Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/6/09 10:59 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/6/09 10:24 PM, thedo12 wrote: I dont think people who would refuse to breastfeed or refuse vaccinations should be allowed to be parents.

well, my point is it shouldnt happen in the first place.

Why?

becuase mutalating a babys penis is wrong.

do they like store there foreskins in a jar or something?

Nope, it's considered medical waste and thrown in the garbage.

so how do they reattach the fourskin?

the number of parents is getting smaller and smaller and thus the mommy and daddy voting block dose as well.

Going by your logic, that would mean the number of children would be getting smaller as well, thus keeping the ratio the same.

immagrants.... like I said.... read....

At 1/6/09 11:04 PM, thedo12 wrote: becuase mutalating a babys penis is wrong.

Really now? Why?

so how do they reattach the fourskin?

They don't, they recreate it using skin grafts, themselves not anywhere near as sensitive as the original tissue.

immagrants.... like I said.... read....

Oh, so the ratio isn't changing? Then what's your point?

I am against Circumcision because of my own experiences. My parents had it done to me, for some reason, when I was born. However, they made a mistake in the process. Now, my penis has a bunch of little bumps around the head thanks to infections I get when I was young that will never go away. I can't even tell you how hard it is to be socially acceptable with my problem, when someone found out and told my whole school.
I just don't think it's right, safe, and morally acceptable.
I don't want anyone else to have to go through what I had to, even though things could have been worse.

At 1/6/09 11:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/6/09 11:04 PM, thedo12 wrote: becuase mutalating a babys penis is wrong.

Really now? Why?

mostly my reasoning is that they should be able to choose for themselves weither or not they want it removed.

They don't, they recreate it using skin grafts, themselves not anywhere near as sensitive as the original tissue.

well im glad theres a way they can get it back , but still it probaly isnt a non-expensive/ conveient procedure, and it dosent even restore it to full quality.

immagrants.... like I said.... read....

Oh, so the ratio isn't changing? Then what's your point?

the ratio is changing , birth rates have been going down for a while now and immagration rates are increasing.

although this really has nothing to do with circumsision.

At 1/6/09 11:34 PM, thedo12 wrote: mostly my reasoning is that they should be able to choose for themselves weither or not they want it removed.

Then that decision should be left up to the parents as to wether or not they should allow their kids to choose, not the government, should it not?

At 1/6/09 11:38 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/6/09 11:34 PM, thedo12 wrote:

Then that decision should be left up to the parents as to wether or not they should allow their kids to choose, not the government, should it not?

this is were we differ,

I dont give a shit about what the parents think, your not aloud to go mutalating the body parts of babys(especialy such a important part ;)) , I dont give a shit what your religion is , becuase your right to practice religion is not more important then a childs right to choose.

but hey this is coming from a person who thinks that parents shouldnt be able to indoctrinate children into their religion or bring them to church until there 14.

but yeah in my mind child rights > parent rights.

At 1/6/09 11:49 PM, thedo12 wrote: I dont give a shit about what the parents think

So you don't respect the parent's right to actually parent?

Why am I not surprised?

but yeah in my mind child rights > parent rights.

And this is where you and I differ. Why? Because I'm aware of the reality that children are not recognized as legally able or emotionally mature enough to make decisions concerning their own welfare, parents are responsible for your welfare until such a time as you are able to make those decisions for yourself, which in the eyes of the law is 18.

From what you've presented, you think the parents should just give birth to the child and then let it raise itself, or allow the government to raise it for them. You don't have the wellbeing of the child at heart in this matter, and are merely expressing some bizzare form of rebellious attitude. You'd be laughed out of every senator's office you went to.

really the only reason people are so emotional about this arguement is because they feel the need to defend their genitals.

its a Pyschological thing, if someone said "you have a small dick" its like, you don't even care. you can just laugh it off because you know its not true,

but when someone says "foreskin is disgusting" it feels like more of a personal thing, because it isn't really a direct insult just to troll you, it feels more like fact, and you feel you have to do everything you can to disprove it.

its like if someone said "your mother is overweight and flirtatious!" you know that person doesn't even know your mother, so what do you care? but if your mother is blonde and someone is making blonde jokes, it feels more personal.

so deep down, no one really thinks it barbaric to get a circumsion, and no one really thinks foreskin is dirty. its all just a matter of ego.

but this brings up a question, why do wemon get involved?

it may be over their preference of diffirent types of the male organ, and while it is much less personal for them, it still has a level of personalness.

or they could just want to be outright bitches.

At 1/6/09 10:03 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: you can remove ear rings, but you cant get your foreskin back.

You can't get your foreskin back.

The thing you're talking about... you're just stretching out the existing skin to cover the glan. It hasn't the same thickness... the same nerves, the same sensation.

You might as well cover your dick with a tissue and call it a foreskin.

I was circumcised as an infant, and I am undecided as to whether or not the procedure should be carried out. I was not in a religious family, but I got circumcised because the vast majority of males in my nation at the time were.

