to imply that it done as ceremony by a mohel and not done in a hospital by a doctor) and a baptism as a package deal.  

Having seen the effect of both the Bris (minor) and baptism (major) on his oldest son, my brother-in-law had no problem with his younger sons having a Bris as well.  (I didn’t attend these, but reports are they went the same; very brief crying that ended as soon as they got into mom’s arms)  But he was vehemently opposed to having them baptized. This caused quite a bit of conflict between him and his parents who wanted their grandsons baptized.  

Personally I think my brother-in-law overreacted regarding the baptism of his younger children and that one child just had an extreme reaction to a relatively benign event.  And my sister felt the same way and sided with her in-laws but she wasn’t going to fight him too hard on the issue given how strongly he felt and the fact she just didn’t really care that much if they got baptized.  

Both circumcision and baptism can cause some trauma or discomfort for an infant.  Circumcision has some but very limited medical benefits.  Both have strong religious importance to many families.  Neither should be regulated by the government.    

So I get to blame social issues on being snipped? I'm mentally scarred? It's that simple?  Wooohoo!.... :D

If I decide to have kids,I think it's a decision my wife and I will have....I think Snip,Snip....If my wife thinks differently, she'll probably kick my ass,and that will be the end of that discussion... ;D

I was circumsized and we decided to have our son circumsized.  No particular reason, just decided to do it.  If you don't care one way or the other, there's really no reason that you must have it done, but if you want to do it, nothing should prevent you from having it done.  That's pretty much the hospital's take it on too.  We asked.

I don't remember being circumsized, my son doesn't either and I've never known anyone who did if they had the procedure done when they were born. I don't think the pain question should ever be in the conversation.  The only question you should ask yourself is do you want your son to be circumsized or not?  Whatever you decide, it should be your decision and no one else.

I'd like to get a circumcision, but only if Tim Tebow does the snipping himself while wearing his old Gators uniform.

I would take that bet.  This isn't an anti-Jewish thing at all.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the vast, vast majority that are anti-circumcision are hippies.  This popped up in California.

I also don't think it's about pain.  It's about body mutilation.  Also, while it does (minimally....very minimally) reduce the chances of some diseases, it would be like cutting off your feet so that you don't get athlete's foot.  Of course you're less likely to get disease on an area once you cut it off.

If you step back and just look at what it's for, without the socialization of thinking it's a normal, natural process, it's pretty ridiculous.  The process is illegal to do in female children.  It's not medically necessary, and it's really not accurate to say that its medically advantageous either. 

It removes pleasure sensors in the penis and is permanent.  It sounds like the best argument to do it is "why not?"  That's not a good reason.


The podcast I was listening gave some examples of some medical abnormalities that make the procedure medically necessary.  Imagine your foreskin as a sweater.  On rare occasions, the "neck-hole" is too small for the head to fit through.  There are other things like that that require physically altering the foreskin to function normally, just like surgery with any mis-shapen body part.

You might find some hippies who are anti-circumcision and think it is a bad idea and wouldn't do it to their own children, but would not support making it illegal. 

But among the "make it illegal" group....most of them are anti-Semites. 

I have yet to meet a single hippie who supports more government intervention into people's private lives.

If you don't want to do it to your son....I fully support your personal decision.  But stay the hell out of my life. 

I am certainly not anti-Semitic, as I'm sure you know from my years of posts on this board, but I can definitely understand supporting making the practice against the law.  It is the permanent removal of a body part for non-medical reasons.  If you want to do it to yourself, that's fine, but it's the job of society to protect children.  Like I said before, female circumcision is now illegal, for exactly the same reasons.  I am not up in arms about it, but it's pretty much socially acceptable child abuse.

You're cutting off a body part for culture's sake.  If you take a step back from your particular social and religious ties, it's easier to see it for what it is -- body mutilation.

--------

Side story:

I had a native American history teacher.  When he was only days old, his father took him to the top of some mountain and cut a big scar across the top of his head.  (It was big.  He pulled back his hair to show up.)  It was their tradition, so that no matter what, the boy would always remember where he came from.  To me, that's the same thing.  ...but it's also fucked up, and I'd gladly support laws that don't allow you to cut big scars across the top of a baby's head.

I have a friend who was born in Cuba and was never circumcised.   A few years ago, at 40, he decided to have it done.  I am circumcised, as are both my sons; but I was shocked by this.  After it was over, I asked him if it was worth it.  He said it absolutely was.   I didn't ask for the details, but he volunteered that he felt it was cleaner and he regretted not having it done years before.

My sister cried when she got her ears pierced.  That too is body mutilation.  Do you want to make that illegal too?

My nephew was traumatized by the baptism ceremony.  Do you want to make that illegal too?  

Or only make illegal those traditions that are not apart of your own religion/culture?  

And what exactly does that have to do with you?  Putting in earring studs is body mutilation.  So is getting a tattoo.  You have a tattoo?  Does your wife have earring holes?  You think I should be able to mandate whether you have them or not?

I think you need to step back and see it for what it is, a pretty harmless procedure.  From my understanding the thing with girls was mandated out because there were far more serious complications from having the procedure done than with men.

This is a slippery-slope argument that you're making.  I don't consider ear-piercing as body multilation, because it's not a permanent thing.  You are saying that it is.  Is that just to be devil's advocate or do you really believe these to be comparable.


You are creating a straw man argument.  I am not arguing aginst curcumsicion because of trauma.  I don't think a 2 year old baby remembers pain and have said as much.


Don't do that...you know me better than that.  Curcumsision is my culture.  Every male member of my family, including my many nephews has had it done, including myself.


I am fine with people who choose circumsision for themselves.  I just don't support it for children who can't make that choice.  I am glad you bring up tattoos.  It is illegal to tattoo your baby.  I am fine with adults doing whatever they want to their bodies.  Like I said, I don't think that earring studs is comparable to the permanent removal of a body part.  Do you really feel that those are comparable?

Absolutely.  It's a very minor procedure and yes I do believe it is aproximately the equivalent to getting earrings put in.

The question is why do you think it SHOULD be regulated?  Why is it NOT ok to leave the choice up to the parents?  You have the choice to do what you want.  The slippery slope is when you start trying to make decisions FOR people when they don't really need your help in making that determination.  It's not a question of quality of life. 

I think that it should be illegal for the same reason that cutting off any other baby's body part should be illegal.  I think it should also be illegal (which it is) to tattoo a baby.  It is society's job to protect children, because they can't do it themselves.

I'm really surprised to see you saying that earring piercing is comparable to the permanent removal of the end of your penis.  I don't see it that way...not even close.

What are you protecting them from?  It's never been established that it does any harm to the child except for very slight risk of infection that can be easily cured, much like earrings.  Many hospitals use an analgesia to numb the penis so there is very little pain associated with doing the procedure, again much like earrings.

Have you seen the procedure performed?  Have you seen the penis of a child that just recently had it done?  I have.  It's slightly worse than having studs put in your ears but only slightly.  It's less invasive than having a tattoo.

Holy crap!!!! That's a tough SOB there!!

So are you against abortion too Dave or does the parents choice outweigh the child in that situation?

Dave --

You are the one on a slippery slope by comparing it to tattooing and not earrings.

Circumcision has limited medical benefits and extremely rare incidence of complications.  Tattoos have zero medical benefits and multiple and common number of medical complications including death.   Furthermore while some states prohibit minors from getting tattoos others have no such restriction or REQUIRE PARENTAL PERMISSION.  

As for you opinion children under 2 can not remember pain.  You dead wrong.  While children under 2 may not maintain a conscious memory of pain into adulthood they definitely remember pain.  That is why if you go to any pediatrics office you will notice that multiple children begin crying as soon as they get to the office.  They remember previous inoculations and didn't enjoy the experience.  My nephew probably won't remember his baptism into adulthood but he definitely remembered the experience at bath time.  

With earrings you are removing skin and causing a hole in a person's body.  There isn't much difference.  

Yeah, I don't think I could have done it.  He did have to soak the undercarriage in ice for a few days.

Please don't answer that or make it another thread.  An abortion debate will completely derail this thread.  

Pretty big leap there...as a child crying in a pediatrics office might simply be the result of that child not being comfortable in strange surroundings, or experiencing discomfort from whatever medical issue has them at the pediatrics office in the first place...or that child picking up on any fear or worry that their accompanying parent might be feeling.

Not going to argue that a child doesn't remember pain, because I'm 100% certain that they do. I'm just saying that the portions of your statement that I bolded appear to be incorrectly blanket-esque in form.

Okay....my sister started crying whenever we pulled into the parking lot was the strange surroundings.  Amazing how it always stopped as we left the office and headed down to ice cream shop afterwards, which we ONLY went after doctor visits and was equally as unfamiliar.  (granted she was a bit older at this point)  But even when old enough to know it was not her who was seeing the doctor but a sibling and she was just along for the ride and was getting ice cream afterwards would cry and need to be literally dragged by my mom.  Kids pretty quickly associate doctors/hospitals with pain.  Even if not consciously remembered it is remains in the subconscious.  Most people hate going to doctors or hospitals even if they know it won't involve a painful procedure. 

Maybe a leap for some of the kids.  But it does explain why you very rarely see a happy baby in a doctors waiting room.  When compounded with the other possible reasons for their crying.   

I don't really have an opinion on circumcision, but I just want to hop in and say that my ears were pierced when I was maybe a month or so old. (In the doctors office.) I don't wear earrings really and my holes have never closed. (I'm honestly indifferent to my pierced ears.)

Same here except mine were done as a teen.

As far as circumcision, we spoke about it before we had kids (we have no sons).  I read a lot about it and decided either way was not damaging, so I left it up to him.  He said he would have had it done if we had a son because parents he knew that did not have it done said it was a bitch to keep clean.

My nephew had a physical abnormality that was corrected using his foreskin when he was 18 months old.  He had it since birth, but the doctor told them to wait (I don't remember the reason, maybe it could have changed).  He was anesthetized for the procedure and did not seem uncomfortable in the least during the healing process.  Maybe he is just tough, I don't know.

I have never given it much thought as I am and my son is as well. To me it was normal to be circumcised so that was that.

On a different note Dave stated that female circumcision was popular back then......I honestly have never heard of this and I am almost curious as to what is done.  ???

Ok, I guess that I'm gonna have to be the odd man out. I am not circumcised and I am glad that I am not. As far as any of the benefits that circumcision supposedly gives, I've never had any problems and from what I've read most guys will never have those problems, circumcised or not. As far as the keeping it clean part, I've never had a problem with that either. I'm sure that if a person showers every day or two that won't be a problem.

There is one con, sometimes the skin will roll over the head and that is sort of uncomfortable because you get no air circulation. But then again on a counter point you need no lube when flogging the dolphin or getting a HJ. Speaking of flogging the dolphins, how bout them browns, bwahahaha, (pun intended).

I could care less if anyone does it or not, that ain't my business. I'm not religious in any sense of the word, so that doesn't play a part in how I feel about it. I see it as a useless cosmetic procedure and a waste of money.

As for me, I only have a daughter. But if I had a son (probably won't), I don't think that I would choose to get him cut !


On a side note, when my daughter was 2-3 years old. My dumb-ass ex wife got her ears pierced and the damn studs grew into her ears and she had to get them cut out. Then when that was fixed and healed she was sleeping and her stud type earring got caught in a lace pillow on the sofa. My daughter then proceeded to freak out and start yanking and pulling the pillow away from her head until her ear was a bloody mess. My daughter will be 13 years old in a few months and to this day will not get her ears pierced. I can't guarantee it, but I think those 2 incidents when she was young kinda fucked with her head regarding earrings. I don't advocate doing cosmetic procedures to children until they are old enough to decide that they want it done. After all, they gotta live with it.

You DON'T want to know.  I don't believe it was ever popular in the US.  It's popular in Africa.

If you just have to know check out wikipedia.  Note that the politically correct term is Female Genital cutting or Female Genital Mutilation.  It's not called Female Circumcision anymore because it has little to do with the procedure done to males.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

I don't advocate it either, but that's a huge difference from regulating it for people.  If I felt you were endagering the childs welfare with the procedure, I could see it, but I don't think anyone thinks it's endangering the childs welfare.

On a side note, there's a procedure after a baby is born where they have to take a bunch of blood samples for various tests.  To get enough blood, they prick the heel of the baby and draw the blood onto a test pad.  They have to repeatedly prick the child to get enough blood.  My wife refused to take our children to have it done because it was so traumatic to her and the kids, so I had to take them.  I saw my son have the circumcision done and it was less painful than that test or at least it appeared to be.

I don't believe that.  I doubt you do, either.

I'm not here debating earrings, either.  If someone thought that it was permanent scarring and wanted that to be illegal, then we can talk about it.  But that's not what's on the table.

Let's be frank, there's no health benefit.  That's not why it's done, at least.  It's done for one reason and one reason only: cultural.  That's it.

I'm not here campaigning that it be illegal.  I'm just discussing it.  I certainly understand why it would be, though, and I find very apt comparison with other forms of body modification.

Wow...I think I am sorry I asked. But thanks for the infor Pappy!!!!!

There have been many stories done on it. It causes a lot of problems for women who have it done.

Actually that is what I do believe.


What is I simply state “it think that earrings cause permanent scarring and harms the child and ought be illegal” and offer zero scientific evidence to support my position.  Cause if I did that I would be doing exactly what the anti-circumcise people have done. 


Yes, let’s be frank.  There is limited health benefit.  Not much, but it tips the balance slightly in the favor that the child will be better off with it than without it.  But not nearly enough benefit to mandate it or call someone a bad parent for choosing not to do it. 

But you are right the overwhelming reason for doing it is cultural. 

But here is the deal.  We as a society do plenty of things for cultural reasons that have limited or zero or even negative health benefit. 

Baptism provides no health benefits to a child. 

There is significant evidence that lying to children regarding Santa, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy in fact results in the child not trusting his/her parents once he/she learns the truth.  And learns that lying is acceptable behavior. 

There is quite a bit of medical evidence to prove that feeding a baby formula instead of breast milk is not as good for the child. 

Yet in general in society we don’t interfere with the cultural decisions of the parents unless what they are doing is an unquestionable and severe harm. 

If you don’t think it is a good idea to let your kid get a sugar high each October 31st, then you as a parent can take stops to prevent that.  If you feel that allowing that Halloween night is one of the cool traditions of childhood not withstanding negative impact it has on teeth and overall health then you can permit that cultural event as a parent.

But lets be honest, Halloween is a net negative for children’s health.  We permit this cultural event.

In general as a society we don’t dictate to parents what they can and can not do culturally with their child unless it rises to a pretty significant level.  You are allowed to smoke around your children (not a good idea but permitted).  If you cross the line and teach your toddler to smoke…well then that is not permitted.

If I had children I would not lie to them about the tooth fairy, Santa or the Easter Bunny.  Okay two of them are pretty irrelevant for me.  But with the tooth fairy, I would tell my child the truth about what some parents do and why they do it, but that I prefer to be honest with my child. I would also give them the prevailing “tooth fairy rate for teeth” each time they lost a tooth so they would get the same benefit as their friends and not feel left out.  But I would not lie to them.  Because lying to your children as cultural aspect is a bad idea.

However, I am not going to try and make it illegal for other parents to engage in this stupid and harmful cultural practice.  Because it doesn’t rise to the level of harm to warrant making it illegal. 

If you are going make something illegal.  It can’t just be that it offers no benefit.  Or that It causes minor harm.  You need to prove it causes significant harm. 

But in the case of circumcision what you have is a cultural practice that goes back 5,000 years that has zero evidence of being harmful and has a small amount of evidence of being actually helpful. 

That would be like banning people from bring Xmas trees into their house cause you are worried children might get confused about forest structure. 

The only real reason to ban people from bringing trees into their living room is to interfere with the cultural of Christians.  The only real reason to ban circumcision is to interfere with the cultural of Jews. 

And teaching kids it is okay to eat candy out of their socks cause them as much harm as circumcision --- none.     

That's just not true.  I don't give one iota of thought to interfering with the culture of Jews.  I'm certain that those looking to ban it aren't Christians out to disrupt Jews.  The guy leading the charge is a gay man.  I doubt he's doing the fundamentalist Christian thing.

It's very similar to tattoos.  Some cultures tattoo their kids.  Here, it's illegal.  They are both permanent body modification that (unless there's something wrong, like infection or whatever) causes no damage.  Female circumcision was recently banned (1996).

Circumcision involves cutting off a body part for Christ's sake.  That's not something that we generally take lightly.  It's definitely a bigger deal than piercing your ears, which you claim is equivalent.  They pierce your ears at a kiosk in the mall.  I don't think they'll lop off the end of your penis there.

I think that you are extra defensive because you feel that it's an attack on your culture, but it's totally not.

Again, I'm not out to ban circumcision.  I think that the amount of fuss it would take to get it done wouldn't be worth it, it would be really hard to enforce, and I don't think it would make that much difference in the world.

I'm circumcised but since the wife hasn't gotten knocked up yet, we haven't discussed it really.  Based on some other information, I gather she's pro circumcision.  I really don't care either way if the kid gets it or not.

Unless I completely misunderstand what circumcision is, it's just the removal of some skin... It's not like you're removing the entire thing. What's the big deal? No kid remembers it happening to them. Heck, if no one told them they were circumcised, I bet they wouldn't even know it happened. I think this is so blown out of proportion it's crazy. I certainly don't remember a thing and I think I'm a well-adjusted citizen.

I seriously don't believe you know what circumcision entails.  THEY ABSOLUTELY DO NOT LOP OFF THE END OF YOUR PENIS!!!!!  They remove some foreskin from around the head of your penis.  It's NOT the end of the penis.  I let you say it earlier because I assumed you were just making a point, but now I'm convinced you have no clue what the procedure entails.  They aren't removing a body part.  Do some research.  It's like saying falling down and scraping the skin off your arm is the same as it being removed. It's not.  It's not anywhere CLOSE to being the same.

If we follow your train of thought then having your toenails trimmed is cutting off a body part.  Having your eyebrows plucked is removing a body part.  Shaving your legs is cutting off a body part.  It's not quite the same thing as having your arm removed.

And the only reason they DON'T do it in a kiosk is because it's normally done when you are born while you are still in the hospital.  It literally could be done in a kiosk right next to where you have your earrings put in it's that simple of a procedure.  The biggest risk in having it done is infection JUST LIKE EARRINGS.

It is the removal of some skin.  I think you are confusing circumcision and castration.  

BTW under your definition of permanent body modification, braces would illegal for those under the age of 18.  It is permanent body modification for purely cosmetic reasons.  

I think circumcision is destined to fall out of practice... eventually.

Historically, many ancient cultures have practiced it (including the ancient Egyptians, but not the ancient Greeks and Romans), but if you look at the current prevalence of circumcision, it's only widespread in North America, the Middle East and North/Central Africa. It's rare in Central/South America, Europe, Russia, China and India.

In North America, the practice is declining at an extremely rapidly pace (seen in a historical context).

Way to try and make you point through exaggeration... Ironic considering the criticism you're leveling...

I didn't exaggerate in the slightest.  It's removing some skin.  That's what the procedure entails.  It's not removing a limb.  It's not removing an organ.  It's not removing your penis.  It's removing some skin and a very small amount of skin at that.  You're penis isn't that large when you're born.

Just because it's removing some skin from an area that men typically have a hard time coming to grips with doesn't make it any different from skin on the rest of your body.  I've had my share of skin removal on my leg from sliding into 2nd base in a softball game.  I don't think anyone is considering banning sliding into 2nd base.

I think the rates in North America are higher now than in my grandfather's generation.  Cause according to him in the Army you could figure out who was Jewish and who was not in the shower as pretty much only the Jews had it done.    

Sure you did and now you're just coming off stupid. You made a valid point, but had to wreck it.

Getting some foreskin lopped off isn't comparable to getting a scrape. The skin grows back in one case, not in the other. That's a HUGE difference considering that's the fundamental issue here.

Sometimes....I have had some scrapes where the skin grew back....but a few which left a permanent scar. 

The skin is replaced in a scrape.  The same skin doesn't simply come back, rather the opening in the skin is replaced with new skin.  In the case of circumcision there's no opening in the skin for the skin to be replaced.  In effect the incision is closed immediately.  There's very little loss of blood if any.  That's why the skin does not grow back.  I've had scrapes on my leg which oozed for days and took weeks to heal.  By comparision a circumcision is minor.

And you're missing the point.  The point is that he was trying to compare circumcision with removing a body part like a limb or an organ.  There is no comparision.  My comparison to scraping your arm to circumcision is actually a LOT closer than his comparing it to removing of a limb or an organ.  The fact that the skin does not grow back is not because it CAN'T, it's because it doesn't require it.

As an aside, I love the way both of you use the term "lopped off" to try to give it some added weight.  Now who's using exaggeration to make a point?

The skin is lopped off. That's not an exaggeration.

Something is REMOVED in a circumcision. It doesn't grow back. Nothing grows back.

It is "just" skin, though, so calling it a body part is clearly way off -- and I applauded your argument to that effect. However, you are ruining it by comparing circumcision to a scrape.

So the doctor gets a machete, holds it with both hands above his head and takes a swing while the nurse holds the infants penis on a table?  Is that how it's done?

Or perhaps they get one of those devices that removes the end of a cigar and they put your penis in that and snip!

No, that's not quite how it's done.  It's a surgical procedure which takes a few minutes.  The skin is removed using a scalpel while the penis itself is protected.  There's very little blood loss, the incision is closed almost immediately and it heals completely in a couple days.  No further care is required other than keeping the area clean so there's no infection.

Sure, it's not pretty to look at, but it's not exactly open heart surgery either.  I think the biggest problem people have with the procedure is the location.  It's a sensitive part of the body,  I get that.  I'm not promoting you have it done to your child.  I'm just saying that preventing me from having it done to mine is going too far.  It's really none of your business.  It's a decision that only the parents of the child should make.

Nah...it couldn't be the location. 

I bet people would be just as up in arms if we were to trim so excess skin off a baby's belly button when are born....oh wait....we do trim excess skin off of that body part and it doesn't grow back. 

Hmm... maybe you are onto something. 

It's like cutting off an earlobe.  ...how about that comparison?
Bellybuttons are also a bad comparison.  Those fall off naturally.

This is more than just skin, though, because I believe that there are glands in foreskin that secrete stuff, and there are lots of nerve endings related to sexual pleasure.  It's not like skinning your knee that grows back.

Nope.  Cutting off an earlobe would be about 50 times more skin. It is more like cutting small hole in an ear lobe. 

From what I read, circumcision in an infant removes about "a half an inch, but no more" of foreskin, all the way around.  It is a double folded piece of skin.

I realize this is off topic but this is an awful lot of posting about penises!

Actually we don't, not that it is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand. The umbilical cord is part of the mother and is severed an inch or so away from the baby and either tied or clamped. This piece (which is, just to repeat myself, part of the mother) falls off naturally after a few weeks (varies a lot).

Let's say I agree, it's like cutting off an earlobe.  Not saying I agree, but for arguments sake lets say I do.

Do we really need earlobes?  Are people without earlobes disabled compared to people that have them?  Are they risking any long term medical problems by removing an earlobe?  Are there an other consequences?  Would people look at you different because you were missing an earlobe or possibly because you weren't?  What if you couldn't tell just by looking at someone that they were missing an earlobe, does that matter?  What if some people thought that ears without earlobes were more attractive, would it be ok for those people to have them cut off?  Even at birth?

Now let's ask the really tough questions.  What if the opposite was true.  What if some people believed that long earlobes were a sign of natural beauty or intellect and you were born with short earlobes, would it be okay to have a procedure that elongated your earlobes?  Let's say there's no cutting or stitching or anything, maybe all you have to do is hang a small weight on the ear overnight and it elongates. Wouldn't that too be body mutilation?  Would that okay?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

It's not the size, it's the thickness I think Hoodie was referring to.  The skin is very thin at least when you are born.  There's obviously more skin when you become an adult.

How do you know where the mother stops and the infant begins?  Actually the mother is not attached to the other end of the umbilical cord, the placenta is, which is then "delivered" by the mother during childbirth.

And I have to point out that you used the word severed here when referring to the umbilical cord, but used the term lopped-off when referring to a circumcision.  I believe that both are cut with a scalpel.

I would have never thought I would see a multipage thread about circumcision on a sports site ever.

It seems like y'all are splitting foreskins...er...splitting hairs on this one.

Lopped-off, removed, cut, severed...who cares, they're all synonymous with each other.

I'd be fine with "lopped off" wrt the umbilical cord.

And as to whether is mother or child, I was clearly suffering from dementia or something, 'cause everything after the placenta is the baby. DNA is very handy in determining which is which ;)

Bottom line is, the umbilical cord falls off on its own... unless you have some horrible disease, I doubt your foreskin will.

I have two boys, neither of whom are circumsized. I asked my sisters (both are doctors, one a pediatrician, one an OBGYN), I asked my mom (a nurse for 40 years), I asked my pastor (wondering if there was a religious directive) and I asked our doctor.

I found no reason in any of those responses to circumsize the boys. The cleanliness aspect seemed almost akin to plugging my belly button hole in case I don't clean it.

In terms of them feeling weird in a locker room, as Dave stated the numbers are turning (though its comprised mostly of minorities), but it has to start somewhere.