Forums → WEPR → Male Circumcision

I has question. What if an infant has a congenital anomaly that keeps one of their testicles from descending? ...like, it's stuck up in their pelvis due to the lack of the proper functioning of the embryological mechanism that descends said testicle on whichever side? Is it ok then to perform an invasive procedure that the child would not have consented to? Remember that the condition in this case isn't an immediate health hazard/emergency... but it would lead to an increased likelihood of developing certain cancers and such.

[quote=Mino]Circumcision is an extremely painful procedure, and for a child, traumatic.[/quote]

Uh did you happen to read anything that any of the circumcised members here said?
[quote=danielo]So if we do a vote, i am a pro-circumcision.[/quote]
[quote=daleks]I don't see a problem with the choice my parents made[/quote]
[quote=roydoter2000]I'm okay w/ circumcision, it rose my testosterone level 1% higher.[/quote]
And everyone I know who's circumcised, seems fine with it.

[quote=Mino]No, Moe. Just no. Let me demonstrate.[/quote]

Cough, from the keyboard of an actual female:
[quote=MoonFairy]But for the most part, Mino is right. Chicks don't care.[/quote]

[quote=Mino]this consequence being that it is painful and a frightening thought to many males. [/quote]

I think you mean "... many uncircumcised males..."

From what I know, a very small percentage of circumcised males have any problem with it.



So, uh, yeah. I probably won't be active enough to stay in any type of debate or whatever, which is why I tried to make this post something that I personally wouldn't really need to respond to a response, if that makes sense.

And everyone I know who's circumcised, seems fine with it.

Got it done when I was a child so I don't remember the pain, fortunately.

i thought about it too.

on one hand those who get it usually dont care (im one of them). one thing i can say, i AM curious as to how it feels to not be cirum... ill just say cut.

on the other hand, i dont like the fact that the babies get a choice. then again... if your a coward like me who DOES want to get circum cut it would be more cruel to not do it as a baby lol.

then i realised something... there are so many more important "issues" to be solved in this world. when being cut will be the worst problem then it will be the time to have this argument.

You guys and girls realize that babies may not even feel the pain due to local anesthesia or other means, right? I don't know if that's typically done with or without anesthesia, but there are topicals that you can use. It can't be painful if you can't feel pain.

What if an infant has a congenital anomaly that keeps one of their testicles from descending?

You guys and girls realize that babies may not even feel the pain due to local anesthesia or other means, right? I don't know if that's typically done with or without anesthesia, but there are topicals that you can use. It can't be painful if you can't feel pain.

the testicle requires a lower temperature to more or less survive... if left undescended the extra body heat basically kills parts or all of it and the left over stuff has an extra predisposition to turn into something that's not very nice and more on the malignant side of things later in life. It's not an emergency like testicular torsion is, but it does have it's problems. ....I think the most likely tumor flavor is seminoma in this case?

The parallel here is that the foreskin predisposes an individual to acquiring certain pathological states simply by being intact. Sometimes if damaged or for other idiopathic reasons the foreskin can contract. If the foreskin is retracted at the time of incident then paraphimosis represents... and it's basically like tying a rubber band on the penis b/c it gets so tight... and it may do so when in the normal position which would make retraction almost impossible. I guess the verdict changes with each person, but having a foreskin DOES add extra risk. I guess whether or not you want to be prophylactic about that kind of thing depends on whoever is making the decisions at the time.

on a pseudo related note, I think in some parts of Kenya you're not considered a man until you've grown to a certain and and circumsized yourself without any pain killers or help

No, Moe. Just no. Let me demonstrate

The parallel here is that the foreskin predisposes an individual to acquiring certain pathological states simply by being intact. Sometimes if damaged or for other idiopathic reasons the foreskin can contract. If the foreskin is retracted at the time of incident then paraphimosis represents... and it's basically like tying a rubber band on the penis b/c it gets so tight... and it may do so when in the normal position which would make retraction almost impossible. I guess the verdict changes with each person, but having a foreskin DOES add extra risk. I guess whether or not you want to be prophylactic about that kind of thing depends on whoever is making the decisions at the time.

that's partially it, but I think it starts to differ from the rest of the body when the overall use of said part is basically pointless. All structures and functions are kept intact without loss of anything but the foreskin itself. It's almost vestigial is the angle that some would argue

I think you mean "... many uncircumcised males..."

From what I know, a very small percentage of circumcised males have any problem with it

on a pseudo related note, I think in some parts of Kenya you're not considered a man until you've grown to a certain and and circumsized yourself without any pain killers or help

Basically I agree with what Mage wrote. My opinion on the topic is that being circumcised or not has no net influence on someone's health. There might be minor advantages or disadvantages to each side, but they're minor, and cancel each other out. Medical circumcisions, if there is any case where it actually makes sense, are no problem as long as it is performed under standard procedures, what with hygiene and all that.

Haha! That just totally made my day.

that's partially it, but I think it starts to differ from the rest of the body when the overall use of said part is basically pointless. All structures and functions are kept intact without loss of anything but the foreskin itself. It's almost vestigial is the angle that some would argue

That's true. But the appendix isn't vestigial. It functions to aid in the development of the immune system. We could probably take that and the adenoid tonsils out without ever noticing them... but they do actively work to develop and bolster the immune system.

If we could prove that there weren't any cons to the removal of the structures mentioned, then you could make an argument to remove them early so that the people in question never have to risk getting those conditions...

Okay wait so how many circumcised males here wish they were uncircumcised? I'm just asking how many people feel betrayed by their parents because they made a decision for them.
That is precisely what parents are for. Making decisions for a being that is incapable of rational thought. And even then there are parents who aren't capable of that either, but that's a whole 'nother rodeo.
There is no "right" or "wrong" for this topic, I think. Just take your opinions and apply them to your own children if you decide to have them. You're doing what you think is best for the child, and you can't be blamed for doing that.