The Circumcision Argument.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2011, 01:51 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
(16-08-2011 12:51 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  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?"

There may be medical benefits in a few cases but I don't believe that most people who have their child circumcised do it for medical reasons, I believe they use that as an excuse. Have any of these people ever enquired about having their babies appendix removed? Doubt it! That could also prevent health concerns in later life but no-one removes a babies appendix at birth. What is the difference? Appendix removal is in no way linked to social or religious traditions, circumcision is.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 02:07 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2011 02:27 PM by FSM_scot.)
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
Quote: 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
And removing someone's testicles at an early age would mean testicular cancer would be avoided in later life. I admit that's an extreme example but it's using the exact same logic as what you said. Removing something to prevent something that may or may not happen when there is no reason to suspect that it would happen isn't a good reason to remove a body part. Would you allow your doctor to remove your leg because at some point in the future you may get gangrene in it? When there is no reason to suspect that it would actually happen.

Statistics for problems caused by circumcision or by having foreskin seem to be hard to come by as there doesn't seem to be alot of research on the subject that doesn't involve HIV rates.
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcisio...risks.aspx this lists some of the problems that can be caused by circumcision it also says that its Rare(in england possibly the rest of the uk to) though it shows no statistics
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcisio...ssary.aspx this lists reasons why it may be necessary yet again no statistics but NHS is a legit medical organisation so I have no reason to question it.
I'm not against circumcision just doing it to a child atleast let them choose for themselves when they are old enough to make an informed decision about their own body rather than do something that's irreversible purely based on a what if senario.
I take back what I said about It not being a hygiene problem. What was described sounds like balanitis the most common caue of it is poor hygiene. So it's entirely possible hygiene was the cause. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/balanitis/p...auses.aspx

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, 02:37 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
(16-08-2011 10:53 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Gotta add a footnote here...

Cufflink has attempted to make some good arguments. If I seem like I'm trying to shoot them down, that's not my intent. Keep your ideas and opinions coming. That's what discussion is all about.

Not to worry, SR. You're never anything but fair and respectful, even when you disagree with people. I appreciated the feedback.

And you're right--citing that one web site, which admittedly has an "agenda," wasn't a convincing demonstration of my position. All I was trying to do was show that the notion of a child dying from a circumcision procedure was not as off-the-wall as the OP was implying. (Plus I thought he was questioning the integrity of another forum member, which was uncalled for.) The evidence the site cited (sorry), including the links to an organization of MDs, is, I think, at least worth considering, even if it's hardly conclusive.

I'm sure we'll all keep the ideas and opinions coming . . . Smile

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 03:06 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2011 03:20 PM by BGrambo.)
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
Post Updated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 03:19 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
FSM > That's not just an extreme comparison, it's an invalid one. We KNOW that removing the appendix of a newborn has risks that far outweigh the possible benefits. Same with removing testicles, legs, arms and brains.

I am starting to feel like noone is actually reading what I am saying. I am talking about BALANCE! The risk of circumcision is inarguably less than removing a leg. The benefits are inarguably greater. That is not to say it's worth it, but it MAY BE. So far I haven't seen anyone (I don't nesessarily mean on this forum, I mean anywhere) weigh the risks and benefits, then come to an unbiased conclusion.

As for the religous aspect, I agree with BGrambo 100%. It should NOT be done for religous reasons. I am saying that we should STOP doing it for those reasons, and look at it from a purely medical standpoint.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 03:29 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2011 03:37 PM by BGrambo.)
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
I misinterpreted the comment, and at the time confused it for a limb. Sorry for my misinterpretation.

Back on the the main argument, I reread everyones post and missed a few arguments. One posted stated "babies feel pain just like everyone else". While this is true there is another counter argument to this however. Babies, and infants don't trully "remember" what goes on so early in their development period. The brain is too busy building motor functions, and learning adaptive procedures such as communication and recognition of hostile vs. non-hostile persons. Babies almost never (never such a thing as never) remember medical prodcedures done to them at birth.

So would I get a circumcision for my 3-17 year old? Only if they had a bunch of anesthetic and pain meds.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 03:49 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
(16-08-2011 03:19 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  As for the religous aspect, I agree with BGrambo 100%. It should NOT be done for religous reasons. I am saying that we should STOP doing it for those reasons, and look at it from a purely medical standpoint.


Yeah, that's sort of my point. Earlier I said it is drift from religion & someone said, well, a lot of stuff is, like xmas, etc. True, true...but this is a medical procedure. You can opt out of xmas, be a scrooge, but I don't think people think much about opting out of circumcision. I have a boy, & I was one of those proactive, hippy moms who researched & asked questions & had my boy at home, thank you very much. I don't know how many guys there are in this conversation but I can tell you taht the process of getting pregnant exposes a woman to an extreme level of patriarcal medical care. At no other time in your health care life will you hear such strong edicts from your dr. And the thing is, they aren't always right. But my point is, by the time you have a newborn, most women have gone thru at least 7 months of solid conditioning to listen to their dr devotedly, & to follow the hospital scenario, & to expect that everything will, can, & should be medicalized. I don't picture people asking many questions at that time.

