fordy said:
steverhcp02 said:
fordy said:
steverhcp02 said:
fordy said:
steverhcp02 said:
So yes, parents make an executive decision based on the information we give them of pros and cons. Cons being possible stimulation. Cons can include a possible mistake, just as any medical procedure. We are honest and as a medical profession who cares for countless readmmision of people not doing "easy" things, im completely in favor of a parent making an informed decision for their newborn BEFORE he can talk and rationalize or justify his choice which at that time would be traumatic to lose a part of your body, however small.
|
So you don't think a child gets to make a decision on something that will affect him his entire life? Very well, let's play with this:
You know, throat cancer is hard to get without a throat, so why not just rip those out at birth? After all, people can use those electronic voice boxes. Totally removes the risk of any chance there. How about bowel cancer huh? Kinda hard to get that if we tear out one's colon and leave them with colostomy bags. All in the name of NOT getting cancer, we have to cut ourselves up. See what kind of idiotic logic this is? You're willing to cut out PERFECTLY WORKING tissue in order to prevent the risk of something that is not likely to occur?
|
Once again, you sensationalize using an extreme case of removing vital organs for CANCERS. The removal of the foreskin limits the harboring of bacteria in dark, damp places. It needs to be cleaned daily if not more, it needs to be dried. It is something that has no effect on the function of the body by removing the foreskin. This isnt a cancer issue, its a comfort prophylacytic measure where the pros outweigh the cons. And again, its not being forced upon anyone.
The fact of the matter is people argueing against the right to CHOOSE to do this do so in very sensationlistic ways to try to either scare or justify their A) lack of knowledge and B) lack of argument. This isnt a fight to enforce this practice its a fight to preserve the right to this practice if one chooses. Those in favor of the former dont grasp the use of it as evidence by your analogy of removing vital organs to prevent cancer in an argument where we are removing essentially a skin tag to prevent the risk of infection.
The fact that youre comparing foreskin in functionality to the throat and bowels should have red flagged me to not even respond. but ive already typed and no sense in deleting it.
|
The foreskin has a function. It is still living tissue made to protect the glans. Since the foreskin also contains nerve endings, it also heightens stimulation. You're trying to tell me that the pros outweigh the cons, since when does severing of nerve endings on one's junk EVER have a pro that outweighs it.
You're being over dramatic about the care of such things too. There are plenty of intact males who do not clean regularly and still have had little to no problem whatsoever. It's been part of humans for thousands of years, and the way you speak, if you miss one day of cleaning, it will shrivel up and fall off.
I honestly think that you need to do a bit of research yourself. You mention lack of knowledge, and you're trying to justify your argument with ethos, in your case, saying you know best because you work in the medical industry. Give me a logical explanation of WHY even minimalistic maintenance is not sufficient enough to warrant a procedure that's potentially risky and usually debilitating to one's sensation.
|
I most certainly have not tried to make it sound like this is a necessity. In fact ive said multiple times it isnt. If the best reasoning you have is "people have done it for thousands of years" then youve got nothing. Go find me medical documentation from the 1920's. Let alone 3000 years ago, you ahve no idea the prevalence of glans penis infection, irritation, transferring of infection etc.How many babies died of PKU being not diagnosed, oh but they didnt do it 3000 years ago so we shouldnt do that, right? What about eye infections from the vaginal canal at birth before antibiotic ointment was invented to use after birth? How many deaths? You dont know? Thats right you dont know how many men from 3000 years ago has infections, or passed on infections without knowing.
Youre ignoring the advancment of our knowledge of bacteria, fuck antibiotics are less than 90 years old, yet youre content with simply doing things "like they did 3000 years ago"?
Im not saying i know more than everyone argueing in favor of forcing people to follow nothign more than ideology (but i am saying i know far more than you) but the fact is the only reason people are forcing this (or i should say the reasoning they can verbalize) is not grounded in science.
The medical community knows its not necessary, thats why its a choice. we also give vitamin K injections, we also use erythromycin eye ointments after birth, we do PKU testing to ensure babies are receiving proper and accurate nutrition.....they didnt do that 3000 years ago because antibiots werent invented but do you know why? When a baby passes through the vaginal canal they can get gonorhhea or other STD's just simply from birth even if the mother doesnt have those diseases, it infects their eyes so we prophylactically give ointment.
If all you have is "people dont wash and they didnt get an infection" you absolutley lack the knowledge of not only preventative medicine but medicine in general. Nothign in life let alone medicine is black and white. There is failure, success and in between. People who never smoke, never worked with carcinogenic agents develop lung cancer in their 40's. Why? we dont know.
We see things we cant explain and we do the best to help people remian healthy and happy. By knowing what we know about bacteria and the covered glans penis we offer this service if parents want it. Thats all.
You know absolutley nothing about bacteria, colonization or how diseases work. You take a small (and probably made up) pool of adult males who rarely clean their glans penis and use it as a reason to not have this optional procedure done. Youre the kind of person who would vote for this, who would compare this to removing bowels and throats prophylactically. Unreal, and why i fucking hate 95% of the people who are allowed to vote on topics theyre painfully uneducated about.
|
Yeah, sensationalist points are not making your arguing any more professional. You really think that I said we should go back to 3000 years ago, including nonsterile places, improper hygeine (by a LOT worse standards than 17th century London), bathing water that wasn't treated. The chances of infections caught now are miniscule in comparison to back then. Are you saying that despite the advancements we have made to treat and prevent such infections, the only way is STILL cutting off parts of our dicks? Seriously?
You're right, nothing is black and white, but your argument of "we should do it, just in case" seems pretty overkill to tackle this. Outside of the US, the circumcised are in the minority. The 2000 British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyle found that 16% of 16-44 year-olds were circumcised. Now tell me, if the majority of these people were having frequent infections and troubles pertained by keeping the foreskin intact wouldn't the government actually step in and do something about it? This is what's wrong with America. Medicine is a business, so people are STRONGLY encouraged to take the path that will reap the most financial benefit. Your earlier claim that "most medical practitioners recommend it" is totally reversed throughout the rest of the world. Oh, and look at that, the rest of the world isn't going to hell in a handbasket from overcrowded hospitals from penile infections. Funny that. Nice to see you're part of the American privatisation machine.
You know what I hate? People who argue their points using the ethos method of persuasion (ie. "You don't know anything about it. I do. I work with it"). Your claim that circumcision is necessary is flawed by the logical fact that, for example, the UK's majority is uncircumcised, yet the country is not sufferng any such hardships from a majority of the popuation "not cleaning frequntly enough".
One part I do agree on, however, "i fucking hate 95% of the people who are allowed to vote on topics theyre painfully uneducated about." 100% correct, which is why you really should look up such statistics and educate yourself before you take a stand on this.
|
