Circumcision in infancy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

keiskay:
i wasnt talking about the hygene aspects but more or less about this.

That's what I meant with speculation. The only study I've ever seen on sexually transmitted diseases for instance was a very poor statistical study that failed to create two equal populations to compare, and actually didn't even show any calculations to prove it was even significant.

Urinary tract infections should increase, as said tract is exposed more. Men have little to no trouble with those to begin with, so it's very very far fetched. Kind of like saying "Do this, and the chance to get struck by lightning drops".

Less cervical cancer sounds like a lie; why don't I see foreskins mentioned among the causes?

As for the rest: obviously any problem with the foreskin is going to be gone by cutting it off. Then again, so does castration, and I don't see anybody arguing to just castrate all children at birth.

keiskay:

the necessity of a circumcision is currently deemed as unknown. since both sides of the argument do have facts that support both sides, there are benefits to being cut as well as cons and vice versa. right now necessity of circumcision is based on personal belief.

Wrong. The arguments for circumcision have all been debunked. As it stands, there are no viable medical reasons to support infant circumcision and there are numerous medical associations that are against circumcision including the RACP, the RDMA, the CPS and many more.

Blablahb:

keiskay:
i wasnt talking about the hygene aspects but more or less about this.

That's what I meant with speculation. The only study I've ever seen on sexually transmitted diseases for instance was a very poor statistical study that failed to create two equal populations to compare, and actually didn't even show any calculations to prove it was even significant.

Urinary tract infections should increase, as said tract is exposed more. Men have little to no trouble with those to begin with, so it's very very far fetched. Kind of like saying "Do this, and the chance to get struck by lightning drops".

Less cervical cancer sounds like a lie; why don't I see foreskins mentioned among the causes?

As for the rest: obviously any problem with the foreskin is going to be gone by cutting it off. Then again, so does castration, and I don't see anybody arguing to just castrate all children at birth.

you're barking up the wrong tree if your trying to appeal to me with your last point. considering im very misanthropic with my views on humanity and think castration of new borns is a right step in the direction of the dehumanization of the world.

PercyBoleyn:

keiskay:

the necessity of a circumcision is currently deemed as unknown. since both sides of the argument do have facts that support both sides, there are benefits to being cut as well as cons and vice versa. right now necessity of circumcision is based on personal belief.

Wrong. The arguments for circumcision have all been debunked. As it stands, there are no viable medical reasons to support infant circumcision and there are numerous medical associations that are against circumcision including the RACP, the RDMA, the CPS and many more.

nope your wrong about the RACP they state that it does have benefits but those benefits should be weighed by the individual if they are worth the risk. the RACP states that their goal is to allow people to make informed decisions on circumcision. CPS says they do not recommend it but they do not take an aggressive stance against it like the RDMA does.

Katatori-kun:
Yay, more appeals to emotion.

This has nothing to do with appealing to emotion. You don't honestly believe the glands of the penis are supposed to be an external organ do you?

Katatori-kun:
Can you try not to make insultingly facile arguments please? I never said anything of the sort, and you know it. FGM is demonstrably different from infant male circumcision, as evidenced by the fact that later in life negative effects of FGM are common, while in infant male circumcision they are nigh-unheard of.

That's not relevant to this discussion. You made an argument based on cultural practices and I responded accordingly. If you believe that Americans should retain the right to enforce their culture on newborns then so should African tribes. After all, FGM is part of their culture is it not? Of course, both these practices are purely barbaric and arguments from culture have no place in matters with medical relevance.

keiskay:
A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

1. Men rarely suffer from those. Plus, this is an issue of hygene and that's a non issue as long as you take regular showers.

2. No major medical association recommends the use of circumcision as means to prevent illnesses associated with the penis or the transmission of STD's. Furthermore, there have only been three studies done on the subject of STD transmission, all specifically dealing with HIV by the way, and all three had conflicting results and are currently being challenged due to faulty practices.

3. Circumcision is only recommended as a treatment for phimosis if all other options have been exhausted.

keiskay:

nope your wrong about the RACP they state that it does have benefits but those benefits should be weighed by the individual if they are worth the risk. the RACP states that their goal is to allow people to make informed decisions on circumcision. CPS says they do not recommend it but they do not take an aggressive stance against it like the RDMA does.

RACP official statement on circumcision, taken from their official brochure which you can find on their website and I quote:

"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision."

