By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Circumcision ban getting people snippy.

DélioPT on 20 June 2011
Ringo5 said:

I've looked into some reports regarding this issue (San Francisco to vote on circumcision issue) and I'm still confused as to why some group of people should force their belief or choice to the rest of the residents in San Francisco. I believe that in San Francisco, different religious group exist and they practice circumcision for variety of reasons. Some does it for sanitary reason, and that's alright. Some does it for religious reasons, and I can't say that that is something unreasonable, because it's part of the tradition that they religiously follow both for their faith and being clean. Some prefer to do the circumcision during the child's infant-hood so that they won't remember or endure the pain in their adulthood and the healing capability is still good, and I think that is a sign of good-will of the parents towards the child.  If a certain group of people doesn't support circumcision in infants, then it's perfectly fine that they have such preference and do what they think is right for their son when they become a father. But isn't it inconsiderate to force that on other group of people with different ethnicity and religion? The ideology that they're fighting for is making the ideology of another suffer, and that I think is unreasonable. I just don't believe in imposing personal preferences on other people, much like I don't want anybody to say anything about the things that I like.


Not everyone is ready to accept that premise. ;)
I actually feel that it`s something that should be respected. If it`s part of their religion it should be treated with respect and sincere consideration. 
Parents' decisions should be respected - especially taking into consideration that the child might even benefit from that. Parents decide for their kids a tun of stuff with the premise that it`s the best for their kids. It`s easy to overlook those whose consequences aren`t visible or only show up later in the kids life.

In the end it`s a normal medical procedure... it`s the same medical procedure for those who choose and those who don`t.



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 20 June 2011
DélioPT said:


Not everyone is ready to accept that premise. ;)
I actually feel that it`s something that should be respected. If it`s part of their religion it should be treated with respect and sincere consideration. 
Parents' decisions should be respected - especially taking into consideration that the child might even benefit from that. Parents decide for their kids a tun of stuff with the premise that it`s the best for their kids. It`s easy to overlook those whose consequences aren`t visible or only show up later in the kids life.

In the end it`s a normal medical procedure... it`s the same medical procedure for those who choose and those who don`t.

Yep, it's easy, and WRONG. Why should it be respected? Because it's part of their religion? What if virgin sacrifices were part of their religion? Should that be respected too?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

DélioPT on 20 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:
DélioPT said:


Not everyone is ready to accept that premise. ;)
I actually feel that it`s something that should be respected. If it`s part of their religion it should be treated with respect and sincere consideration. 
Parents' decisions should be respected - especially taking into consideration that the child might even benefit from that. Parents decide for their kids a tun of stuff with the premise that it`s the best for their kids. It`s easy to overlook those whose consequences aren`t visible or only show up later in the kids life.

In the end it`s a normal medical procedure... it`s the same medical procedure for those who choose and those who don`t.

Yep, it's easy, and WRONG. Why should it be respected? Because it's part of their religion? What if virgin sacrifices were part of their religion? Should that be respected too?


Are we talking about virgin sacrifices?
Yes, because it`s part of their religion; yes, because it was a parental decision from which the child took benefit.



sapphi_snake on 20 June 2011
DélioPT said:
sapphi_snake said:
DélioPT said:


Not everyone is ready to accept that premise. ;)
I actually feel that it`s something that should be respected. If it`s part of their religion it should be treated with respect and sincere consideration. 
Parents' decisions should be respected - especially taking into consideration that the child might even benefit from that. Parents decide for their kids a tun of stuff with the premise that it`s the best for their kids. It`s easy to overlook those whose consequences aren`t visible or only show up later in the kids life.

In the end it`s a normal medical procedure... it`s the same medical procedure for those who choose and those who don`t.

Yep, it's easy, and WRONG. Why should it be respected? Because it's part of their religion? What if virgin sacrifices were part of their religion? Should that be respected too?


Are we talking about virgin sacrifices?
Yes, because it`s part of their religion; yes, because it was a parental decision from which the child took benefit.

No we're talking about circumcision. I was just pointing out that something doesn't deserve "respect" just because it's a religious practice. So no, the religious practice of circumcising infants deserves no respect. Parents do not have a right to make such a decision for their child, and unless the child had a medical condition (such as phimosis), the removal of his foreskin was pointless, bought no benefit, and his body was violated.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

mundus6 on 20 June 2011

This was years ago so i don't remember the reasons, but i learned at school that circumcision is not good for your junk and the only upside is that its easier to keep it clean (seriously, if you keep your penis clean, you will not get any diseases) this is also why in my country you can only get circumcised in private, hospitals etc will not hand them out even if you ask the doctors.

Its not super bad for you though, which is why its not completely illegal, just advised against.



Around the Network
DélioPT on 20 June 2011
sapphi_snake said:
DélioPT said:
sapphi_snake said:
DélioPT said:


Not everyone is ready to accept that premise. ;)
I actually feel that it`s something that should be respected. If it`s part of their religion it should be treated with respect and sincere consideration. 
Parents' decisions should be respected - especially taking into consideration that the child might even benefit from that. Parents decide for their kids a tun of stuff with the premise that it`s the best for their kids. It`s easy to overlook those whose consequences aren`t visible or only show up later in the kids life.

In the end it`s a normal medical procedure... it`s the same medical procedure for those who choose and those who don`t.

Yep, it's easy, and WRONG. Why should it be respected? Because it's part of their religion? What if virgin sacrifices were part of their religion? Should that be respected too?


Are we talking about virgin sacrifices?
Yes, because it`s part of their religion; yes, because it was a parental decision from which the child took benefit.

No we're talking about circumcision. I was just pointing out that something doesn't deserve "respect" just because it's a religious practice. So no, the religious practice of circumcising infants deserves no respect. Parents do not have a right to make such a decision for their child, and unless the child had a medical condition (such as phimosis), the removal of his foreskin was pointless, bought no benefit, and his body was violated.


"I was just pointing out that something doesn't deserve "respect" just because it's a religious practice."
That´s why i said it like this: "If it`s part of their religion it should be treated with respect and sincere consideration. It´s not just about the practice, it`s what leads to said practice.
" So no, the religious practice of circumcising infants deserves no respect."
Parents, who are religious, want it for their kids and that`s something that should be at least respected since what they are doing to their kids is no different than it would be done by themselves. If that`s forcing, than pretty much everything parents do, is forcing.
This is an act where parents do what they think is best for their kids, no matter where they get the motivation from. It`s just one of many things parents decide for their kids.

Body violated and mutilation are just big words that honestly don`t fit here. You make it sound like parents who do that are like criminals who only wish to hurt their kids. But as i said before, there are a lot of things that parents do that have more impact on a kid than a simple medical procedure.



sapphi_snake on 20 June 2011

@DélioPT:

That´s why i said it like this: "If it`s part of their religion it should be treated with respect and sincere consideration. It´s not just about the practice, it`s what leads to said practice.

Yes, what leads to the practice matters. And religion isn't something that justifies this practice.

And by your login, virgin sacrifices should be respected if their part of a religious practice.

Parents, who are religious, want it for their kids and that`s something that should be at least respected since what they are doing to their kids is no different than it would be done by themselves.

I don't understand what you mean in the underlined part.

If that`s forcing, than pretty much everything parents do, is forcing.

Some things can be justified as being in the best interest of the child. Other things are just authoritan manifestations of power.

This is an act where parents do what they think is best for their kids, no matter where they get the motivation from. It`s just one of many things parents decide for their kids.

This practice isn't done because it's believed to be "what's best" for the child (especially because it's only in the best interest of the child in the case of medical conditions like phimosis). At least not in the case of people who do it for religious reasons.

Body violated and mutilation are just big words that honestly don`t fit here. You make it sound like parents who do that are like criminals who only wish to hurt their kids. But as i said before, there are a lot of things that parents do that have more impact on a kid than a simple medical procedure.

You're just trying to make this sound less serious than it is. Unlike other things that parents do to children, circumcision cannot be remediated, which is why it should not be done on infants.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Teo on 20 June 2011
VivaLaWiida said:
Uncircumsized penises look disgusting.


I'm guessing you are into scars and cuts on peoples body? There is no double standard here.



Sri Lumpa on 20 June 2011
DélioPT said:

Parents, who are religious, want it for their kids and that`s something that should be at least respected since what they are doing to their kids is no different than it would be done by themselves if they chose to have it done.

 

 

Fixed that for you. So, you claim that if a kid chooses to be circumcised later in life then it is no different than if his parents had arrogated themselves the decision; on the other hand if the kid decides otherwise than his parents then it is VERY different than what the kid would have done by themselves. The logical conclusion is to leave the decision to the kid as like you said, at worst there is no difference and at best there is a huge difference.

 

DélioPT said:

This is an act where parents do what they think is best for their kids, no matter where they get the motivation from. It`s just one of many things parents decide for their kids.

Body violated and mutilation are just big words that honestly don`t fit here. You make it sound like parents who do that are like criminals who only wish to hurt their kids. But as i said before, there are a lot of things that parents do that have more impact on a kid than a simple medical procedure.

 

What if the situation was reversed and the infant had a disease that could cripple him or kill him but the parents's faith was that they should not seek medical help but put their faith in their god to heal their child? Those parents are doing what they think is best for their kid so should we let them take that decision for him/her or should we act on the basis that their action (or inaction) is harmful to the child and that the child should be protected from it?

Now, most of the time circumcision is not such a dire situation but the question of whether parents should enforce their religious belief on a child that is too young to have religious beliefs of his own remains. 

As for medical benefits, can you name any medical benefit that comes with circumcising at 1 week old versus circumcising at 18 years old, or at least at puberty, when they are old enough to make the choice themselves?

From what i could find the three main positives of circumcision are that:

1. You have a lower risk of UTI, especially in the first year of life.

2. It can help lower the risk of getting infected with an STD.

3. You have a slightly lower risk of penile cancer later in life.

So let's examine them in that order and see if there is a preponderant medical benefit that outweigh cutting somebody without their permission:

1.  Natural boys have about 9-10 times as much risk of developing UTI in their first year (the year with the most risk of it) than circumcised boys. So it is a good start for the pro-circumcision folks as you could potentially reduce the risk of UTI from 100% to 10-11%.

I mean natural penises are dirty unhygienic things that are hard to clean properly according to those folks so the rate of UTI in natural boys has got to be close to 100%... or not. It seems that those dirty unhygienic penises only get UTI in about 1.5-2% of cases. So circumcised penises appear to be about 1.8% cleaner in a meaningful way (the way that leads to diseases) than natural penises.

In other word, to prevent less than two kids from having a UTI you need to operated on 98 kids needlessly (or at least needlessly early). And that's for the one thing that might remotely justify not waiting for the kid to grow up and choose himself.

2. By the time a kid is old enough to think about becoming sexually active he also is old enough to talk and think and generally be able to give his consent to the procedure (though at that age it should be both him and his parents giving their consent, at least until he reaches majority) so there is zero reason to perform routine prepubescent circumcision for this possible benefit.

3. Circumcision might reduce your risk of penile cancer. The reason for the "might" being that penile cancer is so bloody rare that some studies find some incidence while other don't. So how rare is it? In the heavily circumcised United states, about 0.001% of men develop penile cancer, but of course in heavily natural countries like Japan , Norway and Sweden the rate is a much higher 0.001% oops. While the rate is almost certainly not exactly the same, the difference is statistically insignificant; bragging that circumcision is better than the lack of it for penile cancer would be like bragging that the PS3 was more powerful than the 360 if the PS3 was 0.001% more powerful. Maybe technically true but totally stupid.

So for lowering penile cancer rate in older men one older man we would have to perform surgery on 99,999 non-consenting infants.

 

In conclusion, are there potential benefits to circumcision? Yes! Are those benefit significant enough to justify the routine surgery of millions of people every year without their consent? Not even remotely.

 

 



"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"

 

DélioPT on 20 June 2011
Sri Lumpa said:
DélioPT said:

Parents, who are religious, want it for their kids and that`s something that should be at least respected since what they are doing to their kids is no different than it would be done by themselves if they chose to have it done.

 

 

Fixed that for you. So, you claim that if a kid chooses to be circumcised later in life then it is no different than if his parents had arrogated themselves the decision; on the other hand if the kid decides otherwise than his parents then it is VERY different than what the kid would have done by themselves. The logical conclusion is to leave the decision to the kid as like you said, at worst there is no difference and at best there is a huge difference.

 

DélioPT said:

This is an act where parents do what they think is best for their kids, no matter where they get the motivation from. It`s just one of many things parents decide for their kids.

Body violated and mutilation are just big words that honestly don`t fit here. You make it sound like parents who do that are like criminals who only wish to hurt their kids. But as i said before, there are a lot of things that parents do that have more impact on a kid than a simple medical procedure.

 

What if the situation was reversed and the infant had a disease that could cripple him or kill him but the parents's faith was that they should not seek medical help but put their faith in their god to heal their child? Those parents are doing what they think is best for their kid so should we let them take that decision for him/her or should we act on the basis that their action (or inaction) is harmful to the child and that the child should be protected from it?

Now, most of the time circumcision is not such a dire situation but the question of whether parents should enforce their religious belief on a child that is too young to have religious beliefs of his own remains. 

As for medical benefits, can you name any medical benefit that comes with circumcising at 1 week old versus circumcising at 18 years old, or at least at puberty, when they are old enough to make the choice themselves?

From what i could find the three main positives of circumcision are that:

1. You have a lower risk of UTI, especially in the first year of life.

2. It can help lower the risk of getting infected with an STD.

3. You have a slightly lower risk of penile cancer later in life.

So let's examine them in that order and see if there is a preponderant medical benefit that outweigh cutting somebody without their permission:

1.  Natural boys have about 9-10 times as much risk of developing UTI in their first year (the year with the most risk of it) than circumcised boys. So it is a good start for the pro-circumcision folks as you could potentially reduce the risk of UTI from 100% to 10-11%.

I mean natural penises are dirty unhygienic things that are hard to clean properly according to those folks so the rate of UTI in natural boys has got to be close to 100%... or not. It seems that those dirty unhygienic penises only get UTI in about 1.5-2% of cases. So natural penises appear to be about 1.8% more dirty in a meaning ful way (the way that leads to diseases) than circumcised boys.

In other word, to prevent less than two kids from having a UTI you need to operated on 98 kids needlessly (or at least needlessly early). And that's for the one thing that might remotely justify not waiting for the kid to grow up and choose himself.

2. By the time a kid is old enough to think about becoming sexually active he also is old enough to talk and think and generally be able to give his consent to the procedure (though at that age it should be both him and his parents giving their consent, at least until he reaches majority) so there is zero reason to perform routine prepubescent circumcision for this possible benefit.

3. Circumcision might reduce your risk of penile cancer. The reason for the "might" being that penile cancer is so bloody rare that some studies find some incidence while other don't. So how rare is it? In the heavily circumcised United states, about 0.001% of men develop penile cancer, but of course in heavily natural countries like Japan , Norway and Sweden the rate is a much higher 0.001% oops. While the rate is almost certainly not exactly the same, the difference is statistically insignificant; bragging that circumcision is better than the lack of it for penile cancer would be like bragging that the PS3 was more powerful than the 360 if the PS3 was 0.001% more powerful. Maybe technically true but totally stupid.

So for lowering penile cancer rate in older men one older man we would have to perform surgery on 99,999 non-consenting infants.

 

In conclusion, are there potential benefits to circumcision? Yes! Are those benefit significant enough to justify the routine surgery of millions of people every year without their consent? Not even remotely.

 

 

"Parents, who are religious, want it for their kids and that`s something that should be at least respected since what they are doing to their kids is no different than it would be done by themselves"
With themselves, i meant the kids. As in the result would be the same. I didn`t say the decision should be left to the kids. All i said is that i don`t see a problem in having the parents decide that.

"What if the situation was reversed and the infant had a disease that could cripple him or kill him but the parents's faith was that they should not seek medical help but put their faith in their god to heal their child? Those parents are doing what they think is best for their kid so should we let them take that decision for him/her or should we act on the basis that their action (or inaction) is harmful to the child and that the child should be protected from it?"
It`s not really a reversed situation. It`s a different one. No one`s life is in danger and no body is in danger of being crippled.

You know, not only religious people enforce a vision of the world, as they aren`t the only ones to put their kids through surgery.
Second, i honestly don`t think seeing statistics is the best way to evaluate the idea of having the operation or not. If you know that there is a risk, no matter how small it is, you either decide to do or not, based solely on the existence of such risk and consequences. Leaving it to chance might not be the best option.

You say enforce religion, like other don`t "share" with their kids - whatever is the issue - their vision of the world. Everytime a parent raises a kid he is "enforcing" his ways onto the son. Being religious just gives you another mindset, if you will, for the same practice.