The Circumcision Argument.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2011, 11:02 AM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
A question to all of the supporters of child circumcision. Would you be in favour or of an operation to remove your sons nipples as a child?

They serve no real purpose like foreskin the complications would be rare like the complications for having foreskin removed. It would have no real benefits the same as circumcision. Or would you consider that cruel or mutilation?

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 11:04 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2011 11:11 AM by Stark Raving.)
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
(16-08-2011 11:02 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  It would have no real benefits the same as circumcision.

Not true at all. Whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages is in question, but to say there are no real benefits is false.


EDIT: I am, of course referring to circumcision, not nipple amputation. lol

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 11:25 AM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
(16-08-2011 11:04 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(16-08-2011 11:02 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  It would have no real benefits the same as circumcision.

Not true at all. Whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages is in question, but to say there are no real benefits is false.


EDIT: I am, of course referring to circumcision, not nipple amputation. lol
Well what are the benefits of curcumcision?. Unless there is a medical condition the only reason for it I can think of would be purely cosmetic.
The hygiene argument I don't buy, as it takes no effort to pull back foreskin to wash. Hygiene is one of the basic things parents should teach their children if they have a hygiene problem it's the fault of the parent rather than because they have some skin. There is a risk to curcumcision which is minimal and rare but why take the risk for something that has no real purpose other than being a cultural or even religious requirement.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 11:37 AM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
BGramo writes "We do not mark things unjustly here, so keep it civilized.

BTW Obviously some of your do not know the correct definition of the word mutilation, and are continuously using it out of place.

Mutilation: to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts.

And to those of you who call it "abuse", by law it is defined as a medical prodcedure. As an adolescent a newborn has no rights in the saying of the matter. Therefore it is not considered abuse.

We do not make up laws, slander such things, or yell at those who obey such. Stop misusing words, it only makes you look like a bat crazy lunatic."


...Ok now, BGramo chastises posters to be civilized & use words correctly, then goes on to hassle people for calling circumcision mutilation, even after he defines it so.You are not helping your own argument here.

I would say that taking a newborn with an immature immune system & creating an open wound, with NO anesthesia, is decidedly injurious. And foolhardy to the point of abuse. Someone with a cold can't visit a newborn because the baby is so vulnerable. What sensible parent or dr would purposely create this much greater health risk? I posit that drs don't find this horrific or counter to their "dr" mandate not because it's ok, or the risk (in current times) is low, but because they are just so used to it, they are blinded. In the same way the whole god thing would surely seem crazier if we hadn't been breathing it since birth.

It's also totally baffling that the same parent who will tenderly wrap a baby to protect it from the slightest draft will have no qualms about seeking out one of the MOST sensitive parts of the body - dudes, if it didn't have all those nerves, you wouldn't be obsessed with poking it everywhere - & sawing at it with a knife. Babies' systems have been shown to be MORE sensitive to pain. MUCH more.

I remember reading something in "god is not great"...something from some religious weiner about how the purpose of circumcision was to create pain, a memory of pain, & make the whole penis thing so unpleasant you would only use it for procreation. There you go - the point is to take our fun away. You know, for GOD.

I have not kept up with the research. I don't know if it's still considered slightly better, in some risks, to have a circumcision. But I would be very leery of that conclusion. It's so convenient to prove what you really wanted to do anyway. I'm sure if everyone were dipped in pond water, their immune systems would be slightly stronger. So should we all be baptized?

I understand that various cultures, mostly older & fading, like tribal people, practice tattooing, mutilation, etc. As a rule, tho, these are done to teens, or young adults. They are imbued with some cultural significane, & I suppose they could run the other way if they really had to.

In our US society, circumcision comes from religion. That is important, because it is a normalizing of religion into secular life, which is a pattern we most decidedly don't want. In other words, this is not some vital part of our cultural heritage. Also, we do this to infants. They are altered forever, have no say in it, & are too young to glean any message from it. Finally, this is a health risk. What is the point of this silly & cruel procedure? As another poster pointed out, most every body part is the potential weak link. Where to you draw the line? Why not take out the appendix & do the stomach stapling at the same time? And install that insulin pump?

Every time you say you don't believe, Jesus rips the wings off a fairy. - SkepticalParenting.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 11:43 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2011 11:54 AM by Ghost.)
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
Hey, FM.

Quote:A question to all of the supporters of child circumcision. Would you be in favour or of an operation to remove your sons nipples as a child?

They serve no real purpose like foreskin the complications would be rare like the complications for having foreskin removed. It would have no real benefits the same as circumcision. Or would you consider that cruel or mutilation?

The issue for me is that the influence of PRECEDENT is being ignored here. No one is pulling circumcision out of the blue, it's been done for a really long time. The only question is, should it be discontinued?

Quote:The hygiene argument I don't buy, as it takes no effort to pull back foreskin to wash. Hygiene is one of the basic things parents should teach their children if they have a hygiene problem it's the fault of the parent rather than because they have some skin.

Well thankfully I got something on sale you might like.

I know someone who had to have emergency surgery to remove his foreskin in his early 30s. Over time, the foreskin can become so tight that pulling it back can be painful if not impossible (particularly when erect). This person developed an infection that necessitated emergency surgery.

Blaming the parent for hygiene issues is simplistic and it passes the buck.

ON EDIT:

Hey, Evil Momma.

Quote: In our US society, circumcision comes from religion. That is important, because it is a normalizing of religion into secular life, which is a pattern we most decidedly don't want. In other words, this is not some vital part of our cultural heritage.

Christmas comes from religion but to suggest that Christmas is just a Christian thing in North America is way off. Culture infiltrates culture. That’s just how it works. Civilisation would never have escaped the Fertile Crescent if that weren’t true. The US Constitution (or whatever bloody document it is, I don’t know, I’m a Canuck) calls for a separation of church and state, not church and society. Not being a vital part of our cultural heritage is gobbledygook. It’s there, it’s part of the culture, it’s widespread. That’s the reality. No sense getting sore about where it originated. The only question is, do we have enough new evidence that warrants our re-examination of this practice (there likely is) and enough new evidence that a ban is now warranted (haven’t seen it yet)? At best, I think the evidence might point to the practice being contraindicated.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 12:05 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
(16-08-2011 11:43 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, FM.



Christmas comes from religion but to suggest that Christmas is just a Christian thing in North America is way off. Culture infiltrates culture. That’s just how it works. Civilisation would never have escaped the Fertile Crescent if that weren’t true. The US Constitution (or whatever bloody document it is, I don’t know, I’m a Canuck) calls for a separation of church and state, not church and society. Not being a vital part of our cultural heritage is gobbledygook. It’s there, it’s part of the culture, it’s widespread. That’s the reality. No sense getting sore about where it originated. The only question is, do we have enough new evidence that warrants our re-examination of this practice (there likely is) and enough new evidence that a ban is now warranted (haven’t seen it yet)? At best, I think the evidence might point to the practice being contraindicated.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I hear where you're coming from - there's a lot of bleedover from the mushy blending of culture & religion that bleeds over into the more general society. But I'd say one big diff is participation in xmas, or easter etc is voluntary, & you can even be really in to it one year, but not the next. Circumcision is a permanent body mod, & since it's done to kids, they don't get any meaning from it. People who no longer find meaning in xmas don't celebrate it. Circumcision had a LOT of meaning at one time, & still does for many jews. But if it's just....habit...for most people, if it has no lesson, if it's not part of a rite of passage for the kid, they whey is it here? Isn't it a vestige?

Every time you say you don't believe, Jesus rips the wings off a fairy. - SkepticalParenting.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 12:13 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
Quote:The only question is, should it be discontinued?.

For children yes except in some circumstances such as a purely medical reason. Like what happened to your friend. Circumcision is an ancient relic possibly from Egypt. places like that where clean water can be rare and being able to drink would be more important than using it to wash. circumcision would be a benefit hygiene wise. It was popularised in more moderntimes by John Harvey Kellogg who used that and eating cornflakes as a way to discourage masterbation( I swear I am not making this up)http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toc...ision=div1

Quote:I know someone who had to have emergency surgery to remove his foreskin in his early 30s. Over time, the foreskin can become so tight that pulling it back can be painful if not impossible (particularly when erect). This person developed an infection that necessitated emergency surgery.
Blaming the parent for hygiene issues is simplistic and it passes the buck.

That was a medical issue not caused by lack of hygiene. The lack of hygiene was caused by the medical problem leaving him unable to wash. Things like this are very rare in the same way that problems caused by not having foreskin are rare.

Peace and Love and Empathy to you to friend Smile.
Jamie

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 12:46 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
Hey, Evil Momma (I just love saying that Cool )

Quote:But I'd say one big diff is participation in xmas, or easter etc is voluntary, & you can even be really in to it one year, but not the next. Circumcision is a permanent body mod, & since it's done to kids, they don't get any meaning from it. People who no longer find meaning in xmas don't celebrate it. Circumcision had a LOT of meaning at one time, & still does for many jews. But if it's just....habit...for most people, if it has no lesson, if it's not part of a rite of passage for the kid, they whey is it here? Isn't it a vestige?

Perhaps it is a vestige, but freedom means allowing people to do their thing without judgement. Like I said, if someone presents a solid case, get rid of it. I must admit however that I'm flippy floppy on the onus question. I don't wanna just say the onus is on the provers, it's just that everyone here seems to be against it. No one is actually gung-ho about it.

As far as the permanent thing, parents make irrevocable decisions for their children all the time. I just think that this one is (if you can wrap your head around this one) more glamorous than the other ones, if you know what I mean. It's politically charged and it has to do with the penis, superstar of the world.

Hey, FM.

Quote:For children yes except in some circumstances such as a purely medical reason.

I totally dig that you want it outta here. But if I was the Supreme Court and you were council for the plaintiff, what would you say to me outside of, "I don't like it?" I don’t mean, “justify yourself to me, mwahahahahaha,” I just mean the argument against is a little limp at the moment. It seems more emotionally charged than scientifically supported. I understand emotionally charged, but if we’re talking changing legislation, the emotional arguments need to be nixed.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 12:51 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
(16-08-2011 12:13 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  That was a medical issue not caused by lack of hygiene. The lack of hygiene was caused by the medical problem leaving him unable to wash. Things like this are very rare in the same way that problems caused by not having foreskin are rare.

And there's the point. It's a medical issue, not lack of hygene that would have been avoided had the guy in question been circumcised. This is almost identical to what happened to me. It is excrutiating.
When you say that these cases are extremely rare, I have to ask....how do you know? Have you actrually done a study, read a paper, asked a urologist? Remember that just because you hear something rarely doesn't make it rare. I for one, don't often discuss my experience. Mostly, it's a pretty weird way to start a conversation...."hey, pass me the nachos. Oh, by the way, guess what happened to my dick!"


So again, the true question here is: "Based on accurate, non-biased research, should children be circumcised considering the risks and benefits involved?"

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 01:03 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
[quote='Stark Raving' pid='41772' dateline='1313520660']
."hey, pass me the nachos. Oh, by the way, guess what happened to my dick!"

Hehe. That conversation could go so many ways.

Every time you say you don't believe, Jesus rips the wings off a fairy. - SkepticalParenting.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: