Circumcision

[fls]

Not my style, sorry. While I occasionally tease people I do my best not to ******* them.

Not mine, either. But I notice that it did not seem to hold you back from presenting one-sided information further down in this post.

I think that is a harsh and unjustified reaction. I had stated in an earlier post that if I was faced with a decision on whether or not to have my hypothetical son circumcised, I would feel compelled to do furthur research based on the information that has been discussed in this thread.

I didn't intend it to be harsh. I wasn't talking about how you would research information for yourself, but how you could go about getting people off your back. If you want to present the case against circumcision to others, it makes sense to look at articles that do just that to simplify your information gathering. It would take a lot more work to look at all the information and pick out those pieces yourself. And you did say that you were going to look at the citations in the article (the one you were told was highly biased and unrepresentative) and use them if they held up. If you were really interested in all the information, why just use citations from an anti article?

It seems to me that the main difference of opinion among the people posting in this thread so far is how painful the procedure is to the baby and whether it has long term adverse affects.

If I understand the other side correctly, some feel that a male circumsicion performed on an 8 day or younger baby is of no more consequence than of a teenager getting their ears pierced. However, I've read several articles (with footnotes) that points to evidence including raised plasma cortisol levels and heart beats showing that this is simply not so -- that the baby feels a great deal of pain. That in fact, at such a young age they feel more pain than an adult would undergoing the same procedure. There was at least one study that claimed that undergoing so much pain at an early stage in life leaves a permanent change in the nervous system that results in circumcised boys feeling more pain than uncircumcised boys do from the same pain stimulus years later. The example studied was when both groups of boys were receiving vacinations.

Either the scientists that performed these studies have a history of doing repeatable work or they don't. Either the conclusions have been verified or they have not.

How could one possibly be opposed to looking for more information to finding this out?

I don't think anyone would. I notice that your summary of the research comparing the groups of kids that were vaccinated is one-sided. For example, you did not mention that the children circumcised with EMLA cream did not have a significantly different response to pain from the uncircumcised group (although there was a trend). It's misleading to say "years later" when that conclusion cannot be supported by the study. You did not mention that heart rate and cortisol responses are reduced by measures taken during circumcision like positioning on a padded comfortable surface, pacifiers dipped in sucrose, use of anaesthetic.

If anyone has found studies that claim that babies nervous systems are too immature to feel the pain, or that the pain is very minimal please feel free to provide the links. I don't believe that there has been any links to studies showing these conclusions in this thread. At this point I don't know if any studies showing these conclusions exist.

I don't think anyone has argued that measures shouldn't be taken to reduce pain if circumcision is to be done.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I don't think anyone has argued that measures shouldn't be taken to reduce pain if circumcision is to be done.

Linda

There is this Jewish chap in the thread who doesn't appear to be pushing for anesthetic. Any comment, Linda?

Nah, I didn't think so.

And is this finally proof for the efficacy of homeopathy? Sugar and water having a significant clinical effect on human pain perception?

 

[fls]

A simple 'Correct', followed by your qualification, would have seemed more accurate to me!

Well, further questioning showed that "correct" would have been the wrong answer. But other than that, yeah.

Linda

 

[Kaylee]

Not mine, either. But I notice that it did not seem to hold you back from presenting one-sided information further down in this post.

I presented the information I found and I provided links with citations.

I didn't intend it to be harsh. I wasn't talking about how you would research information for yourself, but how you could go about getting people off your back.

I read over my previous posts and I suppose you could have interpreted them that way.

Here's where I'm coming from. I grew up culturally Jewish and always had the bris presented to me as something that was beneficial to the baby boy, both for health and religious reasons, and that the infant's nervous system was too immature to feel any pain beyond a scratch.

Then I read several articles that refer to studies showing that circumcision does not provide any health benefits for most males and that its a very painful procedure for infants. That in fact a circumcision is even more painful for infants than for adults. A complete reversal of everything that has been presented to me "the truth" (TM).

I have not seen any articles that prove that most males would receive health benefits by getting circumcised (with one exception -- reduce the possibility of getting AIDS for those who won't use condoms while having causual sex) or that circumcision is not painful for infants.

If you want to present the case against circumcision to others, it makes sense to look at articles that do just that to simplify your information gathering. It would take a lot more work to look at all the information and pick out those pieces yourself.

I believe you are implying that I am picking a side and than looking to cherry pick whatever I can find to back it up. On the contrary -- I had started off being pro male circumcison based on the information I was given while growing up. This thread and similar information has caused me to change my position, tentatively, based entirely on the arguments that I've seen so far.

However I say tentatively because I don't consider the information that I've been able to find on the web and in this thread to be of the same caliber as the type of information I would get if I took 20 hours off to do the type of research that I've described in earlier posts, in a research library.

And IF I were in a situation where I really had to decide if my son was going to have a bris, I would do a lot more research before I made a decision. If I chose to have the bris I run the risk of hurting my hypothetical son. If I chose not to have the bris I would be virtually slapping the faces of my relatives and friends and creating a lot of problems for myself. However, I would be willing to do that IF I was truly convinced that having a bris would not be in my son's best interest. Again to make that kind of decision, I would need to spend time in a research library (or hire someone to do the research for me) -- I would not rely on the type of information that I'm normally limited to on the internet -- I don't have access to medical or specialized research databases. I can't confirm or reject the information I've encountered so far with the type of access I normally have available to me.

I would use the internet to help me decide what type of bike to buy or some other minor decisions, but to decide IRL if I would let my son have a bris -- I would hit the research libraries.

I can't explain it any clearer than that, and I'm pretty sure no one else can either.

And you did say that you were going to look at the citations in the article (the one you were told was highly biased and unrepresentative) and use them if they held up.

Again, I clearly said that if I were in the position of having a hypothetical newborn son, based on what I read so far in this thread I would find it necc. to do additional research.

If you were really interested in all the information, why just use citations from an anti article?

Because I don't have the time to take off and spend hours in a research library looking up the original studies, to see if they have been successfully repeated by any other scientists, and to also research the reputation of all the scientists involved. However, again for the 4th time (at least), if I were in the position where I had to really decide if I was going to have a bris for my son -- I would find the time.

I don't think anyone would. I notice that your summary of the research comparing the groups of kids that were vaccinated is one-sided.

I presented what I found that referred to studies.

For example, you did not mention that the children circumcised with EMLA cream did not have a significantly different response to pain from the uncircumcised group (although there was a trend). It's misleading to say "years later" when that conclusion cannot be supported by the study. You did not mention that heart rate and cortisol responses are reduced by measures taken during circumcision like positioning on a padded comfortable surface, pacifiers dipped in sucrose, use of anaesthetic.

Again I presented what I found, in this case specifically, in the first two pages of the second link in post #98. That article specifically said that
anesthesia was not found to help much -- it referred to a 1993 peer reviewed study in JAMA.

If you have links to articles with citations or to studies that present different conclusions -- that would be terrific.

I don't think anyone has argued that measures shouldn't be taken to reduce pain if circumcision is to be done.

Jewish brises to the best of my knowledge still don't use any measures other than a drop of wine on the baby's tongue. At least one person in this thread plans on giving his son a bris in the near future (LossLeader IIRC).

 

[Southwind17]

Well, further questioning showed that "correct" would have been the wrong answer. But other than that, yeah.

Linda

Sorry Linda, I'm confused. Are you for or against male cirumcision (medical justification aside)?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Can someone ask Linda why she is ignoring me? She refuses to tell me.

How can I possibly correct such a huge personality flaw if I don't know what it is?

ETA: Do it by PM if you like and relay me the answer.

 

[fls]

I presented the information I found and I provided links with citations.

I realize that. The citations you provided were to articles that were one-sided, and your descriptive summary was also one-sided (I think because you were summarizing not from the original research but from reading articles that summarized the original research in a one-sided manner). But now I see that you did not realize this when you presented the information or else you wouldn't have provided it, right?

I read over my previous posts and I suppose you could have interpreted them that way.

Here's where I'm coming from. I grew up culturally Jewish and always had the bris presented to me as something that was beneficial to the baby boy, both for health and religious reasons, and that the infant's nervous system was too immature to feel any pain beyond a scratch.

Then I read several articles that refer to studies showing that circumcision does not provide any health benefits for most males and that its a very painful procedure for infants. That in fact a circumcision is even more painful for infants than for adults. A complete reversal of everything that has been presented to me "the truth" (TM).

I have not seen any articles that prove that most males would receive health benefits by getting circumcised (with one exception -- reduce the possibility of getting AIDS for those who won't use condoms while having causual sex) or that circumcision is not painful for infants.

I believe you are implying that I am picking a side and than looking to cherry pick whatever I can find to back it up.

I misunderstood. I was under the impression that you had already decided you wouldn't have your son circumcised unless it was medically (as in physically) necessary. And since whether or not it is medically necessary isn't really controversial (in places like the US), it wasn't that you needed to find this out for yourself, but that you needed to find information to counteract what others would say - which could be called cherry picking, but could also be called directed criticism.

On the contrary -- I had started off being pro male circumcison based on the information I was given while growing up. This thread and similar information has caused me to change my position, tentatively, based entirely on the arguments that I've seen so far.

Cool.

However I say tentatively because I don't consider the information that I've been able to find on the web and in this thread to be of the same caliber as the type of information I would get if I took 20 hours off to do the type of research that I've described in earlier posts, in a research library.

And IF I were in a situation where I really had to decide if my son was going to have a bris, I would do a lot more research before I made a decision. If I chose to have the bris I run the risk of hurting my hypothetical son. If I chose not to have the bris I would be virtually slapping the faces of my relatives and friends and creating a lot of problems for myself. However, I would be willing to do that IF I was truly convinced that having a bris would not be in my son's best interest. Again to make that kind of decision, I would need to spend time in a research library (or hire someone to do the research for me) -- I would not rely on the type of information that I'm normally limited to on the internet -- I don't have access to medical or specialized research databases. I can't confirm or reject the information I've encountered so far with the type of access I normally have available to me.

I would use the internet to help me decide what type of bike to buy or some other minor decisions, but to decide IRL if I would let my son have a bris -- I would hit the research libraries.

I can't explain it any clearer than that, and I'm pretty sure no one else could either.

Again, I clearly said that if I were in the position of having a hypothetical newborn son, based on what I read so far in this thread I would find it necc. to do additional research.

Because I don't have the time to take off and spend hours in a research library looking up the original studies, to see if they have been successfully repeated by any other scientists, and to also research the reputation of all the scientists involved. However, again for the 4th time (at least), if I were in the position where I had to really decide if I was going to have a bris for my son -- I would find the time.

I presented what I found that referred to studies.


Again I presented what I found, in this case specifically, in the first two pages of the second link in post #98. That article specifically said that
anesthesia was not found to help much -- it referred to a 1993 peer reviewed study in JAMA.

If you have links to articles with citations or to studies that present different conclusions -- that would be terrific.

I think you may just be unaware of what consensus there is on this issue? Instead of researching the pros and cons yourself, I would suggest just reading the AAP position paper. It outlines all the information available and how they arrived at their conclusion that circumcision is not medicially necessary. It has links to all the information they used. I think after reading that you would be more comfortable with your decision to not circumcise your son (if you want to wait until you actually have a son so it won't be wasted effort, that's okay ). But if you still think you need more information, as least it's a good starting point.

Jewish brises to the best of my knowledge still don't use any measures other than a drop of wine on the baby's tongue. At least one person in this thread plans on giving his son a bris in the near future (LossLeader IIRC).

LossLeader already mentioned that they do use measures that have been shown to reduce the pain and stress - the natural positioning in a comfortable environment and that the procedure is much shorter. I don't if there are other measures as well. I think it would be better if they also used the EMLA cream (I don't know whether or not that is the case), but we can't say that we know it is harmful without.

Linda

 

[Lonewulf]

Why ARE you ignoring Ivor, Linda? This soap opera is getting a little tiring.

 

[fls]

Sorry Linda, I'm confused. Are you for or against male cirumcision (medical justification aside)?

Correct.

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. But any other one word answer would be just as meaningless because it would tell you nothing about my opinion on this matter. The answer is "no" or "yes" depending upon what question you are really asking. I've guessed at what that question may really be, but you've not yet clarified that for me.

How would you answer the question "are you for or against piercing infants' ears?"

Linda

 

[fls]

Why ARE you ignoring Ivor, Linda? This soap opera is getting a little tiring.

Because I have to.

If he is asking a question that you are interested in as well, then repeat it for me.

Linda

 

[Loss Leader]

Hey Loss Leader, I see you've been away for a while. You probably couldn't be bothered to trawl over what you've missed looking for relevance, so I'll help you. See posts #251, #255 and #263. Care to comment?

Sure. Here's my answer: Repeatedly calling me mentally ill is not a particularly wise tactic to take if you wanted to engage me in a polite debate. You've already chosen how you wish to approach me and I've already made my decision about what that says about you as a thinker and, really, as a person.

Because of your actions towards me, I have absolutely no interest in answering any of your hysterical and unwarranted accusations. Oh, except one:

'Every possible option'? Come now, you just need to stretch your imagination a little. How about waiting until he's old enough to be sufficiently informed to decide for himself? Oh, but no, that wouldn't do now, would it. He might just see the ludicrousness of it all and decide against it.

Properly conducted medical studies have shown that individuals who are circumcised as adults may suffer long-lasting pain, a decrease in sexual pleasure and even sexual disfunction. No such effects have been shown for people circumcised as infants. Thus, it is my duty as a parent to ensure the best interests of my child by having him circumcised as an infant so that he does not suffer these ill effects. If I did not and, as an adult, he were to decide to want to be circumcised, I could never live with myself knowing the risks that would accompany the procedure.

 

[Lonewulf]

Properly conducted medical studies have shown that individuals who are circumcised as adults may suffer long-lasting pain, a decrease in sexual pleasure and even sexual disfunction. No such effects have been shown for people circumcised as infants. Thus, it is my duty as a parent to ensure the best interests of my child by having him circumcised as an infant so that he does not suffer these ill effects. If I did not and, as an adult, he were to decide to want to be circumcised, I could never live with myself knowing the risks that would accompany the procedure.

So, because the future decision might have been painful, you just jumped ahead and assumed that he would want the procedure anyways?

I didn't know parents were psychic. Ever thought of getting the million?

 

[Loss Leader]

So, because the future decision might have been painful, you just jumped ahead and assumed that he would want the procedure anyways?

I didn't know parents were psychic. Ever thought of getting the million?

No psychic powers are required. My son is incompetent to know what he wants. I am authorized to substitute my judgment for his in his own best interests. Thus, what I want for my son is what he wants.

 

[Lonewulf]

Religious justification for circumcision of a child (split from Circumcision)

Split from: Circumcision

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

No psychic powers are required. My son is incompetent to know what he wants.

Will he be incompetent in 18 years, when he could be given a legitimate choice?

I am authorized to substitute my judgment for his in his own best interests. Thus, what I want for my son is what he wants.

Can you show how circumcision is in his "best interests", without invoking religion, please?

If you cannot, then I question your competency in making such a decision.

If you have to invoke faith, then you are choosing what religion your son will have before he's grown.

 

[Loss Leader]

Will he be incompetent in 18 years, when he could be given a legitimate choice?

I don't know, I don't care and it doesn't matter.

Can you show how circumcision is in his "best interests", without invoking religion, please?

No, I can't. And I don't need to.

You really have to come to terms with one fact which may startle you: there are many, many different opinions about how the universe works. Religious beliefs are unfalsifiable. That means that you cannot demonstrate that a belief in God is misplaced any more than I can demonstrate that a refusal to believe in God might be.

A working society does not demand that everyone agree on every religious and moral concept. In fact, the most productive societies appear to be the ones with a high tolerance for diverse opinions, beliefs and practices. This plurality of beliefs helps to constantly synthesise new and creative ideas.

So, my society takes the very broad view that it is not going to make a decision about whether anybody's beliefs or religious practices are right or wrong absent clear and convincing evidence of harm.

I think this is a good thing.

You, apparantly, do not. While I admire your single-minded perseverance in the face of overwhelming unpopularity, I do feel sorry for the extraordinarily grey, monolithic world you wish to inhabit.

If you cannot, then I question your competency in making such a decision.

Unless you are a judge or a legislator, I don't care what you question.

If you have to invoke faith, then you are choosing what religion your son will have before he's grown.

Yup.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Because I have to.

If he is asking a question that you are interested in as well, then repeat it for me.

Linda

I suppose I should have known better than to hope for a straight answer

Anyhow, since you have to ignore me, could you please not put any posts in threads I start until you do *not* have to ignore me?

Someone please quote this so Linda can see it.

 

[Henners]

Religious beliefs are unfalsifiable.

It depends exactly what they are.

Belief that circumcision is beneficial is falsifiable.

Belief that the world was created in six days is falsifiable.

Belief that our ancestral Adam and our ancestral Eve knew each other is falsifiable.

Belief that God interferes in the workings of the universe is falsifiable.

Belief that the world is going to end on Good Friday 2009 is falsifiable.

 

[Lonewulf]

I don't know, I don't care and it doesn't matter.

Okay. So you're willing to remove body parts from your child because you want to, and you don't care if he would want that or not in the long term.

Got it.

No, I can't. And I don't need to.

So you can abuse your children as long as you have religious justification. Got it.

You really have to come to terms with one fact which may startle you: there are many, many different opinions about how the universe works.

So you get to choose what religion your son must believe?

Religious beliefs are unfalsifiable. That means that you cannot demonstrate that a belief in God is misplaced any more than I can demonstrate that a refusal to believe in God might be.

Ah, yes, the whole "I can claim something is true, and because you can't prove it, it has validity" excuse.

A working society does not demand that everyone agree on every religious and moral concept.

No, but a working society agrees to certain moral precepts. For instance, it is wrong to abuse a child, spouse, or loved on, DESPITE WHETHER OR NOT THEY JUSTIFY IT WITH RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!

But I'm sure your preaching will have some effect. I'll go abuse my wife because Mohammad said I could, in the meantime.

In fact, the most productive societies appear to be the ones with a high tolerance for diverse opinions, beliefs and practices.

Unless those practices cause harm or injury to other human beings, then that harm is dealt with secularly.

This plurality of beliefs helps to constantly synthesise new and creative ideas.

I'd like to see any purely religious ideas that have actually contributed to society.

So, my society takes the very broad view that it is not going to make a decision about whether anybody's beliefs or religious practices are right or wrong absent clear and convincing evidence of harm.

Clear and convincing? People already cited studies that demonstrate that circumcision is painful, and that there is a function (no matter how slight) that is permanently removed.

I think this is a good thing.

You, apparantly, do not. While I admire your single-minded perseverance in the face of overwhelming unpopularity, I do feel sorry for the extraordinarily grey, monolithic world you wish to inhabit.

Grey monolithic world? LOL!

Unless you are a judge or a legislator, I don't care what you question.

I am a human being. I also am a citizen of the same country you talk so endearingly of. And as a human being, I have certain opinions.

One of my opinions has to do with the rights of others.

One of my opinions is that you cannot force your religion on others.

You're doing that to your child. And you don't care.

I wouldn't like to live in your world of abuse excuse.

Also, I find it interesting how you talk about about "judge" and "legislator", while entirely ignoring and not even caring about the basic core principles that founded your country.

Yup.

Ah, welcome to the mind of the theist. They chant on and on and on, ranting and raving whenever you DARE question their beliefs. They say how you can't force yourself on them...

...But here they are, inflicting pain and injury on their own children, choosing their religion ahead of time.

They don't care about choice. They don't care about "vibrancy". They don't care about anything except converting other people and choosing what religion they have to follow.

Truly disgusting how great the hypocrisy is.

 

[kellyb]

I suppose I should have known better than to hope for a straight answer

Anyhow, since you have to ignore me, could you please not put any posts in threads I start until you do *not* have to ignore me?

Someone please quote this so Linda can see it.

Quoted.

 

[Lonewulf]

I just have to say it again: Monolithic and gray? LOL! I love it when theists make insults without knowing a single thing about the person they're making insults at.

Hell, I have friends that are theists, I have one friend that's into "New Age" crap (yes, I think it's crap, we've had our debates, but we've moved on). Heck, I even moved tried to move forward with a relationship with a woman that was a devout Christian (not sure if that would have worked out in the long haul, though). One girl I was interested in was Wiccan. I have friends into scientific fields of all sorts, broadening my horizon and expanding my knowledge. I have expanded my view of the stars and viewed astronomical, geological, and evolutionary discoveries with bright eyes and wonder. I've had transhumanist and humanist ideas and debates. I have fun playing in videogames and roleplaying games that expand my imagination. I watch videos that had some of the most creative things I've ever seen.

I've read poems, I've read plays (haven't seen one for real, outside of stuff like Fiddler on the Roof and stuff like that, but that's by video), and I've listened to some of the greatest songs by Mozart, Beethoven and some of the greatest composers. I've seen artwork that dazzles my mind and still sends chills down my spine.

I have gay friends, bisexual friends, furry friends, etc.

BUT... because I don't accept the idea that someone should be able to decide that another person should worship a vengeful hateful God, SUDDENLY I have a "gray and monolithic world".

LOL!

Seriously, if you're going to insult me, please do it via something plausible, m'kay?

BTW, I love this line of argument. See, in YOUR faith, homosexuals are Bad Things (tm). If Judaism, Christianity, or Catholocism ever took over, they would prefer it if there were no such thing as homosexuals or bisexuals, as they are abominations in the eyes of God. Which I find the most amusing, because it's MY world that's "grey and monolithic", yet I'm actually in a stance to be able to not only tolerate, but completely accept such people, respect their viewpoints, and respect how they live their lives and how they choose to live it. People in your position have to overlook a few things of their own supposed faith to be able to do that.