This, however, is not an exceedingly stupid thing. Sorry, guys, you don't get to pretend you're not part of a culture.
We've already shown it has no physical benefit unless you are a filthy hobo, but that it creates serious risks.
And being part of the culture doesn't mean I have to be the asshole majority part of it.
It has a very, very small likelihood of creating serious risks. So does piercing your ears - it can lead to an infection that, left unchecked, can pretty much destroy your hearing.
Is it a little more likely that circumcision will lead to harm? Sure, but it's still a minute chance, and the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative.
The reason I wouldn't endorse things like scarification and tattoos are precisely because those things are less ingrained in the culture, and can in and of themselves cause problems. If you cover your kid with tattoos, a significant number of people are going to think he's a freak, or refuse to hire him, or stereotype him in assorted ways. Nobody thinks twice about circumcision, because it's pretty normal.
Ditto ear piercing. Kid's going to have a hole in his head for the rest of his life. Yeah, and? It's a tiny little thing that nobody cares about and has no effect on the person's ability to function in life. It's cosmetic. So's circumcision.
In short, don't go all slippery-slope on me with this "What's next? Neck rings and tongue disks?" bullshit.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
As a child whose parents went ahead with the circumcision thing, I'm gonna have to suggest that you're entirely off base with that assumption.
My having a circumcision somehow does not stop me from disagreeing wholeheartedly with you
The whole evidence thing helps.
this kind of reasoning is about on par with wanting to ban playgrounds made of metal because there's a tiny bit of risk with no real benefit.
Playing on a playground can vastly improve your child's overall health and well-being.
Unneeded plastic surgery without consent? Not so much.
When you are an infant, your parent gets to make decisions for you. Parental consent = consent in this case.
And guess what, man? You are not the judge of what good parenting is. You are in no position to declare that having your children circumcised is 'bad parenting'. That's pretty pretentious and basically retarded.
It has a very, very small likelihood of creating serious risks.
None of which has to be there.
So does piercing your ears - it can lead to an infection that, left unchecked, can pretty much destroy your hearing.
I'm not a big fan of piercing babies' ears either.
Is it a little more likely that circumcision will lead to harm? Sure, but it's still a minute chance, and the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative.
Gambling with good odds with someone else's money is still shitty.
The reason I wouldn't endorse things like scarification and tattoos are precisely because those things are less ingrained in the culture, and can in and of themselves cause problems. If you cover your kid with tattoos, a significant number of people are going to think he's a freak, or refuse to hire him, or stereotype him in assorted ways. Nobody thinks twice about circumcision, because it's pretty normal.
Normalcy is a horrible way to judge the value of a behavior.
Ditto ear piercing. Kid's going to have a hole in his head for the rest of his life. Yeah, and? It's a tiny little thing that nobody cares about and has no effect on the person's ability to function in life. It's cosmetic. So's circumcision.
I don't think the process of repairing a pin-sized hole in your ear is equivalent to hanging weights from your penis for five years.
In short, don't go all slippery-slope on me with this "What's next? Neck rings and tongue disks?" bullshit.
When your argument hinges entirely on popularity, you're kind of stuck with "well what if other shit was popular."
When you are an infant, your parent gets to make decisions for you. Parental consent = consent in this case.
Some decisions should NOT be left to parents.
And guess what, man? You are not the judge of what good parenting is. You are in no position to declare that having your children circumcised is 'bad parenting'. That's pretty pretentious and basically retarded.
And what is the basis of this declaration? Because it doesn't suit you?
So how and why is circumcision so popular in the US? Over here in Blighty, it's considered strange. In fact, no, it's considered downright odd and unnecessary. And its generally frowned on by the BMA. I know no one - save for my Jewish and Muslim friends - who has been circumcised.
I've seen the relevant Bullshit! episode, but I rate Penn and Teller as roughly as reputable as the word of a "friend of a friend", so I'm hesitant to take them on their word 'bout crazy Kellogg and his quest to eradicate masturbation.
When you are an infant, your parent gets to make decisions for you. Parental consent = consent in this case.
Some decisions should NOT be left to parents.
And guess what, man? You are not the judge of what good parenting is. You are in no position to declare that having your children circumcised is 'bad parenting'. That's pretty pretentious and basically retarded.
And what is the basis of this declaration? Because it doesn't suit you?
Let's give the parenting to the government and random assholes on the internet.
Parents have no idea what they're doing.
The basis of that declaration is that you're an idiot who thinks his opinion should be law because he believes it -- which is, of course, never the strongest sort of reason, is it?
Let's give the parenting to the government and random assholes on the internet.
You make it sound like there's some qualitative difference between parents and random assholes.
Parents have no idea what they're doing.
The mark of yesterday's parenting is today's youth.
The basis of that declaration is that you're an idiot who thinks his opinion should be law because he believes it -- which is, of course, never the strongest sort of reason, is it?
We.. we should join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, yes?
No one have kids anymore.
yes, that is real.
I'm fine with having kids so long as you're having kids so that you can make them as happy as possible rather than breeding simply because it's a cultural meme to pop out kids so you can show them to your friends or have them support you as you wither.
Incenjucar on
0
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
At less than a year old, a child cannot make a choice, and it's up to their parents to make the choice for them.
You've shown us some crazy people who can't accept the fact that they got a little cut up as infants and instead hurt themselves for years at a time to 'undo' the damage as 'proof' that it's wrong; does it seem reasonable, then, that there are people out there who have not been circumcised (as infants) but wish that they had been?
Likewise, what about people like myself, who believe their parents made the right choice? That's what our parents are there for in those years -- to make decisions we can't make for ourselves, to help us with things we can't do ourselves. Sometimes, yes, parents will make the wrong choice -- but 'don't get circumcised' isn't always the right choice, either. In the end, however, it should be up to the parents, because I really doubt any parents are doing it because they think it will hurt their son.
At less than a year old, a child cannot make a choice, and it's up to their parents to make the choice for them.
You've shown us some crazy people who can't accept the fact that they got a little cut up as infants and instead hurt themselves for years at a time to 'undo' the damage as 'proof' that it's wrong; does it seem reasonable, then, that there are people out there who have not been circumcised (as infants) but wish that they had been?
Likewise, what about people like myself, who believe their parents made the right choice? That's what our parents are there for in those years -- to make decisions we can't make for ourselves, to help us with things we can't do ourselves. Sometimes, yes, parents will make the wrong choice -- but 'don't get circumcised' isn't always the right choice, either. In the end, however, it should be up to the parents, because I really doubt any parents are doing it because they think it will hurt their son.
The whole point is that the choice they made has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Which means that circumcision is nothing more than an outdated tradition of child mutilation that is based on pseudoscience and superstition.
At less than a year old, a child cannot make a choice, and it's up to their parents to make the choice for them.
You've shown us some crazy people who can't accept the fact that they got a little cut up as infants and instead hurt themselves for years at a time to 'undo' the damage as 'proof' that it's wrong; does it seem reasonable, then, that there are people out there who have not been circumcised (as infants) but wish that they had been?
Likewise, what about people like myself, who believe their parents made the right choice? That's what our parents are there for in those years -- to make decisions we can't make for ourselves, to help us with things we can't do ourselves. Sometimes, yes, parents will make the wrong choice -- but 'don't get circumcised' isn't always the right choice, either. In the end, however, it should be up to the parents, because I really doubt any parents are doing it because they think it will hurt their son.
About 50% of American kids aren't circumcised now. The rate has been steadily falling for quite some time. Soon, being circumcised will be abnormal. So, you really don't have a cultural argument anymore for why it's okay.
Care to try something else?
Thanatos on
0
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
At less than a year old, a child cannot make a choice, and it's up to their parents to make the choice for them.
You've shown us some crazy people who can't accept the fact that they got a little cut up as infants and instead hurt themselves for years at a time to 'undo' the damage as 'proof' that it's wrong; does it seem reasonable, then, that there are people out there who have not been circumcised (as infants) but wish that they had been?
Likewise, what about people like myself, who believe their parents made the right choice? That's what our parents are there for in those years -- to make decisions we can't make for ourselves, to help us with things we can't do ourselves. Sometimes, yes, parents will make the wrong choice -- but 'don't get circumcised' isn't always the right choice, either. In the end, however, it should be up to the parents, because I really doubt any parents are doing it because they think it will hurt their son.
About 50% of American kids aren't circumcised now. The rate has been steadily falling for quite some time. Soon, being circumcised will be abnormal. So, you really don't have a cultural argument anymore for why it's okay.
Care to try something else?
Nothing in that post says 'It's okay because it's cultural.' That post says 'It should be up to the parents, not the government.'
At less than a year old, a child cannot make a choice, and it's up to their parents to make the choice for them.
You've shown us some crazy people who can't accept the fact that they got a little cut up as infants and instead hurt themselves for years at a time to 'undo' the damage as 'proof' that it's wrong; does it seem reasonable, then, that there are people out there who have not been circumcised (as infants) but wish that they had been?
Likewise, what about people like myself, who believe their parents made the right choice? That's what our parents are there for in those years -- to make decisions we can't make for ourselves, to help us with things we can't do ourselves. Sometimes, yes, parents will make the wrong choice -- but 'don't get circumcised' isn't always the right choice, either. In the end, however, it should be up to the parents, because I really doubt any parents are doing it because they think it will hurt their son.
About 50% of American kids aren't circumcised now. The rate has been steadily falling for quite some time. Soon, being circumcised will be abnormal. So, you really don't have a cultural argument anymore for why it's okay.
Care to try something else?
Nothing in that post says 'It's okay because it's cultural.' That post says 'It should be up to the parents, not the government.'
Why should this be any different from any other medical procedure? Every medical procedure is regulated by the government, so why should this one, particular medical procedure be free from that regulation? What makes it so special?
Im 20 pages late, but a while back people were talking about fuckups during circumcision. My roommate's little brother had his circumcision fucked up by his doctor when he was born. The tip of his penis was actually chopped off and then sewn back on.
Upside down.
This kid pisses at a weird angle, I know that much.
KungFu on
Theft 4 Bread
0
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
At less than a year old, a child cannot make a choice, and it's up to their parents to make the choice for them.
You've shown us some crazy people who can't accept the fact that they got a little cut up as infants and instead hurt themselves for years at a time to 'undo' the damage as 'proof' that it's wrong; does it seem reasonable, then, that there are people out there who have not been circumcised (as infants) but wish that they had been?
Likewise, what about people like myself, who believe their parents made the right choice? That's what our parents are there for in those years -- to make decisions we can't make for ourselves, to help us with things we can't do ourselves. Sometimes, yes, parents will make the wrong choice -- but 'don't get circumcised' isn't always the right choice, either. In the end, however, it should be up to the parents, because I really doubt any parents are doing it because they think it will hurt their son.
About 50% of American kids aren't circumcised now. The rate has been steadily falling for quite some time. Soon, being circumcised will be abnormal. So, you really don't have a cultural argument anymore for why it's okay.
Care to try something else?
Nothing in that post says 'It's okay because it's cultural.' That post says 'It should be up to the parents, not the government.'
Why should this be any different from any other medical procedure? Every medical procedure is regulated by the government, so why should this one, particular medical procedure be free from that regulation? What makes it so special?
Most any other medical procedure looks to the child's guardian(s) for consent, neh?
If it's mostly a cosmetic thing (and I think it mostly is), then I think if the parent says 'do this', and it's comfortably accepted in culture (not like lopping off a kid's ears or something extreme like others have suggested), there's not a huge reason to tell the parents their opinion doesn't matter.
It's also been mentioned, I believe, by a few people that having this particular procedure done at an early age (like infancy) can be beneficial if for no other reason than that it is safer and less damaging at that age.
Edit: And, especially if you're dealing with someone who wants their kid to be circumcised for religious reasons, I think it's reasonable to allow those parents to have a doctor perform the surgery than to take them to a rabbi who has no idea what he's doing.
INeedNoSalt on
0
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
Im 20 pages late, but a while back people were talking about fuckups during circumcision. My roommate's little brother had his circumcision fucked up by his doctor when he was born. The tip of his penis was actually chopped off and then sewn back on.
Upside down.
This kid pisses at a weird angle, I know that much.
The doctor should have his license revoked in some way.
Not only did he fuck up a procedure that can be performed by the local priest in the middle east.
He then managed to not know which way a penis faces.
Most any other medical procedure looks to the child's guardian(s) for consent, neh?
Live vivisection, you mean?
If it's mostly a cosmetic thing (and I think it mostly is), then I think if the parent says 'do this', and it's comfortably accepted in culture (not like lopping off a kid's ears or something extreme like others have suggested), there's not a huge reason to tell the parents their opinion doesn't matter.
Only it's getting to the point where it's being accepted less and less, so shouldn't we be re-evaluating our stance on it?
It's also been mentioned, I believe, by a few people that having this particular procedure done at an early age (like infancy) can be beneficial if for no other reason than that it is safer and less damaging at that age.
Or you could not have it done, giving them the option to decide later, rather than having it done, leaving them with no option whatsoever. Gee, tough call, here; what makes more sense? Hmmmm...
Im 20 pages late, but a while back people were talking about fuckups during circumcision. My roommate's little brother had his circumcision fucked up by his doctor when he was born. The tip of his penis was actually chopped off and then sewn back on.
Upside down.
This kid pisses at a weird angle, I know that much.
The doctor should have his license revoked in some way.
Not only did he fuck up a procedure that can be performed by the local priest in the middle east.
He then managed to not know which way a penis faces.
Baby penis is pretty small, maybe it's hard to discern at that size?
Most any other medical procedure looks to the child's guardian(s) for consent, neh?
If it's mostly a cosmetic thing (and I think it mostly is), then I think if the parent says 'do this', and it's comfortably accepted in culture (not like lopping off a kid's ears or something extreme like others have suggested), there's not a huge reason to tell the parents their opinion doesn't matter.
It's also been mentioned, I believe, by a few people that having this particular procedure done at an early age (like infancy) can be beneficial if for no other reason than that it is safer and less damaging at that age.
That's really bad reasoning for a variety of reasons, most of which have been mentioned already.
Whether or not something is comfortably accepted in culture has no relevance whatsoever here. Just because the culture is OK with something doesn't say anything about the rightness or wrongness of the practice. In some Islamic cultures, it's common practice to stone women who sleep with men before marriage.
As far as circumcision being a cosmetic thing goes... what's the point? I mean, should I be able to have all sorts of medical procedures done on my child just because, in my opinion, it improves his/her appearance? Are you even aware of how retarded it is to suggest the type of logic you just did?
ege02 on
0
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
If it's mostly a cosmetic thing (and I think it mostly is), then I think if the parent says 'do this', and it's comfortably accepted in culture (not like lopping off a kid's ears or something extreme like others have suggested), there's not a huge reason to tell the parents their opinion doesn't matter.
Only it's getting to the point where it's being accepted less and less, so shouldn't we be re-evaluating our stance on it?
Well, you could go with the stance that 'Maybe it shouldn't be the default, it should be something that's left up to the parents,' which is a reconsideration of our stance on it. 50% is still a pretty big part of the population, however.
It's also been mentioned, I believe, by a few people that having this particular procedure done at an early age (like infancy) can be beneficial if for no other reason than that it is safer and less damaging at that age.
Or you could not have it done, giving them the option to decide later, rather than having it done, leaving them with no option whatsoever. Gee, tough call, here; what makes more sense? Hmmmm...
I dunno, doesn't seem that tough to me. I trust parents to do what they think is right, and although you are denying a person a choice, you are also lessening the repercussions of one of the choices. Yeah, if you ban circumcision, suddenly you're find that less and less people are circumcised and it'll stop being the norm. Most men won't exactly look forward to having their wang cut on when they're adults.
INeedNoSalt on
0
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
Im 20 pages late, but a while back people were talking about fuckups during circumcision. My roommate's little brother had his circumcision fucked up by his doctor when he was born. The tip of his penis was actually chopped off and then sewn back on.
Upside down.
This kid pisses at a weird angle, I know that much.
The doctor should have his license revoked in some way.
Not only did he fuck up a procedure that can be performed by the local priest in the middle east.
He then managed to not know which way a penis faces.
Baby penis is pretty small, maybe it's hard to discern at that size?
He is a doctor
His job is discerning what we cant and treating it appropriately.
Assuming he has had any experience with circumcision before he should know which way a penis faces.
The whole point is that the choice they made has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Why are people still pretending that there aren't any benefits to circumcision? Circumcised men do have lower rates of things like urinary tract infections, certain skin/tissue conditions, and lower chances of catching at least some STDs.
Because most of these could be prevented much more effectively through other methods - with STDs, for example, condoms are pretty damn obvious - you can say that you think the benefits are relatively insignificant compared to any number of reasons, but the whole "there's no scientific basis for it whatsoever" thing is a little silly.
It's also been mentioned, I believe, by a few people that having this particular procedure done at an early age (like infancy) can be beneficial if for no other reason than that it is safer and less damaging at that age.
Or you could not have it done, giving them the option to decide later, rather than having it done, leaving them with no option whatsoever. Gee, tough call, here; what makes more sense? Hmmmm...
I dunno, doesn't seem that tough to me. I trust parents to do what they think is right, and although you are denying a person a choice, you are also lessening the repercussions of one of the choices. Yeah, if you ban circumcision, suddenly you're find that less and less people are circumcised and it'll stop being the norm. Most men won't exactly look forward to having their wang cut on when they're adults.
Care to give a citation for what percentage of uncircumcised men decide to get circumcised as adults? As for your "I trust parents to do the right thing," what about the rights of the child? I mean, really, we're talking about an honest-to-god person here. It's nice that "oh, the parents get to make medical decisions for them," but this isn't really a medical procedure, so it doesn't actually apply.
Why are people still pretending that there aren't any benefits to circumcision? Circumcised men do have lower rates of things like urinary tract infections, certain skin/tissue conditions, and lower chances of catching at least some STDs.
No sound studies have shown any statistically significant benefits for circumcised men versus uncircumcised men.
I invite you to provide us with one that says otherwise.
I'm pretty sure there are hygienic benefits to (Male) circumcision, which in turn is a medical benefit because it reduces likelihood of some medical conditions.
Circumcised men do have lower rates of things like urinary tract infections, certain skin/tissue conditions, and lower chances of catching at least some STDs.
We don't typically remove healthy tissue until after disease is presented.
Why are foreskins an exception? What makes having a foreskin so much more dangerous than having tonsils or an appendix?
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.
0
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
It's also been mentioned, I believe, by a few people that having this particular procedure done at an early age (like infancy) can be beneficial if for no other reason than that it is safer and less damaging at that age.
Or you could not have it done, giving them the option to decide later, rather than having it done, leaving them with no option whatsoever. Gee, tough call, here; what makes more sense? Hmmmm...
I dunno, doesn't seem that tough to me. I trust parents to do what they think is right, and although you are denying a person a choice, you are also lessening the repercussions of one of the choices. Yeah, if you ban circumcision, suddenly you're find that less and less people are circumcised and it'll stop being the norm. Most men won't exactly look forward to having their wang cut on when they're adults.
Care to give a citation for what percentage of uncircumcised men decide to get circumcised as adults? As for your "I trust parents to do the right thing," what about the rights of the child? I mean, really, we're talking about an honest-to-god person here. It's nice that "oh, the parents get to make medical decisions for them," but this isn't really a medical procedure, so it doesn't actually apply.
I don't really feel like doing research. Do you think my assumption that the number is low is unreasonable? If you believe I'm wrong, and it's a large number, then that only gives stronger support to my point.
And yes, this is a person, but it's also a person that's pretty much going to die without someone holding it's hand, I think it's fair to trust these people. They're not there to hurt the kid. If your stance is, however, 'People should not have decisions made for them,' then you are well within your rights to make sure that your kids are not circumcised and given the option to handle it however you like. Hell, I don't disagree that this is a reasonable stance to take.
I do believe, however, that parents shouldn't be stopped from making this decision for their children, especially if it's something they'll do even if a doctor won't do it for them (which, clearly, will happen, as it's an incident cited in a link someone else provided.)
You have to keep in mind that this the parents' child, and they do get some say in what happens to him, and I don't see any reason to deny something that is not unreasonable and the parents find culturally significant.
Circumcised men do have lower rates of things like urinary tract infections, certain skin/tissue conditions, and lower chances of catching at least some STDs.
We don't typically remove healthy tissue until after disease is presented.
Why are foreskins an exception? What makes having a foreskin so much more dangerous than having tonsils or an appendix?
Why are people still pretending that there aren't any benefits to circumcision? Circumcised men do have lower rates of things like urinary tract infections, certain skin/tissue conditions, and lower chances of catching at least some STDs.
No sound studies have shown any statistically significant benefits for circumcised men versus uncircumcised men.
I invite you to provide us with one that says otherwise.
Numerous published studies there. Feel free to refute them all.
As noted there, the first few things on that list are dubious. UTIs are not. A meta-analysis of relevant literature states:
This first systematic review of male circumcision and ulcerative STI strongly indicates that circumcised men are at lower risk of chancroid and syphilis. There is less association with HSV-2. Potential male circumcision interventions to reduce HIV in high risk populations may provide additional benefit by protecting against other STI.
Circumcised men do have lower rates of things like urinary tract infections, certain skin/tissue conditions, and lower chances of catching at least some STDs.
We don't typically remove healthy tissue until after disease is presented.
Why are foreskins an exception? What makes having a foreskin so much more dangerous than having tonsils or an appendix?
I'm not arguing in favor of it; I just think the "there are no possible benefits to circumcision" thing is kind of... wrong.
Or you could not have it done, giving them the option to decide later, rather than having it done, leaving them with no option whatsoever. Gee, tough call, here; what makes more sense? Hmmmm...
I dunno, doesn't seem that tough to me. I trust parents to do what they think is right, and although you are denying a person a choice, you are also lessening the repercussions of one of the choices. Yeah, if you ban circumcision, suddenly you're find that less and less people are circumcised and it'll stop being the norm. Most men won't exactly look forward to having their wang cut on when they're adults.
Nice false dichotomy here, btw. No one is saying we should ban it, only that we shouldn't force it on infants without a compelling medical reason. If an adult chooses to have the procedure done, that's entirely their right as someone old enough to consent to it.
Or you could not have it done, giving them the option to decide later, rather than having it done, leaving them with no option whatsoever. Gee, tough call, here; what makes more sense? Hmmmm...
I dunno, doesn't seem that tough to me. I trust parents to do what they think is right, and although you are denying a person a choice, you are also lessening the repercussions of one of the choices. Yeah, if you ban circumcision, suddenly you're find that less and less people are circumcised and it'll stop being the norm. Most men won't exactly look forward to having their wang cut on when they're adults.
Nice false dichotomy here, btw. No one is saying we should ban it, only that we shouldn't force it on infants without a compelling medical reason. If an adult chooses to have the procedure done, that's entirely their right as someone old enough to consent to it.
I think it's fair to extrapolate that I'm referring to circumcision of infants. I'm not sitting here and editting and rechecking over my posts time and time again to make sure my grammar is infallible. I am, however, arguing one consistent point against another consistent point, and since my post doesn't argue against banning of circumcision outright but only against banning circumcision of infants... I mean, you're not idiots, you're just picking apart my posts wording instead of my point.
Or you could not have it done, giving them the option to decide later, rather than having it done, leaving them with no option whatsoever. Gee, tough call, here; what makes more sense? Hmmmm...
I dunno, doesn't seem that tough to me. I trust parents to do what they think is right, and although you are denying a person a choice, you are also lessening the repercussions of one of the choices. Yeah, if you ban circumcision, suddenly you're find that less and less people are circumcised and it'll stop being the norm. Most men won't exactly look forward to having their wang cut on when they're adults.
Nice false dichotomy here, btw. No one is saying we should ban it, only that we shouldn't force it on infants without a compelling medical reason. If an adult chooses to have the procedure done, that's entirely their right as someone old enough to consent to it.
I think that this thread has missed a fundamental issue.
Kellog was a fuck.
Religious stuff sucks.
The fact that it would thwart oppressive religious agendas should be enough to support its ban.
Alternatively: Should we even allow ritualistic circumcision?
If we are going to be involved in this practice, should we or should we not demand that it is done under specific controlled circumstances by real medical professionals?
What I'm saying is how should we treat the issues of freedom of religious expression? My position is obvious, of course. What do youse guyses and girlses think?
And he wasn't alone in either stating or implying the position.
Please, don't speak for the entire thread if you haven't comprehensively researched it. A number of people most certainly did suggest that the practice be banned.
I dont understand the reasoning that extra skin can cause increased risk of STDs, urinary tract issues, or whatever else.
Please provide evidence of this, because I just can't accept that at face value.
I can't explain any of this. I'm not a researcher, nor do I have the background to explain how any of this works. All I can do is point you in the direction of the relevant studies.
Posts
My having a circumcision somehow does not stop me from disagreeing wholeheartedly with you
The whole evidence thing helps.
Playing on a playground can vastly improve your child's overall health and well-being.
Unneeded plastic surgery without consent? Not so much.
It has a very, very small likelihood of creating serious risks. So does piercing your ears - it can lead to an infection that, left unchecked, can pretty much destroy your hearing.
Is it a little more likely that circumcision will lead to harm? Sure, but it's still a minute chance, and the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative.
The reason I wouldn't endorse things like scarification and tattoos are precisely because those things are less ingrained in the culture, and can in and of themselves cause problems. If you cover your kid with tattoos, a significant number of people are going to think he's a freak, or refuse to hire him, or stereotype him in assorted ways. Nobody thinks twice about circumcision, because it's pretty normal.
Ditto ear piercing. Kid's going to have a hole in his head for the rest of his life. Yeah, and? It's a tiny little thing that nobody cares about and has no effect on the person's ability to function in life. It's cosmetic. So's circumcision.
In short, don't go all slippery-slope on me with this "What's next? Neck rings and tongue disks?" bullshit.
When you are an infant, your parent gets to make decisions for you. Parental consent = consent in this case.
And guess what, man? You are not the judge of what good parenting is. You are in no position to declare that having your children circumcised is 'bad parenting'. That's pretty pretentious and basically retarded.
None of which has to be there.
I'm not a big fan of piercing babies' ears either.
Gambling with good odds with someone else's money is still shitty.
Normalcy is a horrible way to judge the value of a behavior.
I don't think the process of repairing a pin-sized hole in your ear is equivalent to hanging weights from your penis for five years.
When your argument hinges entirely on popularity, you're kind of stuck with "well what if other shit was popular."
Some decisions should NOT be left to parents.
And what is the basis of this declaration? Because it doesn't suit you?
I've seen the relevant Bullshit! episode, but I rate Penn and Teller as roughly as reputable as the word of a "friend of a friend", so I'm hesitant to take them on their word 'bout crazy Kellogg and his quest to eradicate masturbation.
Let's give the parenting to the government and random assholes on the internet.
Parents have no idea what they're doing.
The basis of that declaration is that you're an idiot who thinks his opinion should be law because he believes it -- which is, of course, never the strongest sort of reason, is it?
You make it sound like there's some qualitative difference between parents and random assholes.
The mark of yesterday's parenting is today's youth.
I believe in individual choice.
Unconsented circumcision is contrary to that.
I'm sorry if this boggles your mind.
No one have kids anymore.
I'm fine with having kids so long as you're having kids so that you can make them as happy as possible rather than breeding simply because it's a cultural meme to pop out kids so you can show them to your friends or have them support you as you wither.
You've shown us some crazy people who can't accept the fact that they got a little cut up as infants and instead hurt themselves for years at a time to 'undo' the damage as 'proof' that it's wrong; does it seem reasonable, then, that there are people out there who have not been circumcised (as infants) but wish that they had been?
Likewise, what about people like myself, who believe their parents made the right choice? That's what our parents are there for in those years -- to make decisions we can't make for ourselves, to help us with things we can't do ourselves. Sometimes, yes, parents will make the wrong choice -- but 'don't get circumcised' isn't always the right choice, either. In the end, however, it should be up to the parents, because I really doubt any parents are doing it because they think it will hurt their son.
The whole point is that the choice they made has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Which means that circumcision is nothing more than an outdated tradition of child mutilation that is based on pseudoscience and superstition.
Care to try something else?
Upside down.
This kid pisses at a weird angle, I know that much.
Most any other medical procedure looks to the child's guardian(s) for consent, neh?
If it's mostly a cosmetic thing (and I think it mostly is), then I think if the parent says 'do this', and it's comfortably accepted in culture (not like lopping off a kid's ears or something extreme like others have suggested), there's not a huge reason to tell the parents their opinion doesn't matter.
It's also been mentioned, I believe, by a few people that having this particular procedure done at an early age (like infancy) can be beneficial if for no other reason than that it is safer and less damaging at that age.
Edit: And, especially if you're dealing with someone who wants their kid to be circumcised for religious reasons, I think it's reasonable to allow those parents to have a doctor perform the surgery than to take them to a rabbi who has no idea what he's doing.
The doctor should have his license revoked in some way.
Not only did he fuck up a procedure that can be performed by the local priest in the middle east.
He then managed to not know which way a penis faces.
Only it's getting to the point where it's being accepted less and less, so shouldn't we be re-evaluating our stance on it?
Or you could not have it done, giving them the option to decide later, rather than having it done, leaving them with no option whatsoever. Gee, tough call, here; what makes more sense? Hmmmm...
Baby penis is pretty small, maybe it's hard to discern at that size?
That's really bad reasoning for a variety of reasons, most of which have been mentioned already.
Whether or not something is comfortably accepted in culture has no relevance whatsoever here. Just because the culture is OK with something doesn't say anything about the rightness or wrongness of the practice. In some Islamic cultures, it's common practice to stone women who sleep with men before marriage.
As far as circumcision being a cosmetic thing goes... what's the point? I mean, should I be able to have all sorts of medical procedures done on my child just because, in my opinion, it improves his/her appearance? Are you even aware of how retarded it is to suggest the type of logic you just did?
I dunno, doesn't seem that tough to me. I trust parents to do what they think is right, and although you are denying a person a choice, you are also lessening the repercussions of one of the choices. Yeah, if you ban circumcision, suddenly you're find that less and less people are circumcised and it'll stop being the norm. Most men won't exactly look forward to having their wang cut on when they're adults.
He is a doctor
His job is discerning what we cant and treating it appropriately.
Assuming he has had any experience with circumcision before he should know which way a penis faces.
Because most of these could be prevented much more effectively through other methods - with STDs, for example, condoms are pretty damn obvious - you can say that you think the benefits are relatively insignificant compared to any number of reasons, but the whole "there's no scientific basis for it whatsoever" thing is a little silly.
No sound studies have shown any statistically significant benefits for circumcised men versus uncircumcised men.
I invite you to provide us with one that says otherwise.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Oh yeah.
Female circumcision is fucked up.
We don't typically remove healthy tissue until after disease is presented.
Why are foreskins an exception? What makes having a foreskin so much more dangerous than having tonsils or an appendix?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't really feel like doing research. Do you think my assumption that the number is low is unreasonable? If you believe I'm wrong, and it's a large number, then that only gives stronger support to my point.
And yes, this is a person, but it's also a person that's pretty much going to die without someone holding it's hand, I think it's fair to trust these people. They're not there to hurt the kid. If your stance is, however, 'People should not have decisions made for them,' then you are well within your rights to make sure that your kids are not circumcised and given the option to handle it however you like. Hell, I don't disagree that this is a reasonable stance to take.
I do believe, however, that parents shouldn't be stopped from making this decision for their children, especially if it's something they'll do even if a doctor won't do it for them (which, clearly, will happen, as it's an incident cited in a link someone else provided.)
You have to keep in mind that this the parents' child, and they do get some say in what happens to him, and I don't see any reason to deny something that is not unreasonable and the parents find culturally significant.
fuck that shit.
They're certainly easier to get rid of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision#Possible_protections_gained_by_circumcision
Numerous published studies there. Feel free to refute them all.
As noted there, the first few things on that list are dubious. UTIs are not. A meta-analysis of relevant literature states:
I'm not arguing in favor of it; I just think the "there are no possible benefits to circumcision" thing is kind of... wrong.
Nice false dichotomy here, btw. No one is saying we should ban it, only that we shouldn't force it on infants without a compelling medical reason. If an adult chooses to have the procedure done, that's entirely their right as someone old enough to consent to it.
Please provide evidence of this, because I just can't accept that at face value.
I think it's fair to extrapolate that I'm referring to circumcision of infants. I'm not sitting here and editting and rechecking over my posts time and time again to make sure my grammar is infallible. I am, however, arguing one consistent point against another consistent point, and since my post doesn't argue against banning of circumcision outright but only against banning circumcision of infants... I mean, you're not idiots, you're just picking apart my posts wording instead of my point.
Oh, really?
And he wasn't alone in either stating or implying the position.
Please, don't speak for the entire thread if you haven't comprehensively researched it. A number of people most certainly did suggest that the practice be banned.