Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Blood clotting and circumcision

  1. #1 Blood clotting and circumcision 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    9
    In the Bible, God tells Abraham in person, that he should order circumcision on the eight day after birth.

    Seemingly, some blood clotting factors and blood clotting in general reach a peak on that very specific day in a mans life.

    As these two things go along very well, the question is whether this is just coincidental, or whether this knowledge could be obtained reasonably well in that time without divine or intelligent intervention (for example precise measurement of clotting time).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Trial and error would tell you when it is too early to do the procedure... It doesn't take advanced knowledge of physiology to notice a correlation between these procedures and increased death.

    Although, my guess is that it's just coincidental.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    9
    Thnx for the reply,

    Could be coincidence indeed. They have more rituals, with respect to impurity etc, God handed to them, according to scripture, in which the number seven (impure for seven days, so pure at day eight, washing seven times etc), plays a big role. Although these were commanded at a later time, although written down perhaps on the same time.

    Blood clotting in newborns is heavily compromised. Don't think they would cut in newborns to often. Don't see a mother exposing her child to such dangers. The eight day then seems a tricky day, although the safest, among all other days. Most surrounding tribes do the circumcision much later, a sort of ritual in which the boy becomes a man. But perhaps with a little pressure of the ultimate destiny (those who are not circumcised should be expelled from the tribes), a little observation this thing could have come about. Or perhaps they embraced the number seven and had (unknowingly) a lucky strike, right from the beginning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Circumcision, whether applied to male or female, is a forced mutilation on a subject who is powerless to protest. It is barbaric and should be illegal. Even babies feel pain.

    Female circumcision is clearly and obviously cruel and unnecessary. Male circumcision is only less so by degree. It is totally unnecessary, and totally without rational purpose.

    Full information on its stupidity can be found at :

    http://www.circumstitions.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Circumcision, whether applied to male or female, is a forced mutilation on a subject who is powerless to protest. It is barbaric and should be illegal.
    Glad im not alone on this opinion.

    Luckily for me my parents loved me enough to not mutilate me as a child. The benefits to having foreskin far outweigh any idiotic reason to remove it. Especially the gliding effect when it comes to sex which is a benefit for both the male and the female partner. Circumcision is something i wouldnt even want to happen to my worst of enemies if i had any.

    The elimination of freedom of choise is the biggest crime here though in my opinion. Anyone claiming to be a supporter of freedom and democracy that also support circumcision is a hypocrite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Meh, it's an aesthetic decision, there is very little harm done to a circumcisised male.

    It has not been shown to cause significant harm, and it is any attempt to limit what is a religious and cultural practice that is undemocratic.

    Studies that reported psychological harm caused by male circumcision have been thoroughly refuted as flawed. As to issues of sexual pleasure, these reports are largely circumstantial and not substantially verifiable. Moreover, you have the issue of decreased risk of urinary tract infection and STDs along with the complete removal of risk of cancers of the foreskin and phimosis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    tired and sleepy

    Admitted it is a minor surgery. However, it is normally performed on a baby or infant who cannot give approval. From an ideological stance, it is an infringement on that individual's liberty, and should be illegal from that viewpoint alone. It also causes pain to an innocent victim and should not be legal from that viewpoint as well.

    Your statement that it reduces infection is mostly bulldust, but I do not blame you for that. There are published studies showing that to be 'true', and you had no way of knowing that these studies are flawed. However, those studies are put out by biased researchers, and other researchers who have looked hard at their methods have shown that the methods are deeply flawed.

    Quite simply, when unbiased and rigorous scientific methods are applied, we see that there is almost no difference in rates of transmission of infection and disease when comparing circumcised and uncircumcized males. The utterly minimal difference in transmission rate makes circumcision a ridiculous means of reducing transmission, when much better methods exist, with much higher levels of return for each dollar spent. Using circumcision to reduce AIDS, for example, is like setting a forest on fire to control a domestic ant infestation. It does very little, but causes an awful lot of pain. I suspect that, in Africa, for every life saved by circumcision, two would be lost to post operative infection after circumcision.

    In fact, the long sorry list of flawed studies is so bad, that it is very likely that there is no difference at all in transmission rate. A list of scientific follies on this subject can be read in the following reference.

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

    From the mix of studies, some of which show transmission of infection reduced, and some showing no change, what is published is chosen by ideological stance. Since Muslims and Jews practise circumcision, there is a 'politically correct' bias in favour of showing it is a good thing. Sadly, political correctness and medical correctness are two quite different things.

    Circumcision is like taking steel nails, and piercing someone's lips to insert those nails, by force, with no consent. It is a bodily mutilation done to a victim who has no say in the matter. It is barbaric and should be banned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Regarding blood clotting at 8 days, I think some other factors are important here that also point to circumcision after the first week.

    Newborns take a week or two to "settle". "Settled" means the newborn has adapted to function as an individual organism. They don't just pop out as well-balanced individuals. To begin, they must close the hole in their hearts and reverse the stroke sequence - that can take some days to get the hang of, including closing the hole properly. They also must learn how to breathe - the first days can be really creepy to parents watching their babies frequently pause breathing, as if for experiment... and after what seems like minutes baby gets the bright idea to try gasping to relieve the discomfort. Newborns make a lot of adjustments. They're far from robust little people you'd want to stress in the first week. Well, ancient people wouldn't know the details, but the overall impression of "settling" is tangible.

    Newborn genitals are as unsettled as they are unsettling. Their little bits are relatively big bits swollen by the extreme concentration of maternal hormones they too take up during labour. Boys may have miniature breasts and even milk discharge. More topically, they often wield stiffies, which diminish in frequency as the maternal hormones dissipate. It is kinda hard to circumcise an erect penis.

    Newborn circulation is rather poor especially in the extremities, and while they do feel pain, they don't necessarily react to it as such. For illustration, since we've begun putting new parents with their babies in dimly-lit recovery rooms, nurses make a point of warning parents to be careful trimming baby's nails. All too often tiny fingertips are clipped off - the baby doesn't bleed, and neither issues a complaint. So I'm unsure how this fits the 8 day tradition except that one should want to cut while the baby doesn't bleed much, or much think "Oh, I know this sensation. This is pain."



    I don't believe it matters either way. Testament to that, because my wife thought it might be better for our son to "look like dad", while circumcisions are less common in Canada today (what do the other boys look like), and I was indifferent, we literally flipped a coin.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •