Is circumcision for non-religious reasons ghetto, trashy or low class?

[Anonymous]

Look at the numbers. Fewer and fewer parents are choosing circumcision. I doubt it's one or two people.

[Anonymous]

I think that using the term "ghetto" is low class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at the numbers. Fewer and fewer parents are choosing circumcision. I doubt it's one or two people.

hmm... couldn't it just be that those people more likely to circumsize their children are just not reproducing at the rate of traditionally non-circumsized cultures? Are we looking at declining numbers of world wide circumcision or within cultures that traditionally circumsize? Wouldn't that make a difference in determining whether rates are going down because people are making different choices as opposed to less babies being born in those cultures?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I strapped down my 20 hour old newborn son and tore half the skin from his penis and chopped it off, because.....you know.....well, that's just what we *do* here. Plus I heard it's just better, plus women like it better. Jeez, I can't believe anyone would think there is anything wrong with this!

You forgot the part about "first I bonked him over the head so that he wouldn't feel it".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the numbers. Fewer and fewer parents are choosing circumcision. I doubt it's one or two people.

hmm... couldn't it just be that those people more likely to circumsize their children are just not reproducing at the rate of traditionally non-circumsized cultures? Are we looking at declining numbers of world wide circumcision or within cultures that traditionally circumsize? Wouldn't that make a difference in determining whether rates are going down because people are making different choices as opposed to less babies being born in those cultures?

Fewer Americans are choosing to circumcise their sons. Only a third of boys were circumcised at the start of the 1900s. The numbers crept up to between 70-80% mid-century, and has been declining since the late 1970s. Now it's something like 55%, but varies by region of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I strapped down my 20 hour old newborn son and tore half the skin from his penis and chopped it off, because.....you know.....well, that's just what we *do* here. Plus I heard it's just better, plus women like it better. Jeez, I can't believe anyone would think there is anything wrong with this!

Well, in 20 years, your "newborn" might choose to do it himself for just that reason. We all do things to fit into society; get off your high horse, lady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the numbers. Fewer and fewer parents are choosing circumcision. I doubt it's one or two people.

hmm... couldn't it just be that those people more likely to circumsize their children are just not reproducing at the rate of traditionally non-circumsized cultures? Are we looking at declining numbers of world wide circumcision or within cultures that traditionally circumsize? Wouldn't that make a difference in determining whether rates are going down because people are making different choices as opposed to less babies being born in those cultures?

Fewer Americans are choosing to circumcise their sons. Only a third of boys were circumcised at the start of the 1900s. The numbers crept up to between 70-80% mid-century, and has been declining since the late 1970s. Now it's something like 55%, but varies by region of the country.

Fewer kids are getting circumcised because Medicaid isn't covering it in a lot of states. Even fewer are doing it because they're against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the numbers. Fewer and fewer parents are choosing circumcision. I doubt it's one or two people.

hmm... couldn't it just be that those people more likely to circumsize their children are just not reproducing at the rate of traditionally non-circumsized cultures? Are we looking at declining numbers of world wide circumcision or within cultures that traditionally circumsize? Wouldn't that make a difference in determining whether rates are going down because people are making different choices as opposed to less babies being born in those cultures?

Fewer Americans are choosing to circumcise their sons. Only a third of boys were circumcised at the start of the 1900s. The numbers crept up to between 70-80% mid-century, and has been declining since the late 1970s. Now it's something like 55%, but varies by region of the country.

Fewer kids are getting circumcised because Medicaid isn't covering it in a lot of states. Even fewer are doing it because they're against it.

Wow. Medicaid doesn't cover this? Do they consider it cosmetic???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the numbers. Fewer and fewer parents are choosing circumcision. I doubt it's one or two people.

hmm... couldn't it just be that those people more likely to circumsize their children are just not reproducing at the rate of traditionally non-circumsized cultures? Are we looking at declining numbers of world wide circumcision or within cultures that traditionally circumsize? Wouldn't that make a difference in determining whether rates are going down because people are making different choices as opposed to less babies being born in those cultures?

Fewer Americans are choosing to circumcise their sons. Only a third of boys were circumcised at the start of the 1900s. The numbers crept up to between 70-80% mid-century, and has been declining since the late 1970s. Now it's something like 55%, but varies by region of the country.

Fewer kids are getting circumcised because Medicaid isn't covering it in a lot of states. Even fewer are doing it because they're against it.

Wow. Medicaid doesn't cover this? Do they consider it cosmetic???

The numbers started declining well before Medicaid cut back on paying for it. But part of the reason they're not covering it is because the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't recommend it as a routine procedure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't anyone see that S&C episode where Charlotte freaks out when she meets an uncircumcised man? For humiliation reasons alone, I'd get my son circumcised!

Same here.

It is sad that people would inflict male genital mutilation on their children on the basis of a sex and the city episode. There is nothing humiliating about looking like what will be 40% of the male population!

[Anonymous]

It is def genital mutilation on par with what is done to girls in some countries in Africa. Since the evidence is not clear one way or another and I figure God makes boys that way for a reason, so be it.

There is cosmetic mutilations that people perform as well but I think you should be of age to choose that for yourself.

If some disease or illness develops and it must be cut, so be it. But we don't cut breast tissue routinely because breat cancer exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't anyone see that S&C episode where Charlotte freaks out when she meets an uncircumcised man? For humiliation reasons alone, I'd get my son circumcised!

Same here.

It is sad that people would inflict male genital mutilation on their children on the basis of a sex and the city episode. There is nothing humiliating about looking like what will be 40% of the male population!

Under what conditions would it not be sad to you? You think it's sad because you consider it genital mutilation. Many do not (cause it isn't) and aren't sad at all. Most circumcised men do not walk around feeling mutilated. Can't say the same for the females that have gone through genital mutilation. They suffer from the following:

failure to heal; abscess formation; cysts;
excessive growth of scar tissue; urinary tract infection;
painful sexual intercourse;
increased susceptibility to HIV/AIDS, hepatitis and other blood-borne diseases;
reproductive tract infection;
pelvic inflammatory diseases;
infertility; painful menstruation; chronic urinary tract obstruction/ bladder stones;
urinary incontinence; obstructed labour;
increased risk of bleeding and infection during childbirth.

How many men have you come across with these conditions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is def genital mutilation on par with what is done to girls in some countries in Africa.

If some disease or illness develops and it must be cut, so be it. But we don't cut breast tissue routinely because breat cancer exists.

No it is not even close to the same thing. Not a great analogy. But we get your point. You're anti-circ. Cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't anyone see that S&C episode where Charlotte freaks out when she meets an uncircumcised man? For humiliation reasons alone, I'd get my son circumcised!

Same here.

It is sad that people would inflict male genital mutilation on their children on the basis of a sex and the city episode. There is nothing humiliating about looking like what will be 40% of the male population!

Under what conditions would it not be sad to you? You think it's sad because you consider it genital mutilation. Many do not (cause it isn't) and aren't sad at all. Most circumcised men do not walk around feeling mutilated. Can't say the same for the females that have gone through genital mutilation. They suffer from the following:

failure to heal; abscess formation; cysts;
excessive growth of scar tissue; urinary tract infection;
painful sexual intercourse;
increased susceptibility to HIV/AIDS, hepatitis and other blood-borne diseases;
reproductive tract infection;
pelvic inflammatory diseases;
infertility; painful menstruation; chronic urinary tract obstruction/ bladder stones;
urinary incontinence; obstructed labour;
increased risk of bleeding and infection during childbirth.

How many men have you come across with these conditions?

Many women in countries where it is common don't consider female genital mutilation to be sad. The ceremony is typically performed by women. Most do not consider themselves to be mutilated. As for the conditions that can result from male circumcision, there are many:
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is def genital mutilation on par with what is done to girls in some countries in Africa.

If some disease or illness develops and it must be cut, so be it. But we don't cut breast tissue routinely because breat cancer exists.

No it is not even close to the same thing. Not a great analogy. But we get your point. You're anti-circ. Cool.

Why is it not an apt analogy? Just because you say it is not? LOL...at least elaborate...