The Circumcision Argument.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2011, 05:01 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
It's an American thing... Dodgy

Most guys I've...*ahem* known were circumcised.

Although I think a large portion of America's Hispanic population does not get circumcisions.

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 05:11 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
Hey, Stark.

Quote:"hey, pass me the nachos. Oh, by the way, guess what happened to my dick!"

ROFL!

Yer the best since ever.

Quote: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.

Too bad you can't have your nachos and eat them too. Freedom of religion. It's a right. If there's nothing saying it shouldn't be done at all, then there's zero legal reason to stop the religious from practicing it.

Quote: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.

I feel ya, brother.

Hey, cufflink.

Yeah, Stark was right. I caught the 1979 thing almost immediately along with their refusal to provide statistics until about the final 25% of the page (after they’d declared the sky was falling fifty times already) and even they were wonky. But you were absolutely right to debunk the idea that infants never die from circumcision. I personally have never ever heard of that (or even conceived of it as a possibility). It's interesting to know that it's happening. I would be curious to know the ratio is of total babies circumcised to fatalities. If it's like 50%, then stop the goddamn presses. If it's like shark attack frequency, I don't think we need to be so alarmed. I mean sure it sucks for the parent, but there's risk in every surgery. People die from liposuction.

Hey, Grambo.

Quote: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.

I agree. I don't remember shit from childhood. But is that a medical position, ie, we don't have to worry about kids because they don't remember, or did you just pull that one out of the air?

Hey, Evil Momma (tee hee hee)

Quote: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.

True dat. I can't remember where, but I was recently involved in a conversation about C-sections. They're done like mad because the births are less complicated, ie, there's less chance of being sued for fucking them up. It's to the point that doctors just aren't being trained how to turn a breach baby. Kind of an important skill to maintain as far as I'm concerned. But yeah, all ya gotta do is watch "Sicko" to see how warped medicine for profit is. I can totally buy that doctors are doing circumcisions for cash.

That being said, it doesn't mean it’s a bad procedure, but it does warrant examining whether we should be more selective in its application.

But yeah, I always thought it was standard procedure to do circumcisions. Before I encountered this argument, I wouldn't have blinked about allowing a doctor to do it to my child. Not saying I'd disallow it now, but that I'm aware of the controversy.

--

Generally speaking, there's a bit of a two-pronged attack against circumcision that I think defeats itself. On the one hand, people say it's dangerous. On the other hand, they say we should let people decide when they hit 18. Well which is it? Dangerous or an elective? I don't see how it can be both.

Also, comparing cutting off foreskin to cutting out eyes or cutting off arms, or cutting people in half, or sawing off their heads, is wonky because nobody ever decides to cut off those things. Ever. Not at birth, not at 18, not at 92. Soooooo buttons.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 05:23 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
I think a lot of people argue it's dangerous for a new baby (less developed immune system) so they have a much higher chance for infection. At least that's what I hear out of the arguments.

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 11:09 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
I thought of a parallel to circumcision that never occurred to me before.

A long time ago we owned miniature schnauzers, the greatest dogs in the world. With this breed, the usual practice in the U.S. is, or at least was, to crop the ears. The purpose is cosmetic, turning this into this.

At the time, cropping schnauzers’ ears was expected. You almost never saw a schnauzer with natural ears in the U.S. And since the American Kennel Club included cropped ears in the breed standard (that’s changed—it’s now optional) and required cropping for the dog to be “shown,” the breeder refused to sell us our puppies unless we agreed to have it done.

Driving home from the sleazy cropping mill with our last puppy, ears bandaged and obviously in pain, I don’t think I ever felt shittier. I vowed I would never do that again.

I find it interesting that proponents try to justify the procedure by saying it has a medical advantage, supposedly preventing ear infections. That claim has been debunked by the American Veterinary Medical Association, who have come out against cropping. But the AKC continues to champion the rights of owners to determine what should be done to their dogs.

Things are different outside the U.S. Cropping is illegal in the UK, Scandinavia, Austria, Germany, Singapore, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, . . . and Israel. I can’t help but smile at the irony of that last one.

