"Forced Genital Cutting," and Jewish circumcision

[Me Myself]

But there are children starving in Africa...

I am sure you are smart enough to see the difference of what you say to my comparison.

You are either deliberately ignoring it or didn't choose to take the time to think about it. Its very easy really.

 

[Koldo]

I am sure you are smart enough to see the difference of what you say to my comparison.

You are either deliberately ignoring it or didn't choose to take the time to think about it. Its very easy really.

Not at all.

You are saying there are bigger fishes to fry and that we shouldn't waste time with the small ones such as these, isn't that right?

 

[Me Myself]

Not at all.

You are saying there are bigger fishes to fry and that we shouldn't waste time with the small ones such as these, isn't that right?

In the specific context of what parents do that damage their kids but is not ilegal and is even seen as "okay" or "a right" to be able to do it.

Then again, maybe I miss some of the context of parenthood in africa :angel2:

 

[Koldo]

In the specific context of what parents do that damage their kids but is not ilegal and is even seen as "okay" or "a right" to be able to do it.

Then again, maybe I miss some of the context of parenthood in africa :angel2:

Which is a context as relevant as the starving children in Africa to this topic.
Most issues can be put within a group where there will be bigger issues, which means that using this reasoning we shouldn't solve them.

For example, we could, using the same reasoning, talk about the context of what parents do to their children overall, and then argument that since some of them will sexually abuse their children or beat them a lot that giving them a whole lot of fast food or sugar is not really a problem to be debated over.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the specific context of what parents do that damage their kids but is not ilegal and is even seen as "okay" or "a right" to be able to do it.

Then again, maybe I miss some of the context of parenthood in africa :angel2:

FWIW, I think that parents smoking around their kids is a much bigger problem than circumcision.

But this thread isn't about how we should prioritize circumcision relative to other issues; it's about the issue of circumcision itself. And if the fact that there are more critical issues out there - and there are - means that we're not supposed to complain about circumcision, then *you* are completely unjustified in complaining about your issue of the moment: complaining about people who complain about circumcision.

If you're going to argue that this issue isn't worth my time, then you open the door to point out that by any reasonable measure, you complaining about my position is worth your time even less.

 

[dawny0826]

Source, please.

I've already provided it. Post #10. I linked all my references and stated that I had in that particular post. So, what's the problem?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3516576-post10.html

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've already provided it. Post #10. I linked all my references and stated that I had in that particular post. So, what's the problem?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3516576-post10.html

That article isn't specific; did they mean this study?

Methods
4996 uncircumcised, HIV-negative men aged 15—49 years who agreed to HIV testing and counselling were enrolled in this randomised trial in rural Rakai district, Uganda. Men were randomly assigned to receive immediate circumcision (n=2474) or circumcision delayed for 24 months (2522). HIV testing, physical examination, and interviews were repeated at 6, 12, and 24 month follow-up visits.

[...]

Findings
Baseline characteristics of the men in the intervention and control groups were much the same at enrolment. Retention rates were much the same in the two groups, with 90—92% of participants retained at all time points. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, HIV incidence over 24 months was 0·66 cases per 100 person-years in the intervention group and 1·33 cases per 100 person-years in the control group (estimated efficacy of intervention 51%, 95% CI 16—72; p=0·006).

Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial : The Lancet

If so, there are a few problems:

- it doesn't look at infant circumcision; all the study participants were circumcised as adolescents or adults.
- it specifically looked at HIV infection rates in a country with some of the highest prevalence of HIV in the world.
- the study group was taken from a population with a ridiculously low rate of consistent condom use.

Overall, the actual conclusion that we can take from the study is that when you're surrounded by AIDS and don't use condoms consistently, circumcision can reduce your level of HIV risk but still leave it unacceptably high (unless you think that 0.66 cases per 100 person-years is an acceptable HIV infection rate... do you?).

The literature that I've been able to find surmises that any effect of circumcision on HIV infection rates is due to some sort of higher succeptibility of the foreskin to HIV once it's exposed to HIV. This means that if you use a condom properly - which is the responsible thing to do when you're with someone of unknown HIV status, regardless of whether you're circumcised - then there should be no difference in infection rates.


