Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[The Big Dog]

Ah so you didn't quote the part that said "..but the benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn boys...snip" - thought I hadn't missed the primary recommendation from the article you linked to.

It would seem to be strange that you choose to use a report that is at odds with your wish for there to be routine genital mutilation of boys in the USA.

DID ANYONE MISS DARAT'S CLAIM THAT I MISSED SOMETHING IN THE ARTICLE I LINKED? ANYONE?

I also did not quote this:

"The AAP believes the health benefits are great enough that infant male circumcision should be covered by insurance, which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it."

I also never ever said this:

"It would seem to be strange that you choose to use a report that is at odds with your wish for there to be routine genital mutilation of boys in the USA."

Now that folks is the finest straw man I have ever seen. Further, let me clearly state that the fact that the AAP is now not presently recommending global circumcision in NO WAY validates the argument that it should be banned.

Wow.....

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you have any actual, peer-reviewed, replicated science to present to support your position, or just opinion articles and junk science?

FACEPALM.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is an organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults.

Opinion articles and junk science?

This thread is unbelievable.

 

[jdp]

FACEPALM.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is an organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults.

Opinion articles and junk science?

This thread is unbelievable.

Again on that matter:

Actually, it is not a straw man, because I have yet to hear what "medical reasons" justify the procedure, nor how is going to be the final authority nor who intends to enforce the standard.

Case in point, the AAP has found "medical reasons" sufficient, others perhaps not.

And it's these others, specifically the Nordic countries of Europe, who find that there is no medical reason to offer neonatal circumcision routinely and more over absent therapeutic need, it should be banned. So the relavent medical association in the specific coutnry has come to a conclusion and based on that conclusion made a policy recommmendation. What exactly is the problem?

 

[The Big Dog]

And it's these others, specifically the Nordic countries of Europe, who find that there is no medical reason to offer neonatal circumcision routinely and more over absent therapeutic need, it should be banned. So the relavent medical association in the specific coutnry has come to a conclusion and based on that conclusion made a policy recommmendation. What exactly is the problem?

"I have yet to hear what "medical reasons" justify the procedure, nor how is going to be the final authority nor who intends to enforce the standard."

I also note that the Nordic Countries seem to place a significant amount of emphasis on their judgment call between the Human Rights of the Individual v. the Human Rights of the Family in being free unwarranted governmental intrusion. this judgment call is not based in way on medical science, of course.

 

[ddt]

FACEPALM.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is an organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults.

Opinion articles and junk science?

This thread is unbelievable.

But only a handful members of the AAP compiled the report. Your 60,000 number is totally irrelevant.

 

[ddt]

"I have yet to hear what "medical reasons" justify the procedure, nor how is going to be the final authority nor who intends to enforce the standard."

I also note that the Nordic Countries seem to place a significant amount of emphasis on their judgment call between the Human Rights of the Individual v. the Human Rights of the Family in being free unwarranted governmental intrusion. this judgment call is not based in way on medical science, of course.

Any evidence for these mythical human rights of the family? There are simply human rights which apply to every individual, period. There are separate conventions for vulnerable people, such as the:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_Persons_with_Disabilities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Discrimination_Against_Women
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Racial_Discrimination
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child
These are all rights of individuals. There are no human rights for a group of people, that would also be a contradiction in terms.

ETA: and for the rest, there is no issue to be weighted. Even the AAP concedes that the medical benefits do not outweigh the medical risks by a significant margin. With no clear medical benefit, the human rights win, that's very simple.

 

[Peter May]

Ah so you didn't quote the part that said "..but the benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn boys...snip" - thought I hadn't missed the primary recommendation from the article you linked to.

It would seem to be strange that you choose to use a report that is at odds with your wish for there to be routine genital mutilation of boys in the USA.

Why is it, that members of this thread, wantonly, and with malice aforethought fail to confront that which is plainly obvious, which is, and should have been the conclusion many a post ago, that genital mutilation is a continuing obscenity, it serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to satisfy the supernatural needs of those still mired in the cultism of bronze age barbarity.



It is very important to understand the nature of what we see, and not, what we want to see.

 

[jdp]

"I have yet to hear what "medical reasons" justify the procedure, nor how is going to be the final authority nor who intends to enforce the standard."

In the first case, I have to ask, in what way does that matter regarding the topic being discussed in this thread? This recommendation relates to routine circumcision (of a minor), that is circumcision for social, cultural, or religious reasons. Not circumcision for medical reasons which would be circumcision as a prescribed treatment for a specific individual with a specific problem and set of circumstances. One potential justification that comes to mind is may be phimosis which does not respond to less invasive treatments.