If the child has one of the few rare defects (like phimosis) which require circumcision then giving the parents the right to decide for circumcision is fine. In any other event, no.

If a person wishes he have a circumcision performed on themselves for personal or religious reasons, after the age of 18 then let them. If they are in a socialised medical region (as I am) then have it covered. I don't mind.

PercyBoleyn:

Katatori-kun:
Yay, more appeals to emotion.

This has nothing to do with appealing to emotion. You don't honestly believe the glands of the penis are supposed to be an external organ do you?

Absurd. I don't believe there is such thing as a "supposed to" when it comes to how the human body has evolved.

That's not relevant to this discussion. You made an argument based on cultural practices and I responded accordingly.

That's strike two. I have absolutely no patience for liars who misrepresent my arguments. Don't waste my time arguing against things I never said. How pathetic does your case need to be for you to need to lie in order to argue it?

If you believe that Americans should retain the right to enforce their culture on newborns then so should African tribes.

Nice straw man. Kindly read my posts next time, ne. Discussion boards are more interesting when you don't just pull opposing viewpoints out of your ass, but address what is actually said.

LetalisK:
It's a usually unnecessary cosmetic procedure. I have a hard time giving two shits about it either way.

Here here.

Katatori-kun:
Snip

I'm in agreement with you regarding people's reactions to what amounts to be a cosmetic procedure applied by the legal guardians. But it should be no surprise to both you and I that arguments will be filled with slurs, personal remarks and various appeals to emotion.

The suggestion that my parents forced a painful mutiliation on me for no reason as a child is absurd. These same people probably think I can't get an erection because of my vasectomy.

***

People are free to disagree with the choices parents make for their children. But they have no right to dictate those choices. Unless of course you're OK with them removing your choices in various life styles decisions they disagree with?

You are not protecting children here; unless you have some actual evidence to support the notion that childrens lives or well being are at stake? Because I haven't seen it. All you're doing is superimposing your personal values onto others.

You may point out the irony. I'll politely inform you that I'm using the same argument you are. Sucks doesn't it?

Now get over it.

Katatori-kun:

No matter how many times that you try to make that story stick, it won't magically become true.

I never said there was a problem with opposing circumcision. I even said that some forms of opposition to it make sense. I just said that the hysterics about it were rather OTT.

I know you're desperate to invent this religion-defender persona for me because you can then just pigeon-hole me into "the other side" and use that as an excuse to not read my posts, but you would do it better if the narrative you're trying to construct wasn't directly in opposition to what I wrote in the post preceding yours. It's pretty obvious already that you aren't reading my posts, so why make up an excuse for it?

TL;DR.

cobra_ky:

Nigh Invulnerable:

ElectroJosh:
For my two cents:

It happened to me and I am not too upset over it. However I know that it does reduce sensation and is unecessary so I feel it was pointless ultimately (and sex may feel even better if it hadn't happened).

I do consider it a form of genital mutilation but in no way is it the equivalent of female "circumcision". That would be like having the whole head of my penis chopped off and my scrotum sliced up so that I would find any and all sex somewhere between boring and painful.

I've always wondered how they test that claim, and how someone who was circumcised young would ever know the difference/care. I was circumcised as an infant and sex is fantastic.

Guys who get it done as adults probably report a decrease in sensitivity.

But, yes as someone who's had it done a birth, i've never noticed/cared. Getting circumcised much later in life seems like it would be a good deal more traumatic and that's one reason why i'm not necessarily opposed to circumcision at birth.

One thing about getting it done young that I've wondered: have the neural pathways even formed entirely when they trim the tip? If not, then the brain expands the area devoted to the existing nerves anyway, and thus no decrease in sensation. If you get snipped later in life there would be loss as the brain is not even remotely as plastic as during the first year or so.

Katatori-kun:
snip

I'm gonna be honest, I'm pleasantly surprised by your posts. I saw Elcarsh's post and wondered when you'd pile on since your name tends to flash "verbally elegant and mildly hyperbolic, usually interesting" in my mind. Don't ask me why, it just does.

Ive heard its rather unsanitary to go uncircumcised, so I guess its a good decision. I try not to look at it from a religious view cause you shouldnt take away someones culture and customs when theyre so deeply ingrained like that.

Katatori-kun:
Absurd. I don't believe there is such thing as a "supposed to" when it comes to how the human body has evolved.

It's "supposed to" because circumcision is still widely practiced, mostly in the USA. The foreskin has a role just like every other organ in the body and its removal, be it for aestethic reasons or otherwise, should be left up to the person who owns the penis in question.

Katatori-kun:
That's strike two. I have absolutely no patience for liars who misrepresent my arguments. Don't waste my time arguing against things I never said.

"And here we get to the rub of it. You have declared this surgery to be unnecessary simply because it's not a part of your personal culture. "

Oh snap!

Katatori-kun:
Nice straw man. Kindly read my posts next time, ne. Discussion boards are more interesting when you don't just pull opposing viewpoints out of your ass, but address what is actually said.

Don't bullshit me. At no point was this ever a discussion about FGM.

emeraldrafael:
Ive heard its rather unsanitary to go uncircumcised, so I guess its a good decision. I try not to look at it from a religious view cause you shouldnt take away someones culture and customs when theyre so deeply ingrained like that.

Only if you don't bathe for years on end.

Behind all the fears of not being circumcised, all the fears are baseless crap. All of them were debunked decades ago. The only guy who spouts this shit anymore is a guy in Australia who runs multiple pro-circ sites. However, he is bat shit insane, a homophobe, and possibly a racist. He even goes onto say that circumcision is not adopted in the rest of the world because a "secret gay shadow government keeps it suppressed." Now you can see why no one listens to him.

Katatori-kun:
Again, you're relying on all of these emotive, expressive adjectives to describe something that thousands of us have gone through without being affected in the slightest. You would make a much more convincing argument by presenting some factual information rather than trying to convince me I've been tortured simply because I don't have a foreskin. It's rather absurd.

What exactly is it that you want proof of? That infants can feel pain? Are you seriously arguing that they don't?

You aren't actually arguing from any facts at all, because you are speaking from the completely subjective standpoint that if someone can't remember the event, then it's alright, which means you're fine with dentists sexually abusing sedated patients as well.

Now THAT is absurd.

DevilWithaHalo:
You are not protecting children here; unless you have some actual evidence to support the notion that childrens lives or well being are at stake?

There's complications, which include genital deformation, disfunction, or even losing it altogether.

Also it's an unnecessary procedure, and there is no reason to assume it is necessary without a defect causing a medical indication partial circumcision might be needed.

emeraldrafael:
Ive heard its rather unsanitary to go uncircumcised

I've heard Elvis is still alive, and lives together with JFK in Scotland.

Blablahb:

keiskay:
i wasnt talking about the hygene aspects but more or less about this.

That's what I meant with speculation. The only study I've ever seen on sexually transmitted diseases for instance was a very poor statistical study that failed to create two equal populations to compare, and actually didn't even show any calculations to prove it was even significant.

I think you'll find that male circumcision does help to prevent HIV transmission - which is probably why the WHO is pushing for an increase in circumcision in countries highly affected by HIV.

There's a few papers on this out there, and they're hardly poor statistical studies and are definitely significant.

Here's a link to the seminal paper which linked lack of circumcision and HIV incidence:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2569597

Here's a more recent randomised trial from a few years ago:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60313-4/abstract?refuid=S0749-3797(09)00491-7&refissn=0749-3797

Obviously I'm not saying it justifies circumcision in all cases, but there are definite health benefits to circumcision, and the majority of (the very rare) complications are easily treatable.

Binks:
Here's a link to the seminal paper which linked lack of circumcision and HIV incidence:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2569597
Here's a more recent randomised trial from a few years ago:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60313-4/abstract?refuid=S0749-3797(09)00491-7&refissn=0749-3797
Obviously I'm not saying it justifies circumcision in all cases, but there are definite health benefits to circumcision, and the majority of (the very rare) complications are easily treatable.

That's what I meant with crappy study: Their research group is smaller than the minimal requirement to write a master's thesis.

The number of infected they test it on is even less than half of the minimum requirement to write a bachelor's thesis. Even so few as 23. So tiny a number you can't even assume there to be a normal distribution.
To compare just how awfully bad that study is: I by myself had 94 random non-selected cases across two villages, almost equally distributed spatially.
They have as low as 23 selected cases, in only one place, selected to be part of the highest possible risk factor in that country.

Said studies aren't widely followed as a result, especially not because the number of cases in which genital mutilation causes complications easily outweights the incredibly small risk factor they claim to have found.

More reliable research found the chance is at best cut in half, and at most has no effect at all when people practise proper hygiene. Meaning you're talking about a chance as low 0,1%, multiplied with a chance comparable to the percentage of the infected populations, multiplied by another small chance because of risk-reducing factor, multiplied by another small chance depending on the type of sex. You're easily talking about a risk in the direction of 0,00001% that male genital mutilation can help.

Bottom line: If someone plans on screwing a thousand different people, all HIV positive, without a condom, genital mutilation may be advisable.

For Joe Average however, the risk of severe complication and other risk factors easily outweighs any possible benefits.

PercyBoleyn:
The foreskin has a role just like every other organ in the body and its removal, be it for aestethic reasons or otherwise, should be left up to the person who owns the penis in question.

You've once again delved into a matter of your personal opinion and presented your opinion as fact.

Katatori-kun:
That's strike two. I have absolutely no patience for liars who misrepresent my arguments. Don't waste my time arguing against things I never said.

"And here we get to the rub of it. You have declared this surgery to be unnecessary simply because it's not a part of your personal culture. "

Which is not at all the same thing as saying "anything that can be construed as a cultural practice must be accepted regardless of any other factors."

Before you bring out your snaps again, you should contemplate what sort of person congratulates themselves on posting a straw-man argument on the internet. Are they an idiot who doesn't understand what was said? Are they desperate for approval? Or are they just overly competitive and willing to crap all over real issues that affect real people just so they can feel like they have scored points against a stranger in an anonymous forum.

Katatori-kun:
Nice straw man. Kindly read my posts next time, ne. Discussion boards are more interesting when you don't just pull opposing viewpoints out of your ass, but address what is actually said.

Don't bullshit me. At no point was this ever a discussion about FGM.

Exactly, and that's the problem. We've got a bunch of mostly white, middle-class, mostly-atheist boys on the internet trying to pretend that a harmless cultural practice affecting men in the US is equivalent to a cultural practice of predominantly non-white, predominantly non-atheist/non-Christian women in parts of Africa and the middle east- a practice which unlike male infant circumcision has been documented to be dangerous. You people are even trying to co-opt the anti-FGM movement's language ("mutilation"), apparently completely oblivious to the fact that when you steal language that is appropriately strong when used in the FGM case and then incorrectly apply it to a cultural practice (male infant circumcision) that in the overwhelming majority of cases does not even do the slightest bit of harm or has an effect on the male in any way, you sabotage the anti-FGM movement by making their language meaningless. You further denigrated the anti-FGM movement with your absurd straw-man suggesting that I must support it simply because I don't support your petty judgements of which cultural practices are acceptable or not.

I've been on a lot of forums on the Internet, and I've seen a lot of people say some really disgusting things. But the constant self-centered bullshit expressed by so many males on this particular forum is really ground-breaking in its ability to provoke disgust.

Elcarsh:

Katatori-kun:
Again, you're relying on all of these emotive, expressive adjectives to describe something that thousands of us have gone through without being affected in the slightest. You would make a much more convincing argument by presenting some factual information rather than trying to convince me I've been tortured simply because I don't have a foreskin. It's rather absurd.

What exactly is it that you want proof of? That infants can feel pain? Are you seriously arguing that they don't?

No, I want proof that male infant circumcision does harm. Pain is not the same thing as harm.

You aren't actually arguing from any facts at all, because you are speaking from the completely subjective standpoint that if someone can't remember the event, then it's alright, which means you're fine with dentists sexually abusing sedated patients as well.

How about you dial it back from pants-on-head-retarded arguments for a moment and read what I actually wrote. At no point did I ever say "if someone can't remember the event, then it's alright". If you have to make up lies about what I said just to feel like you've beaten my argument, you must be in a pretty precarious place.

You're trying to end a cultural practice. You are trying to force your opinion of what is right onto the rest of (American) society and demand a change to the status quo. That means the onus is on you to provide evidence that the status quo does harm. Until you can do that, I don't see you as any different from those shrill harpies in conservative Christian churches who want a national ban on gay marriage.

Blablahb:
That's what I meant with crappy study: Their research group is smaller than the minimal requirement to write a master's thesis.

Yes, the first study was a small one, but I was just pointing out that it was the first. The second one has a cohort of over 5000 from a large district of around half a million people, which is far more statistically robust.
There are a whole bunch of other studies which are just as statistically powerful if you'd care to have a look.

Cutting the chance of HIV transmission in half isn't insignificant by any stretch of the imagination. Statins cut the risk of heart disease by the same margin, and they're one of the mainstays of treatment.
Please don't underestimate the significance of HIV. It is a huge problem in the developing world, and increasingly is becoming one in the developed world. Transmission is much more common than you give it credit for. Whilst circumcision isn't a be-all-end-all cure, it's beneficial in terms of risk. There is a reason why the WHO espouses male circumcision.

You might also be overrating the complications and significance of circumcision. The WHO points out an interesting study which suggests that neonatal circumcision can be done painlessly:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19223238

I'm pretty ambivalent towards the topic of circumcision, but please do balance the minimal mental and physical trauma to the neonate, and the avoidance of future issues against the risks of circumcision before you run screaming "Genital Mutilation" down the corridor.

Where there is a genuine medical need for it, or if it's a grown man doing so by consent then fair enough. Doing it to infants for religious or any other non medical reason is genital mutilation against a defenceless victim, end of.

Katatori-kun:
You've once again delved into a matter of your personal opinion and presented your opinion as fact.

My opinion is fact because it's backed up by logic and evidence.

Katatori-kun:
Which is not at all the same thing as saying "anything that can be construed as a cultural practice must be accepted regardless of any other factors."

You distinctly argued in favor of circumcision based on cultural practice. Stop trying to bullshit your way out of this.

Katatori-kun:
Exactly, and that's the problem. We've got a bunch of mostly white, middle-class, mostly-atheist boys on the internet trying to pretend that a harmless cultural practice affecting men in the US is equivalent to a cultural practice of predominantly non-white, predominantly non-atheist/non-Christian women in parts of Africa and the middle east- a practice which unlike male infant circumcision has been documented to be dangerous.

This was never a discussion about FGM, stop trying to derail it. You argued in favor of circumcision based on cultural practices, I pointed out the fallacy of doing so.

PercyBoleyn:

Katatori-kun:
You've once again delved into a matter of your personal opinion and presented your opinion as fact.

My opinion is fact because it's backed up by logic and evidence.

LOL. Evidence you've failed to provide, and instead resorted to straw-man arguments and lies.

Katatori-kun:
Which is not at all the same thing as saying "anything that can be construed as a cultural practice must be accepted regardless of any other factors."

You distinctly argued in favor of circumcision based on cultural practice. Stop trying to bullshit your way out of this.

That's strike three. I have no interest in wasting my time on people who intentionally misrepresent my arguments. You've shown you have nothing of value to say here, so have a nice day.

Katatori-kun:
No, I want proof that male infant circumcision does harm. Pain is not the same thing as harm.

So, that's all, is it? Harm is all there is to it?

Good, then it's perfectly alright for a dentist to cop a feel, because it does no harm. I'm glad we straightened that one out!

By the way, when was it decided that unnecessary infliction of extreme pain didn't constitute harm? I can't seem to recall signing that particular declaration...

Katatori-kun:
How about you dial it back from pants-on-head-retarded arguments for a moment and read what I actually wrote. At no point did I ever say "if someone can't remember the event, then it's alright". If you have to make up lies about what I said just to feel like you've beaten my argument, you must be in a pretty precarious place.

Well, what else is there? What other dividing line between harmfully and harmlessly cutting into someone's penis can there be?

If I were to tie down some random bloke and lop off his foreskin, I assume you would consider that to be harmful, non? Yet the one and only difference is that the infant doesn't remember it. There is no other difference, therefore memory is the one difference we have to work with.

Katatori-kun:
You're trying to end a cultural practice. You are trying to force your opinion of what is right onto the rest of (American) society and demand a change to the status quo. That means the onus is on you to provide evidence that the status quo does harm.

That's the depressing part, isn't it; that inflicting extreme pain on defenseless infants, or molesting a sedated patient, is somehow considered harmless.

Katatori-kun:
Until you can do that, I don't see you as any different from those shrill harpies in conservative Christian churches who want a national ban on gay marriage.

Ah, yes, it is terrible that I'm trying to violate people's inalianable right to have their foreskins lopped off without pain relief and without their consent.

Elcarsh:

Ah, yes, it is terrible that I'm trying to violate people's inalianable right to have their foreskins lopped off without pain relief and without their consent.

Just a quick fyi, proper neonatal circumcision involves some form of analgesia. If circumcision is performed prior to 10 days of age, neonate distress is minimal.

Elcarsh:
Good, then it's perfectly alright for a dentist to cop a feel, because it does no harm. I'm glad we straightened that one out!

You're engaging in hysterics, and if you can't get control of yourself and stop making these absurd straw men I'm going to end this conversation. I have better things to do than waste my time on someone who has passed beyond all rationality.

Copping a feel is completely different because it is already illegal. Furthermore, it actually does cause harm. Even if a patient doesn't remember it happening, the knowledge that it happened can cause deep psychological distress. You provide me with evidence that a statistically significant number of men who as infants underwent circumcision now suffer psychological distress because of it and I will stop believing you've gone completely snooker-loopy on this issue.

Well, what else is there? What other dividing line between harmfully and harmlessly cutting into someone's penis can there be?

I believe the first paragraph of the message you refer to has a pretty easy to notice dividing line- harm. Considering you even took the time to reply to it, I'm surprised you forgot about it.

If I were to tie down some random bloke and lop off his foreskin, I assume you would consider that to be harmful, non?

You are not a random bloke's parents, and you didn't lop off his foreskin for a meaningful reason. Therefore you are arguing an irrelevant example.

Ah, yes, it is terrible that I'm trying to violate people's inalianable right to have their foreskins lopped off without pain relief and without their consent.

No, it's terrible that you can't manage to make an argument for your case without resorting to hysteria, deception, and insultingly facile strawman arguments.

Binks:

Blablahb:
That's what I meant with crappy study: Their research group is smaller than the minimal requirement to write a master's thesis.

Yes, the first study was a small one, but I was just pointing out that it was the first. The second one has a cohort of over 5000 from a large district of around half a million people, which is far more statistically robust.
There are a whole bunch of other studies which are just as statistically powerful if you'd care to have a look.

Cutting the chance of HIV transmission in half isn't insignificant by any stretch of the imagination. Statins cut the risk of heart disease by the same margin, and they're one of the mainstays of treatment.
Please don't underestimate the significance of HIV. It is a huge problem in the developing world, and increasingly is becoming one in the developed world. Transmission is much more common than you give it credit for. Whilst circumcision isn't a be-all-end-all cure, it's beneficial in terms of risk. There is a reason why the WHO espouses male circumcision.

You might also be overrating the complications and significance of circumcision. The WHO points out an interesting study which suggests that neonatal circumcision can be done painlessly:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19223238

I'm pretty ambivalent towards the topic of circumcision, but please do balance the minimal mental and physical trauma to the neonate, and the avoidance of future issues against the risks of circumcision before you run screaming "Genital Mutilation" down the corridor.

Yet studies come out to contradict it. Therefore science is still "out."

Since that is indeed the case, I invoke then iron clad rule of logic:

Provide evidence that its necessary, or don't fucking do it.

Its funny how you claim HIV is rampaging through the developed world. Europe has no such problems, yet it gets many immigrants from Africa. Do you know which country has more HIV? America. The country OF circumcision.

Circumcision provides no such protection. It is an outdated and failed practice since the invention of the condom, which is a very old invention.

When the majority of medical organizations don't recommend it, you don't do it. Period. End of discussion.

Watch this video as it goes through each of the BS claims for circumcision, with source material and charts.

Katatori-kun:

PercyBoleyn:
The foreskin has a role just like every other organ in the body and its removal, be it for aestethic reasons or otherwise, should be left up to the person who owns the penis in question.

You've once again delved into a matter of your personal opinion and presented your opinion as fact.

Katatori-kun:
That's strike two. I have absolutely no patience for liars who misrepresent my arguments. Don't waste my time arguing against things I never said.

"And here we get to the rub of it. You have declared this surgery to be unnecessary simply because it's not a part of your personal culture. "

Which is not at all the same thing as saying "anything that can be construed as a cultural practice must be accepted regardless of any other factors."

Before you bring out your snaps again, you should contemplate what sort of person congratulates themselves on posting a straw-man argument on the internet. Are they an idiot who doesn't understand what was said? Are they desperate for approval? Or are they just overly competitive and willing to crap all over real issues that affect real people just so they can feel like they have scored points against a stranger in an anonymous forum.

Katatori-kun:
Nice straw man. Kindly read my posts next time, ne. Discussion boards are more interesting when you don't just pull opposing viewpoints out of your ass, but address what is actually said.

Don't bullshit me. At no point was this ever a discussion about FGM.

Exactly, and that's the problem. We've got a bunch of mostly white, middle-class, mostly-atheist boys on the internet trying to pretend that a harmless cultural practice affecting men in the US is equivalent to a cultural practice of predominantly non-white, predominantly non-atheist/non-Christian women in parts of Africa and the middle east- a practice which unlike male infant circumcision has been documented to be dangerous. You people are even trying to co-opt the anti-FGM movement's language ("mutilation"), apparently completely oblivious to the fact that when you steal language that is appropriately strong when used in the FGM case and then incorrectly apply it to a cultural practice (male infant circumcision) that in the overwhelming majority of cases does not even do the slightest bit of harm or has an effect on the male in any way, you sabotage the anti-FGM movement by making their language meaningless. You further denigrated the anti-FGM movement with your absurd straw-man suggesting that I must support it simply because I don't support your petty judgements of which cultural practices are acceptable or not.

I've been on a lot of forums on the Internet, and I've seen a lot of people say some really disgusting things. But the constant self-centered bullshit expressed by so many males on this particular forum is really ground-breaking in its ability to provoke disgust.

The foreskin does have its uses, and it should be up for the person to decide.

Are you truly suggesting people should have no say in what is done to their bodies?

Katatori-kun:
LOL. Evidence you've failed to provide, and instead resorted to straw-man arguments and lies.

I've provided numerous pieces of evidence and have also made a list of multiple medical organizations that agree with my viewpoint. You have no leg to stand on right now, nice try though.

Katatori-kun:
That's strike three. I have no interest in wasting my time on people who intentionally misrepresent my arguments. You've shown you have nothing of value to say here, so have a nice day.

Oh, I get it. This is your way of saying you lost. No worries, I won't rub it in. I'm just glad we both managed to reach the logical conclusion that circumcision is barbaric.

Here's some links with evidence of "harm" as opposed to just "pain."

Very NSFW unless you happen to be a urologist or work in a massage parlour giving happy endings.

http://www.circumcisionharm.org/gallery1.htm

http://www.justmommies.com/forums/f46-heated-debates/83996-what-can-go-wrong-circumcision-complications.html

http://botched-circumcision-recovery.blogspot.com/

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html

I personally think that the argument that it should be left alone for cultural or religious reasons is fatuous. As General Napier reportedly said about the practice of suttee in India:

"This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

Ultratwinkie:
Are you truly suggesting people should have no say in what is done to their bodies?

No, I'm not saying any such thing. Christ, is it too much to expect you people to read the things I wrote, as opposed to just inventing straw man arguments out of hysteria?

If you'll read the very first post I made on this thread, you'll see that I wrote I wrote that I believe that male infant circumcision is unnecessary and it seems a bit strange to me. I also wrote that opposing it (meaning opposing it for your children personally) for those reasons makes a lot of sense. I'm simply against people trying to force their opinion on others through appeals to emotion and arguments without factual support. I'm also opposed to a bunch of privileged boys co-opting the anti-FGM to portray what happens to boys in male infant circumcision as anything close to the same degree of an issue.

Archroy:
I personally think that the argument that it should be left alone for cultural or religious reasons is fatuous.

Whew! Luckily, no one made that argument.

Katatori-kun:

Ultratwinkie:
Are you truly suggesting people should have no say in what is done to their bodies?

No, I'm not saying any such thing. Christ, is it too much to expect you people to read the things I wrote, as opposed to just inventing straw man arguments out of hysteria?

If you'll read the very first post I made on this thread, you'll see that I wrote I wrote that I believe that male infant circumcision is unnecessary and it seems a bit strange to me. I also wrote that opposing it (meaning opposing it for your children personally) for those reasons makes a lot of sense. I'm simply against people trying to force their opinion on others through appeals to emotion and arguments without factual support. I'm also opposed to a bunch of privileged boys co-opting the anti-FGM to portray what happens to boys in male infant circumcision as anything close to the same degree of an issue.

I Asked you because you quoted the "foreskin has uses and should be left to the person" with "that's your unsupported opinion."

Also: Female circumcision comes in 4 levels. The closest female circumcision gets to male circumcision is a Type I procedure, which removes the clitoral hood, but not the clitoris itself. That is Type II.

Technically, it can be used in comparison as long as one specifies that its Type I. The other types cannot be used in comparison. However I don't seem to find anyone making that distinction. Though its still an unnecessary comparison, since I managed to to argue against circumcision the same way an Atheist argues against God.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked