Court stops circumcision.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by alkaline.
lol
I would quote other sources but ncbi is trusted so:
" However, it has been shown that there is no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their ability to sense extroceptive and tactile stimuli on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the glans.[3] This definitely counters the idea of loss of penile sensation."
although penile cancer is rare: "Previous studies have demonstrated a negative correlation between circumcision and penile cancer.[19] The most important risk factor for penile cancer is phymosis, which explains the fact that neonatal circumcision is more protective against penile cancer compared to circumcision performed at older ages"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2878423/
I would quote other sources but ncbi is trusted so:
" However, it has been shown that there is no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their ability to sense extroceptive and tactile stimuli on the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the glans.[3] This definitely counters the idea of loss of penile sensation."
although penile cancer is rare: "Previous studies have demonstrated a negative correlation between circumcision and penile cancer.[19] The most important risk factor for penile cancer is phymosis, which explains the fact that neonatal circumcision is more protective against penile cancer compared to circumcision performed at older ages"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2878423/
None of this answers the question that I asked:
Original post by Hydeman
And what percentage of male circumcisions do you propose are carried out for medical reasons? 
Hint: 'hygiene and stuff' is not a medical reason.
Hint: 'hygiene and stuff' is not a medical reason.Your contention was that it's not comparable to female genital mutilation because (and you underlined this), it must be done for non-medical reasons for that to be the case. Now, you've come back with a load of copypasta that you seem to think makes a medical case for circumcision (it doesn't), but it's irrelevant to the question. The question was whether and what percentage of male circumcisions are carried out for medical reasons. Even your own copypasta says that penile cancer is a rare condition, so it can hardly be said that most or even many male circumcisions are done for this reason.
Original post by queen-bee
Cultural? How so?
what do you mean "how so"? in america, the culture determines the perspectives of things like circumcision, and their cultural perspective is that it is either unclean to not circumcise or that it is unorthadox because of the fact that (at least in the previous generation and not this one where it's only 1/2) every boy was circumcised so the ones that wouldn't would be the odd ones out. in european (or at least UK) cultures, we don't circumcise because we *don't* have that kind of cultural perspective, and I say "cultural" because to think that not circumcising little boys causes a lack of hygiene is nothing but a cultural viewpoint because it's a ridiculous thing to think in 2016
Original post by QE2
Who is? Because they are not. Piercings are reversible (take them out and the hole heals up eventually) and consent must be provided (they are illegal to perform on under 16s)
I'll repeat that so that people can take it in...
Genital piercing on an under 16 is against the law - it is classed as indecent assault!
Genital mutilation on an under 16 is considered acceptable!
WTF?
I'll repeat that so that people can take it in...
Genital piercing on an under 16 is against the law - it is classed as indecent assault!
Genital mutilation on an under 16 is considered acceptable!
WTF?
i cant remember, i read it in an article somewhere :/
Original post by QE2
Who is? Because they are not. Piercings are reversible (take them out and the hole heals up eventually) and consent must be provided (they are illegal to perform on under 16s)
I'll repeat that so that people can take it in...
Genital piercing on an under 16 is against the law - it is classed as indecent assault!
Genital mutilation on an under 16 is considered acceptable!
WTF?
I'll repeat that so that people can take it in...
Genital piercing on an under 16 is against the law - it is classed as indecent assault!
Genital mutilation on an under 16 is considered acceptable!
WTF?
found it!!!
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/women-with-vaginal-piercings-will-be-recorded-as-suffering-fgm-under-new-nhs-rules-10116464.html
Original post by queen-bee
That's why physicians should make the parents aware of it. I'm pretty sure most of it is done for medical reasons like those mentioned in the thread
I am going to copy Hydeman's question to Alkaline: what percentage of male circumcision is carried out for medical reasons?
And please do list some of these medical reasons for me.
Original post by Legendary Quest
I am going to copy Hydeman's question to Alkaline: what percentage of male circumcision is carried out for medical reasons?
And please do list some of these medical reasons for me.
And please do list some of these medical reasons for me.
How do you expect me to give you an exact figure? I'm not a physician. I said most,not all. And with regards to culture and religion it's heavily influenced by issues of cleanliness and hygiene,hence why I said 'health' reasons
Original post by Hydeman
None of this answers the question that I asked:
Your contention was that it's not comparable to female genital mutilation because (and you underlined this), it must be done for non-medical reasons for that to be the case. Now, you've come back with a load of copypasta that you seem to think makes a medical case for circumcision (it doesn't), but it's irrelevant to the question. The question was whether and what percentage of male circumcisions are carried out for medical reasons. Even your own copypasta says that penile cancer is a rare condition, so it can hardly be said that most or even many male circumcisions are done for this reason.
Your contention was that it's not comparable to female genital mutilation because (and you underlined this), it must be done for non-medical reasons for that to be the case. Now, you've come back with a load of copypasta that you seem to think makes a medical case for circumcision (it doesn't), but it's irrelevant to the question. The question was whether and what percentage of male circumcisions are carried out for medical reasons. Even your own copypasta says that penile cancer is a rare condition, so it can hardly be said that most or even many male circumcisions are done for this reason.
oh yeah sorry i was mainly answering stuff that other people had put forward about loss of sensation pain and babies dying etc so my points are still valid stop being so mean.
what percentage? lol idk why don't you ask the people that do it idk what's going on in their head.
I swear there was a recent thread on this I saw a post about the medical reasons i'll try n find it.
Original post by queen-bee
How do you expect me to give you an exact figure? I'm not a physician. I said most,not all. And with regards to culture and religion it's heavily influenced by issues of cleanliness and hygiene,hence why I said 'health' reasons
You can't say 'most' male circumcisions are done for health reasons if you can't back it up. As of cleanliness and hygiene, men who haven't had circumcision done have no trouble keeping their downstairs clean. So, again, why should a child have to endure this torture?
Original post by queen-bee
FGM is banned for a reason.
This isn't a valid argument. It makes no sense to say, 'it's illegal, so there must be a good reason that it's illegal.' It was illegal to own a satellite dish in Baathist Iraq. Hopefully the analogy isn't wasted on you.
The majority reason why parents choose to practice it is for health reasons?
Incorrect. It's mostly done for religious and/or cultural reasons, which explains why it's only prevalent in countries and communities where it's traditional to have it done to infants (this also covers your America example). The NHS no longer covers it, nor does Medicaid in the United States, and it's well-documented that whatever marginal health benefits there are to it are easily outweighed by both the risks and the blatant violation of bodily integrity.
Cleanliness?
Only a problem for people who don't wash properly. To paraphrase Frank Zappa (who said it in a slightly different context): this is the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.
Low risk of catching STDs
Except it's already the medical consensus (outside those medical institutions that have a clear vested interest in the continuation of the practice -- citing those is like listening to a cosmetic surgeon who thinks that you could do with treatment, and conveniently recommends himself as the right person for the job) that whatever benefits there are do not justify the risks or the ethical implications.
Again, I would remind you that STDs are not the original reason why those countries where it is prevalent started the practice, and nor is it the legitimate reason for most parents doing it today.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Legendary Quest
You can't say 'most' male circumcisions are done for health reasons if you can't back it up. As of cleanliness and hygiene, men who haven't had circumcision done have no trouble keeping their downstairs clean. So, again, why should a child have to endure this torture?
Ask the parents,the religion and the different cultures who practice such things
Original post by Hydeman
Only a problem for people who don't wash properly. To paraphrase Frank Zappa (who said it in a slightly different context): this is the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.
I love that
Original post by Hydeman
This isn't a valid argument. It makes no sense to say, 'it's illegal, so there must be a good reason that it's illegal.' It was illegal to own a satellite dish in Baathist Iraq. Hopefully the analogy isn't wasted on you.
