• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Iceland Could Become first Country to Ban Male Circumcision"

Koldo

Outstanding Member
So are you suggesting vaccines against HPV should be disallowed in young children?

Absolutely. A 5 years old child shouldn't be taking a vaccine against HPV.
It should only be taken at about puberty onset, just before sexual relationships start to happen.

You are picking and choosing based on your whim. There is disagreement between experts. In the face of such disagreement there is no reason to conclude that a parent relying on expert reasoning with which you personally disagree is invalid.

What do you mean by 'invalid' ?
I wouldn't say 'invalid'. I would say 'misguided'.

The only fair conclusion that we can arrive at is that a parent is reasonable in choosing to circumcise and a parent is also reasonable in choosing not to circumcise.

This then leads us to the conclusion that it is not ok for us to deny a parent to make a reasonable decision for their child based on our personal beliefs.

Nope. Any parent that chooses to perform circumcision in their babies is either misjudging the net gain involved in this procedure or not even taking this factor into consideration. That's the conclusion.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Do you have any support for this theory that FGM decreases likelihood of vulvar cancer in any appreciable amount?

Is there a need for 'appreciable amount' ?
You didn't ask for that. You might want to reconsider your wording. You merely asked whether there is a medical benefit and there is.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Absolutely. A 5 years old child shouldn't be taking a vaccine against HPV.
It should only be taken at about puberty onset, just before sexual relationships start to happen.



What do you mean by 'invalid' ?
I wouldn't say 'invalid'. I would say 'misguided'.



Nope. Any parent that chooses to perform circumcision in their babies is either misjudging the net gain involved in this procedure or not even taking this factor into consideration. That's the conclusion.
So you believe that the medical professionals at the AAP are misjudging the net gain? Sounds like you have a steep hill to climb.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Is there a need for 'appreciable amount' ?
You didn't ask for that. You might want to reconsider your wording. You merely asked whether there is a medical benefit and there is.
Appreciable amount would be one that was substantial enough to demonstrate a benefit.

The benefits of male circumcision are not just hypothetical benefits. They are all appreciable enough to justify saying that there is in fact a medical benefit.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Appreciable amount would be one that was substantial enough to demonstrate a benefit.

That doesn't follow.
A benefit is a benefit regardless of whether there is an 'appreciable amount'.
Lowering the odds of cancer, even if only by some minimal amount is still a benefit nonetheless.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
So you believe that the medical professionals at the AAP are misjudging the net gain? Sounds like you have a steep hill to climb.

You have to look no further than that other post of mine, the one with AAP's quote, where the benefits regarding sexually transmitted diseases are being counted towards performing circumcision in babies.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
That doesn't follow.
A benefit is a benefit regardless of whether there is an 'appreciable amount'.
Lowering the odds of cancer, even if only by some minimal amount is still a benefit nonetheless.
Sure, but I am asking if there is an actual lowering of odds, while you are trying to assert there is by definition a lowering of odds. I am just asking for evidence that your claim is true. This can only be done with an appreciable amount of benefit, seen in significant differences of statistics.

You want to say there is no clitoris, therefore there is a reduction in vulvar cancer. This is true if and only if some vulvar cancer can be seen to originate in the clitoris and clitoral removal would halt the vulvar cancer.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
You have to look no further than that other post of mine, the one with AAP's quote, where the benefits regarding sexually transmitted diseases are being counted towards performing circumcision in babies.
You do not think that prevention of sexually transmitted diseases should be counted? That is your opinion. Your basis for that opinion is that there is no reason to decide that now, therefore it should not be decided now. Your conclusion does not follow.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Sure, but I am asking if there is an actual lowering of odds, while you are trying to assert there is by definition a lowering of odds. I am just asking for evidence that your claim is true. This can only be done with an appreciable amount of benefit, seen in significant differences of statistics.

I am not asserting there is a lowering of odds by definition.
I am asserting the odds is zero by definition. You can't for instance, have skin cancer in your right hand if you don't have a right hand to begin with.

"All cancers begin in cells. Our bodies are made up of more than a hundred million million (100,000,000,000,000) cells. Cancer starts with changes in one cell or a small group of cells." - How cancer starts

S
You want to say there is no clitoris, therefore there is a reduction in vulvar cancer. This is true if and only if some vulvar cancer can be seen to originate in the clitoris and clitoral removal would halt the vulvar cancer.

I am not even talking about the clitoris, so I have no idea how you got to that. What I had in mind was cutting off some of the minor labia.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
You do not think that prevention of sexually transmitted diseases should be counted? That is your opinion. Your basis for that opinion is that there is no reason to decide that now, therefore it should not be decided now. Your conclusion does not follow.

It is not my opinion. It is a fact. It must not be counted if what we are addressing is forcing circumcision in male babies as opposed to letting them later on in their lives decide by themselves if they want to do it. There is no benefit in the first alternative that doesn't exist in the second one, when it comes down to comparing the advantages of each alternative as far as preventing sexually transmitted diseases go.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
It is not my opinion. It is a fact. It must not be counted if what we are addressing is forcing circumcision in male babies as opposed to letting them later on in their lives decide by themselves if they want to do it. There is no benefit in the first alternative that doesn't exist in the second one, when it comes down to comparing the advantages of each alternative as far as preventing sexually transmitted diseases go.
No but that is not the case. Were decreasing the likelihood the only benefit then you can say this. But the case of circumcision is distinct in that these benefits you wish to discount are additional benefits.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
No but that is not the case. Were decreasing the likelihood the only benefit then you can say this. But the case of circumcision is distinct in that these benefits you wish to discount are additional benefits.

I would like you to list what benefits are not mere 'additional benefits' and also list what risks you see as being involved. Then we shall see whether there is a net gain.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I would like you to list what benefits are not mere 'additional benefits' and also list what risks you see as being involved. Then we shall see whether there is a net gain.
"protection against urinary tract infections,6 penile inflammation, inferior hygiene, phimosis, and paraphimosis"

The additional benefits or the benefits that could be attained with later circumcision include:

"Such protections [listed above] continue through life and in adulthood are supplemented by protection against oncogenic HPVs, genital herpes, some other sexually transmitted infections, candida, penile cancer, prostate cancer,2,7 and in women cervical cancer, sexually transmitted infections and bacterial vaginosis."

The harms are risks of botched circumcision or infection. Both are extremely rare when you have trained surgeons facilitating the routine minor surgery. The infection is easily treatable. A botched surgery is treatable but this is would in most cases require additional surgery, and sometimes this includes major surgery.

The actual harm that occurs is the deprivation of the right to bodily autonomy of an infant. Such rights are routinely denied in choices like what to eat, what medications to take, and how to treat injuries.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
"protection against urinary tract infections,6 penile inflammation, inferior hygiene, phimosis, and paraphimosis"

Urinary tract infections - Did you know girls are much more likely to have one in the first place ? Did you know they can be often prevented by merely properly wiping the baby ? Did you know they can be mostly treated with ease ?

Penile inflammation - Did you know it is often caused by poor hygiene ?

Inferior hygiene - You will need to explain this one.

Phimosis - I suppose you mean pathological phimosis, right ? Did you know it can be often solved without any sort of surgery, and that even when a surgery is required it is quite minor ? The 'chop it off' attitude on this case is quite amusing.

Paraphimosis - Although an important condition, did you know it is almost always caused by someone doing something really retarded ?


To summarize: If the individual, or whoever takes care of him, knows how to properly handle his penis he will most likely not face any of those conditions and when they happen they will mostly be easily treatable.

The additional benefits or the benefits that could be attained with later circumcision include:

"Such protections [listed above] continue through life and in adulthood are supplemented by protection against oncogenic HPVs, genital herpes, some other sexually transmitted infections, candida, penile cancer, prostate cancer,2,7 and in women cervical cancer, sexually transmitted infections and bacterial vaginosis."

Irrelevant to the topic, therefore I won't comment on them.

The harms are risks of botched circumcision or infection. Both are extremely rare when you have trained surgeons facilitating the routine minor surgery. The infection is easily treatable. A botched surgery is treatable but this is would in most cases require additional surgery, and sometimes this includes major surgery.

The actual harm that occurs is the deprivation of the right to bodily autonomy of an infant. Such rights are routinely denied in choices like what to eat, what medications to take, and how to treat injuries.

For a a better list check: Complications | Newborn Nursery | Stanford Medicine

Comparing circumcision to 'what to eat, what medications to take, and how to treat injuries' is rather lame. Children must eat. Children must take medication when they are sick. Children must have their injuries treated. One way or another, parents must give food, medication and treat injuries. But there is no must when it comes down to doing circumcision except when a pathological condition is present.

Conclusion: Nothing major is being prevented in the vast majority of the time. And nothing bad is caused in the vast majority of time either. Therefore, there is no particular net gain. And since there is no particular net gain, forcing babies into circumcision is absurd.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Urinary tract infections - Did you know girls are much more likely to have one in the first place ? Did you know they can be often prevented by merely properly wiping the baby ? Did you know they can be mostly treated with ease ?

Penile inflammation - Did you know it is often caused by poor hygiene ?

Inferior hygiene - You will need to explain this one.

Phimosis - I suppose you mean pathological phimosis, right ? Did you know it can be often solved without any sort of surgery, and that even when a surgery is required it is quite minor ? The 'chop it off' attitude on this case is quite amusing.

Paraphimosis - Although an important condition, did you know it is almost always caused by someone doing something really retarded ?


To summarize: If the individual, or whoever takes care of him, knows how to properly handle his penis he will most likely not face any of those conditions and when they happen they will mostly be easily treatable.



Irrelevant to the topic, therefore I won't comment on them.



For a a better list check: Complications | Newborn Nursery | Stanford Medicine

Comparing circumcision to 'what to eat, what medications to take, and how to treat injuries' is rather lame. Children must eat. Children must take medication when they are sick. Children must have their injuries treated. One way or another, parents must give food, medication and treat injuries. But there is no must when it comes down to doing circumcision except when a pathological condition is present.

Conclusion: Nothing major is being prevented in the vast majority of the time. And nothing bad is caused in the vast majority of time either. Therefore, there is no particular net gain. And since there is no particular net gain, forcing babies into circumcision is absurd.
Your conclusion doesn't follow. There are certainly steps you can take to reduce the likelihood of things like UTI, phimosis, and the like but circumcision is undeniably another step one can take to decrease the likelihood of such events.

Conclusion: it is reasonable for parents to choose a different path then you would, therefore you are not entitled to deny them this choice because it is not the choice you would make.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Your conclusion doesn't follow. There are certainly steps you can take to reduce the likelihood of things like UTI, phimosis, and the like but circumcision is undeniably another step one can take to decrease the likelihood of such events.

Nevertheless, this merely constitutes the benefit and doesn't address the lack of net gain in that choice.

Conclusion: it is reasonable for parents to choose a different path then you would, therefore you are not entitled to deny them this choice because it is not the choice you would make.

Parents should only force their children into a medical procedure if there is a clear net gain in doing so.
I am entitled to enforcing this through my vote whether you like it or not.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Nevertheless, this merely constitutes the benefit and doesn't address the lack of net gain in that choice.



Parents should only force their children into a medical procedure if there is a clear net gain in doing so.
I am entitled to enforcing this through my vote whether you like it or not.
Nah, it is not majority rules in the U.S. you are not entitled to enforce anything if it tramples the rights of others. While you might be entitled in other countries, I am arguing that you ought not be entitled.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Nah, it is not majority rules in the U.S. you are not entitled to enforce anything if it tramples the rights of others. While you might be entitled in other countries, I am arguing that you ought not be entitled.

I am not from USA, however speaking about the USA...
As a matter of fact, it is.
The supreme court members are chosen by the presidents, which are chosen by the majority across a considerable time span. Not to mention the legislative body which, with a considerable majority, can even make amendments to the constitution.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I am not from USA, however speaking about the USA...
As a matter of fact, it is.
The supreme court members are chosen by the presidents, which are chosen by the majority across a considerable time span. Not to mention the legislative body which, with a considerable majority, can even make amendments to the constitution.
And amendments to the constitution take more than a simple majority. But sure. You somehow believe that it is good for the majority to have the ability to freely oppress minorities? I somehow feel our discussion is devolving.

I do not think that a parent choosing a procedure for which many doctors believe has a net benefit and all doctors acknowledge has a benefit is an unreasonable choice.

My reasoning for this has been explained.

You believe they are being unreasonable. You believe this because you think they and the many professional doctors on whom the parents rely are all misguided.

You believe this because in your assessment any advantage of circumcision can be equally achieved in a less intrusive way, and because any later in life benefits can be achieved by a later in life circumcision that does not deny the child the right to autonomy. And any surgery, even minor surgeries have risks. Since you believe all of the benefits can be achieved in another manner, you do not believe the benefits offset the harm.

Given your above beliefs you believe the parents right to act on behalf of their child should be limited to preserve the child's right to autonomy.

I disagree. So, given I think I thoroughly understand your beliefs and you understand mine and we still disagree...where does that leave us?
 
Top