Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[The Big Dog]

So that's a yes for it being fine to cut off your infants' toes, then.

The argument of "SO"?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

 

[spin0]

Anything on cancer?

I already asked about the relevant figures over here as colander claimed to "have access to a type of knowledge about this issue that most Europeans don't get a chance to cultivate". Never got any form of an answer from him. But as you're from the US perhaps you can demonstrate your superiority in access to knowledge and enlighten me regarding those questions.

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

Yes, I've read that. My point was that your claimed medical benefits are actually not that well established, and that believing so may be even dangerous. And I've also read the three studies in question, which are far from "compelling" with methodological errors and what not. Those shortcomings have been already pointed out multiple times in related threads, and I'm not going to derail this thread further with that because:

It is not relevant to the topic of the thread. There's no evidence that genital mutilation of infants and children would reduce HIV or any other STI infection rate in the Nordic countries, and considering the sexual habits of infants and children that would not even make sense.

Seems like one should consult their medical professional, agree?

By all means you in the US go ahead and consult anyone you like to look for justification for anything you ever might want to do over there, and godspeed.

Meanwhile the relevant Nordic medical professionals and medical associations are opposed to non-therapeutic infant circumcision because there are no health-related reasons to circumcise infants or young boys in the Nordic countries, it inflicts unnecessary harm and has risks of complications, is against medical ethics, and it violates childrens right to bodily integrity.

In a related note the vast majority of the medical organizations in the industrialized world are opposed to non-therapeutic infant circumcision, including but not limited to:
The Canadian Pediatric Society,
Royal Australasian College of Physicians,
British Medical Association,
Royal Dutch Medical Society,
The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,
The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,
The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,
The Netherlands Urology Association,
The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association,
Royal College of Surgeons of England,
Swedish Pediatric Society,
Swedish Society of Medicine,
Swedish Society of Health Professionals,
Swedish Association of Pediatric Surgeons,
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia,
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons,
Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons,
Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations,
Australian Medical Association,
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan,
Saskatchewan Medical Association,
Norwegian Medical Association,
Norwegian Nurses Organization,
Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo,
Norwegian Council for Medical Ethics,
Finnish Medical Association,
Finnish Medical Society Duodecim,
German Association of Pediatricians,
British Association of Pediatric Urologists,
German Society for Pediatric Surgery,
French National Council on AIDS,
German Association of Child & Youth Doctors,
as well as Nordic associations of pediatricians and pediatric surgeons, Nordic associations for the welfare of children, and the Nordic ombudsmen for children.

 

[The Big Dog]

It is not relevant to the topic of the thread. There's no evidence that genital mutilation of infants and children would reduce HIV or any other STI infection rate in the Nordic countries, and considering the sexual habits of infants and children that would not even make sense.

....

In a related note the vast majority of the medical organizations in the industrialized world are opposed to non-therapeutic infant circumcision, including but not limited to:
The Canadian Pediatric Society,
snip....

What a curious argument, you claim that the UN's analysis is not relevant to "Nordic" countries but then spin out a list of Non-nordic entities. Perhaps you should be searching for consistency. In addition, rather than cutting and pasting from circumcisionrestoration dot com or wherever you got that list, next time just link it. JREF frowns on copy pasta like that.

In addition, the studies also said that the efficacy of infant circumcision on combating STD/Cancer is many times greater than when done as an adult. So the lack of "sexual activity" by infants is as wrong as it is bizarre.

Anyway, godspeed to your authoritarian attempts to impose governmental authority on private medical decisions over there in the "Nordic countries."

 

[spin0]

What a curious argument, you claim that the UN's analysis is not relevant to "Nordic" countries

That is also the position of the relevant Nordic medical professionals and medical associations. It also makes sense.

but then spin out a list of Non-nordic entities.

What I actually wrote:
Meanwhile the relevant Nordic medical professionals and medical associations are opposed to non-therapeutic infant circumcision because there are no health-related reasons to circumcise infants or young boys in the Nordic countries, it inflicts unnecessary harm and has risks of complications, is against medical ethics, and it violates childrens right to bodily integrity.

Perhaps you should be searching for consistency. In addition, rather than cutting and pasting from circumcisionrestoration dot com or wherever you got that list, next time just link it. JREF frowns on copy pasta like that.

What a silly argument. In fact it's not an argument at all, just an empty accusation without relevance.

In addition, the studies also said that the efficacy of infant circumcision on combating STD/Cancer is many times greater than when done as an adult. So the lack of "sexual activity" by infants is as wrong as it is bizarre.

Anyway, godspeed to your authoritarian attempts to impose governmental authority on private medical decisions over there in the "Nordic countries."

Thanks.

 

[luchog]

It has been pretty well established that circumcision has distinct medical benefits in the avoidance of penile cancer and preventing the spread of STDs and HIV.

Continually claiming that doesn't make it true. In fact, such benefits have yet to be established conclusively, or demonstrated to be significant enough to justify the procedure for infants. Adults can make whatever choices they want for themselves, based on whatever criteria they find convincing. There is no compelling argument that this needs to be inflicted on anyone without their consent, because any argument that can justify it for infants can also justify making it mandatory for adults.

BTW, do countries that do not perform routine infant circumcision (eg, most of Europe) have higher rates of AIDS or penile cancer than those that do (eg. the US)? Has anyone done this comparison?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The argument of "SO"?

I don't know what that means.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

[/quote]

The term you're looking for is "reductio ad absurdum".

 

[The Big Dog]

Continually claiming that doesn't make it true. In fact, such benefits have yet to be established conclusively, or demonstrated to be significant enough to justify the procedure.

The studies showing that have been linked in this very thread, several times.

I assume that what you are saying, therefore, is that they have not been "established conclusively, or demonstrated to be significant enough to justify the procedure" to you.

I get that! I don't care.

The last thing we need is authoritarians enacting more governmental regulation regarding private medical decisions, let alone banning medical procedures.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't know what that means.

The term you're looking for is "reductio ad absurdum".[/QUOTE]

No actually it is not. 99 times out of 100, when an "argument" starts out with "so" what invariably follows is a strawman characterization of your opponents' position.

 

[The Big Dog]

Nvm, completely unworthy of response.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

This paper which is pro-circumcision says that despite penile cancer being much higher in the non-circumcised, rates of penile cancer are still sliightly lower in Denmark (with a 2% circumcision rate) than they are in the US. So obviously there are other factors that also have a huge influence - good hygiene and socio-econimic status for example. The HPV vaccine will probably also have an effect on rates.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/au/2011/812368/

My opinion of the matter is that given even only small risks, routine circumcision is not justified to reduce the incidence of what is a rare cancer in the western world (similar in incidence to male breast cancer, I believe) - the NNT must be huge. I would consider it as a targetted procedure for individuals with a strong family history of the disease, but not recommend it as routine.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

The studies showing that have been linked in this very thread, several times.I assume that what you are saying, therefore, is that they have not been "established conclusively, or demonstrated to be significant enough to justify the procedure" to you.

I get that! I don't care.

The last thing we need is authoritarians enacting more governmental regulation regarding private medical decisions, let alone banning medical procedures.

No, links to unnamed authors citing other unnamed studies have been seen.

Thanks for saying "I don't care." We already knew that, but it's nice to see you admit that.

Maintain a consistent theme. Either it's a medical decision (in which case you defend it with science, rather than "copypasta" that you derided yourself) or it's a religious decision, in which case other religious practices being banned become relevant.

 

[Tolls]

BTW, do countries that do not perform routine infant circumcision (eg, most of Europe) have higher rates of AIDS or penile cancer than those that do (eg. the US)? Has anyone done this comparison?

There's AIDs rates on wiki.
Don't know about the cancer ones.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

99 times out of 100, when an "argument" starts out with "so" what invariably follows is a strawman characterization of your opponents' position.

Perhaps. In this case, I asked a question, got an answer in the affirmative, and then re-stated what the original question was.

Look it up. The posts are a matter of public record.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Perhaps. In this case, I asked a question, got an answer in the affirmative, and then re-stated what the original question was.

Look it up. The posts are a matter of public record.

Don't bother, Squeegee. The next goalpost will be in the next county.

 

[luchog]

Since Jewish and Muslim men are predominantly circumcised, Loss Leader is entirely appropriate in pointing it out if Jewish and Muslim populations don't seem to have these problems one might expect if they believed circumcision is as harmful as claimed.

ftfy.

 

[The Big Dog]

This paper which is pro-circumcision says that despite penile cancer being much higher in the non-circumcised, rates of penile cancer are still sliightly lower in Denmark (with a 2% circumcision rate) than they are in the US. So obviously there are other factors that also have a huge influence - good hygiene and socio-econimic status for example. The HPV vaccine will probably also have an effect on rates.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/au/2011/812368/

They are comparing rates on cancer in uncircumcised men. The report notes that not only does circumcision virtually abolish penile cancer, in the USA and in Denmark, it also has a strong protective effect on women partners in terms of cervical cancer.

"Given that adverse consequences of medical male circumcision, especially when performed in infancy, are rare, this simple prophylactic procedure should be promoted."

 

[rustypouch]

The argument of "SO"?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Where's the limit on how much cosmetic surgery and body modification parents should be able to perform on their children?

My limit is none, and yours seems to be more than none, but there's a limit, I hope.

I'd just like a succinct answer, rather than a vague, wishy-washy bit about tradition.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

As has already been pointed out, circumcision is (or was) common in the US. I asked my mother about it, and she said she never gave it a second thought- it was custom at the time (the 60s/70s).

Religion had little to do with it, if not nothing. I was raised Catholic.

 

[jdp]

The studies showing that have been linked in this very thread, several times.

I assume that what you are saying, therefore, is that they have not been "established conclusively, or demonstrated to be significant enough to justify the procedure" to you.I get that! I don't care.

The last thing we need is authoritarians enacting more governmental regulation regarding private medical decisions, let alone banning medical procedures.

Him and essentially most medical organizations outside the US and certian African countries with obscenely high HIV prevalence.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

The last thing we need is authoritarians enacting more governmental regulation regarding private medical decisions, let alone banning medical procedures.

There has not been one person in this thread that has argued for the banning of any medical procedures. So I doubt you will get anyone to argue for your strawman.