Circumcision: a straightforward question, NOT a debate

[Peek a Boo]

What is a medical benefit to you? A reduction in tiger bites to the neck?? Making your eyes less reflective so you can hide better?? My point was there there are also random stupid reasons people do all sorts of things but a tiny tiny chance of less penile cancer wasn't any better of a reason to me than being worried about a tiger bite to the neck. :lol:

I'm not the one deciding what is and isn't a medical benefit: I leave that to the doctors. I linked earlier several articles via google scholar that show recent research about medical benefits of circumcision, and they all were a little bit more significant than a random tiger bite. ;)

 

I don't care, I was being flippant and you are SHOW ME NOW SHOW ME WATCH ME BE COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL!!!:

 

that's not exactly the response of a person who "doesn't care" lol.

 

Is your name SpyCar or Tea Time because that is who is in that post. How many accounts do you have? :lol:

 

note SpyCar's and yes a certain-someone (not you) will try to score with this, but what-ever.

but you'd have to read the thread in context to understand what he was referring to. :)

[Peek a Boo]

In other words, you are doing a lot of talking but not actually saying much.

 

well, it seemed pretty obvious to me that if you reduce the amount of skin to clean then hygiene will be easier, but some don't seem to get that, so we're getting wordier and wordier trying to spell it out.

 

Are you arguing that the slight medical benefits outweigh the slight medical risks or are you just circularly arguing that there is a slight medical benefit which may or may not outweigh the risks and parents should make the decision for themselves, each decision being equally valid?

 

The latter. But it's not technically a "circular" argument: it is a plain discussion that allows two valid conclusions. what do you think makes it circular? [besides the fact that we're discussing circumcision, hee hee....]

[Slartibartfast]

I'm not the one deciding what is and isn't a medical benefit: I leave that to the doctors. I linked earlier several articles via google scholar that show recent research about medical benefits of circumcision, and they all were a little bit more significant than a random tiger bite. ;)

 

 

What is the tiger bite rate in the area where the people put coils on their necks? I saw some Discovery Health show the other day where some lady was attacked by a mountain lion and it was trying to grab her neck...pretty scary.

 

 

that's not exactly the response of a person who "doesn't care" lol.

 

It was facetious. ;)

 

 

note SpyCar's and yes a certain-someone (not you) will try to score with this, but what-ever.

but you'd have to read the thread in context to understand what he was referring to. :)

Why would you use a post to me to attack Spy Car? :001_huh: Edited January 13, 2010 by Sis

[Peek a Boo]

What is the tiger bite rate in the area where the people put coils on their necks? I saw some Discovery Health show the other day where some lady was attacked by a mountain lion and it was trying to grab her neck...pretty scary.

 

show me the research offering medical benefit that the coils actually provided. Do you think a doctor would consider that a medical benefit [like the reduced uti/hpv] or a safety benefit? ;)

 

It was facetious. ;)

 

 

hey-- it makes for fun entertainment for all the lurkers. :D

 

 

Why would you use a post to me to attack Spy Car?

I didn't. i used a post to you to show that in previous discussions where I was accused of putting words in someone's mouth, I ended up being proved right all along.

 

I absolutely believe you are earnest in your assertions, which is why I am taking what you say very seriously.

 

still waiting to see proof of your accusation about me putting words in your mouth.....

:tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Mungo]

well, it seemed pretty obvious to me that if you reduce the amount of skin to clean then hygiene will be easier, but some don't seem to get that, so we're getting wordier and wordier trying to spell it out.

 

I have a good friend with a twin sister. The sister learned she had breast cancer. They were both tested for the breast cancer gene. The test came bock positive. The sister had a double radical mastectomy and a hysterectomy (because your chances of cervical cancer are so high and there are no good screening tests). My friend has now scheduled a prophylactic mastectomy and hysterectomy because her risk factors are so high. It will greatly reduce her chances of breast cancer and eliminate her chances of cervical cancer.

 

Just because there is a *definite* medical benefit does not mean doctors would recommend every woman do the same.

 

The latter. But it's not technically a "circular" argument: it is a plain discussion that allows two valid conclusions. what do you think makes it circular? [besides the fact that we're discussing circumcision, hee hee....]

You are arguing at cross-purposes is how it is circular. You are saying there is a medical benefit while not discussing the merits of those medical benefits vs. the medical risks and they are. Edited January 13, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Slartibartfast]

show me the research offering medical benefit that the coils actually provided. Do you think a doctor would consider that a medical benefit [like the reduced uti/hpv] or a safety benefit? ;)

 

I don't actually know how things like that might be qualified. Things that might be of a benefit in warfare, tiger attacks or other bizarre situations that I cannot imagine. I suppose they could be considered medical..or safety...or something. :lol:

 

 

hey-- it makes for fun entertainment for all the lurkers. :D

I guess that is why we are here. :lol:

 

I didn't. i used a post to you to show that in previous discussions where I was accused of putting words in someone's mouth, I ended up being proved right all along.

EVERYONE picks and chooses. I don't want to read the whole thread, maybe Spy Car is just more humble than most people.

 

I absolutely believe you are earnest in your assertions, which is why I am taking what you say very seriously.

I am in earnest.

 

still waiting to see proof of your accusation about me putting words in your mouth.....

:tongue_smilie:

I am not going to dig through old threads, if you want to then whatevah but I have an irritated toddler atm.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I support your right to practice your religion. :001_smile: I didn't see anyone condemn religious circ..I do feel that it is clearly stated that it is a religious covenant. I would not support anything limiting religious circ.

I think it is ridiculous to be adamantly against circumcision, thinking it a horrible thing to do to a child, but then allow it on religious grounds.

[dtb1999]

That does NOT mean that uncirc'd boys and men can't or won't clean well, but that it's simply one less thing to clean.

 

Wow. Just....well, wow..:001_huh:

[Slartibartfast]

You are arguing at cross-purposes is how it is circular. You are saying there is a medical benefit while not discussing the merits of those medical benefits vs. the medical risks and they are.

 

Right,

 

I do have friends that circed their sons and friends that didn't, I do not believe the medical or hygienic benefits outweigh the risks.

 

If someone was just "I JUST WANTED TO!!" I wouldn't argue it :lol: There is nothing someone would have to argue that.

 

If people are trying to use medical reasons then I would argue that.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Sis

[Spy Car]

 

I didn't. i used a post to you to show that in previous discussions where I was accused of putting words in someone's mouth, I ended up being proved right all along.

 

 

 

Actually Peek you often attempt to twist peoples words, just as Sis has suggested.

 

I've never pretended to be religious. But I'm not "anti-religious" either. I attempt to learn what I can from the worlds great faiths, but at the same time I do measure theology and dogmas against my own conscious and sense of right and wrong.

 

I don't know where you're going with the repeated link to this post of mine (which I stand by), but clearly you read things the way you want to read them, rather than the spirit in which they were written.

 

I keep trying to forgive you your trespasses, but that is a dangerous game.

 

Bill

Edited January 13, 2010 by Spy Car

[Slartibartfast]

I think it is ridiculous to be adamantly against circumcision, thinking it a horrible thing to do to a child, but then allow it on religious grounds.

 

Yeah, that's fine. I am just really opposed to limiting sacred religious practices.

[Peek a Boo]

double radical mastectomy and a hysterectomy (because your chances of cervical cancer are so high and there are no good screening tests).

 

Just because there is a *definitely* medical benefit does not mean doctors would recommend every woman do the same.

 

You are arguing at cross-purposes is how it is circular. You are saying there is a medical benefit while not discussing the merits of those medical benefits vs. the medical risks and they are.

 

Just to point out the obvious, a circumcision is not the same thing as removing an entire organ. Basic Bio 101 here. Your analogy is simply wrong.

 

 

it's not "cross-purposes", it's two completely different discussions.

