|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 20, 2010 16:00:09 GMT -5
That the practice of infant circumcision is what's monstrous, not necessarily people? That is the problem, it is hard to swallow that people participate in monstrous acts are not monsters. ...and people wonder why other get offensive. Calling circumcision amputation is done for one reason, frame it in a bad light right off the bat. It does not add anything of value to the discussion. It only helps to amp up the rhetoric, just as calling it monstrous or mutilation. ......or posting a video with horrible images. Through this thread no one has argued that there are not risks, or that those risks may not have dire consequences. I could post picture and personal stories of men that had problems that could have been prevented with circumcision as well.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 20, 2010 15:48:07 GMT -5
Which part in particular? Expected lifetime, that America isn't ravaged by AIDS and thus the WHO recommendation doesn't apply, that negative side-effects of circumcision are rare, that right to bodily determination is a good thing? (Also, why the scare quotes? Do you doubt the status of utility calculations as actual calculations, doubt the reliability of the numbers, or what?) America is not ravaged by AIDS, but the reduced chance of contraction still applies. Right to body determination is a good thing, so are the rights of parents. Forgetting that rest of the potential benefits, are we? No, only the parents have to think is it good enough. They are the ultimate arbiters of weighing risk/benefits until a person is of age.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 20, 2010 15:39:41 GMT -5
Problem is, I took a quick look at your chosen circumcision website, and immediately found particular claims spurious, considering there are studies that contradict directly with various claims on the benefits of circumcision. Just on the first page and with this gem: It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, erectile function, or sensation during sexual arousal and is reported to enhance the sexual experience for men. For that, I have to point out two studies that show that it just isn't so simple: This one covers a study done on adult circumcisions to measure differences between penile function before and after the procedure, in order to quantify differentiating effects between getting circumcised and not. Reasons for getting circumcised as adults mostly revolved around treating particular conditions, with only a very small minority of operations being elective (7%). Whilst this study was done revolving around treating particular conditions, you can expect a relatively high degree of satisfaction post-operation, (50%), however there is a considerable rate of dissatisfaction post-operation with the circumcision (38%). In general, there is more of an effect on decreasing sensitivity and potential erectile issues, which outweigh improved satisfaction. Outweigh in your opinion. The study it self states that more studies are needed. Not to mention that 62% of the men were satisfied with having been circumcised. Yes it does. I never said I agree with every claim on that site. It is however a good list of studies that have shown positive results regarding circumcision. You know, to show people that who state there are no benefits they could be wrong. You can see it as very excessive. If you have a son you can make that call. As I brought up to Nappy while behaviors can reduce or even eliminate some risks we know people often do not do smart thinks. If they did STD would not be the problem that they are, nor would teen pregnancy. Education always plays a role, and no one is arguing that condoms should not be used. As I said, behaviors can't be relied on. I would say body sovereignty argument holds more weight then not giving a choice to vaccinate. Both circumcision should be the parents choice. That choice is not about a single issues, such as HIV. It is about the whole of potential benefits and potential risks. That includes the increased risks, and reduction of benefits, if preformed later. Google Scholar is good, so is pubmed. ...oh and I don't trust the site, I use it to find the articles. Just as I do on anti-circumcision sites.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 20, 2010 0:12:40 GMT -5
I'm pointing out the absurdity of using HIV protection as a valid reason for circumcision. Since the odds of a man contracting HIV from vaginal intercourse are absurdly low to begin with (less than a tenth of a percent), I really don't think amputation is a good solution. I haven't seen anything to indicate the person is less likely to transmit HIV to the person he is putting his penis in, either. In other words: You're taking and reducing a 0.04% chance of transmission to a 0.016% chance, assuming the ideal benefit of a 60% decrease in risk. I honestly don't see that being worth it. As a sole reason, maybe not. Although the World Health Organization and the United Nations disagree with you. Remember there are also other benefits. You are right, circumcision, which is not amputation, does not protect a man's partners. Well unless it helps prevent him from getting in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 23:27:19 GMT -5
It just doesn't seem that, considering you aren't living in a country ravaged by AIDS, the health benefits would be so significant without exceptional circumstances of the particular birth. Meaning that, it seems to me, circumcision shouldn't be a standard practice, but reserved for medically necessary situations. Which studies are you basing your "calculations" on? The prior probability of contracting HIV is small, though. Yes, but even smaller is better.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 23:09:14 GMT -5
Of course, that 60% figure utterly IGNORES the needle-shared transmission of HIV. Yes. What is your point?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 23:08:06 GMT -5
Wow. A full 60%! That's totally worth an amputation! We should reduce the risk of ring finger cancer by amputating infants' ring fingers in childhood, too, right? For one cancer is not HIV. Second if you honestly think removal of a finger is the same as circumcision you have not part in an intelligent discussion.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 22:36:16 GMT -5
You sure make it sound like it. We're not talking about a legitimate medical decision here, you said yourself it's "for parents' rights" and not "for the child's well-being". Babies aren't toys. It is about the parents right to make medical decision regarding their child well-being. I certainly know babies are not toys. I certainly mulled over the decision to circumcise my boys with my wife and doctor's.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 22:33:09 GMT -5
there is a difference between medical decisions based on protecting health and those based upon aesthetics or religious beliefs Yes there is. Circumcision is not just about aesthetics or religious beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 22:31:52 GMT -5
It should still be up to the person who owns the penis. Even with the increased risks, much longer recovery, and reduction of benefits? At what point does health out weight having that choice? Babies can't make decisions. Parents can. That does not mean parents can do whatever they like, but it does mean they can make choices that may affect a child's future health. Really into is one thing. Single bad decisions is another. Recent studies indicate the chance of an circumcised man contracting HIV maybe 60% less.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 22:24:48 GMT -5
A power trip is a poor reason to allow something. ....because making medical decisions for your child is a power trip.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 22:14:55 GMT -5
Congrats caseagainstfaith, good job!
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 22:10:10 GMT -5
Doctors aren't omniscient. No they are not. They do have more training and experience them most people.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 22:08:11 GMT -5
It. Is. Called. A. Condom. Putting a bit of rubber over your cock does a LITTLE more to stop the spread of HIV than amputation. Oh, and circumcision has nothing CLOSE to the effectiveness it preventing the spread of HIV that immunization has for eliminating other diseases does. Try again. Yes because we know people will always practice safe sex. That is why teenage pregnancy has been eliminated........oh that's right. I never said it is as effective as immunizations, but it does help.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 22:05:06 GMT -5
There's simply no reason for it. All the pro-circumcision side is doing is trying to rationalise clinging to a somewhat disturbing tradition simply because its familiar and thus comfortable. I know that sounds a little armchair psychologist-like but I've seen no evidence to the contrary. I would say pro-parent choice, but what ever. ....I would also say do some more research before saying that it is only a tradition.
|
|