Circumcision in infancy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Ultratwinkie:
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.

There is evidence for and against the protective benefits of circumcision with regards to HIV. The official WHO stance, presumably having assessed the available studies, is that circumcision does provide some benefit:
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

I'm not trying to advocate circumcision, or say that it's necessary. I'm just trying to point out there are arguments for it in certain demographics.

I was circumsised as an infant but it was medically necessary. Long story short I was born with a condition that affected my urethra and the circumcision was part of what was needed to fix it.

Katatori-kun:

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.

Maybe not in this thread to date, but in previous threads concerning this issue on this forum, those arguments have certainly been made.
I believe that those arguments are fatuous.
I also believe that the alleged medical benefits of the procedure in no way outweigh the potential harm, as demonstrated in the links from my earlier post.

Binks:

There is evidence for and against the protective benefits of circumcision with regards to HIV. The official WHO stance, presumably having assessed the available studies, is that circumcision does provide some benefit:
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

I'm not trying to advocate circumcision, or say that it's necessary. I'm just trying to point out there are arguments for it in certain demographics.

A more accurate statemnt would be that we simply don't know. There have been three studies done on the viability of circumcision as a means to prevent the spread of HIV and all three of them yielded inconclusive results. They're also currently being blasted for improper methodology. Besides, we live in the Western World. Condoms are widely available and the recommended method for reducing the spread of HIV is teaching safe sexual practices to the general population.

It is a disgusting, barbaric practice and should be outlawed without a valid medical reason for it.
And I would not even consider associating with someone who thinks mutilating a new born child is okay.

Circumcision is fucking terrible. It should be legally considered equal to genital piercing, and therefore illegal to perform on a child--religious reasons be damned.

Binks:
There is evidence for and against the protective benefits of circumcision with regards to HIV. The official WHO stance, presumably having assessed the available studies, is that circumcision does provide some benefit

More like: "The official WHO stance, dictated by US faith-promoting aid dollars...."

Heck, under pressure of the Bush regime, UNaids even switched away from condoms and began promoting abstinence and circumcision as ways to fight aids, basically going from a method 99% effective, to methods that ar likely ineffective, and maybe 0,0001% effective.

The WHO and the UN are not objective sources on this subject.

You know what's striking about all these "circumcision is barbaric" posts?

None of them include the phrase "I was circumcised".

For all the times this subject has come up, i don't remember ever seeing a post to the effect of "i was circumcised, it's horrible and i blame my parents for it everyday." I'm not saying people like this don't exist, because there are certainly people who feel that way, but i think we need to be realistic about how most people circumcised at birth actually feel about it, because the vast majority suffer no real ill effects.

TheTurtleMan:

hardlymotivated:
Hello all.

It's been a good while since the topic of circumcision (male and/or female) has been discussed in R&P.

As a man who was recently circumcised (fewer than 12 hours ago), the topic's naturally been weighing on my mind a little, and I'm interested to find out where your thoughts and opinions lie with male circumcision in infancy. Were any of you circumcised at birth? Do you have any thought with regard to your parent(s) or doctor's decision?

I'm aware that it's likely to be rather a divisive topic, but let's do ourselves all a favour and try to keep it this civil. If you want to talk about female circumcision as well, fair enough, but I'd be rather surprised if anybody came out as being in favour of it.

Could I ask you whether you feel any difference in sexual experiences as someone who has uh, played for both teams? Is it still just as good or can you tell any noticeable differences?

EDIT: Ok, I guess you should probably take your time and let what happens happen. You have one week.

As (seemingly) the only person in this thread whose had sex both without and without a foreskin, i can say haven't really noticed much difference. If anything it's better. I had fairly mild phimosis, it could come back but not easily, made things awkward, and obviously the circumcision resolved that issue. As for sensitivity, i've noticed no loss, sex is just as good, masturbation isn't as easy without lube, but with lube it's much better than pre-cut. It takes a little longer for things to get going, but once it does its so much better.

OP, i feel for you bro, i've been there. If you're anything like me you'll probably be ok to walk around clothed (albeit uncomfortably) in a couple of weeks, masturbating soon after. After the first month or so you won't look back. Hope it all goes well for you dude.

hardlymotivated:

As a man who was recently circumcised (fewer than 12 hours ago), the topic's naturally been weighing on my mind a little, and I'm interested to find out where your thoughts and opinions lie with male circumcision in infancy. Were any of you circumcised at birth? Do you have any thought with regard to your parent(s) or doctor's decision?

As far as I'm concerned, medical reasons are the only really compelling justification for male circumcision, in terms of a decision guardians make for children before the latter are of an age for informed, voluntary consent.

In the developed world, it's without much merit. In the developing world where are there are much more problems with medicine access, poor sanitation and disease problems I think it reasonable, as circumcision lowers susceptibility to numerous infections and STDs.

The big question is whether it should be permitted for parents to have their sons circumcised in the developed world for cultural/ religious reasons. I'm not really in favour for the most part, but I don't care enough to seek its outlawing either.

cobra_ky:
You know what's striking about all these "circumcision is barbaric" posts?

None of them include the phrase "I was circumcised".

For all the times this subject has come up, i don't remember ever seeing a post to the effect of "i was circumcised, it's horrible and i blame my parents for it everyday." I'm not saying people like this don't exist, because there are certainly people who feel that way, but i think we need to be realistic about how most people circumcised at birth actually feel about it, because the vast majority suffer no real ill effects.

It's interesting you point that out. I was circumcised as a child and I didn't even know people feel so strongly about it. I didn't even know it could be painful, as some here indicate. Personally, I don't really care. I am circumcised and I'm perfectly fine. To be honest, I prefer it that way. I think an uncircumcised man is looks less than appealing. But that's just me.

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

But there are complications for not getting it done, so the only difference is whether or not those complications are dealt with by a trained medical professional or an newly aging male in his youth? I've read the statistics regarding various complications, and most is not all are dealt with by proper procedure, equipment and care. If statistical probabilities of complications are the primary reason for avoiding it, then be prepared to stop all infant immunizations; because they carry complication risks as well.

I would however welcome your sources to numbers regarding deformation, malfunction and the total loss of the penis. Because still, the stories I've read still seem a case of improper procedure. Banning a practice all together because of a few horror stories seems like a poor idea don't you think?

Blablahb:
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.

Necessity doesn't matter. There are pro's and con's that have been established by actual medical professionals and various studies; it's simply not a clear cut case of endangering a child's well being when the procedure carries very low risks considering the majority of failure cases have been a direct result of human error.

As legal guardians, parents have the right to insure the well being of their child however they see fit so long as they don't neglect or intentionally endanger them; which circumcision has yet to be conclusively proven to do.

A circumcision performed correctly no more inherently alters someones life than a ear piercing does. The only difference is how people react to it; which is a sociological issue and can't be blamed on a medical procedure. That's why people who lack the overwhelming evidence required to ban a dangerous medical procedure are using terminology such as "barbaric" and "mutilation" in an effort to appeal to one sense of ethics. In the same way that people call Pro-Abortionists baby killers.

What is the point in banning the procedure other than preventing parents from making an informed choice about what to do with their own children? This still screams of; "I don't like it, therefor no one gets to."

PercyBoleyn:

Binks:

There is evidence for and against the protective benefits of circumcision with regards to HIV. The official WHO stance, presumably having assessed the available studies, is that circumcision does provide some benefit:
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

I'm not trying to advocate circumcision, or say that it's necessary. I'm just trying to point out there are arguments for it in certain demographics.

A more accurate statemnt would be that we simply don't know. There have been three studies done on the viability of circumcision as a means to prevent the spread of HIV and all three of them yielded inconclusive results. They're also currently being blasted for improper methodology. Besides, we live in the Western World. Condoms are widely available and the recommended method for reducing the spread of HIV is teaching safe sexual practices to the general population.

And besides what practical sense does it make to use surgery to fix a problem that can be solved with condoms? It's not like circumcision can replace condom use anyway.

Father Time:

And besides what practical sense does it make to use surgery to fix a problem that can be solved with condoms? It's not like circumcision can replace condom use anyway.

Well if it's proven that circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV transmission then it could be used as a way to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I disagree with doing so mainly because the AIDS epidemic is a symptom of a much greater issue but I can see why people would advocate such a thing.

DevilWithaHalo:
But there are complications for not getting it done, so the only difference is whether or not those complications are dealt with by a trained medical professional or an newly aging male in his youth?

There are no complications from not being circumcised.

DevilWithaHalo:
I would however welcome your sources to numbers regarding deformation, malfunction and the total loss of the penis. Because still, the stories I've read still seem a case of improper procedure. Banning a practice all together because of a few horror stories seems like a poor idea don't you think?

No one is saying we should ban circumcision. What people like me and blab are against is infant circumcision. If someone wants to get circumcised then that's fine by me as long as the person making the decision is an adult.

Here are a few websites posted earlier in this thread that outline some of the side effects of circumcision. I have to warn you though, they contain very graphic imagery.

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/?zx=a5227daf78997310

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

DevilWithaHalo:
Necessity doesn't matter.

Uh, yes it does. Circumcision is the only unnecessary procedure performed on infants. Why should it get a free pass?

DevilWithaHalo:
There are pro's and con's that have been established by actual medical professionals and various studies; it's simply not a clear cut case of endangering a child's well being when the procedure carries very low risks considering the majority of failure cases have been a direct result of human error.

And when the surgery is unnecessary and you can avoid the risks all together there is absolutely no need to expose the child to them. Besides, no major medical association recommends routine circumcision for the prevention of certain supposed illnesses. This is not something that should be left up to the parents, especially considering the potential side effects.

DevilWithaHalo:
A circumcision performed correctly no more inherently alters someones life than a ear piercing does. The only difference is how people react to it; which is a sociological issue and can't be blamed on a medical procedure.

There are physical side effects that a person will always have to live with, like loss of sensation and hardened glands. The sociological issues are also very important considering the fact that certain circumcised men end up regretting that the decision was not left up to them. All in all though, banning circumcision does one thing. Give men the ability to choose and in the end, when it comes to a procedure where the benefits are purely cosmetic, choice is very important.

DevilWithaHalo:
What is the point in banning the procedure other than preventing parents from making an informed choice about what to do with their own children? This still screams of; "I don't like it, therefor no one gets to."

Whilst parents should have certain authority over their children, the ability to alter them physically for cosmetic purposes should not be one of them. That baby is still a person and as a person he posseses certain rights, the most important of them being the right to their own bodies.

PercyBoleyn:
There are no complications from not being circumcised.

Except in cases where it's medically necessary right? The complication I thought of during that reply was relying on children to proper wash themselves; which no one can tell me happens with a straight face.

PercyBoleyn:
No one is saying we should ban circumcision. What people like me and blab are against is infant circumcision. If someone wants to get circumcised then that's fine by me as long as the person making the decision is an adult.

Then you are banning a parent's choice to make that decision for their own children. The entire basis for preventing them from making that choice boils down to your position that it's unnecessary and potentially harmful to the child. Intentionally inducing chicken pox in children at an early age is also unnecessary and potentially harmful. You do not get to decide how people raise their children.

PercyBoleyn:
Here are a few websites posted earlier in this thread that outline some of the side effects of circumcision. I have to warn you though, they contain very graphic imagery.

Statistical rarities; nothing more. Most still point to human error; not a fault in the actual procedure, but someone's failure to do it correctly. And these still aren't hard numbers. I asked for numbers, and you gave me pictures.

PercyBoleyn:
Uh, yes it does. Circumcision is the only unnecessary procedure performed on infants. Why should it get a free pass?

For the lack of the medical term; "gender bending". Parents also make the determination of sex is that is in question. The free pass comes from the fact that "unnecessary" is not enough to warrant a ban on the practice. You need hard evidence for serious harm; which there is simply not enough or consistently enough of to justify it. "Side effects" are possibilities, not intentional outcomes.

PercyBoleyn:
Besides, no major medical association recommends routine circumcision for the prevention of certain supposed illnesses.

You can't be serious... let me give you some key words to google; HIV, Circumcision and World Health Organization. This statement pretty much indicates to me you haven't really bothered to read anything on this topic. I'll quote some things below...

PercyBoleyn:
This is not something that should be left up to the parents, especially considering the potential side effects.

I can't really make this any more plain to you... parents decide what is best for their children; not you. Quote to come...

PercyBoleyn:
There are physical side effects that a person will always have to live with, like loss of sensation and hardened glands.

Only if they are in the statistical minority. It's a possible side effect; not a guaranteed outcome. Learn the difference.

PercyBoleyn:
The sociological issues are also very important considering the fact that certain circumcised men end up regretting that the decision was not left up to them.

If I have to accept this as a valid argument, then you must accept that certain uncircumcised men are upset about not having it done when they were an infant. Or we can leave the hyperbole at home.

PercyBoleyn:
All in all though, banning circumcision does one thing. Give men the ability to choose and in the end, when it comes to a procedure where the benefits are purely cosmetic, choice is very important.

Accept wherein the benefits have been proven to exist. Dear god, the least you could do is read Wiki...

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."[21] The AAP recommends that if parents choose to circumcise, analgesia should be used to reduce pain associated with circumcision. It states that circumcision should only be performed on newborns who are stable and healthy.[21]
The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."[60]
The American Academy of Family Physicians (2007) recognizes the controversy surrounding circumcision and recommends that physicians "discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son."[195]
The American Urological Association (2007) stated that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks, recommending that "circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits".[196]

So that's what the actual medical community says about this. Notice how they aren't calling for the elective procedure to be banned? Notice how two of them leave it to informed parents to decide? Notice how they all mention benefits? Viscerally charged arguments aren't enough to convince the vast majority of the medical community that infant circumcision needs to be stopped when the data simply doesn't support it. Between them and a few obviously unread individuals screaming "barbarian" (or less emotional slang) on the internet... well... I'm sure you'll understand who I'm going to side with.

PercyBoleyn:
Whilst parents should have certain authority over their children, the ability to alter them physically for cosmetic purposes should not be one of them. That baby is still a person and as a person he posseses certain rights, the most important of them being the right to their own bodies.

I'm not about to get into a debate regarding the rights of "children". They have guardians to determine there well being because we've determined they don't have the capacity to insure it themselves. You are not guaranteeing the right of a child; you're stripping the right of a parent.

DevilWithaHalo:
But there are complications for not getting it done

No, there are not. It's not like all men are born defective and it needs fixing.

DevilWithaHalo:
I've read the statistics regarding various complications, and most is not all are dealt with by proper procedure, equipment and care. If statistical probabilities of complications are the primary reason for avoiding it, then be prepared to stop all infant immunizations; because they carry complication risks as well.

Except getting a slight fever for a day in one in thousand cases is a bit different from hundreds of people literally losing their dicks, thousands becoming impotent, and tens of thousands having it deformed.

DevilWithaHalo:
Banning a practice all together because of a few horror stories seems like a poor idea don't you think?

I'm yet to see a reason why to practice genital mutilation to begin with, so why not?

DevilWithaHalo:
As legal guardians, parents have the right to insure the well being of their child however they see fit so long as they don't neglect or intentionally endanger them; which circumcision has yet to be conclusively proven to do.

Complications exist. Voila, all the proof needed. Children aren't an object you posses and can break or damage as one desires you know.

Blablahb:
No, there are not. It's not like all men are born defective and it needs fixing.

Except once again the medical cases that call for it. You know, like a lot of people in this thread have been arguing about. It's like you casually ignore the very arguments you brought up yourself.

Blablahb:
Except getting a slight fever for a day in one in thousand cases is a bit different from hundreds of people literally losing their dicks, thousands becoming impotent, and tens of thousands having it deformed.

Show me numbers. The numbers I have seen suggest a failure rate of 1% or less. And even in that failure rate, the vast majority of them are minor; including bleeding, infection and/or other easily treatable problems. Enough hyperbole, where is your evidence?

Blablahb:
I'm yet to see a reason why to practice genital mutilation to begin with, so why not?

Number 1; http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html lists a few beneficial reasons to practice...
Number 2; CIRCUMCISION. If you can't be bothered to use proper terminology, then I won't bother trying to educate you. Your inflammatory remarks only serve to prove your irrationality.

Blablahb:
Complications exist. Voila, all the proof needed. Children aren't an object you posses and can break or damage as one desires you know.

Except you have failed to provide conclusive evidence that the potential side effects warrant banning the practice. The facts don't support your rhetoric. And until they do, all you're doing is imposing your personal sense of morality on others.

Unless someone actually responds with something beyond text book cases of logical fallacies, I think I'm done here.

DevilWithaHalo:
Except in cases where it's medically necessary right?

Circumcision is rarely medically necessary.

DevilWithaHalo:
Then you are banning a parent's choice to make that decision for their own children. The entire basis for preventing them from making that choice boils down to your position that it's unnecessary and potentially harmful to the child. Intentionally inducing chicken pox in children at an early age is also unnecessary and potentially harmful. You do not get to decide how people raise their children.

Of course I don't get to tell parents how to raise their children. I can, however, protect the infant's right to his own body. This is the only physical alteration of the male body that gets a free pass. If you, as a parent, attempted to change anything else you'd have your child taken away from you.

DevilWithaHalo:
Statistical rarities; nothing more. Most still point to human error; not a fault in the actual procedure, but someone's failure to do it correctly. And these still aren't hard numbers. I asked for numbers, and you gave me pictures.

Read the actual site. These are not rarities. Even if they were, if they can be avoided then they should be avoided.

DevilWithaHalo:
For the lack of the medical term; "gender bending". Parents also make the determination of sex is that is in question. The free pass comes from the fact that "unnecessary" is not enough to warrant a ban on the practice. You need hard evidence for serious harm; which there is simply not enough or consistently enough of to justify it. "Side effects" are possibilities, not intentional outcomes.

Gender bending is a completely different issue and has virtually nothing in common with circumcision.

DevilWithaHalo:
You can't be serious... let me give you some key words to google; HIV, Circumcision and World Health Organization. This statement pretty much indicates to me you haven't really bothered to read anything on this topic. I'll quote some things below.

Actually, I have. The studies done on this were contradictory and are currently being challenged due to the many issues found in methodology.

DevilWithaHalo:
I can't really make this any more plain to you... parents decide what is best for their children; not you. Quote to come...

Uh huh. So, apart from circumcision, please list what other physical alteration to the human body is considered vital for raising your child?

DevilWithaHalo:
Only if they are in the statistical minority. It's a possible side effect; not a guaranteed outcome. Learn the difference.

The foreskin contains the most nerve endings in the human body. Removing it will remove sensation, period.

DevilWithaHalo:
If I have to accept this as a valid argument, then you must accept that certain uncircumcised men are upset about not having it done when they were an infant. Or we can leave the hyperbole at home.

Those uncircumcised men can easily have the procedure done today.

DevilWithaHalo:
So that's what the actual medical community says about this. Notice how they aren't calling for the elective procedure to be banned? Notice how two of them leave it to informed parents to decide? Notice how they all mention benefits? Viscerally charged arguments aren't enough to convince the vast majority of the medical community that infant circumcision needs to be stopped when the data simply doesn't support it. Between them and a few obviously unread individuals screaming "barbarian" (or less emotional slang) on the internet... well... I'm sure you'll understand who I'm going to side with.

Actually, the medical community is generally against circumcision. The USA is the only country in the world that encourages routine circumcision and it's been blasted for doing so in the past.

DevilWithaHalo:
I'm not about to get into a debate regarding the rights of "children". They have guardians to determine there well being because we've determined they don't have the capacity to insure it themselves. You are not guaranteeing the right of a child; you're stripping the right of a parent.

Nowhere does it say the ability to alter your child's physical appearance through the use of surgery is a right.

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

Pretty much my thoughts when this topic pops up from time to time.

Is male circumcision really this big of a deal guys? Either way it doesn't make that much of a difference.

PercyBoleyn:
Circumcision is rarely medically necessary.

As long as you admit there are complications for not getting it done; that was the point.

PercyBoleyn:
Of course I don't get to tell parents how to raise their children. I can, however, protect the infant's right to his own body. This is the only physical alteration of the male body that gets a free pass. If you, as a parent, attempted to change anything else you'd have your child taken away from you.

Hair color/length/style, piercings, physical discipline, breast implants/reduction, etc... there are many things parents do with their children that don't warrant Social Services intervention. I'm not suggesting circumcision be a unique case; I'm saying let's be consistent about things. Preventing legal guardians from making a medical decision for the child goes against the very purpose those laws exist.

PercyBoleyn:
Read the actual site. These are not rarities.

I did; they ARE statistical rarities. That's considering when the sites were actually using "facts", as opposed to... 111% risk of penile surgery, herpes being a side effect of circumcision and the one guy's blog about the fuck up of his procedure. In practically every case, it boils down to human error and grossly misrepresented and inaccurate information.

PercyBoleyn:
Gender bending is a completely different issue and has virtually nothing in common with circumcision.

You inferred that circumcision was the only unnecessary procedure; I corrected you with a single example. Circumcision, like Gender Bending, is a medically unnecessary procedure that is always performed at the behest of the parents who are insuring what they feel is the well being of their child after receiving the appropriate amount of information from their medically trained family practitioners. (sarcasm)Yes, virtually nothing in common there(/sarcasm).

PercyBoleyn:
Actually, I have. The studies done on this were contradictory and are currently being challenged due to the many issues found in methodology.

Until such time as I see a new update study contradicting the evidence that has been provided, I'm still siding with those that put forth the effort into gathering the data. So please do support your position that...

no major medical association recommends routine circumcision for the prevention of certain supposed illnesses

...because I just shared one; their current standing http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

PercyBoleyn:
Uh huh. So, apart from circumcision, please list what other physical alteration to the human body is considered vital for raising your child

Never said it was vital; although I'm sure some would suggest that it is a vital part of their cultural or religious identity. So please tell them that they can no longer perform it on their children because it isn't necessary.

PercyBoleyn:
The foreskin contains the most nerve endings in the human body. Removing it will remove sensation, period.

And the reported changes have varied from person to person. Some report a loss of sensation, where others report no such change. There is no "period" in the statement.

PercyBoleyn:
Those uncircumcised men can easily have the procedure done today.

Except that circumcision becomes more complicated as males age. So it would have been even easier as a child. Damn those inconsiderate parents!

PercyBoleyn:
Actually, the medical community is generally against circumcision. The USA is the only country in the world that encourages routine circumcision and it's been blasted for doing so in the past.

Oh for gods sake you didn't even read the damn thing! If you read it you would have noticed this...

these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision

...you think I'm going to take your claims that you've actual done any research into the topic when you didn't even bother reading a quote seriously? Also considering that *at least* 14 other countries now encourage it... http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40619

I'm done pointing out how wrong you've been on nearly every statement you've typed thus far.

DevilWithaHalo:
As long as you admit there are complications for not getting it done; that was the point.

Of course I don't. There are no complications for not being circumcised.

DevilWithaHalo:
Hair color/length/style, piercings, physical discipline, breast implants/reduction, etc... there are many things parents do with their children that don't warrant Social Services intervention. I'm not suggesting circumcision be a unique case; I'm saying let's be consistent about things. Preventing legal guardians from making a medical decision for the child goes against the very purpose those laws exist.

I'm talking specifically about physical alterations. Also, this isn't a medical decision, it's a cosmetic one and last time I checked, no doctor will willingly perform cosmetic surgery on children, especially not infants.

DevilWithaHalo:
I did; they ARE statistical rarities. That's considering when the sites were actually using "facts", as opposed to... 111% risk of penile surgery, herpes being a side effect of circumcision and the one guy's blog about the fuck up of his procedure. In practically every case, it boils down to human error and grossly misrepresented and inaccurate information.

You tell that to the thousands of people who now have to live with a botched penis.

DevilWithaHalo:
You inferred that circumcision was the only unnecessary procedure; I corrected you with a single example. Circumcision, like Gender Bending, is a medically unnecessary procedure that is always performed at the behest of the parents who are insuring what they feel is the well being of their child after receiving the appropriate amount of information from their medically trained family practitioners. (sarcasm)Yes, virtually nothing in common there(/sarcasm).

It's funny, a lot of people who were born with both sexual organs and were raised one gender or the other ended up rejecting their identity. The fact of the matter is, "gender bending" is not an accurate science. It's a necessary gamble due to the situation but it's a dangerous gamble nonetheless. It's also not unnecessary. Circumcision on the other hand is unnecessary, it's for cosmetic purposes only and it could be done just as easily at an age when the person can decide for themselves.

DevilWithaHalo:
...because I just shared one;

"Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package"

Africa is a special case. There's an actual continent wide epidemic going on there. Besides, the WHO is currently pushing for voluntary circumcision, not involuntary.

Also:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

DevilWithaHalo:
Until such time as I see a new update study contradicting the evidence that has been provided, I'm still siding with those that put forth the effort into gathering the data. So please do support your position that...

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_hiv.html

http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/2007/06/despite_controv.html

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

http://www.nocircofmi.org/AIDS.pdf

DevilWithaHalo:
And the reported changes have varied from person to person. Some report a loss of sensation, where others report no such change. There is no "period" in the statement.

Circumcised men saying they haven't lost sensation in the penis isn't exactly reliable data. What is reliable data is that nerve endings are associated with sensation and that the removal of the foreskin removes an area of the penis full of them.

DevilWithaHalo:
Except that circumcision becomes more complicated as males age. So it would have been even easier as a child. Damn those inconsiderate parents!

And that's a risk each individual adult male is going to take by himself, not by you and certainly not by the parents. It's my dick and I'll do whatever the fuck I want with it.

DevilWithaHalo:
you think I'm going to take your claims that you've actual done any research into the topic when you didn't even bother reading a quote seriously? Also considering that *at least* 14 other countries now encourage it...

The UN has been criticized for its plan to use circumcision as means to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa. There are not enough studies to support the UN's decision. Besides, when the situation is as dire as it is in Africa of course you're going to garner support easily.

DevilWithaHalo:

Blablahb:
No, there are not. It's not like all men are born defective and it needs fixing.

Except once again the medical cases that call for it. You know, like a lot of people in this thread have been arguing about. It's like you casually ignore the very arguments you brought up yourself.

Blablahb:
Except getting a slight fever for a day in one in thousand cases is a bit different from hundreds of people literally losing their dicks, thousands becoming impotent, and tens of thousands having it deformed.

Show me numbers. The numbers I have seen suggest a failure rate of 1% or less. And even in that failure rate, the vast majority of them are minor; including bleeding, infection and/or other easily treatable problems. Enough hyperbole, where is your evidence?

Blablahb:
I'm yet to see a reason why to practice genital mutilation to begin with, so why not?

Number 1; http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html lists a few beneficial reasons to practice...
Number 2; CIRCUMCISION. If you can't be bothered to use proper terminology, then I won't bother trying to educate you. Your inflammatory remarks only serve to prove your irrationality.

Blablahb:
Complications exist. Voila, all the proof needed. Children aren't an object you posses and can break or damage as one desires you know.

Except you have failed to provide conclusive evidence that the potential side effects warrant banning the practice. The facts don't support your rhetoric. And until they do, all you're doing is imposing your personal sense of morality on others.

Unless someone actually responds with something beyond text book cases of logical fallacies, I think I'm done here.

If I am not mistaken, circinfo is a site run by Brian J. Morris. A notorious lunatic from Australia.

He makes up pure shit on his website. He even states that "a secret gay shadow government is working against circumcision because they like foreskins."

http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris#Brian_Morris.27_Websites

His views are a laughing stock. He even goes onto say female circumcision does no damage to sexual function. He is absolute trash.

If you are going to cite sources, know who exactly you're sourcing.

Would you let someone cut the tip off an infants toe so they don't have to worry about an ingrown toenail on that toe? Then why would you let them mutilate another part of its body for neglible benefits that may not even be there?

PercyBoleyn:

The foreskin contains the most nerve endings in the human body. Removing it will remove sensation, period.

Sort of. But if removed at an early age, the loss of sensation cannot be missed as there is no available comparison of greater and lesser sensation. In this sense male circumcision is distinct from female, as sexual pleasure is still easily obtainable.

DevilWithaHalo:
I did; they ARE statistical rarities.

So what? Why should any child at all have their penises damaged without there being a medical major advantage or necessity?

Ultratwinkie:

DevilWithaHalo:
Unless someone actually responds with something beyond text book cases of logical fallacies, I think I'm done here.

If I am not mistaken, circinfo is a site run by Brian J. Morris. A notorious lunatic from Australia.

He makes up pure shit on his website. He even states that "a secret gay shadow government is working against circumcision because they like foreskins."

http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris#Brian_Morris.27_Websites

His views are a laughing stock. He even goes onto say female circumcision does no damage to sexual function. He is absolute trash.

If you are going to cite sources, know who exactly you're sourcing.

It's almost like you've never heard of Ad Hominem. Thank you for this practically perfect axiom of typical ineptitude in internet decorum. Comedians always try to end on a strong joke.

DevilWithaHalo:

It's almost like you've never heard of Ad Hominem. Thank you for this practically perfect axiom of typical ineptitude in internet decorum. Comedians always try to end on a strong joke.

It is not ad hominem to question the reliability of a source of information, providing sufficient reason exists that the circumstances of the source may be an issue.

The page you posted may indeed be factually accurate (and offhand, it actually looks at least partially accurate to me). However, Ultratwinkie still has a valid point to say that deriving from a circumcision advocacy group lowers its evidential weight. You'd do better reinforcing with material from somewhere more impartial.

DevilWithaHalo:

It's almost like you've never heard of Ad Hominem. Thank you for this practically perfect axiom of typical ineptitude in internet decorum. Comedians always try to end on a strong joke.

You're not seriously claiming that a biased source can provide impartial information?

PercyBoleyn:
You're not seriously claiming that a biased source can provide impartial information?

Of course that is possible. Depending on the source it's just less likely. I'd trust the weather predictions on Fox News for instance.

Clearly not applicable in the case of the loonie DevilWithaHalo posted though.

DevilWithaHalo:
Number 1; http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html lists a few beneficial reasons to practice...
Number 2; CIRCUMCISION. If you can't be bothered to use proper terminology, then I won't bother trying to educate you. Your inflammatory remarks only serve to prove your irrationality.

I ask for proof that there is any use to male genital mutilation and I get a url from a raving lunatic which features only things I've already debunked in this discussion, that doesn't cite any source?

Agema:
It is not ad hominem to question the reliability of a source of information, providing sufficient reason exists that the circumstances of the source may be an issue.

The page you posted may indeed be factually accurate (and offhand, it actually looks at least partially accurate to me). However, Ultratwinkie still has a valid point to say that deriving from a circumcision advocacy group lowers its evidential weight. You'd do better reinforcing with material from somewhere more impartial.

A very legitimate concern (hence my response), and one that I may agree with given a specific circumstance. But questioning the legitimacy of the source of information is not the same as what Ultratwinkie did. He did perform a textbook case of Ad Hominem. Accusing a pro-circumcision site of bias is as useful to a discussion as accusing a anti-circumcision site of similar bias.

Blahblahb asked for beneficial reasons to perform circumcision and I provided a list easily located by anyone. The list was ignored while the author of the list's credibility was questioned due to his personal views on other subject matter. It would be equivalent to me ignoring the advice to 'look both ways before crossing' because the person giving it to me happened to fuck a goat. His questionable actions with live stock does not detract from the importance of the advice he imparted. Nor would I question the accuracy of the information he had provided if I can verify the information from an alternative source.

Questioning the source is one thing, calling the author... and I quote...

...absolute trash

...loonie...

...raving lunatic

...among others puts their responses firmly in the realm of Ad Hominem.

Alternatively, the information I have provided to PercyBoleyn has been legitimately challenged by alternative sources, avoiding personal remarks, but still raising the concern regarding the methodology of gathering it's information. I also see no mention of discussing bias in regards to the sources who differ in opinion regarding pro or anti circumcision. And since he's been such a good sport...

PercyBoleyn:
You're not seriously claiming that a biased source can provide impartial information?

Yes, I am. Questioning the validity of information provided by opposing positions simply breaks the discussion down into logical fallacies, if not outright name calling, finger pointing and trash talking. I see no reason to disregard information provided to me by someone based solely on their personal flights of fancy, or if they happen to have fucked the goat. I will read, review, compare, consider and conclude on everything that is given to me.

This type of thinking simply assumes that any alternative position is illegitimate, since I could easily assume your bias, and disregard all information you provide. Certainly not a very constructive conversation at that point eh?

DevilWithaHalo:
Blahblahb asked for beneficial reasons to perform circumcision and I provided a list easily located by anyone. The list was ignored while the author of the list's credibility was questioned due to his personal views on other subject matter.

Speaking of ignoring: Did you read the previous discussion, where all of the points that alledged GP of yours predictably came up with, were refuted?

It's weak to just play the 'but now I'm offended'-card and pretend you can suffice with spamming one url as a burden of evidence. And a url from a rather extremist religious activist on top of that.

And another thing you ignored:

Agema:
It is not ad hominem to question the reliability of a source of information

Blablahb:
Speaking of ignoring: Did you read the previous discussion, where all of the points that alledged GP of yours predictably came up with, were refuted?

I just went and reread the thread. I haven't seen you refute anything beyond arguing the methodology of a study related to HIV and Circumcision. Claiming something doesn't make it true.

If you prefer a less "crackpot" source, try something easy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision ...skip to the part where it discusses medical benefits. Wiki is kind enough to discuss every side of the issue, but do you notice the part where the 'bat-shit-crazy' GP's information links up with various studies they provide?

It would be dishonest for me to say that the evidence points to a medical recommendation by the medical community (which I have NOT said), as it is dishonest for you to say that there are no medical benefits for the procedure (which you HAVE said).

Blablahb:
It's weak to just play the 'but now I'm offended'-card and pretend you can suffice with spamming one url as a burden of evidence.

So because you asked me a question, and I gave you an answer with, I'm offended? How can you spam with a single link? Burden of evidence? Dear god man, are you even thinking before you type?

Blablahb:
And a url from a rather extremist religious activist on top of that.

Hey look, it's Ad Hominem again; pretty popular around here?

Blablahb:
And another thing you ignored:

Agema:
It is not ad hominem to question the reliability of a source of information

Wow... you just skipped right over MY ENTIRE last post didn't you? Oh wait, no you didn't, because you pulled a quote from it. Willful ignorance and hypocrisy, welcome to my ignore list.

DevilWithaHalo:
If you prefer a less "crackpot" source, try something easy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision ...skip to the part where it discusses medical benefits.

No, I'm going to thank you for demolishing your own point by quoting you a more relevant piece of information from that page:

The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications - bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications.

And:
The British Medical Association's position (June 2006) was that male circumcision for medical purposes should only be used where less invasive procedures are either unavailable or not as effective.

Even the extremely religious US, where religious privilege reigns supreme has:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) found both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision, however, there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

DevilWithaHalo:

Blablahb:
Speaking of ignoring: Did you read the previous discussion, where all of the points that alledged GP of yours predictably came up with, were refuted?

I just went and reread the thread. I haven't seen you refute anything beyond arguing the methodology of a study related to HIV and Circumcision. Claiming something doesn't make it true.

If you prefer a less "crackpot" source, try something easy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision ...skip to the part where it discusses medical benefits. Wiki is kind enough to discuss every side of the issue, but do you notice the part where the 'bat-shit-crazy' GP's information links up with various studies they provide?

It would be dishonest for me to say that the evidence points to a medical recommendation by the medical community (which I have NOT said), as it is dishonest for you to say that there are no medical benefits for the procedure (which you HAVE said).

Blablahb:
It's weak to just play the 'but now I'm offended'-card and pretend you can suffice with spamming one url as a burden of evidence.

So because you asked me a question, and I gave you an answer with, I'm offended? How can you spam with a single link? Burden of evidence? Dear god man, are you even thinking before you type?

Blablahb:
And a url from a rather extremist religious activist on top of that.

Hey look, it's Ad Hominem again; pretty popular around here?

Blablahb:
And another thing you ignored:

Agema:
It is not ad hominem to question the reliability of a source of information

Wow... you just skipped right over MY ENTIRE last post didn't you? Oh wait, no you didn't, because you pulled a quote from it. Willful ignorance and hypocrisy, welcome to my ignore list.

So the moment anyone disagrees you put them on the ignore list? Really? Nice "discussion" you have there. You complained about fallacies and acted like it was a one-all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

So what you did was in fact, a fallacy in itself.

DevilWithaHalo:
It would be equivalent to me ignoring the advice to 'look both ways before crossing' because the person giving it to me happened to fuck a goat.

Well not really, because fucking goats has nothing to do with road safety.

It's akin to the government tabling a Snake Charming Bill, where a government spokesperson says it is an important bill to improve the quality of life of the public. But you would hardly be be accused of ad hominem fallacy to distrust the government spokesperson, considering his obvious motive to talk up government policy.

DevilWithaHalo:
Yes, I am. Questioning the validity of information provided by opposing positions simply breaks the discussion down into logical fallacies, if not outright name calling, finger pointing and trash talking. I see no reason to disregard information provided to me by someone based solely on their personal flights of fancy, or if they happen to have fucked the goat. I will read, review, compare, consider and conclude on everything that is given to me.

Of course you have to question the validity of information. Where would our world be if we DIDN'T? Besides, no one attacked your source personally. All that was pointed out was that the man had a very obvious bias towards circumcision.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here