Is circumcision ethical?
 

I have been reading a lot about opposition to male circumcision happening lately at this time, with the story about a young boy called Chase in the US whose mother was jailed for trying to stop him being circumcised galvanizing many across the online world.

I have to say the more I read about the horror stories of what can go wrong with circumcision the more I find myself agreeing that circumcision of men and women is completely immoral and unethical.

When I read that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is fast tracking male circumcision in Africa, as a false promise to stop AIDS, I can't help but wonder about the ethics of all this when everyone knows that circumcision doesn't stop AIDS, only a condom does. So why not use a condom and put the money spent on unnecessary and costly circumcisions to better use?

A quick read through of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and I came across this passage which says how they are using a barbaric device the PrePex/ Shang Ring to facilitate this surgery in countries with a shortage of trained health professionals, with the WHO justifying the use of this device because it is "easy to use". To my mind it is a stone age device that has no place in the modern world.

source http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-W...al-Letter-2012

I find it hard to stomach these kinds of statistics when evidence shows more circumcised men get AIDS than uncircumcised men

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.nl/2011/05...event-hiv.html

I find it distasteful the way they are using the campaign posters of wives to tell guys why they should be circumcised, would the opposite work if we were to implement female circumcision?

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com.au/201...campaigns.html

The whole industry is based around selling as many PrePex devices as possible, with countries embracing the practice and the promise of the lucrative handouts doing so will bring.

http://joseph4gi.blogspot.nl/2012/01...orts-with.html

I came across this organisation PEPFAR which is using more than $100 million dollars donated to 14 African countries to increase the rate of male circumcision to 80% as a way to prevent HIV.

source http://www.pepfar.gov/press/strategy_briefs/138399.htm

According to the WHO website, they are using the PrePex device to perform adult male circumcision and state that they developed it because of the shortage of surgically trained health workers; so now they are allowing non surgically trained health workers such as nurses to perform the procedure. I can just imagine how many botched MC will occur as a result of this.

source http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/maleci...ice_update/en/

Also the WHO website justifies the use of MC to prevent HIV by saying that it is 60% effective in preventing heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. That percentage doesn't seem very high to me to justify such a extreme procedure, and especially not high enough to normalise such a procedure. Especially when men have available other non surgical options such as condoms which minimize the risk of HIV transmission by 99%. Then the WHO contradicts it's own argument later on by saying that MC provides only partial protection. So why pursue something that only offers partial protection when you can pursue something that offers 99% of protection. It sounds like WHO don't have a clue what their talking about.

source http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

The argument for circumcision seems completely devoid of logic. I still can't believe MC is being justified by governments and WHO, UNAIDS, PEPFAR, Bill and Melinda Gates in 2015, on the false basis it is more hygienic, I never knew any of this was still going on. It just seems so unethical. Women are likely to suffer more urinary tract infections than men, yet nobody is calling for mandatory female circumcision.

I think circumcision is unethical and will be boycotting Microsoft products as a result of their support for it. I thought Bill was a logic based rational person who only took on scientific fact to base his decisions on, he has really let us down here. I won't purchase Microsoft ever again, even if it means they change their stance on this in the future. #BoycottMicrosoft #WHOhasnoclue

I only just discovered this information so my first post is a little long, but I am interested to know what others here think, I hope we can have a constructive discussion.

My overall opinion about circumcision is that it's stupid. It should only be done when it's actually causing problems to the person. When it comes to hygiene, that's no longer a good excuse as it's very easy to clean and most people have access to a shower these days. I guess you can say that it's genital mutilation when it's being done while it's not necessary. (Which still happens to a lot of babies these days, especially in America.)

Circumcision is no more unethical by argument than a Gender Reassignment Surgery.

I'm no expert on the matter, but I am thinking sex changes are done voluntarily by adults whereas circumcision is most often done to infants who obviously cannot consent. I disagree with taking a knife to the genitals of a baby for any reason with the exception that it has been determined (by a doctor) there is a medical reason to do so.

Hi Mark,

Do you hold to your ethics even for adults? Just curious about how some regard the Hippocratic oath, "I disagree with taking a knife to the genitals of a baby for any reason with the exception that it has been determined (by a doctor) there is a medical reason to do so."

Children as well as adults are circumcised. In the Old Testament, children were to be circumcised on the 8th day. 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.

How did they know that back then? Besides the point, no pun intended, most circumcisions are done for religious reasons (not arguing that the sign of circumcision still pertains), but there are certain health benefits.

I simply mean if an adult wants to undergo a procedure that alters his/her body, then fine...no problem here.

I would argue that a baby has no religion, it is another person's religion (presumably that of his parents) that is being imposed. It is a barbaric iron-age practice that should be abolished, IMHO.

One could argue that there are vestigial parts of the human anatomy that we are better off without since evolution is a continuous and ongoing process (e.g. widsom teeth, appendix), but I would not put the human foreskin on such a list.

I understand what you're suggesting, but I am not going into Theology here. However, I will suggest not putting much stock into a society that legally redetermines what it is to be a person (let alone male or female), when they argue for the rights of children all the while supporting the murder of 56 million babies in the U.S. alone. I am referring to Roe vs Wade. If it is the parent's right to perform an abortion, the argument would suggest the right to circumcision.

Shim

I am speaking from my own personal opinion only...I am not interested in what a bunch of lawyers and/or clergy have to say about it, this is a medical issue, and so the opinions of medical experts is what interests me here. They have done the science.

It's like global warming...I don't care what politicians or philosophers or musicians have to say about it because they are relatively ignorant on the matter, I care what climatologists, who are the experts in the field, have to say.

Hi Mark,

These same scientist suggest one acknowledge the resemblance of a monkey to that of a human, and reject the resemblance of an unborn baby to a human being.

I wish you would hold to your original position. If you are for withholding the knife in all circumstances, but for health reasons, another words, if only the mother's life was in jeopardy, I would support your position more, because that would result in a decline of 98% of all abortions.

I respect you having an opinion, but again, I will not hold much stock in a social or scientific agenda that rejects the obvious (observational), and that includes weather projections beyond 7 days, which they cannot get right, let alone projections of 75 thousand to millions of years.

Shim

That makes no sense. Your rejection of the principle of evolution makes it no less an indisputable fact. If fact goes against faith, which is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking, then it is faith that must be discarded.

When did I say anything for or against abortion? Please don't put words in my mouth.

You are confusing weather with climate.

This thread is not about abortion or climate change though, it is about genital mutilation, and my opinion on it has not changed one bit. Please, let's just stay on topic.

My favorite two rules on forums prior to this thread were no posting regarding:
- Politics
- Religion

For those with forums based on such I COMMEND you brave souls, WE SALUTE YOU! THIS IS SPARRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTAAAAAA and such! Do I say this to dare say its silly? Not at all - My reasoning? I've seen those two topics turn long standing community members into bitter enemies over opposing views related to such ohh that's the only reason not a big one :p. Edit: To clarify no not happened yet, don't think it will here ya'll are polite as a firecracker and imposing a sense of composure.

My new third addition from hence forth shall be:
- No discussion of circumcision.

I'm silly and that is all, laughter is appreciated, donations accepted I'm a charity case in itself folks :D hardy har har :p.

Hi Mark,

With respect to the mods post (acknowledging TheLastSuperman), I will not continue the discussion with regard to politics, religion, or circumcision. I will, however, address your responses:

Please clarify, because your argument seemingly equates to a teacher standing in front of a class saying Simeon says.


Mark, you have provided a definition of faith as: "purposeful suspension of critical thinking", and then suggested "it is faith that must be discarded".

Are you suggesting that critical thinking is not suspended by your faith in scientist?

Note: I am not disputing micro-evolution. Darwinian and Macro-evolution is not science, but rather an assumption. That is, unless you can provide proof "observational data (who was there to witness these events?) and replication (repeat the theory of evolution to verify the facts) to support "their" narration?

Before turning to the fossil record, I am willing to dispute the narration of stick figures, and I will suggest that a person's worldview has a great impact and influence on objectivity of the facts.

In conclusion, I respectively suggest redefining faith as: an action based on belief sustained by confidence. Another words, your responses (action) are based on scientists (belief) and of other men (confidence) performing proper scientific method.

Shim

This thread is about circumcision (about which I have already stated my opinion), so again, let's just let this thread get back on topic.

If you want to talk about circumcision you can't leave God out of it as it was his commandment for his people to be circumcised so you can't have one without the other this is all I have to say about this as I find posts like this always start a fight. If this was a born again site this post would of been deleted a long time ago

Shim you took that the wrong way no worries but to explain: I was being silly and there is no rule saying you can't discuss these things here so please feel free.

Sometimes the language barrier for those who speak ESL makes it hard for my comedic nature to come across as-intended that is all (lol) :cool:.

I have a few questions, and comments, anybody feel free to answer or respond.

1) From where do morals and ethics originate? Who sets the standards of morality (e.g., society, God etc).

2) Are you standing firm LostinCyberland that only a condom prevents AIDS? Are you against educating people on the subject of morality, e.g., monogamous relationships, and b) are you for/or against enforcing any standard of morality upon those that disagree? Note: I am not suggesting only monogamous relationships are moral at this point.

3) Is a stone age device limited only to your example, or would "rubber" qualify when using it to promote immoral behavior? To put it bluntly, do you consider it both unethical or immoral to have sexual relations with a close evolutionary relative (monkey), or is it "right" by the use of a "modern" device such as a condom? Or using Mark's standard of consent, if only the monkey consents through certain gesturing, will the modern condom prove ethical and moral?

What interests me is your view on circumcision. From a religious perspective, the sign of a covenant (circumcision) had no saving power in itself, as though any such superficial identification could, but rather it was the inward reality to which it aligned and corresponded to.

Shim

I say let the parents circumcise if they want to, I'm glad my parents chose to have me circumcised.

I also say if you have a problem with the way someone spends their foundation's money, then you start your own foundation and do what you want to do.

I'm sure many, if not most men, feel the same way, Joe. And while I do not resent my parents at all for making the same decision when I was an infant (as it was just something the vast majority did here in the U.S. at that time), I would rather have been allowed to make the choice for myself. But, something like that cannot be (satisfactorily) undone, and so life goes on. :D

Why does God have to be involved? I am talking about the rights and safety of children here.

God doesn't have any place in anything now, it's a personal belief that is not to be pushed onto others. When you have your autonomous humanoid robot walking around doing house chores one day will you honestly look at it and still believe God is of any relevance? The truth is we humans are the gods. Recently RMIT was able to simulate the human memory in microchips, do you honestly believe AI is not proof we are the Gods around here? Instead of processing in binary computers of the future will now be able to process in analog the way humans do. https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-new...g-term-memory/

I understand how religion is a comforting influence for many people, even I feel it's comfort in a way through traditions such as Christmas, and I have no problem with people having their beliefs, as long as they don't push things like MC onto people because of those beliefs, why can't you just live and let live. If the boy wants to get circumcised let him make the choice when he is able to consent, why force it on him when it could harm him.

I think climate change is a bad example to use, it has as much junk science used to justify it as MC. The weather forecasters can't even accurately predict the weather from day to day and expect us to believe their doom and gloom predictions. I am sceptical about scientists in as much as I have realized they are very manipulative in the way they interpret and talk about their data. Remember it is also doctors and scientists, supposedly logical people, who are championing MC. I am doing Engineering at University at the moment, and all I can say is having a University degree means nothing. I know that because I am not the smartest person around, and am not particularly good at maths, in fact I am horrible at it, yet I qualified to get into Engineering, mainly due to determination and silly idea that somehow doing Engineering would open up many doors for me. Truth is it doesn't, go into finance or business if you want to make money, not Engineering.

Some of the brightest students are the most illogical people I have ever known, intelligence doesn't give you a monopoly on rationality. It's dangerous just to follow what anyone says just because they have a degree. Universities these days have become businesses, and people working in them have so many competing interests that nothing they do is without a political or religious stance sadly. Universities have become corrupted. The alarmist climate change message is a symptom of this corruption.

I am not saying I am a climate skeptic, I think we need to transition to a green economy, but I think we should do so over a 100-200 year period, when the technology becomes more viable than today, and not get all alarmist about things, as that doesn't help anyone.

I don't understand how someone typing away on a computer or phone can honestly say God has a place here. If we let the people who believe in their Gods rule the world that we would have either killed or thrown Turing in jail much sooner for being a homosexual and he never would have invented the computer. To me like MC the whole anti-homosexual argument is again about taking away sexual pleasure, as any logical person would question why God put the male g spot where he did. You can't stifle nature's honestly lol.

Honestly seeing junk science used by influential governments and the international community to justify MC is actually quite scary to me. It makes me open my eyes and see all the deception out there.

All I ask any religious person who thinks God has a place in this argument to do, is consider for a moment how they would feel if their son, or grandson, underwent MC and ended up botched and having to pee out of a catheter for the rest of his life.

--------------- Added [DATE]1435910388[/DATE] at [TIME]1435910388[/TIME] ---------------

I rambled on without reading all the posts. Will try my best to answer your questions. I don't mean to bring up these types of esoteric topics. Won't do so in future. Sorry.

1) I think the state religions originally set the ethics and morals society followed at a time when people did not know how the world worked religion provided an answer. But now science provides that answer and so has more substance as a platform to base our ethical decision making on. But then again society is made up of people, so in a way it really is people who set these morals and ethics and create these religions. I think now we have democratic governance around the world it is people who are setting ethics and morals. We thought a lobotomy was ethical not so long ago, and now we would never consider it ethical.

Democratic governance, self determination, a comfortable lifestyle, is what people value now. I would say science could be what sets ethics and morals, but science is not always for me a good thing to use to define what we should and shouldn't do, as after all science also supported the use of the lobotomy as a cure once.

I think the innate philosophy of live and let live, and try and not cause harm to other people, is what sets morals and ethics these days.

2) I am standing firm that a condom is more effective at preventing AIDS than MC. I think educating people from a first person perspective is the way to go, I don't see how educating from any type of relationship perspective has anything to do with AIDS, other than promoting a religious idealization of what a relationship is like. To me a lot of AIDS charity these days is all just about promoting religion and making money, so sad.

I am not for forcing my standard of morals onto anyone. But when I see people being harmed by something I will bring attention to the issue by stating facts and my point of view. People can make their own decision if they want to take away anything from what I have said or not.

3)Uh I don't get this point at all. What has the implementation by a non surgically trained nurse of the PrePex and Shang Ring in cutting off circulation to a mans penis to remove his foreskin and leaving him open to all sorts of possible dangers in any way related to someone having intercourse with a monkey?!

My view on circumcision is that it was always only ever about control. Control through religious guilt perpetuated by the harsh desert religions of the middle east. Our modern day society then tried to justify MC through science, and that failed, because the science was junk science and not taking into account all the facts. Now they are still trying to justify it because it is a very lucrative 1 billion dollar a year industry. It's capitalism at it's saddest.

Look at China, a civilization that has been around for thousands of years. In China they do not practice circumcision or MC. And guess what, you never hear about reports coming out of men in China having any problems with their penises than men from anywhere else. If not being circumcised is so detrimental to mens health, why is it people in China have had no problems going natural for all these thousands of years? This evidence alone should settle the whole MC argument once and for all.

The irony is that China manufactures a lot of these MC devices.

I can see that in 50 years time we will look back on MC in the same way as we do a lobotomy today.

God will always be, even if you think he is not. The Lord is my savior so please don't put him down remember on judgement day all sinners will be judged

By the time you're old enough to make the decision for yourself it's a more painful and uncomfortable procedure. If I wasn't circumcised I sure as hell wouldn't get it done at 18+.

I live in Australia where you can admit you don't believe in god and still be elected for public office. Everything here isn't all about religion like in the US. Ancient societies collapse and their gods stop being worshipped, those gods will not always be. Why is your God any different.

The Maya also believed in a doomsday scenario, that day came and went, and we are still here. Your judgement day is designed to make people feel fear, it's a classic control mechanism that the elite used and still use to keep order in their populations. Why do you think every time you switch the TV on the news is always negative? Who do you think wrote the Bible, an uneducated pauper with no ulterior motives or a rich nobleman with many ulterior motives? Why do you think Jesus was portrayed as a poor man? It was so the majority of the population, who were also poor, could relate to him, making it easier to pass the religion off as legitimate. Turing was a sinner according to your religion, yet you happily use a computer everyday. You really need to wisen up before you waste your whole life in a bubble. Stop living by the politics of division, treat people humanely and just enjoy your life, it will be gone in the blink of an eye.

New news articles are popping up everyday perpetuating the same tired old lies about MC. And now they are calling it SMC (Safe Male Circumcision). Apparently the men being circumcised don't feel any pain during or after the operation. Funny how selectively they use words in MC articles, so manipulative.

In a funny irony the airing skirts the men have to wear after the operation, along with the long waiting time before they can start having sex again of 6 weeks, is causing many men to not want to pursue circumcision because they fear their wives will cheat on them during the waiting period.

http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/6705...tionships.html

Amazing the way supporters of MC turn to blanket statements to try and de-rail an important message. Sometimes I think we are living in 1520 instead of 2015. Do what you want, it's your bodies and your kids bodies, it's none of my business. I'm not here to create division. Bye.

I don't live in the USA and I really feel sorry for you I hope you belevie before it is too late as you can die at anytime and I dont want anyone to go to hell its not a nice place

Ok, thankyou for the concern. I have a grandmother in her mid 90s who gets such great comfort from God, something that has kept her going since my grandfather died over 30 years ago, so I understand your position. I wish you all the best for the future. I know you don't mean to cause harm, and neither do I. I think we can both agree to disagree on this one. I'm from Australia, and here we just say what we think, so I may have come across a bit harsh. I think this discussion has run it's course and I probably won't follow it any longer as I don't want to cause any divisions, bye.

Your point of view comes directly from Genesis 3:5 - For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Here are the double lies being offered by Satan to Eve springing out of the same principle behind his botched coup attempt; first, that she would be like gods, and thus independent, able to rule over herself apart from God, and secondly, there is not one God, but many gods; each is sovereign over himself or herself. The doctrine of autonomous-self, or often referred to as “free-will”, whether it be “Christian” or non-Christian one, though may not appear explicitly, originates from the same spirit by which Lucifer rebelled against God, that is, the spirit of self-idolatry.

To be autonomous means to be a law unto oneself. An autonomous creature would be answerable to no one. He would have no governor, least of all a sovereign governor. It is logically impossible to have a sovereign God existing at the same time as an autonomous creature. The two concepts are utterly incompatible. To think of their coexistence would be like imagining the meeting of an immovable object and an irresistible force. What would happen? If the object moved, then it could no longer be considered immovable. If it failed to move, then the irresistible force would no longer be irresistible.

You answered my other question. You believe Society and now science as the rule of thumb or standbearer for both morality and ethics. Nazi Germany legalized the killing of Jews, disabled, and homosexuals. By your standard, they had every right to do so.

And like science, one paradigm is often discarded for new discovery. Concerning moral relativism even Einstein was appalled when learning that people were applying his theory of relativism to a domain of absolute truth. Post modernism is ugly, and it suggests: what is true for you is not true for me. Live and let live, you say, if that be the case, you shouldn't have an issue with what Nazi Germany does or others performing circumcision. Do no harm is rather Wicca (witchery) I might add, and sometimes goes against survival of the fittest. If you are for charity, would that not fall under the domain of the religious? And does that act not undermine evolution?

Another words, some believe society is the standard bearer for morality. As society changes, truth changes, and resulting flow of morality and ethics. The norm is considered the democratic rule, and if enough people believe something true then it is moral and ethical. Likewise, will you contend that what Nazi Germany had done was wrong, and at the same time suggest you will not force your own standard upon others? Will you abandon your principals by acknowledging the flaws in logic?

I contend, morality and ethics are outside the domain of science. It is amazing that everything in the universe operates according to certain laws, yet certain people reject the Giver of Law.

Shim

Look I do understand your point, in that it could be dangerous to allow morals to be dictated by the whims of the voting public. But what is the alternative? To follow a outdated religion that has no relevance to the people who adopted it from the middle east? The European tribes were forcibly Christianised remember.

Most people just want to live peacefully, to try and gain some sense of happiness and enjoyment in their short lives, and do the best they can to act humanely.

Sure ethics change, and sometimes they don't, I mean although a lobotomy is now seen as unethical, the practice still operates today under the guise of a lobectomy and through the use of drugs that chemically do the same thing as a lobotomy used to.

Isn't the bigger question giving people a choice in how they live their lives? And giving people the ability to question things. That is what sets the west apart and makes us humane. Freedom. You know the thing America was founded on.

I suggest you address your own presuppositions and prejudices. Because an absolute truth is timeless does not mean it is old. If you have not read Holy Scripture for yourself, how can you object to its evidence?

Shim

How do you know that ? Have you visited it personally, got pictures ? or are you just taking someones word for it.

Read the bible its the word of God

That you believe the Bible is the word of God is something you believe on faith, which is fine for you. However, there is no compelling evidence for this, and without such evidence, I have no reason to believe it. You cannot put faith-based beliefs on the same level as verifiable fact.

Faith is believing in something you can't see, but someday I know I will be in heaven and I do feel sad for all who wont be but that is their decision. I am done posting in here if any, here really want to know about the Lord feel free to pm me.

Many have said to me how can you believe in something you cant see I say to them you cant see the wind but you feel it well I feel the spirit of God

Maybe I should start up a thread about the dangers of intolerance, as that essentially is why MC is allowed to continue. Every time with you religious people I am polite and respect your opinions and try and see your point of view, yet you always reply in a way that is rude and completely dismisses my point of view. You don't even try and see it from my point of view. That is why I will never see you or your religions as having any legitimacy. I'm tired of being tolerant of intolerance.

As if to add insult to injury I just found this article by an Indonesian paper, that talks about MC as if it is a legitimate cure, I didn't realize Indonesia was doing the same thing to the poor people of their occupied Papua province. Having this happen so close to Australia, and have it happen to some of the most vulnerable men in the world really makes me realize how inhumane this practice is. All they are doing is taking advantage of the most vulnerable in our society to make a quick buck. If you want an example of what happens when you let these religious people rule Indonesia is a classic textbook case.

Also note the Clintons foundation is also supporting this. I thought the Clintons would know better than this. What upsets me most is how the article describes what is a barbaric stone age process so clinically and without any emotion, and passes it off as a legitimate medical practice. I thought people were smarter than this, obviously I was wrong.

source http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2....D7zPmDsh.dpuf

Here is an example of how the MC argument usually goes on TV, juxtaposed against the facts. Medical professionals will make blanket statements and use emotion instead of reason when approaching this topic; just like the religious people do. If Doctors are even perpetuating these lies then you know something is wrong. Anyone who supports MC has a hidden interest, be it money, from the surgical procedure or devices used to facilitate MC, selling of the foreskin, or to promote their religious views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Lm396q8KA

--------------- Added [DATE]1436019418[/DATE] at [TIME]1436019418[/TIME] ---------------

Also remember this only came to my attention because of the case happening with the 4 year old boy in the US called Chase. You can find out more about him here and the 'phony phimosis' argument used to justify his MC:

http://www.phillyvoice.com/mother-re...-circumcision/

It seems everything to do with MC comes from a lack of proper education of the parents when dealing with these things, especially when dealing with how to care for a infants penis and that you do not retract the skin, that is something you let the boy do once he is able to and once the foreskin separates from the penis. I only hope this thread may help future parents come to a more informed choice.

If your still on the fence about MC, these pictures show the risks involved, and please be aware the link contains graphic surgical images, some showing how infection has caused a lot of the skin around the babies abdomen to be removed. Also note in the surgical video, no anaesthesia is used, as the baby gets more agitated once the surgery begins:

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/the-p...cumcision.html

Anyway the only reason I became aware of this issue was because I saw it on the news with the court case about the mother who went to jail because she didn't want her boy circumcised, and if anyone ends up finding out what happens to Chase please update us here.

So basically your just taking someones word for it.

Of course, if you want to believe in angels, demons, heaven, hell and other such made up stuff, thats your choice - I, however, do not.

It does make for some good entertaining TV shows now and then (like Supernatural). :)

Paul I know what you and many here think I know God, Jesus, heaven etc etc is real so it does not matter what anyone says but when all here are long dead then you will be thinking back on this and wishing you listened to what I was telling you ask now for salvation before its to late

Sorry. I shouldn't have been so abrasive and disrespectful in my arguments. I respect your belief and your religion. I just want everyone to be happy and for no more people to needlessly get hurt because of unnecessary surgical procedures. That's all.

I'm not sure if death is such a certainty anymore, they have discovered how to reverse the ageing process, it's only a matter of time before that is somehow implemented in a way that can allow our bodies to stay young forever. Trials for Niagen are happening right now.

I never allow my opinions to be set in stone, so I guess I am different and find it difficult to understand it when people do through religion. No harm meant. I will just follow the Florida MC story on my own.

I would bet big money that the aging process is ever truly halted. We may live longer, mayne to 150, but not beyond that.

How awful life would become if we did manage to stop aging. The world would be overrun, all resources wasted... the young would have no chance. That would be the true end to the human race.

We will never pass 120 as we can never go against the will of God
Genesis Ch 6 v 3
And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

James Ch 4 v 14
Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

Jeanne Calment of France lived to the age of 122 years, 164 days. Others will eventually join the verified list of people who live past the 120 year mark...it's only a matter of time and certain statistical laws.

According to the bible isn't pi exactly 3.0?

Also, didn't some early people mentioned live to like 600 years old?

So maybe God just estimates or maybe the biblical definition of a year doesn't match ours?

Genesis 6:3 does not cap the age limit to 120 years. Genesis 6:3 is God?s declaration that the flood would occur 120 years from His pronouncement. Humanity's days being ended is a reference to humanity itself being destroyed in the flood. Genesis 6:3 is a prediction of the timetable for the flood.