Mom, Dad in Court Over Son's Circumcision

[EatSpam]

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Vic, is that you? You sound like Vic, questioning my sanity.

Like I said while "foaming at the mouth", there's no arguing with a pro-circumcision type. Everything that isn't Ed Schoen or Thomas Wiswell or Dr. Kellogg is propaganda.

Must kill you that the activists are winning. Your beloved "non-lethal" procedure is declining in popularity.

Ok, you win...I will bite with this one...

First off I have no clue who this "Vic" character is, but check my post count, my registration date and also ask a few old timers about me...I am certainly not Vic and I know I predate you on these boards

Secondly I never came out as pro or anti anything, personally I don't care one way or another...if you want to leave your kid or whomever as is then that is fine by me, just as if you want to get your kid circumcised so long as the medical profession allows the proceedure then that is fine by me also...it isn't my place to tell parents what they can and cannot do, if the medical community wants to step in then so be it but as it currently stands it doesn't seem like they care one way or another..

If you want to argue that it is about money then that is fine by me, but be warned that I don't give a rats ass...the fact is the proceedure is currently an option that people are "opting" into...you have a beef with that then go join some task force on stopping circumcision or something, it will be a whole lot more productive than crying on a board like this.

As for the rest of your post, well again it is pitiful...for someone calling for compelling arguments you fail to make one of your own...heck you cannot even present yourself or your opinions in a respectable manner, instead you resort to childish rants and tantrums...at least Cow seems to have some sense of composure but that might just be an overstatement on my part as those seem to be declining in content/interest.

like I said Spam, either do something or get off the soap box.. as here you are truly wasting your time...

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
gunning to get this thread locked? 😕

I would guess not, childish remarks seem akin to his posting style....truly boring.

 

[EatSpam]

 

[ThaGrandCow]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow
You are correct, surgery hurts. Does that mean we should amputate the left hand from every child that is born to prevent pain from when one of them has an accident major enough to need amputation later in life? Choosing to cut your child now as opposed to letting them decide for themselves in the future makes absolutely no medical impact on them between birth and when the diseases it may prevent might be a factor.

EDIT: before it's even considered as an argument against me, I will never utter the phrase 'protect the children.' In the end the parent has the final say, I just want to hear one good reason why.

Ahh extrimism at its best...nice try at pulling a wildly obnoxious scenerio out of your rump and trying to use it in comparison...

Like I said, as long as the medical community perforoms the proceedure and also purports that there could possibly be a scenerio that warrants said proceedure then people will opt to have it done sooner rather than later....

Last I checked there is no similar presumption made on hands and or other appendages by the medical community.

How about vasectomies at birth? That would solve a pretty huge problem of teen pregnancies, and hey it's even reversable when they are ready for kids! What parent would say no to making sure their kid never had to deal with an "oops" situation and drop out of college to take care of an unplanned child? It could be offered, all the parent has to do is put a check in a box!

Holy cow your idiotic and fallacious comparisons are doing nothing to support your arguments. You really need to sit back and re-read the drivel you are spilling on these boards.

To compare this situation to randomly amputating hands, vasectomies is nothing less than sheer idiocy.

Please, for the love of whatever you believe in, think about the crazy comparisons you are making before you post them here.

Obviously you missed the 30 gallons of sarcasm I dumped into that response. Although I did try to write it with the same mentality and self-justification of the pro-circ crew. By your response to that comment, can I assume you now know exactly how every single anti-circ person feels about the pro-circ posters in this thread? So if you see the idiocy of the comment I made, maybe it's time you looked at the reasons people support circumcision.

EDIT: Bozak, I'm working on a response for you. I respect someone who can argue a point without regressing to 'hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr my baby my choice type arguments'.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

EDIT: Bozak, I'm working on a response for you. I respect someone who can argue a point without regressing to 'hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr my baby my choice type arguments'.

Respond all you like, it is getting near my bed time as I actually have a job and have to work tomorrow but I will be sure to check in sometime...looks like Spam is working on a reponse as well, either that or those with the big sticks came in and gave him the smackdown...generally they leave their mark though so I think he just isn't that quick on his feet...

However as I said in my response to Spam I really don't care one way or the other...whatever people want to do is their business, and personally while it is nice to think that this argument is in the best interest of the "children" the fact is that it really has little or nothing to do with them at all but more about the people posting in this thread and or making these arguments.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: TitanDiddly
Here I am.

I was circumcised this past Christmas. Let me tell you something: It was a huge loss, and honestly, I regret that decision more than anything else in my life.

That's because you got circumcized so late in life. If I didn't get it done when I was a baby, I probably wouldn't now.

When you're a baby you're still growing so you heal completely. No loss of feeling for most people.

 

[DidlySquat]

polish people == anti-semitic

 

[DidlySquat]

The mom had two husbands - an uncut one (ex-husband which is also the child's father) and a circumsized one (current husband who's jewish) and she WANTS her son to be circumsized. I wonder why she as a women wants her son circumsized after experiencing both kinds......

 

[SnoMunke]

I can help! :laugh: *starts sharpening pocketknife...*

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Uncircumcised Men Have Greater HIV Risk

 

[SilentZero]

Circumcised, as is our son. I wouldn't want it any other way.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Patrick Wolf
Uncircumcised Men Have Greater HIV Risk

Here is the Yahoo link for the same story...was just going to post it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060711/sc_nm/aids_circumcision_dc_3

Circumcising men routinely across Africa could prevent millions of deaths from AIDS, World Health Organization researchers and colleagues reported on Monday.

They analyzed data from trials that showed men who had been circumcised had a significantly lower risk of infection with the AIDS virus, and calculated that if all men were circumcised over the next 10 years, some two million new infections and around 300,000 deaths could be avoided.

Researchers believe circumcision helps cut infection risk because the foreskin is covered in cells the virus seems able to easily infect. The virus may also survive better in a warm, wet environment like that found beneath a foreskin.

So if men were circumcised, fewer would become infected and thus could not infect their female partners.

The human immunodeficiency virus or HIV, which causes AIDS, now infects close to 40 million people and has killed another 25 million. It mostly affects sub-Saharan Africa and the main mode of transmission is sex between a man and a woman.

Several studies have suggested that men who are circumcised have a lower rate of HIV infection. This has been especially noticeable in some parts of Africa, where some groups are routinely circumcised while neighboring groups are not.

Last year, Dr. Bertran Auvert of the French National Research Agency INSERM and colleagues at WHO found that circumcised men in South Africa were 65 percent less likely to become infected with the deadly and incurable virus.

His team then did an analysis to see what would happen if all African men were circumcised.

"In West Africa, male circumcision is common and the prevalence of HIV is low, while in southern Africa the reverse is true," they wrote in the current report, published in the Public Library of Science Medicine.

"This analysis shows that male circumcision could avert nearly six million new infections and save three million lives in sub-Saharan Africa over the next twenty years," they wrote.

Overall, they project that universal male circumcision would reduce the rate of infections by about 37 percent.

"Male circumcision alone cannot bring the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa under control. Even circumcised men can become infected, though their risk of doing so is much lower," the journal cautioned in a commentary.

 

[Doboji]

Why would you bump this godforsaken thread?

 

[orangat]

A study shows that developed countries with running water had little apparent difference in std rates for circ and non-circ'd. And circumcised men are also at a higher risk for _other_ stds other than HIV.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, CPA, BMA and BAPA take the stance of DISCOURAGING routine circumcision.

I doubt anyone on this forum have greater resources and medical know-how than the combined recommendations of the CPS, AAP, AMA, BMA, BAPA.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: orangat
A study shows that developed countries with running water had little apparent difference in std rates for circ and non-circ'd. And circumcised men are also at a higher risk for _other_ stds other than HIV.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, CPA, BMA and BAPA take the stance of DISCOURAGING routine circumcision.

I doubt anyone on this forum have greater resources and medical know-how than the combined recommendations of the CPS, AAP, AMA, BMA, BAPA.

I doubt circumcision really stops HIV...

 

[amddude]

He should at least be given the choice some day later, they can give him some kind of painkillers or injections I am sure.

 

[EndGame]

Rather than start a new thread and take up more space, I thought this was relevant to this discussion so it's added here......

Male circumcision 'lowers risk of HIV infection by 60%'
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 09 August 2006

It used to be called the unkindest cut. But now the head of the one of the world's largest Aids charities believes we are on the brink of a revolution in attitudes to circumcision.

Richard Feachem, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, said research revealing the protective effect of circumcision against HIV was set to change parental expectations and medical practice across the world. Instead of viewing the operation as an assault on the male sex, it was increasingly being seen as a lifesaving procedure which every parent would want for their sons.

Removing the foreskin is thought to harden the glans (head) of the penis, making it less permeable to viruses. Research conducted in 2005 showed the transmission of HIV from women to men during sex was reduced by 60 per cent if the men were circumcised.

A study published last month calculated that if all men in sub-Saharan Africa were circumcised, it would prevent almost six million new cases of HIV infection and save three million lives over the next 20 years.

Dr Feachem said the finding was one of the most significant in the battle against Aids and offered real hope of slowing the spread of the virus. The issue is to be debated at the World Aids Congress, which opens in Toronto next week.

Dr Feachem said: "We know the factors that cause HIV to spread rapidly in a country - the number of concurrent sexual partners, the use of condoms, the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases and male circumcision. Other things being equal, in a circumcised population you have a low and slowly developing epidemic and in an uncircumcised population you have a high and fast developing epidemic."

He added: "Circumcision is growing strongly in popularity in South Africa and in North America. We see males seeking circumcision very commonly in South Africa. The news of its protective effect caused a substantial increase in demand for adult male circumcision.

"Circumcision fell out of favour in North America and the UK as an unnecessary operation. Following this research, I think it extremely probable that parental demand for infant male circumcision will grow as a consequence."

More than one in three boys were estimated to be circumcised in the 1930s, but it fell out of favour from the 1940s onwards. By 1998, it was estimated that 12,000 circumcisions were being performed each year in Britain, suggesting fewer than one in 25 boys was having the surgery. There are big differences between racial and religious groups.

The rate of HIV infection in west Africa is less than 10 per cent, compared with more than 20 per cent in South Africa, which has mystified researchers.

Catherine Hankins, chief scientific adviser to UNAids, and a co-author of the study of the impact of circumcision on Aids in sub-Saharan Africa, published in the online journal PloS Medicine, said: "In west and central Africa there are high circumcision rates and lower HIV rates. Southern and eastern Africa have lower circumcision rates and higher HIV rates."

Deborah Jack, chief executive of the UK-based National Aids Trust, said the research findings were encouraging.

"It is clear the promotion of voluntary circumcision can play an important role in reducing the risk of HIV transmission," she said. But she warned: "People who are circumcised can still be infected with HIV and any awareness campaign would have to be extremely careful not to suggest that it protects against HIV or is an alternative to using condoms."