Circumcision???

paddyandy · 15-07-2012 12:33pm

Fools are Feasting here and no doubt at all about it on this thread .

Sierra 117 · 15-07-2012 12:42pm

paddyandy wrote: »

Fools are Feasting here and no doubt at all about it on this thread .

Based on what you've posted so far you've no grounds to be calling anyone else a fool.

paddyandy · 15-07-2012 12:45pm

Sierra 117 wrote: »

Based on what you've posted so far you've no grounds to be calling anyone else a fool.

You don't really understand and many on here are Clowns looking for Fun .

Wibbs · 15-07-2012 12:55pm

philologos wrote: »

I believe that murder (including the forms of murder that we like to call under different names), rape, theft (including the forms of theft that we like to call under different names) and so on are objectively wrong.

Then what about the theft of a functional bodily part? It is after all a good definition of theft in the case of newborns, something belonging to someone taken without their permission. With no chance of return either. If some bunch of yahoos decided that earlobe* removal in infants was deemed OK because of culture would that be ok? I dunno for all your explanations you seem to have an odd notion of objective morality. I suspect this is more to do with support for your coreligionists beliefs than objectivity.

paddyandy wrote:

Fools are Feasting here and no doubt at all about it on this thread .

What? Seriously are you a bot, because you make no sense at all.

From what I can glean you're likely a religious type, one presumes a member of one of those gung ho for the practice we're discussing, either Islam or Judaism. Rather than witter on at cross purposes to debate, maybe actually debate? Just a thought.

*which in themselves serve no actual function compared to something like the foreskin.

Wibbs · 15-07-2012 1:04pm

I have to say I'm happily surprised that the anti-semitism defence hasn't come up in this thread yet. It was the go to godwin of many replies in one of the earlier links posted and is being milked for all it's worth in some quarters in Germany on the back of this ruling. Of course it being Germany in the first place it would be the all too obvious route.

Gbear · 15-07-2012 1:34pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I have to say I'm happily surprised that the anti-semitism defence hasn't come up in this thread yet. It was the go to godwin of many replies in one of the earlier links posted and is being milked for all it's worth in some quarters in Germany on the back of this ruling. Of course it being Germany in the first place it would be the all too obvious route.

I spotted this ****e on the bbc:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18793842

"perhaps the most serious attack on Jewish life in Europe since the Holocaust".

Some Rabbi said that. What an ignorant fool.

ZeitgeistGlee · 15-07-2012 1:39pm

Don't agree with it, seriously perturbed by the practice.

kylith · 15-07-2012 1:55pm

philologos wrote: »

Well, if you're going to claim that circumcision should be banned, and that it is child abuse, you must be able to argue how it is more harmful than remaining uncircumcised. The reality is that there seems to be pros and cons to both.

philologos wrote: »

The problem is nobody has presented any good reason to believe why circumcision is harmful, or detrimental over uncircumcision.

So infection, pain, mutilated genitals, and, in at least one case, a godsdamn forced sex change aren't good enough reasons not to perform elective surgery on a newborn infant?

I know a guy whose wife works as a post natal nurse in the US; she says that a botched circumcision isn't a rare thing, she sees about a hundred every year. Extrapolate that over all the hospitals in the US and that's an awful lot of baby boys permanently marred.

If you haven't already done so I recommend watching Penn & Teller's episode of Bullsh!t about circumcision. Sure it's biased against it, but they show you how it's done, and the instruments used. I know guys who were circumcised for no reason and since watching that I've wanted to punch their parents in the face.

You have yet to present any reason why circumcision is better than not having it done.

Neeson · 15-07-2012 2:07pm

Gbear wrote: »

I spotted this ****e on the bbc:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18793842

"perhaps the most serious attack on Jewish life in Europe since the Holocaust".

Some Rabbi said that. What an ignorant fool.

Well he could well be right. The holocaust was kind of bad wasnt it. A bit bad you know!

What he said was it was the worst since. Can you name something worse? He didn't say the holocaust wasn't that bad. People get so uptight when someone says something about the holocaust.

opinion guy · 15-07-2012 2:19pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I have to say I'm happily surprised that the anti-semitism defence hasn't come up in this thread yet. It was the go to godwin of many replies in one of the earlier links posted and is being milked for all it's worth in some quarters in Germany on the back of this ruling. Of course it being Germany in the first place it would be the all too obvious route.

Well don't celebrate too hard wibbs, some of the 'defences' listed here are equally as devoid of actual thought

My name is URL · 15-07-2012 2:21pm

Neeson wrote: »

Well he could well be right. The holocaust was kind of bad wasnt it. A bit bad you know!

What he said was it was the worst since. Can you name something worse? He didn't say the holocaust wasn't that bad. People get so uptight when someone says something about the holocaust.

It shouldn't be compared to or even used as an argument against the German ruling on infant circumcisions.

It's not an 'attack on Jewish life' as that idiot describes it.

Shenshen · 15-07-2012 2:28pm

Neeson wrote: »

Well he could well be right. The holocaust was kind of bad wasnt it. A bit bad you know!

What he said was it was the worst since. Can you name something worse? He didn't say the holocaust wasn't that bad. People get so uptight when someone says something about the holocaust.

How about the hostage situation during the Munich Olympics in the 70s?
You know, when Palestinians held the Israeli team hostage and ended up actually killing them?

Oh, hang on, killing them is of course nowhere near as bad as not allowing them to cut bits off their new-borns...

Gbear · 15-07-2012 2:29pm

Neeson wrote: »

Well he could well be right. The holocaust was kind of bad wasnt it. A bit bad you know!

What he said was it was the worst since. Can you name something worse? He didn't say the holocaust wasn't that bad. People get so uptight when someone says something about the holocaust.

Yeah, or, given the galaxy-spanning gulf in seriousness, he's bringing it up because it's in Germany and he's using it as cheap points scoring.

Shenshen · 15-07-2012 2:30pm

My name is URL wrote: »

It shouldn't be compared to or even used as an argument against the German ruling on infant circumcisions.

It's not an 'attack on Jewish life' as that idiot describes it.

True, especially since the ruling in this particular case was centered around a little Muslim boy who had to be rushed to Emergency after a botched circumcision.

Neeson · 15-07-2012 2:34pm

Shenshen wrote: »

How about the hostage situation during the Munich Olympics in the 70s?
You know, when Palestinians held the Israeli team hostage and ended up actually killing them?

Oh, hang on, killing them is of course nowhere near as bad as not allowing them to cut bits off their new-borns...

That's it. I just thought people were getting upset when someone mentions the holocaust.

Shenshen · 15-07-2012 2:41pm

Neeson wrote: »

That's it. I just thought people were getting upset when someone mentions the holocaust.

No, I personally just get upset when anytime a certain religious group is asked to respect human rights, they will drag out Holocaust comparisons.

Galwayguy35 · 15-07-2012 5:13pm

Sea Filly wrote: »

Definitely against it.

Question for the men. Do ye not find it a bit offensive that it's always claimed in countries where it's commonplace that it's more hygienic to be circumcised?

I mean, WTactualF? Any uncircumcised man who practises good hygiene should have no issues whatsoever.

I agree, all a man has to do is pull back the foreskin and wash around the glans daily when he showers and there is no problem.

muppeteer · 15-07-2012 5:30pm

philologos wrote: »

So let's say if the law suggested that everyone had to follow Hasidic Jewish practices to a tee, you should be fine on that considering that you are OK with people putting their ideologies into law?

Taxation is obvious, as is attending school, or causing bodily harm to another.
1) State needs money to function and provide for the welfare of its citizens, 2) Education is a fundamental human right, 3) Causing bodily harm is a violation of anothers rights.

Yes, pretty much that is the debate we're getting into. My point is, that unless you can show that circumcision has clear disadvantages over being uncircumcised, I don't see any good or sound reason as to why it should be criminalised, and I don't think that your ideology has any place in law on this issue.

The bold section above shows that you have a somewhat similar sense of right and wrong to the rest of civilised society.

What you are falling down on is, for some reason you do not equate bodily harm with circumcision because it may or may not leave lasting damage. Even leaving the risks aside it is a clearly painful procedure performed without the consent of the child having the pain inflected upon it.

Even if we were to ignore all your hand waving about lasting damage it is still inflecting suffering on a child without a solid justification that it is for the greater good of the child. e.g. inflicting the pain of a needle on a child for a vaccination.

If I were to hold you down against your will and attach electrodes to a sensitive area of your body and inflict intense but gradually fading pain on you for the next 2 days would you consider this to be something that should come under the sanction of law? Should I be prevented form doing so? Even if I personally think that you will benefit? Even if this electrocution would have no lasting damage?
I would genuinely like you to square this circle of believing causing bodily harm violates others rights(with protection under law) with thinking that when it happens to a non consenting child for religious reasons it should not be prevented under the exact same law.

BQQ · 15-07-2012 7:10pm

Are all medical treatments to be halted until we hit 18 and can consent to them?

What else?
School? I hated school. I did not consent, but was forced to attend.

C'mon people. A Child is not legally capable of consent, which is why parents give consent for ALL medical procedures carried out on their children.

Galwayguy35 · 15-07-2012 7:14pm

BQQ wrote: »

Are all medical treatments to be halted until we hit 18 and can consent to them?

What else?
School? I hated school. I did not consent, but was forced to attend.

C'mon people. A Child is not legally capable of consent, which is why parents give consent for ALL medical procedures carried out on their children.

There is a difference between a necessary medical procedure and taking a babys foreskin off for some religous reason that was thought up thousands of years ago.

muppeteer · 15-07-2012 7:18pm

BQQ wrote: »

Are all medical treatments to be halted until we hit 18 and can consent to them?

What else?
School? I hated school. I did not consent, but was forced to attend.

C'mon people. A Child is not legally capable of consent, which is why parents give consent for ALL medical procedures carried out on their children.

In case you missed this above.

...without a solid justification that it is for the greater good of the child. e.g. inflicting the pain of a needle on a child for a vaccination.

Parents/Guardians, even the state can inflect pain on somebody who is incapable of giving proper consent if it is medically justified.

BQQ · 15-07-2012 8:17pm

10 to 14 times less likely to catch a urinary tract infection.

known to reduce the risk of catching HIV and Syphilis

three to four times less likely to develop penile cancer

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Why-is-it-necessary.aspx

As solid a justification as a vaccine, No?

Piste · 15-07-2012 8:39pm

Generally children don't catch STIs...why not let them make the choice about circumcision at an older age?

Wibbs · 15-07-2012 8:47pm

BQQ wrote: »

10 to 14 times less likely to catch a urinary tract infection.

Maybe in each case we should quote the article itself

article wrote:

However, most UTIs are mild and do not cause serious damage. Circumcision is usually only recommended if a boy has a risk factor that increases the likelihood of repeated UTIs. Repeated UTIs can cause kidney damage.
An example of a pre-existing risk factor is a birth defect that causes urine to leak back up into the kidney. This carries the risk of bacteria spreading from the foreskin, through the urine, and infecting the kidney. In such circumstances, circumcision may be recommended.

Given that only 4% of boys actually contract a UTI in the first place and the majority are mild requiring little intervention and no risk hardly a good reason for blanket newborn circumcision. BTW baby girls suffer UTI's at a much higher rate and no one is suggesting surgically tampering with their genitals.

known to reduce the risk of catching HIV and Syphilis

Article wrote:

Research in Africa found that heterosexual circumcised men are 38-66% less likely to contract HIV than uncircumcised men/However, circumcision is nowhere near as effective as condoms in preventing STIs. If used correctly, condoms are 98% effective in preventing STIs.

Again hardly a good reason for blanket newborn circumcision. I'd add that the US has far higher rates of STI's including HIV where a majority of men are cut, compared to the much lower rates of say Sweden where the majority of men are not.

three to four times less likely to develop penile cancer

article wrote:

However, cancer of the penis is very rare. On average, 400 new cases are diagnosed each year in the UK. It would, therefore, be very difficult to justify routine circumcision as a method for preventing penile cancer.

Speaks for itself.

As solid a justification as a vaccine, No?

No quite simply. They're nebulous reasons looking for an excuse. Few medical bodies would support the use of a vaccine that was only 33-66% effective, or where it protected against a disease that only affected a sub minority of 4% of the population, or only affected 400 out of 30,000,000 people. That's a vaccine, a surgical intervention on newborn babies with risks involved that removes functional tissue? Hardly.

Sierra 117 · 15-07-2012 8:51pm

Men who are most at risk of penile cancer are those with phimosis, where the foreskin is too tight to retract. Uncircumcised men with healthy foreskin are at the same risk level as circumcised men.

Scanlas The 2nd · 15-07-2012 8:53pm

BQQ wrote: »

Are all medical treatments to be halted until we hit 18 and can consent to them?

What else?
School? I hated school. I did not consent, but was forced to attend.

C'mon people. A Child is not legally capable of consent, which is why parents give consent for ALL medical procedures carried out on their children.

An education is in a child's best interest and benefits the child hugely, that's beyond reasonable doubt to put it mildly.

Parent's should not be allowed give consent for needlessly harmful/painful procedures, especially those which permanently remove a part of a child's body.

1ZRed · 15-07-2012 8:54pm

BQQ wrote: »

10 to 14 times less likely to catch a urinary tract infection.

known to reduce the risk of catching HIV and Syphilis

three to four times less likely to develop penile cancer

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Why-is-it-necessary.aspx

As solid a justification as a vaccine, No?

Reduces sensitivity and pleasure and that's what counts!

Condoms can keep me safe not circumcision.

BQQ · 15-07-2012 9:06pm

Wibbs wrote: »

hardly a good reason for blanket newborn circumcision.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not arguing for blanket circumcision.
Parents should be free to consent to recognised medical treatments for their children.

Sierra 117 · 15-07-2012 9:07pm

Removing foreskin without a medical reason is not a medical treatment.

Piste · 15-07-2012 9:09pm

BQQ wrote: »

I'm not arguing for blanket circumcision.
Parents should be free to consent to recognised medical treatments for their children.

Nobody is disputing that, a lot of people have said they support circumcision where medically indicated, but blanket circumcision of boys not at high risk of UTIs or phimosis is not medically indicated.

Circumcision???

Comments