How longer will be condoned in the USA the sacrifice of male foreskins on minors?

Question

Ritualistic ancient sacrifice.

What will take to prove the amputation of a healthy child's "privates"(!)?

Answer 1

The following information is not copy-pasted or anything, just so you all know.

muslim_pork (the first answerer) obviously doesn't understand the uncircumcised penile anatomy. The foreskin it pulled back over the glans (head) when an erection occurs.

Anyway - I don't see it going away any time soon. The rest of the world kindly asked non-religious circumcision to go to hell long ago, but America (particularly New England) is adamant about its "tradition".

Circumcision began as a cure for masturbation in England in the late 1800s, in the upper classes. It spread over, because it was supposed to cure lots of diseases - blindness, etc. - brought on by "immoral self-touching" (a ridiculous Catholic assertion).

At the very moment, over 90% of infant circumcisions performed in the U.S. are for non-religious reasons. The rate of BIRTH circumcision for males is as follows for the corrosponding country -

56% in the United States, 14% in Canada, 12% in Australia, 9% in New Zealand. Way below 5% everywhere else (except for religious countries).

The rates are more common on the east coast of the US than the west coast. I suspect due to racial distribution, the west has more hispanics than the east.

Why is the U.S. the only country that circumcises most of their young? A good question. I do not know why the US is so stubborn in that respect. "It's cleaner" is a common argument, but that's just silly. Any uncircumcised male with the least bit of sense will know how to clean himself under the foreskin.

Also, the foreskin is THE most sensitive part of the male anatomy. When you circumcise your boy you are mutilating his penis. You are cutting off what should rightfully be his, and you have no moral right to do that.

Infact, in the U.K and many other countries, hospitals don't even offer circumcision as an option, if you absolutely INSIST upon circumcision, YOU have to pay several hundred dollars for the operation.

Also, until recently - babies did not have anesthetic applied to the penis, as it was thought that babies did not feel pain. Infact, often times the baby would go into the state of shock due to the extreme pain caused by this barbaric mutilation.

Why people actually WANT to cut off 50% of the skin from their little boy's penis for absolutely no reason is beyond me... but I don't see it going away too soon. The rates are declining, but... American ignorance takes a while to fade.

Just my two cents.

Answer 2

well it`s not ritualistic.. and believe it or not it is healthy.. at least it is for a boy growing up into a man.. the folds of the uncircumcised penis holds bacteria and is dirty.. and when he has sexual relations he maybe transmitting a number of infections..also alot of men are having it done because their parents didn`t have this done for them when they were newborn.. and there is nothing wrong with the parent choosing to have their child circumcised.. as a woman i would much rather look at a circumcised penis than to have a uncircumcised one winking at me.. they look like a turtle hiding in it`s shell..

Answer 3

Circumcision has been around for eons, and thats not likely to change until someone can prove that its barbaric. The reasons for cleanliness and health are moot since anyone with common sense knows a guy will always take care of his privates.

Answer 4

It's not just ritualistic. It promotes cleanliness down there, prevents infection and not to mention, it looks better.

Babies don't have common sense to clean down there and if their mother isn't making sure it's totally clean...

Lala: Actually I am not an idiot and I don't appreciate debates that sling blatant insults with no factual support of your comments. That's just ignorant. Male circumcision began in Africa over 5000 years ago and in the ME roughly 3000 years ago. There are actual proven studies (see my source) that claim male circumcision protects against many infections including std's and even HIV transmission.

I don't live in a hole. Oh yes, and sources would be nice please.

Answer 5

This is simply a matter or parental choice. There are good arguments both for and against.

If you don't like the practice, then don't have the circumcision performed on your sons.

Answer 6

Lisa is an idiot.


and two more morons gave her thumbs up.

You ignorant twats, don't you fu*king know the rest of the world besides Israel and the US don't mutilate their male baby's genitals?

When this retard says it's been done for "eons" he's only talking about ONE people around the entire WORLD who did that, the Jews.

You idiots.


Lisa: There is factual evidence...of your ignorance.
The rest of the world doesn't do it (unless they are Jews) and most of the world never did.

Crawl out of your Americana hole and see the light of day.

Answer 7

Not to bust anybodies bubble but the poster is correct. It's absolutely unnecessary and is actually there for protection and to prevent bacteria from getting inside. It's practice is for cosmetic reasons only.

Answer 8

As soon as you learn to use a spell checker and write a complete and properly structured sentence?

Answer 9

LOL i agree they shoud give them a choice

Answer 10

Oh dear, somebody call the waaaaambulance