If it were done for no reason, it would be. For curing phimosis, it is the most minimally-invasive surgical solution available. It doesn't removie pieces. That's how surgery is supposed to be: doing as little damage as possible, once non-surgical options are exhausted.
-
-
Only 77% of U.S. men are circumcised. It isn’t routine. It has multiple detailed, legitimate medical uses. So tell me if it fits the definition of mutilation? I’m still looking to have my mind changed here.
-
Amputation of normal functional tissue is mutilation. That's why amputation is considered a last resort for treatment in general. Sometimes in extenuating circumstances it's required to "mutilate" the body to prevent even greater damage or death.
-
The point here is... The vast majority of American circumcisions are for no medical reason whatsoever. And the vast majority of circumcisions that ARE for a medical reason are for a reason that's invalid (preventing STDs), or a reason that can be cured with less invasive means.
-
No. Circumcision was recommended in your medical paper as being for recurring infection or where tissue scarring occurs.
-
These are the uses (excuses) that doctors have come up with for it in modern times. It's not the reason why it was originally prescribed in america, it's not the reason why it was prescribed in religion. Those were both about damaging sexual function:pic.twitter.com/SD11hqaBWR
-
Just imagine being one of these doctors when the sexual revolution of the past century hit. They made their careers on damaging kids sexually, and now suddenly that's a bad thing? They've been scrambling to justify it ever since, so people won't sue or try to get revenge or w/e
-
General surgeons do more than just circumcision, they don’t need to justify their practices to keep their job, you can’t suggest that circumcision is a religious practice because it was originally religious.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@_Undersized_ You're arguing that preputioplasty can cause sepsis, but you haven't once questioned the fact that after routine (nonmedical) circumcision, the penis has to heal in a diaper full of feces? And some children have phimosis until puberty, doesn't cause necrosis. -
I had phimosis until puberty which is why I’m using it as an argument. It does cause necrosis after an age of about 14. And non-medical circumcision? When did I say I was a fan of non-medical circumcision?
-
I wanna point something out, I don't mean it as offense or ad hominem, this isn't an insult or an argument, I'm just saying... Your particular life experience makes you vulnerable to two different kinds of bias here, namely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias …
-
1. It’s not a 50/50 procedure, most people don’t suffer major nerve damage. The level of sensitivity is perfectly fine and justified the procedure. 2. No, that doesn’t work because it’s not a shopping product, it’s a surgery. I had my options presented.
-
The amount of nerve damage is horrendous, as the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.pic.twitter.com/Mausf3sP1M
-
Why is the actual gland marked as the least sensitive and regular skin marked as more sensitive?
-
Because that is reality. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. The Royal Australian College of Physicians calls the foreskin "PRIMARY sensory tissue of the penis."
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.