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
19-08-2011, 12:54 AM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
I'm on a mobile so I can't multi quote, but chose this rather aggressive quote below to respond to. As soon as I can set aside time on a computer, I'd love to throw some links/articles up too, though google is a handy source as well Smile

But first, the personal accounts I mentioned were from two individuals. One was from shock. The infant passed not long after the procedure and the doctors had written SIDS or possible shock. The other was a premature infant. The infant had to get up to a certain weight and heart rate and as soon as he met the criteria the procedure was done. Within 10 minutes he had passed. His heart rate had shot up. I'm not sure what was written as a cause of death for him but I believe they related it to being premature. So he died from being premature 10 minutes after a surgery when he was healthy minutes before. Funny how wording on death certificates can contribute to statistics.
I have heard (yup, hearsay) the same stories so many times- how come this isn't showing in the statistics in (paid) doctors reports?
You are right- the babies didn't die 'from circumcision', they passed from shock, blood loss, SIDS. Call it what you want but the practice is dangerous IMO.

However I guess I should say it isn't circumcision I'm against, but it's the right of the male infant being taken away from the decision making process. And sure, legally a baby isn't a person yet, but in morality and reality (I believe), they are. I know several adult males who were once these said babies, and a few of them wished they were still 'intack'. I am aware of the results showing that circumcision lowers STI's or cancer, but probably at the same rate removing a females ovaries will prevent or lower teen pregnancy. Maybe a male (or female- there are cervical cancers as well) should be offered this choice later on in life, or taught absence before marriage, or how to use a condem over their foreskin, or other methods of reducing these risks. Just sayin'. Smile

(16-08-2011 03:18 AM)BGrambo Wrote:  
(15-08-2011 11:23 PM)LadyJane Wrote:  There are so many good points made that I won't regurgitate, but if I may say, I am always leery of when statistics or 'proof' is shown to back something up medically that is a huge profit for someone. Even in Canada, circumcision is not covered, so someone's making money. Maybe if I cut off my breasts I won't get breast cancer, or maybe if I cut off one toe it won't get a wart.

I think I've said it here before, but I can't help but make this personal, but I know babies who have died directly from this procedure. Not even worth it to risk one life in my opinion, it's already too late. I hate when people say "oh, he just sleeps after, he didn't feel it, he recovered quickly." Sleep is a coping mechanism for pain, and usually a last resort Sad. Yup, child abuse! How traumatizing.

I can with 99.9% certainty deny your claim that you know children who have died directly from this procedure. Like I also stated before, don't you dare (this goes for anyone) claim this is child abuse. Misuse of the terminology.

You are free to deny this claim all you want, i was there to console the child's mother after and that truth will always be with me. I would love to back up my claim with the evidence but I'm not in the right spot to, so this remains my word only I suppose.

And I will dare to call it child abuse no matter how many legal rights you stick in front of it that let you believe it is moral and safe. It used to be legal to rape women and own slaves- that doesn't make that 'not abuse' either. I am not saying any one person is the abuser, I am saying the child is being wrongfully violated. Big difference. I am VERY clear on the terminology, I have a diploma in child and youth counseling. Your defensiveness in peoples opinions of what they think about this act has me really curious since the debate here is about what circumcision really is....

Did you know your definition of mutilation described circumcision? What do you think it is, a hair cut? It doesn't grow back- changed, gone forever. Cut and disfigured, as in not its previous figure.

I will also call it sexist. You could look up that definition too, you'd see males are singled out for this procedure that potentially could give them a lot of pleasure in the future (there are a lot of nerve endings there) while females get to keep their's, having had female circumcision made illegal already.

I've yet to see something that makes me think "Oh yeah, cut that off! The child will be much better off than ever before!" The whole thing seems crazy to me. I do believe in needing to look out for our kids and I understand trying to make the best decision and I would hate for somebody to take that right from me, but then there is the right of the baby as an individual too. Government (legalities) and statistics can be marketed as well.

Again, sorry for not posting evidence to back up my 'claims'. I was going to wait to respond when I had time to access some bookmarked links and websites I have, but now don't want to wait too long before a response Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like LadyJane's post
19-08-2011, 06:37 AM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
(19-08-2011 12:54 AM)LadyJane Wrote:  I'm on a mobile so I can't multi quote, but chose this rather aggressive quote below to respond to. As soon as I can set aside time on a computer, I'd love to throw some links/articles up too, though google is a handy source as well Smile

But first, the personal accounts I mentioned were from two individuals. One was from shock. The infant passed not long after the procedure and the doctors had written SIDS or possible shock. The other was a premature infant. The infant had to get up to a certain weight and heart rate and as soon as he met the criteria the procedure was done. Within 10 minutes he had passed. His heart rate had shot up. I'm not sure what was written as a cause of death for him but I believe they related it to being premature. So he died from being premature 10 minutes after a surgery when he was healthy minutes before. Funny how wording on death certificates can contribute to statistics.
I have heard (yup, hearsay) the same stories so many times- how come this isn't showing in the statistics in (paid) doctors reports?
You are right- the babies didn't die 'from circumcision', they passed from shock, blood loss, SIDS. Call it what you want but the practice is dangerous IMO.

However I guess I should say it isn't circumcision I'm against, but it's the right of the male infant being taken away from the decision making process. And sure, legally a baby isn't a person yet, but in morality and reality (I believe), they are. I know several adult males who were once these said babies, and a few of them wished they were still 'intack'. I am aware of the results showing that circumcision lowers STI's or cancer, but probably at the same rate removing a females ovaries will prevent or lower teen pregnancy. Maybe a male (or female- there are cervical cancers as well) should be offered this choice later on in life, or taught absence before marriage, or how to use a condem over their foreskin, or other methods of reducing these risks. Just sayin'. Smile

(16-08-2011 03:18 AM)BGrambo Wrote:  
(15-08-2011 11:23 PM)LadyJane Wrote:  There are so many good points made that I won't regurgitate, but if I may say, I am always leery of when statistics or 'proof' is shown to back something up medically that is a huge profit for someone. Even in Canada, circumcision is not covered, so someone's making money. Maybe if I cut off my breasts I won't get breast cancer, or maybe if I cut off one toe it won't get a wart.

I think I've said it here before, but I can't help but make this personal, but I know babies who have died directly from this procedure. Not even worth it to risk one life in my opinion, it's already too late. I hate when people say "oh, he just sleeps after, he didn't feel it, he recovered quickly." Sleep is a coping mechanism for pain, and usually a last resort Sad. Yup, child abuse! How traumatizing.

I can with 99.9% certainty deny your claim that you know children who have died directly from this procedure. Like I also stated before, don't you dare (this goes for anyone) claim this is child abuse. Misuse of the terminology.

You are free to deny this claim all you want, i was there to console the child's mother after and that truth will always be with me. I would love to back up my claim with the evidence but I'm not in the right spot to, so this remains my word only I suppose.

And I will dare to call it child abuse no matter how many legal rights you stick in front of it that let you believe it is moral and safe. It used to be legal to rape women and own slaves- that doesn't make that 'not abuse' either. I am not saying any one person is the abuser, I am saying the child is being wrongfully violated. Big difference. I am VERY clear on the terminology, I have a diploma in child and youth counseling. Your defensiveness in peoples opinions of what they think about this act has me really curious since the debate here is about what circumcision really is....

Did you know your definition of mutilation described circumcision? What do you think it is, a hair cut? It doesn't grow back- changed, gone forever. Cut and disfigured, as in not its previous figure.

I will also call it sexist. You could look up that definition too, you'd see males are singled out for this procedure that potentially could give them a lot of pleasure in the future (there are a lot of nerve endings there) while females get to keep their's, having had female circumcision made illegal already.

I've yet to see something that makes me think "Oh yeah, cut that off! The child will be much better off than ever before!" The whole thing seems crazy to me. I do believe in needing to look out for our kids and I understand trying to make the best decision and I would hate for somebody to take that right from me, but then there is the right of the baby as an individual too. Government (legalities) and statistics can be marketed as well.

