If you had kids...

---

I think some people forget that when they enter a forum on "Forskin and Circumcision Issues", and enter a thread about parenting, that circumcision issues are going to be the topic of discussion. Of course people care if children are getting the recommended immunizations, but that's not what this thread is about. Of course circumcision is not on the same scale of importance as world peace or even what I ate for breakfast, but again it is what this thread is about. So if anything is counterproductive, it's when people drop in to say how dumb a conversation is and not be willing to intelligently discuss their prospective (Twiz). It is important, for the people that here to discuss and get feedback on parenting preferences regarding circumcision.

No I wouldn't. In my opinion it's an obscene thing to do.Although, I may cut their arms off - I hear that cures boys masturbating...

wow another thread where its just people arguing the case for and against and no one ever is convinced otherwise - its like a "is there a god" thread sighnot directed at anyone in particular btw!

Oh don't worry, we proved that God doesn't exist. If he did then we wouldn't have to circumcise anyone, we would be perfect from the day we were born.

Not everybody who reads threads like this post to them. In fact, generally, the people who do post are the people with the most polarized opinions. The folks in between are the ones who might be given something to think about.It was only a few years ago that I even gave the issue much thought. I you asked me at age 25 what I thought about circumcision, I'd probably have shrugged my shoulders.

In reply to:As parents they have many many choice to make about the life they are bring into this world. And if a boy one of the choices would be weather to ciircumise him or not. Do we really dount that the parents best interest is at heart if they make this choice for theeir new born son. When parents have their kid circumsized because of "routine" or "to look like father", then I don't think they are truly considering the childs best interests.In reply to:I know of peeople who have had kids but have never given them the injections they are required to protect them against disease etc. Are we too doubt that these parents dont have their childs best interest at heart. These new borns rely on their parents to protect them for the first 18 or so year of their life until they leave home and live on their own.If the parents didn't get them the shots to protect them from such ddangerous diseases, then yes I'd say their not having the childs best interest's at heart.In reply to:Just as newborns can't choice wheather they want to be cut or not - they also can't choose as to weather they want the injections that protect them from life threating dieases in future life. Just about every school I've seen MAKES the parents get the child a shot otherwise they can't attend school. Now either that kid gets home school or he/she just gets no education.

Just about every school I've seen MAKES the parents get the child a shot otherwise they can't attend school. Now either that kid gets home school or he/she just gets no education. I'm not sure about that. I think I've read this in my kids school packets but i'm not 100% sure because I've always just glossed over the stuff. The schools insist that all the shots are up to date, but I believe the parents can sign a waiver to bypass this requirement.

I think is more of a religeous thing or if you're one of those weirdos who thinks that immunizations are bad for you. Then you can waive the requirement, but not if you're just lazy to go get the shot.

I knew a couple like that, but the enrolled their kids in a Waldorf (private) school, which the mother had once taught at. They were into Rudolf Stener's anthroposophic philosophy. Their ideas on "religious science" led to their not gettintg their kids immunized. They would not buy the "worthwhile risk" or "for the common good" arguments.

I never once in school had to get a shot!

No duhhh, you don't get the shot at the school, but at the doctors office.

The school never forced me to get one! I'm pretty sure that was inplied in my last post.

Because your immunizations were probably up to date. If they weren't, you'd get be required to do so.

I think your wrong SDP, or atleast here in Utah thta doesnt work.
my kids have ahd all thier shots, but when I forst got custoedy from teh ex she refused to give me thier shit.
The school demanded a copy of it since I was registerig him here just a week before school started and they wouldnt have his records from teh other school for a bit they jsut wanted to see it.
they were not going to let him attend school even though he was enrolled until they got it.
It took a phone cal from the judge to the lawyer to her to get the records so he could go no waiver was mentioned they were flat ass noft going to let him

He lives in Canada. It sounds like Canada is something like the Ozarks, where Jed makes sure Granny gives you the right possum parts to keep you from getting sick.

Yes, you're right. I checked my little yellow card. I have a few more shots to go and then i'll be fully immune. There is one shot that i'm not allowed to get untill i'm 26 or 21 around there. Why tho?

The foreskin serves a purpose during intercourse, it has been argued.Not that i want to debate this, you normally have your shit pretty straight, but what purpose does it serve during intercourse that an circumcised one cant perform?maybe Im being simple minded, but I cant see what purpose it has during sex ? I mean other then the sensativity issue.Im genuinely currious what the hell Im missing.

CIRP.org is a bit proagandistic, but they list some reasons, along with references (see the last four items under "The foreskin has twelve known functions.")Someone also claimed here a while back that the foreskin plays a part in helping to maintain a woman's lubrication.I'm having a hard time finding scientific (rather than advocacy) sites on the subject. Maybe someone else around here can fill in the blanks.

well I guess I can see it, I dont have any troule wiht the issues they descibed as far as sex. Im not sure how much trust Id put into that site though, it state teh 12 functions of the foreskin. while i can see it being a benifit that it protects the babys tender skin and staves off infections from urine and fecal matter inteh diaper, clothes are not natural, at one time noone wore them, they are man made and not a natural thing so you cant really say it was designed to do that ina diaper, a side benifit ? bet your ass, Ill buy that, maybe im jsut being picky about wording too, I jsut have a hard time entirely trusting a site that is partial to one side or another of an argument.I cant see how it helps in penatration either, i was cut all those years ago and its never once stopped me from penatrating.

clothes are not naturalThat is exactly what I was thinking. I guess they weren't just talking about natural things.> penetrationIt's hard for me to understand how a lubricated woman would have much resistance to an erect penis of either persuasion. Whatever the reasons, they need to be better than that.