I also note that the Nordic Countries seem to place a significant amount of emphasis on their judgment call between the Human Rights of the Individual v. the Human Rights of the Family in being free unwarranted governmental intrusion. this judgment call is not based in way on medical science, of course.

On what basis do you come to this conclusion? They have evaluated the evidence and found that a policy of strong deterrance leading to eventual prohibition is warrented. In what way do you disagree with their conclusion? We can start with either the Dutch recommendation or the European reply to the AAP recommendation both of which have been posted.

 

[The Big Dog]

It is very important to understand the nature of what we see, and not, what we want to see.

I'm assuming that you didn't "want" to "see" my posts outlining the very tangible medical benefits of circumcision

 

[ddt]

I'm assuming that you didn't "want" to "see" my posts outlining the very tangible medical benefits of circumcision

Does it hurt when people seem not to read your posts?

 

[Peter May]

I'm assuming that you didn't "want" to "see" my posts outlining the very tangible medical benefits of circumcision

Why is it, that members of this thread, including you,wantonly, and with malice aforethought fail to confront that which is plainly obvious, which is, and should have been the conclusion many post ago, that genital mutilation is a continuing obscenity, it serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to satisfy the supernatural needs of those still mired in the cultism of bronze age barbarity.

 

[Peter May]

I'm assuming that you didn't "want" to "see" my posts outlining the very tangible medical benefits of circumcision

No, sorry, but you can still keep taking flakes off the flint I imagine.

 

[The Big Dog]

In the first case, I have to ask, in what way does that matter regarding the topic being discussed in this thread? This recommendation relates to routine circumcision (of a minor), that is circumcision for social, cultural, or religious reasons. Not circumcision for medical reasons which would be circumcision as a prescribed treatment for a specific individual with a specific problem and set of circumstances. One potential justification that comes to mind is may be phimosis which does not respond to less invasive treatments.

Ok, I want my kid circumcised because after discussing it with our doctor we have concluded that it is prudent because it "lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life," and is much more efficacious when done early in life.

Is this ok, or not?

 

[The Big Dog]

No, sorry.

OK cool.

I'll look forward to the rest of your posts.

 

[Peter May]

OK cool.

I'll look forward to the rest of your posts.

I can only repeat what I have already written, by the way are you still
knocking off flakes of flint.


Why is it, that members of this thread, including you,wantonly, and with malice aforethought fail to confront that which is plainly obvious, which is, and should have been the conclusion many post ago, that genital mutilation is a continuing obscenity, it serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to satisfy the supernatural needs of those still mired in the cultism of bronze age barbarity

 

[The Big Dog]

I can only repeat what I have already written,

I'll bet you will! You certainly won't have to read any medical evidence or anything.

 

[jdp]

Ok, I want my kid circumcised because after discussing it with our doctor we have concluded that it is prudent because it "lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life," and is much more efficacious when done early in life.

Is this ok, or not?

I am sorry Mr. 16.5, according to our pediatric specialist at the KNMG and similar European agencies, we have determined that the risks of routine circumcision don't out weigh the benefits. That's why here in Europe such a procedure is not performed outside of therapuetic need and has recently been banned.

Feel free to read our review of the matter.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am sorry Mr. 16.5, according to our pediatric specialist at the KNMG and similar European agencies, we have determined that the risks of routine circumcision don't out weigh the benefits. That's why here in Europe such a procedure is not performed outside of therapuetic need and has recently been banned.

Feel free to read our review of the matter.

Wow. THANKS for the heads up about the draconian legislation, I'll talk to the wife and make sure that we get that abortion right away.

Oh by the way, you might want to give your pediatric specialist at the KNMG and similar European agencies a heads up about antibiotic resistant UTIs given how cavalier they are with concluding how treatable they are.

 

[jdp]

Wow. THANKS for the heads up about the draconian legislation, I'll talk to the wife and make sure that we get that abortion right away.

How is it draconian any more than banning FGM?

And I should add, that your most recent question doesn't address the matter at hand. That is that European pediatric organizations discussed here have seen fit to strongly discourage and even to the point of prohibiting routine circumcision of minors. If their professionals have come to the conclusion that routine MGM like routine FGM should be prohibited what exactly is the problem? Why is their evaluation of the evidence less acceptable than the AAP's which you keep producing?

 

[Peter May]

I'll bet you will! You certainly won't have to read any medical evidence or anything.

Nope, but tell me, and forgive me for being obtuse, when the unwanted bits of your loved ones anatomy have been removed, does the high priest inter them discreetly, or do you just dump them with the rest of the rubbish/trash, or garbage.