Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Arguments pro circumcision

315 bytes added, 15:41, 21 May 2015
Trivializing arguments: comparison with fingernails
*: All published [[It´s A Boy!|circumcision videos]] show that those who are circumcised without adequate anaesthetic treatment (anaesthesia or anaesthetic), suffer immense pain. Infants fall regularly in shock as a reaction to the pain, when being circumcised without effective anaestesia. This shock is often misinterpreted and the parents believe that their baby would have simply slept through.
*: Actually, in some traditional ritual forms of [[circumcision]] not only the outer [[foreskin]]} is cut up or off, but rather even the (inner) foreskin is torn down. The comparison with pulling off a patch is safe only from the point of view of the person who tear down the patch or the [[foreskin]], but not from the point of view of the child who suffers the pain. It is at least not a single case known in which a [[mohel]] fell in shock after [[circumcision]], while it is regularely in only a few days old boys. Therefore, this comparison is more than cynical.
*: The [[foreskin]] of an infant firstly is connected with the [[Glans penis|glans]] and thus serves to protect it from everything. One can compare the state of the physiological connection between internal [[foreskin]] and [[Glans penis|glans]] with the way how fingernails are connected to the underlying tissue.
* '''"Babies feel no pain yet, therefore should be circumcised at an early stage."'''
administrator, administrators, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators
22,335
edits

Navigation menu