Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[The Big Dog]

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?

The problem is that some people would prefer keeping the government out of their Doctors' office.

"Why is their evaluation of the evidence less acceptable than the AAP's which you keep producing?" The REAL point of the matter is that you are legislating away anyone's right to choose, which is more "acceptable" and which works best for their family.

By the way, as we have discussed earlier, the fact that the Government is going to ban them is not going to stop them from happening, particularly among religious minorities.

 

[jdp]

The problem is that some people would prefer keeping the government out of their Doctors' office.

"Why is their evaluation of the evidence less acceptable than the AAP's which you keep producing?" The REAL point of the matter is that you are legislating away anyone's right to choose, which is more "acceptable" and which works best for their family.

If the relavent medical organizations such as the KNGM comes to the objective conclusion that a procedure is more harmful than not in the routine case and that a policy of deterance with the eventual goal of prohibition is important for society, why should the legislature not work to implement that policy? Again we've done that for FGM.

By the way, as we have discussed earlier, the fact that the Government is going to ban them is not going to stop them from happening, particularly among religious minorities.

That doesn't stop us for doing it for (and I am sorry for belaboring the point) FGM.

 

[The Big Dog]

If the relavent medical organizations such as the KNGM comes to the objective conclusion that a procedure is more harmful than not in the routine case and that a policy of deterance with the eventual goal of prohibition is important for society, why should the legislature not work to implement that policy?

You realize that is begging the question, right?

By the way, this thread is not about FGM, of course, particularly as the medical, physical, and (presumably) religious considerations differ wildly. You might want to take that up with darat, he posted pro-FGM article(s) earlier.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The problem is that some people would prefer keeping the government out of their Doctors' office.

Would you disagree, then, with the prosecution of a Doctor who, without medical reason, removed the little toes of an infant?

 

[The Big Dog]

Would you disagree, then, with the prosecution of a Doctor who, without medical reason, removed the little toes of an infant?

I was replying to a post regarding competing evaluations of medical evidence.

Here is the next sentence:

"Why is their evaluation of the evidence less acceptable than the AAP's which you keep producing?" The REAL point of the matter is that you are legislating away anyone's right to choose, which is more "acceptable" and which works best for their family.

i am baffled regarding what your hypothetical? has to do with what I posted.

 

[Darat]

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:t

"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.....

If I've mistaken your position I can only apologise. Just to make it clear than you do agree with the respected organisation's opinion?

 

[The Big Dog]

If I've mistaken your position I can only apologise. Just to make it clear than you do agree with the respected organisation's opinion?

yes, i agree with 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."

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

Do you know what lowers the risks of all these things far, far more? Teaching him to use a condom.

Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime;

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-prevention

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding HPV infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.

reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners

HPV again. Preventable by teaching him to wear a condom and wash.

and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life

And, once more, this can be accomplished even more successfully by teaching him to wash.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I was replying to a post regarding competing evaluations of medical evidence.

Here is the next sentence:

"Why is their evaluation of the evidence less acceptable than the AAP's which you keep producing?" The REAL point of the matter is that you are legislating away anyone's right to choose, which is more "acceptable" and which works best for their family.

i am baffled regarding what your hypothetical? has to do with what I posted.

The question is asking whether you really believe that the government should stay out of the doctors' office, or whether you only believe it should for procedures that you wish to have done. Please answer the question.

 

[The Big Dog]

And, once more, this can be accomplished even more successfully by teaching him to wash.

"and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life"

And, once more, this can be accomplished even more successfully by teaching him to wash.


I'm not sure I follow your reasoning there.

 

[The Big Dog]

The question is asking whether you really believe that the government should stay out of the doctors' office, or whether you only believe it should for procedures that you wish to have done. Please answer the question.

Well IF that was your goal, you completely bolloxed it, because your hypothetical has nothing to do with the situation I was describing.

CONTEXT.

 

[The Norseman]

The problem is that some people would prefer keeping the government out of their Doctors' office.

"Why is their evaluation of the evidence less acceptable than the AAP's which you keep producing?" The REAL point of the matter is that you are legislating away anyone's right to choose, which is more "acceptable" and which works best for their family.

By the way, as we have discussed earlier, the fact that the Government is going to ban them is not going to stop them from happening, particularly among religious minorities.

Why single out religious minorities?

 

[The Big Dog]

Why single out religious minorities?

I didn't mean to, just meant to emphasize them.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

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.

Which is part of why I think trolls -- at least the "debate trolls" like the one in this thread -- are these forums' biggest boon -- unlike on most other forums, where they just tend to disrupt discussion. I feel troll threads are the ones that teach me the most here on JREF.

 

[The Norseman]

It's interesting to note that the only positive studies that have been done regarding circumcision have been in Africa and that, as of 2011, none of those African studies involved routine infant circumcision but rather adult circumcision.

 

[The Norseman]

I didn't mean to, just meant to emphasize them.

Okay, but my question is why emphasize religious minorities? It is my understanding that you wish to argue only medical benefits. If this is the case, why would you bring religious practices into it?

 

[The Big Dog]

It's interesting to note that the only positive studies that have been done regarding circumcision have been in Africa and that, as of 2011, none of those African studies involved routine infant circumcision but rather adult circumcision.

That would indeed be interesting if it were at all true, unfortunately.....

 

[The Big Dog]

Okay, but my question is why emphasize religious minorities? It is my understanding that you wish to argue only medical benefits. If this is the case, why would you bring religious practices into it?

It was a point made earlier in the thread by someone other than me.

the circumvention of a ban by using non-traditional medical service providers has, of course, medical significance

 

[The Norseman]

That would indeed be interesting if it were at all true, unfortunately.....

I had asked you before and I guess I'll ask again: other than the African studies, what other "third world" studies can you provide supporting routine neonatal circumcision (RNC)? How about those positive studies done by "first world" countries too?

So far, the positive articles and papers that have been issued by American interests have all been based on the flawed African studies and none that have been presented so far in this thread have been independently American.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

It's interesting to note that the only positive studies that have been done regarding circumcision have been in Africa and that, as of 2011, none of those African studies involved routine infant circumcision but rather adult circumcision.

It's also funny to note that circumsicion, and its acceptance, are on the decline in the US as well.