I absolutely will not...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Hello all. I briefly skimmed today's posts and didn't see this mentioned so here it is. In today's Chicago Sun Times there was an article titled "Dad sues to block ex-wife from having son, 8, circumcised". In a nutshell the father wants to prevent the boys Mom from "mutilating the boy". The mother wants to have the boy circumcised due to recurrent infections. The divorce decree gives the father "input" on major medical decisions. Some related statistics are mentioned: 1.12million American baby boys were circumcised in 2003. Statistics show that in the last 10 years the percentage of circumsicions has been dropping (2003 55.9% down from a high of 64.7% in 1980). Just some food for thought. You sure did create a monster with this one, Doula. 😀
 
MahlerROCKS said:
Have YOU ever had an uncut penis in your mouth?
👍 👍

A perfectly valid question that I think everyone frequenting this thread should answer! Enquiring minds want to know! :laugh:
 
MirrorTodd said:
I don't get this statement. Is it an insult? What is my sexual orientation? Should I have been teased about being straight? Why is it obvious? 😕

Sorry, didn't come out right. Not an insult at all.

I think it was something about the fact that if somebody is teasing about you being uncut, you can always just call them gay *for noticing your penis* and that's the worst insult there is. Seemed a little callous although I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

My bad 😳
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
browniegirl86 said:
Sorry, didn't come out right. Not an insult at all.

I think it was something about the fact that if somebody is teasing about you being uncut, you can always just call them gay *for noticing your penis* and that's the worst insult there is. Seemed a little callous although I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

My bad 😳
I don't think that it is the worst insult there is because it is used so frequently among teenagers. It seems to me that there is a large difference between "noticing" someone's penis and looking long enough to confirm an uncut one. IDK if this makes me a homophobe but it would make me uncomfortable knowing that some dude was looking at my package. WOW talk about a tangent. 😀
 
MirrorTodd said:
I don't think that it is the worst insult there is because it is used so frequently among teenagers. It seems to me that there is a large difference between "noticing" someone's penis and looking long enough to confirm an uncut one. IDK if this makes me a homophobe but it would make me uncomfortable knowing that some dude was looking at my package. WOW talk about a tangent. 😀

We're all getting to know each other so well! 😛
 
I'm cut and proud of it. I think my parents did me a favor by circumsizing me as a baby since it would really hurt if I did it myself later in life. Luckily, we don't remember what happened to us as babies.

Personally I think that circumsized men have greater sensitivity since the head of the penis is the most sensitive area and it is covered by a thick layer of skin in an uncircumsized individual. When you are circumsized, the head of the penis is free to roam around. Plus, it does look a lot cooler. Those uncircumsized guys look ugly in my opinion. But I am Jewish so I am biased. 😉

If some of you don't want to circumsize a patient, I'll do it for you. Also I would just do what the mother and father want and not push them either way.
 
yanky5 said:
Personally I think that circumsized men have greater sensitivity since the head of the penis is the most sensitive area and it is covered by a thick layer of skin in an uncircumsized individual. When you are circumsized, the head of the penis is free to roam around. Plus, it does look a lot cooler. Those uncircumsized guys look ugly in my opinion. But I am Jewish so I am biased. 😉

"thick layer of skin"???? :idea:
 
Psycho Doctor said:
admit it...that's what you had in mind when you started this thread! 😛

Dang, I had no idea that my first thread here would be such a doozy! LOL I have to admit this is probably the most civil discussion I've ever seen online about circ (including abortion and cosmetic surgery and everything else).
 
yanky5 said:
I'm cut and proud of it. I think my parents did me a favor by circumsizing me as a baby since it would really hurt if I did it myself later in life. Luckily, we don't remember what happened to us as babies.

Personally I think that circumsized men have greater sensitivity since the head of the penis is the most sensitive area and it is covered by a thick layer of skin in an uncircumsized individual. When you are circumsized, the head of the penis is free to roam around. Plus, it does look a lot cooler. Those uncircumsized guys look ugly in my opinion. But I am Jewish so I am biased. 😉

If some of you don't want to circumsize a patient, I'll do it for you. Also I would just do what the mother and father want and not push them either way.

