To look at this subject,...the way you suggest,...is contrary to how religion functions.
"Choice",...is not a word found very often in religious writings.
Norwegian ruling party votes to ban circumcision for men under 16 years old
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
"Choice",...is not a word found very often in religious writings.
Post 35 in this thread already addressed that, as follows:
1. More physical pain likely at 16.
2. More psychological pain (e.g. fear, bad memories) likely at 16 & for the rest of one's life. I had it done at 8 days & have no memory.
3. As per quoted/linked info earlier in this thread, 8 days is the scientifically ideal time to circumcise.
4. At 16 a wrong/poor decision may be made by the minor. What do the older & wiser adults/parents do then?
5. Unlike with a baby, recovery time at 16 may keep one from doing things.
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=5928.60
1. Not more physical pain. You just remember it whereas when you're an infant you have no recollection.
2. Someone having the procedure at 16 isn't going to experience "psychological pain". They're doing it because they want it done. This is why we get surgeries done on us to correct an issue. Fixing the problem is the main concern and there is no "psychological pain" to speak of.
3. The only ideal time to circumcise is when there is a problem with an individual's foreskin, OR that person wants the procedure done for their own personal reasons.
4. He can drive at 16, he can decide to get cut or not. His parents should do nothing other than give them their opinion/explanation for and against the procedure. If the kid is having issues with his foreskin, he won't require any convincing.
5. Strep throat stops us from doing things.
Why do you insist on wanting to cut infants' dicks? The reasoning is preposterous.
1. The tiny little baby foreskin requires much less cutting than the huge developed 16 year old's foreskin. Hence less pain is a real possibility.
2. The psychological pain at 16 results from, for just one example among various possibilities, being aware of what is about to happen, possibly days or weeks in advance, & the associated anxiety about the pain involved. That's quite common with surgeries on adults.
3. Irrelevant to the topic which concerns the best time to circumcise if one is absolutely going to circumcise & the only issue is when or why not at 16 rather than as a baby or another time. Scientific evidence has found that at 8 days is ideal.
4. At 16 the minor can offer resistance & make a foolish decision. It's better that parents choose for the baby. Otherwise their child will miss the only opportunity to have it done at the best time for their child.
5. Irrelevant. Does not address the point made.
Circumcision prevents STIs & other problems & saves millions of lives from HIV, cancer, etc.
"... the argument of “informed consent” is easily demolished by the fact that we routinely vaccinate our children against disease without their consent for their own good."
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-on-circumcision-a-painless-live-saving-surgery
http://bhekisisa.org/article/2016-0...ircumcision-saves-millions-in-lives-and-costs
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-case-for-neonatal-circumcision/
Disclaimer: re all my posts, all opinions in links or quotes are posted for reasons of discussion or entertainment, etc, and do not necessarily indicate agreement with such.
1. Your guess is as good as mine. Either way, pain is involved.
2. This isn't even an issue worth discussing.
3. What scientific evidence shows that 8 days is ideal?
4. So take away driver's licenses for 16 year olds, too?
5. What circumcision does or doesn't do should be explained to a 16 year old so they can make an informed decision. Vaccinations against diseases are a whole different ballpark - diseases which are life threatening and can be gotten simply by breathing. This is not akin to STIs, HIV, or penile cancer.
It's still unclear why you have such a great desire to cut off a piece of an infants dick.
constantly repeating this flawed lie does not make it true.
http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
in 10 countries HIV rates are higher for cut men
Adult Male Circumcision Does Not Reduce the Risk of Incident Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, or Trichomonas vaginalis Infection: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Trial in Kenya
https://academic.oup.com/jid/articl...lt-Male-Circumcision-Does-Not-Reduce-the-Risk
U.S. Navy Finds That Circumcision Does Not Prevent HIV or STIs
http://www.thewholenetwork.org/twn-news/us-navy-finds-that-circumcision-does-not-prevent-hiv-or-stis
If there's even a 1% chance it is true, then circumcision of the masses is for the best.
How many countries' medical associations think it's a lie, out of 200 some countries in the world?
"The American Medical Association (2013) states, "There is strong evidence documenting the health benefits of male circumcision, and it is a low-risk procedure, said Peter W. Carmel, M.D., AMA president....
""The AMA supports the general principles of the 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: "valuation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits from male circumcision were identified for the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction"[16]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_circumcision
1. It's common sense. Cutting off the end of your pinky will hurt less than chopping off your whole hand. Likewise the comparison between the foreskin of an 8 day old baby vs that of a 16 year old.
2. Then my point stands.
3. Already posted early in this thread.
4. Are 16 year old males the best drivers? LOL
5. Seriously? Like cancer & HIV cannot be "life threatening"?
What is "unclear"? You haven't yet grasped the pro circumcision viewpoint? Reading the links i posted would be a start.
1. I have no idea whether that's true or not. I don't think you do, either. What hurts more, soap in your eyes or a cut on your hand? It's subjective judgement call. Who knows, and who cares.
2. There is no point. "Psychological pain" is a phrase you made up to describe anxiety of someone awaiting surgery. Again who cares. Once it's done, it's done.
3. Please cite again. The 8 day rule sounds like a bad joke.
4. They are allowed to drive. Only seems logical the same should be true for getting cut. Why are you so opposed to Pro Choice Circumcision?
5. When compared to the death rate of diseases that spread as rapidly as plagues, penile cancer and HIV are non-starters. The first is rare and treatable, the latter is a non-issue for those practicing safe sex. How can you even compare the two?
I am pro circumcision. My view is to allow people to determine when they're cut, if at all. That means I fully support ANYBODY that wants to get circumcised. What do you not understand about this? Your viewpoint is to cut infants because the bible said to do so in 8 days which is crazy. Why are you anti-choice when it comes to infant dicks?
You have not provided any supporting links for the claim that 8 days is ideal. I have to say it sounds like pure nonsense. You did provide links showing that the Bible and the Koran state it's the best time but I hope you understand those are not scientific books. Are you a Christian or Muslim? You hold the dogmatic "cut infant dicks at all costs" view stringently without regard for common sense, autonomy, and free choice.
On the same page you quoted from, practically all medical associations disagree with you and the AMA:
As for you 1% statement, here's my argument in a nutshell (gleaned from your own link):
In other words, let the kid get old enough to decide since the conditions you're so concerned about (penile cancer, HIV) come about later in life and therefore there is no need to cut when the child is so young.
My close friend was circumcised when he was 28 years old, he described very little discomfort post operation and of course didn't feel a thing during the procedure under anesthesia.
How ridiculous is it to hear on one end doctors will say the child feels no pain which is strange considering they always scream in agony, but then Johnsons will stress that a baby's skin is ultra sensitive and needs the most gentle of soaps and skin creams.
How ridiculous is it to hear on one end doctors will say the child feels no pain which is strange considering they always scream in agony, but then Johnsons will stress that a baby's skin is ultra sensitive and needs the most gentle of soaps and skin creams.
medical societies in the U.S are the only ones claiming health benefits of circumcision. circumcision is big business in the U.S.A Cosmetic companies use baby foreskins to make skin creams and bio tech companies use them to make skin grafts and other products
3. Post 32 this thread.
4. Male teen drivers seem to be the worst by far re accidents. I'd pull them off the road & force them to be circumcised. Both removing them from the road & circumcising them would save lives from death & other serious problems no one wants to experience.
5. The problem is many people don't practice safe sex & even safe sex isn't safe. Just like teen drivers that practice safe driving are safe drivers, but as a group they are the worst.
5b. The point re child inoculations is that, like child circumcision, they are forced on the child w/o his consent, both have medical benefits & both rarely have serious complications. So they are similar. If you are against one because of lack of consent, then it follows you should object to the other or any similar procedure, surgery or thing done to a child without consent.
The age of consent varies for various things; in some places it is 18 or 21. Those younger cannot give consent.
You seem to be pro choice re circumcision at a certain age of consent, but anti-circumcision for babies. Where do you draw the line? Sixteen?
My view involves more than just what the Bible says. It includes science as well as reason & common sense.
If I caught a doctor doing this to my child I would shove the instrument into the doctors mouth and circumcise his tongue.
3. Your 8 day rule is taken from the book https://www.amazon.ca/None-These-Diseases-S-McMillen/dp/0800752333. The book is written by someone (I cannot confirm if the author is an actual medical doctor) who wants to show the great wisdom of the bible and how its teachings miraculously overlap with medical science we use today. With all due respect, there is little credibility there. Anyway, the thrust of the argument is that at 8 days, prothrombin levels are at their peak (it's responsible for blood clotting) so cutting the dick then is ideal because it will heal faster with less risk of blood loss. I would take the veracity of those claims with a grain of salt. Regardless, one can get cut at 16 or older and be just fine.
4. The difference is that at 16 they have a choice but an infant doesn't. We can also say people at 20 are worse drivers than middle aged drivers. Should we not give licenses to them either? How old does a person have to be to get behind the wheel in your ideal society?
5. Anybody routinely practicing unsafe sex is going to catch diseases such as HIV whether cut or not. If anything, circumcision under the pretense that it is any reliable barrier to STI's is giving people encouragement for such bad behavior under the faulty logic that once they're cut, they're safe from contracting STIs. You can contract STIs while wearing a condom for goodness sake.
5b. A child can catch the flu (or other diseases for which vaccines have been created) and die. A infant or child is not going to get HIV thru having sex because they're not having sex yet, so it's a decision that can be deferred until they're older.
What are the medical societies of Israel, South Korea, PI & Muslim nations saying?
You didn't post one that said the USA position is a lie.
If they paid the parents of baby boys for their foreskins, then maybe more parents would opt for the procedure. It sounds like the infection and dirt catchers are being put to good use.
Why don't you tell us what Korea and the aggregate Middle Eastern countries medical societies say about it (it might even give us further insight into bias). Your wiki link did tell us what the medical societies in Canada, Australia, and across Europe say. Let's go further and find out the same for China and India?
