NHS and the denial of circumcision.

[Abdju]

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?

My view is that the government should not endorse, nor play any role in the chopping up a kids genitalia to satisfy some one else's religious beliefs. Furthermore I think that genital mutilation of any individual without their full and willing consent as an adult should be prohibited (edit - except in cases of a medical condition that necessitates at as a treatment, as diagnosed by a relevant health care professional, obviously)

[Bottle]

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?

I would regard circumcision the same as any other medical procedure: if there is a medical need for it (which does sometimes happen), then it should be covered, but if it is purely cosmetic then it should not.

Personally, if I were ever to have a boy baby, I would most likely leave the choice about infant circumcision up to my (male) partner, because he has a penis and I do not. I would defer to him on this subject, unless I had concrete medical evidence that indicated we definitely should do something different. At the moment I believe there isn't conclusive data either way, at least not enough for me to say we absolutely MUST circumcise or we absolutely MUST NOT.

[Edo-Tokyo]

CLAIMS OF REASONS FOR CIRCUMCISION IN THE USA (history):
1832: prevents nocturnal emissions
1845: prevents masturbation
1855: prevents syphilis
1865: cures epilepsy
1870: cures epilepsy
1870: prevents spinal paralysis
1871: Jews are immune to masturbation
1873: cures bed wetting
1875: cures curvature of the spine
1875: cures paralysis of the bladder
1875: cures clubfoot
1879: cures nocturnal seminal emissions
1879: curse abdominal neuralgia
1881: cures eye problems
1886: prevents crossed eyes
1888: prevents masturbating
1890: cures blindness
1890: cures deafness
1890: cures dumbness
1891: "foreskin constitutes a harbor for filth"
1891: "foreskin is a constant source of irritation"
1891: conduces to masturbation
1891: adds to the difficulties of sexual continence
1894: circumcising Blacks prevents them from raping White women
1894: cures urinary incontinence
1894: cures rectal incontinence
1900: needed to desensitize the penis
1901: needed to desensitize the penis
1902: foreskin causes epilepsy
1914: Dr. Abraham L Wolbarst demands compulsory circumcision
1914: prevents tuberculosis
1926: prevents penile cancer.
1930: Dr. Norton Henry Bare claims that he has cured a boy of epilepsy by circumcising him
1932: prevents penile cancer
1935: promotes chastity
1941: blunts sexual sensitivity
1941: foreskin must be forcibly retracted and scrubbed daily
1942: prevents prostate cancer
1949: prevents venereal disease
1949: prevents cancer of the tongue
1949: elimination of circumcisions in the United Kingdom
1951: Abraham Ravich invents the falsehood that circumcision prevents cervical cancer in women.
1953: creates immunity to all mental illness
1954: prevents cervical cancer in women
1969: cures masturbation
1969: cures nervousness
1971: prevents cancer of the bladder
1971: prevents cancer of the rectum
1973: "all who disagree with circumcision are mentally ill"
1985: prevents urinary tract infections
1986: prevents AIDS
1988: prevents strept throat
1989: Edgar J. Schoen declares circumcision is necessary
1991: Edgar J. Schoen tries and fails to convince European countries to institute mass circumcision.
1991: Aaron J. Fink declares mass circumcision is necessary to prevent sand from getting under soldiers' foreskins.
1993: Gerald N. Weiss declares that Langerhands cells in the foreskin lead to HIV infection.
1997: Edgar J. Schoen tries and fails once again to convince European countries to institute mass circumcision.
2003: Edgar J. Schoen steps up pressure on American Academy of Pediatrics to reverse its policy on circumcision, claiming that circumcision prevents AIDS.


