Eight boys die in botched circumcision.
- Thread starter Drifterwood
- Start date
yeah thats how some think here it looks like huh? but they already know they don't want to be circ. LOL. surprising how right you are tho on this bigbull. again glad you brought it up in this way. as i was thinking the very thing as well but hadn't posted it yet glad you did.
Unfortunately and this is why it's being done is condoms are not always used. It's just one of the many methods used to slow the spread of HIV. But I know I know it's far more important to keep the skin than to deploy all available methods to stop the spread.
You know you're in trouble when someone starts using Wikipedia as a source. I strongly urge you to actually read Wikipedia on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia:Academic use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
....citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a creditable source.
....citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a creditable source.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wikipedia usually cites its sources. That particular statistic he quoted was a citation from:
Ahmed A,, A; Mbibi NH, Dawam D, Kalayi GD (March 1999). "Complications of traditional male circumcision". Annals of Tropical Paediatrics 19 (1)
This link has the article: Complications of traditional male circumcision. [Ann Trop Paediatr. 1999] - PubMed Result
People bash Wikipedia all too often; it can be very useful if one knows how to use it.
And we hope you do understand the difference between 'traditional' circumcision and a 'medical' circumcision? The traditional version is not performed by a doctor and by a person who has formal training so complications are to be expected vs a 'medical' circumcision in a clinical setting. Kinda like having an abortion in a back alley and expecting no problems as if you went to a real doctor in a hospital.
The entire thread is based on a big ruse. These circumcisions are being preformed by quacks. When you have a medical procedure performed not by a doctor all kinds of unfortunate outcomes WILL occur. It's not the procedure that's the problem it's who's doing it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Class discussion : ANT 2301: Human Sexuality & Culture
“Since 1995 more than 6,000 boys have been admitted to Eastern Cape hospitals, more than 300 have died and 76 have had their genitalia amputated due to botched circumcisions...."
If you ask, that's 300 too many.
Sometimes ya gotta just Fuck cultural beliefs and go with science.
“Since 1995 more than 6,000 boys have been admitted to Eastern Cape hospitals, more than 300 have died and 76 have had their genitalia amputated due to botched circumcisions...."
If you ask, that's 300 too many.
Sometimes ya gotta just Fuck cultural beliefs and go with science.
Regardless of the difference between 'traditional' and 'medical' circumcision, the question being asked is "What is the need for circumcision in places such as the US?" I can understand and even condone the use of circumcision in Africa as it can help prevent the spread of AIDS, but what is the necessity for it in the States? It can be the safest thing in the world, but why do it? (I'm only speaking of RIC in this case; I can completely understand why a person would have a circumcision later in life).
I don't care enough about the issue to be telling parents to stop circumcising their children, but I am curious as to why people continue to perform this [seemingly] unnecessary surgery.
This may be news to some of you. Happens every year to dozens in Africa, not to mention the survivors who live with grossly cut up genitalia for the rest of their lives. Or with none.
You've switched gears now. You post a link about the 'dangers of circumcision'. I note that it's because of who is doing it. You dismiss it. You posted a link about the dangers in Africa?
Now we're onto RIC now and the United States. This is very simple. You have a male child and don't want it circumcised don't do it. Where is the question being asked about circumcision in the US? We are out of Africa now?Can I ask your clinical training such that you can call it 'unnecessary'?
Last edited by a moderator:
I posted a link to the article (that Wikipedia referenced) that Denker had quoted. You had dismissed his statistic because it was something he found on Wikipedia. I was simply clarifying that it was a viable statistic.You've switched gears now. You post a link about the 'dangers of circumcision'. I note that it's because of who is doing it. You dismiss it. You posted a link about the dangers in Africa?
Many of the posters on this thread have been specifically targeting RIC and claiming that it should be outlawed. The rebuttal to that argument has constantly been that parents have the right to choose what they believe is best for their children. The "anti-circumcision" posters have then responded with calling RIC unnecessary and questioning its true purpose. I was just reiterating the question being asked (I suppose it hasn't been asked literally, but it's obviously been implied), and I aimed it at the US specifically, because I can understand why RIC would happen in parts of Africa.
That is why I added the word "seemingly" in brackets. To my limited knowledge of the topic, the operation is unnecessary, but I haven't yet made the claim that the operation is in fact completely unnecessary.
How is this a viable statistic? It's only viable if you have medical procedures done by quacks. If you go to a witch doctor for treatment what else did you expect? That study, by the way, is over 15 years old and had a grand total of 48 boys in it. In essence not enough data to really make any conclusion other than don't have non-board certified individuals performing medical procedures. And you really don't need a study to tell you that.
If you've been here long enough you will recognize a two-tier strategy at work:
- RIC is evil...barbaric....a right taken away from the child.
- Circumcision as an adult is equally evil though they won't use those terms. They will use fear. Telling those adults considering it that they don't need it and they will lose sensitivity even when there is no body of medicine that agrees with that claim. None.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wasn't trying to defend the content, but the source of the source. I personally find Wikipedia to be quite reliable if used well. In fact, I actually agree with you; I don't know where he was going with that stat.
If that's truly the case, then I can't help but agree with you. I still stand by my opinion on the topic at hand though.
I apologize as I didn't notice your recent join date. But trust me after two years of watching the duplicitous postings it's rather tired now. In one thread person A will present 'data and studies proving' it's harm to the person and then Person A in another thread discussing how ugly they find a circumcised penis. Now come on!! Is this a joke? Do they think you really can't connect-the-dots? Apparently not. Your doctor tells you you need a tit job and he's got a copy of 'Jugs' in his desk drawer. Oh PA-LEAZE!!!!
And you can stand by your opinion on RIC. But please then don't make the next step and bash an adult for making the same decision. If the first argument is one of an ethical nature as they purport you can't then move on and bash an adults decision before the ruse is clear.
Last edited by a moderator:
D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III
Experimental Member
The human being is the only mammal who carries out this unnecessary practice, You dont see dogs, cats, monkeys or horses etc walking around with mangy smelly disease infested penises. oh no you dont I hear you say. By interfering with nature we are creating problems NOT alleviating them. I know, I sooner risk having a sore willie than risk mental and physical scaring and possibly even death by keeping my NATURAL UNCUT STATUS AS NATURE INTENDED. We all say Isnt nature wonderful well let her get on with it, instead of keep interfering with it.
I should hope so. The day I see a dog or cat perform a circumcision will be one to remeber. You've got to be kidding me!!!
I should hope so. The day I see a dog or cat perform a circumcision will be one to remeber. You've got to be kidding me!!!
You make a good point.
If things are done for medical reasons, this is one of the great things humans do - medicin.
But, on the other hand, when body modifications are performed for cultural beliefs, traditions, personal aesthetics AND if these procedures are a choice, well then, it's "buyer beware."
If however, modifications are done to someone without their full and informed consent, for cultural beliefs, traditions, personal aesthetics, I feel it is stepping over the line of individual rights.
I think circumcision should not be done until and if the owner of the foreskin CHOOSES to modify it.
As with abortion, 1 penis = no vote (unless you're the father of the fetus)
Similar threads
