|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 22:03:10 GMT -5
The risks of complications from vaccination are lower than the risk from being unvaccinated. The risks of complications from circumcision are higher than the risks from being uncircumcised. Not to mention all the things circumcision actually protects against are low risk to begin with. This isn't news to you, I pointed this out to you in the last circumcision thread, and cited a literature review which covered more than 20 studies. Yes you did point out studies to me. Since then I've done more research and find studies that show the risks of being uncircumcised are higher then circumcision. You can find a massive amount of them on this cite. www.circinfo.net/ Most of them you can go to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed and find the study or links to the studies.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 21:57:57 GMT -5
Whoah, whoah, WHOAH. Time-fucking-OUT, here. I've already said that I'm perfectly happy as a woman to have all the bits and pieces I possess below the belt on my fucking body. And you're saying that if some jackoff was to come along and do a "study" about some nebulous supposed benefit that could be gained by cutting some parts off a little girl, either when she was a baby or close to it, you'd be for it? Fuck that shit, seriously. Yes, because research scientist are jackoffs. All studies are nebulous, and one of them would be enough. Of course if you where brought up without those parts there is a good chance you would be just fine, because that is all you would have known. Yes I did watch it. I've seen a few of those videos. I even asked to be in the room with my middle son. They don't bother me. ...by the way, I didn't compare you to peta. I do think you did it for a shock factor. Why else would you do it? You did it to show how the baby reacts with the hope that it would make people change their mines. If that is all it takes it would have happened sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 21:38:30 GMT -5
The people who react poorly are in the extreme minority, are justified in not getting immunized for obvious reasons, and immunization sort of protects everybody, not just the person you stuck with a needle. Chopping part of a child's penis off? No. Recent studies say different. Spreading HIV does effect other people.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 21:36:23 GMT -5
Well, if it's a matter of impact based on age... I guess girls in families that have a higher than normal rate of breast cancer should have a double mastectomy performed while they're less than a month old, too, right? Of course removing the foreskin is just as invasive and a double mastectomy. I forgot that removal of the foreskin removes all penile function, just as removal of the breasts!
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 21:32:06 GMT -5
Yes, because a vaccination is not mutilation. It also leaves no permanent scars on the body, it simply attacks diseases. Vaccinations also don't have the possibility (unless extremely botched chemically) to drastically alter someones personal life or sexual life. Should the parents have the right to cut out a girls clitoris like they do in sub sahara africa? Actually it makes the body produce antibodies to fight disease. Some people do have extreme allergic reaction.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 21:09:53 GMT -5
The real issue is that people should be able to make this decision for him or her-self, considering that it is his or her own body and not anyone elses. Also considering that it is irreversible. This whole argument from effect "but bobby will be healthier, bla bla bla" takes a back seat to the actual morality of personal sovereignty. So we should wait to vaccinate as well? Those do carry risks. No. Until a person is old enough to make those decisions regarding their health it is the parents responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 21:04:47 GMT -5
Come on, get off that argument, because it's not flying here. Let me say it again in all caps, bolded: NO ONE HERE IS CALLING YOUR PARENTS MONSTERS. NO ONE. No, not directly. When people use words like mutilation, and right violation, it sure sounds that way! ......not to mention posting videos to shock.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 21:01:39 GMT -5
You can be sure because men who were circumcised later in life also confirm it. In this case, more nerve endings does mean more pleasure. While you're talking about clits, what do you think about type 1 female circumcision? All that is is removal of the clitoral foreskin, the prepuce. Everything else: the clit, vagina, labia, is left alone. It's analogous to the male foreskin. What if parents decided they wanted that choice? Men circumcised as adults don't heal the same as an infant. The two groups are not going to have the same experiences. Regarding female type 1, honestly I don't know. I have not looked at studies on it. If it could be shown to positive health effects when weighed against the risks then I would be OK with parents making that call. If you think that circumcision is merely cosmetic you have not done enough research. Again, I don't know female circumcision. As far as the tattoo, does it give any medical benefits? Again not just cosmetic... www.circinfo.net/ Lots of studies cited here. Plus the site even gives you instruction on how to get to those studies. It is not an obvious human right violation. Why, because their is choice. Infant can't make decisions so they fall to their parents. Prenatal circumcision carries the least risks with the most benefits. Parents get to make decisions regarding their child health. Perhaps you should be willing to re-evaluate your stance. If you can't argue both sides of argument you don't know enough about it.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 16:38:08 GMT -5
Even if cut men still enjoy sex, it's still a lot more pleasurable for intact people. Men who have restored can confirm it. Even then, they aren't feeling the true sensations of the foreskin, since they don't get all those nerve endings back. Really, how can you be sure that intact men feel more pleasure? Being intact from birth is not the same as being restored, as you said. Nerve ending don't equal more pleasure. Many women can't stand to have their clitoris directly stimulated because they are two sensitive. Not to mention having a circumcision done while an infant is far different then as an adult. How about parents that weighed the evidence and decided it was in there child's best interest? Yes they have been wrong. That mean they might have been wrong when not suggesting circumcisions. Your right not all medical professionals see it as good. That does not mean that group is correct.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 19, 2010 15:31:54 GMT -5
I want to know how attiudes will change here if health agencies start to change their positions. The World Health Organisation has; "Since neonatal circumcision is a less complicated and risky procedure than circumcision performed in young boys, adolescents or adults, such countries ( Countries with hyperendemic and generalized HIV epidemics and low prevalence of male circumcision) should consider how to promote neonatal circumcision in a safe, culturally acceptable and sustainable manner." www.afro.who.int/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=72American Academy of Pediatrics also may change it stance; "Officials from the pediatrics academy said its new policy would be issued by early 2011; a task force that studied the topic has completed its report, which is being reviewed by several other committees, said Dr. Michael Brady, chairman of pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who served on the task force. The academy is likely to adopt a more encouraging stance than its current neutral position and to state that the procedure has health benefits beyond H.I.V. prevention, Dr. Brady said. " www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html?_r=1&ref=health
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 18, 2010 21:47:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 18, 2010 21:38:07 GMT -5
No it is not easy at all. Actually it is impossible to see that since it is not true (in the mathematical sense of the word). The sum doesn't fluctuate at all but is completely undefined. You are trying to approach it from partcial sum view but that doesn't work and cannot work. Moreover you are zero centric, that is you are making the zero more special than any other element of the set of integers, and while there are cases in which this is the case (when you consider the algebraic properties of the set) they are irrelevant and unwarranted for your argument. Yes it is impossible to see an entire infinite set, I think I said that. It is not impossible to understand it as a concept, or understand a theoretic sum since I just did it. About zero, yes. For my analogy zero represents the line between existing and not existing. ......you do realize that analogies don't have to be perfect fits right? If not we can just go back to the ontological argument if you, or anyone else is interested in such an exercise.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 18, 2010 21:32:40 GMT -5
I have to disagree. Epistemology is part of philosophy. Logic is part of philosophy. They can be used to get real answers, just not without also using evidence. Philosophy can also be used as mental masturbation, but, again, the ontological argument attempts to obtain real knowledge, not just entertain. Philosophy as an exercise divorced from knowledge is not what this is supposed to be about. As you said, ontological argument attempts to obtain real knowledge. Yes when you combined philosophy with evidence you can obtain real knowledge. Ontological arguments don't do that. Yet you can't see or know the entire set. Yes you understand the concept of limitlessness. Your right I was mistaken. Yes, numbers are used to deal with reality, that was way I was using them as an analogy. Negative numbers may be a real as a idea, but again you can't hold -3 apples in your hand. That is way I was trying to use them as an analogy.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 18, 2010 20:52:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 18, 2010 16:27:24 GMT -5
Would you tell me to kiss your ass if I said that I think that you made the morally wrong choice, but that I understand that you're not some slavering sadistic monster who enjoyed the thought of causing pain to your sons, and that you acted out of what you genuinely believed was the right choice at the time? No I would not. That is good that you have not seen that. It does happen to people who even remotely try to justify their position. Oh, I would however have a problem with people blasting my children's pediatrician for recommending circumcision based on her knowledge and experience as a doctor. The defensiveness is not directed to you. Not all people who believe that circumcision is not right approach the issue as you have. Some do and have come at people with a lot of anger.
|
|