How is that in any way relevant? Only thing I see that being used at all is as an ad hominem argument. The status of my own penis is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Heh, It has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks, I'm just testing Nilia's theory that people who are super against circumcision are not circumcised themselves. Your answer would in no way invalid your opinion it would just test her theory.
This thread has reached the point of people repeatedly making the same absolute, value-based statements and refusing to accept other value sets and/or evidence that is presented to them. We just had the same discussion 3 times in a row and nothing has changed. "It's bad because it's bad" is a stupid argument. I'm done here.
The strange thing is that you outright admit that there is harm being done, yet you are okay with that. And the "public health benefits" have hardly been shown to outweigh those costs. Hell, Linkigi even refuted himself with his own link in that regard, despite thinking that he did the exact opposite.
You keep making personal value judgements. Who are you to judge that the benefits have outweighed the costs, as Rym said earlier because there are benefits and costs it's something that should be a personal discussion and not banned. ALL of medicine is a cost verse benefit situation. Do we cut this person open to operate? Do we use this antibiotic which will kill the infection but also will wipe out their helpful microbes? Until you are 18 your parents are responsible for you. They can make calls on your healthcare without your permission. This is because children especially younger ones are not in a position to make judgements on their health and well-being. If you gave me the ability to choose whether to get a shot or not, I would have refused for most of my childhood.
The strange thing is that you outright admit that there is harm being done, yet you are okay with that. And the "public health benefits" have hardly been shown to outweigh those costs. Hell, Linkigi even refuted himself with his own link in that regard, despite thinking that he did the exact opposite.
You keep making personal value judgements. Who are you to judge that the benefits have outweighed the costs, as Rym said earlier because there are benefits and costs it's something that should be a personal discussion and banned. ALL of medicine is a cost verse benefit situation. Do we cut this person open to operate? Do we use this antibiotic which will kill the infection but also wipe out their helpful microbes? Until you are 18 your parents are responsible for you. They can make calls on your healthcare without your permission. This is because children especially younger ones are not in a position to make judgements on their health.
Except these examples you've been given are in many cases reversible and almost always necessary treatments in response to an imminent threat to the health due to a present condition, whereas circumcision is at most a preventive treatment, irreversible, and entirely elective.
Except these examples you've been given are in many cases reversible and almost always necessary treatments in response to an imminent threat to the health due to a present condition, whereas circumcision is at most a preventive treatment, irreversible, and entirely elective.
Vaccines, There is a small small chance that you will have a allergic reaction to the shot and die.... You still take it because of the preventive value of the vaccine.
And see my discussion about public health statistics. A 1% rate of anything is large. Botulism spores are found in maybe 2% of honey across the nation, but that is sufficient to tell people "OMG NEVER FEED YOUR INFANTS HONEY." Why? Because anyone could be one of those 2%.
assuming equal utility of benefits and harms
And that's what you have to look at in studies and summaries. They're assuming that the negative consequences of the circumcision operation are as bad as the benefits are good. Where is that supported? It's a strict assumption.
According to the AMA report on this topic, complications occurred 0.2 - 0.6% of the time, and I quote:
Two large series detected a complication rate between 0.2% and 0.6% in circumcised infants.28,29 Bleeding and infection, occasionally leading to sepsis, are the most common adverse events requiring treatment. In the majority of cases, bleeding is minor and hemostasis can be achieved by pressure application.
Yeah, that's not really sufficient grounds to say that the complications are equal.
The AMA paper does conclude by supporting the 1999 position of the AMA:
. The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.
which came into being after evidence showed that it can reduce the rates of UTI's.
So the confluence of medical evidence says that it can have medical benefits, but it's not something that they think needs to be done in all cases. There is no advisory to not circumcise your children if it is unnecessary; instead, they leave it up to the parents.
So it's not a decision that the doctor makes every time.
So it's not a decision that the doctor makes every time.
And in practice, there are a ton of decisions that the doctor doesn't make every time, and where parents have discretion on their kid's behalf. Deciding about circumcision is just the beginning of at least 18 years of tough calls on debatable points.
Except these examples you've been given are in many cases reversible and almost always necessary treatments in response to an imminent threat to the health due to a present condition, whereas circumcision is at most a preventive treatment, irreversible, and entirely elective.
Vaccines.
Bad argument. One, vaccines are preventive treatments for high risk pathogens that are a present and imminent threat if the person is not vaccinated, and secondly, a vaccine has the additional benefit of providing herd immunity for people who can not medically get the vaccine. However, a person being circumcised and the potentially lower risk of having a urinary tract infection or potentially being marginally less likely to get penile cancer does not confer in any way to the next man.
See, when the AMA recommends something as routine practice, it means the doctor does it without asking you. It becomes part of procedure, which you the parent cannot change without a lot of hoop jumping.
And more recent data (since their decision was based on data that's over a decade old) show that the overall rate of neonatal UTI is around 3%, not 1%. That's an uncommon condition, but enough that I would consider controlling it.
See, when the AMA recommends something as routine practice, it means the doctor does it without asking you. It becomes part of procedure, which you the parent cannot change without a lot of hoop jumping.
Well, I've seen some pretty sticky situations arising from someone fighting against routine practice. Then again, it's also usually in more extreme cases. I highly doubt there would be much of a fight if a parent said, "Eh, I'd rather you not chop off the foreskin."
I guess my real point is that the AMA isn't recommending that you avoid circumcising your child. The evidence suggests it has some benefit, so it's best left up to the parent to decide.
In the event that chaosof99 isn't trolling, clarifications:
1) Schoolyard Bullying vs. Torturous Murder: I was making a comparison not between the acts, but between the potential harm done by them. It does bear correction, though. Schoolyard bullying is a bit much; male circumcision is as harmful to the recipient as a downloaded MP3: sometimes it's great, sometimes you wish the sound quality was better, sometimes the RIAA sues you out of house and home. Female genital cutting is still as harmful to the victim as a torturous rape-murder. Out of those two, I am only okay with downloading MP3s. Most other people are, too. Some people like purchased music. Some people like listening to purchased OR pirated music. AND BOTH CHOICES ARE FINE. Torturous rape-murder is never okay.
2) Wikipedia on mutilation: "The term is usually employed to describe the victims of accidents, torture, physical assault, or certain premodern forms of punishment." Also, excision of mildly enervated skin is not the same as excision of an organ with the highest concentration of nerve endings in the body. I know this because I am training to be a doctor, and can also google and use wikipedia. You do not know this because you're clearly dumber than a bag of particularly retarded hammers and thicker than tar.
We've proven circumcision's potential medical worth. We've also show that it's in most cases harmless to either do it or not do it in a developed nation. You are either on a little crusade, or are a particularly good troll with a lot of free time. Either way, you're doing a magnificent job of being a willfully ignorant twat, and it's a joy to know that I never have to take you seriously ever again. Consider this a textual Buzz Aldrining.
Chaosof99 is either a troll or someone who is never, ever going to respond to arguments fairly, so the best response either way is ignoring him.
My own two cents just because I felt like putting it out there: Considering the practical and ethical issues, I would not circumcise a future son, and would even go so far as to try to convince parents debating it not to do it either, as long as they asked my opinion or we were close enough that it would be OK to broach such a delicate subject. I also feel that this is in no way, shape, or form something the government should be banning, for the same reasons that pretty much everybody has already given. I have now spent way too much time reading repetitive arguments about a subject that does not apply to me at all, and will not anytime in the near future. Yay, internet!
Apparently, taking a knife to someone's penis doesn't count as "physical assault" by WindUpBird's standards. I do love the insults though, very mature, very helpful, very favoring your argument...
And you did make a comparison between the acts. You tried to make a comparison between the potential harm, but the harm can only come as a result of what kind of act it is and what potential harm can come from it. And now you are trying to revise that in order to make it look even more tame, only in response to me pointing out that you were still engaging in and comparing it to a harmful act. The irony is of course that even with your revision, you are still alluding to a harmful act. One that might be impossible to control and with almost no consequences, but still a harmful act.
What we are clearly differing on is how much of a harmful act male circumcision in fact is. That is fine, but apparently you guys are not even willing to consider that it could have much more harm than you think, and you are dragging out old, stale arguments like "oh, they'll be too young to remember" and "it's far from being as bad as female circumcision". What disturbs me more however is that you can't even see the ethical problem of mutilating a child. I doubt you'd be okay with a parent cutting off the little toe of a child. Why the fuck is the foreskin the only exception where cutting any child is considered okay? Why do the human rights of a male child end where the glans of his dick begins?
Further, you have not "proven" any medical worth to it, at least none that requires the gential mutilation of infants, and that you are considering this a textual Buzz Aldrining makes you look like a complete and utter fucking moron.
