Circumcision ban getting people snippy.

[dobby985]

MrBubbles said:

pearljammer said:

izaaz101 said:

Kasz216 said:

I'd say both.

Male circumcision actually has a lot more negative effects them people think...

with basically no real upsides.

It's infringing on parents rights to decide for their children... but at the same time... deciding for your children may not always be the best choice.

Balanitis, phimosis, paraphimosis and penis cancer are all diseases associated with the foreskin. The last 2 can lead to amputation of the penis. I would say that not having your penis amputated is an upside.

And what kinds of negative effects are there? I know there is apparently less pleasure derived from sex, as the foreskin contains some sort of..."pleasure nerve endings," but beyond that I am not informed.

Simply becuase there are diseaes, however rare, associated with foreskin is not reason enough to allow mutilation.

As someone who has grown in an area where there is very little circumcision, the very idea that one would suggest the cutting of their child's penis is frightening. Absolutely frightening.

If someone later in life should want it, sure go ahead. I should be able to decide that my son would be better off without a part of his body simply becuase I prefer it that way.

Btw... Go Canucks, go!

i would prefer to give my child any advantage he can have over any horrible diseases and conditions.  cause as far as im aware the only negative is an alleged slight loss of sensitivity.

Circumcision can lead to full blown impotence.

Basic hygiene is the best way to avoid diseases and infections.

Let the boy decide when he is older, whether he wants to have part of his penis cut off.