Personally I think it's extremely repugnant and disgusting that anyone thinks they can ever justify doing it to a baby unless they have something wrong with their foreskin and it's absolutely medically necessary. I can't understand how anyone can ever justify it religiously with bullshit myths about hygiene (when there's a such thing as washing) STD protection (when there's a such thing as condoms) or the fact they had it done to themselves as a baby (two wrongs don't make a right and they don't actually know what they're missing out on).

(April 28, 2018 at 7:15 pm)Lutrinae Wrote:

(April 28, 2018 at 7:12 pm)The Industrial Atheist Wrote: There's a general consensus that flu shots and orthodontics are necessary or at least do more good than harm. This isn't the case with circumcision except in certain cases.

In what way?  Please, by all means, be specific.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24899259

RESULTS:

Approximately one-third (33.2%) of the respondents reported that their current perspective was that the medical benefits outweigh the risks associated with newborn male circumcision and less than one-third (31.1%) reported they would recommend the procedure when counseling parents.
--------------------------------
In terms of orthodontics you won't get Orthodontists saying braces don't do more good than harm. At least when they are necessary. But people don't put braces on newborn babies, or even 10 year olds without a good reason.

With the flu shot, it's just basic science. If the flu shot makes you sick, I won't make you get a flu shot. But reams of study show that it is helpful. It's a real thing.

With circumcision, it's basically: 1)All that skin is nasty yo 2)it helps prevent std's (there are better ways that don't involve permanent body alteration 3)Hygiene (just pull it back and clean it and you're fine)

---

Quote:Is circumcision beneficial?

Circumcision prevents infection and inflammation of the foreskin. And it may decrease the risk of penile cancer.

It might play a role in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

Infants who are not circumcised may be more likely to develop urinary tract infections. These infections early in life may lead to kidney problems later in life. Infants who have kidney or bladder abnormalities are at higher risk of urinary tract infections, so circumcision may be advised for these babies.

In rare circumstances problems can occur with the uncircumcised penis that may require circumcision at an older age. These problems include inflammation of the foreskin or adherence of the foreskin to the tip of the penis. Circumcision during infancy eliminates the possible need for the procedure at an older age.

Circumcision makes it easy to keep the end of the penis clean.

https://doctor.ndtv.com/photo/is-circumc...icial-7561

I mean... the clue is in the fact that it's a body part we evolved to have... of course it's healthy to have it.

You know that thing in between your nose that separates your nostrils? Imagine if people cut that off for some religious bullshit reason and justified it with bullshit about how it makes the nose easier to clean and you can smell better with one big nostril.

And they did it to babies without their consent.

It's literally as fucked up and crazy as that. It's only a matter of degree.

Female circumcision is far worse than male circumcision for example (similar though... in both cases it reduces the person's potential for sexual pleasure). It's just a matter of degree. It's all barbaric. I think it should be made illegal and anyone who does it to a baby without a medically necessary reason should go to prison for child abuse and have their children taken away and given to non-abusive parents.

Like I said, Adam was supposedly made in God's image... oh but apart from Adam's foreskin that was a mistake.

It's fucking retarded.

(April 28, 2018 at 7:14 pm)Alexmahone Wrote:

henryp Wrote:Do you think a 10yo should be able to refuse orthodontics?

Absolutely.

Quote:Can a 10yo refuse a flu shot?

They ought to be able to.

Unless there is an imminent life-threatening situation, I don't like the idea of using physical force against children.

So if kids don't want shots you shouldn't give them their shots?? Lol, I wouldn't gotten any in that case, I hated needles when I was a kid.

Yup it should be it's the involuntary mutilation of someones anatomy

(April 28, 2018 at 7:54 pm)Lutrinae Wrote:

Quote:Is circumcision beneficial?

Circumcision prevents infection and inflammation of the foreskin. And it may decrease the risk of penile cancer.

It might play a role in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

Infants who are not circumcised may be more likely to develop urinary tract infections. These infections early in life may lead to kidney problems later in life. Infants who have kidney or bladder abnormalities are at higher risk of urinary tract infections, so circumcision may be advised for these babies.

In rare circumstances problems can occur with the uncircumcised penis that may require circumcision at an older age. These problems include inflammation of the foreskin or adherence of the foreskin to the tip of the penis. Circumcision during infancy eliminates the possible need for the procedure at an older age.

Circumcision makes it easy to keep the end of the penis clean.

https://doctor.ndtv.com/photo/is-circumc...icial-7561

That may be true, but they aren't actually treating a medical problem, except in the case of those whose foreskin is too tight.
You could argue that it's preventative, like the flu shot, but the flu shot doesn't permanently alter anyone's body unless you count the immune response.

(April 28, 2018 at 8:16 pm)The Industrial Atheist Wrote:

(April 28, 2018 at 7:54 pm)Lutrinae Wrote: https://doctor.ndtv.com/photo/is-circumc...icial-7561

That may be true, but they aren't actually treating a medical problem, except in the case of those whose foreskin is too tight.
You could argue that it's preventative, like the flu shot, but the flu shot doesn't permanently alter anyone's body unless you count the immune response.

Don't think I don't see your personal perspective clouding your reasonable judgement.

(April 28, 2018 at 7:14 pm)Alexmahone Wrote: Unless there is an imminent life-threatening situation, I don't like the idea of using physical force against children.

So.............. this should not be treated??? It's not life threatening.

(April 28, 2018 at 8:41 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(April 28, 2018 at 7:14 pm)Alexmahone Wrote: Unless there is an imminent life-threatening situation, I don't like the idea of using physical force against children.

So.............. this should not be treated??? It's not life threatening.

I think he mean medically necessary