Norwegian ruling party votes to ban circumcision for men under 16 years old
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
if the foreskin is so dirty explain why cosmetics are using them to make skin creams? explain why bio tech companies are using them to make skin grafts? big business only want money
Other nations do not have medical association claiming circumcisions reduced STDs
4. How old does a male need to be to give consent for circumcision in your ideal universe? The age of consent varies amongst different countries & states 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.
5. It remains to be seen if circumcision in Africa will save lives & spare millions from HIV. The W.H.O. & others support mass circumcision there.
5b. True, but if you wait till 16 to let the male decide for or against being circumcised, he may already have been sexually active for years. Do you like the idea of letting a 12 year old choose instead of doing it when he's a baby? Whether at 12 or 16, the problems remains the same. More problems with the procedure at a later age & the minor may make the wrong decision.
I didn't say the foreskin is dirty. What's found inside the cut flesh is apparently of value to the companies you refer to. What i said is the foreskin is a "infection and dirt catcher". As in a HIV infection via sexual activity, something that you won't catch from a sanitized skin cream. Or mud wrestling could get all kinds of dirt & shit under the foreskin.
What are the medical societies of Israel, South Korea, PI & Muslim nations saying?
4. Perhaps the best way to determine age of consent would be for it to coincide with the age of sexual consent in any given society. If a person is deemed old enough to consent to have sex, they're old enough to consent to a procedure over their genitals. In some societies that will be 14, others 16, and so on.
5. I'm all for circumcision in HIV prevention in Africa and elsewhere. It is a huge problem and if circumcision of men reduces the problem even slightly, I think that's terrific. For anybody (uncut or cut) practicing safe sex in Africa or elsewhere, I think it's a non-issue. So I think consent should still apply.
5.b It's a balance of freedoms and risks that I think is fine. It's not a problem in developed countries where most men are uncut so I don't think there would be any greater risk. In places where there is an HIV epidemic, lack of education and sexual behavior are the cause of the spread. For example, when people believe that HIV is only a gay disease, and therefore they can be reckless, that's the problem. You will never eliminate HIV or other STIs thru circumcision. Education and changes in sexual behavior based on it are far more important in saving lives.
More reasons for early non consensual circumcision:
" A recent meta-analysis reporting on prospective and retrospective studies investigating circumcision found a median complication rate of 1.5% in neonates or infants. When circumcision was performed during childhood, the complication rate increased to 6%, a rate similar to that reported in studies of circumcised adolescents and adults.[39]"
"...With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established. However, there are some health benefits, especially in certain populations. Furthermore, performing circumcision in older boys, who are able to provide consent, can also increase risk and costs to the individual.[39]"
http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
" A recent meta-analysis reporting on prospective and retrospective studies investigating circumcision found a median complication rate of 1.5% in neonates or infants. When circumcision was performed during childhood, the complication rate increased to 6%, a rate similar to that reported in studies of circumcised adolescents and adults.[39]"
"...With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established. However, there are some health benefits, especially in certain populations. Furthermore, performing circumcision in older boys, who are able to provide consent, can also increase risk and costs to the individual.[39]"
http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
The Canadian Paediatric Society also recognizes lower STI & other benefits of circumcision:
"Current evidence indicates that there are potential health benefits associated with male circumcision, particularly in high-risk populations. Infant circumcision reduces the incidence of UTI in young boys and eliminates the need for medical circumcision in later childhood to treat recurrent balanoposthitis, paraphimosis and phimosis. Circumcised men have a lower risk of developing penile cancer, while the incidence of trichomonas, bacterial vaginosis and cervical cancer in the female partners of circumcised men is also reduced. Circumcision in adult men can reduce the risk of acquiring an STI (specifically HIV, HSV and HPV)...."
http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
Is there any medical association on earth that insists there are no benefits to, or refuse to perform, circumcisions?
From the same link you provided:
"the Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male."
"Evidence obtained from observational studies that male circumcision can decrease the risk of other STIs has been conflicting... Circumcision was not found to be protective against gonorrhea or chlamydia.[33] No studies have examined the impact of routine neonatal circumcision on STIs other than HIV."
"The most common late complication of circumcision is meatal stenosis (2% to 10%), which may require surgical dilation.[40] This condition can be prevented almost completely by applying petroleum jelly to the glans for up to six months following circumcision."
"In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices."
"It is important to remember that most data regarding the benefits and outcomes following circumcision come from countries other than Canada, which can make application to our population difficult."
I wouldn't think so. There are instances where circumcision is absolutely necessary.
It's the so-called "non medically" necessary circumcisions that are at issue here.
Is there any medical association on earth that insists there are no benefits to, or refuse to perform, such circumcisions?
Yet another reason:
"I would do it as a baby, my DH just had to have it done for medical reasons, it's been 9 weeks the stiches are still there, slowly disolving, still hurts to get an erection and worst of all I've been going without!"
http://www.whattoexpect.com/forums/july-2010-babies/topic/vitamin-k-delayed-circumcision.html
" Has anyone decided to wait until day 8 to circumcise or ever heard of this? We are opting to not have the Vitamin K injection right after birth. A newborn's Vitamin K levels peak at about day 8, so that is the best time to circumsize. Anyone else thinking of doing this or opting to not have the vitamin k injection?"
http://www.whattoexpect.com/forums/july-2010-babies/topic/vitamin-k-delayed-circumcision.html
Virtually everyone in that thread including those that have circumcised kids say their newborn was cut right away in the hospital. Nobody appears to have ever heard about the 8 day rule, other than from the Bible, and nobody posted any science supporting it.
The quote implies that with a vitamin K injection the procedure can be done earlier than 8 days, which would otherwise be the ideal day as far as far as blood clotting is concerned.
"i know people who've had it done when they were adults for medical reasons (ok, just one person) and it was painful and miserable and would have been better to get it over with when you can't remember it."
http://www.whattoexpect.com/forums/july-2010-babies/topic/vitamin-k-delayed-circumcision.html
http://www.whattoexpect.com/forums/july-2010-babies/topic/vitamin-k-delayed-circumcision.html
The poster is not a medical doctor and is inquiring about circumcision. Surely if the 8 day rule was a real scientific phenom, it would be easy to find actual scientific literature on it.
How are anecdotes like this helpful? For every post like this should I reply with an example of a guy who got cut at birth and wish he hadn't?
I got my tonsils removed in my teens (it was painful and I *wished* I had already got it done when I was younger so it would have been over already). I got 3 wisdom teeth pulled in adulthood... I wish I had them pulled when I was younger like most people. But there was nothing wrong with my tonsils then nor my wisdom teeth back then. That's life.
I wouldn't know. I haven't been looking since posting the link early in this thread that referred to, and detailed, research re vitamin K & day 8.
One thing is for sure. A large percentage of posters in that thread spoke of experiences with & or knowledge re vitamin K received by newborns.
I found the following on https://www.drugs.com/mmx/vitamin-k-4.html
"The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine vitamin K 1 administration at birth to prevent hemorrhagic disease of the newborn, since vitamin K from the mother may be inadequate because of poor passage through the placenta and because intestinal bacteria responsible for natural synthesis of vitamin K are not present for 5 to 8 days following birth."
This suggests that vitamin K is routinely administered after birth because babies are usually deficient of it. I've found nothing to suggest there is anything special about 8 days being the best time for circumcision nor the peak time for vitamin K production.
I also found this https://www.quora.com/Does-blood-really-coagulate-best-when-a-baby-is-8-days-old
"I’ve been looking for years, but I’ve never been able to find a reputable source for either vitamin K or prothrombin levels peaking on the 8th day. Both seem to peak much later, with nothing special about the 8th day, and no other surgery would be scheduled for then. The source cited by an earlier answer seems to be a religious fundamentalist site, and the graphs don’t even spell “prothrombin” correctly."
