izaaz101 said:
pearljammer said:
izaaz101 said:
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!
|
So would you then propose a ban on all "mutilation"? Cutting off excess fingers, toes or say a tail, until the age of maturity, when they are able to make their own decision?
And thank you...although, the way things have unfolded in the past 2 games make me wish that your Habs were able oust them in the first round.
|
Only if there is a reasonably high chance that it/they would cause issues for the child. There really isn't any high risks in not having your baby circumcized, unless of course, negligent parents refuse to teach their child to clean.
Though I have to say, this is an odd comparison; a natural part of the body vs birth defects.
I wish they had as well. I want so, so much for the Bruins to lose. It's petty, I know. But I really want them to lose.
