I just want to thank Chaos for having even more ridiculous arguments than me, and making all of my arguments look better by comparison. At least I knew when to stand down.
Actually, that's exactly what we are discussing. You guys are citing the benefit of a surgical procedure as a form of preventive care. I'm asking you why you aren't advocating the same thing for much more common diseases. Personally, I doubt that you'd drag your child into an appendectomy or a tonsillectomy if there's nothing wrong with either organ.
why you aren't proposing procedures of a similar manner to prevent much, much more common diseases
Because that's not what we're discussing? But yeah, I support all kinds of proactive procedures intended to prevent more common diseases. We call that "medicine" 'round these parts. You might want to read up on it.
Actually, that's exactly what we are discussing. You guys are citing the benefit of a surgical procedure as a form of preventive care. I'm asking you why you aren't advocating the same thing for much more common diseases. Personally, I doubt that you'd drag your child into an appendectomy or a tonsillectomy if there's nothing wrong with either organ.
Your false equivalence is amazing to behold.
I have a question to everybody: Seeing that tonsillitis and appendicitis are very common ailments (more common that HIV, penile cancer and other things brought up here) that are treated by removing the troubled body part (tonsils, appendix), why is it that we as humans commonly wait until the body parts in fact have problems before removing them? Why aren't we regularly cutting open infants and remove those body parts before they have a chance to cause trouble in the first place?
Actually with both those organs we realized they still have an important function. There was a time when we started removing tonsils before there was even a hint of systemic problems. Then we realized that Tonsils are actually important to your immune system. Tonsils Your appendix would require extremely invasive surgery. Also it probably has some secondary functions as well see the article on Appendix (Vermiform Appendix).
You keep calling the removal of the foreskin "surgery," and yes it is technically considered surgery, but do you not agree that surgery is a pretty broad term that can be applied to an extremely large range of medical procedures with an array of severities? Do you not agree that cutting off a piece of skin and cutting someone open to remove the appendix differ in their levels of severity?
The amount of effort you put towards reading, understanding, and recalling the arguments of others in this thread has been duly noted.
I just want to thank Chaos for having even more ridiculous arguments than me, and making all of my arguments look better by comparison. At least I knew when to stand down.
You could probably argue in favour of religion better than he's arguing in favour of banning circumcision ^_~
In fact, I'd wager that most people who force a circumcision upon their child don't even have a single clue about them.
You're right, most people do it for religious or cultural reasons, which I personally feel isn't enough justification. In my opinion, however, parents that really weigh the pros and cons and make the choice due to health reasons are doing the right thing.
Personally, I doubt that you'd drag your child into an appendectomy or a tonsillectomy if there's nothing wrong with either organ.
I'm no doctor or anything, but this is probably due to the fact that these procedures are way more invasive and have a much higher risk of death and complications due to surgery. We could start removing baby girl's breast tissue with a high risk of breast cancer (family genetics, tests, etc.) but we don't because they will most likely need them later in life (for their babies and whatnot.)
Edit: Wow, I'm a ridiculously slow typer. Should have known I'd get ninja'd by like 20 posts. :P
I just want to thank Chaos for having even more ridiculous arguments than me, and making all of my arguments look better by comparison. At least I knew when to stand down.
You could probably argue in favour of religion better than he's arguing in favour of banning circumcision ^_~
I just want to thank Chaos for having even more ridiculous arguments than me, and making all of my arguments look better by comparison. At least I knew when to stand down.
You could probably argue in favour of religion better than he's arguing in favour of banning circumcision ^_~
I would argue I already have.
Probably, but it's been ages since we've had a flamewar on religion.
I just want to thank Chaos for having even more ridiculous arguments than me, and making all of my arguments look better by comparison. At least I knew when to stand down.
You could probably argue in favour of religion better than he's arguing in favour of banning circumcision ^_~
I would argue I already have.
Probably, but it's been ages since we've had a flamewar on religion.
And it will be ages until someone draws me into another one... I hope...
@Sail: It is also much more common ailments and thus would have a much greater benefit, or likelihood to be beneficial.
However, the problem I have, and why I can't really get my head around you guys, is that the objection I'm looking for why we don't force appendectomies and tonsillectomies upon people that don't need them but are in our care, is because it's fucking unethical! Apparently I'm surrounded in this forum by a bunch of unethical bastards or simply people who don't give a shit about what they have the right to do and what rights they don't have with other people in their care.
@zibblecoot: There are several flaws in your reasonong: 1) Male circumcision (the topic of debate) hardly has anything to do with 12-year-old girls. 2) Sexual abuse of males under the age of consent only rarely could even result in an HIV contraction that could be in any way prevented through a circumcision. 3) I've already gone over the difference between vaccination and an amputation surgery in this thread. Feel free to go back to that. 4) The medical reasons are done for the benefit of the person the surgery is done for. All I'm saying is that it should be their decision and it shouldn't be forced upon them.
Did you read my post? I said:
The point is if you are doing this for a medical reason you do it well before the individual is sexually active.
If the parents are making an informed MEDICAL decision there is no reason to wait. We don't wait for children to be 18 to decide if they should be vaccinated against HPV, Hepatitis, DPT, etc. To address your individual points: 1. It has everything to do with 12 year old girls. These girls aren't just having sex with previously sexually active older males (who are possible vectors for a variety of STIs) they are also having sex with their PEERS, that means 12 year old boys, and again you seem to be lacking in the big picture. Hypothetical situation: 12 year old girl has sex with multiple partners unsafely (most data points to less than 50% condom usage in teens) and then spreads it to her peers and then disease runs rampant. 2. Do you have statistics to back that up or is this just more meaningless data coming out of your keyboard? My point is abuse happens before the boys can consent to sexual activity, they can't go, "Hey, I may be in a compromising sexual situation before 6th grade, I would like to take the best possible care of my body before this possible event." 3. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that, again, when medical reasons are involved you do them early and before there's any chance of exposure. 4. Parents make the decision to give their children the best possible chance at life through vaccinations, if they chose to circumcise their son for medical reasons I don't see a difference there. People lie, people omit important information to sexual partners, people have sex without thinking of consequences, and people have sex before they are mature enough to handle it. If circumcision improves the overall populations' health and lowers the prevalence of disease (just like vaccinations aim to do) then I have no problems with parents making that medical decision.
@zibblecoot: Would you be in favor of parents forcing their children into wearing chastity belts in order to prevent them from having sexual contact before the parent deems them to be ready for it and thus prevent any and all negative effects of sexual contact (STDs, also pregancy)? Why or why not?
@zibblecoot: Would you be in favor of parents forcing their children into wearing chastity belts in order to prevent them from having sexual contact before the parent deems them to be ready for it and thus prevent any and all negative effects of sexual contact (STDs, also pregancy)? Why or why not?
Jesus fucking christ. Would you fucking stop that? "False equivalency, false equivalency" It's not fucking false equivalency you goddamn fucking imbecile twats.
I'm just trying to find where you guys draw your fucking lines in your ethics. You guys are so very inconsistent in this shit, it's unbelievable. You cite one procedure for one reason as a good thing, but a similar procedure for the same reason is unacceptable. You give one thing as a means to an end, but achieving the same end by different means, perhaps better means, it's unacceptable.
The matter of fact is that the principles and reason you give for being in favor of circumcision can be applied to other things as well, and suddenly it becomes unacceptable by your own standards. Maybe you should stop and think about what that says about those principles and reason.
The things I'm talking about are fucking equivalent to your bullshit, and it exposes why your bullshit simply doesn't fucking work!
@Sail: It is also much more common ailments and thus would have a much greater benefit, or likelihood to be beneficial.
However, the problem I have, and why I can't really get my head around you guys, is that the objection I'm looking for why we don't force appendectomies and tonsillectomies upon people that don't need them but are in our care, is because it's fucking unethical! Apparently I'm surrounded in this forum by a bunch of unethical bastards or simply people who don't give a shit about what they have the right to do and what rights they don't have with other people in their care.
Not sure why I'm responding, since many smarter people than me have done so before, but...
Yes, its unethical. Its unethical because we would be subjecting them to procedures that have a much higher risk of death/complications. If we could remove tonsills or appendixes with the same level of threat as a circumcision, I would remove them from my baby. Say we build a magical laser that could disintegrate offending organs with little to no risk... I would modify my baby's body as much as possible (as in, the useless organs) to prevent it from getting sick later in life.
@zibblecoot: Would you be in favor of parents forcing their children into wearing chastity belts in order to prevent them from having sexual contact before the parent deems them to be ready for it and thus prevent any and all negative effects of sexual contact (STDs, also pregancy)? Why or why not?
Perhaps abstinence only parents would have better luck with chastity belts than their current way of thinking, that all their children will wait until marriage to have sex and won't get pregnant or contract STIs. You one page ago:
People who want that additional protection against STDs can still get a circumcision one they are mature enough to decide to do so, which is the same age as they are mature enough to decide that they should have sex.
You seem to be under the false impression that people wait to be mature enough to understand all the implications of having sex, and thus would also be mature enough to make an informed medical decision. Your statements make it sound like no one has sex or is abused before they are mature (18 years old? 12 years old?) in your world.
Actually with both those organs we realized they still have an important function. There was a time when we started removing tonsils before there was even a hint of systemic problems. Then we realized that Tonsils are actually important to your immune system. Tonsils Your appendix would require extremely invasive surgery. Also it probably has some secondary functions as well see the article on Appendix (Vermiform Appendix)
If you READ, you might have noticed Cremlian pointing out that Tonsils have a significant use in your immune system if they're not malfunctioning, so that's more or less enough of a reason not to have an immediate tonsillectomy.
Second, as mentioned before, tonsillectomies and appendectomies are extremely invasive and have a higher chance of complications. This is not to mention that a newborn's health is usually pretty fragile, and recovering from both of those can be hard enough as a healthy child or adult. So we're not refusing to advocate for those procedures for some nonsense reason, we're refusing because it's fucking dangerous.
As for the false equivalency, you keep saying that circumcision and X other procedure is morally equivalent when the two are obviously not, usually because of a profound difference in risks and effects.
@zibblecoot: You didn't answer my question, but alas.
No, I don't think everybody waits until they're mature enough to consider the full consequences. In fact, there is picture perfect clear evidence that many don't. However, that doesn't give the right to the parents to dictate the terms of their sexual intercourse. Hence my question about the chastity belt. What's more, once they are in fact mature enough, they should have the right to determine themselves whether they want to have a foreskin or not, yet that ability is robbed from them in many cases by being forced into a circumcision as a child.
No, I don't think everybody waits until they're mature enough to consider the full consequences. In fact, there is picture perfect clear evidence that many don't. However, that doesn't give the right to the parents to dictate the terms of their sexual intercourse.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it does. That's the essence of the idea of a parental guardian, after all: the parent gets to make decisions for their child because their kid isn't mature enough to consider the full consequences.
No, I don't think everybody waits until they're mature enough to consider the full consequences. In fact, there is picture perfect clear evidence that many don't. However, that doesn't give the right to the parents to dictate the terms of their sexual intercourse.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it does. That's the essence of the idea of a parental guardian, after all: the parent gets to make decisions for their child because their kid isn't mature enough to consider the full consequences.
That is however in the best interest of the child, and hopefully taking the wishes of the child itself into consideration. This does not mean the absolute dictation of the terms, and definitely not for the entire rest of the child's life.
I simply do not consider permanently altering the physical appearance of the child a right of the parent. I don't think that parents have the right to brand, pierce or tattoo their children, or to mutilate them in any way including their genitals, regardless of whether male or female. Nor does any person have that right without the consent of the person the alteration is happening to.
BTW, the same principal is why NDRs exists, and why doctors can get their pants sued off of them if they don't respect them.
BTW, the same principal is why NDRs exists, and why doctors can get their pants sued off of them if they don't respect them.
Actually that's a different principal since the person who signs the NDR is usually able to create and enter into contracts unlike someone who is not legally an adult.
Chaosof99 lets just agree to disagree, neither of us want it outlawed or be mandatory, so in the end it's up the the individual to decide, none of us are personally going through this decision making period yet so why don't we revisit this when someone with an actual child they are about to circumcise posts asking what they should do. Your points are all over the place and generally way over the top. Your not going to convince people which the line of reasoning you are taking because in general it's filled with false comparisons. As Rym said, your line of argument only served to push me from a neutral position on circumcision to a pro circumcision position. I guess I should thank you for causing me to be more passionate about this issue.
And we're the ones with inconsistent ethics? The way a parent raises a child permanently alters them, mentally if not physically. In fact, that's kind of the point. Far more damage is done by, say, a parent raising a child in a fundamentalist environment than by sniping off a bit of skin for health reasons, but unless you want to argue that we should take religious people's children away, then you have no leg to stand on.
Overall, my only real concern in this issue is that people use effective pain relief methods such as ring block or DPNB, as well as continued pain relief for ~24 hours after the circumcision. I don't think the benefits of the procedure are sufficient to justify the monetary cost or any remaining pain, but I'm not especially concerned about that aspect.
Jesus fucking christ. Would you fucking stop that? "False equivalency, false equivalency" It's not fucking false equivalency you goddamn fucking imbecile twats.
I'm just trying to find where you guys draw your fucking lines in your ethics. You guys are so very inconsistent in this shit, it's unbelievable. You cite one procedure for one reason as a good thing, but a similar procedure for the same reason is unacceptable. You give one thing as a means to an end, but achieving the same end by different means, perhaps better means, it's unacceptable.
The matter of fact is that the principles and reason you give for being in favor of circumcision can be applied to other things as well, and suddenly it becomes unacceptable by your own standards. Maybe you should stop and think about what that says about those principles and reason.
The things I'm talking about are fucking equivalent to your bullshit, and it exposes why your bullshit simply doesn't fucking work!
This has become a fantastic thread. It's been a while since a thread has made me laugh out loud. Twice. Keep it up. Even if your arguing is completely ineffective, I sure enjoy reading it.
Comments
Edit: Wow, I'm a ridiculously slow typer. Should have known I'd get ninja'd by like 20 posts. :P
I hope...
However, the problem I have, and why I can't really get my head around you guys, is that the objection I'm looking for why we don't force appendectomies and tonsillectomies upon people that don't need them but are in our care, is because it's fucking unethical! Apparently I'm surrounded in this forum by a bunch of unethical bastards or simply people who don't give a shit about what they have the right to do and what rights they don't have with other people in their care.
To address your individual points:
1. It has everything to do with 12 year old girls. These girls aren't just having sex with previously sexually active older males (who are possible vectors for a variety of STIs) they are also having sex with their PEERS, that means 12 year old boys, and again you seem to be lacking in the big picture. Hypothetical situation: 12 year old girl has sex with multiple partners unsafely (most data points to less than 50% condom usage in teens) and then spreads it to her peers and then disease runs rampant.
2. Do you have statistics to back that up or is this just more meaningless data coming out of your keyboard? My point is abuse happens before the boys can consent to sexual activity, they can't go, "Hey, I may be in a compromising sexual situation before 6th grade, I would like to take the best possible care of my body before this possible event."
3. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that, again, when medical reasons are involved you do them early and before there's any chance of exposure.
4. Parents make the decision to give their children the best possible chance at life through vaccinations, if they chose to circumcise their son for medical reasons I don't see a difference there.
People lie, people omit important information to sexual partners, people have sex without thinking of consequences, and people have sex before they are mature enough to handle it. If circumcision improves the overall populations' health and lowers the prevalence of disease (just like vaccinations aim to do) then I have no problems with parents making that medical decision.
I'm just trying to find where you guys draw your fucking lines in your ethics. You guys are so very inconsistent in this shit, it's unbelievable. You cite one procedure for one reason as a good thing, but a similar procedure for the same reason is unacceptable. You give one thing as a means to an end, but achieving the same end by different means, perhaps better means, it's unacceptable.
The matter of fact is that the principles and reason you give for being in favor of circumcision can be applied to other things as well, and suddenly it becomes unacceptable by your own standards. Maybe you should stop and think about what that says about those principles and reason.
The things I'm talking about are fucking equivalent to your bullshit, and it exposes why your bullshit simply doesn't fucking work!
Yes, its unethical. Its unethical because we would be subjecting them to procedures that have a much higher risk of death/complications. If we could remove tonsills or appendixes with the same level of threat as a circumcision, I would remove them from my baby. Say we build a magical laser that could disintegrate offending organs with little to no risk... I would modify my baby's body as much as possible (as in, the useless organs) to prevent it from getting sick later in life.
You one page ago: You seem to be under the false impression that people wait to be mature enough to understand all the implications of having sex, and thus would also be mature enough to make an informed medical decision. Your statements make it sound like no one has sex or is abused before they are mature (18 years old? 12 years old?) in your world.
Second, as mentioned before, tonsillectomies and appendectomies are extremely invasive and have a higher chance of complications. This is not to mention that a newborn's health is usually pretty fragile, and recovering from both of those can be hard enough as a healthy child or adult. So we're not refusing to advocate for those procedures for some nonsense reason, we're refusing because it's fucking dangerous.
As for the false equivalency, you keep saying that circumcision and X other procedure is morally equivalent when the two are obviously not, usually because of a profound difference in risks and effects.
EDIT: Ninja'd and ninja'd hard.
No, I don't think everybody waits until they're mature enough to consider the full consequences. In fact, there is picture perfect clear evidence that many don't. However, that doesn't give the right to the parents to dictate the terms of their sexual intercourse. Hence my question about the chastity belt. What's more, once they are in fact mature enough, they should have the right to determine themselves whether they want to have a foreskin or not, yet that ability is robbed from them in many cases by being forced into a circumcision as a child.
I simply do not consider permanently altering the physical appearance of the child a right of the parent. I don't think that parents have the right to brand, pierce or tattoo their children, or to mutilate them in any way including their genitals, regardless of whether male or female. Nor does any person have that right without the consent of the person the alteration is happening to.
BTW, the same principal is why NDRs exists, and why doctors can get their pants sued off of them if they don't respect them.
Chaosof99 lets just agree to disagree, neither of us want it outlawed or be mandatory, so in the end it's up the the individual to decide, none of us are personally going through this decision making period yet so why don't we revisit this when someone with an actual child they are about to circumcise posts asking what they should do. Your points are all over the place and generally way over the top. Your not going to convince people which the line of reasoning you are taking because in general it's filled with false comparisons. As Rym said, your line of argument only served to push me from a neutral position on circumcision to a pro circumcision position. I guess I should thank you for causing me to be more passionate about this issue.
I don't think the benefits of the procedure are sufficient to justify the monetary cost or any remaining pain, but I'm not especially concerned about that aspect.
Keep it up. Even if your arguing is completely ineffective, I sure enjoy reading it.
Also, props to Scott.