Male circumsicion, for or against
Some recent studies have linked the foreskin to infections, penile cancer, prostate cancer HIV and other diseases. Some doctors are calling to introduce circumsicion for babies. Other people say it is cruel and comparable to female circumsicion (which is obviously wrong). I personally don't think it is as bad as female circumsicion as that is more similar to castration. However, I am unsure of whether it should be performed at birth.
Should be performed at Birth
Side Score: 5
|
Only when disease occurs
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
I think it just looks better with out If you are a man who would prefer it cut off then you should be allowed to have the procedure. But there is no right for anyone to non-consensually remove healthy and functioning tissue of a baby simply because they personally happen to think it looks better without. I mean... why wait to get the disease? Just prevent it before. That's like saying that babies should have their esophaguses cut in order to avoid the incredibly slim chance that they develop esophageal cancer later in their life. Furthermore, there is no disease caused by having a foreskin, and there is no strong link between having a foreskin and an increased chance in getting STDs. EDIT: Derped, meant to be disputed. Side: Only when disease occurs
It is healthier and cleaner and, as Saurbaby said, it looks [slightly] better - not that any penis looks good in my mind, they're all quite hideous in appearance. To circumcise only once disease occurs is like waiting to learn to walk until you've an ax-murderer in the house. Side: Should be performed at Birth
|
2
points
2
points
1
point
Most men in the U.S. Are circumcised. Most women are curious. A great ice breaker, when you first meet a woman is, "Would you like to see my uncircumcised penis?". Works every time ;) Maybe I should switch sides. I wouldn't want any competition ;) Side: Only when disease occurs
1
point
1
point
|