Norwegian ruling party votes to ban circumcision for men under 16 years old

lenny2

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2012
3,574
729
113
This suggests, apart from a vit K supplement, it is best to wait until at least day 8 to circumcise a new born:

"Vitamin K deficiency bleeding can occur in infants up to 6 months of age, although it most commonly occurs either in the first week of life (classical) or at 3–8 weeks (late)."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3773869/

Other evidence supports the view that it is better for the baby to be circumcised earlier rather than later.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,697
21
38
^^^
So we agree there is no science behind the Bible's claim of the 8th day being the best time for circumcision, nor that vitamin K peaks on the 8th day.
 

lenny2

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2012
3,574
729
113
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."
The second quote is just some internet forum anti-circ yahoo on a crusade.

The first quote doesn't mention circumcision, although it presents day 8 as the safe limit for "natural synthesis of vitamin K". Oh, day 8, where have we heard that before?

Does vitamin K supplementation given to babies at birth allow doctors to safely circumcise as early as 24 hours after birth? With this advantage of modern science, could a circumcision at an even earlier day than #8 be even better? OTOH, could it have been best in ancient times to do it on day 8, since vitamin k shots were not available, and in light of info that early circumcision is best?
 

lenny2

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2012
3,574
729
113
So we agree there is no science behind the Bible's claim of the 8th day being the best time for circumcision, nor that vitamin K peaks on the 8th day.
Though it may very well be true, at least for ancient times, the Bible itself doesn't make the claim the 8th day was or is the best time for circumcision. A website i linked (see below) did made some claims, but whether or not they are supported by the book referred to is to be determined. The chart there only concerned results up to day 8, not a person's entire life.

http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1118

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.
 

Blue-Spheroid

A little underutilized
Jun 30, 2007
3,436
3
0
Bloor and Sleazy
In my view, this thread has become offensive and even hateful at times.

Male circumcision is a completely benign procedure that has been shown to have health benefits and there have been no negative consequences documented. There is no reason why those who want to circumcise their newborn boys should be prevented from doing so. It is a matter of choice just like piercing ears (which, in young children, frequently leads to infections by the way).

The only reason that this has become an issue is that Muslims believe in male circumcision and there are some very bigoted TERB members with an irrational fear of Muslims posting in this thread.

In fact, Muslims adopted circumcision from the Jews who practice it as well. There are many Christians who believe in circumcising their sons and there are many parents who make this choice for their male children for non-religious reasons.

There have been posts here suggesting that we should be against circumcision because it is a Muslim practice and, therefore barbaric. This is a hateful and unacceptable statement to make in public and those who have espoused this view should be ashamed of themselves. As we all know, circumcision is not a "Muslim" practice but an international one in which Muslims also participate. And we also know that there is nothing "barbaric" about Islam and so it is offensive to imply the two are linked. And while we're on the topic, female circumcision is not party of Muslim, Christian, or Jewish law and it is hateful to imply that Muslims support this practice.

I am out of this thread. While I appreciate respectful debate, I will not participate in or encourage hate speech. I am shocked at what some of you have written and i am disappointed that so few of you (and zero MODs it appears) have stepped up to call out the bigots an call for an end to this shameful behaviour.
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Circumcision is based in religion,...!!!

Always has been.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,353
9,949
113
Toronto
I am shocked at how much ignorance there is on display in this thread.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,353
9,949
113
Toronto
Its not abuse if the victim can't remember right?
FYI, nobody said that. They only said that is one reason why doing it an earlier age as opposed to older makes it easier for the individual.

But go ahead, twist the real meaning around to suit your agenda. Seeing as science and fact are against you, you need to resort to being disingenuous.
 

italianguy74

New member
Apr 3, 2011
1,799
1
0
GTA
FYI, nobody said that. They only said that is one reason why doing it an earlier age as opposed to older makes it easier for the individual.

But go ahead, twist the real meaning around to suit your agenda. Seeing as science and fact are against you, you need to resort to being disingenuous.
How in the world is science and fact against the males natural anatomy? I guess God is a fuck up and has no idea how to put a human being together?
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,697
21
38
FYI, nobody said that. They only said that is one reason why doing it an earlier age as opposed to older makes it easier for the individual.

But go ahead, twist the real meaning around to suit your agenda. Seeing as science and fact are against you, you need to resort to being disingenuous.
The only agenda in this thread belongs to those that wish to rationalize circumcision of infants in cases where it's not a medical necessity. It's quite striking actually.
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
How in the world is science and fact against the males natural anatomy? I guess God is a fuck up and has no idea how to put a human being together?
Obviously to the non religious, fore skin exists for a reason,...any male knows why the head of the penis needs to be protected, one CANNOT compare the suface of the head of a penis with any other exposed surface on people,...
 

lenny2

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2012
3,574
729
113
I guess God is a fuck up and has no idea how to put a human being together?
Maybe in the past history of man STIs & other problems with being uncircumcised were not an issue & it was better to remain uncut. And in time that changed, hence the command to be circumcised for his own good.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,697
21
38
Maybe in the past history of man STIs & other problems with being uncircumcised were not an issue & it was better to remain uncut. And in time that changed, hence the command to be circumcised for his own good.
The day that being cut means you're safe from STIs, your statement will have validity. As it stands, please wear a rubber and practice safe sex otherwise you're going to get infected with every STI imaginable.
 

lenny2

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2012
3,574
729
113
The day that being cut means you're safe from STIs, your statement will have validity. As it stands, please wear a rubber and practice safe sex otherwise you're going to get infected with every STI imaginable.
Nice straw man comment.

Being circumcised is a safer sex measure, just as is wearing condoms, withdrawal, using a condom with anti STI gel, taking Truvada, STI prevention shots, engaging in lower risk sex activities, avoiding anal sex, having regular STI tests, taking meds to cure curable STI's when infected, having above average DNA resistance or immunity vs HIV, etc.

Of course nothing ever goes wrong, as long as you have a condom in your pocket. You're 100% safe from every known STI.
There's no way a pregnancy could result, either ; LOL
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
Obviously to the non religious, fore skin exists for a reason,...any male knows why the head of the penis needs to be protected, one CANNOT compare the suface of the head of a penis with any other exposed surface on people,...
Thanks for pointing that out. I've been walking around for over half a century oblivious to notion that the head of my penis needed protection [Sarcasm intended]. Sounds like a lot of stereotype and ignorance flying around.

It had nothing to do with religion, as I am neither a Muslim nor a Jew. It had to do with a risk of the foreskin becoming too tight in the future and needing a cirmumcision much later in life, combined with the advantages of less maintenance and easier hygiene. Lately, it was discovered that those without a foreskin were less likely to transmit or catch HIV.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts