>>I disagree with the thought that mothers are not the most well equipped to
>>decide about their son's penises.
>>Just because a man has a penis, and just because his penis was mutilated
>>shortly after birth, does IN NO WAY give him or anyone else the right to
>>take a perfectly healthy and beautiful baby boy and have a healthy part
>>of that child's body chopped off!
>Mutilation is a word with strong emotional connotations, circumcision is a medical
>term and the correct description of the procedure. It lowers the chance
>of penile cancer and is a basically painless procedure. Later in life the
>emotional repercussions and pain of circumcision are much greater and
>some uncircumcised me are forced to undergo the prcedure due to recurring
>urinary tract infections.
What exactly prevents urinary infections is still quite problematical.
Its been determined that hospital environments,not foreskins per se
contribute to UTI.
UTI in boys and men wheather circumcised or not is so rare that suggesting
circumcision as a prophylactic is like suggesting removing the toe nails
to prevent in grown members.
>>We are guardians and caretakers of our children, but we do not own them nor >>their bodies. I don't see where anyone has the right to take the healthy
>
>>It is your child's penis, and not the husband's penis to do what he feels
>>like doing.
>This is your opinion, actually the fact that the child has no idea what is
>happening at all makes circumsision possible. There is no way I would subject
>my son to the procedure if he had any awareness of his surroundings. The
>procedure occurs during the first week of the childs life. If you really believe
>the 2 day old baby can give informed consent i must admit this is a new concept to me.
>>To people who say that they want their child to grow up just like daddy,
>>well, is every bad thing that was done to the father as a child going to
>>be repeated on this new boy just so that he can be "just like his daddy"?
>>Just because a father was, at birht, deprived of the right to keep his
>>foreskin does in no way give him the right to in turn deprive his sons of
>>having the choice and right to keep their penises intact!
>>It would seem to me in this case that the father needs to feel more
>>secure about himself and gain some maturity.
>>I mean, to not circumcise the son would mean that the father might have to
>>deal with feelings of having been deprived of his intact penis; that he might
>>for the first time have to deal with facing feeling of loss and anger at
>>having had a part of his body cut off without him ever having had the
>>chance to think about whether or not he wanted to keep it.
>I have a hard time taking this seriously, but as a circumcised male I don't
>even have a glimmer of feeling about having my foreskin removed. For some
>reason I sense you are trying to find something that might not exist.
>As the guardian of my childs emotional well being I felt he would be best
>served by being just like the other little boys and his dad. Kids normally
>don't want to be different, they want to fit in and be like the other kids,
>and most boys in america are circumcised. If you ever watched a circumcision you
>would know it is a 20 minute procedure during which the baby might cry simply
>because he is being restrained.
>>Also, a circumcised father is NOT better eqipped than a mother to make this
>>kind of irreversible decision about another human's being penis.
>>A circumcised man only has the experience of being circumcised. He does
>>in no way have the experience of both sides of this issue! I dare say
>>he is more apt to be very biased about the issue. How can a man who has
>>never experienced having an intact penis possibly truly know whether he,
>>his son or any man would prefer to be circumcised. That's like judging
>>a pie contest, but only tasting one pie!
>There are truely some things about being a women a man can never understand.
>And there are truely some things about being a man that a women can never understand
>I would say that one of these things is how a man feels about his penis.
>>Has your circumcised husband sat down and talked to men with intact penises?
>>Has he asked them how they like being uncircumcised, and whether they would
>>ever want to be circumcised.
>>Has your husband ever read about the role and benefits of the penis parts
>>he himself is missing?
>>Has either you or your husband realised that by leaving your son uncir-
>>cumcised you are leaving your son the choice to be circummcised one day
>>should he choose it. But, by circumcising your son you are taking away not
>Excuse me ?, this is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time.
>Men generally don't talk about there penis with other men. I can just picture
>it now. "Hi Bill , gee your scrotum is hanging low today, it looks good
>that way"
>>only that choice, but also a part of his very perfect and beautiful body.
>I assume you will not have your son's wisdom teeth removed if they become
>impacted?
>>A circumcised father might say, "IF it was good enough for me, it's good
>>enough for my son" (yes, but which would truly be BETTER for his son), or
>>"I don't need or miss my foreskin" (ah yes, but he was never really given a
>>chance to see whether he would have preferred to be left intact), but those
>>are not good enough reasons to take away from the son what was taken away
>>from the father.
>Actually my thinking was more like, I want my son to be just like me so he
>will feel more secure in this world. And I plan to set a good example for him
>in every other way.
>>And, as to the "I want him to be just like me/his father" I say this:
>>My father's father lost his middle finger on one hand as a young man (gun
>>accident), would you have expected him to cut off the middle finger off of
>>my father's hand just so that my father would be "just like his father"???
>>My father grew up knowing why he was "different from his father" (concerning
>>number of fingers) and had no problems with it at all!
>Probably a better analogy would be to question if the son would also be able
>to use guns, and possibly have a similar accident. Your point is way off-base,
>comparing the results of an accident to a cultural/hygiene decision.
>>Have any of these circumcised father who want their little boys to be
>>"just like them" talked to fathers and sons who were not the same in this
>>matter (ie, one is uncircumcised, the other is not). If they did I
>>would presume that they would find it was neither a problem, nor a big deal.
>Your right there, it isn't a big deal, either way.
The idea to make father's penis like son's is perhaps the most frequent
irrational reason given for circumcision. If father has a nose job should
the son also be given same?
--
******** Gary E. Davis***** WQ1F *****
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the
palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.-H.L.Mencken
