This question is just out of curiousity. I got my son circumcised, because he was my first and I didn't understand much about it (pain, etc.). I have heard some people on here refer to it as torture, a cosmetic procedure, and just really put down parents who do it. But there have been questions about piercing a babys ears, and that is acceptable. What is the difference? They both cause pain, both are not necessary, both are done in many cases for "looks". You can argue that a child who gets its ears pierced as a baby, will not remember the pain, they would probably want it done at an older age anyways so to do it when they are young is better. Well, some can say that a child who is circumcised wont remember the pain later on, so to do it when they are younger is better. My husband and son neither one remember the pain. So why is one horrible and one is accepted? Since technically they both cause unnessisary pain. This question is just for curiosity, so lets all be nice!
2006-10-01
06:30:32
·
25 answers
·
asked by
LittleMermaid
5