EPTRegardless, there is no way that the measure will pass. Too many religious people that would get pissed off that they're being "persecuted."
San Fran May Propose Banning Circumcision - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
Regardless, there is no way that the measure will pass. Too many religious people that would get pissed off that they're being "persecuted." | ||
|
Zlasher
United States9129 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:06 Slow Motion wrote: As another thought experiment, if we throw out all the health arguments about circumcision as they are negligible either way, do you think parent have the right to make permanent aesthetic changes to their child's body? Consider a tattoo that can't be removed. Like circumcision, the tattoo will not be normally seen and fairly widely accepted in society. Do you think a parent has the right to put it on their child or must they wait until the child can decide? How about branding children, should that be allowed? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=125393 Anybody remember that? PS: Thats not a perfect example since those children were reported ot actually agree to that. But imagine doing THAT to your child at birth. | ||
|
Khadgars
United States38 Posts
On November 29 2010 13:12 Subversion wrote: actually it greatly reduces your risk of contracting an STD (if u have unprotected sex). i think its ridiculous that they actually want to outlaw this. im sure many doctors would attest that circumcision isn't harmful, and in many ways can be beneficial. seems like this guy has just decided he doesnt like it and wants to force his opinion on everyone else. This is complete nonsense. There is no medical data thats shows circumcision has ANY effect on contracting ANY STD period. The only reason people at all believe that is because some doctors 100 years ago believed a circumcised penis would alter the BEHAVIOR of the individual and cause him to less likely come in contact with a woman with an STD, which is completely false. Again circumcision has nothing what so ever to do with STD's. It does however, improve the hygine of the area on a minimal scale and can be beneficial for those with out clean bathing water or those who don't have access to it. I see no reason to ban it, but please let's keep the facts straight and not use old wives tales as real science. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States9945 Posts
| ||
|
adeezy
United States1428 Posts
| ||
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On November 29 2010 13:12 Subversion wrote: actually it greatly reduces your risk of contracting an STD (if u have unprotected sex). i think its ridiculous that they actually want to outlaw this. im sure many doctors would attest that circumcision isn't harmful, and in many ways can be beneficial. seems like this guy has just decided he doesnt like it and wants to force his opinion on everyone else. Actually, the studies about reducing the risk of contracting STIs is conflicting! | ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27089 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:06 Slow Motion wrote: As another thought experiment, if we throw out all the health arguments about circumcision as they are negligible either way, do you think parent have the right to make permanent aesthetic changes to their child's body? Consider a tattoo that can't be removed. Like circumcision, the tattoo will not be normally seen and fairly widely accepted in society. Do you think a parent has the right to put it on their child or must they wait until the child can decide? A better example is the removal of a birthmark. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:09 adeezy wrote: So we can propose a bill to ban parents the choice: a painful moment in an infant's life, one they never remember. However, there is tons of laws protecting the parents right to also abort that life far before they can even become an infant or even breath air. I'm not trying to start an abortion debate, but I'm saying if the parents can have the choice to abortion, then why can't they have the right to choose circumcision especially since it has it's religious traditions. Because they're two completely separate issues: one ends the fetus's life in a way that the fetus will never know, one alters a baby's life in a lasting way that will be consciously perceived. Did you really need this question answered? | ||
|
Zlasher
United States9129 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:08 Khadgars wrote: This is complete nonsense. There is no medical data thats shows circumcision has ANY effect on contracting ANY STD period. The only reason people at all believe that is because some doctors 100 years ago believed a circumcised penis would alter the BEHAVIOR of the individual and cause him to less likely come in contact with a woman with an STD, which is completely false. Again circumcision has nothing what so ever to do with STD's. It does however, improve the hygine of the area on a minimal scale and can be beneficial for those with out clean bathing water or those who don't have access to it. I see no reason to ban it, but please let's keep the facts straight and not use old wives tales as real science. Actually, the thought behind it makes some sense, in that an uncut penis gets micro tears during sex, where fluids can be mixed per se. That said, its not like circumcision is a form of contraception since it has NO real success rate in preventing STD's wihtout the use of other contraception, therefore it IS a completley stupid argument. | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:09 adeezy wrote: So we can propose a bill to ban parents the choice: a painful moment in an infant's life, one they never remember. However, there is tons of laws protecting the parents right to also abort that life far before they can even become an infant or even breath air. I'm not trying to start an abortion debate, but I'm saying if the parents can have the choice to abortion, then why can't they have the right to choose circumcision especially since it has it's religious traditions. You are assuming that a fetus's life has exactly the same value as that of an infant, and that it has all of the same human rights. But many on the other side of the abortion debate would strongly disagree. This is a different issue altogether. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13585.shtml Excerpt, talking about how circumcision isn't even a religious procedure in most cases: "A majority of boys born in the United States still undergo nonritual circumcisions. This occurs in large measure because parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns.63-67 Studies from the 1980s suggested that the presentation of medical information on the potential advantages and disadvantages of circumcision had little influence on parents' decisions.64-66 This finding was recently confirmed.68 In another contemporary study, nearly half of those physicians performing circumcisions did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision.67,68 Major factors in parental decision-making are the father's circumcision status, opinions of family members and friends, a desire for conformity in their son's appearance, and the belief that the circumcised penis is easier to care for with respect to local hygiene. " From the same article, this is talking about the pain one undergoes while being circumcised: "Clinical and biochemical evidence indicates that newborn infants exhibit physiological, autonomic, and behavioral responses to noxious stimuli. Acute responses of neonates to painful stimuli include large increases in heart rate, increased blood pressure, decreased transcutaneous pO2 values , decreased vagal tone, crying, breath holding, gagging, behavioral changes, and increases in serum cortisol.33,34 Resolution of these changes is fairly rapid following the procedure.35 Although it has been assumed that there are no long-term psychological sequelae from this procedure, circumcised infants who were not anesthetized at the time of the procedure show stronger pain responses to vaccinations at 4 and 6 months of age than do uncircumcised infants or infants who received a topical anesthetic cream at the time of circumcision.36" AMA's stance on circumcision (also from same article): "The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided." Even the AMA doesn't think we should circumcise children. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:11 ZlaSHeR wrote: Actually, the thought behind it makes some sense, in that an uncut penis gets micro tears during sex, where fluids can be mixed per se. That said, its not like circumcision is a form of contraception since it has NO real success rate in preventing STD's wihtout the use of other contraception, therefore it IS a completley stupid argument. Saying that we should circumcise kids to reduce their chances of phimosis/STDs/whatever is like saying we should remove their appendices to reduce their chances of appendicitis. Actually, it makes even less sense because at least removing an appendix would actually guarantee that they won't get appendicitis. Circumcision just marginally decreases the chances of an STD. | ||
|
aztrorisk
United States896 Posts
| ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:15 aztrorisk wrote: Hey guys, I want to know if I been circumcized but I don't want to google it in case I come across some NSFW pictures. Can someone tell me how I can check if I have been circumcized? roflllll I'm not sure whether to respond to this or not | ||
|
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
it is so pointless arguing back and forth. | ||
|
Zlasher
United States9129 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:14 matjlav wrote: Saying that we should circumcise kids to reduce their chances of phimosis/STDs/whatever is like saying we should remove their appendices to reduce their chances of appendicitis. Actually, it makes even less sense because at least removing an appendix would actually guarantee that they won't get appendicitis. Circumcision just marginally decreases the chances of an STD. Wow absolutely NOT lol (at your 1st paragraph) You can't get appendicitis without an appendix you CAN get STD's without foreskin lol jesus that could not be more wrong as an argument. Circumcision barely prevents unprotected sexual partners from contracting STD's because fluids are still mixed and exchanged regardless of foreskin or not. I wouldn't even say it marginally decreases the change because its next to zero. | ||
|
adeezy
United States1428 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:11 matjlav wrote: Because they're two completely separate issues: one ends the fetus's life in a way that the fetus will never know, one alters a baby's life in a lasting way that will be consciously perceived. Did you really need this question answered? They may two separate issues, but they both deal with the power of the parent. Is what I was getting at. But I see what you are saying. | ||
|
BrickTop
United States37 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: You say it's largely pointless, and yet you don't actually back it up with anything... I back it up with the opinion of Europe's doctors. I honestly think that's enough. Europe is advanced and regulated enough that they wouldn't drop an important procedure without good reason. You might reduce the risk of some conditions by circumcision, but I think a lot of american parents have huge misconceptions about the real benefits of the procedure. I would't get my child circumcised just to move some chances of medical problems from 0.05% to 0.02%. Yes, I'm making these numbers up again; but my excuse again is that if they were larger they would circumcise in Europe as well. EDIT: actually, just see Ferrose's great post (a few posts above this one). | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:15 aztrorisk wrote: Hey guys, I want to know if I been circumcized but I don't want to google it in case I come across some NSFW pictures. Can someone tell me how I can check if I have been circumcized? Well, the way I was told as a child was, anteater (not circumcised), or worm wearing a helmet (circumcised). But really, just google it. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:17 ZlaSHeR wrote: Wow absolutely NOT lol (at your 1st paragraph) You can't get appendicitis without an appendix you CAN get STD's without foreskin lol jesus that could not be more wrong as an argument. Circumcision barely prevents unprotected sexual partners from contracting STD's because fluids are still mixed and exchanged regardless of foreskin or not. I wouldn't even say it marginally decreases the change because its next to zero. you realize I was agreeing with you right? unless you do support appendicectomy as a routine procedure at birth... | ||
| ||
