Ban male circumcision. Why or why not?
- Thread starter tony2
- Start date
kazakhan said:
Not acceptable in my view until the child understands that it will be painful, WANTS it done and is old enough to take responsibility for keeping them clean and infection free, anything else is torture and mutilation for the gratification and vanity of the parent. child abuse pure and simple. The child may forget the pain, adults forget the pain, but doesn't mean they don't bloody feel it!
In our paramedics classes we are learning that there are many ways for the body to protect its self from illness, unbroken skin and "good" bactirum being the best and the immune system being the last line of defence. We also learned that every orifice is protected by a mucus that the "good" bactirum live in and that shields the body from the "bad". The foreskin helps keep the operning (sorry i cant think of the atomical name right now) at the end of the penus coverd in that moist mucus and when you remove it is more likly to dry out and stop being as effective a protection to the "bugs"
Facial
Valued Senior Member
kazakhan said:Have you been drinking :bugeye:
I have no idea why my father was circumcised last week, I haven't had the chance to ask him.
I don't drink. Your entire sentence read :
The grammar is completely messed up, but if I interpreted the first part correctly, it still makes an implicit reference that your father had done something. Done what? That's what I asked.
Maybe that's just sarcasm. Perhaps you meant to say:
I was circumcised soon after birth as are all male members of my paternal line back as far as anyone can remember. Seems to work fine for me. There was hardly any bleeding, it healed without the slightest problem, and the thing works as well as any other wanger in the world.
Now my uncle on my mother's side was not circumcised. Despite good hygine, he began to get nasty infections there every few years. Eventually, about ten years back, he had to have his foreskin removed at the age of 45. It took many stitches, a couple weeks of topical and ingested antibiotics, and some time with a catheder. I am glad I had mine done already.
Now my uncle on my mother's side was not circumcised. Despite good hygine, he began to get nasty infections there every few years. Eventually, about ten years back, he had to have his foreskin removed at the age of 45. It took many stitches, a couple weeks of topical and ingested antibiotics, and some time with a catheder. I am glad I had mine done already.
again clockwork, the mucus below the for skin is there to provide a protection from infection. For christ sake one isolated example doesnt change the fact that if it didnt serve a purpose nature wouldnt have PUT it there.
I have brown hair and i got into health science-paramedics, there is a blond girl who didnt get in. That means that brown haired people are smarter and more likly to be able to get into paramedics doesnt it?
I have brown hair and i got into health science-paramedics, there is a blond girl who didnt get in. That means that brown haired people are smarter and more likly to be able to get into paramedics doesnt it?
Nature is a random shuffling of genes with the worst, or least lucky, combinations being removed by darwinian selection. Since chances are your distant ancestors were eaten or otherwise dead by the age of 35, evolution doesn't really stop anything that occurs later in life.
The foreskin developed to help shield the glans and keep it at a point of maximum sensitivity. This makes sex more appealing and makes sure you have lots of kids, thus spreading the genes.
The foreskin developed to help shield the glans and keep it at a point of maximum sensitivity. This makes sex more appealing and makes sure you have lots of kids, thus spreading the genes.
it also helps in protecting the body from infection as it alows the mucus to cover the entry point. Basically untill there are proper scientific studys on the infection rates with vs without i am inclinded to leave things as nature intended. Oh and i have never had an infection of the penus and once from memory had a bladder infection and that was when i was very young
absolutely not, make it mandatory in africa where aids kills millions, it wont change the culture of sex with your dead brothers wife (he died from aids, and gave it to her - guess whos next) but it will go some way to slowing the spread of the infection.
cleanliness is next to godliness
allegedly, although i do like a woman whos a bit dirty in bed
cleanliness is next to godliness
allegedly, although i do like a woman whos a bit dirty in bed
Completely? I used a comma where I should've used a full-stop.Facial said:
And I now know that my father was circumcised because he suddenly found one day that he could no longer pull the foreskin back.
Are you a doctor or some other type of medical professional?Facial said:
Well if you include my example I'd say that makes two isolated examplesAsguard said:
I give no guarantee on the grammatical correctness of this post.
kazakhan said:
Ah that sounds like phimosis or paraphimosis (the distinction between the two is sort of hazy), the only real medical conditions which effect the foreskin. Circumcising to correct the problem is a bit like cutting off your finger to cure a hang-nail as both conditions are treatable with a topical steroid, but it could well be that because of your grandfather's age his doctor thought it was better to just. . . perform surgery?
Okay that sounded a lot more likely in my mind before I typed it out. Apparently circumcision is preformed quite frequently in the US in order to "treat" phimosis or paraphimosis, just because we seem to have a circumcision fetish in this country.
I'm not certain but I think that cream was used and a small cut was made before it was decided to cut it off. Also it's my father we're talking about not my grandfather (all dead). And for an otherwise skinny bloke he's got one hell of a beer gut which makes it difficult for him to even see it, I think that played a part...Mystech said:
"contrary to the claims of circumcision advocates, circumcision does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS. In fact, the United States has both the highest rate of routine circumcision and AIDS in the developed world.10 Moreover, UTIs occur in only 1 to 2 per cent of boys, and are conservatively treated with antibiotics. Phimosis, unless it is the result of balanitis xerotica obliterans, an extremely rare condition, cannot be diagnosed prior to puberty, and then is easily treated using cortisone ointment and gentle stretching.11 Circumcised men without the protection of a foreskin are at greater risk of many sexually transmitted diseases.12
Consequently, no national or international medical association in the modern industrialised world (including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian College of Paediatrics, the Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, the British Medical Association, or the Canadian Paediatric Society)13 endorses routine infant circumcision. In March 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that ``the data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision''.
Nevertheless, the most recent American Academy of Pediatrics position statement on male genital mutilation failed to reflect the weight of the medical literature as to the harm of circumcision from complications and otherwise, including the damage to bodily and functional genital integrity.14 The statement also seriously misstated the thrust of articles such as that by ׳ter,15 and provided a misleading summary of purported benefits by inflating them. Its suggestion that EMLA cream is an acceptable and effective local anaesthetic for infant circumcision disregarded the manufacturer's contraindications that it not be used on genital skin or mucosa, as well as studies showing that EMLA provides only minimal pain relief.16 Furthermore, the American Academy of Pediatrics statement provided no reasoned, or indeed any, argument for its assertion that ``it is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious and ethnic traditions'', and thus to subject an infant to this amputation. There is clear medical evidence of adverse effects from the pain, significant complications, and inevitable prejudice to genital function. There are no clearly demonstrable medical benefits."
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1/
Consequently, no national or international medical association in the modern industrialised world (including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian College of Paediatrics, the Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, the British Medical Association, or the Canadian Paediatric Society)13 endorses routine infant circumcision. In March 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that ``the data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision''.
Nevertheless, the most recent American Academy of Pediatrics position statement on male genital mutilation failed to reflect the weight of the medical literature as to the harm of circumcision from complications and otherwise, including the damage to bodily and functional genital integrity.14 The statement also seriously misstated the thrust of articles such as that by ׳ter,15 and provided a misleading summary of purported benefits by inflating them. Its suggestion that EMLA cream is an acceptable and effective local anaesthetic for infant circumcision disregarded the manufacturer's contraindications that it not be used on genital skin or mucosa, as well as studies showing that EMLA provides only minimal pain relief.16 Furthermore, the American Academy of Pediatrics statement provided no reasoned, or indeed any, argument for its assertion that ``it is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious and ethnic traditions'', and thus to subject an infant to this amputation. There is clear medical evidence of adverse effects from the pain, significant complications, and inevitable prejudice to genital function. There are no clearly demonstrable medical benefits."
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1/