Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

[Agent Provocateur]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

By that logic, if an infant could consent to a circumcision, verbally or otherwise, would they want it done to them?

I'd really like an answer to this question.

 

[SaskGuy]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

For some fucking stupid reason, I can't edit my post anymore, but I was just about to say that there should be a law banning genital mutilation under a certain age. If an adult wants to have it done, then let him. It shouldn't be forced upon unconsenting infants.

I can't believe that in the 21st century, there's still people in western countries who believes in this. If the same thing were happening to women, the public would be outraged.

 

[rareboy]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

Well in some African cultures (and I think in the Pacific - in Melanesia) the practice is only done on men once they reach manhood at about 18. I remember in a class watching a film in which one young man was cut at this age and was then made to eat the skin!

This makes sense.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

ιππoκαμπος means seahorse in Greek, because it looks like one apparently.

Yeah. One of the ancient Greek writers we were required to wade through (in the original, I mean) had some joke about sea horses... which sadly I can't remember, except that it doesn't work in translation.

 

[LuckysRevenge]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

I'd really like an answer to this question.

I'm pretty sure infants would not consent to a lot of things that are done to/for them....

 

[mikey3000]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

Exactly why for-profit medicine is a guaranteed fail... unless somehow all the patients were the shareholders, equally.

For-profit is a guaranteed fail? What? Can someone please tell that to Pfizer, Glaxo Smithe Kline, Novolin, Apotex et al? These are the ones who really run the medical industry.

 

[bankside]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

the preventative health recommendations of pretty much every major medical organization.

this is nonsense.

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

this is nonsense.

According to whom, you?

 

[KaraBulut]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

In your estimation, how does one go about segregating gay and straight babies? Since according to you, gay babies would be exempt from the preventative health recommendations of pretty much every major medical organization.

There are two recommendations on the table.

1. WHO is recommending circumcision for adult heterosexual males in areas with pandemic HIV infection. It's one component of risk reduction in high risk populations.
2. The other position statement is from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that is largely being misinterpreted in this thread. That statement is an evaluation statement that the "health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it." It is both a response to research that shows that the benefits outweigh possible risk and a response to activists who have been attempting to outlaw the procedure in certain jurisdictions (similar to tactics used by abortion components). It's a weak advocacy statement primarily intended to ensure that pediatrics offer the procedure to parents.

I'm pretty sure infants would not consent to a lot of things that are done to/for them....

Having done a few of those procedures, particularly ones that involve needles and scalpels, you are correct in this statement.

 

[The Fly]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

For some fucking stupid reason, I can't edit my post anymore, but I was just about to say that there should be a law banning genital mutilation under a certain age. If an adult wants to have it done, then let him. It shouldn't be forced upon unconsenting infants.

I can't believe that in the 21st century, there's still people in western countries who believes in this. If the same thing were happening to women, the public would be outraged.

Not me....................I still wouldn't give a rats ass.

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

I can't believe that in the 21st century, there's still people in western countries who believes in this. If the same thing were happening to women, the public would be outraged.

Female genital mutilation is not the same thing as circumcision.

 

[Vitamin]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

Female genital mutilation is not the same thing as circumcision.

I think you meant to say male circumcision and female circumcision are not the same thing. Its simply not fair to remove a girls foreskin as she will get no enjoyment from sex afterward. Ever. Not one bit. It's a terrible evil and horribly misgyonistic.

Male circumcision on the other hand has nothing to do sexual enjoyment, we know that HIV would be less prevlent if it was the norm throughout the world. It's a public health matter and the option should at least be available to parents.

 

[dereperez]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

Cut versus uncut. Always a dinner table conversation starter.

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

I think you meant to say male circumcision and female circumcision are not the same thing. Its simply not fair to remove a girls foreskin as she will get no enjoyment from sex afterward.

Females don't have a "foreskin;" this is my whole point. Female genital mutilation is far more extensive and is significantly deleterious to sexual function. They really are not comparable procedures.

 

[Agent Provocateur]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

Females don't have a "foreskin;" this is my whole point. Female genital mutilation is far more extensive and is significantly deleterious to sexual function. They really are not comparable procedures.

How about if the clitoral hood and labia, which serve an identical function to the male foreskin (protecting mucous membranes from drying out), were removed and nothing else? Would it still be an acceptable procedure?

 

[bankside]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

Females don't have a "foreskin;" this is my whole point. Female genital mutilation is far more extensive and is significantly deleterious to sexual function. They really are not comparable procedures.

There are analogous structures in male and female genetalia. The procedure termed "female circumcision" usually involves amputating both the sensitive, pleasurable, healthy (and healthful), innocuous outer tissue (equivalent of foreskin) and the spongy supporting tissue underneath (equivalent of the glans.) They really are comparable procedures. When you compare them, you'll see that the man is typically spared the spongy tissue of the glans, but the sensitive, pleasurable, healthy (and healthful), innocuous outer tissue is removed in either case.

- - - Updated - - -

How about if the clitoral hood and labia, which serve an identical function to the male foreskin (protecting mucous membranes from drying out), were removed and nothing else? Would it still be an acceptable procedure?

Well clearly if they did this in infancy the female infants "wouldn't remember the pain." How humane.

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

They really are comparable procedures.

No. They really are not. The labia are deeply vascularized tissue, and it is a much more painful and needless procedure, unlike the mostly epithelial foreskin. Baby girls can and do regularly bleed out from female genital mutilation.

 

[Agent Provocateur]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

No. They really are not. The labia are deeply vascularized tissue, and it is a much more painful and needless procedure, unlike the mostly epithelial foreskin. Baby girls can and do regularly bleed out from female genital mutilation.

Painful and needless? Isn't that the very definition of neonatal circumcision? Call me crazy, but any amount of pain to a newborn child that can possibly be avoided is a bad thing.

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

Painful and needless? Isn't that the very definition of neonatal circumcision? Call me crazy, but any amount of pain to a newborn child that can possibly be avoided is a bad thing.

Not in males. It is a good measure of preventative medicine.

 

[bankside]

Re: Mayo Clinic rerpot: benefits of circumcision far outweigh the risks

No. They really are not. The labia are deeply vascularized tissue, and it is a much more painful and needless procedure, unlike the mostly epithelial foreskin. Baby girls can and do regularly bleed out from female genital mutilation.

The circumcision of males is needless, not more or less needless.

And talking about excision of the labia is conflating a bunch of different procedures to distract from the fact that the circumcision of males is needless. It is a perverse fetish with scant health justification, held aloft on grotesque and stagnant cultural inertia anywhere it is commonly practised. Where it does have some evidence of medical benefit, in no case is it desirable as a first line of treatment: in the case of phimosis, creams, gentle stretching, watchful waiting, less radical surgical intervention should all take priority as treatment. In the case of prophylaxis against sexually transmitted infection, it only has supporting evidence in cases where there are cultural disinhibitions to responsible sexual behaviour, a lack of access to barrier methods, strains of HIV that have a different level of transmissibility in heterosexual situations, and in places without modern medical alternatives; again, NOT a first line of defence and certainly not the last word in protecting people's health as soon as economic development permits the use of less radical alternatives.