... but maybe you'll tell us that not teaching kids about safe sex is another thing that we shouldn't criticize parents for doing.

 

[Falvlun]

How? How would it have caused me "life long disability or pain" that I never had breasts?

You also mentioned anuses, lips, and vaginas.

As for breasts, you would lose a bodily function: that of producing milk for your offspring.

You can argue that such a function is unnecessary, but that doesn't negate the fact that removal of breasts would cause such a loss of function.

Again, this is much unlike circumcision, which causes no loss of function.

Why are you comparing a males foreskin on his penis..to an earlobe?

Why are you comparing removal of a foreskin to removal of lips?

You are the one who wanted to make comparisons. I was simply offering much more analogous suggestions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are the one who wanted to make comparisons. I was simply offering much more analogous suggestions.

I hope you have better luck with that than I did. When I pointed out that infant tattooing would be analogous to infant circumcision, I was ignored... except for one accusation that I was making out circumcision advocates to be like Nazis.

 

[Aquitaine]

I am sorry, I believe I answered that one in another thread. My answer is yes, if we found actual health benefits and the risks invovled only balanced such an action or only slightly outweighed such an action then said action should be legal for a parent to choose. But it is not. I do not think of this as a gender issue. That does not mean there is not a gender issue involved. It is completely possible that many people are more reluctant to interfere with female genitalia.

I wonder if any studies have been done on Clitoral Hood removal, and if the same benefits can apply. I do wonder. I'll look into it sometime.

Your legal argument is then that a parent is not free to make a choice that is risk neutral if such a choice can be delayed or avoided. The consequences of this are not very inhibiting to parents.

How far should the line be drawn though, with the "it's my kid I can do what I want with it" perspective? My primarily issue with infant circumcision (other than it being a permanent modification of one's penis) is that more often than not, it is a completely unnecessary procedure.

Now, I do not oppose it if there is a genuine medical necessity to do so for a child, but quite frankly a reduced risk of contracting STD's does not sit well as a genuine medical necessity to me, especially since it's done on infants.

Sure, if an adult wishes to do it, then fine. But seriously, people need to stop pretending it's about genuine medical concern over STD rates in infants, and just admit that the main reason it's still done to healthy boys today is for Religious/Cultural/Aesthetic reasons.

This isn't the same as (for example) getting your kid some dental work done that actually needs doing.

 

[dawny0826]

That article isn't specific; did they mean this study?



Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial : The Lancet

If so, there are a few problems:

- it doesn't look at infant circumcision; all the study participants were circumcised as adolescents or adults.
- it specifically looked at HIV infection rates in a country with some of the highest prevalence of HIV in the world.
- the study group was taken from a population with a ridiculously low rate of consistent condom use.

Overall, the actual conclusion that we can take from the study is that when you're surrounded by AIDS and don't use condoms consistently, circumcision can reduce your level of HIV risk but still leave it unacceptably high (unless you think that 0.66 cases per 100 person-years is an acceptable HIV infection rate... do you?).

The literature that I've been able to find surmises that any effect of circumcision on HIV infection rates is due to some sort of higher succeptibility of the foreskin to HIV once it's exposed to HIV. This means that if you use a condom properly - which is the responsible thing to do when you're with someone of unknown HIV status, regardless of whether you're circumcised - then there should be no difference in infection rates.


... but maybe you'll tell us that not teaching kids about safe sex is another thing that we shouldn't criticize parents for doing.

The article referenced 500 studies, for which they've based their stance, Jeff.

Don't put words in my mouth. This isn't a discussion on safe sex practices. This is a discussion regarding a parental right to choose circumcision for their infant son.

The statistics that the penis is wearing in the first post of this thread is bull. There haven't been wide-spread studies to yield conclusive statistics regarding circumicision and it's impact on penile sensitivity.

I'm not playing this game with you. My stance is the same as it's been since the onset. I believe that parents should make educated decisions for their children and I don't believe that people like yourself should have the right to block them.

For the umpteenth time, if in my personal experience, the infants that I cared for had seemed traumatized in any way by the procedure, or the men that I've known had been traumatized by the procedure or there were statistics that supported that this procedure was emotionally and/or physically scarring, I'd be advocating against it, right along with those of you in opposition.

Regardless as to whether the health benefits appear to be "a wash" or not, as you've stated on many occasions - parents have the right to determine whether the procedure is worthwhile for their children. They are the individuals to be held accountable alongside physicians if procedures go wrong or their children grow to later resent them.

You talk about infant rights (as it relates to this topic) knowing damn well that an infant can't make such a decision and couldn't consent to any type of procedure. PARENTS MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEIR BABIES.

You project as if it's yourplace to determine the decisions that parents make, contingent upon your view of what's acceptable and not acceptable. You demonize those who are Jewish, Muslim, Christian and who choose the procedure for what they feel are important benefits for their child. And you think it's absolutely justified.

Statistically, show me what you're protecting our children from? This is my question to you. What are you protecting our children from?

You're not going to get a different argument from me. And you're going to construe and interpret statistics in any way you please. You're convinced that those who circumcise their infant boys are child abusers - a mindset that I loathe - I don't know why we bother with this, to be honest. We can't learn from each other.

 

[Me Myself]

FWIW, I think that parents smoking around their kids is a much bigger problem than circumcision.

But this thread isn't about how we should prioritize circumcision relative to other issues; it's about the issue of circumcision itself. And if the fact that there are more critical issues out there - and there are - means that we're not supposed to complain about circumcision, then *you* are completely unjustified in complaining about your issue of the moment: complaining about people who complain about circumcision.

If you're going to argue that this issue isn't worth my time, then you open the door to point out that by any reasonable measure, you complaining about my position is worth your time even less.

Oh you can complain about whatever you want, by all means enjoy it.

I am just saying it is unimportant, it has almost no importance in comparison to other issues of the same nature but greater (and I would say actual) damage that parents do to their kids because hey decide to.

So no, I am not against you complaining about it at all. I am just telling you its nothing .

But first things first. Which exactly is the percetage of real actual damage recieved by someone after a circumsision? What is the percentage of circumsized males that are unhappy about having been circumsized? How unhappy are they?

I think this are serious questions we should answer before saying how important, if any this issue is. Any decision a parent has ever taken has been considered by some number of people problematic sometime because of something.

Hw important is circumsizion anyways?

 

[Me Myself]

I hope you have better luck with that than I did. When I pointed out that infant tattooing would be analogous to infant circumcision, I was ignored... except for one accusation that I was making out circumcision advocates to be like Nazis.

If it was common and with as little risks and problems thhen I would say it is a good analogy.

For example, if this was done in mass to a lot of kids, who did not experiment problems because of this and most of them are happy they can have it without having to endure the pain of e tattoo now that they are older and such and such, yes , I can totally see a scenario where it would be very analogous.

The tattoo would be less grave even as you can remove it, but I dont see any of those to be grave.

As an example, I would say tattooing a little family mark on an adopted son or daughter whether when this one was a baby so that s/he would feel like part of the family (I am not sang you do it to trick hir into believing s/he got your genes btw ) is almost completely analogous, with the difference that I DONT KNOW how safe are tattoos for babies. If it were as safe as circumsizion, then sure, it is very analogous. I see nothing wrong wiht it at all.

Edit: the reason .i say family mark is also because any tattoo will get distorted as he grows... So should be something little. Also because it is something most people wont see hir wrong about it. In countries where a circumsized male is treated as a pariah I could totally be more behind the case of it being wrong to take such a decision in place of your kid, but not even entirely depending on circumstances.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Some posters have said that they have been circumcised and that they are fine with it and they have had no ill effects or loss of sensitivity.
How do they Know?
Those that have been circumcised and those who have not, have no Idea how they would feel if their roles were reversed.
However there is a small number that have been traumatised by a botched operation or contracted infection that has left them permanently damaged.
How large does this group need to be before society recognises it as a serious health risk ?

In the UK that number was large enough for the health service in some cities, with large Muslim populations, to offer NHS circumcisions to them, as a means of reducing that risk to acceptable levels. They do this even though the operation still engenders risk, and is regarded as unnecessary for normal healthy males.

 

[Curious George]

Some posters have said that they have been circumcised and that they are fine with it and they have had no ill effects or loss of sensitivity.
How do they Know?
Those that have been circumcised and those who have not, have no Idea how they would feel if their roles were reversed.
However there is a small number that have been traumatised by a botched operation or contracted infection that has left them permanently damaged.
How large does this group need to be before society recognises it as a serious health risk ?

In the UK that number was large enough for the health service in some cities, with large Muslim populations, to offer NHS circumcisions to them, as a means of reducing that risk to acceptable levels. They do this even though the operation still engenders risk, and is regarded as unnecessary for normal healthy males.

I would guess the group would need to be as large as the number of people dying in plane crashes that would make flying with a baby illegal except for emergency situations.

 

[dawny0826]

Some posters have said that they have been circumcised and that they are fine with it and they have had no ill effects or loss of sensitivity.
How do they Know?
Those that have been circumcised and those who have not, have no Idea how they would feel if their roles were reversed.
However there is a small number that have been traumatised by a botched operation or contracted infection that has left them permanently damaged.
How large does this group need to be before society recognises it as a serious health risk ?

In the UK that number was large enough for the health service in some cities, with large Muslim populations, to offer NHS circumcisions to them, as a means of reducing that risk to acceptable levels. They do this even though the operation still engenders risk, and is regarded as unnecessary for normal healthy males.

Ha ha! You're insinuating that a good number of US men have serious health problems as a result of their circumcision and they don't even know it!

Seriously, this is becoming asinine. Why would a man, who is happy, healthy and enjoying a productive sex life regret a small procedure that he has no remembrance of?

It's important to be respectful of religious and cultural practice, if we are to function as free societies, even if it makes the junk in your pants quiver in fear.

It seems to have MORE of an impact on YOU than those who have undergone the procedure as infants and then as adult men.

 

[Koldo]

Ha ha! You're insinuating that a good number of US men have serious health problems as a result of their circumcision and they don't even know it!

He didn't say nor insinuate this on that post.

 

[Koldo]

It's important to be respectful of religious and cultural practice, if we are to function as free societies, even if it makes the junk in your pants quiver in fear.

Up to a certain point.

 

[dawny0826]

He didn't say nor insinuate this on that post.

He's asking how many posters have been circumicised and do not even know that they have penile sensitivity issues as a result of their circumcision.

When, all who have posted already (unless I'm blind and have missed something) have said that they're fine.

So now, you explain to me, how I was supposed to have read what he posted.

 

[dawny0826]

Up to a certain point.

Then, by the same logic, it's justifiable for those in oppoosition to a plethora of human rights to support them...up to whatever "certain point" they deem acceptable.

None of you have provided evidence or support for your opinions against the procedure to suggest that the procedure yields the type of trauma that you project.

Until you can do that, you're just projecting as if you should be able to tell parents how they should raise their children, what decisions they should making. You expect parents not to raise their children within the auspices of their faith and you're okay with that. Circumcision is an important piece to the faith of many and you feel that because you have an objection to the procedure, even though the AAP and CDC is telling Americans...it's okay...make your own decisions in confidence...it's okay from a health perspective to have your infant circumicised.

You don't have to do it. It's ultimately your choice. They aren't make a recommendation either way or pushing. But, parents can make this decision in confidence WITHOUT feeling as if they've done something wrong from a scientific/medical perspective.

Somehow, you and others are above this and feel have the ability through your opinion, to trump hundreds of studies and the actual real life experiences of people who have been circumcised and have cared for infants after the procedure. As with any procedure, there are risks to consider and again, the rates of male circumicsion in the US are on the freaking decline.