blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Parents have the right to make necessary medical decisions for their children. Breast reduction surgery for a girl with huge breasts and back problems is necessary.
You couldn't force an 8th grade girl to get a breast enlargement, nor would any surgeon actually do it.
Its very hard to make the case that circumcision of a healthy child is necessary to his well being, yet the law allows it.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Let's suppose that a deaf couple has a child that can hear but they don't want him to be able to hear so that he can share the joys that come from a world of silence with them. Should they be allowed to have him deafened?
Could you please be a little more specific about the kinds of health and body choices parents make for their children and the affect they have on the children once they are adults? Are these things that cannot be undone? Are these things that have a direct effect on the enjoyment of life? Using your logic, why shouldn't Muslim families be able to have female circumcision performed on infant girls?
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
How about potential decrease of enjoyment in sexual intercourse? How about feelings of anger and resentment at parents and society for not being allowed to make the decision?
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Who decides it is necessary? Im not being argumentitive. Who makes the decision? A doctor? A poll on the internet?
How can you say it didn't slow the epidemic? The science suggests otherwise, as straight men's relatively low rate of catching the disease from infected women helped slow it.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Im not eluding to anything. I stating that circumsision in males and females arent even closely related therefore shouldnt be brought up. The intent of those who do them is different also. One is for asthetic and health reasons one is for oppression. It would be the same if we were talking talking about type 1 diabetes and trying to bring type 2 into the discussion. Not even the same disease really.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Sure as soon as you provide evidence that circumcising has negative effects as an adult. Which Ive asked for before.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
lol so theres really men who get pissed off when they have sex because they arent sensitive enough and it is because they are circumcized? Really? Links?
Really? If this is the argument then I'll bow out and we'll agree to disagree. If men are really that upset about being circumcized that they RESENT (resent? Really?) their parents, they have far greater issues than being cut.
Doctors should refuse to do it based on the lack of medical evidence that circumcision is the best choice for a healthy minor with no immediate surgical need. What has been offered as evidence?
UTI prevention? Breastfeeding is more effective. Minor UTIs are easily treated with $4 antibiotics and no risk of surgical complication. Recurrent UTIs are internal. Girls get more UTIs than boys and seem to do fine without surgical prevention.
Penile Cancer? Risk is about 1 in 100,000 and it affects old men. Male breast cancer is far more common and deadly. The fact that penile cancer affects older men makes it possible for adults to get cut if they're worried. Penile cancer is apparently caused by the same kinds of HPV that cause cervical cancer, so look for Gardasil for boys soon.
HIV/STDs: We have a living lab in the United States. Our STD/HIV rates are higher than Europe's where they don't cut. Condoms are nearly 100% effective, cheaper, and carry no surgical risk. Real sex ed would cover how to use it.
Daddy: Doctors didn't seem to care back in the 1950s when they cut boys regardless of their father's status. It didn't cause issues for them. It won't kill Daddy now if the boy isn't cut.
Locker room: I did the whole high school thing and saw only one dick. Mine. Maybe its the football players who check each other out. The rest of us just dressed and left.
Phimosis: Not an issue until puberty as the foreskin doesn't really need to move until then. If the foreskin doesn't retract by puberty, there are steroid creams available. Steroid creams don't have the risks of surgical interventions and probably won't be needed.
Girls like it better: Product of culture. You know what you are familiar with. Teach your kid self esteem and how to show the shallow bitch to the door. There are plenty of women who aren't so ignorant.
Cleanliness: For babies, just wipe it off. No retracting manually. For kids, dunk them in the bath. For teens and adults, they just need to wash it in the shower. If a guy has a problem touching himself to clean then he has bigger problems.
Seriously, anything offered up is evidence is weak. Anything that circumcision claims to make better can be achieved less expensively and without surgical risks of any kind.
Look at the per capita rates in the CIA World Factbook of HIV infection for Western Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc. and then compare them with the U.S. If circumcision was this magic bullet, surely our rates would be lower than theirs, but the opposite is true. We have the worst per capita HIV rates outside of the third world.
On topic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7960798.stm
So true. And its hard to see it unless you're outside of our culture.
So true. And its hard to see it unless you're outside of our culture.
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2004
- 11,465
- 1
- 0
That's apples and oranges, as there are many other factors from the levels of sexual intersource to the levels of intravaneous drug use to levels of homosexual sex.
It's simply common sense to compare similarly situated circumcised and uncircumsised men to determine the risk levels, and if much lower for circumsised, that that will lower the rate it spreads - and therefore lessen the spread of the spidemic. You really offered nothing to show your claim is right that it did not slow the epidemic, but I do understand now that the apparent reason you reached that conclusion was by comparing the rates without consideration for other factors.
Ok, but you're going to take studies that were done in Africa as proof that circumcision works for American males? Africa is far more dissimilar to the United States than is Western Europe. Western Europe is very similar to the U.S. in culture, promiscuity, tolerance of homosexuality, drug use, and any important factors. The major difference is that we're prudish about sex ed and hate foreskins while the Europeans actually educate their populace about sex without screaming about Jesus and Socialism.
And even if Europe was that radically different, we still should be attempting to find out what they're doing right rather than digging up our favorite ritual.
Amongst Africans in Africa, there are plenty of apples and oranges comparisons. If a man is Muslim, he'll be circumcised but also won't frequent prostitutes or sleep around on his wife. Comparing a Muslim circumcised male to a intact male who doesn't follow a strict religion is a far better example of apples and oranges. Did the studies control for these religious factors?
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
I've come across that sentiment several times before. There is even organizations that oppose circumcision:
Intact America
You'll also find angry, indignant men here: Men's Activism.org
The National Coalition for Men also opposes circumcision. (Taken from their Men's Rights Issues page):
Here's another site. NoCirc.org
So, apparently there really are a great many men who are indignant that society regards males as having less value than females and thus as being devoid of rights to their own bodies.
[/quote]
They resent their parents a little bit for doing what society and often religion socialized and trained them to do. The majority of the resentment is towards society itself for devaluing males as human beings and for allowing, condoning, and encouraging the practice.
The real damage--aside from the loss of greater sexual enjoyment--the loss of self-determination and of rights to one's own body. Perhaps the foreskin doesn't increase sexual enjoyment, but even if that is true, why should someone else make that decision for a man?
You still have yet to explain:
1. Why males should have less value and fewer rights than females in our society.
2. Why the alleged benefits of circumcision more than outweigh men's interest in self-determination and in making their own decisions.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Fair enough. I guess I should have expected such groups to exist.You still have yet to explain:
I dont really understand what you mean by your first question. Your seciond question has been answered in the thread. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Seriously? You equate the two? I suggest you start by reading one of many studies on the effects of female circumsicion, this one in regards to childbirth. As an outline, according to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for Type I, 32% for Type II, and 55% for Type III). Mothers with FGC Type III were also found to be 30% more at risk for cesarean sections and had a 70% increase in postpartum haemorrhage compared to women without FGC.
Google "circumcision initiation deaths". Plenty of males die from bush circumcisions. I wonder how many woman die from female circumcision when they do it in the hospital, like in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
Do you object to medicalized female circumcision as strongly as you do the bush version? Why? After all, they think its cleaner, its traditional, and men in those countries like it better.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
Scroll down to causes.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
If you don't understand the question, then re-read it. Why, in your view, are females more valuable than men to the point where we believe that their rights to do what they want to with their own bodies are almost sacred--"My body my choice"--whereas men shouldn't have choices about their bodies, especially choices related to male sexuality? Why do we value men's lives less and give them fewer rights?
If my second question has been directly addressed at all, it wasn't very convincing.
Druidx
Platinum Member
- Jul 16, 2002
- 2,971
- 0
- 76
When my son was born we inquired who would do the circumcision. We never discussed it beforehand, my wife an I just automatically assumed it would be done.
The OB said he use to do it but quit and refereed us to our pediatrician. Our pediatrician was very nice, he took the time to talk to us about the pro's and con's. Ultimately he changed our mind when he said " As your sons doctor I make medical decisions on what's best for your son, I can't recommend a painful and unnecessary procedure just because it's customary". He also said he wouldn't do it because the American Assoc. of Pediatrics do not recommend routine circumcision. While he made his opinion clear, he was very nice about it and offered to setup an appointment with a either a Urologists or Ped surgeon depending upon who we wanted to do it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter