Circumcision

[Ivor the Engineer]

My statement stands. If I knocked out an adult so that he could no longer protest before I mutilated his genitals, I would still be charged with assault and sent to prison. If an adult suffers a head injury in a car accident and in his confusion protests the life-saving CAT scan, I won't be charged with assault if I restrain him so that the scan can be performed.

If a woman was intoxicated with alcohol or another drug that renders her unconscious, would a strange man be allowed to have sex with her? Would it only be wrong if she could remember the incident after?

<snip>

How does a parent obtain any gratification from this act?

Given that a common reason for having a child circumcised is so he looks like his father, I think that's fairly obvious.

We choose a million things for our child before they are able to choose on their own - what language they speak, what food they eat, what beliefs are considered impotant, where they live, what kind of education they receive, what toys they play with, what TV shows they watch, what they wear, and on and on and on. We do these things because out of necessity they happen before the child is ready to choose for himself. And by the time the child is able to choose these things for himself, he has been irrevocably influenced by those choices we already made for him - physically and mentally. Many of the benefits that parents see from circumcision for their child, out of necessity, happen before the child is ready to choose it for himself.

Many of the benefits of circumcision? I think you mean ONE benefit: the risk reduction in infant UTI.

As for this benefit, here's an analogy:

Let's say you're in Las Vegas, and a member of security in the casino you're in catches you cheating. He gives you a choice: Either receive a punch in the nose now, or pick a number on the roulette wheel and if that number comes up (1 chance in 37), you get a punch in the nose and a kick in the balls. If it doesn't come up (36 chances in 37), you just walk out of the casino.

so the choices are:

a) A guaranteed punch in the nose. (equiv. circumcision)
b) A 1 in 37 chance of a punch in the nose and a kick in the balls (equiv. to treatment for UTI), with 36 chances in 37 that you'll just walk out of the casino unharmed (equiv. to risk of *not* getting a UTI).

Which do you pick - (a) or (b)? For me it's (b) every time. Anyone who picks (a) is irrational.

 

[Southwind17]

I am making an attempt to explain and clarify by expanding on what I said. If I see that you do not understand, wouldn't it make sense to try wording it in a different way? Or when your question wasn't clear and I answered it differently than you wanted, shouldn't I, once I have a better understanding of what you're looking for, make another attempt to answer your question? If you see an apparent contradiction, should I not show you how it looks like a contradiction from one perspective, but that a larger view resolves that contradiction?

In all honesty, I would like you to make a solid argument. It hasn't been clear to me what you think you are doing that counteracts what I have had to say.

If you don't understand something, then tell me. I don't have detailed knowledge of your capabilities. I don't deliberately plant anything in order to confuse - that would defeat the purpose. I don't deny that I make smarmy or cryptic remarks as an aside, but not when the discussion is reasonable.

If you choose to focus this discussion, not on the issues, but on whether or not I can satisfy your demands, you will always win. Every time I give a simple answer you will be able to extrapolate it beyond what I meant into a contradiction. Every time I expand my answer in order to remove the contradiction, then I am making it up as I go along. Every time you don't understand what I'm saying, I'm being deliberately cryptic. Every time I expand on my answer so that you can understand it, I'm arbitrarily changing my argument in order to weasel out of trouble.

If you want to make this an ad hominen argument, that the issue is not about the substance of my argument but about whether or not I can convey the substance of my argument to your satisfaction, I one hundred percent concede. You have absolutely and without qualification won this argument. It is not necessary for you to provide any more 'evidence' in support of your point, nor to bring it up in any future discussions, as it will be automatically assumed. I can even put it in my signature, if necessary.

Whether or not you now wish to back up your claim that you can rip my reasoning and logic apart is up to you.

OK, let's call a truce. There's no point my going over old ground. Tell you what I'll do, in future, if I think you're being deliberately cryptic, evasive, obtuse, indirect, whatever, please allow me to point that out to you, in the interests of fostering a meaningful debate, and please, you do the same with me. I don't deny there's been a small element of 'point scoring' on my behalf.

I feel you have much to offer and contibute, but your delivery doesn't always do you justice.

Oh, and one other thing, I don't know what Ivor's done to upset you, but he too makes a great contribution here. I think the sensible and mature thing to do would be to take him off ignore now, but that's entirely up to you, of course.

 

[slingblade]

Many of the benefits of circumcision? I think you mean ONE benefit: the risk reduction in infant UTI.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/385

Since publication of the misleading 1999 AAP task force conclusions, compelling evidence has accumulated warranting acknowledgment that the multiple medical benefits of newborn circumcision far outweigh the minor risks of the procedure. This updated evidence of benefits includes studies confirming the preventive effect of circumcision against HIV, penile cancer, and infant UTI, and new evidence of protection against penile dermatoses, human papilloma virus, cervical cancer, and chlamydia infection. Nonetheless, in 2005 the AAP reaffirmed the 1999 policy, in effect suppressing all the evidence published since then. According to both the current position of the AAP and the reference list provided in the task force report, the last relevant reference on the health benefits of circumcision occurred in 1998; all the many convincing studies published during the past 7 years have been ignored. It is time for the AAP to acknowledge the evidence and to catch up to the American public.

[It is my opinion that] Anyone who picks (a) is irrational.

Fixed it, for clarity.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/385





Fixed it, for clarity.

LOL!

Yes, the number of infants having unprotected sex is a real problem. Something needs to be done about it. Now.

Don't have sex with a European man, you don't know what you'll catch. Hell, it may even drop off inside you, we're that diseased over here.

A letter by Edgar J. Schoen. The man who wants EVERY INFANT IN THE WORLD CIRCUMCISED! and is pissed because the AAP chucked him off the circumcision task force.

I needed a laugh. Thanks.

 

[Lonewulf]

A letter by Edgar J. Schoen. The man who wants EVERY INFANT IN THE WORLD CIRCUMCISED! and is pissed because the AAP chucked him off the circumcision task force.

I needed a laugh. Thanks.

To be fair, that doesn't necessarily make his conclusions faulty.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

To be fair, that doesn't necessarily make his conclusions faulty.

He is using HIV, HPV risk reduction and penile cancer as significant benefits for infants to be circumcised. Routinely. That is what makes is conclusions faulty.

He fails to mention all the other less invasive and often more effective methods of tackling those problems. Like, using a condom, washing your penis, HPV vaccination, etc.

No, he suggests using a 19th century solution to 21st century problems.

ETA: He also fails to mention that despite having the highest circumcision rate in the West, America also has the highest rate of HIV and STD's too. Perhaps he should address these problems first?

 

[Kaylee]

Many of the benefits of circumcision? I think you mean ONE benefit: the risk reduction in infant UTI.

As for this benefit, here's an analogy:

Let's say you're in Las Vegas, and a member of security in the casino you're in catches you cheating. He gives you a choice: Either receive a punch in the nose now, or pick a number on the roulette wheel and if that number comes up (1 chance in 37), you get a punch in the nose and a kick in the balls. If it doesn't come up (36 chances in 37), you just walk out of the casino.

so the choices are:

a) A guaranteed punch in the nose. (equiv. circumcision)
b) A 1 in 37 chance of a punch in the nose and a kick in the balls (equiv. to treatment for UTI), with 36 chances in 37 that you'll just walk out of the casino unharmed (equiv. to risk of *not* getting a UTI).

Which do you pick - (a) or (b)? For me it's (b) every time. Anyone who picks (a) is irrational.

Well put. I think another useful "thought exercise" is to look at the downside of each camp’s position and compare each side’s worse potential outcome.

For the Anti-Circ Camp:
The downside of not circumcising a healthy baby boy is that he may acquire a UTI infection as an infant or baby or he may also acquire paraphimosis later in life.

These conditions are medically treatable.

I’ve chosen not to include adverse outcomes that are a result of not having clean personal hygiene or choosing to have very risky sex. People can learn how to use soap and water, and rubbers.


For the Pro-Circ Camp:
The downside of circumcising a healthy baby boy is that he will have less sensitivity than an intact man. (However, in some circles is this a desired outcome? I’m not sure.)

Another downside is that sometimes surgeries or brises go wrong and the baby’s penis can be partially or permanently impaired. Sometimes it may even be partially amputated.

Granted those outcomes are very rare, but they don’t have to occur at all if baby boys aren’t routinely circumcised!

Clearly the Pro-Circ Camp worse downside trumps the Anti-Circ Camp’s worse downside. Another reason to not circumcise baby boys.

 

[Kaylee]

So given that there are behaviours that we think are not in the best interests of the child that are in common use, let's assume that while parents have a broad range of belief and opinion, they will respond to reason. What sort of information would you provide to prove to the parents that they are mistaken - in particular, for male circumcision and for FGC? For example, if I wanted to prove that laws ensuring that children are properly restrained are better than leaving it up to the parents, I would provide crash-test research showing the benefits of restraint, surveys showing that the use of proper restraints increases considerably after laws are passed, and a reduction in the amount of serious injury (all other things being equal) after child-restraint laws are enacted.

Linda

That's an interesting question.

I would suggest that the AAP statement be revised to be more clear and direct and simply say that circumcisions for healthy baby boys are not recommended vs saying that "existing science evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcison; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

Then I would suggest that this information be made available to parents, perhaps directly by health insurance companies in their newsletters or in public service phamphlets at libraries. (I suspect that not that many adult Americans go to libraries, but still it would be a start to get the information circulating.) I really doubt that most American doctors are providing the information, even as currently worded, in the typical 15 min. appts.

That would take care of the Americans who are chosing circumcision for their sons for non-religious reasons.

For the other groups -- I think the education efforts have to be made by working with the community leaders.

Almost every article I've seen on FGM says that this is not actually a requirement of the Muslim religion. So that sounds like a good place to start.

In regard to MGM, that is going to be tougher. I think, to start, the idea of shalom bris could be encouraged with some branches of Judaism. If that takes off (give it one or two generations), then perhaps the more Orthodox groups of Judaism would decide to reexamine what the original laws and traditions require in circumision. No group exists in a social vacuum and we are definitely all influenced by each other.

As for Muslims, perhaps something similar would work also, but I don't know enough about their laws and traditions to comment furthur.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Deleted.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Your argument would be correct, had I actually done any of that. However, my many, many posts in this thread and in the previous thread, where I explain my logic and arguments in detail proves that you are wrong. And every single point that I am making in my responses to you, I have already made many, many times. I have not refused anything, although I have occasionally been temporarily dumfounded at the lengths you (and others) will go to to avoid comprehending what I have said. I think I have learned my lesson on that point, though.

Linda

Au contraire.

You did exactly as I claimed as witnessed by the thread above. You seem unable to remember your own words or are deliberately misrepresenting your behaviour (as I now believe is the case) so let me remind you.

I initially responded to your statement that '...Because I think one of humankind's greatest assests has been that we work in groups, and practices that strengthen groups are in our best interest.' with an example where at least one groups practised forced suicide of children and was therefore clearly a group strengthening practise could not be in our best interests.

Instead of qualifying your argument you replied with a question namely
'Does that seem likely to you? ' In other words inviting me to read your mind.

I then asked
'I guess you either believe your own logic or you don't.

If you are now saying your logic doesn't work in relation to the forced suicide of small children can I ask why you seem to believe that it works with the forced genital mutilation of babies?' Instead of dealing with the example or your own logic you replied with a question namely
'Why do you think one has something to do with the other?' You made no attempt again to qualify your argument even though a specific example had been given to you and you had been asked a direct question.
I then specifically addressed the problem with your responses again by saying
'Why do you think they don't when they are connected through your own argument?

From your responses it is clear that you are not advancing arguments as an honest attempt to debate. You are unwilling to support your own logic so I guess we can disregard it.'

Later you stated 'So you are telling me that it is impossible for you to imagine any way in which I might qualify my above statement depending upon the level of harm?'

Here you are clearly challenging me to be able to imagine what is in your mind. Sorry but I nor any one else here has claimed to read your mind and inviting us to qualify your own words when you repeatedly refused to clarify your own argument is frankly bizarre.

You were given a specific example using your own argument and your own logic. You repeatedly declined to deal with it and then chastised me for not being able to read your mind. QED.

Your completely unsupported and false claim (as shown above) that I and an as yet unknown number of unidentified others have deliberately failed to comprehend what you meant when you refused to qualify your own argument suggests your behaviour is deliberate.

 

[Darat]

Folks - so I don't have to take Mod action remember - attack the argument not the arguer - and lets try and keep personalities out of this.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[fls]

Au contraire.

You did exactly as I claimed as witnessed by the thread above. You seem unable to remember your own words or are deliberately misrepresenting your behaviour (as I now believe is the case) so let me remind you.

You don't need to. You are correct that I did not immediately explain my logic in that particular case. The reason is covered under my statement "I have occasionally been temporarily dumfounded at the lengths you (and others) will go to to avoid comprehending what I have said." As I said, I have learned my lesson, adjusted my assumptions, and provided an explanation.

Linda

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

You don't need to. You are correct that I did not immediately explain my logic in that particular case. The reason is covered under my statement "I have occasionally been temporarily dumfounded at the lengths you (and others) will go to to avoid comprehending what I have said." As I said, I have learned my lesson, adjusted my assumptions, and provided an explanation.

Linda

Once again you have repeated a false claim that I and an unknown number of unnamed others have deliberately avoided comprehending what you said when you initially refused to even state what it was you meant. Once again you have failed to supply a single bit of evidence to back it up.

 

[fls]

Once again you have repeated a false claim that I and an unknown number of unnamed others have deliberately avoided comprehending what you said when you initially refused to even state what it was you meant. Once again you have failed to supply a single bit of evidence to back it up.

It doesn't matter. I was describing my reaction, not making a case. I have now gone on to state what it meant, so you can address directly whether or not you understand in that post.

Linda

 

[slingblade]

I needed a laugh. Thanks.

You're welcome.

By the same token, I needed to see some true colors.
Thanks.

 

[Beth]

Well put. I think another useful "thought exercise" is to look at the downside of each camp’s position and compare each side’s worse potential outcome.

For the Anti-Circ Camp:
The downside of not circumcising a healthy baby boy is that he may acquire a UTI infection as an infant or baby or he may also acquire paraphimosis later in life.

These conditions are medically treatable.

I’ve chosen not to include adverse outcomes that are a result of not having clean personal hygiene or choosing to have very risky sex. People can learn how to use soap and water, and rubbers.


For the Pro-Circ Camp:
The downside of circumcising a healthy baby boy is that he will have less sensitivity than an intact man. (However, in some circles is this a desired outcome? I’m not sure.)

Another downside is that sometimes surgeries or brises go wrong and the baby’s penis can be partially or permanently impaired. Sometimes it may even be partially amputated.

Granted those outcomes are very rare, but they don’t have to occur at all if baby boys aren’t routinely circumcised!

Clearly the Pro-Circ Camp worse downside trumps the Anti-Circ Camp’s worse downside. Another reason to not circumcise baby boys.

One thing I'm not sure about - who would you class as being in the 'pro-circ' camp? The AAP? Jews? Parent's who choose to circumcise their own sons? People, like myself, who occasionally argue for the pro-choice side but otherwise agree with you regarding which is the better choice?

 

[Kaylee]

One thing I'm not sure about - who would you class as being in the 'pro-circ' camp? The AAP? Jews? Parent's who choose to circumcise their own sons? People, like myself, who occasionally argue for the pro-choice side but otherwise agree with you regarding which is the better choice?

I would put people who cirumcise healthy boys in the pro-circ camp. I would not classify people who circumcise boys for medical reasons** only as pro-circ.

Also I think its worth mentioning that I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of Jewish people who wouldn't circumcise their sons except that they feel obligated too. I realize that many people won't understand this, but my impression is that they really don't feel that they have a choice. And yes this falls under anecdotal ...

People can be pro-circ for different reasons.

but otherwise agree with you

Not sure agreement is allowed to happen in this thread ....


** ETA: By medical reasons I mean for medical problems that actually exist and can only be treated with circumcision. Not for "prophylactic" reasons to solve possible problems that might occur in the future, but only occur rarely.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You're welcome.

By the same token, I needed to see some true colors.
Thanks.

Sorry if my harsh response offended you. The misinformation and nutty desires of Edgar Schoen has that effect on me.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

As predicted by me in the penultimate circumcision thread to this one, NGO's are promoting circumcision for HIV prevention by only giving half the facts, combined with propaganda.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=315825&area=/insight/insight__africa/

There is standing room only in Room 3 of the urology clinic at the University Teaching Hospital (UTH) in Lusaka, Zambia's capital. About 30 young men and a handful of mothers with male children listen attentively as Sitali Mulope, clinical officer, briefs them on the benefits of surgically removing the foreskin of the penis.

Running through a list of advantages that includes hygiene and because "it looks nice and smart", Mulope mentions the reduced risk of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

Although he downplays this particular benefit, he and his colleagues are well aware it is one of the main reasons why the room is so full.

...

Simpungwe confirmed that research by the Health Department found that some Zambians believed they could have unprotected sex after being circumcised. "It worries us a lot, because then we think we'll be reversing our achievements," he said. "When we start doing mass circumcision we will bombard them with the correct health education."

...

He appears to be struggling to provide information that is relevant and appropriate to the young men in the room as well as the mothers with small children. Asked how long the wound will take to heal, he advises adults to be "very reserved" for at least a month after the surgery. Only towards the end of the session, in response to a question, does he bring up the necessity of continued condom use after circumcision.

In the absence of detailed guidelines from the WHO, Bowa admitted "we struggle with what is the minimum counselling message, because the period we have to deal with these clients is very short and if the message is too long people get discouraged".

The article also reveals that circumcision costs $69. How many condoms could be provided for $69?

Is it just me, or does this already look like it could backfire bigtime?

 

[Darat]

As predicted by me in the penultimate circumcision thread to this one, NGO's are promoting circumcision for HIV prevention by only giving half the facts, combined with propaganda.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=315825&area=/insight/insight__africa/



The article also reveals that circumcision costs $69. How many condoms could be provided for $69?

Is it just me, or does this already look like it could backfire bigtime?

Sadly I think you will be proved to be right.