|
Kegluneq posted:
It should be a decision made between a family and their doctor. I'm glad we agree on that point. But realize that when the American Academy of Pediatrics says "preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure" they mean it. They don't just mean it for Africans or if you can't clean yourself. Its ok for the health benefits to not outweigh the cultural harm the procedure causes in your mind, your family doesn't have to choose the procedure. Edit: You guys keep bringing up points that WHO/CDC et al. have refuted with science. It is medically easier and less risky to circumcise a newborn rather than at an older age. That's a fact.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
Ddraig posted: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. All I'm saying is that while it's pretty easy to imagine up some sort of grand compromise where only the poors get circumcised as a lesser of the two evils and the western world gives no quarter to the penis-chopping epidemic, it in reality sounds like arbitrary intellectual dick-waving (hee hee). For being so emphatic about how circumcision is unnecessary and disfiguring, you and others sure like to backtrack on that position whenever it doesn't involve your dick in particular. Edit: I mean, yeah, some populations may well get more benefit out of circumcision then others. But that is something that is determined on a case-by-case basis by either your doctor, a parent, or a health organization. We don't just get to draw imaginary lines in the sand just because we can. Chelb fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
I have you know I take dicks very seriously. Which is also why I would want to prevent the cutting of them in countries where there is a possibility of advantage by giving them the ability to prevent such options with stuff we have that they may not. As in stands, we in the Western world have the ability to treat UTIs with antibiotics, prevent HIV with condoms and don't need to cut off body parts to do it. I would love a world where that is possible irrespective of geography.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
Phimosis, the condition that's misdiagnosed all the time in America since doctors think that the foreskin should be retractable by age 5 (despite the general knowledge that might take until puberty for it to happen) and can, generally, be treated with steroid cream.Trabisnikof posted:The cost of postneonatal circumcision was 10-fold the cost of neonatal circumcision. I wonder why this is. Could it be because older patients need more than sugar water and, if they're lucky, inadequate anesthetic to get the procedure done?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But realize that when the American Academy of Pediatrics says "preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure" they mean it. They don't just mean it for Africans or if you can't clean yourself. quote:Edit: You guys keep bringing up points that WHO/CDC et al. have refuted with science. It is medically easier and less risky to circumcise a newborn rather than at an older age. That's a fact. (It's also a fact that footbinding and head shaping work a lot better when begun in infancy, so...)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
How many circumcisions are based on medical realities instead of religious/cultural dogma? If I can't be allowed to tattoo a giant cross into my child's back I shouldn't be allowed to snip a part of their genitals off. In the first world country, those medical reasons are non-existent unless we are talking about conditions like phimosis. Wait till the child understands what is going on, then do it if they still want to do it. Why is this so offensive to you  "Oh no, an urinary tract infection! This requires a half-an-hour visit to the doctor and some antibiotics. If only I had cut off my child's foreskin"...is a thought nobody in the world has ever had. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Phimosis, the condition that's misdiagnosed all the time in America since doctors think that the foreskin should be retractable by age 5 (despite the general knowledge that might take until puberty for it to happen) and can, generally, be treated with steroid cream. That's find and dandy..it may be over-diagnosed...but you're still ignoring the medical fact that circumcision is safer on newborns than any other age. Call Me Charlie posted:I wonder why this is. Could it be because older patients need more than sugar water and, if they're lucky, inadequate anesthetic to get the procedure done? Cute stawman, but that study was done in Californian hospitals that used localized anesthesia. But nice try. Ddraig posted:As in stands, we in the Western world have the ability to treat UTIs with antibiotics, prevent HIV with condoms and don't need to cut off body parts to do it. Do you have a source that says that there isn't a medical benefit to newborn male circumcision? Because all the medical source I keep quoting say that there still is value to the procedure. Even here in the US. Kegluneq posted:I think you're misreading that. I'm not disputing that the tiny medical benefit of cutting the risk of UTIs from 1% to 0.1% is more significant than the tinier risk of medical complications during the procedure (1 in 250 I believe?). However, I don't accept that that benefit is worth the risk of carrying out the procedure anyway. (The risk of developing the other conditions is too small to be statistically significant imo.) Bolded the only really important part. That's the issue, its opinion versus medical science on this one. You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't make it fact. Meanwhile, many medical organizations are saying that the procedure should be an option for parents. That is a fact. DarkCrawler posted:How many circumcisions are based on medical realities instead of religious/cultural dogma? Just because someone does something for a wrong reason doesn't make the act wrong. The difference between the tattoo and circumcision is of course the medical value of circumcision. Remember, I'm arguing for access to medical circumcision for newborns so you can keep the religious strawmen to yourself. Edit: I'm just saying this should be a decision a family and their doctor makes for their child, not the state or some D&D poster. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Bolded the only really important part. That's the issue, its opinion versus medical science on this one. You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't make it fact. Meanwhile, many medical organizations are saying that the procedure should be an option for parents. That is a fact. Circumcision for men is not a major life-altering surgery, but the factors in its favour in the western world are predominantly cultural rather than medical. This is why the decision is left to parents rather than imposed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I have you know I take dicks very seriously. Which is also why I would want to prevent the cutting of them in countries where there is a possibility of advantage by giving them the ability to prevent such options with stuff we have that they may not. What are these countries, exactly? What exactly is 'the Western world'? Are all citizens in this 'Western world' able to afford the best solutions or preventative measures to UTIs and HIV? if you want to get into semantics and subjectivity I'll loving do it, I'll shitpost all day motherfucka It just seems weird to me to condemn a procedure that may well be useful to literally billions of the world population, allow it to those people, but then cordon off the procedure to more well-off, arbitrarily-defined individuals because I guess it's not good enough for them or something. I'll be honest, I don't really give a poo poo about cut or uncut dicks. If you think it's breaching consent laws or whatever then fine! I just think that justifying demographically-restricted dickskin chopping is twisting an argument into weird, gray territory that does nothing to really address any argument at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you have a source that says that there isn't a medical benefit to newborn male circumcision? Because all the medical source I keep quoting say that there still is value to the procedure. Even here in the US. I live in the UK which doesn't make it a medical practice of cutting off body parts at birth. I know this is anecdotal but we in the UK and in Europe as a whole don't have a prevailing and widespread epidemic of DDD (dirty dilznick disease) and even if we do were not dying of it in statistically significant numbers to justify a medical procedure that is otherwise completely unnecessary. You seem to be of the impression that there is any medical advantage of doing it to begin with. I'm arguing that except for very strange circumstances there isn't. The best time to do it is irrelevant if there's no drat good reason to do it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
For the studies claiming medical benefits, what are the percentages and the differences between circumcised and uncircumcised males? What is the margin of error? How much does the margin of error cut into the margin of difference?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:What are these countries, exactly? What exactly is 'the Western world'? Are all citizens in this 'Western world' able to afford the best solutions or preventative measures to UTIs and HIV? if you want to get into semantics and subjectivity I'll loving do it, I'll shitpost all day motherfucka It's not that hard to follow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I live in the UK which doesn't make it a medical practice of cutting off body parts at birth. Actually you do make it a medical practice of cutting off a body part at birth, its ok that one is "natural"  Anyway my point is I'm citing major medical organizations saying there is medical benefit and suggesting that this be left up to the families. And that maybe families that choose circumcision and families that don't have made an ethical decision. Its ok that your culture finds it "wrong". Its not that big of a deal (luckily). rargphlam posted:For the studies claiming medical benefits, what are the percentages and the differences between circumcised and uncircumcised males? What is the margin of error? How much does the margin of error cut into the margin of difference? Why don't you read them and compare them to other studies that refuse their claims? Or if your unwilling to do the work for yourself, are there any medical organizations you trust that might have done the work for you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:The procedure is only really medically useful for cutting rates of HIV transmission in societies where HIV is endemic. There are objectively better solutions, which involve an infrastructure to provide universal clean water and universal access to sex education and resources such as condoms. These latter solutions currently exist only in the 'western world', and the ideal solution is to expand these to HIV-afflicted populations - not to wait until HIV becomes endemic in the western world and your argument becomes applicable here too! I'm saying that this particular thread of discussion that you and I are on - that circumcision should be allowed, but only in certain places that I define, until a certain level of medical coverage (which I have also conveniently defined) has been reached - is at best arbitrarily commanding and at worst actively dismissive of major health organizations which record some sort of importance to circumcision beyond that of the Third World. I, like Trabisnikof in a way, think that those studies are much more