Five-Year-Old Child Hides On Medical Centre Roof To Avoid Being Circumcised

tamzzy · 15 Jul 2019 at 21:16

FoxEye said:
Funnily enough I'm not inclined to believe that coming from a US health body. They're very pro circumcision over there.

I'd believe it coming from an EU or UK body, but I wouldn't trust the US food or health departments as far as I could throw them.

Yeah I was gonna say that majority of males (Caucasian included) in the USA are circumcised.

azazl187 · 15 Jul 2019 at 21:16

FoxEye said:
Why isn't that classed as sexual activity with a child... FFS that's sick. (e: If true.. I'm not Googlging that!)

This made me giggle!

dowie · 15 Jul 2019 at 21:49

The_Abyss said:
So you think it is messed up? What would you propose?

dowie said:
You've posted twice now - what is your opinion?

CREATIVE!11 · 15 Jul 2019 at 23:03

Why are people posting this story like it's humorous?

Saw unilad with stupid crying emoji like hahahha oh man! kid avoiding getting part of his dick chopped off for no reason! hahahah so funny.

Flip it to other gender and everyone would lose their minds. Why the hell are they circumcising a 5 year old? I'm circumcised and fully against it. We basically mutilate kids because..... reasons?

CREATIVE!11 · 15 Jul 2019 at 23:05

mmj_uk said:
All cultures are equal, you're all just massive far right racists opposed to multiculturalism.

Flagrantly wrong too.

Get off the left wing group think. All cultures are not equal by a long shot lol.

The_Abyss · 16 Jul 2019 at 12:55

As it happens, I’m with you @dowie . Illegal until 18 when it is the child’s choice, unless there are independent medical grounds suggesting a benefit otherwise.

Caracus2k · 16 Jul 2019 at 12:59

Buddy said:
Views on religion aside:

American Academy of Paediatrics (link)

You can tell the AAP are being somewhat less than honest by comparing their statement on male circumcision to other elective treatments/ procedures for new born infants....

Circumsicion...

After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.

so the benefits 'out weigh the risks' but strangely not enough to recommend the procedures down routinely?

Vitamin K injection

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends:

Vitamin K should be given to all newborn infants as a single, intramuscular dose of 0.5 to 1 mg.

Now to be fair vitamin K injections are designed to prevent potentially life threatening issues but the injections can still have side effects (like pretty much any medical intervention) but if the AAP were so sure that the circumcision benefits outweighed the risks for a minor elective surgery why don't they recommend it pretty much universally?

I would suggest their policy statement should read:

'The befits of male circumcision are dubious and the issues it is often stated to alleviate (like transmission of STD's) are better tackled by more straightforward means (like use of condoms, not being sexually promiscuous, and sexual health screening) further it is known that giving people a false sense of security can actually make matters worse (by having them change their behaviour) we have also ignored a whole host of other issues and considerations with circumcision but basically if circumcision is done by trained medical personnel in an appropriate clinical setting the complication rate (and accompanied lawsuits) are low enough that we still recommend Dr's can charge for this procedure'

Hades · 16 Jul 2019 at 13:03

Hygeine is not a justification. If it were, then evolution would have removed the foreskin years ago. For those that follow a sky pixie instead of scientific evolution then why remove something that the pixie made for us?

dowie · 16 Jul 2019 at 13:29

Buddy said:
Views on religion aside:

American Academy of Paediatrics (link)

LOL removing part of the body that might fall victim to cancer helps prevent cancer? Who'd have thought it???

While we're at it, might as well get girls to undergo a mastectomy as standard because that would help prevent breast cancer? Maybe just cut off an arm too - you won't be getting cancer on that arm now - see it makes medical sense!

Honestly of all the dumb arguments.... not surprising though that a professional body representing people who've made a nice little earner out of this are going to try and carry on gaslighting the public into thinking this procedure is medically valid in general. They're hardly going to be inclined to state publicly that there members have an are still currently charging for a completely unnecessary and rather ethically dubious procedure.

Ironically those supposed health benefits arguably are quite likely to apply to FGM too. I mean I can guarantee that if you cut those flaps off then they can't get cancer! I'd suspect there is some effect on the spread of STDs too.

dirtychinchilla · 16 Jul 2019 at 13:43

Hades said:
Hygeine is not a justification. If it were, then evolution would have removed the foreskin years ago. For those that follow a sky pixie instead of scientific evolution then why remove something that the pixie made for us?

That's not true. Evolution doesn't do anything, firstly. Secondly, the process of evolution involves what we would consider to be mistake. We're not "perfectly" evolved. I'm sure in a few more 10,000s of years, we'll have changed in some respects, some good and some bad.

PermaChanged · 16 Jul 2019 at 13:53

I'm circumcised, I don't remember it being carried out, I don't have recollection of any pain or discomfort, I don't feel traumatised by the event. All in all, I'm glad to be circumcised too, pretty willy crew checking in.

All that being said, I wouldn't push for it for any reason other than medical.

Buddy · 16 Jul 2019 at 14:16

@dowie

Hyperbole much.

You're comparing organs that have multiple functions to a flap of skin that has none. You cited breasts and an arm- I don't need to tell you the useful functions they provide. Mastectomy also is major surgery with multiple risks. Versus a flap of skin that has no benefit or function with potential multiple benefits if removed. Which also takes 5 minutes to do. It's a low risk procedure.

Worldwide I think we can all agree that FGM is a no go for the same reasons above.

Anyway my **** looks stunning. Glad I had it done

dowie · 16 Jul 2019 at 14:23

PermaChanged said:
I'm circumcised, I don't remember it being carried out, I don't have recollection of any pain or discomfort, I don't feel traumatised by the event. All in all, I'm glad to be circumcised too, pretty willy crew checking in.

Yeah but you would say that and you don't really know any different. Realistically you'd probably not if you had the choice - the vast majority of people who have a foreskin/didn't get cut as a baby have no desire to get it chopped off, there are only a tiny portion of people who actually chose to have it done to themselves.

As for the "pretty willy" thing, without the foreskin the glans dries out, it is the uncut guys who have a smooth head on theirs.... obvs most pics illustrating this aren't suitable for the forum, quick google found the below on Facebook:

dowie · 16 Jul 2019 at 14:27

Buddy said:
Versus a flap of skin that has no benefit or function with potential multiple benefits if removed. Which also takes 5 minutes to do. It's a low risk procedure.

Worldwide I think we can all agree that FGM is a no go for the same reasons above.

Why can we agree on that? You can present similar arguments for female circumcision as you can for male circumcision - whether religious (Sunni Islam either mandates or recommends both) or for general health reasons.

So why is FGM a no go do you think?

I'm not talking about some full tribal job but you could trim the flaps/hood etc.. and cite the same stuff.

Anyway my **** looks stunning. Glad I had it done

Are you one of the few who chose to have it done as an adult or was the choice made for you (if so see previous post)?

ron3003 · 16 Jul 2019 at 14:28

dowie said:
Yeah but you would say that and you don't really know any different. Realistically you'd probably not if you had the choice - the vast majority of people who have a foreskin/didn't get cut as a baby have no desire to get it chopped off, there are only a tiny portion of people who actually chose to have it done to themselves.

As for the "pretty willy" thing, without the foreskin the glans dries out, it is the uncut guys who have a smooth head on theirs.... obvs most pics illustrating this aren't suitable for the forum, quick google found the below on Facebook:

Pic doesn't show the uncut one covered in stinky cheese so not a true representation

Sankari · 16 Jul 2019 at 14:28

dowie said:
Why is this still seen as acceptable and legal in Western countries despite widespread acknowledgement that the female equivalent is bad and should be prosecuted?

I don't like circumcision; I'm not circumcised myself, and I refused it for my own son, but there's a vast difference between the male and female variants.

Circumcising a woman is massively damaging. Circumcising a man is not.

Acute physical consequences of FGM include bleeding, wound infections, sepsis, shock, micturition problems and fractures. Chronic physical problems like anemia, infections of the urinary tract, incontinence, infertility, pain, menstruation problems and dyspareunia are frequent.

Women also have a higher risk for HIV infections. During pregnancy and delivery, examinations and vaginal application of medicine are more difficult.

Women have a higher risk for a prolonged delivery, wound infections, a postpartum blood loss of more than 500 mL, perineal tears, a resuscitation of the infant and an inpatient perinatal death.

Mental consequences after FGM include the feelings of incompleteness, fear, inferiority and suppression. Women report chronic irritability and nightmares. They have a higher risk for psychiatric and psychosomatic diseases.

(Source).

dowie · 16 Jul 2019 at 14:30

Evangelion said:
I don't like circumcision, and I refused it for my own son, but there's a vast difference between the male and female variants.

Circumcising a woman is massively damaging. Circumcising a man is not.

Not necessarily, especially in the case of the country featured in the OP where male circumicison is worse than FGM. See previous posts on this as it has been covered.

FWIW most of that stuff you mention could just as easily apply to male circumcision carried out African tribal style too... infections, sepsis, shock etc...etc.. mental consequences.

PermaChanged · 16 Jul 2019 at 14:33

dowie said:
As for the "pretty willy" thing, without the foreskin the glans dries out, it is the uncut guys who have a smooth head on theirs.... obvs most pics illustrating this aren't suitable for the forum, quick google found the below on Facebook:

Beauty is of course objective, but I'd rather look at my own than any others

Sankari · 16 Jul 2019 at 14:34

dowie said:
Not necessarily, especially in the case of the country featured in the OP where male circumicison is worse than FGM.

Evidence please? And seriously, no. Even a poorly conducted male circumcision is nowhere near as damaging as a properly conducted female circumcision. If you want to disagree, read the study I quoted, and address the large body of evidence that supports it.

See previous posts on this as it has been covered.

It's not my job to search for evidence that supports your claim.

dowie · 16 Jul 2019 at 14:36

Evangelion said:
It's not my job to search for evidence that supports your claim.

I didn't ask you to, it has already been presented, if you're going to post in a thread then it helps if you read more than just the OP. See post #11.

Evangelion said:
Evidence please? And seriously, no. Even a poorly conducted male circumcision is nowhere near as damaging as a properly conducted female circumcision. If you want to disagree, read the study I quoted, and address the large body of evidence that supports it.

Might help if you bothered to read the paper you linked to - in particular pay attention to type IV, it is mentioned in the summary even:

Other types like pricking, piercing of clitoris or vulva, scraping of the vagina, etc. were defined as type IV of FGM.

Please can you explain how pricking the vuvla or slicing is worse than completely removing the foreskin?