Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

GP?

I think the question you meant to ask is why is the European institutions position out of step with equivalent American and UN institutions when they presumably have the same data to work with...?

Apologies - GP is General Practitioner, a UK term for what you would call your family doctor.

And yes you could rephrase the question that way. I was naturally being Euro-centric. The question is valid either way round.

 

[LukeB]

Haven't you been reading the thread? It's because the European institutions have been infiltrated by fundamentalist intactivists hell bent on destroying the noble institution that is circumcision.

Now you're being unfair, it's because they're Sooper Sekrit Nazis. It's almost like you haven't been paying attention to the clear well thought out responses in this thread!

 

[sadhatter]

What seems obvious to me is that infant circumcision activists know that if we left the decision to adults, the practice would fall out of style , sticking an infant with being circumcised, is a guarantee of the practice being committed, asking a grown man to cut off part of his Johnson, that is going to be a much harder sell.

 

[jdp]

And wouldn't it be hilarious if someone said that was hilarious while ignoring the specific response that says "In reality, the scientific evidence indicates that male circumcision, especially when performed in the newborn period, is an ethically and medically sound low-risk preventive health procedure conferring a lifetime of benefits to health and well-being. Policies in support of parent-approved elective newborn circumcision should be embraced by the medical, scientific and wider communities."

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2013/08/16/medethics-2013-101614.abstract

well no, it would not be "hilarious" at all.

And wouldn't it be funny if the lead author of that response was a man so strongly biased in support of circumcision that he's never heard a reason for circumcision that he didn't like and publicly advocated, such as to prevent 'toilet splatter' and 'zipper injury'?

Really if you're looking for support of circumcision, you're better off sticking with the slightly less biased AAP statements.

 

[332nd]

And wouldn't it be funny if the lead author of that response was a man so strongly biased in support of circumcision that he's never heard a reason for circumcision that he didn't like and publicly advocated, such as to prevent 'toilet splatter' and 'zipper injury'?

Really if you're looking for support of circumcision, you're better off sticking with the slightly less biased AAP statements.

... A... Are you serious?

 

[jdp]

And wouldn't it be funny if the lead author of that response was a man so strongly biased in support of circumcision that he's never heard a reason for circumcision that he didn't like and publicly advocated, such as to prevent 'toilet splatter' and 'zipper injury'?

Really if you're looking for support of circumcision, you're better off sticking with the slightly less biased AAP statements.

... A... Are you serious?

Afraid so....

www.circinfo.net/physical_problems.html

Zipper injury: In uncircumcised boys the foreskin can become accidentally entrapped in zippers, resulting in pain, trauma, swelling and scarring of this appendage. Foreskin accidents in men can also occur.

...

Bathroom 'splatter': Boys and men who are not circumcised can be a source of irritation if they do not retract the foreskin when they urinate, as 'splatter' will occur. Although not a medical problem, it is a source of annoyance for other people (such as a parent or partner) if it is they who have the job of cleaning the bathroom.

 

[Wildy]

Now you're being unfair, it's because they're Sooper Sekrit Nazis. It's almost like you haven't been paying attention to the clear well thought out responses in this thread!

Oh sorry, fundamentalist intactivist Soper Sekrit Nazis.

 

[The Big Dog]

Afraid so....

www.circinfo.net/physical_problems.html




...

When does due course catch up to the discussion?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

What seems obvious to me is that infant circumcision activists know that if we left the decision to adults, the practice would fall out of style , sticking an infant with being circumcised, is a guarantee of the practice being committed, asking a grown man to cut off part of his Johnson, that is going to be a much harder sell.

Yes, I think you nailed it there.

And wouldn't it be funny if the lead author of that response was a man so strongly biased in support of circumcision that he's never heard a reason for circumcision that he didn't like and publicly advocated, such as to prevent 'toilet splatter' and 'zipper injury'?

Really if you're looking for support of circumcision, you're better off sticking with the slightly less biased AAP statements.

They're getting desperate, it seems.

 

[The Big Dog]

Afraid so....

www.circinfo.net/physical_problems.html

...

Thanks for the link! That was we can enter your previous post into the annals of cherry picking!

Sure he cites several serious medical conditions, so lets ignore those and cite the ones with the silly sounding names.

By the way, zipper injury does NOT at all sound like a laughing matter. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The reason foreskin zipper injury can't occur in circumcised kids is because there's nothing there to be injured. It's like saying, "Hey, we better cut of kids' arms, they could BREAK THEM!"

 

[jdp]

Thanks for the link! That was we can enter your previous post into the annals of cherry picking!

Sure he cites several serious medical conditions, so lets ignore those and cite the ones with the silly sounding names.

Cherry picking, sure thing. Rather, I'd say, that citing such blatantly ridiculous and specious arguments informs us to the credibility of the author.

By the way, zipper injury does NOT at all sound like a laughing matter. Quite the opposite in fact.

The reason foreskin zipper injury can't occur in circumcised kids is because there's nothing there to be injured. It's like saying, "Hey, we better cut of kids' arms, they could BREAK THEM!"

Actually, if you really consider this unfortunate situation and you some how got the end of your member caught up in a zipper, would it be better to be the glans penis or the foreskin?

 

[The Big Dog]

Cherry picking, sure thing. Rather, I'd say, that citing such blatantly ridiculous and specious arguments informs us to the credibility?

No actually your egregious cherry picking, together with your refusal to answer my questions informs us as to your credibility. It is so much easier to mock rather than address the dozen or so other medical conditions listed in that article?

Your comment regarding the glans pensis shows us two things: 1. You don't know what you are talking about and 2. It acknowledges that it is a problem.

Tell you what, why don't you get busy with the many, many questions in tis thread.

Start with the explanation regarding witch doctor...

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The reason foreskin zipper injury can't occur in circumcised kids is because there's nothing there to be injured. It's like saying, "Hey, we better cut of kids' arms, they could BREAK THEM!"

I think I've heard of a grand total of one or perhaps two "zipper injuries" during my 28 years in "intactivist" Norway. Surprisingly, neither caused lasting injuries. Which brings us back -- if we are to do actual cost/benefit equations, there is no more reason to remove foreskin than there is to routinely remove any other infant body part.

Tell you what, why don't you get busy with the many, many questions in tis thread.

I see your frustration. It's so very annoying to discuss something with a person who does nothing but dodge questions. It makes it virtually impossible to get any real debating done.

 

[332nd]

The reason foreskin zipper injury can't occur in circumcised kids is because there's nothing there to be injured.

Wrong.... So very, very wrong....

 

[332nd]

Afraid so....

www.circinfo.net/physical_problems.html




...

Wow... As a circumcised male I thought the "cut down on masturbation" thing was crazy, but damn...

 

[jdp]

No actually your egregious cherry picking, together with your refusal to answer my questions informs us as to your credibility. It is so much easier to mock rather than address the dozen or so other medical conditions listed in that article?

Most if not all of the potential benefits cited on that page have been discussed in this thread at length, well except for 'zipper injury' and 'bathroom spladder' you just need to go back and read the stuff you ignored.

Your comment regarding the glans pensis shows us two things: 1. You don't know what you are talking about and 2. It acknowledges that it is a problem.

I really wish I knew where you were going with this.

Tell you what, why don't you get busy with the many, many questions in tis thread.

Start with the explanation regarding witch doctor...

Well lets get started with answering some of your questions then. Let me know when this gets too thread drifty.

Oh well, if you meant it seriously and all! Gee. Well, that is what we call a compound question. So, in a friendly and lively way lets break it up. Is it OK if we start with... "witch doctor"? Cool! What is a witch doctor? Where do they live? What religion are they? What "religious or social right, which might also be a medical procedure" do they practice? Because i don't have the first *********** clue!

What is a witch doctor.

It is currently used to refer to healers, particularly in third world regions, who use traditional healing rather than contemporary medicine. In contemporary society, witch doctor is sometimes used derogatorily to refer to chiropractors, homeopaths, and faith healers.

Where do the live?

Everywhere.

What religion are they?

Many religions, the term may refer to anyone using 'traditional healing rather than contemporary medicine.'

What "religious or social right, which might also be a medical procedure" do they practice?

Faith and use of traditional healing rather than contemporary medicine.

Some examples:

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...nked-to-Two-Dozen-Child-Deaths-208745201.html

http://www.medicaldaily.com/oregon-...-manslaughter-daughters-death-diabetes-255240

http://books.google.com/books/about/When_Prayer_Fails_Faith_Healing_Children.html?id=vDUElGmA3vkC

Relying on religious traditions that are as old as their faith itself, many devout Christians turn to prayer rather than medicine when their children fall victim to illness or injury. Faith healers claim that their practices are effective in restoring health - more effective, they say, than modern medicine.

Now I am pretty sure that health organizations have concluded that such practices could be prejudicial to a child's health, is it then appropriate for the governement and legislature to step in at this point?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Wrong.... So very, very wrong....

Emphasis on foreskin.

 

[332nd]

Emphasis on foreskin.

Emphasis on zipper injury.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

When I was very young (somewhere between the ages of 3 and 6), I caught my bits in my zip. It was the skin on the bottom about halfway down the shaft. My foreskin had nothing to do with it, and had I been circumcised I would still have had exactly the same injury.

It is truly a ridiculous reason to advocate for circumcision. The foreskin does not extend that much further from the tip of the penis to make the penis an appreciably bigger target and unless you're going commando and/or have no awareness of what you're doing, you're not going to catch your bits in your flies at all.

Plus, even if it were true, then there's another solution - wear trousers with a button fly. Seems like a better solution than amputating a part of your anatomy.