First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Is circumcision child abuse?
12305 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 4/22/12
I think that you will never agree with me but if you infringe on my belief I will stand up for myself.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/22/12 , edited 4/22/12

DomFortress wrote:


ChrisNP wrote:

well, sorry.

i don't know how else to argue against you.

sigh.
You could pretend that you've got the upper-hand by yourself belittling my person and my argument with straw-man fallacy, kinda like how this guy had done with a different topic. But in fact his belittlement and dismissive attitude was a fear management strategy, while he was just trying to lessen his feeling of vulnerability by himself getting even with me. Which quite frankly is rather pathetic and vain when we think about it, because he didn't really made any definitive point against my argument.



I understand fully that you're simply belittling and dismissing the whole discussion down to a matter of "opinions", compounded with apologetic excuses for a justice system that's obviously broken, while contradicting your own argument by how you stated that your own opinions(not mine) were "biased", yet somehow you're still aware of "reality" when you made your cynical opinion.

Furthermore, your belittlement and dismissive attitude was a fear management strategy, while you were just trying to lessen your feeling of vulnerability by yourself getting even with me. Which quite frankly is rather pathetic and vain when we think about it, because you didn't really made any definitive point against my argument made for restorative justice system.

In the mean time, you ought to consider the argument made against your rather pathetic and apologetic excuses for what's nonetheless heavy-handed curtly and oppression. Your modern retributive justice system is nothing more than an inhumane and corporate institutionalized aggression and violence for dominance and obedience, in the form of revenge(not punishment) made profitable.




Moliere wrote:
MAÎTRE DE PHILOSOPHIE: Hé quoi? Messieurs, faut-il s'emporter de la sorte? et n'avez-vous point lu le docte traité que Sénèque a composé de la colère? Y a-t-il rien de plus bas et de plus honteux que cette passion, qui fait d'un homme une bête féroce? et la raison ne doit-elle pas être maîtresse de tous nos mouvements?

MAÎTRE à DANSER: Comment, Monsieur, il vient nous dire des injures à tous deux, en méprisant la danse que j'exerce, et la musique dont il fait profession?

MAÎTRE DE PHILOSOPHIE: Un homme sage est au-dessus de toutes les injures qu'on lui peut dire, et la grande réponse qu'on doit faire aux outrages, c'est la modération et la patience.

MAÎTRE D'ARMES: Ils ont tous deux l'audace de vouloir comparer leurs professions à la mienne.

MAÎTRE DE PHILOSOPHIE: Faut-il que cela vous émeuve? Ce n'est pas de vaine gloire et de condition que les hommes doivent disputer entre eux; et ce qui nous distingue parfaitement les uns des autres, c'est la sagesse et la vertu.

MAÎTRE à DANSER: Je lui soutiens que la danse est une science à laquelle on ne peut faire assez d'honneur.

MAÎTRE DE MUSIQUE: Et moi, que la musique en est une que tous les siècles ont révérée.

MAÎTRE D'ARMES: Et moi, je leur soutiens à tous deux que la science de tirer des armes est la plus belle et la plus nécessaire de toutes les sciences.

MAÎTRE DE PHILOSOPHIE: Et que sera donc la philosophie? Je vous trouve tous trois bien impertinents de parler devant moi avec cette arrogance, et de donner impudemment le nom de science à des choses que l'on ne doit pas même honorer du nom d'art, et qui ne peuvent être comprises que sous le nom de métier misérable de gladiateur, de chanteur, et de baladin!

(PROF. PHIL. For shame, gentlemen; how can you thus forget yourselves? Have you not read the learned treatise which Seneca composed on anger? Is there anything more base and more shameful than the passion which changes a man into a savage beast, and ought not reason to govern all our actions?

DAN. MAS. How, Sir! He comes and insults us both in our professions; he despises dancing, which I teach, and music, which is his occupation.

PROF. PHIL. A wise man is above all the insults that can be offered him; and the best and noblest answer one can make to all kinds of provocation is moderation and patience.

FEN. MAS. They have both the impertinence to compare their professions to mine!

PROF. PHIL. Why should this offend you? It is not for vain glory and rank that men should strive among themselves. What distinguishes one man from another is wisdom and virtue.

DAN. MAS. I maintain that dancing is a science which we cannot honour too much.

MUS. MAS. And I that music is a science which all ages have revered.

FEN. MAS. And I, I maintain against them both that the science of attack and defence is the best and most necessary of all sciences.

PROF. PHIL. And for what, then, do you count philosophy? I think you are all three very bold fellows to dare to speak before me with this arrogance, and impudently to give the name of science to things which are not even to be honoured with the name of art, but which can only be classed with the trades of prize-fighter, street-singer, and mountebank.)



Pure DomFortressian rhetoric! By God, if there isn't anything better than it. What he is ready to say of one foe, he is ready to apply to every foe! What fools these pathetic people are to dare vainly belittle him, when it only shows his superiority to them! They are only weak and vulnerable. Why, DomFrotress, you are like a mastiff who bites frequently, yet, yelps, whimpers, and cries incessantly when prickled by a small thorn. That great sin of belittlement and scorn that you seem to hate so much, why, it seems to be your favourite, and I dare say, only tactic, when not clouding your argument in jargon or linking it to random, sometimes even irrelevent, quotes and videos.


As for circumcision, why should it matter? Parents are, by natural law, the creator and, by the by, owner of every part the constitute a child, and the child should, therefore, obidiently submit themselves to the parents. The ancients have seen, with their usual perceptivness, that illa observantia in parentes et fratres, annon ipsa est exercendae pietatis fundamentum?, that is, devotion and honour to one's parents is the foundation on which all virtue is built. Tout notre corps, jusqu'au plus mince épiderme et aux cheveux, nous vient de nos parents, a certain sage acutely remarked, why shouldn't the parents have the right to dispose of skin, foreskin, anything, so long as they do not kill or render into a despicable and odious state? Yet, to make circumcision into something as hateful as child abuse, when it is in accordance with the natural law, as clearly percieved by our oldest, and, by the bye, best philosophers, is only possible by a unwarrented stretch of the meaning of child abuse. And yet, as it would be make no great difference to those without religious obligation or a strong belief in the medical properties, it is undoubtable that few people would care, and still fewer would hold any strong opinion.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/22/12

ChrisNP wrote:

I think that you will never agree with me but if you infringe on my belief I will stand up for myself.




I'm sorry, I really do want to sympathize with you, but how exactly does disagreement amount to 'infringing on my belief'?
2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/22/12
A circumcision in Northern Israel went horribly wrong recently, when the mohel responsible for the procedure accidentally cut off a third of the infant’s penis, Israeli media reported on Wednesday.

The infant was rushed to a hospital in Haifa, Israel where an emergency operation was performed because his life was in danger. The circumcision procedure, traditionally done 8 days after birth, may have caused permanent damage to the child, although senior urologists at the hospital said it will be a number of days until anything can be determined.

The baby’s parents have gone to the Israeli Ministry of Health to report the incident.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/04/18/mohel-cuts-off-a-third-of-babys-penis-during-circumcision/

Nurse charged as baby dies after circumcision

As a nurse is put on trial in Manchester, the debate about circumcision rages once again.

A trial date has been set for Grace Adeleye, 66, of Salford who has been charged with manslaughter after a baby boy died following a circumcision. At a Manchester Crown Court hearing on 18 April, her trial date was set for November 26. She is alleged to have caused the death of Goodluck Caubergs, from Oldham, by gross negligence two years ago.

The tragedy has inevitably shone the spotlight once again on circumcision with organisations such as NORM-UK and The Men's Network in Brighton condemning the practice.

The network's strategic director Glen Poole said: 'in the UK we are still subjecting an estimated 100 boys a day to non-consensual, medically unnecessary circumcision – with two-thirds of these procedures being carried out for non-religious reasons. While it is illegal to tattoo a boy either with or without his consent, parents do not need their son’s consent to have his foreskin painfully and unnecessarily removed without anaesthetic by non-medical practitioners.'
Circular argument

David Smith of NORM-UK, a charity offering support for men unhappy with circumcision, said: 'This is not the first case of a death following a circumcision.' He believes 'the true rate of deaths from this procedure is masked because of a circular argument.

'The circular argument goes: boys don't die because of circumcision, therefore in the case of a boy dying immediately after being circumcised there must be another cause, probably sudden infant death syndrome, and the preceding circumcision is coincidental. Thus the possibility of a causal relationship between the circumcision and the death is never recorded, and so this goes on being repeated and the connection is never made.'

What do you think about circumcision?

http://www.menshealthforum.org.uk/22288-circumcision-debate-urgent-nurse-bailed
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/22/12

shinto-male wrote:

A circumcision in Northern Israel went horribly wrong recently, when the mohel responsible for the procedure accidentally cut off a third of the infant’s penis, Israeli media reported on Wednesday.

The infant was rushed to a hospital in Haifa, Israel where an emergency operation was performed because his life was in danger. The circumcision procedure, traditionally done 8 days after birth, may have caused permanent damage to the child, although senior urologists at the hospital said it will be a number of days until anything can be determined.

The baby’s parents have gone to the Israeli Ministry of Health to report the incident.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/04/18/mohel-cuts-off-a-third-of-babys-penis-during-circumcision/

Nurse charged as baby dies after circumcision

As a nurse is put on trial in Manchester, the debate about circumcision rages once again.

A trial date has been set for Grace Adeleye, 66, of Salford who has been charged with manslaughter after a baby boy died following a circumcision. At a Manchester Crown Court hearing on 18 April, her trial date was set for November 26. She is alleged to have caused the death of Goodluck Caubergs, from Oldham, by gross negligence two years ago.

The tragedy has inevitably shone the spotlight once again on circumcision with organisations such as NORM-UK and The Men's Network in Brighton condemning the practice.

The network's strategic director Glen Poole said: 'in the UK we are still subjecting an estimated 100 boys a day to non-consensual, medically unnecessary circumcision – with two-thirds of these procedures being carried out for non-religious reasons. While it is illegal to tattoo a boy either with or without his consent, parents do not need their son’s consent to have his foreskin painfully and unnecessarily removed without anaesthetic by non-medical practitioners.'
Circular argument

David Smith of NORM-UK, a charity offering support for men unhappy with circumcision, said: 'This is not the first case of a death following a circumcision.' He believes 'the true rate of deaths from this procedure is masked because of a circular argument.

'The circular argument goes: boys don't die because of circumcision, therefore in the case of a boy dying immediately after being circumcised there must be another cause, probably sudden infant death syndrome, and the preceding circumcision is coincidental. Thus the possibility of a causal relationship between the circumcision and the death is never recorded, and so this goes on being repeated and the connection is never made.'

What do you think about circumcision?

http://www.menshealthforum.org.uk/22288-circumcision-debate-urgent-nurse-bailed


http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/guidelines/Circumcison.html

According to AAFP, the death rate from the procedures of a circumcision is around 0.000002 percent, with castration at an even lower rate of one in a million. That means that stories like the above are extremely rare, and, when they do occur, does not reflect the pratice of circumcision, but the skills of circumcisor, thus providing nothing for the debate either way. While these vivid stories for accidental castration,death from circumcision, and so on do provide pathos, they do not, however, provide anything in the way of hard facts and numbers.
12305 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 4/22/12
very well said longfenglim
2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/23/12
only the pro-circumcision crowed downplay the number of circumcision deaths

Infant circumcision causes 100 deaths each year in US

April 26th, 2010 by ICGI

A new study published yesterday in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.

The International Coalition for Genital Integrity applauds that, for the first time, a rational attempt has been made to estimate the scale of the problem, and is simultaneously appalled by how many baby boys needlessly die each year in the United States.

The study concluded: “These boys died because physicians have been either complicit or duplicitous, and because parents ignorantly said ‘Yes,’ or lacked the courage to say ‘No.’” And called the deaths “an unrecognized sacrifice of innocents.”

The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. The study also identified reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

Previous studies estimated the death rate as low as two per year to as many as 230. The study collected data from hospital records and government sources to attempt to provide a more accurate magnitude of the problem.

To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 neonatal boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision.

Because of the inadequacies of the death-certificate system and the apparent lack of investigation, it is easy to see how the medical system could either unwittingly or intentionally obscure the true cause of these deaths.

To hospital residents, the birth of a boy is celebrated as an opportunity to practice surgery, but a resident’s first surgery upon a live human being does not always go as planned.

Many factors combine to explain the lack of reliable mortality data or why this problem has not received more attention. To ignore or hide the likely cause of so many infant deaths for so many years requires a significant amount of denial or obfuscation—by: parents, physicians, hospital staff, insurers, medical associations, and legislators.

Boys have been lost to circumcision in the United States from the time it was first practiced to the present day, for a variety of reasons, as the following examples illustrate. The first two, known reported circumcision-related deaths were in New York City, in 1856 and 1858, where circumcision was introduced.

http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/23/12 , edited 4/23/12

shinto-male wrote:

only the pro-circumcision crowed downplay the number of circumcision deaths

Infant circumcision causes 100 deaths each year in US

April 26th, 2010 by ICGI

A new study published yesterday in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.

The International Coalition for Genital Integrity applauds that, for the first time, a rational attempt has been made to estimate the scale of the problem, and is simultaneously appalled by how many baby boys needlessly die each year in the United States.

The study concluded: “These boys died because physicians have been either complicit or duplicitous, and because parents ignorantly said ‘Yes,’ or lacked the courage to say ‘No.’” And called the deaths “an unrecognized sacrifice of innocents.”

The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. The study also identified reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

Previous studies estimated the death rate as low as two per year to as many as 230. The study collected data from hospital records and government sources to attempt to provide a more accurate magnitude of the problem.

To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 neonatal boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision.

Because of the inadequacies of the death-certificate system and the apparent lack of investigation, it is easy to see how the medical system could either unwittingly or intentionally obscure the true cause of these deaths.

To hospital residents, the birth of a boy is celebrated as an opportunity to practice surgery, but a resident’s first surgery upon a live human being does not always go as planned.

Many factors combine to explain the lack of reliable mortality data or why this problem has not received more attention. To ignore or hide the likely cause of so many infant deaths for so many years requires a significant amount of denial or obfuscation—by: parents, physicians, hospital staff, insurers, medical associations, and legislators.

Boys have been lost to circumcision in the United States from the time it was first practiced to the present day, for a variety of reasons, as the following examples illustrate. The first two, known reported circumcision-related deaths were in New York City, in 1856 and 1858, where circumcision was introduced.

http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/



http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf

According to the Centre for Disease Control, the birthrate for America in the year 2009 was around four million. In addition, the sex ratio in the United States is around 1048 male infants to 1000 female infants, so that would mean that two million and fifty thousand male infants, roughly, were born in that year, and, according to the New York Times, the rate of circumcision among males was 32.5% during that year.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/u-s-circumcision-rates-on-the-decline/

Upon these numbers, we would obtain a figure of around Six hundred and seventy thousand male infants circumcised during that year. Using your numbers of a hundred deaths per year (a number that may be suspect), we obtain 0.015 percent. Now, this may seem considerably larger than the previous estimate, but two things must be accounted for, one, that the calculation for the former, which was one death for every 500,000, meaning it should have been 0.002 percent, and the numbers are not limited to the United States. Another consideration is the application of the 100 death numbers to the year 2009, which was during a year when circumcision decrease sharply from 52% to 32.5%, meaning, if those numbers were valid for almost every year, then the numbers would have been very much lower, especially for 2007, when the AAFP numbers were taken. Now, compare these numbers to the following: complications involving the plecenta, cord, and membranes account for around 1,030 deaths in the year 2010, at the rate of 39 incidents per one hundred thousand births.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf

Thus, whether for or against, both side must acknowledge that the numbers of death resulting from circumcisions are very, very small, that this does not reflect the practice of circumcision but the skills of the circumcisor, and it offers nothing to the debate. These stories, vivid and gruesome as they are, are extremely uncommon, hence newsworthy, and only provide an emotional appeal, rather than anything remotely rational.

Consider these data:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422990/

Given this information, it seems that people who want to ban circumcision hate infant boys, and want to forcefully increase their risk of urinary tract infections and cancer.
2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/24/12 , edited 4/24/12

Given this information, it seems that people who want to ban circumcision hate infant boys, and want to forcefully increase their risk of urinary tract infections and cancer.


no only sick circumfetish types like your self insist on mutilated infant boys against thier will using the same long debunked excuses:

why is that cut american men have the highest STD rates in the first world?

why are women UTI rates are higher than men? why are you such a hypocrite asking men to mutilate thier organs?

After the flu and common cold, urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the most common medical complaint among women in their reproductive years. Women are 30 times more likely to have UTIs than men are. Every year, 11% of American women have at least one such infection, and up to 60% of all women will develop a UTI at some time in their lives. A third of these women will have a recurrence within a year. Furthermore, each year about 250,000 women develop kidney infections (pyelonephritis) and 100,000 are hospitalized for treatment.



penile cancer is rare

Prevalence

Penile cancer is a rare cancer in developed nations. The annual incidence is approximately 1 in 100,000 men in the United States,[1] 1 in 250,000 in Australia,[2] and 0.82 per 100,000 in Denmark.[3] In the United Kingdom fewer than 500 men are diagnosed with penile cancer every year.[4] The lifetime risk has been estimated as 1 in 1,437 in the United States and 1 in 1,694 in Denmark;[5] among uncircumcised males, 1 in 600.[6] Penile cancer accounts for up to 10% of cancers in men in some parts of Asia, Africa, and South America.[7]



In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is very uncommon in the United States, even among uncircumcised men. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns. In the end, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence.


http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-risk-factors




why aren't european and Japanese men who are not circumcised NOT having the problems you like to whine about?






Uncircumcised

Virtually all: Chinese, Japanese, North Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Burmese, Thais
Hindu, Sikh, Parsee and Christian Indians
Scandinavians
Zulus, Shona, certain other African nations
most Melanesian and some Western Polynesian (Rennell, Bellona) peoples,

The great majority of: Europeans
men of the former Soviet Union
Central and South Americans
New Zealand Maori
Younger men of Britain and the Commonwealth, especially New Zealand and Australia

About half of: Malaysians (Hindu and Christian Tamils, Chinese and Orang Asli)

A significant minority of:
Americans, especially younger, Hispanic, and in the South West
Bangladeshis (20% are Hindu)


circumcised

Cut
About 500,000,000 Muslims
More than 100,000,000 USAmericans
About 25,000,000 Filipinos
Some tens of millions of older men of Britain
and the Commonwealth
Some tens of millions of African tribesmen
About 14,000,000 South Koreans
7,000,000 Jews
Some hundreds of thousands of Central and Eastern Polynesians
(Samoa, Tahiti, Tonga, Niue, Tokelau)
and Melanesians (Fiji, Vanuatu, parts of Solomon Islands and small parts of PNG)
Some thousands of aboriginal Australians,
mainly in the north and west




11 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F
Offline
Posted 4/24/12 , edited 4/24/12
Even if your knowledge changed in the future, it would not make that act retroactively "abuse."
2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/24/12
good news from healthy non circumcising sweden where virtually all men are not circumcised

HIV rate for Sweden 0.10

U.S.A (80% of men cut) 0.60

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html


Swedish docs in circumcision protest

Published: 19 Feb 12 13:07 CET

Circumcision of young boys for religious and non-medical reasons ought to be banned in Sweden, urged the Swedish Paediatric Society (Svenska barnläkarföreningen, BLF).

In a statement submitted to the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen), the society called the procedure an assault.

"We consider it to be an assault on these boys," Staffan Janson, chairman of BLF's committee for ethical issues and childrens' rights, said to newspaper Göteborgs-Posten (GP).

Removing small boys' foreskin for reasons other than medical is controversial in Sweden.

After discussing the matter for several years, BLF has now concluded that the procedure ought to be banned on the grounds that the children are unable to form a decision in the matter.

According to BLF and Staffan Janson, circumcision is an attack on boys' integrity.

"It's such a complicated and difficult question, but even so, we've decided that this is a procedure to be done away with," Janson said.

"It's a mutilation of a child unable to decide for himself."

Not everyone agrees that circumcision is an assault, however.

"Parents decide things for their children all the time," Omar Mustafa, head of the Islamic Association in Sweden, said to GP.

"Allowing parents to decide over this matter isn't stranger than allowing them to decide whether their child is to be vaccinated or not," he continued.

http://m.thelocal.se/39200/20120219/
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/25/12 , edited 4/25/12

shinto-male wrote:


Given this information, it seems that people who want to ban circumcision hate infant boys, and want to forcefully increase their risk of urinary tract infections and cancer.


no only sick circumfetish types like your self insist on mutilated infant boys against thier will using the same long debunked excuses:

why is that cut american men have the highest STD rates in the first world?

why are women UTI rates are higher than men? why are you such a hypocrite asking men to mutilate thier organs?

After the flu and common cold, urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the most common medical complaint among women in their reproductive years. Women are 30 times more likely to have UTIs than men are. Every year, 11% of American women have at least one such infection, and up to 60% of all women will develop a UTI at some time in their lives. A third of these women will have a recurrence within a year. Furthermore, each year about 250,000 women develop kidney infections (pyelonephritis) and 100,000 are hospitalized for treatment.



penile cancer is rare

Prevalence

Penile cancer is a rare cancer in developed nations. The annual incidence is approximately 1 in 100,000 men in the United States,[1] 1 in 250,000 in Australia,[2] and 0.82 per 100,000 in Denmark.[3] In the United Kingdom fewer than 500 men are diagnosed with penile cancer every year.[4] The lifetime risk has been estimated as 1 in 1,437 in the United States and 1 in 1,694 in Denmark;[5] among uncircumcised males, 1 in 600.[6] Penile cancer accounts for up to 10% of cancers in men in some parts of Asia, Africa, and South America.[7]



In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is very uncommon in the United States, even among uncircumcised men. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns. In the end, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence.


http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-risk-factors




why aren't european and Japanese men who are not circumcised NOT having the problems you like to whine about?






Uncircumcised

Virtually all: Chinese, Japanese, North Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Burmese, Thais
Hindu, Sikh, Parsee and Christian Indians
Scandinavians
Zulus, Shona, certain other African nations
most Melanesian and some Western Polynesian (Rennell, Bellona) peoples,

The great majority of: Europeans
men of the former Soviet Union
Central and South Americans
New Zealand Maori
Younger men of Britain and the Commonwealth, especially New Zealand and Australia

About half of: Malaysians (Hindu and Christian Tamils, Chinese and Orang Asli)

A significant minority of:
Americans, especially younger, Hispanic, and in the South West
Bangladeshis (20% are Hindu)


circumcised

Cut
About 500,000,000 Muslims
More than 100,000,000 USAmericans
About 25,000,000 Filipinos
Some tens of millions of older men of Britain
and the Commonwealth
Some tens of millions of African tribesmen
About 14,000,000 South Koreans
7,000,000 Jews
Some hundreds of thousands of Central and Eastern Polynesians
(Samoa, Tahiti, Tonga, Niue, Tokelau)
and Melanesians (Fiji, Vanuatu, parts of Solomon Islands and small parts of PNG)
Some thousands of aboriginal Australians,
mainly in the north and west









The first thing that strikes any thinking man odd about Shintomale's data is that, rather than directly comparing the rate of circumcized men with various STDs, he uses the total STDs for an entire nation, compare each nation, and infer that Circumcision is the cause of the increase in such nations that has relatively high circumcision rate. Such results tells us nothing of circumcision as a whole, and is perfectly useless in a debate. For example, Cambodia has an HIV rate of 0.80 percent, compared to the United States 0.60%, both very high, but Cambodia does not have very many circumcised people, as you pointed out. Therefore, the factors that goes into these percentage does not indicated anything either way. However, the Centre for Disease Control, the AAFP, the Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, and many other sources disagree. Take for example what the CDC has to say:




Male Circumcision

Although male circumcision should not be substituted for other HIV risk-reduction strategies, it has been shown to reduce the risk for HIV and some STDs in heterosexual men. Three randomized, controlled trials performed in regions of sub-Saharan Africa where generalized HIV epidemics involving predominantly heterosexual transmission were occurring demonstrated that male circumcision reduced the risk for HIV acquisition among men by 50%–60% (48–50). In these trials, circumcision was also protective against other STDs, including high-risk genital HPV infection and genital herpes (51–54). Despite these data, male circumcision has not been demonstrated to reduce the risk for HIV or other STDs among MSM (55). The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) have recommended that male circumcision be scaled up as an effective intervention for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection (56). These organizations also recommend that countries with hyperendemic and generalized HIV epidemics and low prevalence of male circumcision expand access to safe male circumcision services within the context of ensuring universal access to comprehensive HIV prevention, treatment, care, and support. Similar recommendations have not been made in the United States, although evidence regarding the role of male circumcision in the prevention of HIV/AIDS is under review (57).

http://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/2010/clinical.htm


Your next argument is that no one else does it, therefore we shouldn't do it either. Such logic is reminiscent of the playground of grade school, 'everyone else has this or that, therefore I should have this or that too', with the common responce being, 'if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it also?' Such an argument is puerile, and should not be considered at all, for if everyone else does something that is not in their benefit, why should it matter?

As for the ethics of Circumcision- as I said before: Tout notre corps, jusqu'au plus mince épiderme et aux cheveux, nous vient de nos parents, ergo, parents should have the right to dispose of skin or foreskin of their child.
12305 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/12 , edited 4/25/12
.
2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/25/12 , edited 4/25/12

The first thing that strikes any thinking man odd about Shintomale's data is that, rather than directly comparing the rate of circumcized men with various STDs, he uses the total STDs for an entire nation, compare each nation, and infer that Circumcision is the cause of the increase in such nations that has relatively high circumcision rate. Such results tells us nothing of circumcision as a whole, and is perfectly useless in a debate. For example, Cambodia has an HIV rate of 0.80 percent, compared to the United States 0.60%, both very high, but Cambodia does not have very many circumcised people, as you pointed out. Therefore, the factors that goes into these percentage does not indicated anything either way. However, the Centre for Disease Control, the AAFP, the Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, and many other sources disagree. Take for example what the CDC has to say


i I said the U.S.A has the highest rates of HIV/STDs in the FIRST WORLD THE FIRST WORLD(ironically the only nation that constantly putting news advocating male genital mutilation aka circumcision using excuses aka "benefits") Cambodia is NOT a first world nation and FYI Canada no longer circumcise infant boy and govt health insurance no longer pay for circumcision and DOES NOT recomend routine circs. HIV in the FIRST WORLD THE FIRST WORLD AS IN RICH DEVELOPED NATIONS like the U.S.A Canada and western europe mainly occur among IV drug users and men having sex with men and most Canadian men are not circumcised



Your next argument is that no one else does it, therefore we shouldn't do it either. Such logic is reminiscent of the playground of grade school, 'everyone else has this or that, therefore I should have this or that too', with the common responce being, 'if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it also?' Such an argument is puerile, and should not be considered at all, for if everyone else does something that is not in their benefit, why should it matter?



where do you get this "everybody else do it" line? America is the only country in the FIRST WORLD cut cut infants Europeans, central and south America and most of Asia are not following the U.S.A men are born with natural foreskin it is there for a reason.







As for the ethics of Circumcision- as I said before: Tout notre corps, jusqu'au plus mince épiderme et aux cheveux, nous vient de nos parents, ergo, parents should have the right to dispose of skin or foreskin of their child.


no parents DON'T have the right to mutilate the genitals of their children children are not pieces of property. ONLY the owner of their foreskins have that right




2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/26/12

shinto-male wrote:


The first thing that strikes any thinking man odd about Shintomale's data is that, rather than directly comparing the rate of circumcized men with various STDs, he uses the total STDs for an entire nation, compare each nation, and infer that Circumcision is the cause of the increase in such nations that has relatively high circumcision rate. Such results tells us nothing of circumcision as a whole, and is perfectly useless in a debate. For example, Cambodia has an HIV rate of 0.80 percent, compared to the United States 0.60%, both very high, but Cambodia does not have very many circumcised people, as you pointed out. Therefore, the factors that goes into these percentage does not indicated anything either way. However, the Centre for Disease Control, the AAFP, the Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, and many other sources disagree. Take for example what the CDC has to say


i I said the U.S.A has the highest rates of HIV/STDs in the FIRST WORLD THE FIRST WORLD(ironically the only nation that constantly putting news advocating male genital mutilation aka circumcision using excuses aka "benefits") Cambodia is NOT a first world nation and FYI Canada no longer circumcise infant boy and govt health insurance no longer pay for circumcision and DOES NOT recomend routine circs. HIV in the FIRST WORLD THE FIRST WORLD AS IN RICH DEVELOPED NATIONS like the U.S.A Canada and western europe mainly occur among IV drug users and men having sex with men and most Canadian men are not circumcised



Your next argument is that no one else does it, therefore we shouldn't do it either. Such logic is reminiscent of the playground of grade school, 'everyone else has this or that, therefore I should have this or that too', with the common responce being, 'if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it also?' Such an argument is puerile, and should not be considered at all, for if everyone else does something that is not in their benefit, why should it matter?



where do you get this "everybody else do it" line? America is the only country in the FIRST WORLD cut cut infants Europeans, central and south America and most of Asia are not following the U.S.A men are born with natural foreskin it is there for a reason.







As for the ethics of Circumcision- as I said before: Tout notre corps, jusqu'au plus mince épiderme et aux cheveux, nous vient de nos parents, ergo, parents should have the right to dispose of skin or foreskin of their child.


no parents DON'T have the right to mutilate the genitals of their children children are not pieces of property. ONLY the owner of their foreskins have that right







ShintoMale states that the United States has the largest percentage of HIV within the first world, but has yet to show how this is at all related to circumcision. It could be because of many other things, unrelated to Circumcision, such as Drug use, Prostitution, etc. Indeed, the World Health Organisation (WHO), which is part of the UN, actually says "... there is now conclusive evidence that male circumcision significantly
reduces risk of HIV infection in men."
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf
http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/MCrecommendations_en.pdf
http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/news68/en/index.html

He also repeats the 'nobody else does it' argument, only augmenting it with the 'it exists for a reason'. The first I have already disposed by pointing out that it is not really an argument so much as it is a coercion, while the latter is laughable, in that it can be applied to a host of other things, such as the wisdom tooth, or cancer. After all, nature saw fit that we should have a wisdom tooth, or that we should be susceptible to cancer, it is therefore going against Nature's course to alter it.

As he has little by way of hard evidence to its effectiveness in preventing certain STDs, that it routinely kills children, etc. etc., he tries to move this to the realm of ethics, where he states that the owner of the foreskin should decide how to dispose of it. However, he should do well to remember that Children do not always know what is best for them, and, indeed, children of circumcising age do not know very many thing at all but that it is uncomfortable, and must cry. Therefore, as the child is still a tabula rasa, the relationship between a child and the parents should be govern by the natural law of the child's obidience to the parents, and the parents should act in what they view to be the best course for their child.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.