Incorrect. It's mostly done for religious and/or cultural reasons, which explains why it's only prevalent in countries and communities where it's traditional to have it done to infants (this also covers your America example). The NHS no longer covers it, nor does Medicaid in the United States, and it's well-documented that whatever marginal health benefits there are to it are easily outweighed by both the risks and the blatant violation of bodily integrity.
Only a problem for people who don't wash properly. To paraphrase Frank Zappa (who said it in a slightly different context): this is the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.
Except it's already the medical consensus (outside those medical institutions that don't have a clear vested interest in the continuation of the practice -- citing those is like listening to a cosmetic surgeon who thinks that you could do with treatment, and conveniently recommends himself as the right person for the job) that whatever benefits there are do not justify the risks or the ethical implications.
Again, I would remind you that STDs are not the original reason why those countries where it is prevalent started the practice, and nor is it the legitimate reason for most parents doing it today.
Incorrect. It's mostly done for religious and/or cultural reasons, which explains why it's only prevalent in countries and communities where it's traditional to have it done to infants (this also covers your America example). The NHS no longer covers it, nor does Medicaid in the United States, and it's well-documented that whatever marginal health benefits there are to it are easily outweighed by both the risks and the blatant violation of bodily integrity.
Only a problem for people who don't wash properly. To paraphrase Frank Zappa (who said it in a slightly different context): this is the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.
Except it's already the medical consensus (outside those medical institutions that don't have a clear vested interest in the continuation of the practice -- citing those is like listening to a cosmetic surgeon who thinks that you could do with treatment, and conveniently recommends himself as the right person for the job) that whatever benefits there are do not justify the risks or the ethical implications.
Again, I would remind you that STDs are not the original reason why those countries where it is prevalent started the practice, and nor is it the legitimate reason for most parents doing it today.
It's already been explained to you why female circumcision is illegal,you keep asking it over and over again
Okay,so the question is,why do cultures and religions choose to carry out these practices? Do tell in great detail
Original post by Legendary Quest
You can't say 'most' male circumcisions are done for health reasons if you can't back it up. As of cleanliness and hygiene, men who haven't had circumcision done have no trouble keeping their downstairs clean. So, again, why should a child have to endure this torture?
they do use analgesia
Original post by Hydeman
Only a problem for people who don't wash properly. To paraphrase Frank Zappa (who said it in a slightly different context): this is the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.
Except it's already the medical consensus (outside those medical institutions that have a clear vested interest in the continuation of the practice -- citing those is like listening to a cosmetic surgeon who thinks that you could do with treatment, and conveniently recommends himself as the right person for the job) that whatever benefits there are do not justify the risks or the ethical implications.
Again, I would remind you that STDs are not the original reason why those countries where it is prevalent started the practice, and nor is it the legitimate reason for most parents doing it today.
Only a problem for people who don't wash properly. To paraphrase Frank Zappa (who said it in a slightly different context): this is the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.
Except it's already the medical consensus (outside those medical institutions that have a clear vested interest in the continuation of the practice -- citing those is like listening to a cosmetic surgeon who thinks that you could do with treatment, and conveniently recommends himself as the right person for the job) that whatever benefits there are do not justify the risks or the ethical implications.
Again, I would remind you that STDs are not the original reason why those countries where it is prevalent started the practice, and nor is it the legitimate reason for most parents doing it today.
lol but you don't, most westernised countries don't even use water after they pee.
what risks? any benefits outweigh any risks, ethics is a different matter.
Original post by alkaline.
oh yeah sorry i was mainly answering stuff that other people had put forward about loss of sensation pain and babies dying etc so my points are still valid stop being so mean.
Ah, I see. No worries.
what percentage? lol idk why don't you ask the people that do it idk what's going on in their head.
It's possible to make an educated guess. In the UK, most circumcisions are carried out on boys born into a handful of communities. There are two possible explanations (feel free to add more if I'm missing any): a) there's an epidemic of all manner of rare diseases that necessitate circumcision among infant boys of certain religious or cultural backgrounds or b) the parents of these boys do it for religious or cultural reasons. Which seems more probable?
I swear there was a recent thread on this I saw a post about the medical reasons i'll try n find it.
There've been a few, yes.
It doesn't come up too often, though, so I'm happy to have one of these every few months.(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Why do you believe that your opinion on something should trump the parent's right to determine what is best for their child?
How is circumcision best for the child? It's an unnecessary procedure that does not need to be done. Even if you do support it, surely this is a matter that the individual receiving the procedure should have a say in? If an adult wants to get circumcised then I don't mind but a person should have the right to decide for themselves. This is something that will affect them for the rest of their lives. The parent can advise the child as they grow into adulthood however, ultimately, the individual should have the final say.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by queen-bee
It's already been explained to you why female circumcision is illegal,you keep asking it over and over again
I haven't asked that, so that's a clear straw man.
Okay,so the question is,why do cultures and religions choose to carry out these practices? Do tell in great detail
I'm not sure if that's a jeer, but you could with a bit of detail yourself. I just gave you what I think is a reasonable explanation for my position and what I see as the contradiction in yours, and you've given me a two-line response that ignores almost all of it.
Anyway, I should think that the answer is obvious: mostly for the same reason as female genital mutilation is carried out -- to discourage what were then (and in some interpretations, still are) seen as moral vices. Examples include masturbation and having sex for any other reason but procreation.
In any case, that's not hugely relevant to what we were discussing and, if you're going to do your usual thing by obfuscating and going around in circles and ignoring most of what I say, then do tell, so I can bow out at this point.
Original post by alkaline.
lol but you don't, most westernised countries don't even use water after they pee.
I was referring to washing in the shower.
Also, you're contradicting yourself slightly, I think. Routine (i.e. non-medically necessary) circumcision is carried out predominantly in countries where men do use water after they've urinated (America being the only exception I can think of). Does that mean that they shouldn't, in fact, be circumcising their baby boys in those countries?
what risks?
Infection and, of course, the small number of deaths resulting from botched circumcisions each year.
any benefits outweigh any risks
The medical consensus (excluding those with an obvious vested interest) disagrees.
ethics is a different matter.
No, it isn't.
Whether it's right to allow parents to unnecessarily mutilate the genitals of children too young to consent to it is fundamentally a matter of ethics.Original post by Legendary Quest
I love that
I've waited years for an opportunity to use that.
Original post by queen-bee
Female circumcision is done for non medical purposes and is just cruelty and leaves permenant damage ,it has no benefits to it. Male circumsion in the other hand is usually done to for health reasons. Correct me if I'm wrong
Therefore, by your definition, it is the same as FGM.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
I didn't say that circumcision is best and nor will I make any claims as the postivity or negativity of any such procedures.
My contention is that you, as a childless adult, are trying to curtail the rights of parents to determine what is best for their child. If they believe that circumcision is in the best interests of the child, then they should be allowed to carry out said procedure.
As for consent, this argument is moot given that in our child state and inability to form the necessary consent, we bestow the power and authority to our parents to determine what is best for us.
Imagine if we were to take the same consent argument in regards to education of children. We would have nursery classes starting at 14 and adults finishing their education when they are 24/25 because when they are enrolled into nursery, they lack the capacity to make an informed decision and majority of the time, they are extremely reluctant to attend.
As such, the welfare of children lies primarily with the parents who, in the first instance, are the guardians of the children.
If the government wants to designate every child in the British Isles as wards of the state, then that is something that I cannot support and such an authoritarian and totalitarian measure, in every shape or form, must be opposed.
The rights of parents to determine what is best for their child will trump your opinion on how best to raise their kid.
My contention is that you, as a childless adult, are trying to curtail the rights of parents to determine what is best for their child. If they believe that circumcision is in the best interests of the child, then they should be allowed to carry out said procedure.
As for consent, this argument is moot given that in our child state and inability to form the necessary consent, we bestow the power and authority to our parents to determine what is best for us.
Imagine if we were to take the same consent argument in regards to education of children. We would have nursery classes starting at 14 and adults finishing their education when they are 24/25 because when they are enrolled into nursery, they lack the capacity to make an informed decision and majority of the time, they are extremely reluctant to attend.
As such, the welfare of children lies primarily with the parents who, in the first instance, are the guardians of the children.
If the government wants to designate every child in the British Isles as wards of the state, then that is something that I cannot support and such an authoritarian and totalitarian measure, in every shape or form, must be opposed.
The rights of parents to determine what is best for their child will trump your opinion on how best to raise their kid.
So would you support a parent giving their 14-year-old child breast implants because it was ‘in the best interest of the child’? Or if a parent allowed their young child to obtain a rhinoplasty because they had their best interests at heart? If a parent adamantly supports the procedure then they have every right to advise the child as they grow into adulthood and, by then, they can decide for themselves. However, there is no logical explanation as to why a small baby has to have part of their body removed. I am, by no means, trying to dictate precisely how a parent should raise their infant. You must note, however, that this little infant should have the right to not be mutilated. You claiming that ‘if they believe that circumcision is in the best interests of the child,then they should be allowed to carry out said procedure’ gives the impression that there are, indeed, logical reasons for the procedure to be carried out. I shall ask you again: why does a child need to be circumcised? Should we allow FGM too because some parents believe that it is in the best interests of the child? Or girls who undergo breast flattening to prevent them from growing... I am sure you would support that because the parents should determine what is best for the child.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Legendary Quest
So would you support a parent giving their 14-year-old child breast implants because it was ‘in the best interest of the child’? Or if a parent allowed their young child to obtain a rhinoplasty because they had their best interests at heart? If a parent adamantly supports the procedure then they have every right to advise the child as they grow into adulthood and, by then, they can decide for themselves. However, there is no logical explanation as to why a small baby has to have part of their body removed. I am, by no means, trying to dictate precisely how a parent should raise their infant. You must note, however, that this little infant should have the right to not be mutilated. You claiming that ‘if they believe that circumcision is in the best interests of the child,then they should be allowed to carry out said procedure’ gives the impression that there are, indeed, logical reasons for the procedure to be carried out. I shall ask you again: why does a child need to be circumcised? Should we allow FGM too because some parents believe that it is in the best interests of the child? Or girls who undergo breast flattening to prevent them from growing... I am sure you would support that because the parents should determine what is best for the child.
PRSOM.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Bleeding a week after circumcision
- Circumcision Fetish
- Penis head sensitive to touch when erect
- Sex and masturbation after adult cirumcision
- Phimosis/frenulum breve - sex with condom possible?
- Circumcision
- Prefer circumcised or not circumcised?
- Circumcision
- Revision circumcision
- Boyfriend needs circumcision
- masturbating dry
- Cannot ejaculate during sex
- I have anxiety about getting circumcision
- Question about Frenuloplasty
- My boyfriend's ****
- girls prefer circumcised or uncircumcised man?
- Frenulectomy
- Circumcision or not
- Advice for tight foreskin sufferers (phimosis)
- I think I have a frenulum breve?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 1 minute ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1257
Last reply 1 minute ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Is Ravensbourne Univeristy ACTUALLY good????Last reply 3 minutes ago
Will I receive funding for my full 3 year degree if I repeat first year?Last reply 3 minutes ago
TFL Apprenticeship Scheme 2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 5 minutes ago
Official: Aston University A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadMedical Schools
1122
Last reply 7 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 9 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 11 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2839
Last reply 12 minutes ago
Please Help! Seek input on University selection for FinanceLast reply 16 minutes ago
Graded Unit Case Study HNC BusinessLast reply 17 minutes ago
Missed deadline to accept Nottingham accommodationTrending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
