What's new

Circumcision ?

I hope your child enjoy's his smegma, his higher risk of multiple forms of cancer, infection, and disease while having no added benefit whatsoever.
.

This is so wrong on numerous reasons it just makes me want to vomit. If you are really medical student you should be kicked out of the medical school just for posting this.
So lets cut ears, since ear wax you know is gross and washing and cleaning ears is so difficult - it will eliminate risk of ear infections as well! Lets castrate you for example as it will eliminate risk of testicular cancer in 100%.. How about mastectomies for young baby girls? That would surely reduce risk of mammary gland cancer to 100%! Maybe we should pull all permanent teeth as soon as they erupt - who needs decay and all the problems later in life?
 
There is no medical reason to do it - prevention of urinary tract infections was claimed as one but numbers where so low that it makes no significant difference. And it is not only Europe. 70% of men in the world are uncut. Of 30% world's men who are circumcised 25% are Muslim, rest is Jews, Americans, S.Koreans ( where Americans introduced it and made it somewhat popular) and odd person from other countries. Circumcision rate even in USA is rapidly declining FYI.
I understand why it happened thousands of years ago where people lived in hot climate conditions with no proper access to water and abilities to take care of your foreskin. Somehow it made its way into religion - can somebody of truly religious folks here explain to me why would God create a man as image of himself yet men find it wrong and cut part of that image off?
So at the end of the day the only non religious reason left -" it looks better". ( people used that excuse to cut off ears and tails of the dogs for years until we finally stopped that in EU and made it illegal). Eventually it will happen to circumcision as well - some European countries are already very close to banning it. Cosmetic circumcision for newborn males is currently banned in all Australian public hospitals ( still can be done in private hospitals). In September 2013, the Children's ombudsmen in all the Nordic countries issued a common statement where they called for a ban on circumcision on minors, stating that such circumsions violate the right of children after the Convention on the Rights of the Child to co-determination and protection from harmful traditions.
I think the only reason where circumcision can be justified is if dude has premature ejaculation issues. Since circumcision removes thousands of nerve endings and makes penis less sensitive to sexual stimulation it can help such a poor person to last longer.

Prepare your kids pee pee for the apocalypse. Get that **** trimmed, son.
 
the jazz season must be going slow if we are (still) talking about the inch of skin souronding a mans mommy daddy button....
 
This is so wrong on numerous reasons it just makes me want to vomit. If you are really medical student you should be kicked out of the medical school just for posting this.
So lets cut ears, since ear wax you know is gross and washing and cleaning ears is so difficult - it will eliminate risk of ear infections as well! Lets castrate you for example as it will eliminate risk of testicular cancer in 100%.. How about mastectomies for young baby girls? That would surely reduce risk of mammary gland cancer to 100%! Maybe we should pull all permanent teeth as soon as they erupt - who needs decay and all the problems later in life?

Cutting your ear reduces your hearing, cutting your ********* causes hormonal imbalance and infertility, cutting vestigial foreskin that we needed when we walked on all fours and when we didn't wear pants does none of those things. There is no strong evidence that it reduces sexual pleasure (sorry I don't consider Jewish philosophers [i.e. non scientists] speculating 2000 years ago as science like you do), there is evidence it reduces multiple forms of cancer, infection, and disease.

I would agree with you I really would AKMVP but then both of us would be wrong. I just value credible scientific sources too much to agree with you.
 
there is evidence it reduces multiple forms of cancer, infection, and disease.
I just value credible scientific sources too much to agree with you.

You are unfair. You value whatever money driven AAP pulled out of their biased research and ignore whatever 99% of rest of the worlds medical societies and authorities say. The evidence you are talking is weak, not conclusive and not supported by any other major medical organization.
 
, cutting vestigial foreskin that we needed when we walked on all fours and when we didn't wear pants does none of those things.

Why would anybody consider foreskin vestigial? That's biggest nonsense I have ever read. Research more about its functions before talking nonsense.
And since when cutting off thousands of nerve endings does nothing to reduce sexual pleasure? You just said cutting of ears reduces hearing right? How? Our hearing is not happening because of cartilage and skin on the outside of the head - it may as well be considered vestigial and not needed based on your logic....So you apply same principal to ears but ignore it when it comes to foreskin.
 
Why would anybody consider foreskin vestigial? That's biggest nonsense I have ever read. Research more about its functions before talking nonsense.
And since when cutting off thousands of nerve endings does nothing to reduce sexual pleasure? You just said cutting of ears reduces hearing right? How? Our hearing is not happening because of cartilage and skin on the outside of the head - it may as well be considered vestigial and not needed based on your logic....So you apply same principal to ears but ignore it when it comes to foreskin.

It appears you do't know what vestigial means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigal. If you know what it means and still think the foreskin is not vestigial than I can no longer help you. There is a certain IQ I refuse to speak beneath and unfortunately you fit below that threshold. It would take too much effort for me to educate you as you are unwilling to accept science and choose to believe in nonsense and are deep in confirmation bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformation_bias
 
I haven't read any of the posts in this thread, but I thought I'd add my vote to the "circumcision is a violation of human rights" camp.
 
It appears you do't know what vestigial means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigal. If you know what it means and still think the foreskin is not vestigial than I can no longer help you. There is a certain IQ I refuse to speak beneath and unfortunately you fit below that threshold.[/url]

Dude, you are the one with no IQ at all and needing help here. I love how you utterly ignoring every evidence and recommendations from all medical organizations all over the world except biased money driven AAP. You never addressed numerous positive functions and benefits of foreskin either.
And I know perfectly what vestigial is, you don't need to post links which actually make you look like an idiot. Foreskin is not vestigial by any definition.
You such a pathetic hypocrite, so 2000 old Jewish philosopher's opinion can be ignored as "non scientific" yet barbaric religious ritual which originated more then 5000 years ago is somehow justified as scientific in your twisted mind.
 
I think you could argue that foreskin is vestigial. You could also argue it serves a valid purpose and therefore is not.
 
It appears you do't know what vestigial means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigal. If you know what it means and still think the foreskin is not vestigial than I can no longer help you. ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

Your bellowed Wikipedia article does not mention foreskin as vestigial. Only idiot like you could ever consider it as vestigial - it does not fit any definition of vestigiality - there is neither loss of function nor decrease is size.
 
If we could only start rejecting "I've been told that's what god wanted" argument, many of these debates would be instantly resolved.

The issue of whether foreskin is vestigial (obviously not) is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you're performing a serious surgical procedure on a non-consenting person in order to permanently alter their body to fit some arbitrary cultural or religious standards. I don't see how such behavior can be justified using any objective moral perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
Back
Top