-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
-
Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.
Adult male circumcision sig reduces risk of contacting HIV (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Schweddy
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,344
- Reaction score
- 24
- Location
- Outer Darkness
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
That's informative.
Here is another interesting study:
A close examination of the Bible reveals startling proof of its inspiration. Sometimes that proof comes in the form of prophecy (always minutely foretold and completely fulfilled). Sometimes the proof comes in the form of scientific facts that were placed in the divine record hundreds or thousands of years before they were known to the modern scientific mind. This brief article deals with the latter—an important piece of scientific foreknowledge found with the biblical text that was completely unknown to man until fairly recently.
In Genesis 17:12, God specifically directed Abraham to circumcise newborn males on the eighth day. Why the eighth day? In 1935, professor H. Dam proposed the name “vitamin K” for the factor in foods that helped prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks. We now know vitamin K is responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as prothrombin. If vitamin K is deficient, there will be a prothrombin deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur. Oddly, it is only on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn male’s life that vitamin K (produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract) is present in adequate quantities. Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure. Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has “peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life.... Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination” (1953, pp. 125-126). Obviously, then, if vitamin K is not produced in sufficient quantities until days five through seven, it would be wise to postpone any surgery until some time after that. But why did God specify day eight?
On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normal—and is the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.
Dr. McMillen observed:
We should commend the many hundreds of workers who labored at great expense over a number of years to discover that the safest day to perform circumcision is the eighth. Yet, as we congratulate medical science for this recent finding, we can almost hear the leaves of the Bible rustling. They would like to remind us that four thousand years ago, when God initiated circumcision with Abraham....
Abraham did not pick the eighth day after many centuries of trial-and-error experiments. Neither he nor any of his company from the ancient city of Ur in the Chaldees ever had been circumcised. It was a day picked by the Creator of vitamin K.
Moses’ information, as recorded in Genesis 17:12, not only was scientifically accurate, but was years ahead of its time. How did Moses have access to such information? The answer, of course, is provided by the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16—“Every scripture is inspired of God."
This study is rather old (80's) but yet precise to date. It is unfortunate that many doctors/hospitals seemingly disregard the eighth day opting usually sooner as was once dictated by HMO's and now continues. Who can know what complications could've been avoided if adhered.
Here is another interesting study:
A close examination of the Bible reveals startling proof of its inspiration. Sometimes that proof comes in the form of prophecy (always minutely foretold and completely fulfilled). Sometimes the proof comes in the form of scientific facts that were placed in the divine record hundreds or thousands of years before they were known to the modern scientific mind. This brief article deals with the latter—an important piece of scientific foreknowledge found with the biblical text that was completely unknown to man until fairly recently.
In Genesis 17:12, God specifically directed Abraham to circumcise newborn males on the eighth day. Why the eighth day? In 1935, professor H. Dam proposed the name “vitamin K” for the factor in foods that helped prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks. We now know vitamin K is responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as prothrombin. If vitamin K is deficient, there will be a prothrombin deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur. Oddly, it is only on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn male’s life that vitamin K (produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract) is present in adequate quantities. Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure. Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has “peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life.... Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination” (1953, pp. 125-126). Obviously, then, if vitamin K is not produced in sufficient quantities until days five through seven, it would be wise to postpone any surgery until some time after that. But why did God specify day eight?
On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normal—and is the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.
Dr. McMillen observed:
We should commend the many hundreds of workers who labored at great expense over a number of years to discover that the safest day to perform circumcision is the eighth. Yet, as we congratulate medical science for this recent finding, we can almost hear the leaves of the Bible rustling. They would like to remind us that four thousand years ago, when God initiated circumcision with Abraham....
Abraham did not pick the eighth day after many centuries of trial-and-error experiments. Neither he nor any of his company from the ancient city of Ur in the Chaldees ever had been circumcised. It was a day picked by the Creator of vitamin K.
Moses’ information, as recorded in Genesis 17:12, not only was scientifically accurate, but was years ahead of its time. How did Moses have access to such information? The answer, of course, is provided by the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16—“Every scripture is inspired of God."
This study is rather old (80's) but yet precise to date. It is unfortunate that many doctors/hospitals seemingly disregard the eighth day opting usually sooner as was once dictated by HMO's and now continues. Who can know what complications could've been avoided if adhered.
jfuh
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Messages
- 16,631
- Reaction score
- 1,227
- Location
- Pacific Rim
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Tisk tisk vauge.
Beat you to it hehe
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...isk-halved-circumcision-u-s-agency-finds.html
Merge the threads?
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 7,254
- Reaction score
- 364
- Location
- Jacksonville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I'm glad that we circumcised our son, too. Many people believe the health benefits to be minimal; however, I feel that even a minimal benefit is better than nothing.
There's another thread in the health forum that speaks against circumcision; personally, I found some of the information provided to be quite ridiculous. For instance, one link said that circumcision could interfere with breastfeeding, because the infant is in too much pain to suckle.
My son was just circumcised a couple of weeks ago, just shy of being three months old. We had it done by a pediatric urologist, and he explained that because Noah was older than most infants are when they're circumcised, he would feel more pain, even with the local anasthetic. However, it hasn't affected our breastfeeding one bit - he was eating within half an hour of having the procedure done. Maybe my boy's just a champ like that, I don't know.
Anyway. Sorry for the tangent.
There's another thread in the health forum that speaks against circumcision; personally, I found some of the information provided to be quite ridiculous. For instance, one link said that circumcision could interfere with breastfeeding, because the infant is in too much pain to suckle.
My son was just circumcised a couple of weeks ago, just shy of being three months old. We had it done by a pediatric urologist, and he explained that because Noah was older than most infants are when they're circumcised, he would feel more pain, even with the local anasthetic. However, it hasn't affected our breastfeeding one bit - he was eating within half an hour of having the procedure done. Maybe my boy's just a champ like that, I don't know.
Anyway. Sorry for the tangent.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,463
- Reaction score
- 7,253
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 34,161
- Reaction score
- 18,913
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It says that it reduced the risk by 53%.
How many of us will have sex even one million times?
How much benefit is it to have your chances go from 1 in 5mil to 1 in 10 mil? It's worth the price of an extra lottery ticket I s'pose, but may not be worth the ounce of flesh.
That raises the question what is the risk that's cut in half?
The Straight Dope: What are the odds of getting AIDS from ordinary heterosexual sex?
According to a report by researchers Norman Hearst and Stephen Hulley in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million.
So giving up a foreskin makes your odds closer to one in ten million?
How many of us will have sex even one million times?
How much benefit is it to have your chances go from 1 in 5mil to 1 in 10 mil? It's worth the price of an extra lottery ticket I s'pose, but may not be worth the ounce of flesh.
Condoms reduce the risk five times as well as circumcision.
Exercising discretion in your choice of partners is even more effective, reducing your chances of contracting AIDS 25 times as well as circumcision.
I'm unconvinced that the tiny extra tad of protection is worth the cost.Exercising discretion in your choice of partners is even more effective, reducing your chances of contracting AIDS 25 times as well as circumcision.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 15,998
- Reaction score
- 3,962
- Location
- Tiamat's better half
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I agree 100%. I also would like to point out that women are at higher risk of contracting HIV then men. Anotherwards a man who sleeps with an HIV+ partner has less of a chance at contracting HIV than a woman who sleeps with an HIV+ partner. But even if I could I'm not about to go out and have my genitals chopped to shite in order to slightly lessen my risk. Nor will I go out and have a radical mastectomy in order to avoid the possibility of breast cancer.