It depends.
Being as a person who has actually my fair share of the genitals, I will tell you this: if you're an older White man, Jewish, or Muslim... you're more than likely gonna be circumcised.

The other demographics... not so much.

For me, I think circumcision is a purely cosmetic choice that should belong to the young man when he's ready to make that decision.

And, yes-- it's a cosmetic operation. Because in terms of usefulness.... I don't see why a dick should be cut. Although, in my opinion, a penis that's "covered" up is much more nicer looking that a big ol' hyperpigintated scar around the penis.

Especially when we're talking about ethnic people whose penis' sometimes can be a shade darker than the rest of their body. (Especially for Latinos.) For heaven's sake, I've seen cut Latinos looking like a rainbow: pink tip, brown scar, tan base...

At 1/7/09 04:02 AM, homor wrote: really the only reason people are so emotional about this arguement is because they feel the need to defend their genitals.

I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me how I was maimed by being circumcised, because I check this damn thing on a daily basis and it works just fine to me.

When I was little they snipped off my foreskin (thank the gods all 67895432 of them for that)
I'm not Jewish.
But on my Mothers side of the family she had 2 brothers in their late teens had to be circumcised because of the foreskin being too tight... or something like that that was causing them pain.
With in a year they had been circumcised.
Its not something thats talked about in the uptight religious group which is my extended family.
Mom had watched them suffer & decided that she could save me that possiblity later . So snip snip.

I have no regrets & have been told by more than one female that if I had aforeskin, oral would usually be out of the question. Since I don't have a hoodie I don't miss it. The girl I'm with now says & seems to be perfectly happy with the way things are...so reinstalation is out of the question. (Wheeewww how much would that hurt )

At 1/7/09 12:06 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/6/09 11:49 PM, thedo12 wrote: I dont give a shit about what the parents think

So you don't respect the parent's right to actually parent?

Why am I not surprised?

no I repsect a parents right to parent as long as there not abusing there children.

From what you've presented, you think the parents should just give birth to the child and then let it raise itself, or allow the government to raise it for them.

thats a complete strawman if I ever heard one.

if you want to hear my actual opinion then continue reading.
I think that parents have the right to to raise their children how they want to as long as dont step on the childs rights.

and belive me im not some "rebellious" emo shit on stick or whatever you want to label me, infact compared to my siblings and most people I know im "straight edge" .

At 1/7/09 11:19 AM, morefngdbs wrote: But on my Mothers side of the family she had 2 brothers in their late teens had to be circumcised because of the foreskin being too tight... or something like that that was causing them pain.
With in a year they had been circumcised.

well, if that complication runs in your family then I have no problem with cutting it off since its just going to be painfull later on.

but to 99.99 percent of people this dosent happen.

I have no regrets & have been told by more than one female that if I had aforeskin, oral would usually be out of the question. Since I don't have a hoodie I don't miss it. The girl I'm with now says & seems to be perfectly happy with the way things are...so reinstalation is out of the question. (Wheeewww how much would that hurt )

like I said before im sure theres some women who are disgusted by circumised penises as well , it isnt an arguement.

At 1/6/09 08:48 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 1/6/09 08:06 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/6/09 04:49 PM, dySWN wrote: Usually, the reason people don't do this is because circumcision can be excruciatingly painful, and at least when the baby is a newborn it won't remember the pain.

Can you name any other elective surgery where this line of reasoning isn't considered completely insane?

Tattoos and piercings are painful, but people do them anyways (sometimes while self medicating with alcohol/drugs to numb themselves).

That's not what I asked. Would you give a baby a tattoo because it wouldn't remember the pain later?

At 1/6/09 08:24 PM, fli wrote:

At 1/6/09 03:32 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i've always wondered why so few people felt uncomfortable about infant circumcision.

Because you're slicing a baby's dick skin, and it's crying like hell...

You misunderstood what he said - he said he is confused why so FEW people felt uncomfortable about it.

At 1/7/09 01:13 PM, thedo12 wrote: like I said before im sure theres some women who are disgusted by circumised penises as well , it isnt an arguement.

;;;;;;;
As opposed to arguing, may I make an observation, where my present girlfriend was married to a guy who had a foreskin. She believes that by NOT having a foreskin the head of the penis becomes/is somewhat less sensitive. Because it doesn't have skin covering it so it comes in contact with clothing etc. all the time. So she says .

Not that it doesn't still have sensation, Any guy here who's ever 'caught it in their zipper' can relate to how F^(#!N' much that hurts....or does the anticipation of 'unsticking it' hurt more "hmmmm'

Seeing as they removed mine at around a year or so old, that's not spoken of either. I really don't have any way of knowing if there's less sensitivity in the 'head' of the circumcised penis or not.

At 1/6/09 08:24 PM, fli wrote:

At 1/6/09 03:32 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i've always wondered why so few people felt uncomfortable about infant circumcision.

