I decided i am taking my daughters in for breast implants, so they will look like me you know, its so important being that i am the most influential person in their lives.
I'm also having part of their genitalia cut off, its much cleaner, fewer creases for bacteria and yeast to grow in. It may save them some discomfort later when they don't take care of it properly.
studies also show it cuts down on STD's.
good reasons? no?
but the same reasons are used to cut off/alter/mutilate a part of a boys body.
if its ok for boys, why not girls?
women have all the same rights as men. except where it comes to genital mutilation. men get all the rights there
2007-01-08
05:55:28
·
20 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Pregnancy & Parenting
➔ Newborn & Baby
but if they had been taught to care for themselves(and actually done it) the guys wouldnt have gotten the infections.
maybe show them a video of the male genital mutilation would help encourage them to care for themselves better. its cosmetic surgery when done as an infant. the percentage of adult men actually needing it done is very low
2007-01-08
06:04:32 ·
update #1
ok so change of thought process. lets have every baby sent to surgery to have hteir appendix removed, its extra, no real use for it, can live fine with out it.
the skin is there for a reason. it prevents callous formation on the head of the penis(happens 100% of the time in varying degrees) this callousing reduces the mans sensitivity. http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/index22.html
2007-01-08
06:11:31 ·
update #2
my girls are 13,11, 3 yrs.
but why would it be ok to cut of part of your son(with out his permission) for the reasoning that he would look like dad. doesnt it stand to reason that it would be ok for girls to get implants if they are slow developing just so they will look like mom? or is it more a matter of mens rights?
actually, in modern times circumcision came into being to cut down on immoral behaviours of young men, IE masturbation. a circumsized penis is less sensitive, if they did this boys would enjoy playing with themselves less(that was the reasoning, it really does make it less sensitive by severing thousands of nerve endings)
2007-01-08
06:17:55 ·
update #3
"the doctor said my baby did really well and slept through his "mutilation."
well duh, the pain is so severe and intense the body goes into shock and the baby passes out.
2007-01-08
06:25:27 ·
update #4
actually i am very well read on female genital mutilation, i am a nurse and used to work in that capacity with immigrants to the US that had FGM done to them. i know what it does to them physically and mentally.
2007-01-08
06:27:23 ·
update #5
many of the reasons i used are ones actually used by people that mutilate their sons. its cleaner, its because dad was circed and we want son to look like him/others(how weird is it that fathers and sons go around comparing their penises), decreased risk of infection. all false claims. a rececnt study release says that it may decrease risk of HIV, what one needs to remember in reading that study is that it has just started, its no where near being completed, and as such should not be used in any type of decision making.
an uncirced penis is just as clean as a circed on if cleaned on a daily basis. how hard is it to teach your son to wash it, to pull the foreskin back(after it retracts on its own), and to not have sex until he can be in a monogamous relationship.
2007-01-08
06:32:15 ·
update #6
*lol* So true. No baby looks like an adult. PERIOD.
Also Clitoridotomy, where only the clitoral hood is removed (the exact same piece of skin that would have become a foreskin had the baby been exposed to male hormones during development in utero) would help prevent UTIs and no body does that.
Umm clitoral hood = extra skin. It's only there to protect the clitoral hood as the foreskin is only there to protect the head of the penis.
Also I live in Canada with a LOWER circ rate than the US and you almost never hear of adults being circumcised for infection. Why? 1) No forced retractions during infancy to damage the foreskin 2) Infections can be prevented with behavioural changes 3) Most other conditions can be treated with exercises or creams (such as phimosis.)
Have none of you heard of yeast infection and vaginosis? For those of you who think women do not get genital infections go walk down your local pharmacies "femanine hygene" aisle and look at all the treatments for yeast, vaginal itch, dryness, smell, etc.
2007-01-08 05:59:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
5⤋
Would you adopt me ? I could use some breast implants. I think a parent should get all the info they can before making any decision that concerns the rest of their child's life. Then with all that info make their decision together when possible. Saying you only circumcise your son because of one reason is as silly as saying you had the baby in the first place for one reason. Every decision made should have many reasons when made by a smart person, and usually is.. My boys were not circumcised, and I had three, but I put months of thought into that decision and months of research, and the decision was made for many reasons.
2007-01-12 02:53:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by snoweyowl44 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Most wellbeing firms on the earth admit there are not any huge wellbeing advantages to warrant a non-consensual surgical procedure on a minor making it a totally unethical train. Only a couple of American wellbeing orgs such because the American Academy of Pediatrics nonetheless aid circumcision chiefly when they learned they might lose billions if the system light away, their reasons to aid circumcision with little proof that it has any advantages are totally suspicious and has misplaced plenty of credibility on the earth. There were tons of stories that exhibit simplest extra cons than professionals to the system.
2016-09-03 18:16:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
He he, well of course you are right, there are no good reasons to circumcise except in the few cases where it is done for medical reasons. Neither the BMA nor the equivalent American medical authority recommend circumcision.
The hygiene benefit is a myth and there is evidence on both sides of the STD debate, in any case the difference is minor.
The foreskin is not, as some answerers have mistakenly assumed, just extra skin, it is a functioning part of the organ and is involved with maintaining sufficient moistness of the Glans.
Sexual pleasure is greater for the man and many women report for them also.
Finally there is evidence to suggest that this barbaric abuse of children can cause trauma at the time that leads to long term damage.
2007-01-08 22:26:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
You forgot to mention cutting their ears off - most kids don't wash well behind their ears, and they can get infections there.
Foreskin is NOT "extra" or "excessive"! Foreskin is a normal and functional part of the male anatomy and in no way "extra."
If natural penises are so dangerous, why is it that Europe, which has a very low rate of infant circumcision, also has a very low rate of adult circumcision? And Europe also has a lower rate of STDs, including HIV/AIDS, than the US, where male mutilation is common. The FACTS just do not add up to their being ANY advantage to doing this barbaric thing to boys or men.
2007-01-08 14:03:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by Maple 7
·
3⤊
4⤋
You have been tricked by anti-circumcision propaganda.
A good example:
"[the foreskin] prevents callous formation on the head of the penis(happens 100% of the time in varying degrees) this callousing reduces the mans sensitivity"
This is false. Only one study has ever tested whether the glans of circumcised men is more keratinised (calloused) than those of uncircumcised men. It found no difference.
Three studies investigated whether there is any difference in sensitivity. Again, no difference.
2007-01-09 01:10:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
this is not very good reasoning at all. my son had one and he is just fine. i seen a few teenagers at my job who were here for a circumcision because they were getting infections. there is a big difference between circumcision and female genital mutilation and breast implants.
if u don't want your son to have one than don't do it.
as a parent i hold the right to make the decisions for my son that i want .
another thing, u can teach your kids to be in a monogoumous relationship but that doesn't mean he will listen.
2007-01-08 06:00:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Miki 6
·
6⤊
4⤋
circumcision should not be done to children.let your sons and daughters grow up and decide for themselves whether they are circumcised or not.females and males have skin that can be removed but you should not do it nor any other cosmetic procedures.
2007-01-09 02:08:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Circumcision is meant for boys and not girls. Boys as you should already know are born with extra skin and that's what is being cut off not part of there genitals. Breast implants are done because people are unhappy how they look. Actually in Africa they circumcise women because it is a ritual and tradition but here in America it is not required. Male circumcising is not required either it is done by the parents saying yes or no when the doctor ask. Good Luck in finding what you need.
2007-01-08 06:02:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Precious1 3
·
6⤊
7⤋
Sorry but even children taught to care for themselves properly will have a higher chance of not only contracting an STD, but giving women over 100 different infections and bacteria than could lead to birth defects in her children, ferility problems and even cancer. Plus, did you know in 2005 over 1 million males over the age of 13 had to have circumcisions due to different infections and that it's so much MORE painful, and can lead to life long sexual problems and steralization when done as an adult. So good job....be all against circumcision and we'll wipe out the human race!!
2007-01-08 06:30:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by angie_laffin927 4
·
6⤊
6⤋