Scanner

Circumcision is bad, ok? How about we cut something off a woman when she's born?

I suggest it should be the woman's tongue. They talk too damn much.

You know Max, buddy, here's the way it works. When you say something offensive with some verbal style and wit, they pay you and call you a comedian. When you say something offensive and it falls flat, you're just an asshole.

Circumcision for females used to be covered by insurance companies as late as the 1970s.  Its important that one keeps in mind that as we learn more about health medical care changes.  

Circumcision is a harmful medical procedure that is akin to a cosmetic surgery on an infant.  It has no proven medical benefits and thus should not be covered by an insurance provider.  

This is also not about taking choices away from the poor its about giving the choice to our sons.  They should be allowed to choose the way the most intimate and personal part of their bodies look.  

Is this really a debate worth getting excited about?  Male circumcision should not be mentioned in the same sentence as female circumcision, OK?  I'm circumcised. healthy, love sex, etc. Where's the downside?  I might have a little more sensitivity at the tip of my penis?! Who cares?!!  On the other hand, there's probably no reason to do it other than religion. So parents - circumcise your kid if you want.  If you don't, then don't.  Can we all stop freaking out about it?  (Especially you guys who are carrying on about being 'robbed' of some sensation... your penis is not the source of your problems.)

It is a totally unnecessary and undeniably cruel procedure (the apparent calm of some circumcised babies has been found to be simple freezing in shock and terror). As such, it shouldn't be covered by medicare. No Western nation other than the US has had such a long love affair with the procedure, which was originally popularized as it was believed to stop masturbation (no really). While not as drastic a mutilation as FGM it's still a mutilation.

Circumcision is a long running scam by the for-profit medical community and it should be ended.

we don't tattoo our infants - we don't cut their arms off - we don't give them 1" septum plugs - we don't cut of clitorises anymore... any permanent modification, especially irreversible removal of a functioning body part, should be up to the person on whom it's performed. End. Of. Story.

and actually, matt, you probably have LESS sensitivity, bud. due to your stuff rubbing against clothing for years and thusly becoming less sensitized. gotta mention, that whole lovely slip of extra skin make slube almost...redundant. doit

i agree with what  Megan said:

«

Circumcision for females used to be covered by insurance companies as late as the 1970s.  Its important that one keeps in mind that as we learn more about health medical care changes.  

Circumcision is a harmful medical procedure that is akin to a cosmetic surgery on an infant.  It has no proven medical benefits and thus should not be covered by an insurance provider.  

This is also not about taking choices away from the poor its about giving the choice to our sons.  They should be allowed to choose the way the most intimate and personal part of their bodies look.  

»

Actually they found that circumcision decreases the likelihood to contract AIDS by up to 60%. So there's more to it than nice aesthetics and families should have the choice, especially considering contraction rates are higher in poorer communities.

www.medicalnewstoday.com/.../133561.php