NationStates

Benuty wrote:

Page wrote:
I really can't blame my parents or my doctor for doing something society has largely convinced them is totally harmless if not necessary. And a lawsuit won't bring back one's foreskin.

Actually it can, if you gain enough money for foreskin restoration techniques.

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH DADDY ISSUES SO BIG THAT THEY ARE THAT DESPERATE.

Infant circumcision should be banned. Past the age of 18, it shouldn't.

New Frenco Empire wrote:

UBS wrote:Yes and there is no guarantee a kid will stay in the USA,but you still have to say the pledge (at least to my understanding, I only came to america in high school,and they stop the pledge in high school)

And kids don't have to say it if they don't want. At least, they shouldn't be, but some American schools are backwards.

Not to mention, a couple patriotic words is nothing like dickskin.

I have a question (if your american) in kindergarten did you know what a PLEDGE OF ALLEGATIONS meant

Depends on you guys, but I was circumcised a week after birth. A WEEK AFTER BIRTH. A ONE-WEEK OLD NEWBORN GETTING CIRCUMCISED. I don't want to talk religion, but...

Medical reasons: shizs, like urine, ***, old skin, etc. can get trapped more easily in uncircumcised penises than circumcised ones. Common sense tells you that you shouldn't read this.

Benuty wrote:

ODMS Babel wrote:I want my goddamn foreskin back. That is my view.

Then sue your parents, and/or the doctor who performed the circumcision for violation of bodily rights.

You can't, parents have the right to choice what medical procedures they want to take.

Communal Earth wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:1) This is not the case.
2) This is scientifically proven to not be the case.
3) I have seen nothing to prove this, and the results of the similar claim in point #2 (and the anti-circs 'side' history of not paying attention to the science on point #2) leads me towards skepticism.
4) *shrug*

I heard differently.

That systemic review linked included said 'study' (as the systemic review was done in November of 2013, and your referenced study occurred in early 2013).

It (the study you linked) was merely given less impact due to a lack of scientific rigidity (utilizing statistically insignificant differences of value in a survey wherein one group had a significantly smaller sample size than the other when that survey was asking for a subjective number ranking of 'sensitivity').
A more detailed interpretation on that study, if you're interested.

ESTU wrote:

Benuty wrote:Actually it can, if you gain enough money for foreskin restoration techniques.

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH DADDY ISSUES SO BIG THAT THEY ARE THAT DESPERATE.

What do 'daddy issues' have to do with foreskin restoration?

UBS wrote:

Benuty wrote:Then sue your parents, and/or the doctor who performed the circumcision for violation of bodily rights.

You can't, parents have the right to choice what medical procedures they want to take.

So should parents be allowed to change their child's sex because they wanted a daughter rather than a son? Parents have a right to choose medical procedures for their children, not the right to enforce whatever body modifications they see fit on their children.

Aside from the occasional medical reason, don't see the point of it myself.

Of course this comes from a European.

ODMS Babel wrote:

ESTU wrote:
I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH DADDY ISSUES SO BIG THAT THEY ARE THAT DESPERATE.

What do 'daddy issues' have to do with foreskin restoration?

UBS wrote:You can't, parents have the right to choice what medical procedures they want to take.

So should parents be allowed to change their child's sex because they wanted a daughter rather than a son? Parents have a right to choose medical procedures for their children, not the right to enforce whatever body modifications they see fit on their children.

Circumcision has been recognised as a medical procedure by just about every country.

Benuty wrote:Actually it can, if you gain enough money for foreskin restoration techniques.

There aren't any to my knowledge, it is something very much in its infancy and not getting a whole lot of investment or attention from within the medical field except from a handful of individuals that wants procedures developed. How it is usually done merely extends the existing skin through applying constant tension but doesn't restore actual foreskin like say- stem cells theoretically would.

Marcurix wrote:Aside from the occasional medical reason, don't see the point of it myself.

Of course this comes from a European.

I as well am a European, but just be causes something is unpopular does not mean we should ignore it.

UBS wrote:

ODMS Babel wrote:
What do 'daddy issues' have to do with foreskin restoration?



So should parents be allowed to change their child's sex because they wanted a daughter rather than a son? Parents have a right to choose medical procedures for their children, not the right to enforce whatever body modifications they see fit on their children.

Circumcision has been recognised as a medical procedure by just about every country.

So was bloodletting at one point. That doesn't make it effective.

UBS wrote:

Marcurix wrote:Aside from the occasional medical reason, don't see the point of it myself.

Of course this comes from a European.

I as well am a European, but just be causes something is unpopular does not mean we should ignore it.

It's not about ignoring it, its well recognized that the majority of circumcisions in North America are of habit rather than any actual medical concern.

You can live with or without it, it doesn't need to be a one or the other.

Marcurix wrote:

UBS wrote:I as well am a European, but just be causes something is unpopular does not mean we should ignore it.

It's not about ignoring it, its well recognized that the majority of circumcisions in North America are of habit rather than any actual medical concern.

You can live with or without it, it doesn't need to be a one or the other.

I agree

UBS wrote:

New Frenco Empire wrote:And kids don't have to say it if they don't want. At least, they shouldn't be, but some American schools are backwards.

Not to mention, a couple patriotic words is nothing like dickskin.

I have a question (if your american) in kindergarten did you know what a PLEDGE OF ALLEGATIONS meant

Like I said, patriotic words =/= dickskin.

New Frenco Empire wrote:

UBS wrote:I have a question (if your american) in kindergarten did you know what a PLEDGE OF ALLEGATIONS meant

Like I said, patriotic words =/= dickskin.

Hard to tell sometimes.

New Frenco Empire wrote:

UBS wrote:I have a question (if your american) in kindergarten did you know what a PLEDGE OF ALLEGATIONS meant

Like I said, patriotic words =/= dickskin.

you are a modern poet

I'm opposed to circumcision on infants; the supposed health benefits are dubious at best. If someone really feels like cutting off their foreskin then they should wait till they're an adult.

Communal Earth wrote:Ban the practice all together. It will never be consensual. The male will always regret it because it decreases sensitivity and comfort and the practice itself is archaic and totally unneeded.

I'm circumcised and I don't regret it.

I was circumsized....I have no issue with it. I don't see why people would be so staunchly opposed to it. I mean, if you want your kid circumcized, then go ahead, and if they want it reversed, then let'em.

Alyakia wrote:

New Frenco Empire wrote:Like I said, patriotic words =/= dickskin.

you are a modern poet

Sigging, because that's the only bit of "fun things said about myself that I can show off to people and masturbate over" I've ever gotten (and probably the only one I ever will get) on NSG.

Blazedtown wrote:

Communal Earth wrote:Ban the practice all together. It will never be consensual. The male will always regret it because it decreases sensitivity and comfort and the practice itself is archaic and totally unneeded.

I'm circumcised and I don't regret it.

Reduces pleasure my ass

I am staunchly against the genital mutilation of any children, regardless of gender, without their express consent, if there is no pressing medical necessity. And no, I do not believe any form of genital mutilation against infants, of all people, should be excused on the basis of the religious faith of the parents.

When preformed on babies and those incapable of consent for anything but a legitimate and immediate medical concern I am 100% against it.

I try to avoid viewing it. It seems creepy.