Again, sorry for not posting evidence to back up my 'claims'. I was going to wait to respond when I had time to access some bookmarked links and websites I have, but now don't want to wait too long before a response Smile

When I say you shouldn't use abuse or mutilation is because I wholeheartedly believe and know you are using it out of context, based not only on it's definition but also on the basis of state and federal laws. To call every single circumcision abuse and mutilation is also far fetched. I can agree that there are some mutilations, and there are some occurences where it can be mandated as abuse. But for the most part it was done with the mindset of giving a child a better life.

Also, for the poster who talked about people are making money off of it you must remember. No matter what procedure a doctor does, unless he is working for free someone is always making money. Circumcision is covered in some insurance plans while it is not covered in others. Things like chemo aren't fully covered by insurance, and alot of people go into debt. Things like heart transpants, kidney transplants, corrective surgery, almost everything has someone paying something unless they have top of the line insurance, or work for the military. (military pays for almost everything).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2011, 08:31 AM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2011 08:51 AM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
First off does everyone forget David Reimer? There are clear cut examples of mistakes in circumcision so both sides obviously have risks. I myself had genital surgery along with circumcision and one of them left a scar along my phallus (not sure which). This scar hurts whenever my phallus engorges, so I had a very painful childhood and have trouble with sex. Anyone arguing not to use the word mutilation is not thinking about where the idea of mutilation in circumcision comes from. African circumcisions are extremely low tech and highly dangerous. Circumcisions first became seen as mutilation due to the processes done to girls in many tribes (boys get no better). Obviously since a part of the body is removed (foreskin) it can be classified as mutilation.

A death could occur in the US due to the circumciser failing to stop the bleeding in time (in the event of a mistake), but this would be more common with a mohel (Jewish person who performs circumcisions). Mistakes are made, but generally in a hospital can be patched up. Though when mistakes happen that baby just lost its reproductive capabilities.

My current partner is the first uncircumcised person I've seen, according to him it's not all that common to be circumcised in Canada (Quebec) though it may be due to his Cambodian ancestry and Buddhist roots. He has no problems and plenty of others do not generally seem bothered. Though it took a while to learn the differences on what to do with it =p. Men I've been with previously required quite rough treatment during hand jobs and circumcised men prefer having their head teased during fellatio.

Circumcision in the US is still basically a right of passage even though it's done at birth. Medical procedures to normalize children are still technically rights of passage since not having them creates road blocks.
On the topic of memory. The Reimer case made another very interesting argument. According to John Money infants up to 6 months do not have a mental opinion of gender. He argued that gender was a learned process and as long as the change was made early enough the child would have no idea that anything changed. While the case seemed to work, many physicians followed the ideas of John Money. As an intersexed individual born during this time the case effected me as well. When we think about what is and is not remembered we often forget a later understood part of psychology.

I was molested at 5 years old (1987) the common belief among psychologists at this time was that I would forget the event and dealing with it would cause more harm than good. I in fact did suppress the event as expected, but at 8 years old it popped back up and I had to deal with it. I also didn't know anything about suppression and managed to really screw myself up for a few years after the reawakening at 8. Nowadays a young child is given psychological evaluations and informed of certain things to help prevent psychological issues related to the trauma.

Medical concepts of the brain and memory change all of the time, and it's a bit silly to suggest things that happen to a baby are not imprinted. Often many unanswerable fears can be traced back to events happening before the understood age of recognition. The age also constantly lowers.

And again on mutilation. The people of Africa do not feel that their versions of circumcision are mutilations, but most of the world does. Just because you do not see it as such does not mean someone else is incapable of seeing it as such. You shouldn't invalidate others opinions due to your own biases if arguing on biases.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2011, 01:26 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
I'm getting into this discussion, so I hope you will forgive me for not reading every post. If I don't bring anything new to the table, just ignore me.
First of, the
(15-08-2011 04:34 PM)BGrambo Wrote:  great medical benefits. Which include less risk of infection, less risk of spreading an STD and better hygiene
argument may have some truth to it, but like Lillith points out, all surgery have some risk to it. risk+genitalia=bad in my book. It is also the exact same argument used by the (mostly, but not always religious) people who advocate hacking off the labia of young girls.
So which is it BGrambo? labia, or no labia? remember, its a lot harder to clean a part of your body which you can not see.