More absurdly claimed foreskin related illnesses:
alcoholism
arthritic hips
asthma
balanitis
boils
chicken pox
epididymitis
gallstones
gout
headaches
hernia
HPV
hydrocephaly
hydrocoele
hypertension
insanity
kidney disease
kleptomaina
leprosy
moral depravity
paraphimosis
plague
posthitis
rectal prolapse
rheumatism
schistosoma
spinal curvature
stomach infection

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... =30&t=1687

http://www.whale.to/a/timeline.html

[Dempublicents1]

Personally, if I were ever to have a boy baby, I would most likely leave the choice about infant circumcision up to my (male) partner, because he has a penis and I do not. I would defer to him on this subject, unless I had concrete medical evidence that indicated we definitely should do something different. At the moment I believe there isn't conclusive data either way, at least not enough for me to say we absolutely MUST circumcise or we absolutely MUST NOT.

Interesting. I wouldn't have pegged you as the type to defer to a man's medical judgment simply because he has a penis. I wonder what lesbian couples do to make the decision? =p

Seriously, though, I don't understand why you'd do that. The fact that a man has a penis doesn't necessarily make him better equipped to make a medical decision about someone else's penis than a woman. I could see deferring to your partner if he felt very strongly that the evidence out there warranted it (or that it definitely didn't) and you didn't really feel strongly about it either way, but I don't understand deferring to him simply because he has a penis.

My husband seems to have decided to defer to my judgment on this matter if we ever have a boy - because I have more background in biology and medicine and thus am better equipped to make a judgment call on the data that is out there. The question of which one of us has a penis doesn't really come into it. And, to my thinking, someone has to give me a reason to believe that a medical intervention - particularly one that permanently alters the body - is necessary before I'm going to agree to it.

[Dungeyland]

No they certainly should not. I would be very angry if my parents decided to chop off my foreskin without my permission because of Jehovah or Allah or whatnot.

(And the correct term is MALE GENITAL MUTILATION (just to bring it equally with FGM))

[Glorious Homeland]

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

It get's relevant at 3:20.

Haha! Genious pisstake on this subject, and others.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

No they certainly should not. I would be very angry if my parents decided to chop off my foreskin without my permission because of Jehovah or Allah or whatnot.

(And the correct term is MALE GENITAL MUTILATION (just to bring it equally with FGM))

No I'm pretty sure the correct term is circumcision.

[Dungeyland]

No. You are mutilating the baby boy's genitals, just like Female Circumcision (correctly Female Genital Mutilation) mutilates the female genital. I despise this asymmetrical sexism against men. The term should be Male Genital Mutilation, but unfortunately it is not.

[Dempublicents1]

No. You are mutilating the baby boy's genitals, just like Female Circumcision (correctly Female Genital Mutilation) mutilates the female genital. I despise this asymmetrical sexism against men. The term should be Male Genital Mutilation, but unfortunately it is not.

While there is a form of FGM that is similar to male circumcision (and is sometimes referred to as female circumcision), the procedures that most people are talking about when they refer to FGM are far more drastic in nature.

[Nord schandliche]

1871: Jews are immune to masturbation

lol, I wonder how they tested this?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

No. You are mutilating the baby boy's genitals, just like Female Circumcision (correctly Female Genital Mutilation) mutilates the female genital. I despise this asymmetrical sexism against men. The term should be Male Genital Mutilation, but unfortunately it is not.

Meh, I personally hear alot of people calling it female circumcision.

Mutilation is a bit of a dodgy word.

[Markev]

Circumcision? What sort of barbarian mutilates their child's genitals? Most places that practice it are 3rd world hellholes.

[Greater Phenia]

But some how billions of males around the world seem to be fine with it everyday.

The same is true of circumcised males. What of them? Are they just all wrong about their own "mutilation," are they just victims and only you know it?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

But some how billions of males around the world seem to be fine with it everyday.

The same is true of circumcised males. What of them? Are they just all wrong about their own "mutilation," are they just victims and only you know it?

Did you just pull of that out your ass or do you just like making shit up?

[Georgism]

1871: Jews are immune to masturbation

lol, I wonder how they tested this?

A group of time travellers told them that Hitler (the anti-Jew) was a bit of a wanker.

[Greater Phenia]

But some how billions of males around the world seem to be fine with it everyday.

The same is true of circumcised males. What of them? Are they just all wrong about their own "mutilation," are they just victims and only you know it?

Did you just pull of that out your ass or do you just like making shit up?

Do you like to answer simple questions with bullshit accusations of lying, or is it just that that's all you have left?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

But some how billions of males around the world seem to be fine with it everyday.

The same is true of circumcised males. What of them? Are they just all wrong about their own "mutilation," are they just victims and only you know it?

Did you just pull of that out your ass or do you just like making shit up?

Do you like to answer simple questions with bullshit accusations of lying, or is it just that that's all you have left?

I wasn't talking about circumcised males. Just because I said one thing about non-circumcised males doesn't mean I think the opposite of circumcised males.

[Glorious Homeland]

No. You are mutilating the baby boy's genitals, just like Female Circumcision (correctly Female Genital Mutilation) mutilates the female genital. I despise this asymmetrical sexism against men. The term should be Male Genital Mutilation, but unfortunately it is not.

Meh, I personally hear alot of people calling it female circumcision.

Mutilation is a bit of a dodgy word.

The thing cuts out the woman's cliterous so she can't get sexual pleasure. That's pretty much mutilation. The UN's WHO backs the term and even has a global awareness day about the subject to boot. Circumcision is nothing close to it, but it's certainly comparable, in the intent being the attempt to reduce the individual's ability to feel or experience sexual pleasure normally.

[Greater Phenia]

But some how billions of males around the world seem to be fine with it everyday.

The same is true of circumcised males. What of them? Are they just all wrong about their own "mutilation," are they just victims and only you know it?

Did you just pull of that out your ass or do you just like making shit up?

Do you like to answer simple questions with bullshit accusations of lying, or is it just that that's all you have left?

I wasn't talking about circumcised males. Just because I said one thing about non-circumcised males doesn't mean I think the opposite of circumcised males.

I am aware you were talking about uncircumcised males. I was talking about circumcised males. Or what, are you allowed to generalize about "billions of males" and what they are fine with, but I am not?

Now answer the question. What's your explanation for all the circumcised males who got their circumcisions as infants and have no problem with it? In this thread alone, circumcision has been compared to FGM, amputation of the hand, burning of the face, and torture. Given the severity of such comparisons, one would think it rather obvious to these 'victims' that they are indeed victims. But I see no mass movement of a majority of circumcised males who rail against the barbaric amputation-torture-holocaust. Why? What's your explanation?

Are they all in denial? (but you know the truth?)
Are they just stupid? (and you are smarter?)

Or could it be that those comparisons are stupid hyperbole that do nothing but show a weak argument based primarily in emotion?

[The Alma Mater]

No. You are mutilating the baby boy's genitals, just like Female Circumcision (correctly Female Genital Mutilation) mutilates the female genital. I despise this asymmetrical sexism against men. The term should be Male Genital Mutilation, but unfortunately it is not.

Meh, I personally hear alot of people calling it female circumcision.

Mutilation is a bit of a dodgy word.

The thing cuts out the woman's cliterous so she can't get sexual pleasure. That's pretty much mutilation. The UN's WHO backs the term and even has a global awareness day about the subject to boot. Circumcision is nothing close to it, but it's certainly comparable, in the intent being the attempt to reduce the individual's ability to feel or experience sexual pleasure normally.

Actually, the intent often is to appease a deity. Clearly showing that the parent considers the free will of its offspring to be less important than their own religious beliefs

[EvilDarkMagicians]

I am aware you were talking about uncircumcised males. I was talking about circumcised males. Or what, are you allowed to generalize about "billions of males" and what they are fine with, but I am not?

Now answer the question. What's your explanation for all the circumcised males who got their circumcisions as infants and have no problem with it? In this thread alone, circumcision has been compared to FGM, amputation of the hand, burning of the face, and torture. Given the severity of such comparisons, one would think it rather obvious to these 'victims' that they are indeed victims. But I see no mass movement of a majority of circumcised males who rail against the barbaric amputation-torture-holocaust. Why? What's your explanation?

Are they all in denial? (but you know the truth?)
Are they just stupid? (and you are smarter?)

Or could it be that those comparisons are stupid hyperbole that do nothing but show a weak argument based primarily in emotion?

This is irrelevant to everything I've said as I've made no such argument. I think you better read my posts a bit better.

[Greater Phenia]

I am aware you were talking about uncircumcised males. I was talking about circumcised males. Or what, are you allowed to generalize about "billions of males" and what they are fine with, but I am not?

Now answer the question. What's your explanation for all the circumcised males who got their circumcisions as infants and have no problem with it? In this thread alone, circumcision has been compared to FGM, amputation of the hand, burning of the face, and torture. Given the severity of such comparisons, one would think it rather obvious to these 'victims' that they are indeed victims. But I see no mass movement of a majority of circumcised males who rail against the barbaric amputation-torture-holocaust. Why? What's your explanation?

Are they all in denial? (but you know the truth?)
Are they just stupid? (and you are smarter?)

Or could it be that those comparisons are stupid hyperbole that do nothing but show a weak argument based primarily in emotion?

This is irrelevant to everything I've said as I've made no such argument. I think you better read my posts a bit better.

No explanation, I see. No answer. Simple question, but oh how uncomfortable it has made you.

As for reading your posts better, you mis-read mine, called me a liar for it, and dismiss my startlingly on-topic post as "irrelevant." Why should I read your posts at all? How about instead I put your infantile trolling on ignore. Remove some irrelevant, lying bullshit from my screen. Yes, I think that's a good idea.

[Communist Gaels]

It shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged, It really doesn't matter.

[The Alma Mater]

It shouldn't be encouraged or discouraged, It really doesn't matter.

It costs money. Therefor it matters.

Is it something he parents should pay, e.g. because it is mostly a cosmetic procedure that does not influence the health of the child - or is it something the national health service (i.e. the taxpayer) should pay for ? And if so - why ?

[DaWoad]

I am aware you were talking about uncircumcised males. I was talking about circumcised males. Or what, are you allowed to generalize about "billions of males" and what they are fine with, but I am not?

Now answer the question. What's your explanation for all the circumcised males who got their circumcisions as infants and have no problem with it? In this thread alone, circumcision has been compared to FGM, amputation of the hand, burning of the face, and torture. Given the severity of such comparisons, one would think it rather obvious to these 'victims' that they are indeed victims. But I see no mass movement of a majority of circumcised males who rail against the barbaric amputation-torture-holocaust. Why? What's your explanation?

Are they all in denial? (but you know the truth?)
Are they just stupid? (and you are smarter?)

Or could it be that those comparisons are stupid hyperbole that do nothing but show a weak argument based primarily in emotion?

This isn't really a good argument for a number of reasons.
1-The science is still out on the matter ( though it appears to lean against circumcision as an elective surgery) meaning that, unlike loosing a hand, there's a degree of societal acceptance towards circumcision.
2-Elective surgeries are not, usually, considered to have victims, the fact that we have managed to pigeonhole Circumcision in with other elective surgeries increases the pressure on those who have had one to accept it as "normal".
3-Religion. This procedure has religious backing and, therefor, no matter how ridiculous it is it will have the full support of a small but significant portion of the population of the world.
4-No one wants to admit that there might be something wrong with their body if they can help it. This Holds especially true for male genitalia. No whether there is or is not anything wrong with circumcision (elective) there's always going to be a certain amount of entrenchment with those who are circumcised proclaiming that it's the way to go and those who are not decrying it as unsafe/not better in any way.