Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Lithrael]

Once again, it seems a touch uncivil to refer to me as a member of "the mutilation fan club" or to claim that I am preoocupied with the subject.

Agreed; I wish we could keep hyperbole out of it.

In fact, this forum has caused me to change my opinion. I now believe children should not be routinely circumcised based on general medical reasons.

I would, of course, still circumcise my children and I support the ability of parents to make that choice. Please don't ascribe to me beliefs which I do not hold.

A reasoned conclusion at least. I'm not part of the 'absolute morality' crowd so though I wish your judgement call were different, I'm not inclined to jump any further down your throat for making it than the thread in general has already done.

I am aware of the vitriol some Jewish people pour all over the idea of a fellow Jewish person choosing not to circumcise their own sons. I know you can't come to any conclusions regarding reasonable people's opinions based on blog comments anyway, but from the few Jewish blogs I've read, it's one of the subjects that really brings the emotional hate out of the woodwork. You might as well write a blog article about how you're hoping all your children will marry Gentiles and never learn any Hebrew.

 

[The Big Dog]

Quoted here because 16.5 "missed" it the last time he replied.

"Basic application of the scientific method would require that you compare circumcised v.s non-circularized in the same population so as to isolate the variable being tested as much as possible. Why don't you do that?"

Quoted here because when you thanked spin for his "patience" in posting you missed the fact that he had "missed" it four or five times.

Why don't you have a go? I'll continue to have "patience"

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Because context matters.

Oh, don't bring up context. I brought that up pages ago, and 16.5 mocked me as though it was a foreign concept. and then proceeded to move his personal goalposts to a distant country.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

In fact, this forum has caused me to change my opinion. I now believe children should not be routinely circumcised based on general medical reasons.

I would, of course, still circumcise my children and I support the ability of parents to make that choice. Please don't ascribe to me beliefs which I do not hold.

Perhaps it's the way you phrased it, but I don't understand how this makes sense. If you believe children should not be routinely circumcised based on general medical reasons, yet would still circumcise your children, on what basis would you circumcise them?

And, also, do you accept that there is a small loss of sexual pleasure for the male, and a larger loss of sexual pleasure for the female, after male circumcision?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Oh, don't bring up context. I brought that up pages ago, and 16.5 mocked me as though it was a foreign concept. and then proceeded to move his personal goalposts to a distant country.

Debating magically becomes very, very easy once you decide you can just make up your own rules. Like when he refused to address my analogy on clitoris foreskin (or is it called clitoral hood or something in English) removal because, "oh, you posted it, so it's not my burden".

eta

I am aware of the vitriol some Jewish people pour all over the idea of a fellow Jewish person choosing not to circumcise their own sons. I know you can't come to any conclusions regarding reasonable people's opinions based on blog comments anyway, but from the few Jewish blogs I've read, it's one of the subjects that really brings the emotional hate out of the woodwork. You might as well write a blog article about how you're hoping all your children will marry Gentiles and never learn any Hebrew.

Is it a matter of political context or something? Like, "if you think or do x, you must also think y and z", akin to how alternative people tend to get angry with you if you point out that some treatment doesn't work, because to them you're attacking their entire belief system?

 

[Loss Leader]

Perhaps it's the way you phrased it, but I don't understand how this makes sense. If you believe children should not be routinely circumcised based on general medical reasons, yet would still circumcise your children, on what basis would you circumcise them?

Religious/Social reasons.

And, also, do you accept that there is a small loss of sexual pleasure for the male, and a larger loss of sexual pleasure for the female, after male circumcision?

I do not accept that there is any of sexual pleasure for the male who wa neonatally circumcised. I have heard that there might be evidence of loss of sexual pleasure for the person's partner. I will look into that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Religious/Social reasons.

What are the social reasons?

I do not accept that there is any of sexual pleasure for the male who wa neonatally circumcised.

Then do you believe that the foreskin has no nerve endings? Or that it is impossible to touch the foreskin with any part of the anatomy in a way which is pleasurable?

I have heard that there might be evidence of loss of sexual pleasure for the person's partner. I will look into that.

Reseach was posted a page or two back.

 

[The Big Dog]

Debating magically becomes very, very easy once you decide you can just make up your own rules. Like when he refused to address my analogy on clitoris foreskin (or is it called clitoral hood or something in English) removal because, "oh, you posted it, so it's not my burden".

Yes debating magically is quite easy when you ignore basic concepts of logic like "burden of proof" "shifting goal posts" "slippery slope" and "false analogy."

All of which you have demonstrated.

Here is the question I posed to you when you last posted:

"Basic application of the scientific method would require that you compare circumcised v.s non-circumscized in the same population so as to isolate the variable being tested as much as possible. Why don't you do that?"

Why don't you magic up an answer to that?

 

[ddt]

Yes debating magically is quite easy when you ignore basic concepts of logic like "burden of proof" "shifting goal posts" "slippery slope" and "false analogy."

All of which you have demonstrated.

Here is the question I posed to you when you last posted:

"Basic application of the scientific method would require that you compare circumcised v.s non-circumscized in the same population so as to isolate the variable being tested as much as possible. Why don't you do that?"

Why don't you magic up an answer to that?

Why don't you read the reactions you get to your request?

First of all, THOSE STUDIES DON'T EXIST. Apparently, the (American) mutilate-all-boys fan club does not find such a study relevant. Or they fear it doesn't give the desired result.

Secondly, have you thought through the consequence of this claim? Suppose such a study would indeed reveal that circumcision protects against UTIs with a factor 10 (that's the boldest claim). Then if we put
a = risk for an American uncircumcised boy to get UTI
f = risk for a Finnish uncircumcised boy to get UTI
and if we further note that approx. 79% of American boys are circumcised, and no Finnish boys, and the incidence of UTIs is equal in both countries, this then gives the equation

0.79 / 10 * [I]a[/I] + 0.21 * [I]a[/I] = [I]f[/I]

and if we normalize, this results in

[I]a[/I] = 3.5 * [I]f[/I]

Americans have an 3.5 times higher risk than Finns to get UTI? The only possible conclusion then is that Americans are filthy barbarians, with no sense of hygiene, who routinely smear feces on their willy (the main cause, 80-85%, of UTI is E. coli).

Third, it is irrelevant, as the AAP report implicitly admits. I cite (again) from the article Cultural Bias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision by Morten Frisch, Yves Aigrain, Vidmantas Barauskas, Ragnar Bjarnason, Su-Anna Boddy, Piotr Czauderna, Robert P.E. de Gier, Tom P.V.M. de Jong, Günter Fasching, Willem Fetter, Manfred Gahr, Christian Graugaard, Gorm Greisen, Anna Gunnarsdottir, Wolfram Hartmann, Petr Havranek, Rowena Hitchcock, Simon Huddart, Staffan Janson, Poul Jaszczak, Christoph Kupferschmid, Tuija Lahdes-Vasama, Harry Lindahl, Noni MacDonald, Trond Markestad, Matis Märtson, Solveig Marianne Nordhov, Heikki Pälve, Aigars Petersons, Feargal Quinn, Niels Qvist, Thrainn Rosmundsson, Harri Saxen, Olle Söder, Maximilian Stehr, Volker C.H. von Loewenich, Johan Wallander and Rene Wijnen as published in Pediatrics:

UTI incidence does not seem to be lower in the United States, with high circumcision rates compared with Europe with low circumcision rates, and the AAP report suggests it will take ∼100 circumcisions to prevent 1 case of UTI. Using reasonable European estimates cited in the AAP report for the frequency of surgical and postoperative complications (∼2%), for every 100 circumcisions, 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of hemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death.

Note that all the numbers cited here come from the AAP report itself. The AAP report itself claims that for 100 boys circumcised, 1 will be prevented from having an UTI. And the AAP report itself claims that for 100 boys circumcised, 2 will have postoperative complications.

The conclusion is crystal clear: general circumcision is throwing away the baby with the bathwater. In order to prevent a treatable annoyance with 1 boy, 100 will have to undergo surgery and 2 of those will suffer more from the surgery.

 

[Agatha]

Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision

I'm quoting you, ddt, because it appears that 16.5 has you on ignore.

Why don't you read the reactions you get to your request?

First of all, THOSE STUDIES DON'T EXIST. Apparently, the (American) mutilate-all-boys fan club does not find such a study relevant. Or they fear it doesn't give the desired result.

Secondly, have you thought through the consequence of this claim? Suppose such a study would indeed reveal that circumcision protects against UTIs with a factor 10 (that's the boldest claim). Then if we put
a = risk for an American uncircumcised boy to get UTI
f = risk for a Finnish uncircumcised boy to get UTI
and if we further note that approx. 79% of American boys are circumcised, and no Finnish boys, and the incidence of UTIs is equal in both countries, this then gives the equation

0.79 / 10 * [I]a[/I] + 0.21 * [I]a[/I] = [I]f[/I]

and if we normalize, this results in

[I]a[/I] = 3.5 * [I]f[/I]

Americans have an 3.5 times higher risk than Finns to get UTI? The only possible conclusion then is that Americans are filthy barbarians, with no sense of hygiene, who routinely smear feces on their willy (the main cause, 80-85%, of UTI is E. coli).

Third, it is irrelevant, as the AAP report implicitly admits. I cite (again) from the article Cultural Bias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision by Morten Frisch, Yves Aigrain, Vidmantas Barauskas, Ragnar Bjarnason, Su-Anna Boddy, Piotr Czauderna, Robert P.E. de Gier, Tom P.V.M. de Jong, Günter Fasching, Willem Fetter, Manfred Gahr, Christian Graugaard, Gorm Greisen, Anna Gunnarsdottir, Wolfram Hartmann, Petr Havranek, Rowena Hitchcock, Simon Huddart, Staffan Janson, Poul Jaszczak, Christoph Kupferschmid, Tuija Lahdes-Vasama, Harry Lindahl, Noni MacDonald, Trond Markestad, Matis Märtson, Solveig Marianne Nordhov, Heikki Pälve, Aigars Petersons, Feargal Quinn, Niels Qvist, Thrainn Rosmundsson, Harri Saxen, Olle Söder, Maximilian Stehr, Volker C.H. von Loewenich, Johan Wallander and Rene Wijnen as published in Pediatrics:

UTI incidence does not seem to be lower in the United States, with high circumcision rates compared with Europe with low circumcision rates, and the AAP report suggests it will take ∼100 circumcisions to prevent 1 case of UTI. Using reasonable European estimates cited in the AAP report for the frequency of surgical and postoperative complications (∼2%), for every 100 circumcisions, 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of hemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death.

Note that all the numbers cited here come from the AAP report itself. The AAP report itself claims that for 100 boys circumcised, 1 will be prevented from having an UTI. And the AAP report itself claims that for 100 boys circumcised, 2 will have postoperative complications.

The conclusion is crystal clear: general circumcision is throwing away the baby with the bathwater. In order to prevent a treatable annoyance with 1 boy, 100 will have to undergo surgery and 2 of those will suffer more from the surgery.

 

[The Norseman]

The only possible conclusion then is that Americans are filthy barbarians, with no sense of hygiene

The sauna and public bathing (along with public nudity being acceptable in certain circumstances) probably go a long way toward culturally enforcing cleanliness. Which we Americans sadly lack.

 

[ddt]

I'm quoting you, ddt, because it appears that 16.5 has you on ignore.

Thanks.

The sauna and public bathing (along with public nudity being acceptable in certain circumstances) probably go a long way toward culturally enforcing cleanliness. Which we Americans sadly lack.

That sauna and public bathing are typical to Finland (and maybe a few other northern countries). But you can essentially repeat the same exercise with any other (continental) European country and yield the same result.

ETA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinary_tract_infection#Pathogenesis:

The bacteria that cause urinary tract infections typically enter the bladder via the urethra. However, infection may also occur via the blood or lymph. It is believed that the bacteria are usually transmitted to the urethra from the bowel, with females at greater risk due to their anatomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli#Role_in_disease:

UPEC (uropathogenic E. coli) is one of the main causes of urinary tract infections. It is part of the normal flora in the gut and can be introduced many ways. In particular for females, the direction of wiping after defecation (wiping back to front) can lead to fecal contamination of the urogenital orifices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogenic_Escherichia_coli#Urinary_tract_infection:

Uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC) is responsible for approximately 90% of urinary tract infections (UTI) seen in individuals with ordinary anatomy.[11] In ascending infections, fecal bacteria colonize the urethra and spread up the urinary tract to the bladder as well as to the kidneys (causing pyelonephritis),[35] or the prostate in males. Because women have a shorter urethra than men, they are 14 times more likely to suffer from an ascending UTI.

There must be something really wrong with American potty training if their boys have a 3.5 times higher incidence of UTI than European boys.

But it wasn't my aim to argue that Americans really are filthy, but rather to show that keeping up these silly claims leads to very undesirable and embarrassing conclusions, as I also did before with the HIV incidence (and that incidence - 5 to 6 times higher than in Europe - is already embarrassing for the USA). But it seems that the mutilate-all-boys-at-all-costs fan club really really wants to rationalize their mutilation tradition even if it means that their claims imply that the sole superpower in the world is a third-world country when it comes to basic social issues.

 

[sadhatter]

I believe I have explained my position adequately. Thanks!

Humor me then, i beg. I can't seem to find a clear concise statement on where your line is, that may very well be due to a fault on my part. So please as a favor to someone who had trouble sorting through the pages, state clearly and concisely where your line for body modification is.

 

[One Tenth]

clitoris foreskin (or is it called clitoral hood or something in English)

It's generally referred to as the clitoral hood or clitoral prepuce.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm quoting you, ddt, because it appears that 16.5 has you on ignore.

Lolz. You quoted that nonsense?

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes debating magically is quite easy when you ignore basic concepts of logic like "burden of proof" "shifting goal posts" "slippery slope" and "false analogy."

All of which you have demonstrated.

Here is the question I posed to you when you last posted:

"Basic application of the scientific method would require that you compare circumcised v.s non-circumscized in the same population so as to isolate the variable being tested as much as possible. Why don't you do that?"

Why don't you magic up an answer to that?

Bump! Come on. Anyone gonna address this?

 

[Wildy]

Because the data you need to do what you ask is unavailable. At best you can only get theoretical calculations like the one ddt did that you called "nonsense". If it's nonsense then can you explain to us what makes it nonsense? Or is it simply because it goes against your own views on the issue?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Bump! Come on. Anyone gonna address this?

I guess you really must have ddt on ignore, given the number of times he's specifically answered your question.

 

[The Big Dog]

Because the data you need to do what you ask is unavailable. At best you can only get theoretical calculations like the one ddt did that you called "nonsense". If it's nonsense then can you explain to us what makes it nonsense? Or is it simply because it goes against your own views on the issue?

The data is unavailable?

The data is utterly OVERWHELMING!

http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/09/study-uncircumcised-boys-have-a-higher-risk-of-uti/


That is why this thread has been infested with worthless comparisons between Finland and the USA, etc
There is absolutely no dispute whatsoever that circumcised males have a substantially lower incidence of UTI solely as the result of the medical procedure. It is not even questionable.

 

[zooterkin]

The data is unavailable?

The data is utterly OVERWHELMING!

You must be using your own personal definition of that word.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/09/study-uncircumcised-boys-have-a-higher-risk-of-uti/

That's a media report, not a paper. It would be interesting to know what that paper actually says, and what the methodology was. Even if it says what the report claims it does, that's still one paper, hardly overwhelming, sorry, utterly OVERWHELMING.

That is why this thread has been infested with worthless comparisons between Finland and the USA, etc
There is absolutely no dispute whatsoever that circumcised males have a substantially lower incidence of UTI solely as the result of the medical procedure. It is not even questionable.

Nice argument by assertion.