Also, please consider this, because this is pretty much the argument we just had. All references can be found in the youtube description.
Comments
According to the AMA report on this topic, complications occurred 0.2 - 0.6% of the time, and I quote: Yeah, that's not really sufficient grounds to say that the complications are equal.
The AMA paper does conclude by supporting the 1999 position of the AMA: which came into being after evidence showed that it can reduce the rates of UTI's.
So the confluence of medical evidence says that it can have medical benefits, but it's not something that they think needs to be done in all cases. There is no advisory to not circumcise your children if it is unnecessary; instead, they leave it up to the parents.
So it's not a decision that the doctor makes every time.
And more recent data (since their decision was based on data that's over a decade old) show that the overall rate of neonatal UTI is around 3%, not 1%. That's an uncommon condition, but enough that I would consider controlling it.
I guess my real point is that the AMA isn't recommending that you avoid circumcising your child. The evidence suggests it has some benefit, so it's best left up to the parent to decide.
1) Schoolyard Bullying vs. Torturous Murder: I was making a comparison not between the acts, but between the potential harm done by them. It does bear correction, though. Schoolyard bullying is a bit much; male circumcision is as harmful to the recipient as a downloaded MP3: sometimes it's great, sometimes you wish the sound quality was better, sometimes the RIAA sues you out of house and home. Female genital cutting is still as harmful to the victim as a torturous rape-murder. Out of those two, I am only okay with downloading MP3s. Most other people are, too. Some people like purchased music. Some people like listening to purchased OR pirated music. AND BOTH CHOICES ARE FINE. Torturous rape-murder is never okay.
2) Wikipedia on mutilation: "The term is usually employed to describe the victims of accidents, torture, physical assault, or certain premodern forms of punishment." Also, excision of mildly enervated skin is not the same as excision of an organ with the highest concentration of nerve endings in the body. I know this because I am training to be a doctor, and can also google and use wikipedia. You do not know this because you're clearly dumber than a bag of particularly retarded hammers and thicker than tar.
We've proven circumcision's potential medical worth. We've also show that it's in most cases harmless to either do it or not do it in a developed nation. You are either on a little crusade, or are a particularly good troll with a lot of free time. Either way, you're doing a magnificent job of being a willfully ignorant twat, and it's a joy to know that I never have to take you seriously ever again. Consider this a textual Buzz Aldrining.
My own two cents just because I felt like putting it out there: Considering the practical and ethical issues, I would not circumcise a future son, and would even go so far as to try to convince parents debating it not to do it either, as long as they asked my opinion or we were close enough that it would be OK to broach such a delicate subject. I also feel that this is in no way, shape, or form something the government should be banning, for the same reasons that pretty much everybody has already given. I have now spent way too much time reading repetitive arguments about a subject that does not apply to me at all, and will not anytime in the near future. Yay, internet!
People try to c-c-cut us down!
(TALKIN' BOUT MY CIRCUMCISION!)
Just because dick skin abounds.
(TALKIN' BOUT MY CIRCUMCISION!) And you lot think you have it bad, back in Joe's youth, circumcisions were performed with Knapped flint.
And you did make a comparison between the acts. You tried to make a comparison between the potential harm, but the harm can only come as a result of what kind of act it is and what potential harm can come from it. And now you are trying to revise that in order to make it look even more tame, only in response to me pointing out that you were still engaging in and comparing it to a harmful act. The irony is of course that even with your revision, you are still alluding to a harmful act. One that might be impossible to control and with almost no consequences, but still a harmful act.
What we are clearly differing on is how much of a harmful act male circumcision in fact is. That is fine, but apparently you guys are not even willing to consider that it could have much more harm than you think, and you are dragging out old, stale arguments like "oh, they'll be too young to remember" and "it's far from being as bad as female circumcision". What disturbs me more however is that you can't even see the ethical problem of mutilating a child. I doubt you'd be okay with a parent cutting off the little toe of a child. Why the fuck is the foreskin the only exception where cutting any child is considered okay? Why do the human rights of a male child end where the glans of his dick begins?
Further, you have not "proven" any medical worth to it, at least none that requires the gential mutilation of infants, and that you are considering this a textual Buzz Aldrining makes you look like a complete and utter fucking moron.
Also, please consider this, because this is pretty much the argument we just had. All references can be found in the youtube description.
Also includes this great bit by Hitchens: