YT2095 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 well the reason it`s done to babies is that at no time in a humans life than a few days after being born will the Kitamin K level ever be as Naturaly High. and so it`s considered "safe" as vit K is a blood clotting agent (coagulant). there`s the actual "Science" behind it. is it moraly Wrong? Hell Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattbimbo Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 i might as well tell you all the funniest penis story i know. a friend, who studied theoretical physicis at cambirdge, hadn't had much success with ladies. after his degree to make ends meet he worked as a locum nurse, mostly changing beds and pisspots. one day he was working with a nurse who asked him three questions which he can't remember but his answers were enough to make her ask him to visit her the coming Friday night. he goes to her place, its just her and a little dog who needs a shit. she asks him to take the dog out, which he does even though it is freezing outside. when he returns to her house, drinks are waiting. all the signs were there, he knew this was going to be the night that he would lose his virginity. they joke and drink. his conciousness is beginning to flicker as she takes him upstairs to her room. he lies on the bed. the next morning he wakes. his head is sore. he is naked apart from his underwear. she had already left for work. he dresses and leaves. arriving at work he goes for a shower and as he takes off his shirt he notices bite marks on his neck and torso. he takes off his underwear and there are bite marks and a tear in his foreskin. he goes to the doctor who tells him he has to have a circumcision the next day. after the operation he gets an infection. the result of which is that in two weeks he has a spiralling growth of skin about 3cm long at the end of his penis. he has to have another operation. he does not know if he lost his virginity that night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 There's now a half eaten sausage roll in the bin next my desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I have also heard that some people consider genital warts, on either sex, are an aid to coital pleasure. Should they, circumcision, and labial excision be seen as sex aids and a voluntarily desirable fashion acessory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 what a lovely story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badchad Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Despite the majority opinion presented, there appear to be some real benefits of circumcision: Including decreased medical costs associated with “prevention of infant urinary tract infection, balanoposthitis, phimosis, HIV infection and penile cancer” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16469634&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum Prevention of urinary tract infection: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15890696&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum And decreased rates of HIV transmission (although other studies contradict these results) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12917962&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum There are likely to be faults and criticisms associated with these studies (as is the case with most published literature). More importantly, I’m sure someone is bound to post studies showing adverse effects of circumcision. I do agree that with medical treatment, informed consent is important. However, the controversy surrounding circumcision (and whether it is beneficial or detrimental to the individual and society raises the more important question of: “Is there ever an incidence where the benefit of a medical procedure to an individual and society trumps informed consent”? Using an extreme example: if circumcision reduced the mortality rate in kids under the age of three by 95%, would you still be against it? Or would you take the risk to achieve informed consent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 ya know, I`de think more of of these Mutilators if Compulsory Appendectomy was enforced, there are considerably More deaths and complications involved with the appendix than any other "redundant" anatomical element! somehow Logic evades these butchers!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 prevention of infant urinary tract infection I'm sure that's what I had as a baby, when robbed of the bishops hat. I think the contention is, in certain religious practices there's no use of anaesthetic. This seems unnecessary if you ask me, but compared to infibulation it's relatively harmless, and quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I'm sure that's what I had as a baby, when robbed of the bishops hat. I think the contention is, in certain religious practices there's no use of anaesthetic. Not exactly true... Jewish enfants are given a small amount of wine, which acts as a anaesthtic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Not exactly true... Jewish enfants are given a small amount of wine, which acts as a anaesthtic. Circumcision isn't limited to the Jewish religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Circumcision isn't limited to the Jewish religion. Obviously not, hence the "not exactly true" part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Oh...sorry, though I did say certain religions, I wasn't specific as to which ones. Perhaps I should of given some examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Oh...sorry, though I did say certain religions, I wasn't specific as to which ones. Perhaps I should of given some examples. Why be sorry? If you think that forced infant mutilation is wrong in principle, then you have to criticise, and name, the institutions that insist on it as some sort of ticket to heaven. A heaven that demands that sort of blood sacrifice is not a worthy one, surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Why be sorry? If you think that forced infant mutilation is wrong in principle, then you have to criticise, and name, the institutions that insist on it as some sort of ticket to heaven. A heaven that demands that sort of blood sacrifice is not a worthy one, surely. You description of circumcisions seems at best overly dramatic. Do you freak out when a mother cuts her child's hair or clip their toenails. Granted, these things grow back, but it's still the removal of a peice of the person's body. What about mothers getting their children earing or tattoes (this exists in some cultures) is mutilation of the body to? I may have not had a choice when my foreskin was removed, but it's not like I miss it or anything. Nor have I meet anyone that has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 What about mothers getting their children earing or tattoes (this exists in some cultures) is mutilation of the body to? I have already said' date=' post#17, that these are also mutilations in principle. If you want to argue over matters of [i']degree[/i] rather than principle, then go ahead. Justify mutilation for religious purposes. Just say "I believe forced circumcision is perfectly good and proper. Full stop." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I have already said, post#17, that these are also mutilations in principle. If you want to argue over matters of degree[/i'] rather than principle, then go ahead. Justify mutilation for religious purposes. Just say "I believe forced circumcision is perfectly good and proper. Full stop." Even though you're terminology is technically correct, when you say "forced" the connotation is the enfant is playing an unwilling participant. You are assuming that the infant, if given the chance, would not want to be circumcised. Your semantics indicate you are intolerant of other religions... there are far worse things then circumcisions, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Why be sorry? If you think that forced infant mutilation is wrong in principle, then you have to criticise, and name, the institutions that insist on it as some sort of ticket to heaven. A heaven that demands that sort of blood sacrifice is not a worthy one, surely. But I don't, like I said it's relatively quick, and compared to some religious practices it's really nothing to worry about...even beneficial. I think you'll be shocked if you googled infibulation, then tell me circumcision is inhumane. There's a whole myriad of ways of dealing with physical pain, I grew up with a severe skin disorder where I woke up most nights with blood all over my bed...I thought nothing of it, but my parents were mortified with what they saw. It all depends how you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 good point, Snail. Compared to genital mutalation of the adult women in some cultures, circumcision seems rather pleasant. This is, unavoidably, an argument of severity. I really don't see the big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I really don't see the big deal. Neither do I, a few seconds of pain, then it's all over...what's the problem. Just because it's been inflicted through a belief it's caused contention, but so what, there's much more intense suffering that has no aim whatsoever. We don't live in a world of pillows, so I don't understand why such a quick operation that a child probably doesn't even remember is an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 You description of circumcisions seems at best overly dramatic. Do you freak out when a mother cuts her child's hair or clip their toenails. not at all overly dramatic, Hair and nails are already "dead" and NOT part of healthy Functional Tissue. your argument is Strawmanning at it`s best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 The justification there, then is that as its quick and painless, and it is within my irrational belief system, it must be O,K. then. Is that it? Oh boy, that is a line of reasoning that can be applied to other things, too, like: Labial mutilation. Compulsory abortion for population control. The death penalty. Compulsory euthenasia. Eugenics Selective breeding. You may say I have chosen extreme examples, but I have already stated my opposition in principle. It is up to you to selectively justify the acts in order of severity and say where you draw the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 it isn't painless when the local anesthetic wears off let me tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I think the line of reasoning is that being circumcised hasn't really harmed 'anyone.' I don't agree with inflicitng pain on anything, but it's a matter of putting things in perspective. You can't draw a line on suffering, it's impossible. As I grew up I had bandages on my hands and legs because I was constantly bleeding, I had open sores all over my body...I don't now thank God, but I thought nothing of it at the time. I just got used to it. I was an 'innocent' kid, and as much as it pained my parents, that's what I was used to. The OP was saying is circumcision 'right' and personally I can't see anything wrong with it. It's done me no harm, and because 'I would never inflict pain on my son or daughter' is such a moot point, because you don't know when your inflicting 'real' pain on your siblings...so a few seconds pain that they'll forget means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 the bit I find even More ridiculous about the "Aneasthetic" is: Jewish enfants are given a small amount of wine, which acts as a anaesthtic. that in itself should be outlawed! and those that practice it, locked up! that`s a freakin Evil thing to do man! you do NOT give little babies Booze in sufficuient quantities to work as an anaesthetic! unless KILLING them is the whole idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THoR Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 "If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for YOU." - Lorena Bobbit Thank GOD I'm an atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now