It's the opposite. The foreskin retracts when the penis is erect, exposing the head. Circumcized men have a thick extra layer of keratinized skin on their head. Also, the foreskin itself has lots of erogenous tissue and circumcision usually also removes part or sometimes even all of the frenulum, the sensitive band of skin connecting the foreskin to the penis.

So no, uncircumcized penises are usually much more sensitive.
 
I agree with Beetlerum!

The circumcized penis develops a hard keratinized layer of skin on its top. Uncirc'd penises are softer due to the normal, protective and retractable foreskin. Furthermore, due to the exposure, circ'd penises are LESS sensitive. Any sensory nerves in the tip have been turned off due to overstimulation in the early years. Consequently, men who are circ'd have less sensation. Uncirc'd men have more sensation due to the protective and natural presence of the foreskin, which maintains the tip of the penis in its normal, soft state. Thus, the nerves are preserved and not dulled as in circ'd men.

Finally, it is really sad that the myth about circumcision is perpetuated today. The only reason that the practice was initiated was in an attempt to curb masturbation in teenage boys. But, studies have shown (do the search yourself!) that circ'd boys masturbate a lot earlier than does who are not. Clinically, there is no reason for circumcision. Generally, the parents , and particularly the father, want to have their sons circ'd so that the sons will now 'look' like their dads! That's really sad. Interestingly, the educated population are now turning away from circumcision since there is no reason for it!

And honestly, it doesn't help to be circ'd in sex, either. Why do you think US men are not glorified as great lovers, while the French, Italian, Spanish among other uncirc'd internationals are? Think about it! 😉
 
Alright. If I ever have a son, which is becoming less likely by the minute, I will not circumcise him.
But I do have to say that the whole "traumatic for the baby" thing is a little dumb because I'm sure the birthing process is as traumatic as things get, plus babies get shots, smacked repeatedly on their little feet, nasty antibiotic cream smeared all over their eyes, exposed to cold for the first time, etc etc and I doubt one more perineo natal procedure is that traumatic. What, are they claiming that if they don't circumcise, men will grown up more emotionally sound and lead happier, more productive lives? PLEASE.

Like I always say, you can wish in one hand and **** in the other, and see which gets filled up first.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
superman1969 said:
But, studies have shown (do the search yourself!) that circ'd boys masturbate a lot earlier than does who are not.


so maybe uncirc'd boys are prudish?
 
MirrorTodd said:
It seems to me that there is a large difference between "noticing" someone's penis and looking long enough to confirm an uncut one.

I dunno, seems to me it would only take a glance 😛
 
Time to awaken the dead with...

Circumcision may stop millions of HIV deaths
Significantly lower infection rate among circumcised men, WHO report finds
Reuters


Updated: 8:17 a.m. ET July 11, 2006
WASHINGTON - Circumcising men routinely across Africa could prevent millions of deaths from AIDS, World Health Organization researchers and colleagues reported Monday.

They analyzed data from trials that showed men who had been circumcised had a significantly lower risk of infection with the AIDS virus, and calculated that if all men were circumcised over the next 10 years, some two million new infections and around 300,000 deaths could be avoided.

Researchers believe circumcision helps cut infection risk because the foreskin is covered in cells the virus seems able to easily infect. The virus may also survive better in a warm, wet environment like that found beneath a foreskin.

So if men were circumcised, fewer would become infected and thus could not infect their female partners.

The human immunodeficiency virus or HIV, which causes AIDS, now infects close to 40 million people and has killed another 25 million. It mostly affects sub-Saharan Africa and the main mode of transmission is sex between a man and a woman.


Several studies have suggested that men who are circumcised have a lower rate of HIV infection. This has been especially noticeable in some parts of Africa, where some groups are routinely circumcised while neighboring groups are not.

Last year, Dr. Bertran Auvert of the French National Research Agency INSERM and colleagues at WHO found that circumcised men in South Africa were 65 percent less likely to become infected with the deadly and incurable virus.

His team then did an analysis to see what would happen if all African men were circumcised.

“In West Africa, male circumcision is common and the prevalence of HIV is low, while in southern Africa the reverse is true,” they wrote in the current report, published in the Public Library of Science Medicine.

“This analysis shows that male circumcision could avert nearly six million new infections and save three million lives in sub-Saharan Africa over the next twenty years,” they wrote.

Overall, they project that universal male circumcision would reduce the rate of infections by about 37 percent.

“Male circumcision alone cannot bring the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa under control. Even circumcised men can become infected, though their risk of doing so is much lower,” the journal cautioned in a commentary.

Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13812938/wid/11915773?GT1=8307
 
to the poster above - I repeat...there is NO evidence that the circumcision must take place while the male is an infant. Why not wait until the infant is an adult so that he can make the decision himself?

Also, the resources necessary to implement a program of circumsision would be better spent on programs teaching condom use. I still am not persuaded that there is any medical reason to do this on an infant.
 
There's no way I'm actually going to read it all to verify, but I have to ask: did you all really keep a thread about circumcision pro. vs. con going for 19 pages?

I'm impressed. Even the affirmative action pundits usually peter off after about 10 pages...
 
I would *dislike* performing sex changes or castration. I would do them if there was a legitimate reason, however.
 
LifetimeDoc said:
Please stop unnecessarily mutilating young male babies over dubious procedures, especially since it's irreversible (at least without huge expense) and something the child has no choice in.

true that. i have two uncircumcised sons (and one un-c husband). If they feel they owe it to their wife to have it done, they can have it done in adulthood under anesthesia. Meanwhile, I won't be removing an body parts for them unless it's really necessary. I've gotta say, they don't circumcise in places like Asia like they do/did here (down to 50% these days in the US) and I don't see women dropping off like flies. I think it's fine to do it for religious reasons, but the medical evidence isn't strong enough to support INFANT circumcision. Let men decide for themselves: their body, their choice!
 
TCIrish03 said:
How does that have anything to do with what he said?

Both are religious ceremonies imposed on the baby by the parent. If he is against doing something the baby has no say in, that would seem to apply to baptism also.
 
SalseraDoctora said:
I assume you are also against baptism then?

Baptism is something a baby also has no choice in. I was just making the point that if LifetimeDoc thinks the baby should not have anything done to it that it has no choice in, that would apply to baptising a child also.


what are you baptising with: acid? baptism generally doesn't mutilate. To perhaps more accurately address your point: baptism is a promise by the parents to raise the child Christian, not anything the baby itself is committing to. at least for Catholicism that's how it works. I suppose if the baby were to go on to be a Satanist it might need to have the baptism reversed or something...
 
Wonderfully put.

MiesVanDerMom said:
true that. i have two uncircumcised sons (and one un-c husband). If they feel they owe it to their wife to have it done, they can have it done in adulthood under anesthesia. Meanwhile, I won't be removing an body parts for them unless it's really necessary. I've gotta say, they don't circumcise in places like Asia like they do/did here (down to 50% these days in the US) and I don't see women dropping off like flies. I think it's fine to do it for religious reasons, but the medical evidence isn't strong enough to support INFANT circumcision. Let men decide for themselves: their body, their choice!
 
Doula-2-OB said:
Is there anything that you absolutely will not do? For me, it's circumcision. I absolutely refuse 100% to do this surgery on a newborn without a medical reason,

Please reconsider.

I'm glad the powers-at-be did me right in 1964.
 
Okay, to answer the original question: what will you refuse to do? I would refuse to do an abortion unless the mother's life was at risk, infant circumcision, and elective c-sections (women are now choosing to have c-sections to avoid the pain of childbirth. how unethical is this? OB in this country is so screwed up). I wouldn't particularly encourage genetic testing, most vaccinations, and artificial birth control, but that's up to the individual patient. Looks like I'm a big weirdo. 👍 Catholic anarcho-feminists of the world unite!
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
MiesVanDerMom said:
Okay, to answer the original question: what will you refuse to do? I would refuse to do an abortion unless the mother's life was at risk, infant circumcision, and elective c-sections (women are now choosing to have c-sections to avoid the pain of childbirth. how unethical is this? OB in this country is so screwed up). I wouldn't particularly encourage genetic testing, most vaccinations, and artificial birth control, but that's up to the individual patient. Looks like I'm a big weirdo. 👍 Catholic anarcho-feminists of the world unite!

i am not trying to make you mad. just curious. why do you think it is unethical? where is the pain management line to be drawn? i mean, that is a very important part of our profession.
 
MiesVanDerMom said:
Okay, to answer the original question: what will you refuse to do? I would refuse to do an abortion unless the mother's life was at risk, infant circumcision, and elective c-sections (women are now choosing to have c-sections to avoid the pain of childbirth. how unethical is this? OB in this country is so screwed up). I wouldn't particularly encourage genetic testing, most vaccinations, and artificial birth control, but that's up to the individual patient. Looks like I'm a big weirdo. 👍 Catholic anarcho-feminists of the world unite!

smile_198.gif


so, i really don't get why you would not encourage vaccinations. they have saved millions. their impact on public health has been enormous.
 
MiesVanDerMom said:
Okay, to answer the original question: what will you refuse to do? I would refuse to do an abortion unless the mother's life was at risk, infant circumcision, and elective c-sections (women are now choosing to have c-sections to avoid the pain of childbirth. how unethical is this? OB in this country is so screwed up). I wouldn't particularly encourage genetic testing, most vaccinations, and artificial birth control, but that's up to the individual patient. Looks like I'm a big weirdo. 👍 Catholic anarcho-feminists of the world unite!
you're against vaccinations? what is your rationale against the rest (in particular genetics and such). is it a higher belief in faith?
 
Callogician said:
I am circumcised, and I have suffered significant negative consequences as a result: less sexual pleasure (known via talking with uncircumcised friends) and chronic problems with chaffing and irritation while running. I didn't do proper research, but the benefits of circumcision mentioned in this thread seem negligible by comparison.

I'm not sure whether or not I could in good conscience perform a circumcision, but I think that the parental consent argument is BS.

In India, there used to be reports of clitorectomies performed on young females to reduce their sexual pleasure to reduce the risk of infidelity. Undoubtedly, the parents in this case are exercising their fiduciary responsibility to make the best health decisions for their child in the context of their unique beliefs. However, when a procedure is patently unnecessary and/or harmful, the desires of the parent are subordinate.

By the way, I have no problem killing babies/old people or any of that other stuff.

In response to Panda Bear: The soul does not enter the zygote at the moment of conception. There is no soul. There is no God. The evidence overwhelmingly and unambiguously supports my position. If you dare to debate with me, I will lead you into a world of contradictions, demonstrating clearly that your belifs are absurd and the predictable result of bad philosophical methodology.


Please, lead me into this world of contradictions, guiding me on the path of light in order that I may see that all of my beliefs are absurd. I won't be satisfied until you enlighten me and show me how my beliefs are the result of a bad philosophical methodology.. I really do want to see this..
And, after you lead me into this world of self deception, please enlighten me yet another time and explain to me as to how exactly you measured or gauged sexual pleasure when you compared yourself to your uncircumcised friends? That is like trying to compare something like pain between 2 people.Keep in mind the fact that everyone is unique, including their thresholds for pain. What may be excruciating pain for an one person may be moderate pain for a another. On the same note, how do you come to the conclusion of decreased sexual pleasure in comparison to your friends. I am sure a lot of sexual pleasure is neurological as well as physical. The only legitimate way I can propose in gauging a comparison of sexual pleasure would be if you were uncircumcised, engaged in your sexual activity of your particular sexual orientation, went and had surgery to be circumcised, and engaged again in the previous sexual activities. Even if one were to do this, how can they prove their findings? So, please, explain to me how you compare yourself to your friends, and only by talking to them. Thanks, I am looking forward to a response.
 
MiesVanDerMom said:
Okay, to answer the original question: what will you refuse to do? I would refuse to do an abortion unless the mother's life was at risk, infant circumcision, and elective c-sections (women are now choosing to have c-sections to avoid the pain of childbirth. how unethical is this? OB in this country is so screwed up). I wouldn't particularly encourage genetic testing, most vaccinations, and artificial birth control, but that's up to the individual patient. Looks like I'm a big weirdo. 👍 Catholic anarcho-feminists of the world unite!
You are against vaccinations....and you want to be a doctor? Did you learn ANYTHING in your pre-med classes? You might want to review the material on viruses.
 
MiesVanDerMom said:
Okay, to answer the original question: what will you refuse to do? I would refuse to do an abortion unless the mother's life was at risk, infant circumcision, and elective c-sections (women are now choosing to have c-sections to avoid the pain of childbirth. how unethical is this? OB in this country is so screwed up). I wouldn't particularly encourage genetic testing, most vaccinations, and artificial birth control, but that's up to the individual patient. Looks like I'm a big weirdo. 👍 Catholic anarcho-feminists of the world unite!

Would you discourage genetic testing, vaccinations, and artificial birth control? If so, would it be on the grounds of harm possibly caused to the patient because of these services? I am not trying to pick on you, just understand the thought process behind this. I can see discouraging elective C-sections because they do cause more harm to the mothers than natural birth, under ordinary circumstances, and my feeling about being an MD is that your job is to improve the overall health of the patient. But if studies show that circumcision does cut down (no pun intended) on risk of HIV infection both for circumcised males and their sexual partners, and vaccinations do prevent disease, why are you against them? Or do you just think that those studies aren't trustworthy enough to believe in?

What would it take by the way of scientific proof for you to change your mind about circumcision and vaccinations?
 
jota_jota said:
You are against vaccinations....and you want to be a doctor? Did you learn ANYTHING in your pre-med classes? You might want to review the material on viruses.


:laugh: I believe germs are caused by evil spirits. Let me into med school!
 
LifetimeDoc said:
So snip off both his prepuce and his auricle, then you wouldn't have to remind him to clean them both! :laugh:

The ears are self-cleaning (provided you don't roll around in mud and goo). The cerumen has an antibacterial nature, whereas the cheese in the turtleneck can lead to festering.

My husband is circumcised and has NO problems with sensation. Those who are circumcised that claim they have less sensation - how do they REALLY know?

It's a personal choice, and I highly doubt there is any emotional scarring from infancy. What about cutting off extra toes/fingers? Is that wrong, too? What about hideous birthmarks? Is it wrong to correct them as well.

We can go back and forth about this issue, and other issues the OP loves to bring up, but the fact of the matter is that it's a personal choice for parents to make, and it will never change.

Deal with it or go into a different specialty.
 
megboo said:
It's a personal choice, and I highly doubt there is any emotional scarring from infancy. What about cutting off extra toes/fingers? Is that wrong, too?

I'm still angry at my parents for cutting off my unicorn horn. Sure, it would have made it more awkward to get through doors (not to mention airport security!), but it was *my* horn! I've heard from speaking to my horned friends that de-horned males receive less pleasure in the stables...I mean bedroom! It isn't fair! :laugh:
 
Rafa said:
I'm still angry at my parents for cutting off my unicorn horn. Sure, it would have made it more awkward to get through doors (not to mention airport security!), but it was *my* horn! I've heard from speaking to my horned friends that de-horned males receive less pleasure in the stables...I mean bedroom! It isn't fair! :laugh:

Plus a horn would make for better head-butting (ah, Zidane...). By not having that horn, you are at a competitive disadvantage with other males in the arena, making it much harder to impress females and find a mate... Really, the horn-removal ruined your entire life... :laugh:
 
MiesVanDerMom said:
Okay, to answer the original question: what will you refuse to do? I would refuse to do an abortion unless the mother's life was at risk, infant circumcision, and elective c-sections (women are now choosing to have c-sections to avoid the pain of childbirth. how unethical is this? OB in this country is so screwed up). I wouldn't particularly encourage genetic testing, most vaccinations, and artificial birth control, but that's up to the individual patient. Looks like I'm a big weirdo. 👍 Catholic anarcho-feminists of the world unite!

The Catholic church isn't against circumcision, elective c-sections, genetic testing, and vaccinations. Of course, they are against abortion and birth control.

I would do all except abortion. Having been through one myself, I know what one will go through and the consequences of it. Plus, it's a life, and I've found it's a horrible mistake to do it. Genetic testing can be very helpful, especially if the parents will have a special needs baby. They can prepare for that a little better prior to birth. Vaccinations - well, come on! How many have you had and are you dying from diptheria, mumps, rubella, polio, etc?

Elective c-sections are just that - a choice by the mother. It affects no one but the mom. Children who are born via c-section develop just as well as through natural birth. I'm not having kids until I get into residency and if I can schedule my delivery for a convenient time, you better believe I'm going to do it, unless the baby comes earlier. You can throw ethics at me all day long, but if the baby will be healthy and my job will be easier, then so be it. It's the benefit of modern medicine and being a woman.

I would think if you were an anarcho-feminist, you would be FOR elective c-sections!

Good lord! If what we're arguing about it mostly elective stuff, why do you care what other people do? Ok, if you're a physician and have a request for it, you can not do it and recommend someone else. Not that hard!

Seriously, though, this is MEDICINE people. If you want to be an activist and have a long list of things you absolutely WON'T do, then maybe medicine (being a doctor) isn't for you.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
megboo said:
The ears are self-cleaning (provided you don't roll around in mud and goo). The cerumen has an antibacterial nature, whereas the cheese in the turtleneck can lead to festering.

My husband is circumcised and has NO problems with sensation. Those who are circumcised that claim they have less sensation - how do they REALLY know?

It's a personal choice, and I highly doubt there is any emotional scarring from infancy. What about cutting off extra toes/fingers? Is that wrong, too? What about hideous birthmarks? Is it wrong to correct them as well.

We can go back and forth about this issue, and other issues the OP loves to bring up, but the fact of the matter is that it's a personal choice for parents to make, and it will never change.

Deal with it or go into a different specialty.

Circumcision actually removes a pretty significant portion of the really erogenous tissue on the penis. Sure, it is possible that it doesn't affect sensitivity, but I would have to say that the burden is squarely on those who say it has no effect. If it weren't so culturally accepted, everyone would be saying this. I mean, I could argue that female circumcision had no effect on sensation. How would you really know?

A couple other pieces of supporting information: Many men circumcized as adults report greatly reduced sensation. Also, some women say they notice a difference between cut and uncut and I've never heard a woman say she noticed the other way (cut more sensitive).

Not everyone has the same level of sensitivity, among cut or uncut. Some cut men seem to suffer no effects on sensations, while others suffer a lot. Obviously it's hard to tell. Partly it has to do with the way the circumcision is done. Some men loose most of their frenulums, which is one of the most sensitive parts. Others loose almost none. Yet bizarrely there is no standard to, say, minimize the amount removed.

By the way, your finger analogy is obviously flawed. The correct analogy is to remove normal fingers. A foreskin is not an aberration.

One final point, it seems a little contradictory (not really, but close) to say this is a personal choice for parents to make. It is a personal choice. Exactly. Parents don't get to make it. Just like they don't get to decide whether to remove their child's pinky toe or part of the clitoris.
 
beetlerum said:
Circumcision actually removes a pretty significant portion of the really erogenous tissue on the penis. Sure, it is possible that it doesn't affect sensitivity, but I would have to say that the burden is squarely on those who say it has no effect. If it weren't so culturally accepted, everyone would be saying this. I mean, I could argue that female circumcision had no effect on sensation. How would you really know?

A couple other pieces of supporting information: Many men circumcized as adults report greatly reduced sensation. Also, some women say they notice a difference between cut and uncut and I've never heard a woman say she noticed the other way (cut more sensitive).

Not everyone has the same level of sensitivity, among cut or uncut. Some cut men seem to suffer no effects on sensations, while others suffer a lot. Obviously it's hard to tell. Partly it has to do with the way the circumcision is done. Some men loose most of their frenulums, which is one of the most sensitive parts. Others loose almost none. Yet bizarrely there is no standard to, say, minimize the amount removed.

By the way, your finger analogy is obviously flawed. The correct analogy is to remove normal fingers. A foreskin is not an aberration.

One final point, it seems a little contradictory (not really, but close) to say this is a personal choice for parents to make. It is a personal choice. Exactly. Parents don't get to make it. Just like they don't get to decide whether to remove their child's pinky toe or part of the clitoris.

Sorry, I stick with it being a parental personal choice. Like I said before, this is going to be a circular agrument. Some people will be for, some against, and that's they way it will be.
 
MiesVanDerMom said:
Okay, to answer the original question: what will you refuse to do? I would refuse to do an abortion unless the mother's life was at risk, infant circumcision, and elective c-sections (women are now choosing to have c-sections to avoid the pain of childbirth. how unethical is this? OB in this country is so screwed up). I wouldn't particularly encourage genetic testing, most vaccinations, and artificial birth control, but that's up to the individual patient. Looks like I'm a big weirdo. 👍 Catholic anarcho-feminists of the world unite!

uh-oh!
smile_185.gif
 
megboo said:
That's your opinion. Ask Jewish people if the foreskin is an aberration.

Wait, you're saying that it's a matter of opinion whether a foreskin is an aberration? Every male is born with a foreskin. It is by definition not an aberration. Can people who practice female circumcision say that the clitoris is an aberration?