Jump to content

circumcision.


tino

Recommended Posts

my mum was reading an article about it and it benefits, she suggested i should get one
Come like you're talking about an Ipad.Anyway here is the counter argumenthttp://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
those counter arguments were just terrible seriously the merit of most of those points was flimsy at best and most of them are the same points restated in a different context
There were some good points.The real question is why didn't evolution get rid of our foreskin if there were more benefits to not having one?
lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my mum was reading an article about it and it benefits, she suggested i should get one
Come like you're talking about an Ipad.Anyway here is the counter argumenthttp://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
those counter arguments were just terrible seriously the merit of most of those points was flimsy at best and most of them are the same points restated in a different context
There were some good points.The real question is why didn't evolution get rid of our foreskin if there were more benefits to not having one?
Well evolution still hasn't got rid off the start of a second eyelid (the round part in the corner of your eye) which would have covered our eyes while our ancestors were swinging through branches.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because humans aren't evolving, we have too much control over our environment
:D :D Wait :D That was a joke right?
What evidence is there for significant human evolution in the past 2000 yrs?Evolution is abt survival of the fittest. In the animal world, the fittest = strongest, most adapted Fittest in humans = richest. From retards are breeding, natural selection is not gwarning
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because humans aren't evolving, we have too much control over our environment
:D :D Wait :D That was a joke right?
What evidence is there for significant human evolution in the past 2000 yrs?Evolution is abt survival of the fittest. In the animal world, the fittest = strongest, most adapted Fittest in humans = richest. From retards are breeding, natural selection is not gwarning
You think evolution has to happen every year or it doesn't exist?Evolution takes place over millions of years mate, not 2000.
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. I have no evidence but I am sure animals in the wild are vastly different to how they were 2000 yrs ago.As I said in previous post, anyone and everyone is breeding. If human women were as picky as animals, short, fat, gingers, disabled etc wouldn't be having children so it's hard to see how we will evolve.There is the argument that we are now living longer but that is probably due to better diet, medicine etc, not natural selection

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. I have no evidence but I am sure animals in the wild are vastly different to how they were 2000 yrs ago.As I said in previous post, anyone and everyone is breeding. If human women were as picky as animals, short, fat, gingers, disabled etc wouldn't be having children so it's hard to see how we will evolve.There is the argument that we are now living longer but that is probably due to better diet, medicine etc, not natural selection
What I'm saying is that no evolution in the last 2000 years does not indicate no evolution will ever take place in the future of the human race. There is evidence in fossils of creatures going millions of years in the same form before evolving.Evolution doesn't equate to natural selection of the best specimens. It's a random mutation that not only allows a member of that species to perform better but also to secure more mates.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get ur pOint but we are not in a position to take advantage of certain genetic mutations because we are so in control of our environment.Take the aids virus for example:Humans would naturally develop immunity to the virus through genetic mutation but in order for this to happen it would mean wiping out the population to near extinction and only those with natural immunity would be left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then that's not a problem; is it?Something from a previous jump (intelligence) has enabled us to survive and thus natural immunity to aids is not needed.Evolution for the sake of evolution is pointless, lol, it only needs to happen if there's a need for it to happen.But if a genetic mutation led to vastly increased intelligence; I can assure you this would be utilised and would probably lead to the next step in human evolution. I can see Governments with the money paying billions to his country/him in return for letting him plough through their females, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A truck driver from Kentucky went in for a circumcision and came out with an amputated penis, so besides being devastated, he is suing the doctor.Phillip Seaton says he went in for the circumcision procedure after suffering from inflammation in that area. The circumcision was a treatment for this problem in Seaton's case. The doctor, John Patterson, said he amputated this truck driver's penis because during the procedure, he found life-threatening cancer.The Jewish hospital where the operation took place settled an earlier lawsuit made by the Seatons when this happened four years ago. The case settled out of court with the settlement amount not made public, according to the BBC.Today they are going after the doctor who was the one to actually amputate Seaton's penis. Kevin George, Seaton's lawyer, said that Seaton was never given a choice. "He's angry because Dr. Patterson took off his penis without asking; without giving him a choice; without giving him the opportunity to check around and talk to other people," Attorney George said in court.During the court case, George showed the jurors four pictures of Seaton's crotch area saying, "You can see there's nothing there." Seaton had signed an authorization before the surgery, giving the OK for necessary treatment in unforseen circumstances."Necessary treatment" is one thing, but remove the man's penis is totally something else. Although life-threatening cancer was found, the doctor should have given the man a chance to seek another opinion and check into different courses of treatment.Letting the man come out of the anesthesia and decide for himself, maybe delaying the surgery by a day or two, would have been the thing to do. This would allow Seaton to explore any other options, and it makes more sense than to decide for yourself as a doctor to take off a man's sex organ.This case could also work against other men who are deciding about undergoing a circumcision or not. After hearing this story, they may opt not to do the surgery, even if it is medically necessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...