Why not. Christians brought it to American in the late 1800s during the war on masturbation. And it has stuck with us. It has minumal if any health benifets and removes the most sensitive part of a man's body reducing pleasure.
Why not get to the pulpit on sunday and rally againsed this grusome procedure?
2007-10-08 10:16:06 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
1. Women saying foreskin is unattractive is sexist and shallow. If a man were to make the same statement about a woman's prepuce, he would be declared a pig.
2. N.O.R.M. and other groups are full of men wishing they were never circumcised.
3. It could healtyer to have it removed if soap and water are not avalible. But, for the many of you that have not noticed, the USA is not a third world country.
4. Leaving the foreskin intact only raised the risk of penis cancer to .5%. The other 99.5% is much more likley.
5. AIDS spreads by having unprotected sex with an infected person. Not from having foreskin.
Those are the facts.
2007-10-08 10:38:20 · update #1
I am against it. I think that we should wait and allow men to decide for themselves.
Circumcisions have dropped in percentages each year. More and more people are realizing that it is not a necessary procedure. Actually, the center for pediatrics does not have an opinion about it either way. It is a personal choice.
2007-10-08 10:20:23 · answer #1 · answered by alana 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
While I do not practice Christianity, here's a reason for circumcision brought up by the World Health Organization.
Circumcised men have a reduced risk of contracting STDS and AIDS. It's not a cure all but it's a start.
Actually, the longer men wait the more health risks involved in circumcision. Babies heal in a few days. Men can take up to a month to heal and the risk of infection is very high.
2007-10-08 10:20:43 · answer #2 · answered by Yogini 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not a gruesome procedure. Please provide evidence that it was brought to America by the Europeans for the purpose of curbing masturbation.
Circumcision has been around a lot longer then that.
2007-10-08 10:21:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
why should they be preaching against circumcision? is it a sin? or does it prevent you from getting into heaven? Its a choice by the parents not a preacher.
2007-10-08 10:20:15 · answer #4 · answered by bmdt07 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you do not get a circumcision you increase your chances of getting penile cancer. I think the ramifications of dealing with that are much greater than a little pleasure you think you are being denied- don't you?
2007-10-08 10:23:03 · answer #5 · answered by Kwk2lrn 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its not important enough for the preachers to address. Its a person choice.
2007-10-08 11:39:25 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It makes sense pastors would preach against it . They like their "choir boys" complete and untouched !
Why else would they care about the subject ?
2007-10-08 10:31:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
againsed?
I did not know it had MINIMAL benefits. It is my understanding that it helps reduce the risk of cetain diseases.
Never heard of the word againsed....are you sure you don't mean AGAINST?
2007-10-08 10:20:49 · answer #8 · answered by batgirl2good 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is more grusome leaving that ugly skin
2007-10-08 10:19:23 · answer #9 · answered by tebone0315 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't mean to sound insensitive, but most guys don't mind that they were circumcised.
2007-10-08 10:23:58 · answer #10 · answered by lilith 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