Because you're slicing a baby's dick skin, and it's crying like hell...

i think you might have misread.
despite the relative safety of the procedure i think the chances of complications are a big reason for making this an operation the individual must agree to.

At 1/6/09 04:36 PM, dySWN wrote: Male circumcision makes things easier to clean down there, and some studies show that it lowers one's chances of catching AIDS.

You only need your large toe for balance. The other toes are to assist however you can live without them. But a large amounts of bacteria and infections occure between them.

So why not just cut them off to keep them cleaner?

We live in a very hygenic society. We have clean running water, cleaning supplies and medical treatment and prevention.

Getting circumsized is like planning for a the black plague.

At 1/7/09 01:05 PM, thedo12 wrote: thats a complete strawman if I ever heard one.

And? I showed the flaws in your logic based on the evidence you presented. So sue me.

I think that parents have the right to to raise their children how they want to as long as dont step on the childs rights.

You just said that the children's rights are greater than that of the parents, which shows either that you (a) truly don't respect the rights of the parents or (b) you hold conflicting viewpoints you have as yet to rationalize.

infact compared to my siblings and most people I know im "straight edge" .

All straightedge means is you don't smoke, drink, or do drugs, you can still be emo and straight edge at the same time.

At 1/6/09 10:59 PM, Proteas wrote:

do they like store there foreskins in a jar or something?

Nope, it's considered medical waste and thrown in the garbage.

Not true. Removed foreskins are often used for skin transplants to treat cancer and severe burns.

At 1/7/09 04:00 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Not true. Removed foreskins are often used for skin transplants to treat cancer and severe burns.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

A cousin of mine was born without eyelids, and doctors fashioned new eyelids for her from recently excised foreskin. It would have turned out nicely, but... she's cock-eyed now....

*looks around nervously*

At 1/7/09 05:32 AM, fli wrote:

At 1/6/09 10:03 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: you can remove ear rings, but you cant get your foreskin back.

Thanks for attributing me to a quote that I didn't say

At 1/7/09 02:56 PM, Brick-top wrote: So why not just cut them off to keep them cleaner?

theres a strong diffirence between cutting off toes and cutting off foreskin.

the foreskin is a SECONDARY patch of skin, that does NOT cover muscle tissue, and it is not NOT an organ. and is also NOT an appendage.

toes are an appendage, pinky fingers are an appendage, skin on the back protects muscle tissue.

the foreskin does NON of that.

am i saying it has to be removed or theres something wrong with it? hell no.

i'm saying comparing it to cutting off fingers or toes is ridiculous.

Will someone please address my initial question of why the hell this matters?

Children don't have rights, stop acting like they should be given this choice. It's a completely unimportant issue, and I don't see it being something that could seriously affect someone's life in any way. Why should we care?

;

At 1/7/09 05:39 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Will someone please address my initial question of why the hell this matters?

What happens to children today will affect what guys you pick up in bars 20 years from now. What do you prefer in a guy cut or uncut?

Children don't have rights, stop acting like they should be given this choice. It's a completely unimportant issue, and I don't see it being something that could seriously affect someone's life in any way. Why should we care?

As I said earlier. I don't care about the mutilation of children, I care about the mutilation of penises.

At 1/7/09 05:42 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 1/7/09 05:39 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Will someone please address my initial question of why the hell this matters?

What happens to children today will affect what guys you pick up in bars 20 years from now. What do you prefer in a guy cut or uncut?

What I prefer is a completely irrelevant issue (cut, btw :3 ). The fact is that it's not my decision, and not the child's.

The question I wanted answered was what the political relevance of this was.

;

At 1/7/09 05:24 PM, homor wrote: i'm saying comparing it to cutting off fingers or toes is ridiculous.

What i'm saying is if the excuse to cut off the forskin for hygene reasons is equally ridiculous.

At 1/7/09 06:23 PM, Brick-top wrote: What i'm saying is if the excuse to cut off the forskin for hygene reasons is equally ridiculous.

i'm not saying it should cut off for hygene reasons.

infact, it has no effect on hygene whatsoever.

and it would have a NEGETIVE effect on hygene if we were all running around naked. REALLY negetive.

At 1/7/09 06:10 PM, reviewer-general wrote: The question I wanted answered was what the political relevance of this was.

It's a political issue just as much as abortion, gay marriage, the economy, or the Iraq war.

At 1/7/09 06:38 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 1/7/09 06:10 PM, reviewer-general wrote: The question I wanted answered was what the political relevance of this was.

It's a political issue just as much as abortion, gay marriage, the economy, or the Iraq war.

Explain how.

Abortion is an issue because of religion and preserving life, blah blah blah.
Gay marriage deals with equality and legal rights.
The economy affects all of us and the quality of our lives, sometimes drastically.
The war in Iraq is a WAR ('nuff said).

Explain to me, please, how this merits mentioning among these other issues.

;