Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Circumcision does not reduce sensitivity

11617181921

Posts

  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    So what do I think? Not having your child circumcised is a perfectly reasonable choice, but it's also fine to have your child circumcised. It's not worth getting upset about having been circumcised, and going on some sort of crusade against the practice is just stupid.
    At this point, your post fails and you also miss the point of the moral argument being made (hint: exactly 1 of those studies is actually about a condition relevant to the problem at hand).

    My post was mostly to combat the oft-repeated and blatantly false claim that "there are no medical benefits for circumcision." Also, I'm confused as to why you only think one of those studies is important. As for the moral argument, I assume you mean "it's a choice about their body that they should make." I think that given how it's much easier to do circumcisions in infancy, the fact that medical benefits are more pronounced when done early, the very low rate and severity of complications, the lack of difference in sensitivity and the fact that women actually prefer it that way, it's not really a meaningful moral imposition to do it.
    EDIT:
    OBJECTIVE: To analyze our series and review the prognostic factors in the treatment of epidermoid carcinoma of the penis. METHODS: Age, time to consultation, circumcision, form of presentation, local treatment, tumor stage and grade, lymph node involvement and outcome were analyzed in 27 cases of carcinoma of the penis diagnosed at our hospital from 1981 to 1999. RESULTS: The incidence rate was 1.8 cases/100,000 men/year. No patient had been circumcised, except one who was circumcised in the adult age. The median time to consultation was 24 months (interquartile range: 60-7.75). The median follow-up was 37 months (interquartile range: 84-12). All patients with pT1GI-II and pT2G-II primary tumor (n = 21; 78% of the series) and with no lymphadenopathy were disease-free at 6 months' minimum follow-up [17 of the 21 patients (81%) had more than 32 months' follow-up]. Only one patient with pT1-GII tumor, but with a vertical growth pattern, had positive inguinal lymph nodes (pN2). The remaining patients with lymph node involvement showed infiltration of the erectile tissue and moderately or poorly differentiated tumors. Only two prophylactic lymphadenectomy procedures were performed (pN0). Regardless of treatment, 5 of the 6 patients with lymph node involvement died within one year after diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: OBJECTIVE: To analyze our series and review the prognostic factors in the treatment of epidermoid carcinoma of the penis. METHODS: Age, time to consultation, circumcision, form of presentation, local treatment, tumor stage and grade, lymph node involvement and outcome were analyzed in 27 cases of carcinoma of the penis diagnosed at our hospital from 1981 to 1999. RESULTS: The incidence rate was 1.8 cases/100,000 men/year. No patient had been circumcised, except one who was circumcised in the adult age. The median time to consultation was 24 months (interquartile range: 60-7.75). The median follow-up was 37 months (interquartile range: 84-12). All patients with pT1GI-II and pT2G-II primary tumor (n = 21; 78% of the series) and with no lymphadenopathy were disease-free at 6 months' minimum follow-up [17 of the 21 patients (81%) had more than 32 months' follow-up]. Only one patient with pT1-GII tumor, but with a vertical growth pattern, had positive inguinal lymph nodes (pN2). The remaining patients with lymph node involvement showed infiltration of the erectile tissue and moderately or poorly differentiated tumors. Only two prophylactic lymphadenectomy procedures were performed (pN0). Regardless of treatment, 5 of the 6 patients with lymph node involvement died within one year after diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Given the demonstrated relationship between carcinoma of the penis and hygiene, and phimosis which makes hygiene difficult, circumcision should be performed in childhood. Furthermore, circumcision at this age has been demonstrated to have a prophylactic value that disappears in the adult age.
    So, get this - given the relationship between cancer and hygiene and that this can be hindered if a relatively uncommon medical condition is present, we should circumcise all children. That is the stupidest fucking conclusion ever.

    EDIT 2: What I'm saying is, you've linked a bunch of stuff and I'm all "wow" but when I start going through it holy crap are the conclusions retarded.
    I think the main point of the paper you quoted is that circumcision should be done in childhood rather than adulthood. In any event, you've failed to refute my point that there's solid evidence that circumcision has medical benefits. You've concentrated on the analysis put forth by one paper, rather than the consensus of basically every major medical organization, which is that circumcision gives some medical benefits and should be up to the parents.
    EDIT 3: This study I find relevant because it's for Western Australia -
    OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence rate of circumcision for phimosis and other medically indicated reasons in Western Australian boys from 1 January 1981 to 31 December 1999.

    DESIGN AND SETTING: A population-based incidence study using hospital discharge data of all circumcisions performed in all WA hospitals during the study period.

    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in the incidence rate of circumcision for medically indicated reasons.

    RESULTS: The rate of medically indicated circumcisions increased in boys aged less than 15 years during the study period. Phimosis was the most common medical indication for circumcision in all age groups. The rate of circumcision associated with phimosis was eight times that associated with balanoposthitis and 21 times that of balanitis xerotica obliterans. Boys aged less than five years had the highest rate of circumcision to treat phimosis, at 4.6 per 1000 person-years, representing about 300 circumcisions per year. Boys aged less than five years living in country areas were 1.5 times more likely to be circumcised for phimosis than boys living in metropolitan Perth.

    CONCLUSION: The rate of circumcision to treat phimosis in boys aged less than 15 years is seven times the expected incidence rate for phimosis. Many boys are circumcised before reaching five years of age, despite phimosis being rare in this age group.
    Is this some kind of rebuttal or something? What are you trying to say by quoting this study?
    Adrien wrote:
    The whole point is that the statistics, being marginal as they are, are irrelevant. There are any number of elective surgical procedures you could perform on a baby to slightly lessen his chance of illnesses later on in life. Why is one of these things not like the other?

    Other surgical procedures are expensive and invasive or have more serious side effects or risk of complications. Circumcision is cheap, non-invasive and has a low risk of complications.
    Thanatos wrote: »
    So, what you're saying is that there is no professional organization that recommends circumcision when not medically necessary?

    Thank you for reiterating my point.

    The fact that no major medical organization recommends unconditional, automatic circumcision is completely beside the point. They recommend that it be up to the parent, because it's no big deal either way. I never said "circumcisions are obviously awesome and should always be strongly recommended." My point was that it's a completely reasonable medical choice for a parent to make.

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • Bliss 101Bliss 101 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    I think that given how it's much easier to do circumcisions in infancy, the fact that medical benefits are more pronounced when done early, the very low rate and severity of complications, the lack of difference in sensitivity and the fact that women actually prefer it that way, it's not really a meaningful moral imposition to do it.

    Yes, because women are a homogenous group with uniform preferences. Apparently they can also sense if a penis has been circumcised after infancy, which they do not prefer.

    I wonder if European women prefer it that way too.

    Bliss 101 on
    MSL59.jpg
  • QuazarQuazar Registered User
    edited July 2007
    As for as the "strange in other cultures" thing goes...

    We can all agree that at least in my generation (the 18-24 age group), circumcision is widely accepted as normal (in the USA). Now my uncircumcised friends have never had a girl not have sex with them because of it. From what I've heard, the girls are more like "Oh, hey, wasn't expecting that. Neat." and then sexing continues.

    So you people saying my dong is "weird" in the UK and what-not... let's say I meet a hot chick in London and we go back to her place. I don't think she's gonna freak out at the sight of my dingaling. It'll probably be the same type of situation as above. No big deal.

    In other words, stop trying to make it sound like women are gonna run away screaming in Europe if they see my happystick.

    Quazar on
    Your sig is too tall. -Thanatos
    atl7hahahazo7.png
    XBL: QuazarX
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Man, I totally brought up Kellogg several pages ago. But no one noticed then. :(

    DarkPrimus on
    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • Bliss 101Bliss 101 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »

    It's useful to treat Phimosis.

    Must... resist... anecdote war.

    Bliss 101 on
    MSL59.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »

    Specific medical condition.

    You can have something go wrong with any part of your body.

    We do not preemptively remove all non-vital parts, usually.

    Incenjucar on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Man, I totally brought up Kellogg several pages ago. But no one noticed then. :(

    I reposted your quote in very large letters, too. This thread is going in circles, and its going to get locked unless someone says something new in the next hour. Believe me, having read this entire thread I can spot new.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »

    I'd rather cut off part of my son's dick than endure the awkward conversation of having to tell him to pull it back and wash underneath it or worse yet, hear him complain about a seemingly easily corrected medical condition that, at worst, results in circumcision.

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »

    Specific medical condition.

    You can have something go wrong with any part of your body.

    We do not preemptively remove all non-vital parts, usually.

    Removing the foreskin's a little more accessible and quite a bit safer then removing the Appendix or Tonsils, and even then, Tonsillectomies are still quite commonly done as a preventative procedure. It's just that it doesn't quite take an operating room to perform a circumcision, nor even a medical professional.

    Plutonium on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »

    I'd rather cut off part of my son's dick than endure the awkward conversation of having to tell him to pull it back and wash underneath it or worse yet, hear him complain about a seemingly easily corrected medical condition that, at worst, results in circumcision.

    Man, if you can't even stand the thought of attending to your own child's health needs, you're way too immature to be fucking. People like you are the real reason small children get UTI's.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »

    I'd rather cut off part of my son's dick than endure the awkward conversation of having to tell him to pull it back and wash underneath it or worse yet, hear him complain about a seemingly easily corrected medical condition that, at worst, results in circumcision.

    Man, if you can't even stand the thought of attending to your own child's health needs, you're way too immature to be fucking. People like you are the real reason small children get UTI's.

    My sarcasm is never as outrageous or obvious as I imagine it to be.

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Removing the foreskin's a little more accessible and quite a bit safer then removing the Appendix or Tonsils, and even then, Tonsillectomies are still quite commonly done as a preventative procedure. It's just that it doesn't quite take an operating room to perform a circumcision, not even a medical professional.

    And?

    Is that supposed to mean anything?

    Incenjucar on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »

    I'd rather cut off part of my son's dick than endure the awkward conversation of having to tell him to pull it back and wash underneath it or worse yet, hear him complain about a seemingly easily corrected medical condition that, at worst, results in circumcision.

    Man, if you can't even stand the thought of attending to your own child's health needs, you're way too immature to be fucking. People like you are the real reason small children get UTI's.

    My sarcasm is never as outrageous and obvious as I think it is.

    Sorry, but there've been about five people in this thread already expressing the same sentiment with perfect seriousness. Its a little jarring.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Removing the foreskin's a little more accessible and quite a bit safer then removing the Appendix or Tonsils, and even then, Tonsillectomies are still quite commonly done as a preventative procedure. It's just that it doesn't quite take an operating room to perform a circumcision, not even a medical professional.

    And?

    Is that supposed to mean anything?

    ...Yes

    Are you going to make a counter-argument or just be a troll?

    Edit: Also, The Cat is right that Hooraydiation is just being irresponsible and making decisions for the wrong reasons.

    Personally, I see circumcision as providing a benefit without any negative aspects. Why risk the health of your child, even to a rare condition, when there is an easy and socially acceptable solution with no downside. The people who argue against it based on the chance of "accidents" occurring might as well turn down vaccinations because of the very rare risk of contracting the disease from the vaccination itself.

    Plutonium on
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »

    I'd rather cut off part of my son's dick than endure the awkward conversation of having to tell him to pull it back and wash underneath it or worse yet, hear him complain about a seemingly easily corrected medical condition that, at worst, results in circumcision.

    Man, if you can't even stand the thought of attending to your own child's health needs, you're way too immature to be fucking. People like you are the real reason small children get UTI's.

    I think that he might be being sarcastic...

    Either that or the post makes absolutely no sense.

    TOOSE LOW.

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    [Tonsillectomies are still quite commonly done as a preventative procedure. It's just that it doesn't quite take an operating room to perform a circumcision, nor even a medical professional.

    Can you cite this?
    I have not heard of a doctor in the last 30 or 40 years performing a tonsillectomy prior to the presentation of a disease.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    ...Yes

    Are you going to make a counter-argument or just be a troll?

    I don't troll.

    I'm seriously unable to discern how ease of procedure has anything to do with ethic of procedure.

    Incenjucar on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar, i think he was responding to the point that several folks have made about why we do circumcisions but not routine tonsillectomies on infants.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Incenjucar, i think he was responding to the point that several folks have made about why we do circumcisions but not routine tonsillectomies on infants.

    Because it's a cheap and they just HAVE to do -some- kind of unneeded surgery to feel like good modern parents...?

    Incenjucar on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    [Tonsillectomies are still quite commonly done as a preventative procedure. It's just that it doesn't quite take an operating room to perform a circumcision, nor even a medical professional.

    Can you cite this?
    I have not heard of a doctor in the last 30 or 40 years performing a tonsillectomy prior to the presentation of a disease.

    It was pretty routine in the UK 40 years or so ago - they went at the first sign of a sore throat - but not anymore. The risk of junior dying under anaesthetic was much higher than the benefits, although I'm willing to bet the fact that the public health system was forking out the cash to cover the operations also had an influence.

    The attitude in here about personal responsibility for your health is pretty godawful, I gotta say. Who objects to cleaning themselves, really?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Personally, I find society's standards of personal hygeine prohibitive.

    What the fuck, you have to BUY soap? Sounds like capitalism gone mad to me.

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Personally, I find society's standards of personal hygeine prohibitive.

    What the fuck, you have to BUY soap? Sounds like capitalism gone mad to me.

    Hippie.
    The Cat wrote: »
    It was pretty routine in the UK 40 years or so ago - they went at the first sign of a sore throat - but not anymore. The risk of junior dying under anaesthetic was much higher than the benefits, although I'm willing to bet the fact that the public health system was forking out the cash to cover the operations also had an influence.

    Kind of the same way in the US.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    [Tonsillectomies are still quite commonly done as a preventative procedure. It's just that it doesn't quite take an operating room to perform a circumcision, nor even a medical professional.

    Can you cite this?
    I have not heard of a doctor in the last 30 or 40 years performing a tonsillectomy prior to the presentation of a disease.

    It was pretty routine in the UK 40 years or so ago - they went at the first sign of a sore throat - but not anymore. The risk of junior dying under anaesthetic was much higher than the benefits, although I'm willing to bet the fact that the public health system was forking out the cash to cover the operations also had an influence.

    The attitude in here about personal responsibility for your health is pretty godawful, I gotta say. Who objects to cleaning themselves, really?

    You could make the same argument about, say, laser-eye surgery - Why risk the possibility of something going wrong when you can just wear glasses.

    It's a convenience and cosmetic issue. Why worry about something if 30 seconds as a newborn will make that unnecessary for the rest of your life?

    Plutonium on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Personally, I see circumcision as providing a benefit without any negative aspects.

    Except that there are no benefits shown to exist.

    The people who argue against it based on the chance of "accidents" occurring might as well turn down vaccinations because of the very rare risk of contracting the disease from the vaccination itself.

    The Cat said this thread is going in circles, and here's more evidence of that. Others have already made this inaccurate analogy.

    DarkPrimus on
    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • Bliss 101Bliss 101 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Personally, I see circumcision as providing a benefit without any negative aspects. Why risk the health of your child, even to a rare condition, when there is an easy and socially acceptable solution with no downside. The people who argue against it based on the chance of "accidents" occurring might as well turn down vaccinations because of the very rare risk of contracting the disease from the vaccination itself.

    Circumcision found to increase risk of penile inflammation in young boys eight-fold.

    Risk of infant MRSA infection associated with circumcision.

    The only real, demonstrable medical benefit based on a number of extensive studies is that circumcision reduces the risk of some STD infections, including HIV. Which might have been relevant before condoms and responsible sexual behavior were invented, and is probably useful in places like some African countries.

    Bliss 101 on
    MSL59.jpg
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Personally, I see circumcision as providing a benefit without any negative aspects. Why risk the health of your child, even to a rare condition, when there is an easy and socially acceptable solution with no downside. The people who argue against it based on the chance of "accidents" occurring might as well turn down vaccinations because of the very rare risk of contracting the disease from the vaccination itself.

    Circumcision found to increase risk of penile inflammation in young boys eight-fold.

    Risk of infant MRSA infection associated with circumcision.

    The only real, demonstrable medical benefit based on a number of extensive studies is that circumcision reduces the risk of some STD infections, including HIV. Which might have been relevant before condoms and responsible sexual behavior were invented, and is probably useful in places like some African countries.

    I think that the better solution to this problem lies with doctors keeping their instruments sterile.

    Plutonium on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    I think that the better solution to this problem lies with doctors keeping their instruments sterile.
    Or not performing it unless there's a need to? I think that might be a solution.

    Quid on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    I think that the better solution to this problem lies with doctors keeping their instruments sterile.

    Staph is so ubiquitous that basic sterilization techniques are not totally effective; it can come in to any open wound from clothing, linens, suture materials, or the patients/family's own fingertips.

    Just because a patient gets MRSA doesn't mean the hospital staff didn't adequately sterilize instruments.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I hear that amputees never suffer from say, fractured right ulnas in the case of right arm amputees.

    Apothe0sis on
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Staph is so ubiquitous that basic sterilization techniques are not totally effective; it can come in to any open wound from clothing, linens, suture materials, or the patients/family's own fingertips.

    Just because a patient gets MRSA doesn't mean the hospital staff didn't adequately sterilize instruments.

    No kidding. When I was working as a carpenter, we were remodeling an active hospital, near the emergency ward. One of the HVAC guys got a staph infection and was down for awhile.

    Incenjucar on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I believe that the medical benefits of circumcision, however small they may be, provide this reason.
    This is like how the medical benefits of corn are why we subsidize it so much, right?

    I knew it! Iowa is responsible for circumcision!

    Suddenly it all makes sense!

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    You could make the same argument about, say, laser-eye surgery - Why risk the possibility of something going wrong when you can just wear glasses.

    It's a convenience and cosmetic issue. Why worry about something if 30 seconds as a newborn will make that unnecessary for the rest of your life?

    Except I can't force my child to get lasered because I think four-eyes's are ugly and/or am worried that someone might tease them :|

    Re: the STD studies, lets repeat again that the HIV one in particular only identified an effect in a small subpopulation of gay men having frequent high-risk sex (strangers, no condoms). Hardly a representative sample.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    I think that the better solution to this problem lies with doctors keeping their instruments sterile.
    Or not performing it unless there's a need to? I think that might be a solution.

    The point is that it's a preventative procedure that's quick and painless.

    Your argument is the same thing as arguing that you shouldn't receive vaccinations against disease because you don't have it yet, just because of the rare risk that the you could contract the disease through the vaccine. It flies in the face of the whole idea of preventative medicine.

    Chickenpox is totally non-life threatening in children, yet it's much easier to get a shot (They have vaccines against it now, there are currently like 9 cases of it a year in the USA) and avoid contraction than to be ill for a week.

    Plutonium on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Its not fucking painless! You can't make that argument, especially when pro-infant circumcision posters in here are arguing that it should be done because it hurts adult males too much.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    I think that the better solution to this problem lies with doctors keeping their instruments sterile.
    Or not performing it unless there's a need to? I think that might be a solution.

    The point is that it's a preventative procedure that's quick and painless.

    Your argument is the same thing as arguing that you shouldn't receive vaccinations against disease because you don't have it yet, just because of the rare risk that the you could contract the disease through the vaccine. It flies in the face of the whole idea of preventative medicine.
    Vaccinations protect against a number of diseases a person would be highly likely to contract at least one of at some point.

    Circumcision slightly protects idiots that have unprotected sex.

    Edit: And not everyone gets chickenpox as a child and is sick for a week. Some contract it late into life and fucking die.

    Quid on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    I think that the better solution to this problem lies with doctors keeping their instruments sterile.
    Or not performing it unless there's a need to? I think that might be a solution.
    The point is that it's a preventative procedure that's quick and painless.

    Your argument is the same thing as arguing that you shouldn't receive vaccinations against disease because you don't have it yet, just because of the rare risk that the you could contract the disease through the vaccine. It flies in the face of the whole idea of preventative medicine.

    Chickenpox is totally non-life threatening in children, yet it's much easier to get a shot and avoid contraction than to be ill for a week.
    Yeah, now, list all the reputable medical organizations who recommend not getting a chickenpox vaccine, due to the medical risks of getting the vaccine being outweighed by the medical risks of not getting the vaccine.

    I'll bet the list looks a lot like the list of reputable medical organizations who recommend getting routine circumcisions because the risks of getting the procedure outweigh the risks of not getting the procedure.

    Thanatos on
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    I think that the better solution to this problem lies with doctors keeping their instruments sterile.
    Or not performing it unless there's a need to? I think that might be a solution.

    The point is that it's a preventative procedure that's quick and painless.

    Your argument is the same thing as arguing that you shouldn't receive vaccinations against disease because you don't have it yet, just because of the rare risk that the you could contract the disease through the vaccine. It flies in the face of the whole idea of preventative medicine.
    Vaccinations protect against a number of diseases a person would be highly likely to contract at least one of at some point.

    Circumcision slightly protects idiots that have unprotected sex.

    Edit: And not everyone gets chickenpox as a child and is sick for a week. Some contract it late into life and fucking die.

    That's why I said in children.

    While your argument that we should let the idiots die is certainly appealing, I don't think it really fits in to the idea of modern society, unless you're into the whole Eugenics thing. (Not a Godwin!) Protection against illness is protection against illness, regardless of how smart the person is.

    @Thanatos - the whole chickenpox vaccine is sort of a huge irony. I would argue that the vaccination is still beneficial, because even if you are one of the super-rare and contract the illness as a child from the vaccination, you still won't get it as an adult, and it's not like it's a horrible illness.

    Plutonium on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Plutonium: There ARE no reputable studies that show any preventative benefits.

    DarkPrimus on
    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    People don't get the vaccine to avoid being ill for a week. They get it to avoid dying. Does that not get throught to you? Vaccines are not done to make things convenient. They're done because kids who contracted the measels some times died. More than those who got it from the vaccine.

    And why get an operation when there are condoms? For free? I mean Christ, it's not like the guy having casual unprotected sex with strangers isn't going to get an STD, cut or uncut.

    Quid on
This discussion has been closed.