Only in cases where the mole has been determined malignant, which is hardly something you can say about the foreskin.
And they're often removed proactively because they might be cancerous.
You're just wrong. This isn't even a matter of opinion. You are factually incorrect.
THIS.
Moreover, the implied case you are making seems to be backwards to concept and benefits of preventative care. No one is advocating that someone get their arm removed because they might get a paper cut. Instead they are suggesting that a minor procedure that could help prevent relatively common infections and aid in the protection against STD's may be worth considering.
HPV and and HIV is also retarded argument considering that this is hardly an argument for circumcision of INFANTS, who aren't really known to contract sexually transmitted diseases, are they now? 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.
The point is if you are doing this for a medical reason you do it well before the individual is sexually active. Are you one of those people that thinks 6 year old boys and girls should NOT get the HPV vaccine because they aren't sexually active? There are plenty of studies of 12 year old girls being sexually active (probably younger than that as well). Tell me, in this mythical world of people waiting to be mature enough to have sex, sexual abuse never happens to anyone under the age of consent right?
Man, once we start poking around with cybernetics and genetic modification, I really hope that chaosof99's "logic" isn't the one people go for. I loath the idea of losing the right to replace my child's foreskin with a cybernetic one capable of 30 billion calculations per second.
Man, once we start poking around with cybernetics and genetic modification, I really hope that chaosof99's "logic" isn't the one people go for. I loath the idea of losing the right to replace my child's foreskin with a cybernetic one capable of 30 billion calculations per second.
Call me Anti-future if you must, but somehow, I don't think that cybernetic prosthetic foreskins are exactly at the top of the list for cybernetics research.
Risk of penile cancer is already low (lower than male breast cancer) and the argument is basically the same as reducing risk of skin cancer by removing your fucking skin.
You know Fuck you, My fiance's father is on his death bed right this fucking minute from male breast cancer. I'm sure if we could do some minor mainly cosmetic change that has no real effect on anything to prevent that from happening we all would freaking elected to take it when he was a baby. Don't go all well if you remove your liver you can't get liver cancer because that's not the same level of change...
Sorry that was an obvious emotional trigger for me at the moment. The Level of outrage you are feeling on this issue is way over kill. And that's why you have so many people arguing with you even if they actually agree with your position.
We are talking about amputation surgery, largely for reasons of aesthetics, tradition or religion, on a child.
See, now statements like this are why no one is taking you seriously. You sound hysterical and hyperbolic. By your logic, clipping a child's nails or cutting his hair is amputation surgery.
Adults consider scale and degree in arguments. Your principle of equivalence in this debate is ludicrous.
Man, once we start poking around with cybernetics and genetic modification, I really hope that chaosof99's "logic" isn't the one people go for. I loath the idea of losing the right to replace my child's foreskin with a cybernetic one capable of 30 billion calculations per second.
Call me Anti-future if you must, but somehow, I don't think that cybernetic prosthetic foreskins are exactly at the top of the list for cybernetics research.
Everybody wants prosthetic foreskins on their real heads.
I'm in fact all for personal self-determination. If you want a circumcision, vasectomy, whatever, for yourself, and are a legal adult. Go ahead, knock yourself out.
...and can be traumatic in people who are old enough to actually develop a trauma.
This is where you keep losing me. I'm not even intending to mean this as some kind of snappy comeback, either. And also, does it really matter WHY people decide to have their babies circumcised when the medical reasons already exist? If they're saying they're doing it to have the baby "look more like his father", does that just suddenly mean that the medical reasons don't exist? I've moved past trying to retort your arguments, and am more curious of exactly how your brain is working.