important to this thread, whether they are true or false or indicative of anything at all. Edit: In fact, I think those studies are so important that I'll shut the gently caress up and allow this thread to carry on with arguing with Trabisnikof! Chelb fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:I'm saying that this particular thread of discussion that you and I are on - that circumcision should be allowed, but only in certain places that I define, until a certain level of medical coverage (which I have also conveniently defined) has been reached - is at best arbitrarily commanding and at worst actively dismissive of major health organizations which record some sort of importance to circumcision beyond that of the Third World. I'm still not entirely sold on the promotion of circumcision within the third world as a means of preventing the transmission of HIV-AIDS, especially since the additional requirement of wearing a condom makes the point moot to begin with, but if the statistics show it reduces transmission over a population wide level then it's a good quick partial fix to the problem. It should still be considered an intermediary solution to a serious health problem, that can only be fully resolved by the development of the above mentioned infrastructure. Once that is in place, circumcision can return to being the essentially cultural choice that it is the western world now, and not an emergency medical response. Kegluneq fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Er, could you cite these? I haven't seen any major health organisation argue that circumcision should be routine outside of the third world. There aren't really any medical downsides to circumcision (beyond a reduced ability to masturbate) but the benefits are also extremely marginal within a society with access to good sex education, condoms, and clean water. Well, okay, I'll clarify that I'm mostly just trying to stop arguing about demographical restrictions and instead focus on Trabisnikof's discussion of the WHO and CDC study. 'Studies' is a bit of a stretch, but note that I never said that it or the studies said that it should be routine. edit: arrgh do better clarifying, me. I hate editing posts a lot after the fact Chelb fucked around with this message at 11:48 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Er, could you cite these? I haven't seen any major health organisation argue that circumcision should be routine outside of the third world. There aren't really any medical downsides to circumcision (beyond a reduced ability to masturbate) but the benefits are also extremely marginal within a society with access to good sex education, condoms, and clean water. You're moving the goal-posts, no one here is arguing for universal circumcision or that the medical benefits outweigh the cultural concerns people display in this thread. The American Academy of Pediatrics thinks it has benefits for Americans: [quote="New Evidence Points to Greater Benefits of Infant Circumcision, But Final Say is Still Up to Parents, Says AAP "] Since the last policy was published, scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life. The AAP believes the health benefits are great enough that infant male circumcision should be covered by insurance, which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it. “Ultimately, this is a decision that parents will have to make,” said Susan Blank, MD, FAAP, chair of the task force that authored the AAP policy statement and technical report. “Parents are entitled to medically accurate and non-biased information about circumcision, and they should weigh this medical information in the context of their own religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.” The medical benefits alone may not outweigh other considerations for individual families. The medical data show that the procedure is safest and offers the most health benefits if performed during the newborn period. The AAP policy recommends infant circumcision should be performed by trained and competent providers, using sterile techniques and effective pain management. The policy has been endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College). “This information will be helpful for obstetricians who are often the medical providers who counsel parents about circumcision,” said Sabrina Craigo, MD, the College’s liaison to the AAP task force on circumcision. “We support the idea that parents choosing circumcision should have access to the procedure.” Parents who are considering newborn circumcision should speak with their child’s doctor about the benefits and risks of the procedure, and discuss who will perform the circumcision. “It’s a good idea to have this conversation during pregnancy, and to learn whether your insurance will cover the procedure, so you have time to make the decision,” said Dr. Blank. [/quote] (http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-...s-Says-AAP.aspx)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Well, okay, I'll clarify that I'm mostly just trying to stop arguing about demographical restrictions and instead focus on Trabisnikof's discussion of the WHO and CDC study. 'Studies' is a bit of a stretch, but note that I never said that it or the studies said that it should be routine. Trabisnikof posted:You're moving the goal-posts, no one here is arguing for universal circumcision or that the medical benefits outweigh the cultural concerns people display in this thread. The American Academy of Pediatrics thinks it has benefits for Americans: The insurance cover can also be explained as cultural rather than medically specific. The medical bodies of other nations, such as Britain's NHS, do not consider the process beneficial enough to be paid for by the state. It is also worth noting that as with abortion, it is significantly cheaper for insurance companies/the state to pay for an operation to be done well that would otherwise be done, potentially dangerously, by unregulated practitioners.