NHS and the denial of circumcision.

[Trippoli]

No harm at all.
Tl;dr, kid died from blood loss during barbaric male genital mutilation, aka circumcision.

Family had bleeding problems. Probably should have looked into that before doing anything...

[Person012345]

No harm at all.
Tl;dr, kid died from blood loss during barbaric male genital mutilation, aka circumcision.

Family had bleeding problems. Probably should have looked into that before doing anything...

But they didn't. And he bled to death.

[Trippoli]

No harm at all.
Tl;dr, kid died from blood loss during barbaric male genital mutilation, aka circumcision.

Family had bleeding problems. Probably should have looked into that before doing anything...

But they didn't. And he bled to death.

Well, that may be.

But it wasn't directly the fault of the practice of Circumcision. If they would have looked into that they probably would have known not to do it.

He was a one in a million case and isn't a reason to ban circumcision.

[Glorious Homeland]

I was searching up on the world wide webs and found this page explaining why the NHS denies circumcision.
I was actually a bit shocked as I thought you would be allowed to have it done on your child for religious reasons.
The cost of circumcision privately various from £300-£1500. So most children don't get circumcision.

My question main question is: "Do you think a national health services should provide circumcision for non-medical reasons?".

Personally my opinion is that they shouldn't as in developed countries there is simply no need for circumcision.
One reason I'm normally given is because of religious reason, I certainly don't agree with that as I don't think you should be allowed to force your religious views on a child.
Hygienic reasons are just as absurd as if men can clean themselves daily normally don't need to about the build up of smegma.
Aesthetic reasons are also inane as you shouldn't be able to force your child to look the "same as daddy" for the rest of its life.

Circumcision can also can be very distressful and painful for your newborn.

What's your opinion NSG?

Genital mutilation had it's purpose back in the days when Judaism and Islam were at their peaks. People didn't have access to sanitation, and the sensitivity and thus sexualisation of the penis was taboo. It worked well back then, people didn't complain about being denied sexual pleasure, and it kept them clean.

Now a days almost everyone in the west has the ability to bathe, shower or wash themselves somehow almost every day. There's no need to circumcise for that reason; and there's no justification to use it to deny sexual pleasure in men. I'm glad the NHS won't do it, even for religious reasons. If God wanted your foreskin lobbed off it wouldn't fucking be there, would it? No, of course not. Biologically speaking it has a purpose of protecting the head of the penis and making sex easier and more enjoyable; by keeping the head of the penis moist and increasing it's volume.

[Person012345]

No harm at all.
Tl;dr, kid died from blood loss during barbaric male genital mutilation, aka circumcision.

Family had bleeding problems. Probably should have looked into that before doing anything...

But they didn't. And he bled to death.

Well, that may be.

But it wasn't directly the fault of the practice of Circumcision. If they would have looked into that they probably would have known not to do it.

He was a one in a million case and isn't a reason to ban circumcision.

Are we actually arguing for a ban on circumcision here? The OP was about whether the NHS should pay for it right, and then I thought it had moved on to a discussion on whether circumcision should be left up to the person later on in life, or whether it should be forced on them by their parents. Unless I missed something.

The fact is, not all parents are sensible, and you get dumbfuck parents who will cut open their kids penis even if something is likely to go wrong. Solution: Prevent parents forcing it on their kid. There is no reason for it (unless you do have a genuine medicinal reason for wanting to do so) so why should the parents be allowed to force their child to have it?

[Utvara]

And I still want to know why you have such a big problem with Circumcision anyway.

It wastes public money.
I'm also looking at this from own point of view.
As I think my penis is pretty much perfect and its really not my parents choice to cut of a piece of my penis.
Its should me my choice alone, unless its for a medical reason.

It doesn't cost alot, sometimes free if you get the procedure at birth.
So you think you dick is the dominant dick of the world?
Does it really fucking matter? Honestly its just a bunch of skin.

Yes, it really fucking matters.

It doesn't for me.... I was circumcised. If you were not, I don't see why you should care.

I am circumcised.

Do you have any complications?

That's a pretty personal question, don't you think? Whatever; yes, I do. I won't get into any details.

[DaWoad]

No harm at all.
Tl;dr, kid died from blood loss during barbaric male genital mutilation, aka circumcision.

Family had bleeding problems. Probably should have looked into that before doing anything...

But they didn't. And he bled to death.

Well, that may be.

But it wasn't directly the fault of the practice of Circumcision. If they would have looked into that they probably would have known not to do it.

He was a one in a million case and isn't a reason to ban circumcision.

not sure anyone is suggesting a ban on circumcision . . . rather, i suspect they are looking to minimize it's elective usage.

[Trippoli]

No harm at all.
Tl;dr, kid died from blood loss during barbaric male genital mutilation, aka circumcision.

Family had bleeding problems. Probably should have looked into that before doing anything...

But they didn't. And he bled to death.

Well, that may be.

But it wasn't directly the fault of the practice of Circumcision. If they would have looked into that they probably would have known not to do it.

He was a one in a million case and isn't a reason to ban circumcision.

Are we actually arguing for a ban on circumcision here? The OP was about whether the NHS should pay for it right, and then I thought it had moved on to a discussion on whether circumcision should be left up to the person later on in life, or whether it should be forced on them by their parents. Unless I missed something.

The fact is, not all parents are sensible, and you get dumbfuck parents who will cut open their kids penis even if something is likely to go wrong. Solution: Prevent parents forcing it on their kid. There is no reason for it (unless you do have a genuine medicinal reason for wanting to do so) so why should the parents be allowed to force their child to have it?

Then what point are we trying to make? Canadai brought up a kid that bled out because he came from a family of bleeders. I don't see how that has any relation to the discussion then.

Not all parents are sensible. But when I was circumcised it was recommended by the doctor. I was circumcised, my penis is just as functional as the next guy's.

[Trippoli]

And I still want to know why you have such a big problem with Circumcision anyway.

It wastes public money.
I'm also looking at this from own point of view.
As I think my penis is pretty much perfect and its really not my parents choice to cut of a piece of my penis.
Its should me my choice alone, unless its for a medical reason.

It doesn't cost alot, sometimes free if you get the procedure at birth.
So you think you dick is the dominant dick of the world?
Does it really fucking matter? Honestly its just a bunch of skin.

Yes, it really fucking matters.

It doesn't for me.... I was circumcised. If you were not, I don't see why you should care.

I am circumcised.

Do you have any complications?

That's a pretty personal question, don't you think? Whatever; yes, I do. I won't get into any details.

Go see a doctor.

[Utvara]

And I still want to know why you have such a big problem with Circumcision anyway.

It wastes public money.
I'm also looking at this from own point of view.
As I think my penis is pretty much perfect and its really not my parents choice to cut of a piece of my penis.
Its should me my choice alone, unless its for a medical reason.

It doesn't cost alot, sometimes free if you get the procedure at birth.
So you think you dick is the dominant dick of the world?
Does it really fucking matter? Honestly its just a bunch of skin.

Yes, it really fucking matters.

It doesn't for me.... I was circumcised. If you were not, I don't see why you should care.

I am circumcised.

Do you have any complications?

That's a pretty personal question, don't you think? Whatever; yes, I do. I won't get into any details.

Go see a doctor.

[Trippoli]

And I still want to know why you have such a big problem with Circumcision anyway.

It wastes public money.
I'm also looking at this from own point of view.
As I think my penis is pretty much perfect and its really not my parents choice to cut of a piece of my penis.
Its should me my choice alone, unless its for a medical reason.

It doesn't cost alot, sometimes free if you get the procedure at birth.
So you think you dick is the dominant dick of the world?
Does it really fucking matter? Honestly its just a bunch of skin.

Yes, it really fucking matters.

It doesn't for me.... I was circumcised. If you were not, I don't see why you should care.

I am circumcised.

Do you have any complications?

That's a pretty personal question, don't you think? Whatever; yes, I do. I won't get into any details.

Go see a doctor.

You mean the type that barbarically mutilated it to begin with?

Lol, barbaric? You are taking this shit to the extreme, don't you think?

And no, a doctor to check on the problems he is currently having. If it is treatable, that is.

[DaWoad]

Well i mean it is kinda barbaric to lop of a part of a person's anatomy that won't grow back due to some sort of ritual started a few thousand years ago.

[Person012345]

I was searching up on the world wide webs and found this page explaining why the NHS denies circumcision.
I was actually a bit shocked as I thought you would be allowed to have it done on your child for religious reasons.
The cost of circumcision privately various from £300-£1500. So most children don't get circumcision.

My question main question is: "Do you think a national health services should provide circumcision for non-medical reasons?".

Personally my opinion is that they shouldn't as in developed countries there is simply no need for circumcision.
One reason I'm normally given is because of religious reason, I certainly don't agree with that as I don't think you should be allowed to force your religious views on a child.
Hygienic reasons are just as absurd as if men can clean themselves daily normally don't need to about the build up of smegma.
Aesthetic reasons are also inane as you shouldn't be able to force your child to look the "same as daddy" for the rest of its life.

Circumcision can also can be very distressful and painful for your newborn.

What's your opinion NSG?

Genital mutilation had it's purpose back in the days when Judaism and Islam were at their peaks. People didn't have access to sanitation, and the sensitivity and thus sexualisation of the penis was taboo. It worked well back then, people didn't complain about being denied sexual pleasure, and it kept them clean.

Now a days almost everyone in the west has the ability to bathe, shower or wash themselves somehow almost every day. There's no need to circumcise for that reason; and there's no justification to use it to deny sexual pleasure in men. I'm glad the NHS won't do it, even for religious reasons. If God wanted your foreskin lobbed off it wouldn't fucking be there, would it? No, of course not. Biologically speaking it has a purpose of protecting the head of the penis and making sex easier and more enjoyable; by keeping the head of the penis moist and increasing it's volume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_G9awnDCmg

It get's relevant at 3:20.

[Person012345]

I was searching up on the world wide webs and found this page explaining why the NHS denies circumcision.
I was actually a bit shocked as I thought you would be allowed to have it done on your child for religious reasons.
The cost of circumcision privately various from £300-£1500. So most children don't get circumcision.

My question main question is: "Do you think a national health services should provide circumcision for non-medical reasons?".

Personally my opinion is that they shouldn't as in developed countries there is simply no need for circumcision.
One reason I'm normally given is because of religious reason, I certainly don't agree with that as I don't think you should be allowed to force your religious views on a child.
Hygienic reasons are just as absurd as if men can clean themselves daily normally don't need to about the build up of smegma.
Aesthetic reasons are also inane as you shouldn't be able to force your child to look the "same as daddy" for the rest of its life.

Circumcision can also can be very distressful and painful for your newborn.

What's your opinion NSG?

Genital mutilation had it's purpose back in the days when Judaism and Islam were at their peaks. People didn't have access to sanitation, and the sensitivity and thus sexualisation of the penis was taboo. It worked well back then, people didn't complain about being denied sexual pleasure, and it kept them clean.

Now a days almost everyone in the west has the ability to bathe, shower or wash themselves somehow almost every day. There's no need to circumcise for that reason; and there's no justification to use it to deny sexual pleasure in men. I'm glad the NHS won't do it, even for religious reasons. If God wanted your foreskin lobbed off it wouldn't fucking be there, would it? No, of course not. Biologically speaking it has a purpose of protecting the head of the penis and making sex easier and more enjoyable; by keeping the head of the penis moist and increasing it's volume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_G9awnDCmg

It get's relevant at 3:20.

Creationism is never relevant.

did you watch it? Also, in case your detector is broken, he's an atheist.

[Person012345]

No.

Quite.

[Trippoli]

I was searching up on the world wide webs and found this page explaining why the NHS denies circumcision.
I was actually a bit shocked as I thought you would be allowed to have it done on your child for religious reasons.
The cost of circumcision privately various from £300-£1500. So most children don't get circumcision.

My question main question is: "Do you think a national health services should provide circumcision for non-medical reasons?".

Personally my opinion is that they shouldn't as in developed countries there is simply no need for circumcision.
One reason I'm normally given is because of religious reason, I certainly don't agree with that as I don't think you should be allowed to force your religious views on a child.
Hygienic reasons are just as absurd as if men can clean themselves daily normally don't need to about the build up of smegma.
Aesthetic reasons are also inane as you shouldn't be able to force your child to look the "same as daddy" for the rest of its life.

Circumcision can also can be very distressful and painful for your newborn.

What's your opinion NSG?

Genital mutilation had it's purpose back in the days when Judaism and Islam were at their peaks. People didn't have access to sanitation, and the sensitivity and thus sexualisation of the penis was taboo. It worked well back then, people didn't complain about being denied sexual pleasure, and it kept them clean.

Now a days almost everyone in the west has the ability to bathe, shower or wash themselves somehow almost every day. There's no need to circumcise for that reason; and there's no justification to use it to deny sexual pleasure in men. I'm glad the NHS won't do it, even for religious reasons. If God wanted your foreskin lobbed off it wouldn't fucking be there, would it? No, of course not. Biologically speaking it has a purpose of protecting the head of the penis and making sex easier and more enjoyable; by keeping the head of the penis moist and increasing it's volume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_G9awnDCmg

It get's relevant at 3:20.

Creationism is never relevant.

did you watch it?

No.

LOL @ Microsoft paint.

[Dempublicents1]

not sure anyone is suggesting a ban on circumcision . . . rather, i suspect they are looking to minimize it's elective usage.

And, more specifically, elective circumcision of neonates. I don't really care how many men choose to be circumcised and thus see no reason to take steps to minimize elective circumcision in general. I have a problem with a person deciding to perform elective circumcise on someone else.

Right now, the medical community in my country is still debating over whether or not there is enough evidence for prophylactic circumcision. The current thinking is that the parents can examine that evidence and decide for themselves. Fine. I think anyone who makes that decision based on anything other than medical considerations is an asshole, but I can certainly respect the fact that someone else might examine the evidence and come to a different conclusion about the medical benefits or lack thereof than the one I have come to.

In Britain, I believe there is a medical consensus that the evidence for medical benefits is far outweighed by the risks of the procedure itself. As such, they have stopped performing routine prophylactic infant circumcision. I also see nothing wrong with this. If this were to happen in my country, I would support it. And, in that case, I would also support a ban on elective neonatal circumcision.

[Trippoli]

I'm left-wing but I don't really see myself as a Liberal.

[Dempublicents1]

I'm left-wing but I don't really see myself as a Liberal.

That's rather....out of the blue. Did you mean to post it in another thread?

[Dakini]

But it wasn't directly the fault of the practice of Circumcision. If they would have looked into that they probably would have known not to do it.

He was a one in a million case and isn't a reason to ban circumcision.

There have been other accidents. For instance this case. I'll just quote the first part of the article and bold a key point if you don't want to click.

David Reimer (August 22, 1965 as Bruce Reimer – May 5, 2004) was a Canadian man who was born as a healthy male, but was sexually reassigned and raised as female after his penis was accidentally destroyed during circumcision. Psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful, and as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned. Academic sexologist Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer never identified as female, and that he began living as male at age 15. Reimer later went public with his story to discourage similar medical practices. Due to years of severe depression, financial instability, and a dissolving marriage, he committed suicide.

Given that no medical groups recommend the arbitrary circumcision of infants, I'm not sure why even a relatively few number of severe accidents are worth the risk of just doing this by default.

[Blouman Empire]

I agree with you completely, its just too bad they haven't gone the whole 9-yards and outlawed it except in the case of medical necessity.

Why?

Circumcision is, by far, a better alternative to leaving the foreskin intact - in every single way.

In every single way? Care to elaborate every single way?

[Blouman Empire]

As common as a practice as it is, I think it should be covered, but I am American so that's like most men here have it done.

There are health issue beyond simply scrubbing.
http://www.circinfo.net/cervical_cancer ... d_men.html
Females with uncircumcised partners are more likely to get cervix cancer.
And HIV transmission is greater to men who are uncircumcised.
Why I most certainly would not mandate the procedure state funding seems reasonable to promote the general well being of the people.

Well most girls have to a cervical cancer jab here anyway, so that will decrease it even further, and it's quite low anyway.
Also I think more teenagers need to be educated on the brilliance of the condom which dramatically decreases HIV transmission as a lot of gay men still have sex without condoms.
I totally agree with you that the state can promote general well being, but I don't think that circumcision needs to be included in that.

Not all women will get the cervical cancer Jab, and not everyone will use a condom.

think of it like this what is cheaper ?
A few dozen circumcisions or a case of cervical cancer?
A few dozen circumcisions or one HIV infection?
Prevention is cheaper than treatment.

So you make the jab compulsory, prevention etc etc.

Especially when having sex with uncircumcised men is not the only way people develop cervical cancer.

Why mutilate someone when a better alternative is available?

[Blouman Empire]

I have seen videos of it. The mohel gave me a tiny amount of wine. I became unconscious. I was 8 days old.

Do you realise that if anyone else got an infant drunk and then mutilated their genitals, they'd be in gaol?

Not to mention sticking the penis in the mouth and biting it.

[Blouman Empire]

Does circumcision matter all that?

I did when I was born and my dick feels awwright.

Same here, but apparently a small but vocal minority of males feel greatly injured about it, seeing how often times its compared to female genital mutilation, having your hand chopped off, having your face burned off and the Holocaust. (OK, no one has compared it directly to the last one yet... but the rest yes, so they might as well.)

Which means that because you don't mind it is alright.

Got it your arguments are astounding sir and I wish to become a follower

[Blouman Empire]

I was circumcised. But the doctors told my parents it was for health reasons. Something about it not getting infected.

Ever since me and all my siblings have been. It didn't cost us anything...

Infected by what? Did your parents not trust that you would use a condom?

Seriously anyone with a decent health life has slipped up once or twice and not used a condom.

Does not having a foreskin mean you are 100% guaranteed from contracting an STD?