1. You have failed to convince anyone here that traditional male circumcision is worthy of action or even consideration by anyone other than the parents of a young child. 2. You rail against it, but have no thesis, point, solution, or even suggestion as to what action should be taken. If no action, then what are you arguing for? 3. You've ignored all considerations of scale and degree. While not a full fallacy, it renders your arguments laughably naive, and hysterical sounding, nevermind removing any pretense of a sound debate. No one but a philosopher gets to ignore degree and scale, and they give up their right to relevance for the privilege. 4. You make sweeping assumptions as to the utility/cost valuations of everyone else here, begging the question. 5. In such a profoundly ambivalent situation, and absent degree or scale of harm, should intelligent adults not be able to make their own decisions? If you don't want to let adults decide on something so trivial, then what's the point of being an adult? What's the point of making decisions? At some point, people have to be free to make even poor decisions. Each decision you take away, no matter how small, takes away not only freedom, but choice, the very principle of being a (perceived) self-moving being. What's the line? You're setting it pretty damn high.
I'll restate my points real quick:
1. Do all cultural emanations have value just because they are culture? 2. Do infants have freedom of religion? 3. Should a child be indoctrinated and marked by a religion immediately after birth? 4. Does freedom of religion give parents the right to do number 3? 4a. Judaism is often referred to as a race and as a religion. In the US is the official race of Jewish people white or Jewish? Or is the Child of two Jewish people a human that then chooses Judaism or is the Child born Jewish? (Bear in mind that race is an artificial construct that we created to divide ourselves.) 5. Does government have the right to regulate this practice to protect the infant from religious persecution? 6. Is there any really good studies and analysis done that proves either way whether circumcision as a cosmetic surgery has positive or negative health effects and if it is completely benign then should it be allowed as a purely cosmetic surgery?
All in all my personal opinion is that government doesn't need to regulate this practice. Personally I believe that the procedure is done for cultural reasons that are imposed on the child, but in all honesty it's not that serious of a thing to be "Banned". But that's just my personal opinion.
1. No 2. Irrelevant; they can't have religion. 3. No. 4. Yes. 5. It depends on how much harm is done, and whether it is so widespread that it cannot be stopped.
Yeah, because of course foreskin grows back like nails and hair. Thanks for that great input, Rym... My statement that you quoted was a statement of fact. There was not a single piece of hyperbole in there. A circumcision is simply an amputation surgery as it removes a body part. It is performed on children, and it's is largely done for the reasons I specified. These are all simple facts.
@TheWhaleShark: So what exactly prevents medicine to removing the foreskin once it has been determined that it has become cancerous or might be on the verge of it? Absolutely nothing. In fact I encourage it. The problem is that this reasoning behind circumcision is removing a part of the body that could potentially some time become cancerous, but might never do so! This is not equivalent to a mole, which is already a form of skin tumor in itself! The foreskin is not!
@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.
@Cremlian: Sorry to hear, and I certainly didn't mean to offend, but my statement is true. The rationale behind the reduction of the risk of penile cancer through circumcision is by the removal of tissue that could potentially become cancerous. That is the same rationale as preventing liver cancer by liver removal. Of course the difference is that you guys are seeing it way too simple. A circumcision is not just a minor, mainly cosmetic change. But of course the far greater problem is that a circumcision is forced upon an unsuspecting person, without their consent or even consideration.
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?
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)
I am fortunate, they removed my tonsils and they grew back.. You'll find that now they will rarely remove the tonsils.
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)
So you don't think the ethical concerns of forcing surgery that it may never need upon a child, as well as the risks of the procedure itself, didn't factor into that at all. Interesting.
So you don't think the ethical concerns of forcing surgery that it may never need upon a child, as well as the risks of the procedure itself, didn't factor into that at all. Interesting.
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?
So you don't think the ethical concerns of forcing surgery that it may never need upon a child, as well as the risks of the procedure itself, didn't factor into that at all. Interesting.
No one is arguing for forced circumcision here. The vast majority (I believe) merely wish to give the option to the parents as opposed to legislating it. There are evidence based health reasons for the procedure, it's straightforward, and non-invasive. Parents make all sorts of health related decisions for their child, this is just another option they should have.
I've been reading this thread for awhile now, and for some reason I finally feel like commenting. :P
Here are some points about how I feel:
1) First of all, I have no idea what I'll do if I have a son. I'll probably leave it up to my husband since he has a weewee and I don't. 2) If I did choose to have my baby circumcised, it would be purely for the health benefits already stated in this thread. 3) I personally feel the aesthetic argument isn't a very good one. I mean, if we think its okay to circumcise a baby boy so he has a nice sex life (in America, or wherever it is perceived attractive), then why don't we go ahead and give our baby girls boob jobs? She'll never remember it, and she'll grow up with nice boobs and be happy about herself. :-P 4) I admit that I would be afraid of the schoolyard bullying thing if I didn't get my son circumcised... kids are cruel! Then again, there are probably many boys that got by and were never teased, so who knows. 5) I understand the pain argument. I would feel bad about inflicting pain on the poor little thing, too, so I would look into pain relieving options. Also I'm no expert, but according to Wikipedia and whatnot there are several ways to perform a circumcision, some involving less risk than others. I would definitely pay more to have a less risky procedure done.
In summary, my reasons for doing it would be for the health benefits, and I would put much thought into doing the right thing. However, I feel that parents who don't even think twice and just do it purely for cultural or religions regions aren't doing their jobs as parents.
EDIT. Also, in response to the less-thought-out comments on here (I'll be nice): You say cosmetic surgery should never be done on infants? What about kids with non-health impacting deformities? Like extra toes/fingers, mild cleft palette, etc.?
Really, false equivalence. So you guys propose that forcing surgery on a child in order to prevent rare diseases is countered with a question why you aren't proposing procedures of a similar manner to prevent much, much more common diseases and that is false equivalence...
3) I personally feel the aesthetic argument isn't a very good one. I mean, if we think its okay to circumcise a baby boy so he has a nice sex life (in America, or wherever it is perceived attractive), then why don't we go ahead and give our baby girls boob jobs? She'll never remember it, and she'll grow up with nice boobs and be happy about herself. :-P
4) I admit that I would be afraid of the schoolyard bullying thing if I didn't get my son circumcised... kids are cruel! Then again, there are probably many boys that got by and were never teased, so who knows.
It barely ever has the chance to come up unless the kid likes being naked - I have been made fun of exactly once for being uncircumcised, and I was about 8 or 9 at the time, and it wound up not affecting me much as a human being.
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.
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?
Of course, it's much more severe. I never said anything else. However, it also has a much, much higher likelyhood of being beneficial as cases of tonsillitis or appendicitis are much more common. However, they are still of the same principal: Preventive amputation surgery. And yes, it is surgery by your own admission so quit pretending that it isn't.
So you don't think the ethical concerns of forcing surgery that it may never need upon a child, as well as the risks of the procedure itself, didn't factor into that at all. Interesting.
No one is arguing for forced circumcision here. The vast majority (I believe) merely wish to give the option to the parents as opposed to legislating it. There are evidence based health reasons for the procedure, it's straightforward, and non-invasive. Parents make all sorts of health related decisions for their child, this is just another option they should have.
The parents force the circumcision upon the child, which is why I'm talking about "force circumcision". Not to mention that the prospect health benefits are rarely given as a reason for the procedure, and it does cause harm and is in many cases simply not necessary. Yes, parents should and in fact need to have the right to make medical decision. That is in case of imminent threat or in long term benefits with dividends for which the procedure needs to be performed immediately for it. Neither is true for circumcision. Nor are these benefits commonly given as a reason for the 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.
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.
Comments
You're just wrong. This isn't even a matter of opinion. You are factually incorrect.
Moreover, the implied case you are making seems to be backwards to concept and benefits of preventative care. No one is advocating that someone get their arm removed because they might get a paper cut. Instead they are suggesting that a minor procedure that could help prevent relatively common infections and aid in the protection against STD's may be worth considering.
Sorry that was an obvious emotional trigger for me at the moment. The Level of outrage you are feeling on this issue is way over kill. And that's why you have so many people arguing with you even if they actually agree with your position.
Adults consider scale and degree in arguments. Your principle of equivalence in this debate is ludicrous.
1. Do all cultural emanations have value just because they are culture?
2. Do infants have freedom of religion?
3. Should a child be indoctrinated and marked by a religion immediately after birth?
4. Does freedom of religion give parents the right to do number 3?
4a. Judaism is often referred to as a race and as a religion. In the US is the official race of Jewish people white or Jewish?
Or is the Child of two Jewish people a human that then chooses Judaism or is the Child born Jewish?
(Bear in mind that race is an artificial construct that we created to divide ourselves.)
5. Does government have the right to regulate this practice to protect the infant from religious persecution?
6. Is there any really good studies and analysis done that proves either way whether circumcision as a cosmetic surgery has positive or negative health effects and if it is completely benign then should it be allowed as a purely cosmetic surgery?
All in all my personal opinion is that government doesn't need to regulate this practice. Personally I believe that the procedure is done for cultural reasons that are imposed on the child, but in all honesty it's not that serious of a thing to be "Banned". But that's just my personal opinion.
..... ..... ..... ..... .....
.. .
..... .
2. Irrelevant; they can't have religion.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. It depends on how much harm is done, and whether it is so widespread that it cannot be stopped.
My statement that you quoted was a statement of fact. There was not a single piece of hyperbole in there. A circumcision is simply an amputation surgery as it removes a body part. It is performed on children, and it's is largely done for the reasons I specified. These are all simple facts.
@TheWhaleShark: So what exactly prevents medicine to removing the foreskin once it has been determined that it has become cancerous or might be on the verge of it? Absolutely nothing. In fact I encourage it. The problem is that this reasoning behind circumcision is removing a part of the body that could potentially some time become cancerous, but might never do so! This is not equivalent to a mole, which is already a form of skin tumor in itself! The foreskin is not!
@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.
@Cremlian: Sorry to hear, and I certainly didn't mean to offend, but my statement is true. The rationale behind the reduction of the risk of penile cancer through circumcision is by the removal of tissue that could potentially become cancerous. That is the same rationale as preventing liver cancer by liver removal. Of course the difference is that you guys are seeing it way too simple. A circumcision is not just a minor, mainly cosmetic change. But of course the far greater problem is that a circumcision is forced upon an unsuspecting person, without their consent or even consideration.
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?
I am fortunate, they removed my tonsils and they grew back.. You'll find that now they will rarely remove the tonsils.
Here are some points about how I feel:
1) First of all, I have no idea what I'll do if I have a son. I'll probably leave it up to my husband since he has a weewee and I don't.
2) If I did choose to have my baby circumcised, it would be purely for the health benefits already stated in this thread.
3) I personally feel the aesthetic argument isn't a very good one. I mean, if we think its okay to circumcise a baby boy so he has a nice sex life (in America, or wherever it is perceived attractive), then why don't we go ahead and give our baby girls boob jobs? She'll never remember it, and she'll grow up with nice boobs and be happy about herself. :-P
4) I admit that I would be afraid of the schoolyard bullying thing if I didn't get my son circumcised... kids are cruel! Then again, there are probably many boys that got by and were never teased, so who knows.
5) I understand the pain argument. I would feel bad about inflicting pain on the poor little thing, too, so I would look into pain relieving options. Also I'm no expert, but according to Wikipedia and whatnot there are several ways to perform a circumcision, some involving less risk than others. I would definitely pay more to have a less risky procedure done.
In summary, my reasons for doing it would be for the health benefits, and I would put much thought into doing the right thing. However, I feel that parents who don't even think twice and just do it purely for cultural or religions regions aren't doing their jobs as parents.
EDIT. Also, in response to the less-thought-out comments on here (I'll be nice): You say cosmetic surgery should never be done on infants? What about kids with non-health impacting deformities? Like extra toes/fingers, mild cleft palette, etc.?
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.
Yes, parents should and in fact need to have the right to make medical decision. That is in case of imminent threat or in long term benefits with dividends for which the procedure needs to be performed immediately for it. Neither is true for circumcision. Nor are these benefits commonly given as a reason for the 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.