[Pigeon]

Penis.

[quetza]

Originally Posted by Forensicgirl52 ↗

You're talking about the Plastibell. Still involves cutting and is very painful.

I'm not clear on why you are helping with circumcisions since they clearly a violation of your oath to "do no harm". And the other methods are still in use:
http://circleaks.blogspot.ca/2013/05...-of-mogen.html

yes, i'm talking talking about the plastibell, very good you get an A for the day. i never said it wasnt painful, that was my point....circumcision is painful despite what others say. and where did i say the other method isnt in use?? i said thats the OLDER way. i've seen docs do it that way too. but the newer method is faster and requires less care after the procedure. you really should read more carefully
you really want to get into a pissing contest of
what constitutes "do no harm"?? i'll take it as a yes since you are accusing me of clearly violating it. me prescribing statins that harm the liver? doing "harm", saving the heart. giving adenosine to someone with SVT to momentarily stop their heart? doing "harm", saving their life. inserting a finger into the rectum to check hemorrhoid status can hurt like a bitch...doing "harm" and figuring out how to help them best. now this all hinges on whether or not you view circumcision as a necessary medical procedure. some say it is, some say its not, but thats a totally different argument with no clear cut answer, but until the medical field as a whole comes out and says, "circumcisions are UNNECESSARY and SHOULD NEVER BE DONE" then performing them is purely up to the deciding party and a physician performing them is not breaking an oath, as you put it. doing unnecessary procedures that have absolutely no clear benefit and can in fact harm/kill/negatively impact/etc. the patient is a violation of that oath. and in fact there are some studies that show circumcision can reduce risk of penile cancer, so why would you say its doing harm? causing pain has nothing to do with the oath of "doing no harm"

[quetza]

Originally Posted by Forensicgirl52 ↗

You're talking about the Plastibell. Still involves cutting and is very painful.

I'm not clear on why you are helping with circumcisions since they clearly a violation of your oath to "do no harm". And the other methods are still in use:
http://circleaks.blogspot.ca/2013/05...-of-mogen.html

I'm actually gonna throw up one more post to make my stance even more clear for you, lest you fire back with more definitions and facts. first, it doesnt matter how rare penile cancer is, there have been some studies that show circumcision can reduce the risk. that is where the medical community gets the idea that it can help which is one of the reasons its still an acceptable procedure (ONE of the reasons, not THE reason)
second, I do not personally like the idea of circumcision. i think it is rather cruel and extremely painful for those little guys but guess what, my personal opinion doenst have anything to do with what people can request. just because i do not agree with something on a personal level doesnt mean i cant provide the service. we live in a world of boards, committees, peer-reviewed journals, studies, and evidence based medicine and that is where the medical community gets its opinion and delegates what should and should not be done. if you want to argue, argue with them because until they say something is not good it wont be considered not good.

[CuriousOne]

Originally Posted by Forensicgirl52 ↗

You think a dried-up scarred penis looks better? Have you ever seen a normal penis?
http://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/intac...gnificant.html

So to you, circumcised penises equal dried up and scarred? Not sure what penises you've been looking at...

All I'm saying is I'm glad my man is circumcised. Physically it's more attractive. Get off your soapbox and chill out.

[Nuclearmilk]

Originally Posted by honeysprite ↗

Arguing circumcision is like arguing abortion; people aren't going to change their opinions because you don’t agree and you say they should.

Having said that, I weighed all options before having my son circumcised. His dad demanded that it be done which means that he didn't have a horrible experience and it clearly didn’t make his 9" penis smaller either. (I swear I'm not joking or exaggerating) I watched the doctor circumcise my son because I felt that if I’m the one that requested it; I should watch it. He didn’t even know what was going on because they gave him a pacifier with sugar on it. Were there risks? Yes. Would I do it again? Yes.

We all know that the majority of the world is run and controlled by men, and female circumcision is only done to keep women in ‘their place’. The average man values his penis too much to consider having it ‘mutilated’ and I guarantee that if they (including dads) thought that male circumcision was barbaric and cruel they would have stopped it years ago.

Female circumcision is done for the same reason non-religious male circumcision was introduced into the US, to limit sexual pleasure.

Circumcised men don't even realise they're missing most of their pleasurable nerve endings, it's the same as a woman's clitoris being removed.

[Nuclearmilk]

Originally Posted by CuriousOne ↗

So to you, circumcised penises equal dried up and scarred? Not sure what penises you've been looking at...

All I'm saying is I'm glad my man is circumcised. Physically it's more attractive. Get off your soapbox and chill out.

The glans is naturally sensitive, and the foreskin moisturizes it and protects it. When the foreskin is removed, the glans has to harden with scar tissue to protect it from the elements, otherwise most circumcised men wouldn't be able to walk around without constant discomfort from their penises rubbing against their pants.

And you do realise the foreskin can be contracted right? Meaning uncircumcised guys can look like circumcised guys for you during sexy times, unless you like constantly staring at penises when not doing anything sexual?

[DonB]

Another one. Forensicgirl52 must have mobilized her friends from the Cult Of The Foreskin.

[honeysprite]

Originally Posted by Nuclearmilk ↗

Female circumcision is done for the same reason non-religious male circumcision was introduced into the US, to limit sexual pleasure.

Circumcised men don't even realise they're missing most of their pleasurable nerve endings, it's the same as a woman's clitoris being removed.

I did my homework and I don't remember seeing anything about male circumcision being done to reduce pleasure so, please share your resources. (Yes, I'm looking for more than one)

I'm not sorry I had my son circumcised. In addition to his father, I consulted other men in my life (including my own father) and not a single one of them indicated or thought they were missing anything by being circumcised. They all felt you don't miss something you don't remember having.

[Forensicgirl52]

Originally Posted by honeysprite ↗

Ugh...sorry about that. I *hope* this works.

Improper care in a nursing home. Doesn't justify infant circumcision and that man shouldn't have been circumcised either.

[Forensicgirl52]

Originally Posted by quetza ↗

yes, i'm talking talking about the plastibell, very good you get an A for the day. i never said it wasnt painful, that was my point....circumcision is painful despite what others say. and where did i say the other method isnt in use?? i said thats the OLDER way. i've seen docs do it that way too. but the newer method is faster and requires less care after the procedure. you really should read more carefully
you really want to get into a pissing contest of
what constitutes "do no harm"?? i'll take it as a yes since you are accusing me of clearly violating it. me prescribing statins that harm the liver? doing "harm", saving the heart. giving adenosine to someone with SVT to momentarily stop their heart? doing "harm", saving their life. inserting a finger into the rectum to check hemorrhoid status can hurt like a bitch...doing "harm" and figuring out how to help them best. now this all hinges on whether or not you view circumcision as a necessary medical procedure. some say it is, some say its not, but thats a totally different argument with no clear cut answer, but until the medical field as a whole comes out and says, "circumcisions are UNNECESSARY and SHOULD NEVER BE DONE" then performing them is purely up to the deciding party and a physician performing them is not breaking an oath, as you put it. doing unnecessary procedures that have absolutely no clear benefit and can in fact harm/kill/negatively impact/etc. the patient is a violation of that oath. and in fact there are some studies that show circumcision can reduce risk of penile cancer, so why would you say its doing harm? causing pain has nothing to do with the oath of "doing no harm"

"doing unnecessary procedures that have absolutely no clear benefit and can in fact harm/kill/negatively impact/etc. the patient is a violation of that oath. "

This is EXACTLY what circumcision is-the argument that circumcision is NOT medically necessary is very clear-cut. It has no clear benefit (no medical organization IN THE WORLD recommends it). Circumcision DOES kill (http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html) and it DOES negatively impact the patient, who is missing half of the skin of his penis afterward, including the 20,000 nerve endings, the dartos muscle and the blood vessels that skin contains.
Circumcision does not reduce the risk of penile cancer, which is extremely rare anyway. A baby is 10 times more likely to die of being circumcised (1 in 11,000) than a man is to develop penile cancer (1 in 100,000 to 1 in 1,000,000). Only in the US do these myths still prevail.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html

"Welcome to the Doctors Opposing Circumcision website. D.O.C. is an organization of physicians, and others who are opposed to non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. D.O.C. has members in 50 States, 12 Canadian Provinces and Territories, and in nations on six continents. These doctors recognize that no one has the right to forcibly remove sexual body parts from another individual. They also believe that doctors should have no role in this painful, unnecessary procedure inflicted on the newborn. D.O.C. carries out its work in accordance with its mission statement. "

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

Many doctors in the US support circumcision because:
1) They are circumcised themselves.
2) They have circumcised husbands and children.
3) They make money off circumcision.
4) The US medical establishment has demonized the foreskin.

Try looking at sources outside the US. For example, the Royal Dutch Medical Association says:

"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms
of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise
during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic
grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly
reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the
age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the
intervention,
or can opt for any available alternatives.
π Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and
psychological complications. The most common complications are bleeding,
infections, meatus stenosis (narrowing of the urethra) and panic attacks. Partial or
complete penis amputations as a result of complications following circumcisions
have also been reported, as have psychological problems as a result of the
circumcision.
π Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors
may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present,
or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the
interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations.
π Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to
autonomy and physical integrity...."

I'm guessing you are in the US since that is the only country that still routinely circumcises baby boys on a large scale.