| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
lac29
United States1485 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:28 matjlav wrote: Yes, because public policy should never deal with anything except for the very most pressing and dire issues. /sarcasm Yes? The problem I see with the world at large is that there is a serious lack of prioritization on world issues. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44317 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:27 Krigwin wrote: 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 I never said it had to prevent it. Lowering risk isn't as good as automatic prevention, but when you're comparing multiple "lowered risks" to a possible "1 in a million chance" anyway, you may consider getting the operation. It's true that you may not have gotten those diseases anyway, but then again it's true that you may have if it weren't for the circumcision. That's why the AMA says that there are potential benefits to the operation, not "absolute benefits, definitely get it!" or "no chance of it being helpful, it's useless!" That's why we're having this discussion  | ||
|
adeezy
United States1428 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:28 Ferrose wrote: 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. Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:25 Jibba wrote: 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. why do you think that? | ||
|
BrickTop
United States37 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:20 adeezy wrote: 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. That's true, but I think a very large percentage of American parents don't know that, and they think circumcision IS significantly beneficial. This results in a lot of children being circumcised due to simple misinformation. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:32 adeezy wrote: Yeah and because of that.... I am saying... really san francisco trying to stop circumcision. It's really taking the parents right to decide away and giving that right to the child. Wellt hat's how I approach it well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. | ||
|
AJMcSpiffy
United States1154 Posts
All the possible benefits of being circumcised wouldn't really come into effect until the child/man was sexually active, at which point he would be prepared to make the decision on his own. Leave it up to the guy whether or not he wants to change his own genitalia. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:30 travis wrote: 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 Yes, but up until very, very recently the same argument was made for circumcision. When the information is that raw and non-extensive (no pun intended), you don't legislate off it. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:01 Dali. wrote: Do any of us support female genital mutilation? I assume not. Then why are we in favour of the male counterpart? Because the "male counterpart" is in no way a counterpart to female circumcision. Male circumcision generally has no negative consequences. Or if there are negative consequences, they aren't well understood. Circumcised males do not have a lack of sex drive or ability to orgasm compared to uncircumcised males (though I've often wondered if circumcision affects how long men last. Someone should do a study on that). As far as we can tell, it is quite innocuous. Female circumcision is not. Female circumcision almost always carries with it many negative effects. The two are in no way comparable. They are only similar because they use similar names. The term "female circumcision" isn't even anatomically correct, because the "circumcision" in that case removes the clitoris (the external part, at any rate). The closest equivalent to that in men would be the removal of the penis. Which I'm sure you'll agree would have substantial negative consequences. Consequences that male circumcision does not have. As for outlawing circumcision, I'm against the law on general principle. I'm fairly neutral on circumcision, but I really don't think that a city-wide ban on the practice is a good idea. This is just a political move. It is nothing more and nothing less than opening up a new front in the Culture Wars. For no reason other than to score cheap political points. | ||
|
shawster
Canada2485 Posts
imagine if you had pubes as a kid and your parents controlled whether they would be shaved or not, and they can't grow back. basically it doesn't matter much but i would like to have control of what i do with my body when it doesn't really affect my well-being. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:33 BrickTop wrote: That's true, but I think a very large percentage of American parents don't know that, and they think circumcision IS significantly beneficial. This results in a lot of children being circumcised due to simple misinformation. Which is exactly why the article stated that parents should be fully informed before going through with the operation. Even so, I think it should still be up to the kid. I haven't been circumcised, but maybe after reading up on it one day, I would say, "Hey, this doesn't sound like a bad idea," and get circumcised. Even if it doesn't do anything beneficial, it would still be better than being circumcised as a baby, and being told that it's best for me and not having a say in the matter, and possibly growing up to be say, "FUCK WHY WAS I CIRCUMCISED?!" | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Which part? That children don't have full rights? Because they don't. That most city council people are unqualified for real work? Because in New York and Detroit and Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and Albion, they aren't. Or that parents fuck up their kids in a myriad of ways? That's just basic socialization. | ||
|
proxY_
United States1561 Posts
As far as the circumsicion debate is concerned, I don't really have a problem with a ban. There's no compelling evidence that circumsicion has any really tangible health benefits so the entire practice revolves around needlessly lopping off part of the baby's body. Some people might have a problem with that language but that's literally what's going on. It's not like the person in question couldn't make an educated decision later on in life to have one. | ||
|
adeezy
United States1428 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote: well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. The fact that the benefit is arguable and there is no definite yes or no leaves it to the parents to decide for themselves. Religion and tradition aside.... And if there were no health benefits then I could understand why people would say no to it. But like in the OP what's behind circumcision backers is : POSSIBLE benefits, religious and/or cultural traditions. This is what makes me say... oh okay, Parents just need to decide. Honestly, they should work on banning malnutrition, forgetting to feed your baby, or shaking your baby, or something of the sort that is actually relevant pain before we call things like this barbaric. Maybe I am going a different route but seriously... the way i see this issue is like this quote from Black Jack earlier "I need to move to San Francisco. Life there must be pure bliss if lawmakers have run out of real problems to tackle and they have moved on to happy meal toys and foreskin." However, there are real problems. Living near there there's a ton. I understand this is just a proposal for a future bill in 2011 but if this becomes a fullblown issue, it'll end up being a Science vs Religion debate. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:32 lac29 wrote: Yes? The problem I see with the world at large is that there is a serious lack of prioritization on world issues. ...This is just one of many issues being discussed as a potential law to consider by one board in one city, man, how do you think they should go about tackling world issues? On November 29 2010 14:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I never said it had to prevent it. Lowering risk isn't as good as automatic prevention, but when you're comparing multiple "lowered risks" to a possible "1 in a million chance" anyway, you may consider getting the operation. It's true that you may not have gotten those diseases anyway, but then again it's true that you may have if it weren't for the circumcision. That's why the AMA says that there are potential benefits to the operation, not "absolute benefits, definitely get it!" or "no chance of it being helpful, it's useless!" That's why we're having this discussion The way you phrase it pretty much implies that circumcision in some way "saves penises", that definitely implies some level of prevention there. It really comes down to whether you think the possible benefits (which can be nonexistent to very minor depending on where you get your information) outweighs the drawbacks, many of which are definitely real and can be outright proven, like the permanent loss of neurosensitivity. | ||
|
Dance.
United States389 Posts
| ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13005 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:34 travis wrote: well, if there is no actual benefit to circumcision then of course it should be stopped. should you be allowed to strip off some of your babies skin, causing temporary pain? the baby won't remember it when it grows up, and it will surely heal... but what's the point? it's still unnecessary pain. very barbaric. I understand what you're saying but coming from someone who has had it done, it's really not that big a deal. Unless of course it goes horribly wrong. At the end of the day though it's just an inconsequential piece of skin. I think people make way too much out of circumcision.. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:40 Jibba wrote: Which part? That children don't have full rights? Because they don't. That most city council people are unqualified for real work? Because in New York and Detroit and Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and Albion, they aren't. Or that parents fuck up their kids in a myriad of ways? That's just basic socialization. You're kidding; Monica Conyers is the perfect example of competence from a city council member. On November 29 2010 14:42 Dance. wrote: Am I the only one who doesn't mind that I'm circumcised? I'm sure that most people wouldn't mind it as much if they actually had a say in the matter.  | ||
|
njnick
United States176 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:37 NicolBolas wrote: Because the "male counterpart" is in no way a counterpart to female circumcision. Male circumcision generally has no negative consequences. Or if there are negative consequences, they aren't well understood. Circumcised males do not have a lack of sex drive or ability to orgasm compared to uncircumcised males (though I've often wondered if circumcision affects how long men last. Someone should do a study on that). As far as we can tell, it is quite innocuous. Female circumcision is not. Female circumcision almost always carries with it many negative effects. The two are in no way comparable. They are only similar because they use similar names. The term "female circumcision" isn't even anatomically correct, because the "circumcision" in that case removes the clitoris (the external part, at any rate). The closest equivalent to that in men would be the removal of the penis. Which I'm sure you'll agree would have substantial negative consequences. Consequences that male circumcision does not have. As for outlawing circumcision, I'm against the law on general principle. I'm fairly neutral on circumcision, but I really don't think that a city-wide ban on the practice is a good idea. This is just a political move. It is nothing more and nothing less than opening up a new front in the Culture Wars. For no reason other than to score cheap political points. Hello http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ Goodbye User was warned for this post | ||
|
Tarbosh
United States127 Posts
On November 29 2010 14:42 Dance. wrote: Am I the only one who doesn't mind that I'm circumcised? No, I'd be pissed if I was uncircumcised. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
