If my wife were permanently disfigured by something, or grew a hump on her back, it wouldn't matter to me.
They also do not recommend AGAINST it either. They specifically state that Parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child through accurate and unbiased information. It states there are benefits and risks.
Not endorsing something is not the same as recommending one does NOT do it. It simply is stating the the AAP views the risk and benefit for doing such an activity as something that parents are best suited to decide is not something they recommend against doing nor recommend to do.
It also notes that it was in 1989 that they shifted from recommending against it to actually recommending that parents DO take the time to make a decision, and that both decisions have legitimate reasons for doing so. They point out that studies on urinary tract infection and STD/AIDS show benefits in those that were circumsized, but also notes that there are risks to it as well.
So the AAP's policy seems to not be recommending against it. Their policy appears to be that there are legitimate reasons, including medical reasons, to do it and not to do it and parents should weigh those reasons from non-biased sources and make the choice themselves.
AAP's 1999 Circumcision Task Force
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Is what you're living for today, worth dying for tomorrow?
Indeed. People who have cultural traditions, even ones that include mutilation, tend to think nothing is wrong with their cultural traditions. But people outside of those traditions, like most of the rest of the world and more than a 1/4 of the people in the US, it most certainly IS mutilation.Oh, I see. So in U.S. its not considered it, but in the other countries it IS. Not considered, but IS.
It DOES fit the definition. You showed us all that yourself.Well, naturally, because other cultures think its mutilation despite it not fitting the definition well it must be!
It would decrease the likelihood of pain, discomfort, or infection under the clitoral hood. Exactly the same as the hood of the penis.I honestly can't speak on that. Does it provide any proven benefit outside of potentially looks? Does it have any significant chance of reducing sensation or use in anything more than an anecdotal way? Does it open up the area for any greater chance of infection or other issues?
Uh huh. Let's cut off body parts because we're too lazy to wash them. EXCELLENT idea! In fact, let's not just do it to our OWN bodies, let's do it to our children's bodies who have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever. Marvelous.Circumsizing the penis helps with hygine so it has a tangable benefit. No credible study I've seen or heard from confirms that it has a significant chance of causing any actual reduction of stimulation or sensation. It does not raise ones chances to my knowledge of having any other medical issues involving the penis.
Disgusting. Not going to "begrudge" someone for cutting off parts of their infant's bodies.If its like that, then no I wouldn't have a problem if people wanted to do it. I wouldn't do it to my children because the health benefit is obviously not worth while enough for it to become common practice and the looks of it would actually make them appear odd because it'd be so outside the norm. But if it had absolutely no impact on the way in which it function in all facets of its use, gave rise to no possible further medical issues, and had some kind of tangible benefit I'd not begrudge someone having it done to their baby. That said, I don't think those are true in the case you state but perhaps I'm wrong.
Well, if you didn't have the balls to do it when you were old enough to make the decision yourself, then that would be your problem. There's no way to know that a child is going to want to have it done, and the procedure is irreversible. As such, the child should be the one to decide, not his parents. Parents should not have the right to forceably remove parts of their children's bodies for reasons that do not inhibit or threaten their child's life.Not really. I'll tell you personally I'm damn happy my parents did it, because the fear and apprehension I have for needles and surgery...let alone down there...would probably keep me from doing it at an older age while at the same time being upset that I don't have it done. Having it done at a baby was the best option, as I had it done and I have no memory what so ever.
"Don't knock it til you try it".
-John & Lorena Bobbet
Think if Trump get elected how much resistance he will face with in all phases of our country from people to military to politicians. He must not win.
I'm not going to get involved in a discussion of 'aesthetics.'
What I will say about circumcision is that I've never had a male friend, either gay or straight, complain to me that he was circumcised against his will. Not once. I've never personally met any circumcised man who's confided to me that he misses his foreskin. Not one.
Except a few very outspoken and opinionated folks on message boards.