|
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?
Is there skin over the head of your cock or not. Problem solved
On November 29 2010 14:16 Cambium wrote:
when will you guys understand that, on the Internet in particular, no one will ever admit that his penis is inferior to another penis.
it is so pointless arguing back and forth.
I don't really give a fuck, but in terms of the scientific and medical "reasons" there is no point in circumcision, whether or not I'm cut or uncut wont matter.
Plus your argument contradicts page 1 where people who are cut are saying that they wish they weren't. So is your post here just to make something witty to stand out and have a laugh? Or to troll, or to prevent a discussion from happening on a legitimate topic
|
On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
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.
From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents....
I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either.
|
On November 29 2010 14:17 adeezy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:11 matjlav wrote: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? 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.
It's not really a valid comparison in that respect either, as this law wouldn't ban circumcision outright, just circumcision of minors. It just moves the timeframe, so in that sense it would be more comparable to the already currently existing restrictions on abortion, rather than the outright prohibition of abortion which is central to the abortion debate.
|
On November 29 2010 14:19 ZlaSHeR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:16 Cambium wrote:
when will you guys understand that, on the Internet in particular, no one will ever admit that his penis is inferior to another penis.
it is so pointless arguing back and forth. I don't really give a fuck, but in terms of the scientific and medical "reasons" there is no point in circumcision, whether or not I'm cut or uncut wont matter. Plus your argument contradicts page 1 where people who are cut are saying that they wish they weren't. So is your post here just to make something witty to stand out and have a laugh? Or to troll, or to prevent a discussion from happening on a legitimate topic
wow, you need to calm the fuck down
this topic has come up a handful of times in the past on TL, and I'm just summarizing an observation I've made.
I see you like to argue, so I'll leave you at it
|
On November 29 2010 14:10 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I think this is a fairly appropriate analogy, but another possible analogy would the removal of a tail (evidently some people are born with tails, I don't know too much about the specifics), a tail that the parents believe the child could do without (and the parents are religiously inclined to have removed), but some people born with tails can live long, healthy, STD-free lives. Having a tail and not having a tail are about equal in social acceptability.
Edit: Until the overall social acceptability of the topic changes, why does it even matter if you have a tail or not?
|
On November 29 2010 14:00 Manifesto7 wrote:
There is a lot of literature that suggests what you say is true, but here is also a lot of literature that says "we really don't know". Most countries in the developed world have stopped circumcising boys. In addition, many boys are circumcised for reasons that have nothing to do with health.
You also have to be wary of statistics. Many pro-cut places say there is a TEN TIMES GREATER occurrence of UTI for the uncut, but that only takes the rate to 1%. Hardly an epidemic.
I agree, and I think those are good points. If it's fizzling out or still sticking around in certain areas, I think we should figure out why. Is it a moral issue, a medical issue, a religious one, etc.
On November 29 2010 14:00 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 13:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 29 2010 13:40 Ferrose wrote:On November 29 2010 13:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 29 2010 13:31 Jarhead wrote:On November 29 2010 13:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 29 2010 13:02 Krigwin wrote:On November 29 2010 12:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
They want to outlaw a medical procedure that can reduce the possibility of diseases and decrease specific health risks?
Yeahhh... there's NO problem with that... ::facepalm:: Not outlaw it flat out, just in the case of minors, and like I said I imagine there will be medical exceptions and whatnot written into the final law if it even makes it that far. Come on bro, I even bolded that part! I noticed that, but it's the parents' and doctors' responsibility to take care of children. If we have medical evidence that circumcision reduces medical risks (and apparently, going by your article, we do), then we should be protecting our children. It's akin to saying "Well we should wait for kids to hit 17 years old so THEY can decide whether or not they want vaccines!" That's nonsense. We need to protect them as early on as possible. We're the adults; we need to care for them. We need to protect our children from what? From not being circumcised? Not exactly the same as a hepatitis vaccination. I just don't think your argument that "the baby didn't look happy" was a good reason for a baby not to get a medical treatment that apparently has the potential to help them. And I think it's pretty similar to a vaccination. Vaccines have the potential to help, although they could technically be pointless needle-pricks that "harm the baby". The baby may not ever be in actual danger of getting hepatitis, yet he may get the vaccination just to be safe. Better safe than sorry. What if the circumcision backfires? What if the kid loses his penis because of it? How is that protecting the child? It just doesn't seem fair to me. Don't all medical procedures carry some level of risk? Out of curiosity, what percentage of circumcisions have ended with the loss of the entire penis? Can you find this statistic please, since you brought it up? I don't understand how the removal of the foreskin could result in this happening, but you're claiming it can. If it's a significant percentage, I would consider re-evaluating my position; I was of the mindset that it is a relatively safe procedure. Please just show me a reliable statistic. Here you go: "The American Medical Association quotes a complication rate of 0.2%–0.6%,[13] based on the studies of Gee[39] and Harkavy.[40] These same studies are quoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[16] The American Academy of Family Physicians quotes a range of anywhere between 0.1% and 35%.[41] The Canadian Paediatric Society cites these results in addition to other figures ranging anywhere between 0.06% to 55%, and remark that Williams & Kapila[37] suggested that 2-10% is a realistic estimate.[42] The RACP states that the penis is lost in 1 in 1,000,000 circumcisions.[43]" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision#Potential_complicationsI know that this doesn't mention loss of the whole penis, but here is something: "Activists began creating websites in the mid-1990s, and this process has continued. One such organization distributed questionnaires to circumcised men. The complaints included prominent scarring (33%), insufficient penile skin for comfortable erection (27%), erectile curvature from uneven skin loss (16%), and pain and bleeding upon erection/manipulation (17%). Psychological complaints included feelings of mutilation (60%), low self esteem/inferiority to intact men (50%), genital dysmorphia (55%), rage (52%), resentment/depression (59%), violation (46%), or parental betrayal (30%). Many respondents reported that their physical/emotional suffering impeded emotional intimacy with their partner(s), resulting in sexual dysfunction.[47] " Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversies
So 1 out of a million babies lose their penis. That's pretty bad, although I wonder how many penises are saved because of the lowered risks of the following: UTIs, penile cancer, HIV, balanitis, posthitis, phimosis, and prostate cancer. (This list came from your Wiki controversies list.)
And as far as that last paragraph is concerned, we have no idea how many people were polled! It simply tells you the breakdown of the given complaints... but these complaints could have been 100 complaints out of one million people polled- and the vast majority of them (999,900) could have had no problem whatsoever with their circumcision!
|
United States22883 Posts
It amuses me that originally circumcision was bad because of SCIENCE and then it was good because of SCIENCE and now people are finding it unnecessary because of SCIENCE. The health aspect and the data behind it is so marginal that it shouldn't be a focus of public policy.
It's a bit of a cruel practice but so are braces and chicken pox and MMR needles, and nearly anything depending on your perspective. Children don't have full rights, and even if it's based in ignorance or misinformation, parents do have the rights to fuck up their children in a myriad of ways and I'd still rather have them doing it than incompetent ex-business owners and school board members who became city council people.
|
On November 29 2010 14:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
So 1 out of a million babies lose their penis. That's pretty bad, although I wonder how many penises are saved because of the lowered risks of the following: UTIs, penile cancer, HIV, balanitis, posthitis, phimosis, and prostate cancer. (This list came from your Wiki controversies list.)
Do not straw man, circumcision does not in any way prevent any of those (except for phimosis), it only reduces the risks, and you have no way of proving how many people were saved from those diseases because they were circumcised.
edit: forgot about phimosis
|
Why make a big deal out of something that ultimately is inconsequential compared to the million of other bigger issues in the world?
|
On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:13 Ferrose wrote:
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. From what I read... it seems that they dont recommend for it or against it. Says that their is potential benefits but not enough to say it should be done. Ultimately they say its the choice of the parents.... I dont really see how thats saying it doesn't think they should circumcise, it doesnt say either.
I'm sorry, I guess I phrased it wrongly. D:
To me, it seems like the AMA is acknowledging that there are benefits, but they feel that it's better to let the parents decide, and that it's not beneficial enough to directly encourage it.
|
On November 29 2010 14:27 lac29 wrote:
Why make a big deal out of something that ultimately is inconsequential compared to the million of other bigger issues in the world?
Yes, because public policy should never deal with anything except for the very most pressing and dire issues. /sarcasm
|
On November 29 2010 14:10 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This is a pretty good analogy. Unfortunately everyone is too busy comparing circumcision to
vaccination
branding
removal of a toe
appendectomy
mutilation
etc.
|
The United States is not a Western civilization, it is part of Western civilization. And it is not the last part of Western civilization to favor circumcision - or even the country where circumsion is most popular: That country would be South Korea.
Perhaps you don't consider South Korea a part of Western civilization? Eh maybe. Confucianism does hold much sway and is not Western but I feel there is much more in common between the US and South Korea today than between the UK and the US today. At the very least, the US and SK are moving together and the US and Europe are moving apart. Frankly, I don't mind Transatlantic Drift if it means the Pacific shrinks.
|
I'm circumcised and I don't feel violated at all.
I'm a bit non-committal about the whole thing. Having had it done, some people in this thread are overreacting a little bit imo. To me it's really not that big a deal, but to each their own I guess.
Would I have it done to my children? That's a discussion for another day with my wife 
|
On November 29 2010 13:43 Manifesto7 wrote:There is an interesting parallel between this issue and the controversies surrounding Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. Basically Jehovah's Witnesses interpret Acts 15:28, among other passages, as showing blood transfusions being against God's law. In Canada the government has forced children to get the medical procedure over the wishes of their parents (and in some cases the child too) stating that they have to strike a balance between their duties to religious freedom and their duties to protect the people. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/26/supreme-blood026.htmlPopulation polls and government policy has been on the side of giving transfusions. Something tells me that if the JW had the same presence in Canada as the Jewish population has in America, that girl would not have received the transfusion. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions
when did the CA gov force it? my parents werent forced and I was born 20 years ago, and at a jewish hospital at that :O
|
On November 29 2010 14:25 Jibba wrote:
It's a bit of a cruel practice but so are braces and chicken pox and MMR needles, and nearly anything depending on your perspective.
braces and chicken pox (i dunno what mmr needles are) have very direct observable effects in today's society
circumcision.. none whatsoever. other than changing how your penis looks and making it less sensitive
anyways i don't really care, but I do think circumcision is propagated by idiots. the same kinds of people who do any given tradition just because it's tradition and not because it serves some useful function.
|
why make it illegal? just make it so you don't *have* to unless you don't want to... -.-
|
On November 29 2010 14:30 zhurai wrote:
why make it illegal? just make it so you don't *have* to unless you don't want to... -.-
Because babies have no way of saying that they don't want to be circumcised.
|
On November 29 2010 14:29 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
The United States is not a Western civilization, it is part of Western civilization. And it is not the last part of Western civilization to favor circumcision - or even the country where circumsion is most popular: That country would be South Korea.
Perhaps you don't consider South Korea a part of Western civilization? Eh maybe. Confucianism does hold much sway and is not Western but I feel there is much more in common between the US and South Korea today than between the UK and the US today. At the very least, the US and SK are moving together and the US and Europe are moving apart. Frankly, I don't mind Transatlantic Drift if it means the Pacific shrinks.
I meant Western as in the geographical definition, but I don't know if I'd consider South Korea a part of Western civilization when it is very distinctly culturally Asian in many respects.
|
On November 29 2010 13:24 Dfgj wrote:
Pretty much only done here for medical reasons or if specifically requested (for religious groups).
Having it done so casually and to everyone in the US always seemed ridiculous to me.
Banning it also seems ridiculous to me :O
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