In fact, I think you should take a look at this. This is tan official statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics:
Quote:"Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene."

I will of course give you my personal opinion as well. I could not agree more with cufflink. If circumcision was found to be a vaccine for all STDs and made your cock smell like candy, it would still be a permanent violation of an individuals right to be the master of his own body. Male or female circumcision, morally there is NO difference.

Since this is a forum where most of the regulars have a decent understanding of evolution, lets just dispose of this discussion once and for all.
Having a foreskin IS advantageous. If it was not, we wouldn't have it. Simple as that. Natural selection does not tolerate squandering resources. Building a body part you do not need is squandering. Building one you would be better of without is just preposterous .

In Norway we really thought for a while that legislation was on its way to put male and female genital mutilation on equal grounds. Sadly, that was not the case. We are a nation where traditionally no one is circumcised unless it is for good medical reasons, and you will find few, if any, medical professionals who are willing to do the procedure. This has led to the members of our growing Muslim minority taking matters into their own hand and performing the procedure themselves. At home. There have of course been a lot of complications. The department of health is now conducting a hearing to pass a law making it mandatory for all qualified surgeons to perform this procedure. Yes, politicians are just as retarded on this side of the pond.
I'm proud to say that all the doctors concerned at my local hospital has signed a letter saying that they will not conform to this no matter the consequences because
Quote:"it diminishes our professional integrity, and is a direct violation of our oath".

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Norseman's post
19-08-2011, 05:38 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
Hey, Norseman.

Quote:Since this is a forum where most of the regulars have a decent understanding of evolution, lets just dispose of this discussion once and for all.
Having a foreskin IS advantageous. If it was not, we wouldn't have it. Simple as that. Natural selection does not tolerate squandering resources. Building a body part you do not need is squandering. Building one you would be better of without is just preposterous .

Not true actually. Darwin was very clear on this subject. He didn't use these terms, but there are three categories, not two: adaptive, maladaptive and exaptive.

Traits that offer an advantage, those we call adaptive, are selected for (they flourish). Traits that offer a disadvantage, those we call maladaptive, are selected against (they eliminate themselves). But traits that offer neither an advantage nor a disadvantage, those traits we now call exaptive, can persist in the gene pool.

The appendix is a perfect example. The genes that code for it are exaptive. The appendix may have at one point been adaptive (offered an advantage via the function it carried out), but now we no longer require that function. But it's not a problem. That is to say, that function does not now provide a disadvantage. The presence of the appendix has a neutral effect. So it just hangs around.

Exaptive traits are an important part of the evolutionary process because they can suddenly become adaptive, or maladaptive, when conditions change. They can mean the difference between a species’ survival or destruction during a period of rapid environmental change.

I'm not saying that the foreskin is exaptive (an evolutionary biologist is better qualified to make that determination than I) but that your claim that because we have it, it therefore must be adaptive is simply untrue.

Sorry. Discussion restored from recycling bin.

---

I'm reasonably certain about my next point, but please, if anyone knows differently, please correct me. Until there is an official confirmation or debunking, please take the following for what it's worth.

On the subject of circumcision being a violation of human rights and more specifically, a child's right to be master of their own body. There isn't a single surgery that children can make a decision about. Parents make any and all decisions about every single surgery their children undergo. So the idea that parents have no right to decide whether their child will undergo surgery is actually reversed. The child has no right to decide whether or not they undergo any surgeries.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2011, 05:47 PM
RE: The Circumcision Argument.
From what my non-circumcised friends have told me, their glans penis is 10x more sensitive than my circumcised one. If I could last only 10% of what I can now in bed my wife would divorce me.

So I think it was a woman's idea.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: