Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 230
Like Tree160Likes

Thread: Petition To End Circumcision

  1. #1 Petition To End Circumcision 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    33
    Circumcision is quite clearly a religious-based practice, and it shows. Circumcised males have a far greater rate of urinary problems, infants experience severe pain and post traumatic stress after surgery, circumcision causes impotence, removes 20,000 nerve endings, and also causes over 100 infant deaths each year. Circumcision is a direct violation of human rights.

    This petition is not mine, it's someone else's. With 100,000 signatures by March 1st, we can force the government to respond. It's no joke, as one time the government had to respond to a petition to create a death star to create jobs, and the government responded saying it'd cost 850,000,000,000,000,000 and is therefore a bad use of taxpayer's money. Site won't allow me to link, so I won't really bother. Just curious as to what people here think of all this.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Do you care to back up any of your claims? And how about the other side or the argument--such as how many does it save? Or do you just gobble up such one sided, unsupported by evidence factoids without a critical eye?

    --
    As for my opinion, I rather agree with you about it being a violation of human rights, and think Germany had some fantastic legal concepts about protecting the integrity of the body unless something needs to happen for medical reasons. I doubt there's any significant negative or positive health effect related to circumcision assuming the child is taught and has access to good hygiene.


    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 2nd, 2014 at 02:20 AM.
    Ascended likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    11
    I am a circumcised male.

    But I do not support removing healthy tissue from a non-consenting infant for reasons largely based on fashion.

    Leave the body intact.

    Allow the individual to make that decision as an adult if they so choose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Do you care to back up any of your claims? And how about the other side or the argument--such as how many does it save? Or do you just gobble up such one sided, unsupported by evidence factoids without a critical eye?
    Not only are my claims supported, but they are massively supported, all by irrefutable scientific evidence.


    1) Circumcision is very painful for infants in a 1993 study on Acetaminophen Analgesia used for circumcision published in the Journal Pediatrics in April of 1994 concluded “This study confirms that circumcision of the newborn causes severe and persistent pain. Acetaminophen was not found to ameliorate either the intra-operative or the immediate postoperative pain of circumcision, although it seems that it may provide some benefit after the immediate postoperative period” The study was a double blind study which used a placebo and Acetaminophen the study found that circumcision affects feeding patterns “Feeding behavior deteriorated in breast- and bottle-fed neonates in both groups, and acetaminophen did not seem to influence this deterioration.”


    2) Globally the majority of men are not circumcised, while those who are, are mainly circumcised for religious reasons. The World Health Organization has estimated that globally 30% of males aged 15 and over are circumcised, with almost 70% of these being Muslim.


    3) In a 2011 preliminary study published in the International Journal of Men's Health, men circumcised at birth are 4.53 times more likely to use an erectile dysfunction drug.


    4) A 2010 study by the Journal Thymos estimates that in the United States each year around 117 infants die as a result of their circumcision. The number of deaths from circumcision outweigh the number of infants who die from automobile accidents, suffocation, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.


    5) The foreskin has 20,000 nerve endings. Source; everything ever, but I'd recommend Wikipedia.
    pyoko likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    I have checked your claims and added links to the relevant studies where possible.

    1) Circumcision is very painful for infants in a 1993 study on Acetaminophen Analgesia used for circumcision published in the Journal Pediatrics in April of 1994 concluded “This study confirms that circumcision of the newborn causes severe and persistent pain. Acetaminophen was not found to ameliorate either the intra-operative or the immediate postoperative pain of circumcision, although it seems that it may provide some benefit after the immediate postoperative period” The study was a double blind study which used a placebo and Acetaminophen the study found that circumcision affects feeding patterns “Feeding behavior deteriorated in breast- and bottle-fed neonates in both groups, and acetaminophen did not seem to influence this deterioration.”

    The statements are taken from this study:
    Howard, C.R. et al. (1994), "Acetaminophen analgesia in neonatal circumcision: the effect on pain", Pediatrics 93(4), pp. 641-646

    2) Globally the majority of men are not circumcised, while those who are, are mainly circumcised for religious reasons. The World Health Organization has estimated that globally 30% of males aged 15 and over are circumcised, with almost 70% of these being Muslim.

    This is taken from a WHO report from 2007 (pp. 7-8):
    Male circumcision: Global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability.

    3) In a 2011 preliminary study published in the International Journal of Men's Health, men circumcised at birth are 4.53 times more likely to use an erectile dysfunction drug.

    The statements are taken from this study:
    Bollinger, D. et al. (2011), "Alexithymia and Circumcision Trauma: A Preliminary Investigation", International Journal of Men's Health 10(2), pp. 184-195

    4) A 2010 study by the Journal Thymos estimates that in the United States each year around 117 infants die as a result of their circumcision. The number of deaths from circumcision outweigh the number of infants who die from automobile accidents, suffocation, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

    It took me a while to find this claim, but it led me to this study:
    Bollinger, D. (2010), "Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths", Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies 4(1), pp. 78-90


    5) The foreskin has 20,000 nerve endings. Source; everything ever, but I'd recommend Wikipedia.

    I could not find a source to back this up.


    Furthermore, I think that circumcision (male or female) is unnecessary, unless it is done for medical reasons.
    John Galt, pyoko, Ascended and 3 others like this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Thank you Cognito for showing Seneca the best way to back up arguments.

    Now for the other side.

    "circumcision significantly reduces the risk of men contracting HIV through penile-vaginal sex"
    CDC - Male Circumcision - Research - Prevention Research - HIV/AIDS
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    33
    A study published in March of 2008 from the University of Otago in New Zealand followed a cohort of boys through life from birth to age 32. The study found that “early childhood circumcision does not markedly reduce the risk of the common STIs in the general population”.

    In research by the National Research Council which compared health between similar industrialized peer countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) to that of the United States, it was found that the United States had the highest prevalence of AIDS among the 17 peer countries; it also found young people in the US have the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases. In the 16 other peer countries circumcision is extremely rare, however their STD rates are much lower than the rates in the US.


    Lynx_Fox, the information I found and the information you found seem to be in contradiction with eachother. Unfortunately since I'm a new member I can't post links, so anyone who wants to search for the sources will be in for an adventure.
    pyoko likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Thank you Cognito for showing Seneca the best way to back up arguments.

    Now for the other side.

    "circumcision significantly reduces the risk of men contracting HIV through penile-vaginal sex"
    CDC - Male Circumcision - Research - Prevention Research - HIV/AIDS
    Isn't that just in Africa where the access to good hygiene is sorely limited?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Thank you Cognito for showing Seneca the best way to back up arguments.

    Now for the other side.

    "circumcision significantly reduces the risk of men contracting HIV through penile-vaginal sex"
    CDC - Male Circumcision - Research - Prevention Research - HIV/AIDS
    Years ago I would listen to Dr. Dean Edell on the radio and circumcision was one of his favorite subjects.

    When it came to the subject of removing healthy, functional tissue in order to reduce the possibility of disease at some future point, he would ask, "so why don't we remove the breasts of every woman in order to reduce the risk of breast cancer?"

    The point isn't to equate a foreskin to a breast and I'll admit that the example is extreme.

    But the point is that it's a poor way to solve a problem. You don't have to cut off all foreskins to reduce HIV. You could achieve reductions by teaching and facilitating safe sex practices and testing.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    I've always been under the impression that circumcison was a choice the parents made. This thread seems to be saying that is not the case.

    To my mind the parents do have the right to make that choice for their sons. So the problem then seems to be one of education and not a law needing to be passed.

    Also, it easy to understand why it's done to new born males. First I'm absolutely sure it's painful, and I am very glad I have no memory of it. If I had to make that choice as an adult, I would find it very hard to do, even if I thought it was the right thing to do.

    It's hard to really know which is better, because I've never known or experienced the other way. I have had women tell me they prefer to date circumcised men over uncircumcised men and when I asked why. They didn't like the smell and they said it didn't seem to matter how clean the man was, there was a different smell they didn't like. I've never met a female that liked uncircumcised better than circumcised. So what's a guy going to do?
    danhanegan, babe and sir ir r aj like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Seneca View Post
    Lynx_Fox, the information I found and the information you found seem to be in contradiction with eachother. Unfortunately since I'm a new member I can't post links, so anyone who wants to search for the sources will be in for an adventure.

    Not being able to post an URL in your first post on the Science Forum is anti-spam measure.
    You can post URLs when you have more than one post and as such, you should be able to post links to the relevant papers.

    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf
    Isn't that just in Africa where the access to good hygiene is sorely limited?

    That might be an explanation, but the populations are also different.
    The CDC speaks of surveys and studies that covered Africa, whilst the other study (Dickson, N.P. et al., 2008) has only studied men in Dundin, New Zealand over the course of 20-30 years.
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; February 2nd, 2014 at 01:04 PM.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    I've always been under the impression that circumcison was a choice the parents made. This thread seems to be saying that is not the case.

    To my mind the parents do have the right to make that choice for their sons. So the problem then seems to be one of education and not a law needing to be passed.
    While I'd agree with you that education is a better approach than outlawing the practice. I wouldn't want to see parents being jailed and families separated over this. But I'm curious about your notion of parents having "the right" to make this choice for their sons.

    IMO, the role of the parent is to bring a child intact to adulthood and from there let them choose what to do with their body. What right do parents have to remove body parts based largely on fashion? We culturally shrink from the idea of circumcising girls, yet there are people who think that is the normal thing to do. Is that also the parents "right"? What other ways could a parent exercise that right? Could they scar or brand their child? Could they cut or remove other parts of the body? If it's a right, then it leads me to believe these practices could be pursued as well. And I'd hate to think that was the case.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Also, it easy to understand why it's done to new born males. First I'm absolutely sure it's painful, and I am very glad I have no memory of it. If I had to make that choice as an adult, I would find it very hard to do, even if I thought it was the right thing to do.
    As adults we undergo all kinds of medical procedure ... some more painful than others. We consult with physicians, weigh the risks and benefits, and base our decisions on those considerations. I don't see how it would be any different from other procedures, except for the location.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    It's hard to really know which is better, because I've never known or experienced the other way. I have had women tell me they prefer to date circumcised men over uncircumcised men and when I asked why. They didn't like the smell and they said it didn't seem to matter how clean the man was, there was a different smell they didn't like. I've never met a female that liked uncircumcised better than circumcised. So what's a guy going to do?
    Let each guy decide for himself.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post

    While I'd agree with you that education is a better approach than outlawing the practice. I wouldn't want to see parents being jailed and families separated over this. But I'm curious about your notion of parents having "the right" to make this choice for their sons.

    IMO, the role of the parent is to bring a child intact to adulthood and from there let them choose what to do with their body. What right do parents have to remove body parts based largely on fashion? We culturally shrink from the idea of circumcising girls, yet there are people who think that is the normal thing to do. Is that also the parents "right"? What other ways could a parent exercise that right? Could they scar or brand their child? Could they cut or remove other parts of the body? If it's a right, then it leads me to believe these practices could be pursued as well. And I'd hate to think that was the case.
    My parents claimed it was for health reasons, so fashion wasn't part of that equation. As far as circumcising girls, I've only ever heard that it's a brutal procedure that involves removing the clitoris which is more like loping off a mans penis. Anyway if parents think there are future health problems that could be avoided by circumcision then yes I'd say they have the right to make that choice for their sons. If that's not the case then truthful education backed up by facts would be most helpful. I never had any children of my own, so I never had to make that decision for a son of mine. So I would like to hear from others that did make that choice for their sons and why they made the choice they did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    So, some religious guy wants to cut a child's penis and then suck the blood off it using his mouth.
    Is that really so wrong?




    Yes. Yes it is.
    pyoko, Bad Robot, RobinM and 1 others like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    I've always been under the impression that circumcison was a choice the parents made. This thread seems to be saying that is not the case.
    Well there is still a ton of societal pressure to do so. "Its cleaner," as if we live in the middle ages where people bathed once a month whether they needed it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robo
    They didn't like the smell and they said it didn't seem to matter how clean the man was, there was a different smell they didn't like. I've never met a female that liked uncircumcised better than circumcised. So what's a guy going to do?
    Women be lyin'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot
    My parents claimed it was for health reasons, so fashion wasn't part of that equation.
    How old are you? did you not have access to soap or running water? if that's the case... totally Health reasons, if not, Fashion. and if you don't think "fashion" isn't part of it, know that males/parents can choose from many different styles of circumcision.

    Quote Originally Posted by BadRobot
    As far as circumcising girls, I've only ever heard that it's a brutal procedure
    SO, if it were done in a hospital with anesthesia and scalpel instead of an aspirin and a piece of broken glass that would make all of the difference? Hardly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot
    that involves removing the clitoris which is more like loping off a mans penis.
    Not the same thing. A woman can still have sex and bear a child if she's missing her clitoris and man can not reproduce or have sex with out his penis.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot
    Anyway if parents think there are future health problems that could be avoided by circumcision then yes I'd say they have the right to make that choice for their sons.
    Oh come on Robot, use that science brain on this. So, you're claiming that it's my right as a parent to cut off my child's ears because it's my belief that he will sleep better and avoid sleep apnea and therefore live longer? preposterous. Health shouldn't be based on the "beliefs" of another.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot
    If that's not the case then truthful education backed up by facts would be most helpful.
    well, that's always the case for anything isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot
    I never had any children of my own, so I never had to make that decision for a son of mine. So I would like to hear from others that did make that choice for their sons and why they made the choice they did.
    My wife and I chose not to for our son. #1 we are not Jewish and #2 we have access to running water and soap. Therefore, no need to.

    My mother in law kept pushing, so I finally said we will not mutilate our son with circumcision the same way we will not mutilate our daughter with one. If we do it for one we have to do it for both. Discussion dropped.
    citizenzen likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    The OP seems to make it a lot more one-sided than it actually is. Additionally, the parents have a choice to perform the procedure; it is not mandatory.

    Critique on the single source provided claiming circumcision causes impotence

    Also, the cancer, STD, and UTI infection prevention obtained by circumcision has been well-documented by several studies.

    Male Circumcision
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Also, the cancer, STD, and UTI infection prevention obtained by circumcision has been well-documented by several studies.
    Male Circumcision
    That piece was based on an AAP Bioethics Committee report.
    It seems that AAP Bioethics Committee also support female circumcision genital mutilation.
    So I don't feel unjustified in ignoring their opinion and questioning the veracity of their claims.
    Last edited by RedPanda; February 2nd, 2014 at 05:01 PM.
    pyoko and grmpysmrf like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    The OP seems to make it a lot more one-sided than it actually is.
    Agreed.

    Additionally, the parents have a choice to perform the procedure; it is not mandatory.
    And exaggerates medical issues with extremely biased presentation rather than go straight for the best argument...parents shouldn't have the right to mutilate their children for any non-medical reasons.

    It's child abuse plain and simple usually sanctioned by religious belief.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 2nd, 2014 at 05:17 PM.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Also, the cancer, STD, and UTI infection prevention obtained by circumcision has been well-documented by several studies.
    Male Circumcision
    That piece was based on an AAP Bioethics Committee report.
    It seems that AAP Bioethics Committee also support female circumcision genital mutilation.
    So I don't feel unjustified in ignoring their opinion and questioning the veracity of their claims.
    That's fine. Perhaps you'll instead read this comprehensive article published by the CDC, which is much more credible than anything posted by the OP.

    Link
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    The OP seems to make it a lot more one-sided than it actually is.
    Agreed.

    Additionally, the parents have a choice to perform the procedure; it is not mandatory.
    And exaggerates medical issues with extremely biased presentation rather than go straight for the best argument...parents shouldn't have the right to mutilate their children for any reason.

    It's child abuse plain and simple usually sanctioned by religious belief.
    Yeah, the science definitely doesn't say being uncircumcised is better than being circumcised, so the only approach that should be bothered with is the ethical one... in which case I guess this was appropriately placed in the politics forum, and I need to get out of here immediately
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    That's fine. Perhaps you'll instead read this comprehensive article published by the CDC, which is much more credible than anything posted by the OP.

    Link

    May I ask why you regard the three peer-reviewed studies and the WHO report from the O.P. as less credible than the link to a CDC document?
    pyoko and umbradiago like this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    That's fine. Perhaps you'll instead read this comprehensive article published by the CDC, which is much more credible than anything posted by the OP.

    Link

    May I ask why you regard the three peer-reviewed studies and the WHO report from the O.P. as less credible than the link to a CDC document?
    Sure. First, my comment was not intended to include the WHO, as his reference to them was only an indication of the prevalence of circumcision, not anything controversial/health related. His other references were studies from relatively low (and one incredibly low) impact factor journals. In addition, those were just single studies. Nothing should be accepted as "fact" from a single published study. Typically, you want multiple studies reproducing the same results before you come to any kind of conclusion. The CDC article cites multiple studies from very high quality journals in their review.

    Edit to add: The WHO article actually supports the points I made.
    babe and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592
    Yeah, the science definitely doesn't say being uncircumcised is better than being circumcised,
    I strongly disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592
    so the only approach that should be bothered with is the ethical one... in which case I guess this was appropriately placed in the politics forum, and I need to get out of here immediately
    Politics? We can go there too.

    If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising. Using sensitivity analysis, it was impossible to arrange a scenario that made neonatal circumcision cost-effective. Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically.

    A Cost-Utility Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    So I don't feel unjustified in ignoring their opinion and questioning the veracity of their claims.
    That's fine. Perhaps you'll instead read this comprehensive article published by the CDC, which is much more credible than anything posted by the OP.
    Link
    Well - the fact that there is no mention in that CDC article of any possible 'down-side' to circumcision makes me think that it is both biased and misleading.
    Or do you agree with them and think that there are no risks associated with circumcision?

    I am happy to accept that there are plus and minus points to circumcision - but any document claiming (or failing to mention) zero down-sides is suspicious at best.
    pyoko likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    So I don't feel unjustified in ignoring their opinion and questioning the veracity of their claims.
    That's fine. Perhaps you'll instead read this comprehensive article published by the CDC, which is much more credible than anything posted by the OP.Link
    Well - the fact that there is no mention in that CDC article of any possible 'down-side' to circumcision makes me think that it is both biased and misleading.Or do you agree with them and think that there are no risks associated with circumcision?I am happy to accept that there are plus and minus points to circumcision - but any document claiming (or failing to mention) zero down-sides is suspicious at best.
    What? It seems you read neither the article nor my post(s). Firstly, I certainly don't think there are no risks associated with the process. I stated the argument wasn't as one-sided as the OP indicated, and provided supporting evidence as anyone should do. Secondly, the CDC article did highlight some risks with the procedure. If you don't care to read that, then read the WHO article that the OP referenced and conveniently cherry-picked information from. It also supports my points, is much more comprehensive, and highlights the risks as well. Again, as far as the science itself goes - not the ethics- it's not so clear-cut.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Secondly, the CDC article did highlight some risks with the procedure.
    Ah - yes. I missed a bit. It was still a small section, though.
    But, as I said, I am happy to accept that there are positive and negative aspects - and that the final balance is not clear cut.
    babe likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Secondly, the CDC article did highlight some risks with the procedure.
    Ah - yes. I missed a bit. It was still a small section, though.But, as I said, I am happy to accept that there are positive and negative aspects - and that the final balance is not clear cut.
    Agreed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,541
    Quote Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Thank you Cognito for showing Seneca the best way to back up arguments.

    Now for the other side.

    "circumcision significantly reduces the risk of men contracting HIV through penile-vaginal sex"
    CDC - Male Circumcision - Research - Prevention Research - HIV/AIDS
    Years ago I would listen to Dr. Dean Edell on the radio and circumcision was one of his favorite subjects.

    When it came to the subject of removing healthy, functional tissue in order to reduce the possibility of disease at some future point, he would ask, "so why don't we remove the breasts of every woman in order to reduce the risk of breast cancer?"

    The point isn't to equate a foreskin to a breast and I'll admit that the example is extreme.

    But the point is that it's a poor way to solve a problem. You don't have to cut off all foreskins to reduce HIV. You could achieve reductions by teaching and facilitating safe sex practices and testing.
    Quite. I had my tonsils removed in the 1960s, as a lot of kids did at that time if they got recurrent respiratory infections. It was ghastly, dangerous and unnecessary. Nowadays, the medical profession is far less prone to intervene surgically unless they really need to, thank goodness. Circumcision is even less necessary than tonsilectomy.

    Virtually the only reason for being a snipcock today is religious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quite. I had my tonsils removed in the 1960s, as a lot of kids did at that time if they got recurrent respiratory infections. It was ghastly, dangerous and unnecessary. Nowadays, the medical profession is far less prone to intervene surgically unless they really need to, thank goodness. Circumcision is even less necessary than tonsilectomy.
    I found one of the replies (by a doctor on an earlier link) described it quite well:
    Surgery in general, & amputative surgery in particular, must follow the rule of "Severity of Illness, Intensity of Service." Starting with local therapy, progressing to oral, then intravenous therapy, all must be documented to have failed before contemplating amputative surgery.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    I will note that while the CDC page starts off with a very bold supportive statement that circumcision is beneficial, when you actually read the article the prose and wording choices make it clear that the medical community has no such belief and there is a vast amount of ambiguity.

    The same level of transmission protection can be gained by wrapping it up when having sex and regularly cleaning each day when you shower.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

    The same level of transmission protection can be gained by... regularly cleaning each day when you shower.
    Can't believe this needs to be said, but it apparently it does. go figure
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    33
    Yep, and to be quite honest I'm a bit disappointed in this community. While most may think circumcision is acceptable, that is not a logical argument for it. I do hope I'm wrong, but I suspect argumentum ad populum is a factor here.
    Busy Bee likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Well, information needs to be better distributed. The foreskin is not some meaningless piece of skin like breasts or a vagina(Just kidding, I kid, I kid. ) but it's actually a membrane much like your eyelids. How many people would cut off their eyelids? So, it's not like your cutting off a skin tag or something you are cutting off something with a real function. Unless you're jewish there's really no good reason for it.
    citizenzen likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Seneca View Post
    While most may think circumcision is acceptable, that is not a logical argument for it.
    Personally, it is not acceptable - but not because of medical reasons. (The medical arguments are often contradictory and uncertain.)
    From my own PoV, it is ethically wrong.
    We should not be harming babies simply because they may get an infection due to lack of personal hygiene (which includes things like using a condom).

    There are definite, clear-cut (no pun intended) reasons for circumcision (e.g. a tight foreskin*) but these conditions shouldn't be preemptively treated through surgery.
    Should we also perform mastectomies on teenage girls to prevent breast cancer? (No - of course not.)

    *I can't remember the technical name for it.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Should we also perform mastectomies on teenage girls to prevent breast cancer? (No - of course not.)
    That's hardly a fair comparison. While I don't have a dog in the fight, it would be nice to at least keep it a reasonable one.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Should we also perform mastectomies on teenage girls to prevent breast cancer? (No - of course not.)
    That's hardly a fair comparison. While I don't have a dog in the fight, it would be nice to at least keep it a reasonable one.
    Why is it not a fair comparison?
    They are both surgical procedures done to prevent a possible future condition.

    I admit that the comparison was intended to provoke a response - but I am not sure how it is not a fair comparison.
    Certainly, mastectomies are a more serious surgical procedure than circumcisions - but then breast cancer is a more serious condition than urinary infections.

    How many surgical 'removals' other than circumcisions are done to prevent future illness?
    (Well, the only one that comes to mind is mastectomies e.g. Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy due to her having a high-cancer-risk gene.)

    Could you explain what aspect of the comparison you think is unfair?
    Thanks.
    Busy Bee and grmpysmrf like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Should we also perform mastectomies on teenage girls to prevent breast cancer? (No - of course not.)
    That's hardly a fair comparison. While I don't have a dog in the fight, it would be nice to at least keep it a reasonable one.
    Why is it not a fair comparison?
    They are both surgical procedures done to prevent a possible future condition.

    I admit that the comparison was intended to provoke a response - but I am not sure how it is not a fair comparison.
    Certainly, mastectomies are a more serious surgical procedure than circumcisions - but then breast cancer is a more serious condition than urinary infections.

    How many surgical 'removals' other than circumcisions are done to prevent future illness?
    (Well, the only one that comes to mind is mastectomies e.g. Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy due to her having a high-cancer-risk gene.)

    Could you explain what aspect of the comparison you think is unfair?
    Thanks.
    It's the scope of each surgery which is not equal. A mastectomy is a complex surgery which can be massively disfiguring and can lead to a loss of functionality of the breast. If parents were lopping off testicles to reduce the risk of cancer, that would be one thing. This is not on the same level. It is a dramatization to compare the two, in my opinion.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's the scope of each surgery which is not equal. A mastectomy is a complex surgery which can be massively disfiguring and can lead to a loss of functionality of the breast. If parents were lopping off testicles to reduce the risk of cancer, that would be one thing. This is not on the same level. It is a dramatization to compare the two, in my opinion.
    But if you (the general 'you') agree that surgery should be performed to prevent possible future non-fatal urinary infections - then why wouldn't you agree that surgery should be used to prevent often fatal breast cancer?

    People die from breast cancer. Why not prevent those deaths with surgery?

    I know the reasons why I think we shouldn't.
    But those reasons apply equally to babies.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    But if you (the general 'you') agree that surgery should be performed to prevent possible future non-fatal urinary infections
    For the record, I don't necessarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    - then why wouldn't you agree that surgery should be used to prevent often fatal breast cancer?
    I would say, "Within reason." If there were a functionless skin flap on women which could be removed with inducing trauma or incurring deformations, would it not be considered for removal? I still say that a breast is not equivalent to the foreskin.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    I know the reasons why I think we shouldn't.
    But those reasons apply equally to babies.
    I want to clarify that I am not promoting circumcision, merely suggesting that your comparison was a bit unfair.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    I searched on "Reasons for circumcision" and the following link was at the top of the list. It seemed to make a lot of sense to me. It did state that 2% of circumcision procedures don't turn out well. That's one out of fifty. I'd sure have hated it, if it was me that was in that 2%.

    They state that in the US, 80% of the male population is circumcised. Makes me wonder where all the pressure for circumcision in the US originally came from, and why was it so effective?

    Circumcision FAQs | MaleHealth
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore Busy Bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    106
    Routine infant circumcision is a violation of human rights.

    There are forums of men seeking support to regrow their foreskins.

    It is not the choice of the parents, the foreskin belongs to the baby, let that person decide when they are of a suitable age to provide informed consent. Bodily autonomy is a human right.

    There are more folds of skin on girls genitalia so if it's cleanliness we week then we should also be performing a nip and tuck on girls to decrease the amount of skin folds. A quick swish in the bath is usually all that is needed. If a foreskin is going to be removed at birth to prevent future infections/issues then the appendix and a few other bodily parts should also be removed.

    If you support boys undergoing routine infant circ'ing do you support girls undergoing circ'ing/fgm? Whilst there are different types of fgm both boys RIC and girls FGM have many similarities. Both are done out of love for the child, to keep the child safe/clean and so the child will not be socially outcast. (There are 4 different types of fgm from symbolic nick of the clitoral hood/removal of the clitoral hood on the less evasive end of the spectrum to removing all of the external genitalia and fusing the wound to leave a small hole for urination and menstruation.)

    If a boy is to be circ'd at birth to be like his Dad does that mean the daughter will have labiaplasty, breast implants, any other nip and tuck to look like her mother? Moreover, which father and son stand around comparing penises?

    Reduce the risk of STIs? Whilst circ'ing may reduce the chance of passing on STIs it is only a tiny amount whilst using a condom is far less evasive and has a much higher rate of reducing transmission of STIs. Some time ago I read that circ'ing has actually increased the transmission of STIs because men believe they are now 'safe' and don't have to use condoms.

    Done for religious reasons? Why is the baby of a Jewish or Muslim child less deserving of bodily autonomy than any other child? To be unable or forbidden to challenge a practice because it is done on the basis of religious practice is ludicrous.

    Evolution has put that skin there for a reason.
    anticorncob28 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    Evolution has put that skin there for a reason.
    For the same reason it gave us hair on our heads that we don't need? Wisdom teeth we don't need?

    The argument that it is there so it must remain is not a solid one.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Sophomore Busy Bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    Evolution has put that skin there for a reason.
    For the same reason it gave us hair on our heads that we don't need? Wisdom teeth we don't need?

    The argument that it is there so it must remain is not a solid one.
    The hair on my head keeps my head warm. It is also serves as an indication of health and age. I'm not a dentist but I'm guessing additional teeth would be optimal? Mine have been removed due to ongoing dental issues but I gave informed consent for that operation.

    My earlobes, however, serve no purpose but I'd still rather they were attached to me and had not been removed without my consent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    But if you (the general 'you') agree that surgery should be performed to prevent possible future non-fatal urinary infections
    For the record, I don't necessarily.
    That's ok. I don't either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    - then why wouldn't you agree that surgery should be used to prevent often fatal breast cancer?
    I would say, "Within reason."
    What is that reason?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    If there were a functionless skin flap on women which could be removed with[out] inducing trauma or incurring deformations, would it not be considered for removal?
    Is the foreskin a functionless skin flap that can be removed without inducing trauma or incurring deformations?
    Religious circumcision definitely induces trauma and incurs deformations.
    (Removing any flesh is, by definition, a deformation. And removing it without an anaesthetic is definitely a trauma.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I still say that a breast is not equivalent to the foreskin.
    But the reasons you gave apply equally to the foreskin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I want to clarify that I am not promoting circumcision, merely suggesting that your comparison was a bit unfair.
    And I am simply trying to understand why you think it is an unfair comparison.

    The principle behind routinely removing body parts - just in case they get infected - seems to only apply to circumcisions.
    No other amputation is done so arbitrarily, simply on the off-chance that there might be a minor infection.

    But if someone suggests routinely removing other body parts (to prevent premature death) then people object.
    It seems to me to be an inconsistent position to take.
    grmpysmrf and citizenzen like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    The hair on my head keeps my head warm. It is also serves as an indication of health and age.
    This doesn't make it necessary or vital.

    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    I'm not a dentist but I'm guessing additional teeth would be optimal? Mine have been removed due to ongoing dental issues but I gave informed consent for that operation.
    If wisdom teeth developed during fetal development, would you be against a non-invasive removal if it would have saved you the surgery later in life? Are your wisdom teeth so important to you that you would have wanted that choice?

    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    My earlobes, however, serve no purpose but I'd still rather they were attached to me and had not been removed without my consent.
    This is assuming their removal does not serve a purpose or that it did not have an historical rationale.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Religious circumcision definitely induces trauma and incurs deformations.
    (Removing any flesh is, by definition, a deformation. And removing it without an anaesthetic is definitely a trauma.)
    Is there an example of this trauma? I'll be honest, I don't remember my circumcision, nor can I relate any psychological issues to that event. If you can demonstrate some kind of side effect, I might join the other camp. Also, deformation may have been a poor choice of word. I meant an impairment of function. A mastectomy would, for instance, prevent nursing. What does removing the foreskin prevent in terms of function?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    And I am simply trying to understand why you think it is an unfair comparison.
    For the same reason removing your earlobe is not equivalent to removing your hand. I just felt like your comparison was an attempt to make circumcision appear more dramatic than it really is.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Sophomore Busy Bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    The hair on my head keeps my head warm. It is also serves as an indication of health and age.
    This doesn't make it necessary or vital.
    It's not necessary or vital, but it's optimal. Legs and arms aren't necessary but they are optimal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    I'm not a dentist but I'm guessing additional teeth would be optimal? Mine have been removed due to ongoing dental issues but I gave informed consent for that operation.
    If wisdom teeth developed during fetal development, would you be against a non-invasive removal if it would have saved you the surgery later in life? Are your wisdom teeth so important to you that you would have wanted that choice?
    No. I would rather have undergone the reasonably evasive surgery as an adult and am thankful that the decision was mine.


    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    My earlobes, however, serve no purpose but I'd still rather they were attached to me and had not been removed without my consent.
    This is assuming their removal does not serve a purpose or that it did not have an historical rationale.
    Whether or not it has an historical rationale or not is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that if there was a historical rationale then the practice shouldn't be questioned/challenged?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana
    . A mastectomy would, for instance, prevent nursing. What does removing the foreskin prevent in terms of function?
    Breast feeding is Not an essential life function. foreskin acts as a shield do the penis. protection of the penis is essential for life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana
    What does removing the foreskin prevent in terms of function?
    Investigators found removing the foreskin removes about one-half of erogenous tissue on the penile shaft.
    The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and i... [Br J Urol. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI

    Studies, including this one, indicate circumcised males have more sexual difficulty. The foreskin probably serves a sexual function.
    Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Seneca View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana
    What does removing the foreskin prevent in terms of function?
    Investigators found removing the foreskin removes about one-half of erogenous tissue on the penile shaft.
    The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and i... [Br J Urol. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI

    Studies, including this one, indicate circumcised males have more sexual difficulty. The foreskin probably serves a sexual function.
    Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark
    Studies can say anything they like. However, my experience as a circumcised male doesn't support what you are trying to say. I've never had any sexual difficulty do to being circumcised.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Sophomore Busy Bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    106
    If you were circumcised at birth how would you have any grounds for comparison?

    As far as I'm concerned it's a moot point. Routine infant circumcision is a violation of human rights and that's a strong enough argument on it's own to stop the practice. Any alleged medical benefits are negligible and do not warrant surgically altering a non-consenting baby.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    If you were circumcised at birth how would you have any grounds for comparison?

    As far as I'm concerned it's a moot point. Routine infant circumcision is a violation of human rights and that's a strong enough argument on it's own to stop the practice. Any alleged medical benefits are negligible and do not warrant surgically altering a non-consenting baby.
    I'm not claiming you are wrong, but I am telling what my personal experience has been. And what you said about comparison goes both ways. People that still have a foreskin don't have any more grounds for comparison than a circumcised male.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore Busy Bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    106
    I agree, intact men wouldn't have any comparison.

    I've never had a foreskin or even a pen1s so I can't make any comment from personal experience.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    If you were circumcised at birth how would you have any grounds for comparison?

    As far as I'm concerned it's a moot point. Routine infant circumcision is a violation of human rights and that's a strong enough argument on it's own to stop the practice. Any alleged medical benefits are negligible and do not warrant surgically altering a non-consenting baby.
    I'm not claiming you are wrong, but I am telling what my personal experience has been. And what you said about comparison goes both ways. People that still have a foreskin don't have any more grounds for comparison than a circumcised male.
    What about those males (adults)who have gone from uncircumcised to circumcised... what might they say? has there ever been a poll (har har I love accidental humor "pole")of the sort?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    I agree, intact men wouldn't have any comparison.

    I've never had a foreskin or even a pen1s so I can't make any comment from personal experience.
    I find it strangely exciting that a woman can come in and discuss male genitalia in a non sexual manner, with the guys
    Tell us some more of your views on the penis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    If you were circumcised at birth how would you have any grounds for comparison?

    As far as I'm concerned it's a moot point. Routine infant circumcision is a violation of human rights and that's a strong enough argument on it's own to stop the practice. Any alleged medical benefits are negligible and do not warrant surgically altering a non-consenting baby.
    I'm not claiming you are wrong, but I am telling what my personal experience has been. And what you said about comparison goes both ways. People that still have a foreskin don't have any more grounds for comparison than a circumcised male.
    What about those males (adults)who have gone from uncircumcised to circumcised... what might they say? has there ever been a poll (har har I love accidental humor "pole")of the sort?
    There actually has been a poll comparing uncircumcised adult males to males circumcised as adults.
    The effect of male circumcision on sexuality - Kim - 2006 - BJU International - Wiley Online Library

    Suspicions are correct; there was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Sophomore Busy Bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    I agree, intact men wouldn't have any comparison.

    I've never had a foreskin or even a pen1s so I can't make any comment from personal experience.
    I find it strangely exciting that a woman can come in and discuss male genitalia in a non sexual manner, with the guys
    Tell us some more of your views on the penis.
    I'm not discussing male genitalia per se or sharing views about penises. I'm discussing bodily autonomy and challenging the notion that it's acceptable to perform unnecessary and irreversible surgery on a unwitting baby.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    I agree, intact men wouldn't have any comparison.

    I've never had a foreskin or even a pen1s so I can't make any comment from personal experience.
    I find it strangely exciting that a woman can come in and discuss male genitalia in a non sexual manner, with the guys
    Tell us some more of your views on the penis.
    I'm not discussing male genitalia per se or sharing views about penises. I'm discussing bodily autonomy and challenging the notion that it's acceptable to perform unnecessary and irreversible surgery on a unwitting baby.
    of course
    Busy Bee likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    If you were circumcised at birth how would you have any grounds for comparison?

    As far as I'm concerned it's a moot point. Routine infant circumcision is a violation of human rights and that's a strong enough argument on it's own to stop the practice. Any alleged medical benefits are negligible and do not warrant surgically altering a non-consenting baby.
    I'm not claiming you are wrong, but I am telling what my personal experience has been. And what you said about comparison goes both ways. People that still have a foreskin don't have any more grounds for comparison than a circumcised male.
    What about those males (adults)who have gone from uncircumcised to circumcised... what might they say? has there ever been a poll (har har I love accidental humor "pole")of the sort?
    That's a good question. Have you found any comments about it from an adult that has had that procedure?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Religious circumcision definitely induces trauma and incurs deformations.
    (Removing any flesh is, by definition, a deformation. And removing it without an anaesthetic is definitely a trauma.)
    Is there an example of this trauma? I'll be honest, I don't remember my circumcision, nor can I relate any psychological issues to that event.
    Not remembering a trauma is not the same as there not being a trauma.
    Some people 'forget' the sexual abuse they experienced as children. That doesn't mean there was no trauma.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    If you can demonstrate some kind of side effect, I might join the other camp.
    Do you consider pain to be a side effect?
    Would you, as an adult, allow a doctor to remove your foreskin without an anaesthetic?
    I expect not - and I know I wouldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Also, deformation may have been a poor choice of word. I meant an impairment of function. A mastectomy would, for instance, prevent nursing. What does removing the foreskin prevent in terms of function?
    That means you would - hypothetically - have no argument against routinely removing the breast tissue of sterile women - but I expect that you would still object.
    (I also refer you to Seneca's post #58.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    And I am simply trying to understand why you think it is an unfair comparison.
    For the same reason removing your earlobe is not equivalent to removing your hand.
    But removing your earlobe is comparable to removing your hand: they are both unnecessary surgeries with zero benefit - and that comparison is fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I just felt like your comparison was an attempt to make circumcision appear more dramatic than it really is.
    The comparison was to show the contradictory position of advocating pre-emptive surgery to prevent minor ailments but not advocating pre-emptive surgery to prevent death.
    The reasons for not routinely performing mastectomies are the same reasons for not routinely performing circumcisions.
    They are the same reasons that we don't routinely perform amputative surgery for any condition - let alone a possible future condition.
    Well - with the singular exception of circumcision. But that's my point.
    Busy Bee and grmpysmrf like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    That's a good question. Have you found any comments about it from an adult that has had that procedure?
    post #58
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    I consider circumcision in the same light I consider abortion. Both are almost always a bad idea, no matter what the rationale. But in the end both should be up to the parent(s) and their doctor.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    But in the end both should be up to the parent(s) and their doctor.
    Does that also apply to female circumcision?
    Busy Bee and grmpysmrf like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    But in the end both should be up to the parent(s) and their doctor.
    Does that also apply to female circumcision?
    Types I and IV - yes. Types II and III - no, outside of medical necessity (SRS.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    But in the end both should be up to the parent(s) and their doctor.
    Does that also apply to female circumcision?
    Types I and IV - yes. Types II and III - no, outside of medical necessity (SRS.)
    I shudder to ask, but what's the difference? I don't dare google it
    info aside, you think the decision to perform unnecessary surgery on possible unwilling participant should be left up to others... I fail to see the rational of this. or how circumcision and abortion are even relateable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    I shudder to ask, but what's the difference?
    Type I - removal of clitoral hood
    Type II - removal of all or part of clitoris
    Type III - not going to describe that one
    Type IV - piercing or other symbolic/cosmetic change to the genitals

    info aside, you think the decision to perform unnecessary surgery on possible unwilling participant should be left up to others... I fail to see the rational of this. or how circumcision and abortion are even relateable.
    Both are medical decisions made by the parent for the child/fetus without their consent. The standard we use (one I agree with generally) is that the earlier the intervention the more power the parent has over the fetus/child.

    For example, using an IUD is generally a non-issue even though it can cause spontaneous abortion of a fertilized ovum. Early abortion (i.e. "morning after" pills) are slightly more controversial. Abortions up to about 23 weeks are moderately controversial, and are regularly used as political fodder. Late term abortions are _very_ controversial, with many states outlawing them completely.

    Abortion is the first example here because there is no conceivable benefit to the fetus. It is killed for the sake of the mother's wishes.

    Once the child is born, they gain a lot of rights. A parent cannot decide to kill a healthy child at that point, but can make decisions that will profoundly affect the rest of their life (like sexual reassignment surgery in the case of ambiguous genitalia, or a potentially fatal separation of conjoined twins.) Circumcision is one of those decisions they can make. Again, I disagree with it, and I have not (and would not) circumcise my own children. But that's my opinion, and should not be forced on others.

    As they get older, they gain rights. A 14 year old who did not want to be circumcised would be able to deny his parent's wishes, either directly or through the courts, even though they were otherwise not considered adults, and even though their parents could make other decisions (like schooling) for them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    That's a good question. Have you found any comments about it from an adult that has had that procedure?
    post #58
    A poll wasn't what I had in mind. I wanted to hear actual commentary from adult males that have had circumcision done to them. Also I'd like to say I've enjoyed my sexual experience and can't really imagine it getting much better than it was other than maybe picking better partners to be with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    According to a more recent study, only 6.5% of infants experienced pain during circumcision (you may need to access your university database to read the full article). I would guess that medical practice has advanced since 1993/94, the date referenced by the OP.

    Optimal time for neonatal circumcision: an ob... [J Pediatr Urol. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    Both are medical decisions made by the parent for the child/fetus without their consent. The standard we use (one I agree with generally) is that the earlier the intervention the more power the parent has over the fetus/child.
    A child can make this decision themselves when they are old enough. A fetus can never make a decision. you think that's an apt comparison?

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    For example, using an IUD is generally a non-issue even though it can cause spontaneous abortion of a fertilized ovum. Early abortion (i.e. "morning after" pills) are slightly more controversial. Abortions up to about 23 weeks are moderately controversial, and are regularly used as political fodder. Late term abortions are _very_ controversial, with many states outlawing them completely.
    still not really equal when you consider a fetus can never make a decision while a child can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billvon
    Abortion is the first example here because there is no conceivable benefit to the fetus. It is killed for the sake of the mother's wishes.
    I think this may be a bit hyperbolic. we all know there are other reason other than the "mother's wishes."
    secondly there is a difference between a born child and a fetus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billvon
    Once the child is born, they gain a lot of rights.
    exactly, which is why this is not a comparable example.


    Quote Originally Posted by Billvon
    A parent cannot decide to kill a healthy child at that point, but can make decisions that will profoundly affect the rest of their life (like sexual reassignment surgery in the case of ambiguous genitalia, or a potentially fatal separation of conjoined twins.) Circumcision is one of those decisions they can make.
    Again, you think cutting off perfectly healthy body tissue is the same as sex reassignment surgery or conjoined twins? It's not even in the same world as these conditions. Are you messing with us?

    Quote Originally Posted by Billvon
    Again, I disagree with it, and I have not (and would not) circumcise my own children. But that's my opinion, and should not be forced on others.
    "I'm of the opinion that parents shoudn't starve their children but who am I to say otherwise?" is essentially what your saying. It's unnecessary pain and the fact that you are okay with female circumcision is just... I'm at a loss for words. These are decisions that can be made by the individual at a later date. The parent has no business making these decisions. why not pre arrange marriage too If you can enter them into a contract early enough it's because you as the parent have the power to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billvon
    As they get older, they gain rights. A 14 year old who did not want to be circumcised would be able to deny his parent's wishes, either directly or through the courts, even though they were otherwise not considered adults, and even though their parents could make other decisions (like schooling) for them.
    So that's your argument? because babies haven't learned to talk yet Parents should make unnecessary decisions for them early on because they can't object?
    Let me go back to my original statement... I should be able to lop off my son's ears because I'm of the impression that he will sleep better? that's preposterous.
    RedPanda and Busy Bee like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    That's a good question. Have you found any comments about it from an adult that has had that procedure?
    post #58
    A poll wasn't what I had in mind. I wanted to hear actual commentary from adult males that have had circumcision done to them. Also I'd like to say I've enjoyed my sexual experience and can't really imagine it getting much better than it was other than maybe picking better partners to be with.
    I don't have time to look for it now but I'm sure you can find it on youtube. There was an old dude on an episode of "Penn and Teller's bullshit" that talks at length (Ha Ha I still love accidental humor!) about his experience with and without his foreskin. He actualy created away to "regrow" his by stretching the skin with a ball bearing or something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    According to a more recent study, only 6.5% of infants experienced pain during circumcision (you may need to access your university database to read the full article). I would guess that medical practice has advanced since 1993/94, the date referenced by the OP.

    Optimal time for neonatal circumcision: an ob... [J Pediatr Urol. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
    How do they gauge that type of thing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Seneca View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Do you care to back up any of your claims? And how about the other side or the argument--such as how many does it save? Or do you just gobble up such one sided, unsupported by evidence factoids without a critical eye?
    Not only are my claims supported, but they are massively supported, all by irrefutable scientific evidence.


    1) Circumcision is very painful for infants in a 1993 study on Acetaminophen Analgesia used for circumcision published in the Journal Pediatrics in April of 1994 concluded “This study confirms that circumcision of the newborn causes severe and persistent pain. Acetaminophen was not found to ameliorate either the intra-operative or the immediate postoperative pain of circumcision, although it seems that it may provide some benefit after the immediate postoperative period” The study was a double blind study which used a placebo and Acetaminophen the study found that circumcision affects feeding patterns “Feeding behavior deteriorated in breast- and bottle-fed neonates in both groups, and acetaminophen did not seem to influence this deterioration.” BULLSHIT!


    2) Globally the majority of men are not circumcised, while those who are, are mainly circumcised for religious reasons. The World Health Organization has estimated that globally 30% of males aged 15 and over are circumcised, with almost 70% of these being Muslim. SO WHAT?




    5) The foreskin has 20,000 nerve endings. Source; everything ever, but I'd recommend Wikipedia.
    MY FINGER TIP HAS 100,000 nerve endings. SO WHAT?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    According to a more recent study, only 6.5% of infants experienced pain during circumcision (you may need to access your university database to read the full article). I would guess that medical practice has advanced since 1993/94, the date referenced by the OP.

    Optimal time for neonatal circumcision: an ob... [J Pediatr Urol. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
    How do they gauge that type of thing?
    Gauge the pain of an infant? How? They cry if in pain, have to fart, shit, spit, or anything else. How on earth can anyone portend to establish what the cause, means, or result of, is, pertaining to infant input?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Knowing my own time is limited, I really wonder why I have bothered to enter this ridiculous fray. I am sorry if I have offended (ala Robert McNamara).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Had my son circumcised.

    He thanks me to this day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    A child can make this decision themselves when they are old enough. A fetus can never make a decision.
    They sure can - when they are old enough.

    I think this may be a bit hyperbolic. we all know there are other reason other than the "mother's wishes."
    You could make the same arguments for circumcision. Some believe there are valid medical reasons for it, or valid cultural reasons. I disagree. But in the end it comes down to the wishes of the parent.

    secondly there is a difference between a born child and a fetus.
    Yes. A child is older, and has more rights, than a fetus.

    Again, you think cutting off perfectly healthy body tissue is the same as sex reassignment surgery or conjoined twins?
    No, never said that.

    "I'm of the opinion that parents shoudn't starve their children but who am I to say otherwise?" is essentially what your saying.
    Again - no.

    It's unnecessary pain and the fact that you are okay with female circumcision is just... I'm at a loss for words.
    I am not OK with it. Nor am I OK with parents piercing their child's ears, or doing SRS in most cases. (And to head off your next intentional misunderstanding - no, getting your ears pierced is not the same as circumcision, which is not the same as abortion, which is not the same as SRS.)

    These are decisions that can be made by the individual at a later date. The parent has no business making these decisions. why not pre arrange marriage too If you can enter them into a contract early enough it's because you as the parent have the power to do so.
    Because infants cannot get married. If they did have to choose a mate at birth, then it would make sense for the parent to do that. Fortunately we do not live in a world where that is necessary or even reasonable.

    So that's your argument? because babies haven't learned to talk yet Parents should make unnecessary decisions for them early on because they can't object?
    No, that's not my argument.

    Let me go back to my original statement... I should be able to lop off my son's ears because I'm of the impression that he will sleep better? that's preposterous.
    Yes, that is an asinine statement.

    I apologize for trying to have a rational conversation with you. In the future I will know better.
    jocular likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    33
    Here comes the circlejerk, no pun intended.
    jocular likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Had my son circumcised.

    He thanks me to this day.
    Awkward.
    Busy Bee likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    A child can make this decision themselves when they are old enough. A fetus can never make a decision.
    They sure can - when they are old enough.
    So why let parents make that decision for them at all and not leave them with a decision to make when they are old enough?
    Simply put, it's not a parent's decision to make. So I should be able to get my baby tattooed as well since they're not old enough to make that decision?


    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    I think this may be a bit hyperbolic. we all know there are other reason other than the "mother's wishes."
    You could make the same arguments for circumcision. Some believe there are valid medical reasons for it, or valid cultural reasons. I disagree. But in the end it comes down to the wishes of the parent.
    you and I disagree, it is not up to the wishes of the parent.


    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Again, you think cutting off perfectly healthy body tissue is the same as sex reassignment surgery or conjoined twins?
    No, never said that.
    ugh... Yeah you did. right here...

    Quote Originally Posted by Billvon
    A parent cannot decide to kill a healthy child at that point, but can make decisions that will profoundly affect the rest of their life (like sexual reassignment surgery in the case of ambiguous genitalia, or a potentially fatal separation of conjoined twins.) Circumcision is one of those decisions they can make.
    Quote Originally Posted by Billvon
    "I'm of the opinion that parents shoudn't starve their children but who am I to say otherwise?" is essentially what your saying.
    Again - no.
    Again, Yes, when your response is a parent can essentially do whatever they want to a child because the child isn't old enough to make their decisions, what else is there?


    Quote Originally Posted by Billvon
    It's unnecessary pain and the fact that you are okay with female circumcision is just... I'm at a loss for words.
    I am not OK with it. Nor am I OK with parents piercing their child's ears, or doing SRS in most cases. (And to head off your next intentional misunderstanding - no, getting your ears pierced is not the same as circumcision, which is not the same as abortion, which is not the same as SRS.)
    But the fact that you won't support a ban on such practices says otherwise. You can say what you want but in the end it's your actions that are what people believe.
    and that fact that you think letting parents mutilate their children is up to the parents is ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billvon
    These are decisions that can be made by the individual at a later date. The parent has no business making these decisions. why not pre arrange marriage too If you can enter them into a contract early enough it's because you as the parent have the power to do so.
    Because infants cannot get married. If they did have to choose a mate at birth, then it would make sense for the parent to do that. Fortunately we do not live in a world where that is necessary or even reasonable.
    Who is talking about infants getting married? I'm talking about arranged marriages, which is essentially the same situation as foreskin removal. If you decide early on who your child is going to marry because they're too young to make that decision themselves (rather than letting them get old enough to make their own decision on who to marry) how is that any different than removing the foreskin of a child because they are too young to make the decision? The only difference is that with the arranged marriage example a child can run away from their parents decision... it's changeable. with the decision with of foreskin removal it's much more permanent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billvon
    So that's your argument? because babies haven't learned to talk yet Parents should make unnecessary decisions for them early on because they can't object?
    No, that's not my argument.
    then what exactly is your argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by Billvon
    Let me go back to my original statement... I should be able to lop off my son's ears because I'm of the impression that he will sleep better? that's preposterous.
    Yes, that is an asinine statement.
    How is that any different than what you're suggesting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Billvon
    I apologize for trying to have a rational conversation with you. In the future I will know better.
    Just come with something rational and there probably won't be a problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Had my son circumcised.

    He thanks me to this day.
    Awkward.
    *laughing*....having a great relationship with your kids is one of the best rewards in life........where there is no awkward discussions.......priceless!!
    RedPanda and Bad Robot like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Sophomore Busy Bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    I consider circumcision in the same light I consider abortion. Both are almost always a bad idea, no matter what the rationale. But in the end both should be up to the parent(s) and their doctor.
    Err, no. How about we recognise bodily autonomy. Abortion is the decision of the owner of the uterus, circ is the decision of the owner of the penis. Just because I have a baby does not give me the right to surgically alter them without darn good reason. There would be an outcry if I were to tattoo my newborn (and rightly so) but not if I had his foreskin removed?


    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Types I and IV - yes. Types II and III - no, outside of medical necessity (SRS.)
    So you think a parent has the right to cut off an infant's clitoral hood without her consent? On what grounds?
    When would it be medically necessary to cut off part or all of a little girl's genitals for the purpose of keeping her a virgin for her husband and/or dulling sexual pleasure (which is what FGM is).

    ***
    Type III FGM is complete removal of all external genitals and fusing the wound to leave only a tiny opening for urinating and menstruating. The inside of the vagina can also be cut to that it fuses together when healing. This ensures the girl remains a virgin for her husband. On the wedding night the wound is either forced opened by her husband or actually cut open. The procedure would usually be carried out using sharp stones, old razors and twine to sew it back together. Obviously a lot of girls die from having it done. However, if they don't get done they will be considered dirty, shameful an outcast and unable to be married.

    ***
    Routine infant circumcision is a violation of human rights. Unfortunately the procedure has become medicalised and normalised - this is also starting to become a worrying trend in fgm.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    Just because I have a baby does not give me the right to surgically alter them without darn good reason.
    So what gives you the right to decide to separate conjoined twins and potentially cause the death of one of them?

    There would be an outcry if I were to tattoo my newborn (and rightly so) but not if I had his foreskin removed?
    There is no outcry when parents cut holes in a baby's ears and insert metal devices just to make them look "pretty." I disagree with that too. That also should not be illegal.

    So you think a parent has the right to cut off an infant's clitoral hood without her consent? On what grounds?
    On the parent's grounds.

    When would it be medically necessary to cut off part or all of a little girl's genitals for the purpose of keeping her a virgin . . . .
    When would it be medically necessary to pierce a newborn's ears for the purposes of making her more attractive to men?

    (And to avoid the usual intentional misunderstandings, the following are NOT exactly the same:
    Abortion
    Piercing a baby's ears
    Circumcision
    Separating conjoined twins
    Tattoos)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    We should also hold off on vaccines until the child can decide whether or not they want them. Some vaccines can have bad side effects. We probably shouldn't perform any surgeries such as fixing a cleft palate until the child can decide, either. They might prefer the way they looked before.

    I mean, at some point we have to concede that parents get to make decisions regarding their child. If they want to circumcise them, why should we stop them? I have yet to see any compelling evidence that this is a cruel or disfiguring act.
    Bad Robot and babe like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Who are you people to tell me I can't cut the end off of somebody else's wang if I think it will make them a better person in the long run, protect them from cancer, cure them of aids, and possibly win them a place in heaven with 72 virgin nymphs to play with!
    Free will is still a human right!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I ask for compelling evidence and that is the response? You should be in politics.
    babe likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Free will is still a human right!
    Yep. For parents, too.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I ask for compelling evidence and that is the response? You should be in politics.
    You mean you didn't see the compelling evidence in the few low-quality, cherry-picked studies provided by the OP?
    Flick Montana and Bad Robot like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    When would it be medically necessary to pierce a newborn's ears for the purposes of making her more attractive to men?
    I agree with this too and I would totally support a ban on infant ear peircing. Again, a decision that can be at a later date by the person who will undergo the procedure... although, holes fill in on their own, a foreskin does not grow back.

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    (And to avoid the usual intentional misunderstandings, the following are NOT exactly the same:
    Abortion
    Piercing a baby's ears
    Circumcision
    Separating conjoined twins
    Tattoos)
    If they're not the same then why bring them up? Just to muddy the waters?
    Busy Bee likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    We should also hold off on vaccines until the child can decide whether or not they want them. Some vaccines can have bad side effects. We probably shouldn't perform any surgeries such as fixing a cleft palate until the child can decide, either. They might prefer the way they looked before.

    I mean, at some point we have to concede that parents get to make decisions regarding their child. If they want to circumcise them, why should we stop them? I have yet to see any compelling evidence that this is a cruel or disfiguring act.
    THose are decisions of health, circumcision is not a matter of health.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Free will is still a human right!
    Yep. For parents, too.
    Parents rights just like anybodies rights with regard to personal body do not exist. right only extend as far as they do before they infringe on someone else's rights
    Busy Bee likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I ask for compelling evidence and that is the response? You should be in politics.
    You mean you didn't see the compelling evidence in the few low-quality, cherry-picked studies provided by the OP?
    In as many words, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    We should also hold off on vaccines until the child can decide whether or not they want them. Some vaccines can have bad side effects. We probably shouldn't perform any surgeries such as fixing a cleft palate until the child can decide, either. They might prefer the way they looked before.

    I mean, at some point we have to concede that parents get to make decisions regarding their child. If they want to circumcise them, why should we stop them? I have yet to see any compelling evidence that this is a cruel or disfiguring act.
    THose are decisions of health, circumcision is not a matter of health.
    According to whom? I've heard circumcision has a relation to lower rates of penile cancer as well as a ten-fold reduction in UTIs in addition to claims of reduced risk of STD. Yet, the only side effects I've found in my somewhat limited searching have been related to bleeding and infection from the procedure itself. I've also read that because it is painful, most doctors now perform it under some kind of mild anesthesia.

    I'm sorry, but I am just not seeing the evidence that demonstrates the cons outweigh the pros.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Free will is still a human right!
    Yep. For parents, too.
    Parents rights just like anybodies rights with regard to personal body do not exist. right only extend as far as they do before they infringe on someone else's rights
    To an extent. Until a child is capable of making decisions on their own, a parent often has to make them for the child even if those decisions go against the wishes of the child. That's just called parenting.

    This argument might apply to terminating a life in an abortion, but it seems to be rather ineffective when it comes to a medical procedure that studies show has BENEFITS. Parents aren't lopping off the glans because they think it's fashionable here. There are actual positives that come from circumcision, from what I have read. Now, if you have some better studies which suggest otherwise, feel free to present them.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Free will is still a human right!
    Yep. For parents, too.
    Parents rights just like anybodies rights with regard to personal body do not exist. right only extend as far as they do before they infringe on someone else's rights
    To an extent. Until a child is capable of making decisions on their own, a parent often has to make them for the child even if those decisions go against the wishes of the child. That's just called parenting.
    But clearly that doesn't extend to molestation, abuse or many other things. Children retains most rights that can only be infringed upon in the balance and context of a parent's responsibility to protect, care and educate the child. In modern society, with good access to hygiene and healthcare, most medical reasons (which are not strong to begin with) are trivial with reference to circumcisions. What is left is only the rights of a parent to practise their faith being weighed again a child's right to not be mutilated. I for one think a parent's religious rights should never exceed a child's right to their own body, or to avoid pain and trauma and think it's pretty silly of anyone to suggest otherwise.
    RedPanda, Busy Bee and grmpysmrf like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Sophomore Busy Bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    106
    For the record I am against ear piercing as well.
    Circing may have some benefits but the risks of the person developing issues that can be overcome by circ'ing are negligible, unlike vaxing. Parents do not have the right to permanently and surgically alter their children without significant health benefits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I ask for compelling evidence and that is the response? You should be in politics.
    Ummm, I thought that was where we are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    American women prefer circumcised to uncircumcised. Therefore, it is only logical to circumcise in the States. After all, it's about what the woman wants, isn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    American women prefer circumcised to uncircumcised. Therefore, it is only logical to circumcise in the States. After all, it's about what the woman wants, isn't it?
    Thank you for pointing out that it is for fashion.
    I also noted in another post in this thread how you can get different "styles" of circumcision. If that doesn't say "fashion" I don't know what does.

    Women "preferring" circumcised to uncircumcised is just nonsense.

    Men prefer "big boobs" any woman under a C cup needs to get implants... See the absurdity of your statement when it's applied evenly?
    Busy Bee likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    Circing may have some benefits but the risks of the person developing issues that can be overcome by circ'ing are negligible.
    Agreed! Both you and I agree on this. We have the right to make that decision for our own children; we do not have the right to force that decision on other parents.

    Parents do not have the right to permanently and surgically alter their children without significant health benefits.
    In some places, increased resistance to AIDS is a very significant health benefit. Parents should not be banned from protecting their children in this way, even if we feel that there are better ways to accomplish this.
    Flick Montana and Bad Robot like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Record cold at the end of 2013 means the end of Global Warming.
    By Ken Fabos in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: February 11th, 2014, 03:02 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2012, 10:06 AM
  3. Blood clotting and circumcision
    By pipi in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 11th, 2010, 02:50 AM
  4. UK petition laws.
    By MHFenix in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 16th, 2009, 07:05 PM
  5. Say NO: petition...
    By Deathridesahorse in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 29th, 2008, 05:40 PM
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
  •