Would you say you are passionately for, or against, circumcision of baby boys?

Question

Would you say you are passionately for, or against, circumcision of baby boys?

Answer 1

I always assumed that I would have my baby boy cirumsized, but then I started dating a guy that had the procedure done later in life and he regrets it.  While i"m not comfortable myself being with someone that's not circumsized (I don't know why though) he had valid points and I agreed with him that we would not have our son circumsized if we had one.  Having that done is basically the equivalent of exposing the  hood of the female genitalia.  After time the skin starts to toughen up and loose sensitivity.  I did a lot of reading on the subject so I could make an intelligent decision should the time ever come.

Plus the extra skin from what I understand makes it a more enjoyable experience for the guy and his partner during s*x as it creates more of a gliding motion and there is less friction between the two.

Answer 2

Passionately against.  There are no health reasons to do it.

Answer 3

against unless your Jewish there is absolutely no real reason for it and since they don't give any pain relief besides Motrin i think its barbaric people wouldn't treat animals that bad both my boys have all there parts they were born with I don't think god would make boys that way it it wasn't supposed to be there besides it takes away some of the sensitivity of the p***s because it damages nerves and i think your son will be pretty pissed if he grows up and finds out his p***s could have been even more sensitive and that you mutilated HIS body without consulting him first. how would you like your C**t cut off for no reason?

Answer 4

I'm against circumcision, to me its just for fashion , my son was born with a f******n and it will remain there, i don't believe in having it cut off for fashion and for looks.

Parents these days are too lazy to teach their children how to clean it properly and also keep it clean for them and that they'd rather cut it off and have it look good and remain cleaner then actually taking the time to teach your child how to look after yourself hygiene wise

Answer 5

Against Passionately..

What is circumcision?

Circumcision cuts off the f******n, the sexually sensitive sleeve of tissue that normally covers and protects the head of the p***s.

What is Mutilation?

Mutilation

Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of any conspicuous or essential part of the body.

There is no reason for mutilation. (IF) a person is restrained without there own consent and have no way of defending themselves against the attack of another person or persons it is forced upon them, then it is a purpose attack against that person, There is where Forced Mutilation comes into play.

Consider it what you will.

Circumcision deadens the p***s sensitivity. WHY would you want to do that to a child.

Allow the child a chance to make up his mind when he gets older.

And for you that say its cleaner, you are brainwashed, the f******n is attached the same way as a fingernail is to the finger, exact same way. How can it get dirty.

You women say that the child will be made fun of later in life, thats a lie, just who is the child going to be broadcasting his p***s too.

And this nonsense of religion, the bible did not say anything about circumcising the p***s, there was mention of circumcising the hearts of the people and that meant to cleanse their soul of evil and to follow the way of Jesus. The New Testament refers to circumcision and slavery in the same sentence, nowhere did circumcision and p***s be mentioned together anywhere.

Circumcision was not part of biblical times, Not one, again NOT ONE single mummy has been exhumed from the grave that has been mutilated "so called circumcision"

There is also talk that circumcision looks better, the f******n was put there by GOD himself. The Bible explains this as clear as a bell.

The bible says.

Genesis 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Reprive:

The Bible says that God pronounced creation 'very good' (Genesis 1:31) and that humans were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). The Apostle Paul also said that God made every part of the body as he wanted it. (1 Corinthians 12:18).

I would also like to ad that if you mutilate a child, you are saying that God did not create the child perfect to begin with, and you are altering God's creation, you "are altering nature."

And, I for one do not have the authority to question God's intentions.

And furthermore, No so called doctor is going to deform any child of mine for the sake of the almighty dollar.

The women that are all for mutilation, why don’t you get circumcised first and see how well you like it, go ahead and give it a try. I am sure you will like it.

Answer 6

Against. There's no medical benefit, it is damaging. Also as a woman I've experienced both 'types' of p***s. s*x is noteably more enjoyable with it intact. Be kind to your baby boy's future s*x life!

Answer 7

I am passionately against the mutilation of baby boys.  Female circumcision is consider female genital mutilation - so should the circumcision of boys.

NO unnecessary surgeries should be performed on infants.

Answer 8

I'm against it, and I guess you could call me 'passionately' against.

If there are religious beliefs or medical requirements (note use of the word "requirements" - i.e. it is an unavoidable last resort) then I can't argue that.

However, I do think its bizarre (and just plain wrong) that some parents do little to no research into this procedure before deciding, and they often do it for reasons which I find pathetic (e.g. to conform to the norm in the US, or 'to look like daddy').

Incidentally, I have just set up my own group for yahoo answerers who don't believe in circumcision:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProForeski...

Answer 9

Not passionately for or against. Its personal choice. I had my son circumcised but I don't think not doing it is wrong. However I feel I made the right choice for my family and my son. His father is, as are all of his Uncles. It wasn't even a hard decision for me.

Answer 10

I am passionately against it.  It is totally not necessary.  There are no reasons for it...ever!

Answer 11

against, but not passionately... sometimes its needed for religion and medical

Answer 12

I'd say circumcision is a good thing, more hygienic and less sinful. However I am uncircumcised and I like it just the way I am.

Answer 13

im against it.

just that if i was a boy i wouldnt want my pleasure to be reduced.

Answer 14

I would that im passionatly FOR...........

Letting a baby keep everything they were born with and allowing the child to make his own decisions when old enough.....

Answer 15

Neither “passionately”… Although we won’t be having our son circumsised since we’re not religious and its not really medically essential in the developed world... My Mrs also thinks if he's born with it it must serve a purpose

Answer 16

Neither yes or no for myself, however you are puting the child through a procedure which it doesnt nesissarily need to be put through.

Answer 17

Passionately against. It is a human rights violation that should be illegal. It can cause incredible harm, even when it goes right it has major negative effects, and can never be undone yet the boy never has a say in it. The benefits mostly do not apply to infants, and have never been seriously proven anyway.

Answer 18

I would say that even if its not a religious thing... The ability to maintain better hygiene especially in the earlier years into the teens.  They really won't be happy if they have it done later out of necessity or preference while they are older.  It is much more painful and difficult then.

Answer 19

I am not against it but would not go for it i have 2 sons never got it it done and having ny 3rd on thurs and not going for it i think no in days its more cosmetic, but everyone has there own opioion on it

Answer 20

Passionately against! Ever since I saw another boy masturbating as a kid of 12 I realised that I have been missing out on a lot of pleasure. I researched it and the justifications given for the procedure do not hold water. Every major medical authority now says the risks outweigh the claimed benefits (which really don't exist at all).

An adult f******n is 15 square inches of sexually sensitive tissue that nobody should be able to remove from a boy too young to consent. Studies have proved that the f******n contains the most sensitive parts of the p***s.

A very recent study in New Zealand followed a cohort of boys through life from birth to age 32. About 40% were circumcised. The intact males had a slightly lower rate of sexually transmitted infections than the circumcised but there was no significant difference.

Using surgery to mutilate the genitals instead of washing in a modern western society makes no sense. Normal intact male genitals are, if anything, easier to wash than female ones and the same substance, smegma collects in the genital folds of both sexes.

It's mutilation and child abuse.

Answer 21

I am passionately against male genital mutilation.

Noone should have any healthy, normal body part cut off just because some people don't like it, or certain special interest religious minorities try to impose the practice on others.

Female circumcision is almost universally recognized as mutilation by all civilized peoples.

Male circumcision isn't because of doctors and religious groups perpetrating this on others.

There is no medical benefit whatsoever to circumcision, and it is dangerous and can cause lifelong complications.

Parents do not have the moral right to amputate body parts from their children.

Circumcision is unnatural and abnormal.

Anyone who advocates or practices genital mutilation of infants is a pervert.

Answer 22

I am Defo against it!

THERE ARE HARDLY ANY GOOD POINTS (I admit there are one or two)

Less sensitivity

No easier to clean

doesn't cause any more ifections.

Answer 23

Against.

Answer 24

I wouldn't say "passionate" but I'm for it. Think about the things that baby will have to go through when he's older... being uncirc'd could be embarrassing, and if he decides he wants to be circ'd later, OUCH.

It's ultimetly the parent/s choice, but I would say do it while they're young. :/ I wouldn't want any boy of mine having to worry/be embarrassed in his s*x life later on. Plus, infections are easy to get when they aren't...plus cleaning it is harder, and if not done properly can be very disgusting.

Answer 25

Passionately against.

Performing surgery like that, something that will profoundly alter his adult sexual experience, on a baby too young to give consent is completely immoral. It is WRONG. People should be locked up for doing it. It is not just a flap of skin, it is so much more, and it should not be the parents' choice.

How would people react if you tried to insist that removal of the clitoral hood and labia from baby girls was perfectly ok, should be performed as a widespread practice for 'hygiene' reasons and was a a decision parents had the right to make for little girls? I think it might get called genital mutilation, which is obviously hypocritical. I can't believe any supposedly civilised country still performs ritual genital mutilation on infants.

Answer 26

passionately is a very strong word, but I would say I am strongly against circumcision of baby boys, and in general unless it serves a medically *necessary* purpose (as in would impair reproductive function later in life).

Answer 27

I'm totally wholehearteadly AGAINST, it's a body mutilation and should be outlawed, that's as simple as that.

There is NO benefit to it. The child should be able to choose by himself when he is old enough to understand exactly what is being done to his body and what the consequences will be.

Circumcision is permanent and as there is no benefit, parents shouldn't have a say in the matter, it's not their body but their child's!

Answer 28

Against!

There is NO POINT in it. The hygeine theory was dis-proven a long time ago and it is just cruel.