 

 

we have medical evidence that there IS measurable medical benefit to the procedure. we have evidence that the risk itself is very small. That doctors don't recommend the procedure as a routine practice doesn't mean they assert that the risks OUTWEIGH the benefit, merely that they don't think there's enough of a benefit to consider it necessary. I happen to agree with that. I also support a woman's right to a homebirth, even tho it's not recommended. The fact that I support someone's CHOICE to have a homebirth doesn't mean I think EVERYONE should experience it.

 

now if we want to discuss the medical benefits vs the risks, that does sound like excellent fodder for a discussion. I didn't think we needed to detail it since there are so many men in America that experienced little to zero complications, but I'm game. where did you want to start?

[Peek a Boo]

I am not going to dig through old threads, if you want to then whatevah but I have an irritated toddler atm.

Then I am going to point out the obvious you are unable to back up your false claim.

[Mrs Mungo]

Just to point out the obvious, a circumcision is not the same thing as removing an entire organ. Basic Bio 101 here. Your analogy is simply wrong.

 

How is a breast an internal organ? It's mostly fat and basically useless if you're done having/nursing kids. If you're going to argue that the breast is an organ-skin is an organ as well. Maybe the foreskin is just a bit of the organ that is the skin but it's part of the organ.

 

 

it's not "cross-purposes", it's two completely different discussions.

If one person is arguing that the benefits do not outweigh the risks and posts links to numerous medical organizations saying the same and you keep piping up "YEAH BUT THERE IS TOTALLY A MEDICAL BENEFIT" it makes you look sort of ridiculous. They are not two different discussions, they are part of the same discussion.

 

we have medical evidence that there IS measurable medical benefit to the procedure. we have evidence that the risk itself is very small. That doctors don't recommend the procedure as a routine practice doesn't mean they assert that the risks OUTWEIGH the benefit, merely that they don't think there's enough of a benefit to consider it necessary. I happen to agree with that. I also support a woman's right to a homebirth, even tho it's not recommended. The fact that I support someone's CHOICE to have a homebirth doesn't mean I think EVERYONE should experience it.

What is your point? If they don't recommend it as routine procedure (and they don't), then they don't recommend it as routine procedure. There's nothing to argue here. I haven't seen anyone *here* suggest it should be made illegal or something. Therefore, it stands to reason that most people here support the ability of people to make their own decision. Again, what are you arguing?

 

now if we want to discuss the medical benefits vs the risks, that does sound like excellent fodder for a discussion. I didn't think we needed to detail it since there are so many men in America that experienced little to zero complications, but I'm game. where did you want to start?

My son wasn't born in the Americas. Just stating the facts.

[Peek a Boo]

I've never pretended to be religious. But I'm not "anti-religious" either. I attempt to learn what I can from the worlds great faiths, but at the same time I do measure theology and dogmas against my own conscious and sense of right and wrong.

 

I don't know where you're going with the repeated link to this post of mine (which I stand by), but clearly you read things the way you want to read them, rather than the spirit in which they were written.

 

Bill, you can phrase your questioning all you want, but there's a reason you admitted what you did in that post, and it's obvious to those of us who have followed your posts about Christianity. Obviously I was NOT twisting things nearly as much as some would like to think. I merely stated it in a way that didn't sound as fun and dandy. Like "chopping off" and "mutilating" and "don't know how to clean themselves" and "too stupid to practice basic hygiene." :tongue_smilie:

[Slartibartfast]

Then I am going to point out the obvious you are unable to back up your false claim.

 

My care card appears to be empty. I will paypal it later.

[Spy Car]

Bill, you can phrase your questioning all you want, but there's a reason you admitted what you did in that post, and it's obvious to those of us who have followed your posts about Christianity. Obviously I was NOT twisting things nearly as much as some would like to think. I merely stated it in a way that didn't sound as fun and dandy. Like "chopping off" and "mutilating" and "don't know how to clean themselves" and "too stupid to practice basic hygiene." :tongue_smilie:

 

I don't know what "great admission" you think you are on to. I'm not religious. I've never said other-wise. I try to learn what I can from religious sources and sacred traditions and understandings of a shared moral law, while maintaining my own sense of reason and moral judgement.

 

If you have a problem with that, I don't know what to say.

 

Bill

[Sputterduck]

I'm stating as a medical fact that circumcision makes hygiene easier, by default.

 

It's hold it up and rinse the tip vs. hold it up and rinse the tip. Seems darn easy either way.

[Slartibartfast]

yabbut, what if the foreskin is a product of the Fall, like other genetic anomalies? ;)

 

I didn't see this earlier, what is this?

[Sputterduck]

um, ok, so the mammary glands and breast are not considered an organ, and you want to assert that removing the foreskin in a male circumcision is analogous to removing an entire breast. talk about looking ridiculous.....

 

 

Well, you are removing muscle and specialized sexual cells that aren't found anywhere else. Seems like a bigger deal than removing tissue that doesn't have a use after the child bearing years.

[Peek a Boo]

I didn't see this earlier, what is this?

 

it was a joke. sorta. ;)

[Slartibartfast]

it was a joke. sorta. ;)

 

Oh ok I was about to get all offended but wanted to check first.

 

I hadn't seen such a thing stated before but it sounds crazy

[Mrs Mungo]

I said an ENTIRE organ.

um, ok, so the mammary glands and breast are not considered an organ, and you want to assert that removing the foreskin in a male circumcision is analogous to removing an entire breast. talk about looking ridiculous.....

 

Are there medical benefits to removing the breasts? Yes, very valid ones, especially if you carry the breast cancer gene. That makes it analogous. My youngest sister is currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer at 29. It's something I've had to look at very hard.

 

 

because there IS a difference between "not recommended" and "no medical benefit". The medical studies show a measurable medical benefit. I point that out because some in this thread HAVE said "there is no medical benefit. period."

WHO said that? Sis didn't say that and she's the one you're arguing with. She was arguing that the benefits did not outweigh the risks and that's why it wasn't recommended by a single medical association.

 

Then you might want to read the thread again and note all the posts that speak hotly against circumcision.

I saw many people speak hotly against it, including the comparisons to female genital mutilation. A point I made in an earlier post was that other countries *do* see it as similar. The hospital where my son was born did not do circumcisions unless medically necessary because they *do* consider it barbaric. Therefore, whether or not one sees it as barbaric is *strictly* based on culture, not science.

[Slartibartfast]

WHO said that? Sis didn't say that and she's the one you're arguing with. She was arguing that the benefits did not outweigh the risks and that's why it wasn't recommended by a single medical association.

 

 

No you are supposed to say,

 

SHOW ME!! SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS THAT NOW!!!

[Peek a Boo]

Well, you are removing muscle and specialized sexual cells that aren't found anywhere else. Seems like a bigger deal than removing tissue that doesn't have a use after the child bearing years.

 

so you think it is medically comparable to discuss removing an entire breast [radical mastectomy] with removing a foreskin?

 

so.... removing the mammary glands [which are designed to be used during childbearing years spanning ...what...20 years or so?] and making them COMPLETELY unusable [try nursing a child w/ your big toe?], is supposed to be analogous to a procedure that [for the majority of those who undergo it] has no bearing whatsoever on their ability to use their organ??

 

really?

[Mrs Mungo]

No you are supposed to say,

 

SHOW ME!! SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS THAT NOW!!!

 

When I reply to a reasonable post in that manner, please feel free to call me crazysauce.

 

eta: Dinner time people, gotta go! :D

[Slartibartfast]

When I reply to a reasonable post in that manner, please feel free to call me crazysauce.

 

*makes a note*

 

;)

[Peek a Boo]

Are there medical benefits to removing the breasts? Yes, very valid ones, especially if you carry the breast cancer gene. That makes it analogous. My youngest sister is currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer at 29. It's something I've had to look at very hard..

 

except removing the foreskin can be done as an outpatient procedure w/ much, much less risk and little to no negative effect on the functioning of the organ. Part of a legitimate analogy is how comparable it is on more than one front.

 

WHO said that? Sis didn't say that and she's the one you're arguing with. She was arguing that the benefits did not outweigh the risks and that's why it wasn't recommended by a single medical association. ..

 

I know Joanne was one that said it. Again: read the thread. It will help you keep up with what was said and what wasn't. Also: read what it was that i started arguing with Sis about.

[Mrs Mungo]

so you think it is medically comparable to discuss removing an entire breast [radical mastectomy] with removing a foreskin?

 

so.... removing the mammary glands [which are designed to be used during childbearing years spanning ...what...20 years or so?] and making them COMPLETELY unusable [try nursing a child w/ your big toe?], is supposed to be analogous to a procedure that [for the majority of those who undergo it] has no bearing whatsoever on their ability to use their organ??

 

really?

 

Yes, especially since both Sputterduck and I *specifically stated* after a woman is finished with her childbirth and nursing years.

[Peek a Boo]

Oh ok I was about to get all offended but wanted to check first.

 

I hadn't seen such a thing stated before but it sounds crazy

 

do a google search for "effects of the fall" -- lots of interesting scriptural references. :)

[Peek a Boo]

Yes, especially since both Sputterduck and I *specifically stated* after a woman is finished with her childbirth and nursing years.

 

but a male circumcision can be done AS AN INFANT and have no negative effects on the function of the organ and still offer medical benefits. Your analogy only holds up if a breast removal can still result in normal function of the breast.

[Slartibartfast]

I know Joanne was one that said it. Again: read the thread. It will help you keep up with what was said and what wasn't. Also: read what it was that i started arguing with Sis about.[/quOTE]

 

 

Originally Posted by Sis

But as a parent I want to END unhealthy cycles, not perpetuate them.

 

but circumcising an infant male isn't necessarily an "unhealthy" thing. especially with all the medical information we DO know. that organizations "don't recommend it" is a far cry from "consider it unhealthy"

I stand by my post. :) Edited January 13, 2010 by Sis

[Spy Car]

Well, you are removing muscle and specialized sexual cells that aren't found anywhere else. Seems like a bigger deal than removing tissue that doesn't have a use after the child bearing years.

 

Circumcision doesn't remove muscle :confused:

 

Bill

[Slartibartfast]

but a male circumcision can be done AS AN INFANT and have no negative effects on the function of the organ and still offer medical benefits. Your analogy only holds up if a breast removal can still result in normal function of the breast.

 

But no one is discussing removing the penis, the discussion is about the foreskin which has a function.

[Peek a Boo]

I stand by my post. :)

 

of course you do-- which is why I decided to point out the obvious that it's not necessarily an UNHEALTHY thing to continue the cycle of circumcision. :)

[Slartibartfast]

of course you do-- which is why I decided to point out the obvious that it's not necessarily an UNHEALTHY thing to continue the cycle of circumcision. :)

 

I don't agree. :)

 

But I never said there was NNNOOOO medical benefit. I said it was minimal, negligible, (something about a snowball's chance in hell) and not with the risks.

[Peek a Boo]

But no one is discussing removing the penis,

That's my point exactly: in order to make a comparable analogy to the breast removal/male circumcision issue, you'd have to compare removing the entire penis to removing the entire breast.

the discussion is about the foreskin which has a function.

 

That "function" is secondary to the functioning of the organ itself. You can remove the foreskin and still have satisfying, successful sexual reproduction. You can NOT remove even the nipple of the breast and still have successful nursing [a key function of the breast]. By removing the breast itself the analogy [to male circumcision] fails on an even more foundational level and becomes completely absurd.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't agree. :)

 

But I never said there was NNNOOOO medical benefit. I said it was minimal, negligible, (something about a snowball's chance in hell) and not with the risks.

 

 

except that the medical community has done enough research to note that the benefits are a tad higher than a snowball's chance in hell. ;)

[Slartibartfast]

That's my point exactly: in order to make a comparable analogy to the breast removal/male circumcision issue, you'd have to compare removing the entire penis to removing the entire breast.

 

 

That "function" is secondary to the functioning of the organ itself. You can remove the foreskin and still have satisfying, successful sexual reproduction. You can NOT remove even the nipple of the breast and still have successful nursing [a key function of the breast]. By removing the breast itself the analogy [to male circumcision] fails on an even more foundational level and becomes completely absurd.

 

But removing the foreskin prevents the function of the foreskin, not the penis. The foreskin has a function and the penis has a function.

 

Removing the breasts just removes the function of the breasts. Another function of the breasts is intimacy, removing the breasts doesn't affect a woman's sex organs.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Sis

[Slartibartfast]

except that the medical community has done enough research to note that the benefits are a tad higher than a snowball's chance in hell. ;)

 

If they felt it was higher than "negligible" wouldn't they start recommending it?

[Spy Car]

But removing the foreskin prevents the function of the foreskin, not the penis.

 

 

What function?

 

The foreskin consists of mucus membranes that are a well documented gateway for disease and infection. The foreskin traps smegma, and leads to hygiene issues.

 

It's removal does nothing to male sexual pleasure. So what positive "function" is lost when the foreskin is removed?

 

Bill

[kalanamak]

I elected not to after all the screaming I heard at the clinic where I worked. Ugh and Yugh.

 

Hubby said he should....to be like him, or some such thing. I'll never forget it. We were on a tour of the birthing center, and I stopped in my tracks and said "Just because you walk around with the blinds rolled up all the time does not mean you are circumsized". Hubby didn't know he wasn't!!

[Slartibartfast]

What function?

 

The foreskin consists of mucus membranes that are a well documented gateway for disease and infection. The foreskin traps smegma, and leads to hygiene issues.

 

It's removal does nothing to male sexual pleasure. So what positive "function" is lost when the foreskin is removed?

 

Bill

 

ok let me try and find a link without pron on it. :lol:

[Peek a Boo]

But removing the foreskin prevents the function of the foreskin, not the penis.

 

the foreskin is not considered to be its own complete organ. and again: removal of the foreskin does not affect the function of the penis as an organ like a radical mastectomy does. There is simply no legitimate comparison to be made.

 

Removing the breasts just remove the function of the breasts. The other function of the breasts is intimacy, removing the breasts doesn't affect a woman's sex organs.

 

1. right: the breast is not a sex organ. another good reason to debunk the comparison.:tongue_smilie:

 

2. removing the breast affects the ENTIRE function of the WHOLE breast. Removing foreskin does not affect the ENTIRE function of the WHOLE penis.

[Peek a Boo]

If they felt it was higher than "negligible" wouldn't they start recommending it?

 

I don't know and I really don't care: maybe you should ask them?

 

i would support a parent's right to choose/forego circumcision or homebirth regardless the "official" recommendations of medical authorities.

[Slartibartfast]

http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html

[Peek a Boo]

What function?

 

The foreskin consists of mucus membranes that are a well documented gateway for disease and infection. The foreskin traps smegma, and leads to hygiene issues.

 

It's removal does nothing to male sexual pleasure. So what positive "function" is lost when the foreskin is removed?

 

Bill

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin

among other functions, It offers a lubricating effect and protects The One Eyed Warrior from outside forces. ;)

 

'sorry... couldn't resist. the tags are cracking me up.....

 

 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't know and I really don't care: maybe you should ask them?

 

Why would I when I agree with them?

 

i would support a parent's right to choose/forego circumcision or homebirth regardless the "official" recommendations of medical authorities.

I do think it is a decision people have to make. I am just arguing about the medical benefits being negligible. I do think it is a practice that will become rare in the future, except in Muslim or Jewish communities. Edited January 13, 2010 by Sis

[Slartibartfast]

ok let me try and find a link without pron on it. :lol:

 

http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html

[Slartibartfast]

the foreskin is not considered to be its own complete organ. and again: removal of the foreskin does not affect the function of the penis as an organ like a radical mastectomy does. There is simply no legitimate comparison to be made.

 

The foreskin does have its own functions, it is just attached to the penis

 

Organ: A relatively independent part of the body that carries out one or more special functions.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Sis
Aw...the kittens...I have killed them :(