shorter dicks....

Damocles said:
If they really want to they can reverse it later in life. But who the heck wants an ugly penis that takes special attention to keep care of and is always vulnerable to infection?

The point Tom, is that this causes no ill effect to the "men", isn't mutilation like female circumcision, and IMO is a valid action in preventative medicine that people should have the choice to do for their child. The idea that they don't like it so they are going to tell you what to do. What next, ban formula? What if the child refuses breast milk?
Click to expand...

A reversal operation costs up to $25,000 and has a poor chance of success. I also posted earlier in the thread an article by Doctors Opposing Circumcision about the dramatically increased risk of new born babies contracting MRSA.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/mrsa.html

Male Circumcision Reversal Surgery Video – 5min.com
 
Last edited:
tom prendergast said:
A reversal operation costs up to $25,000 and has a poor chance of success. I also posted earlier in the thread an article by Doctors Opposing Circumcision about the dramatically increased risk of new born babies contracting MRSA.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/mrsa.html

Male Circumcision Reversal Surgery Video – 5min.com
Click to expand...
I know you are desperate to keep everybody's dingus as ugly as yours, but really. The option is a good one, and the benefits far outweigh the negatives. You can always choose to have your son have an ugly short dingus that may need painful correction at a later date if he doesn't keep perfect care of it. Believe me, sex is quite enjoyable and easier to obtain with a less ugly dingus, and I have no worry about having to have it done now.

The government doesn't need to get into my business, and the government here doesn't even have to pay for it. There is no need for them to get that deep into personal medical choices of our citizens.
 
its hilarious how tom keeps passing off a group of doctors, who are biased as they oppose male circumcision, as experts, while ignoring the unbiased sources given to him.
 
Damocles said:
I know you are desperate to keep everybody's dingus as ugly as yours, but really. The option is a good one, and the benefits far outweigh the negatives. You can always choose to have your son have an ugly short dingus that may need painful correction at a later date if he doesn't keep perfect care of it. Believe me, sex is quite enjoyable and easier to obtain with a less ugly dingus, and I have no worry about having to have it done now.

The government doesn't need to get into my business, and the government here doesn't even have to pay for it. There is no need for them to get that deep into personal medical choices of our citizens.
Click to expand...

My God, I never thought I say this but you are sounding just like USRoyal. Virtually nobody in the UK is circumcised at birth except for religious reasons. They won't even do it on the National Health as it is considered pointless and potentially risky for the reasons already mentioned.
 
Circumcision is potentially risky during and immediately after the procedure, as your link referred to. After it has healed, it is superior and preferable to non-circumcision in every way possible.
 
this is how "dangerous" male circumcision is (from tom's link):

There are numerous reports of outbreaks of SA among circumcised boys in hospital nurseries. Remington & Klein reported 25 outbreaks from 1961 to 1987 in U.S. hospital nurseries
Click to expand...

like i said, there are more risk a baby will die of sids or some other disease than male circumcision. tom's fear is unfounded. also, we don't know if those infected or harmed had proper male circumcision. perhaps there was negligence.

simply put, tom has not met his burden of showing male circumcision is unduly harmful. the risk is so minimal to fear monger over it is hyperbole.
 
Tom, are you against braces to straighten teeth as well? Kids really don't have much of a say in that procedure either. And it's a lot more painful, and over the span of several years.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Tom, are you against braces to straighten teeth as well? Kids really don't have much of a say in that procedure either. And it's a lot more painful, and over the span of several years.
Click to expand...

Braces aren't put on teeth until the teenage years after the adult teeth have come through.
 
Yurt said:
this is how "dangerous" male circumcision is (from tom's link):



like i said, there are more risk a baby will die of sids or some other disease than male circumcision. tom's fear is unfounded. also, we don't know if those infected or harmed had proper male circumcision. perhaps there was negligence.

simply put, tom has not met his burden of showing male circumcision is unduly harmful. the risk is so minimal to fear monger over it is hyperbole.
Click to expand...

I like the way that you cherry picked that sentence and ignored the rest.

There are numerous reports of outbreaks of SA among circumcised boys in hospital nurseries. Remington & Klein reported 25 outbreaks from 1961 to 1987 in U.S. hospital nurseries.32 Zafar et al. (1995) reported an outbreak of MRSA in a Virginia nursery.33 Hoffman et al. (2000) reported an outbreak of erythromycin-resistant methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus among circumcised boys in a newborn nursery in North Carolina.34 Rabin (2003) reported an outbreak of MRSA among circumcised boys in the St. Catherine’s Hospital nursery on Long Island.35 Saiman et al. (2003) reported the outbreak of MRSA in a New York City newborn nursery.36 Nabiar et al. (2003) reported the outbreak of MRSA in a Washington, DC, newborn intensive care unit with one death.37 Bratu et al. (2005) reported an outbreak of MRSA in the nursery of a New York City hospital and said "the introduction of CA-MRSA strains into neonatal units represents an especially serious challenge."38
Bratu et al. (2005) identify surgical operations as a risk factor for MRSA infection in the newborn.38 Other researchers identify male neonatal circumcision as a specific risk factor.39,40 Nguyen et al. (2007) report that circumcised newborn boys are twelve times more likely to get a MRSA infection than a non-circumcised boy.40
 
tom prendergast said:
I like the way that you cherry picked that sentence and ignored the rest.

There are numerous reports of outbreaks of SA among circumcised boys in hospital nurseries. Remington & Klein reported 25 outbreaks from 1961 to 1987 in U.S. hospital nurseries.32 Zafar et al. (1995) reported an outbreak of MRSA in a Virginia nursery.33 Hoffman et al. (2000) reported an outbreak of erythromycin-resistant methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus among circumcised boys in a newborn nursery in North Carolina.34 Rabin (2003) reported an outbreak of MRSA among circumcised boys in the St. Catherine’s Hospital nursery on Long Island.35 Saiman et al. (2003) reported the outbreak of MRSA in a New York City newborn nursery.36 Nabiar et al. (2003) reported the outbreak of MRSA in a Washington, DC, newborn intensive care unit with one death.37 Bratu et al. (2005) reported an outbreak of MRSA in the nursery of a New York City hospital and said "the introduction of CA-MRSA strains into neonatal units represents an especially serious challenge."38
Bratu et al. (2005) identify surgical operations as a risk factor for MRSA infection in the newborn.38 Other researchers identify male neonatal circumcision as a specific risk factor.39,40 Nguyen et al. (2007) report that circumcised newborn boys are twelve times more likely to get a MRSA infection than a non-circumcised boy.40
Click to expand...

i didn't cherry pick...i picked out FACTS...you're talking about far flung potential risks that have not actually born out using stats. face it, your risk analysis is so low as to be laughable....

using any medical risk analysis, there is virtually no risk, in fact, there is more risk a child will die in birth than getting a circumcision. nice try tom.
 
Yurt said:
i didn't cherry pick...i picked out FACTS...you're talking about far flung potential risks that have not actually born out using stats. face it, your risk analysis is so low as to be laughable....

using any medical risk analysis, there is virtually no risk, in fact, there is more risk a child will die in birth than getting a circumcision. nice try tom.
Click to expand...

You also tried to give the impression that all of the outbreaks happened at least twenty years ago. :palm:
 
Tom's Argument:

I'm going to ignore sources that propound good reasons to do something as biased and then put forward equally biased sources as the reason. I then will insist that everybody's dingus must look as ugly as those in the UK because I want to desperately believe the UK is the bestest.

My argument:

Tom, people can reasonably choose to do this to their kid without the fear of doom you propound and for very good reasons that are given in a link I posted. While there are negatives to it, I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I read your links, and the "grave danger" you propound is simply exaggerated beyond all recognition of sanity. I agree that there are some negatives, but I believe in prevention and would do this if I had a boy child...

Tom's solution to people who disagree with him:

There ought to be a law that force people to do what I think is right!

My solution:

There ought to be no law on this and people should be allowed to choose based on information available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top