Circumcision

[DTA]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

It would be interesting to get hootnow's opinion on this as a Muslim and a doctor

At the end of the day I am not trying to promote circumcision in anyway, just take (very slight) offence to those that propose that it is a barbaric practice, which it really is not, if take away the medical benefits (which there are some no matter how much you argue against it) would we even be having this conversation if we were talking about children getting their ears pierced and where was the best place to have that done? No we would not and you know this, and why? Well because this is perfectly acceptable through western eyes.

And before anyone thinks that am some west loathing loony.... Nah .... born in the greatest city in the world London very proud to be a British Turkish Cypriot.

 

[braineclipse]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

Come on now you know I was not comparing the health benefits (at least I hope you do) I was stating that they are both 'inflicted' on children without their informed consent.

I have stated twice already but will so again, I think that children should have immunization and questions should be asked of those who don't do this for their children.

The standing on the shoulder of giants is romantic and in many ways very true, but you have picked out the very brightest to prove your point where as I was talking more of the general medical concensus of the times within which I think my point very much stands

Health benefits is the one explicit reason why children are are vaccinated. If not health benefits what are you comparing?

I don't think your point stands at all. If we care about separating fact from fiction, truth from lie, reality from speculation the best available method is the scientific consensus. It's not a perfect method, it probably won't ever be. But it will get a lot closer to the right answer than any other method I know of at least and I think that will continue to be the case. Unless you or someone else can present a better alternative we should go for the imperfect method that delivers the best results at the moment. Don't make perfection the enemy of the good or however the saying goes.

It would be interesting to get hootnow's opinion on this as a Muslim and a doctor

At the end of the day I am not trying to promote circumcision in anyway, just take (very slight) offence to those that propose that it is a barbaric practice, which it really is not, if take away the medical benefits (which there are some no matter how much you argue against it) would we even be having this conversation if we were talking about children getting their ears pierced and where was the best place to have that done? No we would not and you know this, and why? Well because this is perfectly acceptable through western eyes.

And before anyone thinks that am some west loathing loony.... Nah .... born in the greatest city in the world London very proud to be a British Turkish Cypriot.

So you're fine with parents having their infants pierced? Is this a view you think you share with many others? Where does this stop for you? Ears are fine I suppose? How about nipples? Nose?

Like I said before I think, piercings grow shut, slight difference from foreskin that doesn't grow back. What if a parent wanted to cut of their infant's earlobe, would that be fine too? Do we need the earlobe?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbaric

I think male infant circumcision fits several of those definitions myself.

I don't particularly care if people are offended, there's probably no criticism of religion or religious practices that won't be offensive to at least some people. I find the act being discussed here much more offensive than any vocal or written objection to that act could ever be. Not that I make that offense a part of my argument against circumcision of course.

About the medical benefits. It remains the case that medical decisions are made after considering the risk compared to the benefit. I'm not saying that there are no benefits, you seem to misunderstand me. I'm saying that the medical consensus seems to be that the benefits do not outweigh the risks in any significant way. If I was wrong about this I would expect some countries to move towards widespread male infant circumcisions exclusively for secular medical reasons. I'm not aware of any country where this takes place.

 

[DTA]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

Health benefits is the one explicit reason why children are are vaccinated. If not health benefits what are you comparing?

I don't think your point stands at all. If we care about separating fact from fiction, truth from lie, reality from speculation the best available method is the scientific consensus. It's not a perfect method, it probably won't ever be. But it will get a lot closer to the right answer than any other method I know of at least and I think that will continue to be the case. Unless you or someone else can present a better alternative we should go for the imperfect method that delivers the best results at the moment. Don't make perfection the enemy of the good or however the saying goes.



So you're fine with parents having their infants pierced? Is this a view you think you share with many others? Where does this stop for you? Ears are fine I suppose? How about nipples? Nose?

Like I said before I think, piercings grow shut, slight difference from foreskin that doesn't grow back. What if a parent wanted to cut of their infant's earlobe, would that be fine too? Do we need the earlobe?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbaric

I think male infant circumcision fits several of those definitions myself.

I don't particularly care if people are offended, there's probably no criticism of religion or religious practices that won't be offensive to at least some people. I find the act being discussed here much more offensive than any vocal or written objection to that act could ever be. Not that I make that offense a part of my argument against circumcision of course.

About the medical benefits. It remains the case that medical decisions are made after considering the risk compared to the benefit. I'm not saying that there are no benefits, you seem to misunderstand me. I'm saying that the medical consensus seems to be that the benefits do not outweigh the risks in any significant way. If I was wrong about this I would expect some countries to move towards widespread male infant circumcisions exclusively for secular medical reasons. I'm not aware of any country where this takes place.

No I thought I made it explicit that I was not comparing the health benefits, what I am saying is that they are both done to infants without their informed consent (I'm sure that I have written that more than once before)

What am saying about how knowledge develops, is not to belittle scientific achievement through the ages but to point out that we have got it very wrong in the past and will be doing so in certain fields at present as well, and not you, or anyone else will know what we are getting wrong now. Just like doctors suggesting people smoke in that last century to correct certain ailments.... Now you would not agree with that would you?

So speaking in certain terms about the benefit vs risk payoff in terms of circumcision based on the medical knowledge of today (especially when the risks are actually very low in the west at least) is slightly presumptuous.

 

[braineclipse]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

No I thought I made it explicit that I was not comparing the health benefits, what I am saying is that they are both done to infants without their informed consent (I'm sure that I have written that more than once before)

What am saying about how knowledge develops, is not to belittle scientific achievement through the ages but to point out that we have got it very wrong in the past and will be doing so in certain fields at present as well, and not you, or anyone else will know what we are getting wrong now. Just like doctors suggesting people smoke in that last century to correct certain ailments.... Now you would not agree with that would you?

So speaking in certain terms about the benefit vs risk payoff in terms of circumcision based on the medical knowledge of today (especially when the risks are actually very low in the west at least) is slightly presumptuous.

Infants are obviously incapable of informed consent, so by those terms everything done to them is done without informed consent. By any terms every medical intervention is done without their consent.

Vaccinations, like other medical interventions, are chosen and performed based on a consensus of experts and evidence. Because of this most morally normal people are fine with not needing consent from an infant when performing even invasive medical procedures. Vaccination is done exclusively because of medical concerns and based on medical evidence. To discuss or compare vaccinations without taking into consideration the one reason why they're done seems rather silly to me.

You can continue arguing that you were only making the point about consent in your comparison if you want to, but my objection to male infant circumcision is not in isolation that it's without their consent, everyone and their dog realizes that you have to do stuff to infants without their consent (be it informed or not). The reasons why stuff is done is obviously relevant. If this is not clear at this point I'm not sure if we'll ever get anywhere.

I cannot know with absolute certainty if any one scientific conclusion is true or not. I haven't claimed that science, be it medical or in other fields, is perfect. Most likely (or certainly) several scientific views will be modified, by science of course! What I'm saying is that a scientific evaluation of evidence will be right more of the time than any other method. Do you disagree?

I've yet to see you present any method that is better than science. I've yet to see you present any argument supporting why we should use another method at all. Pointing out over and over again that science is flawed isn't an argument against following scientific medical evidence, unless you can present a better alternative.

Science is the best we've got. Why shouldn't we use it?

 

[DTA]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

Infants are obviously incapable of informed consent, so by those terms everything done to them is done without informed consent. By any terms every medical intervention is done without their consent.

Vaccinations, like other medical interventions, are chosen and performed based on a consensus of experts and evidence. Because of this most morally normal people are fine with not needing consent from an infant when performing even invasive medical procedures. Vaccination is done exclusively because of medical concerns and based on medical evidence. To discuss or compare vaccinations without taking into consideration the one reason why they're done seems rather silly to me.

You can continue arguing that you were only making the point about consent in your comparison if you want to, but my objection to male infant circumcision is not in isolation that it's without their consent, everyone and their dog realizes that you have to do stuff to infants without their consent (be it informed or not). The reasons why stuff is done is obviously relevant. If this is not clear at this point I'm not sure if we'll ever get anywhere.

I cannot know with absolute certainty if any one scientific conclusion is true or not. I haven't claimed that science, be it medical or in other fields, is perfect. Most likely (or certainly) several scientific views will be modified, by science of course! What I'm saying is that a scientific evaluation of evidence will be right more of the time than any other method. Do you disagree?

I've yet to see you present any method that is better than science. I've yet to see you present any argument supporting why we should use another method at all. Pointing out over and over again that science is flawed isn't an argument against following scientific medical evidence, unless you can present a better alternative.

Science is the best we've got. Why shouldn't we use it?

dude you think that I am arguing that we should use alternative methods to medical science? No I can assure you I'm not, and not sure how you got that idea, all I'm saying is that to talk in absolutes is at best presumptuous and from a historic perspective very ill informed.

 

[DHSF]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

Shall we just agree that it is up to the parents to decide... not like they're beating their kids up or putting their kids in the changing rooms at JD Sport.

 

[DTA]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

Shall we just agree that it is up to the parents to decide... not like they're beating their kids up or putting their kids in the changing rooms at JD Sport.

100% agree with you.

 

[braineclipse]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

dude you think that I am arguing that we should use alternative methods to medical science? No I can assure you I'm not, and not sure how you got that idea, all I'm saying is that to talk in absolutes is at best presumptuous and from a historic perspective very ill informed.

"[...]your whole degree of risk argument is based on the medical knowledge of today.... However it wasn't so long ago that leaches were being used to treat the sick and all the range in western medicine.... Who knows in 200 years time what people will think the barbaric medical practices of today are"

Yes, my argument is based on the medical knowledge of today. You seem to argue that this is not the best approach, but you've failed to present any viable better approach.

What is your argument based on? Apparently medical knowledge of today is not it...

Shall we just agree that it is up to the parents to decide... not like they're beating their kids up or putting their kids in the changing rooms at JD Sport.

Obviously I won't agree with that.

Interesting that you mention beating your kids up, something that has been done for ages and has been supported by both religious and cultural views and is still being done today supported by "spare the rod, spoil the child" type facetious arguments whilst ignoring actual research and evidence.

You don't think a parent has a right to hit their child, but you think they have the right to cut off their foreskin. I fail to see the reasoning behind this.

 

[scaramanga]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

Shall we just agree that it is up to the parents to decide... not like they're beating their kids up or putting their kids in the changing rooms at JD Sport.

No we can't agree on that.

Many parents are stupid/malicious/misguided/incompetent/etc. They don't always know what's right and their child isn't their property to do with as they wish.

See this for an extreme example:
http://m.calgarysun.com/2013/11/22/...m-who-used-holistic-treatment-before-son-died

 

[Kingdawson]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

Bump.

Tight foreskin...might need to get it done now.........[-o<[-o<](*,)

That sums up my emotions.

 

[scaramanga]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

Bump.

Tight foreskin...might need to get it done now.........[-o<[-o<](*,)

That sums up my emotions.

Don't worry. I took a cricket ball to the delicates at about 13 years old and it needed doing. It's not all that painful - the most difficult bit is not playing with it for a couple of weeks (especially difficult for a 13 year old).

 

[Kingdawson]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

Don't worry. I took a cricket ball to the delicates at about 13 years old and it needed doing. It's not all that painful - the most difficult bit is not playing with it for a couple of weeks (especially difficult for a 13 year old).

Yeh cheers for that mate.

I've read a lot of circumcision for adults and apparently it isn't all that bad in terms of pain. It's going to take some getting used to of course...visually...having the glans exposed with no protection etc. Apparently the worst part of the recovery process is when you get a random errection

 

[Kingdawson]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

friday 21st March = R.I.P foreskin

 

[scaramanga]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

Look out for morning glory. Usually you can avoid contact fairly easily and avoid discomfort, but it's a bit more difficult when you're asleep.

If you can sleep on your back, think of getting a kind of frame (imagine a zimmer frame laid down) to raise the duvet off of you. Your info is right though, it's nowhere near as uncomfortable as you'd imagine.

 

[DTA]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/circumcision-before-age-35-cuts-3385713

 

[scaramanga]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/circumcision-before-age-35-cuts-3385713

As per usual from the British press, terrible science reporting from a terrible study.

Did nobody at any point think to ask why these (self-reporting) circumcised men decided at some point during their adult lives to get circumcised? Infection/STDs being the most likely reasons for a doctor to recommend the procedure and also being linked to prostate cancer.

So the real story from that is if you have an infected ****, cut a bit off.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

Hi KD, how's your schlong doing? Perhaps the tight bathing hood might have contributed to your inability to enjoy getting some deliciously good head? Have you considered letting someone have a go at it now that you've repaired the old wiener?

 

[Kingdawson]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

Hi KD, how's your schlong doing? Perhaps the tight bathing hood might have contributed to your inability to enjoy getting some deliciously good head? Have you considered letting someone have a go at it now that you've repaired the old wiener?

I haven't got it done yet .

I got it examined by a doctor who said i need it. Asked me what hospital i wanted the procedure done to which i replied "the one that can give me the earliest appointment". She replied Croydon University Hospital can fit you in 3 weeks from now....i said fine. I go there on the 21st expecting to get my knob cut off but all that happens is i see a Urologist who again confirms i should get it done and i would have to wait 1-2 months. They called me the night before telling me what i should and should not eat before etc etc...so naturally i thought this was in preparation for the operation, macarons.

There was a somewhat funny story to this though. As i was waiting in the lounge area for my name to be called (sitting directly opposite the room of the urologist that i will be seeing), in walks this fine looking Asian chick, no more than 25. I think to myself 'i know this fine looking woman isn't going to be the one examining me' and i somewhat panic. My manhood wasn't at it's best state let's just say (it was cold tbf). I say to myself **** this....go to the toilet...put on a ****o on my phone and do some casual stretches. 5 or so minutes later i'm at that glorious semi erect stage. Out i go hoping they call my name asap and they do...a few minutes later. I go in that room with such confidence...it was beautiful.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

A beautiful picture, indeed. A semi is a fantastic state of penis, however, I suspect the Asian chick would have setteled for 2 inches, and I'm talking erect here.

Hope your op goes dandy.

Sent from my HTC One using Fapatalk

 

[AuroRaman]

Re: INfant circumcision. The best one

Please advise on the name of the site which works on a mobile.... 8-[