Circumcision

[Tallguy88]

I don't know, do you not want to know what you are actually advocating?

I'm not advocating that anyone be circumcised. I'm saying that parents do have the right to make that decision. I also gave my own experience with the issue as a circumcised male.

 

[Nithavela]

I'm not advocating that anyone be circumcised. I'm saying that parents do have the right to make that decision. I also gave my own experience with the issue as a circumcised male.

Still, it might be interesting to view such an operation as it is caried out, might it not?

Or is there something you are afraid of?

 

[Hikarifuru]

Concerning health benefits; I would say it is more healthy to learn and teach good personal hygiene than it is to take a knife and cut parts of your body off, bleed and scream like crazy and risk your life or the life of your child. Washing is more healthy than chopping off body parts and risking your life.

It's similar to saying that cutting your hands off prevents you from getting lots of bacteria under your nails and transfering that to food.

 

[Tallguy88]

There really aren't.

"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use."

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

• Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. Washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis is generally easy, however.
• Decreased risk of urinary tract infections.The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
• Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
• Prevention of penile problems.Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
• Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585

"Since the last policy was published, scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life.

The AAP believes the health benefits are great enough that infant male circumcision should be covered by insurance, which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it."

https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the...inal-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx

See, that seems like just a matter of degree. Having your finger cut off is less traumatic than having your arm cut off, that still doesn't make it OK to have your finger cut off.

What's your argument? That parents do not have the legal right to have their children circumcised, even for religious reasons?

 

[Tallguy88]

Still, it might be interesting to view such an operation as it is caried out, might it not?

Or is there something you are afraid of?

I'm at work. So yeah, I'm not watching that now. Also, I don't like watching surgery shows at all. So I'm not going to make an exception and watch this one.

 

[Armoured]

"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use."

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

• Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. Washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis is generally easy, however.
• Decreased risk of urinary tract infections.The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
• Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
• Prevention of penile problems.Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
• Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585

"Since the last policy was published, scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life.

The AAP believes the health benefits are great enough that infant male circumcision should be covered by insurance, which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it."

https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the...inal-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx

You should check he actual figures. And none of the so "benefits" can't be achieved with less permanent and potentially hazardous methods. Like soap and water.

What's your argument? That parents do not have the legal right to have their children circumcised, even for religious reasons?

If we don't let parents genitally mutilate little girls for religious reasons, why should we let them do it to little boys?

I have no problem what you do to your own genitals after you are old enough to provide informed consent. If you believe in a religion that demands you cut pieces of your genitals off and it's something you want to do, by all means, go ahead. If you believe you will receive health benefits, then please, be my guest. But few if any of the alleged health benefits are really particularly relevant before puberty, are they? So they don't really justify doing it in infancy. My problem is doing it to children who can't consent. (general you)

 

[Dave-W]

Watched that video yet,

I saw the procedure with my own son. No bleeding. No crying. He was uncomfortable for a few days, which was taken care of by holding him.

 

[Tallguy88]

You should check he actual figures. And none of the so "benefits" can't be achieved with less permanent and potentially hazardous methods. Like soap and water.If we don't let parents genitally mutilate little girls for religious reasons, why should we let them do it to little boys?

I quoted the World Health Organization, the Mayo Clinic, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of which contradict your claim that there are no health benefits to circumcision. Now you moved the goalposts by saying there are better ways to achieve the same benefits. The AAP even says specifically that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.

I have no problem what you do to your own genitals after you are old enough to provide informed consent. If you believe in a religion that demands you cut pieces of your genitals off and it's something you want to do, by all means, go ahead. If you believe you will receive health benefits, then please, be my guest. But few if any of the alleged health benefits are really particularly relevant before puberty, are they? So they don't really justify doing it in infancy. My problem is doing it to children who can't consent. (general you)

Children can't legally consent to anything before the age of consent, which varies but is typically 16-18. Yet all sorts of medical and religious decisions have to be made before that time and it's parents who make those decisions. Even vaccines have known, yet statistically low, side effects, sometimes fatal, yet are given to children. Yet with circumcision, if it is performed correctly by a competent physician, there will be no complications or side effects.

 

[Armoured]

I quoted the World Health Organization, the Mayo Clinic, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of which contradict your claim that there are no health benefits to circumcision. Now you moved the goalposts by saying there are better ways to achieve the same benefits. The AAP even says specifically that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.

All the healthcare professionals I've discussed it with say there is no benefit. I'm willing to concede that there may be a few statistically significant benefits in certain situations, like reducing HIV transmission, but again, I point out that's not really a benefit for an infant, is it?

Children can't legally consent to anything before the age of consent, which varies but is typically 16-18. Yet all sorts of medical and religious decisions have to be made before that time and it's parents who make those decisions. Even vaccines have known, yet statistically low, side effects, sometimes fatal, yet are given to children. Yet with circumcision, if it is performed correctly by a competent physician, there will be no complications or side effects.

There most certainly can be and have been complications and side effects even when correctly carried out. Google at your own risk, it's pretty terrifying stuff.

Yes, parents and guardians can make decisions for children who can't consent, but those decisions are supposed to have sound backing. Infant circumcision does not.

I again ask why if we don't allow parents to make a decision for an infant girl to be circumcised, why should we allow the parents of an infant boy to do so?

 

[Nithavela]

@Tallguy88
Every operation, even if done by a professional and done correctly, carries the risk of complications. I now realise that you prefer arguing from a position of ignorance, at least on this issue, so I'll let you do that on your own.

 

[Tallguy88]

All the healthcare professionals I've discussed it with say there is no benefit. I'm willing to concede that there may be a few statistically significant benefits in certain situations, like reducing HIV transmission, but again, I point out that's not really a benefit for an infant, is it?There most certainly can be and have been complications and side effects even when correctly carried out. Google at your own risk, it's pretty terrifying stuff.

Yes, parents and guardians can make decisions for children who can't consent, but those decisions are supposed to have sound backing. Infant circumcision does not.

They do have sound backing, at least according to the US' AAP, which has over 60,000 member pediatricians. Your doctor's may disagree. It is interesting to see national medical standards very widely, on even more issues than this. It goes to show that the practice of medicine isn't always an exact science.

I again ask why if we don't allow parents to make a decision for an infant girl to be circumcised, why should we allow the parents of an infant boy to do so?

Because of the differences in the procedures themselves. I can concede that the reasoning for the two are often the same. But what is actually done is completely different. One removes a bit of skin that doesn't (or negligably) negatively impact sexual pleasure or performance and may have health benefits, the other completely removes an apendage and thereby removes the pleasure and some performance, depending on the specific FGM that was performed, and has zero health benefits recognized by any reputable medical association.

 

[TerranceL]

There really aren't.
See, that seems like just a matter of degree. Having your finger cut off is less traumatic than having your arm cut off, that still doesn't make it OK to have your finger cut off.

It seems like the argument is... but it's a boys finger and god said it so....

 

[Tallguy88]

@Tallguy88
Every operation, even if done by a professional and done correctly, carries the risk of complications. I now realise that you prefer arguing from a position of ignorance, at least on this issue, so I'll let you do that on your own.

I am fully aware. That's why I specifically said "if performed correctly" there would be no complications. I suppose I should have also added "unless the circumsicion is botched or there is an unforseen penile abnormality that would cause an otherwise correct circumcision to become complicated", but I assumed that was obvious enough from saying "properly performed" to not require spelling out explicitly. I should have know I would have to state the obvious just to avoid being called ignorant.

 

[Armoured]

I am fully aware. That's why I specifically said "if performed correctly" there would be no complications. I suppose I should have also added "unless the circumsicion is botched or there is an unforseen penile abnormality that would cause an otherwise correct circumcision to become complicated", but I assumed that was obvious enough from saying "properly performed" to not require spelling out explicitly. I should have know I would have to state the obvious just to avoid being called ignorant.

You would be amazed at all the things that can go wrong even when a medical procedure is flawlessly performed.

And that's before we even get in to all the things that can happen when they AREN'T flawlessly performed...

 

[Open Heart]

None of those are good reasons.

First of all, your answer is irrelevant to the point. The question was whether people got their boys circumcised so they would not touch. Instead, I gave four of the real reasons why people circumcise their boys.

Second, religious reasons ARE a good reason to circumcise.

 

[Open Heart]

babies can die from it

Give me a break. I suppose a baby can get an infected ear from having it pierced and it go septic too. One in a gazillion. Let's outlaw piercing ears.

 

[Nithavela]

Give me a break. I suppose a baby can get an infected ear from having it pierced and it go septic too. One in a gazillion. Let's outlaw piercing ears.

Yes, let's outlaw piercing baby ears.

 

[Locutus]

OH, I completely disagree. I think children get circumcized

• for religious reasons
• because "everyone does it"
• to look like dad
• for hygiene

two of those four are pure vanity (2 & 3), one is debunked (4), and the other is a terrible reason to mutilate a newborn.

 

[Locutus]

It's a sign of the covenant, to show that we are set apart from un believers.

Once again, I must ask you if find this in any way reasonable or logical. That the religious identity of random strangers in the street can only be determined by looking down his pants (or in those days ... up his dress)?

And does it not strike you as spectacularly weird that a religion so concerned with the avoidance of all things sexual, would then use the sex organ as advertising material? Why not a tattoo on the wrist? Or a special haircut?

 

[Tallguy88]

Once again, I must ask you if find this in any way reasonable or logical. That the religious identity of random strangers in the street can only be determined by looking down his pants (or in those days ... up his dress)?

And does it not strike you as spectacularly weird that a religion so concerned with the avoidance of all things sexual, would then use the sex organ as advertising material? Why not a tattoo on the wrist? Or a special haircut?

I'm not God. I can't answer why He chose a particular thing to be the sign, only that He did.