Circumcision: The Elephant in the Hospital. - Page 29

On September 09 2011 13:47 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:


I made this thread because I'm tired of idiots making stupid arguments for circumcision. So I made an admittedly bad OP. Then I realized that I can never win on the internet and that this thread is just one big shitfest.

I am a hypocrite. I can't ignore idiots without addressing them

I wish today had never happened...

On September 09 2011 13:52 Nevermove wrote:


If it is unnecessary, then don't give the child a circumcision. If it benefits the child in one way or another, go ahead.

On September 09 2011 13:49 Exarl25 wrote:


How far does that right extend? Can they have other cosmetic medical procedures performed? Can they have their child tattooed? Can they inflict physical pain on their child for no good reason? Can they sexually assault their child? You need to both clearly state exactly where the line lies and exactly why that is.

Parents do not have the right to do whatever they please to their children, I don't know where the hell you could live where that is the case. Children are not the property of their parents, children have basic rights the same as anyone else. There are plenty of laws in place regulating what is and is not acceptable to be done to minors.

On September 09 2011 13:53 DoubleReed wrote:


Sorry, you're quoting someone who isn't me.

No, I'm saying circumcision isn't some horrible disfigurement. It's not cutting off the clitoris. It isn't slicing up your fucking nipples or fingers. It's not tattooing your gang insignia onto your child. Quit it with all these ridiculous comparisons and analogies and bullshit which aren't circumcision and are nothing at all like circumcision. Talk about circumcision.

On September 09 2011 13:53 DoubleReed wrote:


Sorry, you're quoting someone who isn't me.

No, I'm saying circumcision isn't some horrible disfigurement. It's not cutting off the clitoris. It isn't slicing up your fucking nipples or fingers. It's not tattooing your gang insignia onto your child. Quit it with all these ridiculous comparisons and analogies and bullshit which aren't circumcision and are nothing at all like circumcision. Talk about circumcision.

On September 09 2011 14:00 Tektos wrote:
@matjlav, Josealtron, Highlight, Mothra, BlueBird.


My point was specifically that:
If you hold the stance that circumcising a an infant is wrong but getting an infant's ears pierced isn't you're simply being hypocritical.

On September 09 2011 13:56 sureshot_ wrote:


I just want to say I 100% respect your counter-argument, unlike a lot of others who's arguments are either ad hominem's or hypocritical. I think you nailed the problem on the head it's where does the extent of "the right of the child" extend.

Personally, as I've previously stated, with sexual sensitivity being such a subjective argument I think that going through this surgery at such a young age is reasonable for parents to decide. Another counter-arguement was that there are sometimes fatal issues with the surgery. From my understanding these issues are just as rare as the people being saved from fatal diseases from the surgery (if it kills 1 and saves 1 how can you argue whether or not to do it?). Please correct me if I'm wrong, too lazy to browse such a topic.

with sexual sensitivity being such a subjective argument I think that going through this surgery at such a young age is reasonable for parents to decide.

On September 09 2011 14:00 Tektos wrote:
@matjlav, Josealtron, Highlight, Mothra, BlueBird.

Rather than responding to each of you individually, take the relevant points in response to your own from below
The two issues (ears vs. penis) are far from being completely different:

1) It is modifying your child's body without their consent.
2) Circumcision is also not a permanent modification, there are links in OP which talk about ways to regrow the foreskin.
3) Piercing your ears can lead to horrible infections and the like.


My point was specifically that:
Stop arguing about circumcision specifically, it only leads to horrible flame-ridden threads like this one. Your arguments should be that a parent modifying their child's body without the child's consent is wrong regardless of what the modification is. If you hold the stance that circumcising a an infant is wrong but getting an infant's ears pierced isn't you're simply being hypocritical.

On September 09 2011 14:02 Klipsys wrote:


Really? A hole in your ear (which can heal) VS CUTTING OFF A PIECE OF A BABIES COCK?

I...Don't....

On September 09 2011 14:03 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:

For all intents and purposes, it is permanent. Why? Because the nerve endings don't regrow. All you get back are looks and protection.

On September 09 2011 14:02 Klipsys wrote:


Really? A hole in your ear (which can heal) VS CUTTING OFF A PIECE OF A BABIES COCK?

I...Don't....

On September 09 2011 13:16 sephirotharg wrote:
Fair enough. I suppose I deserved to have the thread closed. It was a dick move (see what I did there?) to start my own reply thread. So without further ado, I give you my reply to this thread:

The sad part about this post is the fact that it will likely convince absolutely nobody to change their position on circumcision either way. That said, when I see an obviously biased "information" piece I tend to react strongly (the author of the original thread does not explicitly indicate either way the status of his penis, and presents his information as fact). This issue evokes a particularly strong reaction in me, being as I am circumcised. So you can well guess that I am biased in this matter as well, though I'm up-front about that fact. What I intend to do is offer a step-by-step rebuttal of the original post, and see where the discussion goes from there.

Without further ado, let's begin our analysis:




This is a complaint you will hear me level many, many times throughout this analysis: source please! The author speaks of a mystical "we", making no attempt to define who this "we" is. Are those contending the health benefits of male infant circumcision respected medicinal practitioners, or middle-school students? Precision of language is necessary if we are to present facts as they exist. Without sources for your claims (or rather, your claim that someone else is claiming health benefits of circumcision), we cannot evaluate them objectively. Proper definition of subjects is crucial to discussion.



Wait a second. The author says circumcision "hurts like fucking hell", but does not provide any solid, empirical evidence. And we can assume that the author is uncircumcised (if he/she is not, feel free to correct me). Therefore, having never experienced it him/herself, how can the author speak to the pain of a circumcision? "Well", you say to yourself, "there are empirical ways to measure pain". To which I reply that there most certainly are. But does the author cite any study using these measurements? No. Instead he/she (hereafter I will refer to the author as a he, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) cites a nebulous figure of "95% of the circumcision videos I've watched" and goes on to explain that "the baby almost always shrieks with agony". 95% is quite high; the information we are lacking is how many videos the author watched. If they watched 3, that is very different from watching 3,000 videos. Perhaps an even more egregious sin than finessing statistics is the fact that the author uses anecdotal evidence, ass opposed to empirical evidence. It's quite possible that the author chose to watch mostly those videos that showed a child shrieking in pain; but a few incidents of children in pain does not a pattern make. Now if there were to be some empirical, procedurally-rigorous scientific study examining this subject, we could establish that pattern. However, you fail to back up your assertion that circumcision results in screaming babies. If you look at the studies I have provided, you will see that circumcision does in fact produce pain in children; however, these same studies point to effective measures that can be employed to lessen the pain and trauma. The author also contends that the screaming must be caused by the procedure, to which I reply: correlation does not causation make. It is possible (despite your roundly unscientific experiment presenting "evidence" to the contrary) that being restrained causes the children to cry; or perhaps the stress of being surrounded by unfamiliar people wearing outlandish garb causes a stress reaction; or the absence of the child's mother causes him to cry; or the coldness of the operating table; or hunger; or many other variables that may combine to cause crying during circumcision. Just because the two often occur simultaneously does not mean that the one must be caused by the other.

Stop. Citing and quoting Wikipedia? Really? There's a reason that colleges tend not to accept Wikipedia as cite-able material. For that same reason we should not use it even to give us definitions. Instead, let's agree to use a much more trusted and decidedly less-openly-editable resource: the Mayo Clinic.


And here is the source for that definition.

Let's continue our analysis.



I'll say this criticism once, as it applies to every bullet point within your list: no source. You say that this information comes from the Inactivism Pages, yet you provide no link directly to the information, instead pointing us to the general website link at the bottom of your post. Rigorous standards must be upheld when citing informative (and supposedly authoritative) material, whether this be a college paper or a forum post. Also, I see no real support for the author's argument in this tidbit. Scientific theories change all the time, and old suppositions are tossed out as new evidence comes in. I'm not surprised that it was espoused as a cure for masturbation in olden days; the fact that it was advertised as such bears no relevance on the discussion.

Well, for all my cries for objectivity and empirical studies, I have to get a little subjective here. Frankly, I would prefer pain when I'm a newborn to early death due to HIV. And according to the facts you cite, circumcision does in fact protect people from HIV. If circumcision can save even one person from HIV, I would favor circumcision. After all, we would all agree that protection for some is better than protection for none, yes? And because I value empiricism in my debates, here's an interesting quote for you to examine:



And the source for that quote.

So the fact remains that even if circumcision in and of itself does not increase protection against HIV, circumcision and proven HIV-protective measures (namely condom use) have been found to be correlated. And I suppose I should add that studies have been done after the one which you cite, studies that include much larger sample sizes (such as the one I sourced above, which studied approximately 26,000 men). So disqualifying evidence based on small sample size should no longer be a problem.

The analysis continues.



Wait, what? I'm sorry, but when did this turn into an issue of sexual orientation? I will grant you that in the United States new HIV cases occur more frequently in MSM (men who have sex with men) than any other group; yet, the percentage is only 53% of new cases among MSM, with nearly half of new cases reported each year belonging to groups other than gay men. So the largely unjustified (and to be fair, implied) accusation in this statement that HIV is a gay disease is patently untrue. Furthermore, I could find no evidence that remaining intact protects anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, from HIV any more so than does circumcision. So even if circumcision provided gay men and women no additional protection (a hypothesis which I personally doubt), the two states of penile intactness (if you will) are even in the protection provided, or lack thereof.



No source. I will grant you that the possibility of blood loss during circumcision does exits, but the incidence of death during circumcision is two deaths per million circumcisions, a much lower fatality rate than a relatively safe activity, driving. The NHTSA estimates eleven traffic related fatalities per 100,000 people in the USA in 2009, a much higher rate of occurrence than death by circumcision.

And now we get to the truly wacky and wild:



Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on there a second. You say that circumcision has very negative effects on sexual pleasure, yet have no citations or evidence to back that up. Cite a source. I imagine you are thinking of the Inactivism Pages study that finds that the foreskin is the most sensitive area of the penis. Be that as it may, penis sensitivity is only one factor in attaining sexual pleasure. The (perceived) attractiveness of one's partner, the presence or absence of foreplay, the various implements and medicines used, and in some cases the presence of genuine love are but a few factors that can contribute to sexual pleasure.

You also fail to cite a source for your assertion that circumcision can narrow the urethra. If you don't have a source, I can't take what you say at face value.

Then you take yet another stab at getting into the heads of circumcised males, a group of people to which you (probably) do not belong. Claiming that circumcision leads to an inferiority complex is amazing. What's ludicrous is that you do it without sourcing any study whatsoever. Even if you know a circumcised male that feels inferior because of his lack of foreskin, generalizing that feeling to all circumcised males and then extrapolating that out to make sense of behavior you don't approve of is an incredible leap of (il)logic.

Moving on, we come to this passage:



Need I remind you that there are, in fact, many places in the world where a daily shower is unheard of? In fact, the U.N. classifies nearly fifty countries as LDCs, or less-developed countries. I believe this would suit the criteria of defining places where the "hygiene myth" would in fact apply. And if you take the time to read, you will notice that said list does not include the likes of India and China, two countries with roughly 1/3 of the world's population between them, many of whom have little to no access to showers. And of course we have the niggling trouble of the unsourced assertion that "both partners have a lot more pleasure in sex".

I think I have said enough.

Note: this comment was edited for content (removing some of the more personal-attack stuff that was heat-of-the-moment and ill-advised).

On September 09 2011 14:00 Tektos wrote:
@matjlav, Josealtron, Highlight, Mothra, BlueBird.

Rather than responding to each of you individually, take the relevant points in response to your own from below
The two issues (ears vs. penis) are far from being completely different:

1) It is modifying your child's body without their consent.
2) Circumcision is also not a permanent modification, there are links in OP which talk about ways to regrow the foreskin.
3) Piercing your ears can lead to horrible infections and the like. It is not risk-free.


My point was specifically that:
Stop arguing about circumcision specifically, it only leads to horrible flame-ridden threads like this one. Your arguments should be that a parent modifying their child's body without the child's consent is wrong regardless of what the modification is. If you hold the stance that circumcising a an infant is wrong but getting an infant's ears pierced isn't you're simply being hypocritical.