• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you consider circumcision child abuse?

Breathe

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
Titanic13 said:
It isn't that it is not child abuse? or it isn't that not having circumcision done is not irrating to the penis?
Click to expand...
It's not irritating to the penis.
The two get on quite well, actually.

Considering, you know, they evolved together.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I'm staunchly opposed to circumcision on the reasonable grounds that circumcised men lose a significant portion of what all men think with.
 
dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
Father Heathen said:
Not with this cool, new thing called "anesthetics".
Click to expand...

Up to 96 percent of the babies in the United States and Canada don't receive anesthesia when they are circumcised, according to the University of Alberta in Edmonton.

Not to say, that I'm against giving babies anesthetics for the procedure, but I do find it a bit extreme when putting anesthesia in a new baby born is necessary to keep a tradition.
http://articles.cnn.com/1997-12-23/...cision-study-foreskin-anesthetic?_s=PM:HEALTH
 
Last edited:
dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
dawny0826 said:
Did your parents ever make decisions for you as a tot? Seriously.

It's preferred that the procedure be done days from birth, because this yields the least pain and complications.

Though the statistics are very low, a dude might actually put his foot in his mouth if his parents didn't have him circumcised and he was one of the 300+ out of 1200 or so who do actualy succumb to penile cancer. Most if not all of these folks are uncircumcised. Small percentage, but these are stil people and it exemplifies how a decision made at birth can significantly impact someone later on down the road.

Penile Cancer | Cancer.Net
What are the risk factors for penile cancer?

Just food for thought.
Click to expand...

Wait? That's your argument circumcision prevents cancer? There are other factors that go into penile cancer other than "penlie cancer is more prevalent" in Africa, Asia and South America, where people might might be less likely to be circumcised.

Food for thought:

"A new study published yesterday in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection...

The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. The study also identified reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

Previous studies estimated the death rate as low as two per year to as many as 230. The study collected data from hospital records and government sources to attempt to provide a more accurate magnitude of the problem.

To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision during the same neonatal period (first 28 days from birth).

Because of the inadequacies of the death-certificate system and the apparent lack of investigation, it is easy to see how the medical system could either unwittingly or intentionally obscure the true cause of these deaths."

http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/
 
Rakhel

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
wait a minute. They don't "put" anesthesia into the kid. At least they didn't "put" any into either of my sons. It was a topical anesthetic. Localized to the general area.
 
dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
Rakhel said:
wait a minute. They don't "put" anesthesia into the kid. At least they didn't "put" any into either of my sons. It was a topical anesthetic. Localized to the general area.
Click to expand...

In, on. Lidocaine can be absorbed through the skin, and is toxic. That's if too much is applied. I couldn't tell you much would have to be applied to enter to skin, I can't find info, but since cuts are being made to locations with the anesthesia, I don't see why it would be uncommon for lidocaine to enter someone via open cut. Consider that women have overdosed via topical anesthesia in preparations for mammograms. And this is, again, just one of the risks. Not to mention, an allegory could be really tricky, considering there isn't much of a way to know a newborn is allergic of.

And why quote "put," instead of "into" (or rather "in"). They did "put" anesthesia on your baby.
 
Rakhel

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
dust1n said:
In, on. Lidocaine can be absorbed through the skin, and is toxic. That's if too much is applied. I couldn't tell you much would have to be applied to enter to skin, I can't find info, but since cuts are being made to locations with the anesthesia, I don't see why it would be uncommon for lidocaine to enter someone via open cut. Consider that women have overdosed via topical anesthesia in preparations for mammograms. And this is, again, just one of the risks. Not to mention, an allegory could be really tricky, considering there isn't much of a way to know a newborn is allergic of.

And why quote "put," instead of "into" (or rather "in"). They did "put" anesthesia on your baby.
Click to expand...

Semantics:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top