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why don't you read them and compare them to other studies that refuse their claims? Or if your unwilling to do the work for yourself, are there any medical organizations you trust that might have done the work for you? Appeal to authority is cool and all, but it would look better if you put effort into researching the studies you are parroting, instead of pointing and going "see look, they say it does something." The two major studies cited are: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020298 = study 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17321310 = study 2. Now looking at the two studies, study 1 had 0.85% (0.55–1.32) intervention (namely they circumcised males) and 2.1% (1.6–2.8%) control (they did nothing). Study 2 had 2.1% (1.2-3.0%) in the circumcision group and 4.2% (3.0-5.4%) in the control. An important note is that study 1 makes sure to state that this data is not necessarily generalizable, and as such should not be applied outside of Sub-Saharan Africa. I cannot say if that caveat applies to the other study as well, but it makes any claims on the efficacy of circumcision as a preventative against HIV outside of Africa suspect. Additionally, both studies were entirely done on adult males, who volunteered to have circumcision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:He specifically described the procedure as 'important', which I took to mean 'medically compelling'. Nope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
rargphlam posted:Appeal to authority is cool and all, but it would look better if you put effort into researching the studies you are parroting, instead of pointing and going "see look, they say it does something." Just for future reference, its only an appeal to authority if I had said "X is true because Y said so" instead I said "is there an Y that you trust that has made conclusions about X". Even if the things you point out are supposed weaknesses in the research (they aren't really) those are of course only 2 studies in the 60+ studies cited by WHO/CDC/AAP about this topic. But for example, you cite basic requirements of an ethical double-blind study as a supposed disadvantage so I'm still inclined to trust those studies. Especially since there are strong meta-reviews of this topic which have concluded that the procedure has health benefits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Nope. Okay, so you concede the procedure is medically unimportant in the west. Trabisnikof posted:Especially since there are strong meta-reviews of this topic which have concluded that the procedure has health benefits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Okay, so you concede the procedure is medically unimportant in the west. People are denying that either the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are talking about America or qualified to determine the medical benefits and risk for a procedure on a newborn apparently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Okay, so you concede the procedure is medically unimportant in the west. Is your argument "No medically unnecessary procedure should be performed on a non-adult"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Is your argument "No medically unnecessary procedure should be performed on a non-adult"? No, I'm arguing that a medically unnecessary procedure shouldn't be justified as such. It is a cultural tradition, not a medical necessity. Trabisnikof posted:People are denying that either the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are talking about America or qualified to determine the medical benefits and risk for a procedure on a newborn apparently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Okay, so you concede the procedure is medically unimportant in the west. Nope. If you think my posts were meant to be some sort of statement for or against circumcision, then maybe you should read them again instead of trying to bait me. Rollofthedice posted:I'll be honest, I don't really give a poo poo about cut or uncut dicks. If you think it's breaching consent laws or whatever then fine! I just think that justifying demographically-restricted dickskin chopping is twisting an argument into weird, gray territory that does nothing to really address any argument at all. Bolded for emphasis. Chelb fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Nope. Except you were arguing against a straw man to begin with? My qualification was based on environment; as far as I'm aware 'high occurrence of HIV combined with low sex education' isn't a demographic as such. Although I'm not exactly sure what it is you're refuting - do you believe in an overriding medical argument for circumcision in the west or not? Edit: You bolded an extra section, so I'll point out that the two main medical benefits pointed to by pro-circumcisionists are UTIs and HIV infection rates. The demographic argument applies only to the latter, which is based on studies in Africa. A more useful metastudy would look at the comparative transmission rates between western nations. Given that North America and Europe are very different in this regard, it seems there would be a worthwhile basis for comparison there. Edit2: You initially accused me of ignoring medical reports which attributed importance to the procedure outside the third world. The fact that you saw any such attribution at all in those reports I took to be an indication of your position, for which I apologise. Kegluneq fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
Reminder that a world exists beyond America, and other medical organizations do not draw the same conclusions as the latest AAP report. Someone compiled a short list here: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
Don't don't - don't touch my ding dong (dong) don't don't - don't touch my ding dong (dong) *clap clap clap*
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted: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 14:03
|
|
|
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. See: rape jokes, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:No, I'm arguing that a medically unnecessary procedure shouldn't be justified as such. It is a cultural tradition, not a medical necessity. Okay. So you're not arguing that the practice should stop? Or is this just an irrelevant sideline?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:It's not. Stop calling it mutilation, you wang fanatics. Yes it is. You don't really get to redefine words based on the fact society doesn't see it as bad as other forms. By any definition of mutilation, circumcision fits the bill.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Yes it is. You don't really get to redefine words based on the fact society doesn't see it as bad as other forms. : to ruin the beauty of (something) : to severely damage or spoil (something) This isn't severe damage (in how much is changed and definitely in the repercussions of the act) and I think circumcised dicks are rather lovely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Yes it is. You don't really get to redefine words based on the fact society doesn't see it as bad as other forms. This is really obviously untrue: there are many definitions of mutilation where it doesn't fit. I'd say there are very few that actually would include male circumcision as mutilation. I have noticed that anti-circumcision people seem to really like telling circumcised people that they're mutilated, which is pretty weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay. So you're not arguing that the practice should stop? Or is this just an irrelevant sideline? R. Mute posted:This isn't severe damage (in how much is changed and definitely in the repercussions of the act) and I think circumcised dicks are rather lovely. Edit: quote:I have noticed that anti-circumcision people seem to really like telling circumcised people that they're mutilated, which is pretty weird. Kegluneq fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
How much flesh is permissible to remove from a child before it becomes severe enough to matter? I personally think it's any, but I'm a bleeding heart. Would removal of the earlobes be OK? How about the tip of a little finger? It's all very easy to joke and say 'oh it doesn't matter', but it's not really for anyone to say other than the person it's being done to, and often times they have no choice in the matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Actually I believe it should end, but I'm not explicitly arguing that here because I'm aware that cultural biases are all but impossible to overcome. It should be defended for what it is though; a marker of cultural difference, a method for discouraging masturbation, and/or an aesthetic procedure. The claim of medical benefits in modern society is basically indicative of confirmation bias. Why are the claims of non-benefit not also indicative of confirmation bias? Also, as a method for discouraging masturbation it doesn't work. Ddraig posted:How much flesh is permissible to remove from a child before it becomes severe enough to matter? I personally think it's any, but I'm a bleeding heart. Would removal of the earlobes be OK? How about the tip of a little finger? Why is 'removal of flesh' especially significant to you? As compared to say, concussions, broken bones, etc.? And again, if you're talking about the child's choice, you need to return to what you never answered: Okay. Is there an age where a child can meaningfully consent, and how, until that time, do you handle decision-making about body stuff? and: Why is that [saying 'don't cut off bits of your kid] easier than 'Don't feed your kid a crap diet that makes them gain enormous amounts of weight and develop diabetes, you crazy people'? Or 'Don't encourage your kid to play a sport where they can get concussions that actually reduce their mental capacity and open them up to depression and all kinds of other poo poo, you crazy people'? Basically, it seems like you're assigning some sort of strong cultural or mystical value to flesh being cut that goes beyond other bodily harm, and I'm wondering why. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:How much flesh is permissible to remove from a child before it becomes severe enough to matter? I personally think it's any, but I'm a bleeding heart. Would removal of the earlobes be OK? How about the tip of a little finger? Anyway, you guys are really going to have to decide what you're going to be doubling down on. I mean, the aesthetic angle is too subjective, you guys clearly don't have the medical data to back up your medical claims, so I think you'd be better off just sticking to 'don't touch my hog' body integrity. That would involve dropping the constant chatter about mutilation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:09 |
|
|
It's just odd to see how a completely cultural practice is being touted as having sound medical benefits (benefits that can easily be replicated with a piece of latex and clean water). Coming from Europe where there isn't a strong cultural tradition of it makes it seem crazy. The same arguments were literally made about foot binding, skull elongation and other barbaric practices. Foot binding was said to bring many dubious medical benefits, Skull elongation was said to be indicative of higher intelligence or spiritual sensitivity. Virtually any argument in favor of circumcision has an analogous counterpart in other body modification rituals in other cultures. Don't you think this is the slightest bit strange.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 14:54
|
|