Circumcision: can any rational thinker defend it ?

That doesn't justify removing a large portion of the penile skin, and essentially all of a specialized section of that skin.

Condoms, condoms, condoms.
 
I heard of a report that said that one in five hundred circumcisions results in a serious medical problem. I'll try to find it and post a link.

But on the other hand I suffer from a condition called Phimosis. Google it if you "really" want to know what that means. (because you probably really don't want to know what it means)
 
Last edited:
uruk said:
I heard of a report that said that one in five hundred circumcisions results in a serious medical problem. I'll try to find it and post a link.

But on the other hand I suffer from a condition called Phimosis. Google it if you "really" want to know what that means. (because you probably really don't want to know what it means)
Click to expand...

Done.

"True" phimosis—better termed "preputial stenosis," because "phimosis" has so many different definitions it now is devoid of any useful meaning—occurs in less than 2% of intact males. The incidence of preputial stenosis in circumcised men is actually similar.

Of these 2%, 85–95% will respond to topical steroids. Of those who fail this, at least 75% will respond to stretching under local anesthesia, either manually or with a balloon. The arithmetic is simple: At the very most 7 boys in 10,000 may need surgery for preputial stenosis. No wonder the Canadian Paediatric Society calls circumcision an "obsolete" procedure!
Click to expand...


http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/


Blue Bubble, are you aking about circumcision in general, or child and infantile circumcsision specifically? An adult getting elective operation performed, why does the phrase "Pimp My Genitals" come to mind, is an informed and consenting patient. An infant getting their bits whacked is another matter.
 
Blue Bubble said:
I consider circumcision (both male and female) to be abhorrent and barbaric.

Can any rational thinker consider it otherwise ?
Click to expand...

The short answer is "Yes." The subject is still highly controversial within the pediatrics community, with substantial opinion on both sides. Rather than state all the arguments, go to the American Academy of Pediatrics (they won't let me post the URL) and search for "circumcision." Very enlightening. Right or wrong, it's definitely controversial.

You must distinguish between newborn male circumcision and female genital mutilation. You can't even call the latter "circumcision" because there is no "foreskin" to remove. The former is a controversial medical procedure. The latter isn't.

BZ MD
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Blue Bubble, are you asking about circumcision in general, or child and infantile circumcision specifically? An adult getting elective operation performed, why does the phrase "Pimp My Genitals" come to mind, is an informed and consenting patient. An infant getting their bits whacked is another matter.
Click to expand...
I'm actually targetting both. Infant circumcision is blatantly criminal, in my opinion. As to adult circumcision, this is why I asked whether a rational thinker could defend it.
 
bzimmer4 said:
You must distinguish between newborn male circumcision and female genital mutilation. You can't even call the latter "circumcision" because there is no "foreskin" to remove. The former is a controversial medical procedure. The latter isn't.

BZ MD
Click to expand...

Hmmm... "newborn male circumcision" and "female genital mutilation". In what way is the male circumcision not genital mutilation ?
 
Blue Bubble said:
I'm actually targetting both. Infant circumcision is blatantly criminal, in my opinion. As to adult circumcision, this is why I asked whether a rational thinker could defend it.
Click to expand...

An adult should be free to have their genitals coustomized to whatever form or configuration they please.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
An adult should be free to have their genitals customized to whatever form or configuration they please.
Click to expand...

Would you also support adults being free to having limbs chopped off ? This situation (a man requesting that his arm be removed, even though there was nothing wrong with the arm) happened fairly recently in this country (UK), and, as far as I remember, the request was refused.

In any case, do you think that such an adult who requests that he be circumcised could be deemed a rational thinker ?
 
Blue Bubble said:
Would you also support adults being free to having limbs chopped off ? This situation (a man requesting that his arm be removed, even though there was nothing wrong with the arm) happened fairly recently in this country (UK), and, as far as I remember, the request was refused.

In any case, do you think that such an adult who requests that he be circumcised could be deemed a rational thinker ?
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/625680.stm

This might be what you recall. A doctor in Scotland carried out two amputations of healthy limbs.

If the alternative is the patient carrying out a DIY amputation or killing themselves, then I can see circumstances where it would be justified.
 
Blue Bubble said:
Would you also support adults being free to having limbs chopped off ? This situation (a man requesting that his arm be removed, even though there was nothing wrong with the arm) happened fairly recently in this country (UK), and, as far as I remember, the request was refused.

In any case, do you think that such an adult who requests that he be circumcised could be deemed a rational thinker ?
Click to expand...

There is no reason why a consenting adult shouldn't be free to do with their bodies what they please. Volunatirly having limbs removed, and voluntarily having a cosmetic alteration are wildly different. In the former case, I can't imagine the silliness that might result from someone vuluntarily having both legs amputated without a medical reason, and then requesting government assistance with purchasing a wheelchair, and finding a job.
 
Circumcision of males is no big deal. On one hand, there are a few rare complications. On the other hand, circumcised males suffer less from urinary tract infections, the very rare penile cancer, and possibly HIV.

As far as I'm aware, the only downside is the risk of complications, which are pretty rare and not usually serious. It is in no way comparable to female genital mutilation (which destroys a woman's capacity to ejoy sexual intercourse, or even endure it comfortably), nor to losing a limb.
 
CurtC said:
Circumcision of males is no big deal. On one hand, there are a few rare complications. On the other hand, circumcised males suffer less from urinary tract infections, the very rare penile cancer, and possibly HIV.

As far as I'm aware, the only downside is the risk of complications, which are pretty rare and not usually serious. It is in no way comparable to female genital mutilation (which destroys a woman's capacity to ejoy sexual intercourse, or even endure it comfortably), nor to losing a limb.
Click to expand...

Carrying out a medical operation for purely social reasons is no big deal?

Can't agree with you there.
 
Blue Bubble said:
In any case, do you think that such an adult who requests that he be circumcised could be deemed a rational thinker ?
Click to expand...

I knew a couple, and they kept passing a yeast infection back and forth. (This was before Diflucan) He got circumcised as an adult. I guess it was not fun.

For the record, if we weren't Jewish, my son wouldn't be circumcised. I only had it done because of tradition and because I did not want him to be ostracized as a non-circumcised man in a Jewish community. Now, though, there is a growing movement within the Jewish community to NOT circumcise their boys. Slowly, people are coming around....
 
As I responded in the forum for P&T's BS episode about this - I don't think there is enough positive evidence to support circumcision except under necessary circumstances. And the fact that the infant can have no say in this procedure makes it even worse. Tonsils are things that can get infected and are often removed early in life, why don't we just start removing them as well just after birth. And the appendix to boot. And one day you might get glaucoma, so let's remove the eyes. Testicular cancer, the testicles. Slippery slope - but so are the defenses of circumcision.
 
Blue Bubble said:
Hmmm... "newborn male circumcision" and "female genital mutilation". In what way is the male circumcision not genital mutilation ?
Click to expand...

The penis remains completely functional after the procedure. That would not make it mutilation in my book. No more than, say, a appendectomy is mutilation of the body.

Equating the practice of female and male circumcision doesn't seem completely rational to me.
 
The penis remains functional after the procedure (there are studies suggesting that some function is removed with the foreskin).

Who are we to say what function the foreskin may not have that hasn't been determined yet? New revelations show that the appendix isn't quite as useless as once considered. Lopping off body parts makes no sense. The only part needing to be cut during birth is the umbilical cord and I think that there is fair reason for that procedure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom