Circumcision illegal in Ireland?

Dave!

Sefirah wrote: »

Dave, I think you'd do well to watch a circumcision in it's entirety with all the gory details, then come back and tell us we're over-reacting

PS thanks Chuck

Go watch a heart surgery and see how you enjoy it :rolleyes:


Can you show a bit of sense FFS? Bloody idiotic argument

Chuck Stone

Dave! wrote: »

Go watch a heart surgery and see how you enjoy it :rolleyes:


Can you show a bit of sense FFS? Bloody idiotic argument

I used to regularly watch a show on Discovery about surgery and found it fascinating.

I couldn't watch a child being circumsised as I find it totally disturbing.

Sefirah

Dave! wrote: »

Go watch a heart surgery and see how you enjoy it :rolleyes:


Can you show a bit of sense FFS? Bloody idiotic argument

Heart surgery = knocked out + necessary
Circumcision = fully conscious + unnecessary

Not an idiotic argument in the slightest

strobe

Dave! wrote: »

Go watch a heart surgery and see how you enjoy it :rolleyes:


Can you show a bit of sense FFS? Bloody idiotic argument

How many heart surgeries are performed on infants for non medical reasons a year there Dave?

Sefirah

Circumcision is just yet another manifestation of religion's perverse obsession with sex. I find it interesting that people see the alteration of one's genitals as being in the same league as procedures on one's ears or heart- it's not.

Improbable

If it were for legitimate medical reasons, everybody would be doing it. I'm not saying that it's not medically beneficial because I'm not a medical researcher and I haven't done much reading on the topic. The point is, the vast majority of them are done for religious reasons and those that do it for religious reasons and then claim that it has tangible medical benefits usually can't back that up except to say "Well, I was told by the rabbi that it was good healthy practice".


If you want to give your child unnecessary medical procedures, I guess you can do that (for the moment) so long as you cloak it under the protection of religion. Me, I'm going to not be mutilating my childrens genitals for no apparent reason.

Dave!

strobe wrote: »

How many heart surgeries are performed on infants for non medical reasons a year there Dave?

The argument should then be "it's an unnecessary medical procedure", not "I watched one and found it upsetting to watch, therefore it's bad." See the difference?


For some reason this is a particularly emotive subject for you all, evidently 50%+ of the male American population has some profound mental or medical problems that I don't know about which has caused ordinarily civil people to throw their rational faculties out the window. Not much point in carrying on with this pointlessness.

Chuck, post up that study re: hundreds of deaths, and I'll take a look.

Sefirah

Rabbi OR Iman :P I feel like us Jews are getting a bad rap here, especially since the vast majority of circumcisions done in the world are by Muslims

Improbable

Dave! wrote: »

The argument should then be "it's an unnecessary medical procedure", not "I watched one and found it upsetting to watch, therefore it's bad." See the difference?


For some reason this is a particularly emotive subject for you all, evidently 50%+ of the male American population has some profound mental or medical problems that I don't know about which has caused ordinarily civil people to throw their rational faculties out the window. Not much point in carrying on with this pointlessness.

Chuck, post up that study re: hundreds of deaths, and I'll take a look.

I can't seem to access the full paper because my university isn't subscribed to the journal, but here's just 1 study from a quick search on google.

http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=49230f5c4c0a4a7f94d3de6d376ed59c&pi=5

strobe

Dave! wrote: »

The argument should then be "it's an unnecessary medical procedure", not "I watched one and found it upsetting to watch, therefore it's bad."

I read Sefirah's comment to be saying "you would appreciate more how bad it is if you had actually seen one". I'm not sure how you took from it what you did to be honest Dave. It seemed fairly straight forward.

(of course I could be wrong. Maybe Sefirah meant your weird "I found it uncomfortable to watch ∴ circumcision = bad" thing).

See the difference?

See above. I do not believe the difference exists in the way you would like it to.

For some reason this is a particularly emotive subject for you all, evidently 50%+ of the male American population has some profound mental or medical problems that I don't know about which has caused ordinarily civil people to throw their rational faculties out the window. Not much point in carrying on with this pointlessness.

Unnecessary and painful surgery with all the risks that surgery carries (death, deformation, infection etc) performed on children with the most spurious of justifications, emotive? How very odd.

Yahew

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Fair enough - I'll take on board what you say. I don't really see the thread as being confrontational myself but maybe I'm just thick skulled.

You haven't learn to quote very well so I will leave the decision on your thick skulledness as an excercise for the user.

I got circumcised as an adult for aesthetic reasons. It was fine. Good on me. Since no woman would get FGM voluntary there's your answer to that comparison. The stats on penile cancer etc. should also help. 1 in 1000 is a lot. I thibk it should be voluntary but most people should do it - young if possible.

So it is not just religious - and this forum may not be the best place for this discussion.

Chuck Stone

Dave! wrote: »

Chuck, post up that study re: hundreds of deaths, and I'll take a look.

A quick search unearthed this but I'm not sure on the source (I'm hung-over and can't be bothered checking the source out atm)


http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Sefirah

For all those guys getting circumcisions because they think it looks prettier or will aid them sexually- from a woman's perspective, I must say that uncircimcised wins every time. And yes, I know I can't speak on behalf of the entire female species, but foreskin DOES serve a purpose of avoiding chaffing during masturbation and also stimulates the woman better during sex through it's 'bunching' around the outside when he's penetrating her.

And now that everyone's thoroughly grossed out by that description, I bid ye a good night!

Chuck Stone

Yahew wrote: »

So it is not just religious - and this forum may not be the best place for this discussion.

Oh it's you........

I'm happy for a mod to move this thread if he chooses to. I don't think back seat modding is appreciated tbh.

kylith

Sefirah wrote: »

For all those guys getting circumcisions because they think it looks prettier or will aid them sexually- from a woman's perspective, I must say that uncircimcised wins every time. And yes, I know I can't speak on behalf of the entire female species, but foreskin DOES serve a purpose of avoiding chaffing during masturbation and also stimulates the woman better during sex through it's 'bunching' around the outside when he's penetrating her.

And now that everyone's thoroughly grossed out by that description, I bid ye a good night!

100% agree.

Mark Hamill

mehfesto wrote: »

And finally it can reduce the instances of AIDS:

From the WHO

Those 3 studies (here) where all stopped early for ethical reasons (in one it was found that the control group had a greater number of people infected than the test group), so their results mean diddly squat.

sensibleken

Im circumcised since i was an infant, I have no idea why but certainly not for religious reasons.
I used to be a piercer so came accross mens willys a couple of times a week. I can honestly say I am delighted that Im circumcised. Even if it wasnt for medical reasons Id thank the guy that did it

GLaDOS

sensibleken wrote: »

Im circumcised since i was an infant, I have no idea why but certainly not for religious reasons.
I used to be a piercer so came accross mens willys a couple of times a week. I can honestly say I am delighted that Im circumcised. Even if it wasnt for medical reasons Id thank the guy that did it

Why?

sensibleken

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Why?

It didnt smell as much* and easier to heal genital piercings.



*making no judgement on anyones wang i have not personally handled

Zombrex

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Assault is illegal so how come circumcision isn't deemed assault?

Er, because it isn't assault.

It is either a cosmetic or medical procedure. Where are you getting assault from?

yawha

Well, you could cut off someone's arm and their armpit wouldn't smell as much - or they could just wash properly every day...

Though I have to say, I don't think adequate penile hygiene is taught properly at all. As horrible as it sounds, it didn't occur to me to wash under my foreskin until I was about 14, and was taught nothing about foreskin retraction during puberty. I shudder when I think of how many men potentially neglect to roll it back and wash it during every shower.

I'm sure genital piercings do heal quicker. If an adult wished to be circumcised to facilitate genital piercing, then that is perfectly fine and entirely his decision to make.

sensibleken

yawha wrote: »

Well, you could cut off someone's arm and their armpit wouldn't smell as much - or they could just wash properly every day...

Though I have to say, I don't think adequate penile hygiene is taught properly at all. As horrible as it sounds, it didn't occur to me to wash under my foreskin until I was about 14, and was taught nothing about foreskin retraction during puberty. I shudder when I think of how many men potentially neglect to roll it back and wash it during every shower.

I'm sure genital piercings do heal quicker. If an adult wished to be circumcised to facilitate genital piercing, then that is perfectly fine and entirely his decision to make.

Foreskin retraction? I wasnt even taught how humans reproduce. I was told the life cycle of the liver fluke and had to guess from there.

'Ok so i meet a girl in a bar, we fo find a watersnail, climb inside, metamorphos....

GLaDOS

sensibleken wrote: »

Foreskin retraction? I wasnt even taught how humans reproduce. I was told the life cycle of the liver fluke and had to guess from there.

I think that's a big part of the foreskin = dirty debate. Circumcision shouldn't be a replacement for cleaning yourself properly.

seamus

Yahew wrote: »

The stats on penile cancer etc. should also help. 1 in 1000 is a lot.

a. Penile cancer is very rare. 1 in 100,000 men.
b. Penile cancer rates do not vary between circumcised and uncircumsised men. Certainly between populations (think USA -v- Sweden), with vastly different circumcision rates, there is little or no variance in penile cancer rates.

I do however love that you think that using horror scenarios like penile cancer is justification. Medical benefits are often cited but have never been proven.

Cancer is a side-effect of growth. It's a disease of being alive. Every time a cell reproduces, there is a tiny risk of that cell being cancerous. So if you produce a lot of cells, you have more potential for cancer to develop. This is why cancers are most commonly found in parts where the cells grow a lot. So skin cancer is right up there. Lung cancer is common, especially among smokers, because environmental toxins cause lung damage, requiring more cells to be generated, increasing the risk of cancer.

The head of the penis, including the glans and the foreskin are blood-rich. This in turn causes them to heal and regenerate quickly. So these are parts of the body at a higher risk of developing cancer than say, the shaft of the penis which would rarely require regeneration. So on the surface it appears that you could claim that a circumcision reduces the chances of getting penile cancer. But in reality it doesn't. The figures don't bare out. Removing the foreskin doesn't halve your risk of penile cancer, just like removing a finger doesn't reduce your risk of finger cancer by 10%.

I thibk it should be voluntary but most people should do it - young if possible.

As a very satisified owner of a foreskin for almost 30 years now, I would urge all people to think long and hard (no pun) before depriving themselves or their children of this wonderful thing. I can see no benefit whatsoever to not having one.

My own personal view on it is that as part of the reproductive system, it would be one of the first things to "go" if it presented an evolutionary disadvantage. Other "flaws" like myopia or biting the inside of your own lip are indeed flaws, but they don't interfere with your ability to get laid. So if a foreskin in any way presented a disadvantage to getting laid versus having a smaller or no foreskin, it would have disappeared well before some guy heard voices in his head telling him to mutilate his children.

SirenX

tbh the only problem I see with male circumcision is when it's done to children who have no choice about it. if you decide to get it done for reasons that are cosmetic then fair enough, it's your choice and I totally see the medical side to it when the foreskin is too tight

but one thing I do not agree with is FGM. it's a disgusting act with no real purpose other than the fact that you will be seen as a social outcast and not marrage material. it's just another way to put women down and I've read stories where the child wasn't even given any anesthetic (sorry for my spelling) and therefore suffered terribly with PTSD
It's a horrible act and I think anyone found practicing it should be shot

krudler

Zillah wrote: »

There are three reasons that people get their children circumcised: Religious (blood sacrifice/covenant according to tradition), puritan (makes masturbation more difficult) or medical (too tight etc). Well I suppose there's the third; stupid (going with the flow - it's the done thing).

I've been overcoming this adversity since my early teens :pac:

Helix

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

there are health benefits to circumcision

there are no proven health benefits to it

Helix

sensibleken wrote: »

It didnt smell as much[/SIZE]

try washing

Zillah

krudler wrote: »

I've been overcoming this adversity since my early teens :pac:

Where there's a will(y) there's a wa(nk)y.


Parentheses humour :pac:

Yahew

seamus wrote: »

a. Penile cancer is very rare. 1 in 100,000 men.
b. Penile cancer rates do not vary between circumcised and uncircumsised men. Certainly between populations (think USA -v- Sweden), with vastly different circumcision rates, there is little or no variance in penile cancer rates.

I do however love that you think that using horror scenarios like penile cancer is justification. Medical benefits are often cited but have never been proven.

Cancer is a side-effect of growth. It's a disease of being alive. Every time a cell reproduces, there is a tiny risk of that cell being cancerous. So if you produce a lot of cells, you have more potential for cancer to develop. This is why cancers are most commonly found in parts where the cells grow a lot. So skin cancer is right up there. Lung cancer is common, especially among smokers, because environmental toxins cause lung damage, requiring more cells to be generated, increasing the risk of cancer.

The head of the penis, including the glans and the foreskin are blood-rich. This in turn causes them to heal and regenerate quickly. So these are parts of the body at a higher risk of developing cancer than say, the shaft of the penis which would rarely require regeneration. So on the surface it appears that you could claim that a circumcision reduces the chances of getting penile cancer. But in reality it doesn't. The figures don't bare out. Removing the foreskin doesn't halve your risk of penile cancer, just like removing a finger doesn't reduce your risk of finger cancer by 10%.

As a very satisified owner of a foreskin for almost 30 years now, I would urge all people to think long and hard (no pun) before depriving themselves or their children of this wonderful thing. I can see no benefit whatsoever to not having one.

My own personal view on it is that as part of the reproductive system, it would be one of the first things to "go" if it presented an evolutionary disadvantage. Other "flaws" like myopia or biting the inside of your own lip are indeed flaws, but they don't interfere with your ability to get laid. So if a foreskin in any way presented a disadvantage to getting laid versus having a smaller or no foreskin, it would have disappeared well before some guy heard voices in his head telling him to mutilate his children.

if the problems occur after reproduction it wouldn't matter to evolution. i see hundreds of medical sites on the internet which claim cancer and phimosis are related.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825185