I get the impression most people now think it's done for medical reasons which if pressed they cannot define. then the dr, who wants the fee & is partial to the idea of doing stuff (he's a dr with tools, what do you expect?) says something like, "you want him circumcised, right?" & the parents, with their vague feelings there is medical approval for this, say, "yes." No one ever really discusses it. Bear in mind the C-section rate in this country is about twice that of, say, Sweden. Drs will do procedures for no reason other than fad. Sad to say, but true.

The way you phrased it helps me focus a bit here. If it's not being done for religious reasons, & for most boys it's not, & there are no clear medical reasons, then isn't it time to question this habit? I don't buy the hygiene argument; I have a boy & rinsing his own little bits & pieces there takes a physical effort on par with twirling a forkful of spaghetti. Also, we have evolved to function pretty well until we're about 30, which is plenty long enough to reproduce if you start when you're fifteen. When it comes to having a kid, I would rate the penis as one of the more vital body parts. Also, pre ABs, surely creating a wound in a newborn would be highly risky. No other body part requires sx at birth for the entity to function.

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, 04:03 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2011 04:18 PM by FSM_scot.)
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
BGramo How is flesh not considered a body part? Your skin is the largest organ in (technically covering) your body. Infact it is an extremely important part of your body it is your body's first line of defence against infection.
The nipple example was a question about would supporters be in favor of removing a useless body part in the same way that they are in favor of removing foreskin which is often seen as useless.

Removing the appendix Of a child is different entirely as appendicitis can be life threatening the same goes with tonsils. If you left it Chances are they would be dead long before they are old enough to make that decision for themselves. Why not allow people to make their own decisions about if they want to be circumcised when they are old enough to do so instead of forcing it on then as children?
The removing a limb example I gave was an example of removing something because of the chances of something potentially happening down the line. It fits in line with the removing foreskin because of problems that may or may not potentialy happen down the line point. Its just an example of performing a medical procedure based on a what if senario.

Burning infants is a daft thing to say and I never said anything about killing infants. I said that removing a body part because of a chance of something bad happening when there is no evidence to say that it will happen to that individual is a ridiculous reason to cut off a body part. So why cut off foreskin when there is no reason to think that individual will have a problem with it seems cruel if it's not life saving especially when the individual can't decide for themselves. If it's going to happen let them decide themselfs don't force it on them.
Stark sorry if I'm missing any of your points I'm posting from my iPod so can't see every post as there is alot of them on each page.
One thing I will say atleast we are all in agreement that doing it for religious reasons is wrong.
Another thing I'll add is. I can see benefits from it the more I read up on it and doing it to a child has less complications, aswell as healing faster. But I still don't think it's right to do it to someone so young and to do it because of the chances they are less likely to have an unforeseen problem down the line.
Edit: This post should be before BGramo's post #36

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, 04:33 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
I'm a little surprised I haven't seen anyone mention the cosmetic reasoning being behind still getting a circumcision. I know its a different concept across cultures but where I am at in the US it is overwhelmingly the social norm and it's seen as bizarre to be uncircumcised.

I was one talking to a girl after watching the Penn and Teller: Bullshit episode about this topic and she said she would definitely want to have her child circumcised because otherwise it looks weird. A lot of people in some aspects can be vain and used to what they're accustomed too and oddly enough circumcision of their baby can be one of those topics.

From talking with my parents or other people I know, it wasn't any big deal about medical reasoning or religious right, it was do it to do it because that's what you do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 04:47 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
(16-08-2011 04:33 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I'm a little surprised I haven't seen anyone mention the cosmetic reasoning being behind still getting a circumcision. I know its a different concept across cultures but where I am at in the US it is overwhelmingly the social norm and it's seen as bizarre to be uncircumcised.

I was one talking to a girl after watching the Penn and Teller: Bullshit episode about this topic and she said she would definitely want to have her child circumcised because otherwise it looks weird. A lot of people in some aspects can be vain and used to what they're accustomed too and oddly enough circumcision of their baby can be one of those topics.

From talking with my parents or other people I know, it wasn't any big deal about medical reasoning or religious right, it was do it to do it because that's what you do.
Im sure i mentioned something about it being cosmetic. there's alot of replys ive managed to loose track of some posts.

Its strange that its common in certain western countries but not in others. I dont think anyone i know has been circumcised. Though its not exactly a hot topic. But i think thats the norm for most european countries.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: