Male Circumcision

Well, it's not like there are only random dudes on the internet that have problems with the way the results of the RCT studies.

This article summarizes the reasons for my disagreement well.

The way I read what they're actually saying is the evidence is muddled enough to justify not banning the procedure on ethical grounds. Though I think the article quoted raises the most potent objection (and one that has already been made here) that the benefits conferred are not actually conferred until well after it's possible to obtain informed consent.

 

Well, the simple answer is that they folks I was responding to seemed to be talking about one of the RCTs, not the AAP.

As for your quoted article, dude loses credibility the moment they bring up "absolute" reduction. Either the author doesn't know what they're talking about or they're being deceptive. The absolute increase in lung cancer for smokers is ridiculously small too (It's been a while since I looked, so my memory might be wrong on this). Low absolute differences often just correspond to low disease counts. From a public health standpoint the proportional decrease is almost always more relevant.

Is the AAP calling for circumcision as a viable strategy for ending AIDS? No. They're saying that credible medical research suggests that there is a protective benefit to circumcision. Which is true. You and other folks are strawmanning the AAP because you don't like the implications of its announcement.

 

'Absolute' values are not necessarily more or less important than rates. They can (admittedly) less effectively perform a similar function , but they can also provide context which is equally significant.

And I did not straw-man the AAP, I even let one of the authors speak for them in the quotes up there. I simply pointed out that not everyone agrees the evidence is credible, or at least to the extent that it is credible not as strong as indicated. It also doesn't particularly matter to me the implications because as, I pointed out with a bit I quoted above, even if I just ceded the argument,it doesn't really undermine my main objection. There still isn't any reason to do this to newborns in particular or for that matter any person without their informed consent.

 

Not everyone agrees that evidence of evolution is credible. The existence of a skeptical person willing to type up a critical missive doesn't mean all that much. As far as I can tell, AAP just rehashed what was known and added a suggestion that maybe circumcision should be covered by insurance. I didn't read their announcement too closely, so maybe I'm missing something. Assuming I'm not missing anything, then I don't see what the big fucking deal about it is.

For the record, I don't think their reasons are all that compelling and I don't plan on having any of my children cut. I can still understand the AAP's logic and that the role they play in medicine requires them to issue guidelines based on credible medical research.

 

Circumcised at 12, almost 13 yrs of age.... I do know what its like, both ways, and you loose a bit of sensitivity, but the orgasms are just as intense, and its certainly not the earth shattering loss of feeling people who , thus far, have no real world experience, are lamenting- I will take the slight disease resistance advantage, and be happy..... seriously people, its a whole world different from FGM, and not gonna ruin your kid unless there is some major accident of criminal negligence.... and thats a risk you take riding public transportation....

 

Don't rationalize shit. I can choose to be a hermit and never exit my house and claim I have some phobia or shit. Tell me if you can choose to do the same if you're newly born.

EDIT: I'm coming off as a jack ass. The purpose of the law and this thread was to establish a single fact. That is circumcision is a personal choice and should be left up to the owner of the penis.

Because of a religious, unscientific claim, the ritual of circumcision was born and stuck with us through cognitive dissonance. Circumcision should not be left in the hands of parental units that do it anyway because they don't know any better.

Circumcision is not like vaccination and it most certainly is not in the same league as grooming. Your parents cut your hair because it can grow back. Circumcision isn't reversible by any natural means and hence should be a personal choice regardless of your religion/culture.

 

These questions, relating to fundamental human rights, are the core of the issue for me. This paper explores some of them admirably.

I'd say circumcision fails on all six conditions, though if we take the recent paper by the AAP at it's word, then condition 3 goes from "Fails" to "Maybe".

 

You can reverse the ideological teachings imparted onto an infant at a young age. You can reverse thought processes and instill new ones. Negative or otherwise. Baptism, for example, isn't in the same league as circumcision. As long as there is no physical change or adverse effect (decline blood transfusion) then that is completely fine. You can choose if your child grows up muslim or catholic. That can be reversed later when they discover free thinking.

I was born catholic. I went to Sunday school. I lived in a largely christian household. I'm an atheist. There are people who convert from one religion to another. Thats just dandy.

You can't make irreversible changes to someone without their ability to consent. That's just fucked up.

 

Good job on completely missing the point.

 

Yes you've made your point before and it missed the mark then as much as the last post I quoted.

Unethical treatment of children doesn't stop being unethical just because it's minor and later on the kids claim not to mind.

 

If you look at net effect on future well being, bringing up a child in a religious household, depending heavily on the particulars of dogma, can be much worse for a person than having that person circumcized.

 

You and the others I stand in opposition to are advocating a position which gives you right to overrule the bodily integrity of another human being on the basis of nothing more that whimsy and the vagaries of birth geography and I'm the one with an arrogance problem?

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

 

Ha! You don't get to "define" unethical. It's all the small things is how it starts. It's fine to circumcise, lets pierce ears. It's fine to do that, let's do this then. While we're at it, the holy book also says women are inferior. Let's make sure they stay in the kitchen.

rogue49, if you could care less, then why don't you just stop posting then?