|
Deceitful Penguin posted:That said, Germany ruled that it was child abuse and I ain't ever heard any strong points to the contrary. If you wanna mutilate you're children, chop parts of them or scar them or whatever as is your custom, that's cool by me. Stick a spear into their small intestine, have them suck older dudes cocks or whatever your old dead men told you was right and good in your culture, I certainly wouldn't wanna speak against that lest I become a Cultural Imperialist. Germany never ruled that the circumcision of male infants was "child abuse". It was a normal § 223 case and the fact that there is now legislation that explicitly name circumcision as covered by parental rights is a strong argument against the nation of Germany considering it "child abuse".
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Your hypotheticals were ridiculous. Not cutting up people's genitals without a really good reason is a pretty easy choice and doesn't relate to any of your analogies. This is always a difficult argument to have because there are a lot of people that don't think you need a really good reason because it's not that big of a deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:There are plenty of them including in this thread, but they're just dismissed for no real reason. Because when you drill down past the talk of principles and press them on the actual harm done, it's always a baseless "I'm sure I'd be able to cum like a firehose if it weren't for my parents!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Rather than embarrass myself with opinions about foreskin, I just want to ask: Has there been any progress in replacing lost foreskin? How about frenulum/clitoral repair or replacement?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Rather than embarrass myself with opinions about foreskin, I just want to ask: Has there been any progress in replacing lost foreskin? How about frenulum/clitoral repair or replacement? All you need is some bologna and a pair of scissors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Because when you drill down past the talk of principles and press them on the actual harm done, it's always a baseless "I'm sure I'd be able to cum like a firehose if it weren't for my parents!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Did the OP of this thread actually post that he'd never heard anything about circumcision being religious in origin?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
I think it should probably boil down to this- is circumcision in the West so harmful that it's worth taking the choice away from parents and validating the Christian Right's persecution complex?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Do the people who bring up hygiene also keep their children's and their own head bald because it's easier to clean?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:It's more complicated than that. There's lots of misinformation and tradition behind the practice, which leads to people like the OP encouraging MGM. There are also a sizable amount of babies born to single mothers, or possibly just with the father not present, which would lead to an anti-MGM father not having his opinion expressed. I think overall you're right that the main issue is most people don't care, so they just go with what the father has. First, I'm not encouraging it. I'm encouraging the following: If you're against it, stop talking about it like it's chemtrails with scary words like 'mutilation'. When in a medical setting, which is the only discussion we're having and not about people being chased down by religious zealots in lovely theocracies and tied up so they can be snipped and accepted into said lovely theocracy, it is surgery. If altering any appearance and function of a human from the way nature intended it in a medical setting was called mutilation, no one would go in for any kind of life saving surgery. That is not to say circumcisions are life saving. But to call it mutilation, you're giving more weight to the word than it actually deserves. It's like calling getting a piercing, another societally accepted body modification, 'mutilation'. It's silly to talk about it in such obtusely morbid terms when it's seriously a 10 minute surgery in a hospital 1-3 days after birth and has the exact same risks as any post op surgery which is basically infection, which is pretty easy to deal with these days. The religious aspect of the practice itself, I'm not even going to talk about because I'm athiest, my parents are not vehemently religious (or even of jewish or islamic traditions) so I'd appreciate not putting words into my mouth. Because I disagree with the amount of vitriol a topic is discussed in and the libertarian 'black and white' style of shoehorning all nuance into two sides only, I am labeled 'pro MGM'? gently caress that. Petr posted:Did the OP of this thread actually post that he'd never heard anything about circumcision being religious in origin? No, he didn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
hseiken posted:First, I'm not encouraging it. I'm encouraging the following: It's taking off a chunk of skin and permanently altering the penis of a newborn, who was either given no anesthetic or had the anesthetic improperly applied, for cosmetic reasons. That's pretty much the definition of mutilation, you big baby.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
My dick got chopped and I don't give a poo poo, am I a bad person?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
I'll just throw this out here: http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/en/
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Augustin Iturbide posted:My dick got chopped and I don't give a poo poo, am I a bad person? No, but on the other hand if you trivialize other people being upset over their loss of bodily integrity that does make you a bad person. See: rape jokes, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:No, but on the other hand if you trivialize other people being upset over their loss of bodily integrity that does make you a bad person. Okay, cool. edit: Do you know there's also a rapper who uses MaudDib as a name? I've always been curious if you listen to Heiruspecs Augustin Iturbide fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Lets see what the WHO has to say in detail about this topic:Manual for early infant male circumcision under local anaesthesia posted:Since the mid-1980s, data from cross-sectional epidemiological studies have shown that circumcised men have a lower prevalence of HIV infection than uncircumcised men. And, over of course there's a caveat... quote:The decision to have a newborn male circumcised is very personal and should be made after careful consideration of the risks and benefits and cultural, religious, and personal preferences. (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500753_eng.pdf)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:
How can you say this when you also said the only medical surgery you'd let your kid have is a necessary one, then listed fixing a hair lip which is 95% cosmetic and would be done by you obviously so your child fits in...so obviously, as you say proponents of circumcision being not the end of the dick as we know it are fine with circumcisions for cosmetic reasons, you too are okay with this form of surgery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Petr posted:Did the OP of this thread actually post that he'd never heard anything about circumcision being religious in origin? He had never heard of the puritanical arguments for circumcision in the 19th century - specifically, that it prevented masturbation - and assumed that that was a lie. He was pretty much completely wrong and that link is still a proclick. It might be going too far to attribute the cause of modern circumcision directly to 'religion' though. The philosophy behind it may have been puritanical (any form of sexual activity outside marriage is baaad guys), but the explicit arguments were made in relation to the supposed health consequences of masturbation or even touching. I think those worries, if misplaced, were sincere. Although these initial medical arguments were abandoned along with hysteria, medical arguments are still being used as a justification even when they are pretty flimsy. hseiken posted:How can you say this when you also said the only medical surgery you'd let your kid have is a necessary one, then listed fixing a hair lip which is 95% cosmetic and would be done by you obviously so your child fits in...so obviously, as you say proponents of circumcision being not the end of the dick as we know it are fine with circumcisions for cosmetic reasons, you too are okay with this form of surgery. A harelip is an obvious disability. A foreskin is naturally present for all male (sexed) children. So...
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:medical arguments are still being used as a justification even when they are pretty flimsy. Do you have any proof to back up this claim? Because the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control disagree with you...and they've done the science. You can argue the medical benefits aren't worth it, but to deny that there are medical benefits is counterfactual.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
P1: Surgery ought not be performed on those who lack the capacity for informed consent unless necessary. P2: Male circumcision is unnecessary. ---- C: You ought not circumcise your little boy. This "debate" really shouldn't go further than this. If you disagree with P1 then you're a lunatic idiot, and if you disagree with P2 then you're just an idiot. "Kind-of maybe a beneficial thing but also totally debatably not" is not the same as necessary. You get your child a new liver if they need it because it's necessary for them to live. You get your child's unsightly benign facial tumour removed because it's socially and psychologically necessary for them not to be the butt of every joke and because the operation will be more complicated later and the odds of them actually wanting a huge lump on their face down the track is very slim. And, of course, vaccinations are necessary for all of us, collectively. Otherwise, don't pierce your child's loving skin! It's another human being and you should take them to have some degree of bodily autonomy, even if they can't wipe their own arse. Don't make them bleed unless you have to! Is male cicumcision as gruesome and diabolical and FGM? No. But that doesn't mean it's morally permissible. It's not some big crime against humanity, but it IS painful, it IS unnecessary, and you ARE a fuckwit if you do it to your little boy. There are also risks. The surgery fucks up, and peckers accidentally get cut off in full. While I'm sure lots of people with their turtlenecks in-tact have lost their weiners, none of them lost it because they had their turtlenecks in-tact. If anybody wants to make the argument that circumcision might be socially and psychologically necessary within religious communities, have at it, but you better be advocating for some proper anaesthesia and medical care in that poo poo in place of giving the poor kid a slug of kosher wine and letting the mohel go to town with his little sickle (or teeth, depending on your denomination) or I'm just going to laugh in horror at you trying to defend causing a helpless human senseless pain. I will also say pre-emptively that apostasy from religion in later life is inarguably a hell of a lot more proportionally prevalent than finding out you had a gross deformity fixed when you were 2 and thinking "gee I wish my parents hadn't done that." Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:P1: Surgery ought not be performed on those who lack the capacity for informed consent unless necessary. So why do you deny the medical science behind the WHO conclusions about male circumcision? Manual for early infant male circumcision under local anaesthesia posted:Since the mid-1980s, data from cross-sectional epidemiological studies have shown that circumcised men have a lower prevalence of HIV infection than uncircumcised men. And, over the past 5 years, three randomized controlled trials have convincingly demonstrated that male circumcision is effective in reducing female to male transmission of HIV.2, 3, 4 This opportunity for disease prevention has resulted in an increased demand for male circumcision in several countries of high HIV incidence. Guidance for adolescent and adult male circumcision services has been developed, but technical guidance is lacking on how early infant services can be safely expanded. Like I've said before, its fine to say that the medical benefits are not worth it according to your personal/cultural/social beliefs and values. However, denying that there are real world medical benefits is to deny reality because it doesn't fit your cultural perspective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
Why do you not offset that minor benefit against the obvious risks of infection and botched procedure, both of which are perfectly capable of being utterly catastrophic far earlier in a person's life than they could possibly reap any benefit from prevention of PIV-transmitted HIV? (More men have their circumcisions revised due to them being hosed up than actually get circumcised as adults, by the way.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:P1: Surgery ought not be performed on those who lack the capacity for informed consent unless necessary. The American Association of Pediatricians stated that a careful, comprehensive review of recent evidence showed that the health benefits of male circumcision outweighs the risks. Smudgie Buggler posted:...  If you say so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
This does seem to be the only issue where goons go "eh" when talking about stupid poo poo people to do their kids for religious/personal reasons. I WONDER WHY. EDIT: Are there any health benefits that can't be accomplished by basic first world hygiene/sex education? Also I assume children aren't at a high risk to contract HIV through penile sex so maybe wait until they're like 12, explain the thing to them and then ask if they want the procedure? DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:EDIT: Are there any health benefits that can't be accomplished by basic first world hygiene/sex education? Also I assume children aren't at a high risk to contract HIV through penile sex so maybe wait until they're like 12, explain the thing to them and then ask if they want the procedure? A million times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Why do you not offset that minor benefit against the obvious risks of infection and botched procedure, both of which are perfectly capable of being utterly catastrophic far earlier in a person's life than they could possibly reap any benefit from prevention of PIV-transmitted HIV? If you actually read the WHO report I linked instead of just ignoring medical science, you'd find that all your wild theories are actually answered: quote:There are significant benefits in performing male circumcision in early infancy, and programmes that promote early infant male circumcision are likely to have lower morbidity rates and lower costs than programmes targeting adolescent boys and men. quote:One important advantage of infant male circumcision is that the procedure is simpler than that performed on older boys and men because the penis is less developed and the foreskin is thinner and less vascular. Healing is quicker and complication rates are lower. The period of superficial wound healing after infant male circumcision is generally 5−7 days and most wounds heal completely within 14 days. Performing circumcision in infancy provides several other advantages: But I'm sure the WHO and the CDC are both wrong about this and some random internet poster has done a better job with the medical research.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
See that's my main problem with it. Try as I might, I've never heard why having it done to children who are capable of consent is such an insurmountable problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
What of this do you actually disagree with?Circumcision Policy Statement posted:Systematic evaluation of English-language peer-reviewed literature from 1995 through 2010 indicates that preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure. Benefits include significant reductions in the risk of urinary tract in-fection in the first year of life and, subsequently, in the risk of het-erosexual acquisition of HIV and the transmission of other sexually transmitted infections. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585.full.html) Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Lower HIV rates AND lower UTI rates in the first six months of life? Why that's totally worth permanently altering somebody's genitals!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
Again, why is a medical intervention that is permanent preferable to the far less harmful and easier 'wear a condom' or 'wash the Penis'? I once again refer to the practice in Ireland of removing all teeth and having false ones put in to make oral hygiene easier. Yeah, it may work but you'd kind of be crazy to do it without good reason if there's an easier, less painful and less harmful alternative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
I'm sure the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization all just forgot to see if "wash yo dick" works instead  . Its funny how pro-science D&D is until they get confronted with some science that disagrees with their ~feelings~.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you have any proof to back up this claim? You mean the HIV thing? Circumcision is associated with lower transmission rates across populations, but the process doesn't make you immune. You are far better advised as an individual to make use of condoms, which will also protect the uncircumcised. These arguments are applicable to populations where HIV is rife (i.e. Africa where the relevant trials took place), but significantly less so in the First World, which is the point I'm making. Normal western hygiene practices should be enough to reduce the risk of other forms of infection relating to the foreskin. Edit: Trabisnikof posted:I'm sure the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization all just forgot to see if "wash yo dick" works instead American Academy of Pediatrics posted:The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages, as well as risks. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure's benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it, however, existing scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision. Therefore, because the procedure is not essential to a child's current well-being, we recommend that the decision to circumcise is one best made by parents in consultation with their pediatrician, taking into account what is in the best interests of the child, including medical, religious, cultural, and ethnic traditions. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists posted:Are there any health benefits associated with circumcision? CDC posted:Status of CDC Male Circumcision Recommendations I'm not sure if the WHO has made any specific statement regarding circumcision outside of sub-Saharan Africa, other than the basic guide discussed above. Kegluneq fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
Circumcision is a harmful cultural and religious practice and must be stopped! Wait, it lowers HIV transmission rates? Well, okay, allow it in Africa then. But not in America! That would be wrong!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:You mean the HIV thing? Circumcision is associated with lower transmission rates across populations, but the process doesn't make you immune. You are far better advised as an individual to make use of condoms, which will also protect the uncircumcised. Except the American Academy of Pediatrics says: quote:Systematic evaluation of English-language peer-reviewed literature from 1995 through 2010 indicates that preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure. Benefits include significant reductions in the risk of urinary tract in-fection in the first year of life and, subsequently, in the risk of het-erosexual acquisition of HIV and the transmission of other sexually transmitted infections. So, no its not just about Africa. Its something that American doctors recommend is an option for American families. Remember, every single one of these medical sources say "yes it has health benefits, but it is a decision a family should make according to their own decisions about risks/benefits/values". No one is arguing for the forced circumcision of all male newborns. Just that newborn male circumcision has enough health benefits to be a worthwhile option.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except the American Academy of Pediatrics says: Actually the most important part says: quote:Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns... What they are saying is that they manage to scrum together enough small benefits to rationalize elective surgery on your male newborn if had non-medical reasons to do it and were looking for anything medical-wise to corroborate that desire. And even modern circumcisions can have complications as discussed in that PDF.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except the American Academy of Pediatrics says: As noted by ACOG, urinary tract infection rates are already extremely low. The HIV transmission data comes from a society in which HIV is endemic, and comes with the caveat that condoms must also be worn - advice which would also protect the non-circumcised. In the US I believe the highest transmission rates for HIV are between MSM, and circumcision does nothing to reduce that method of transmission anyway. I therefore stand by my argument that the medical benefits of circumcision in the western world are extremely slight, to the point of being irrelevant, and are an example of special pleading. Social factors are far more important. Kegluneq fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Actually the most important part says: Holy poo poo, if that's how dead set on your beliefs that you read it that way, well that's your interpretation. But that's not what the science says...in one study from a public health perspective its a 10x benefit in the first year alone: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/ posted:A large, retrospective study of circumcision in nearly 15,000 infants found neonatal circumcision to be highly cost-effective, considering the estimated number of averted cases of infant urinary tract infection and lifetime incidence of HIV infection, penile cancer, balanoposthitis (inflammation of the foreskin and glans), and phimosis (a condition where the male foreskin cannot be fully retracted from the head of the penis). The cost of postneonatal circumcision was 10-fold the cost of neonatal circumcision63. Oh and that study was conducted in California, not Africa. Remember, no one is forcing you to circumcise your child but pretty much every medical authority is saying you should have the ability to do so if your family and your doctor think it makes medical sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Circumcision is a harmful cultural and religious practice and must be stopped! Niiiice. It may be beneficial to populations in Africa, but as far as I'm aware good hygiene and contraception isn't something that is uniquely toxic to the people of Africa and I would rather they also have the less harmful alternative than a permanent medical intervention. Fortunately we in the western world have the benefits of advanced medicine and clean water and readily available contraception. Unless we're chopping off pieces of our children's cock to show solidarity with our African comrades it shouldn't be a race to the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
Remember guys, if a medical procedure shouldn't be done on everyone, it should be done on no one! Ignore what the person in the white coat is saying! Next someone explain how circumcision causes autism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Holy poo poo, if that's how dead set on your beliefs that you read it that way, well that's your interpretation. But that's not what the science says...in one study from a public health perspective its a 10x benefit in the first year alone: quote:A large, retrospective study of circumcision in nearly 15,000 infants found neonatal circumcision to be highly cost-effective, considering the estimated number of averted cases of infant urinary tract infection and lifetime incidence of HIV infection, penile cancer, balanoposthitis (inflammation of the foreskin and glans), and phimosis (a condition where the male foreskin cannot be fully retracted from the head of the penis). The cost of postneonatal circumcision was 10-fold the cost of neonatal circumcision. There are also studies showing very marginal cost-effectiveness. Further down: quote:Many parents now make decisions about infant circumcision based on cultural, religious, or parental desires, rather than health concerns. Some have raised ethical objections to parents making decisions about elective surgery on behalf of an infant, particularly when it is done primarily to protect against risks of HIV and STDs that do not occur until young adulthood. But other ethicists have found it an appropriate parental proxy decision. Incidentally, I doubt anyone here is arguing against circumcising somebody with phimosis. Removing body parts from infants that may potentially go wrong in later life is rather problematic to begin with though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:14
|
|