IT IS IMPORTANT THAT HE RESEMBLE HIS FATHER OR HIS PEERS:
This is another argument supposedly to consider in circumcision.
Would this argument be a valid reason in favor of female
circumcision in Africa where it is still very prevalent?
Most of the males over 50, the fathers of current fathers, were
never circumcised. Why was not this reason important when most
males were intact? Or is it valid only when it supports
circumcision? Why is this reason seldom given in countries such
as Canada where the circumcision rate has rapidly declined and
where most males are intact? If valid, circumcision should have
reached zero level in Canada years ago.
Circumcision was once prevalent in Britain however, it declined
rapidly in a few years. Why was this logic not important to
British males, but somehow very important to American males?
Should not outmoded forms of medical treatment be discontinued
when there are no valid medical reasons for them?
Is not circumcision of an infant male in reality of greater
importance to the father, who because he was a victim, wishes to
deprive his son of something he himself was denied? Do fathers
and son regularly share their penises making similarities
important? What about baldness which is dominant in males? Is
it not likewise important if the father becomes bald, his son
should also shave his head? If resembling one's peers is so
important, why do many males seek hair restoration or purchase
hair pieces when most males have some sort of baldness? Seeking
hair restoration hardly supports the theory that males need to
appear similar in order to achieve emotional satisfaction.
Rather it supports the argument of retaining one's normal body
features as long as possible. If a visual comparison, such as
hair color, lack of hair, etc. is not important, then why would
non-visible resemblances have such great importance?
Why should any male
be subjected to the amputation of a part of his body which in all
likelihood may never pose a single problem during his entire
lifetime?
Do parents really have the right to amputate a normal, healthy
part of a non-consenting individual just because this organ may
someday present a problem? If so, how far does this rationale
extend? Just the foreskin?
From
http://www.cirp.org/pages/riley/disease ...a FANTASTIC bit of reading about circumcision which debunks many common pro-cir myths.
For more on impotency, please see the following studies:
Impotence and adult circumcision. Stinson JM. Journal of the National Medical Association 1973;65:161,179.
Impotence following anesthesia for elective circumcision. Palmer JM, Link D. Journal of the American Medical Association 1979;241:2635-2636.
There are literally
hundreds of medical journal articles documenting the complications of circumcision!
Prevalence of impotence in American men: 30 million. (~10%) This is a JAMA statistic. You can look it up on google if you want.
Another GREAT site, simply and eloquently worded:
http://www.oil.ca/~dkettle/opinion.htm
Also, contemplate the fact that Viagra was developed in the US, and is hugely popular here.