Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Baylor]

Why do you need to know? Are you planning on performing some number of procedures just under that limit on your own child?

Honestly, I don't understand the demand by some people that exack black and white boundaries need to be drawn. Most boundaries, in the physical and the legal world) break down into slow gradations at the finest level. When is a horse a zebra? How much difference in driving ability is there between someone with a BAC of .79 and that of .8?

All we really need to know is whether infant circumcision is within the bounds of an acceptable decision for a parent to make. It is. It's far inbounds. It's close to the middle of the court. No nordic country is ever going to ban circumcision. The United States is never, ever going to ban circumcision. Your personal opinions will never change this.

The topic is just silly.

I beg to differ.

There was a thread a while back titled, something along the lines of "Medical procedures today that will be considered barbaric in the future." Cutting off part of a infant's penis should and likely will be considered barbaric in the future. Complications and dulled sexual sensation that result from circumcision outweigh the purported medical benefits--benefits that can only be corroborated by unscientific, archaic statistical methods.

I am please of the awareness raising efforts of the "intactivicts". Just because something is "acceptable" that doesn't mean it's ethical.

 

[The Big Dog]

I beg to differ.

There was a thread a while back titled, something along the lines of "Medical procedures today that will be considered barbaric in the future." Cutting off part of a infant's penis should and likely will be considered barbaric in the future. Complications and dulled sexual sensation that result from circumcision outweigh the purported medical benefits--benefits that can only be corroborated by unscientific, archaic statistical methods.

I am please of the awareness raising efforts of the "intactivicts". Just because something is "acceptable" that doesn't mean it's ethical.

The aap disagrees with both your claims regarding complications and "dulled sexual sensation."

In fact, I believe it more likely than not that circumcision will be universally prescribed because of the decreasing efficacy of antibiotics, and the concern about eroding family rights.

 

[jdp]

16.5 would:

At this point I don't believe so, is there anyone here that does?

Folks lets define terms.

Authoritarian governments pass laws to ban things, and interfere with the Family relationship, and the right to seek medical advice regarding such decisions.

It might be a reasonable point if the law was written without the urging of the medical community, you know? But when the laws are written in response to the objective conclusions of the medical community that a procedure is prejudicial to health, crying 'Authoritarian government' rings pretty hollow.

 

[jdp]

The aap disagrees with both your claims regarding complications and "dulled sexual sensation."

In fact, I believe it more likely than not that circumcision will be universally prescribed because of the decreasing efficacy of antibiotics, and the concern about eroding family rights.

Ya right, because possible exposure to MRSA via unnecessary surgical operations is a much better idea. And "Family Rights"? What a crock.

 

[Baylor]

The aap disagrees with both your claims regarding complications and "dulled sexual sensation."

In fact, I believe it more likely than not that circumcision will be universally prescribed because of the decreasing efficacy of antibiotics, and the concern about eroding family rights.

Well the British Journal of Urology & RUNY agree with my claims "regarding 'dulled sexual sensation."

Show me where any member of the aap said there are no complications from circumcision.

And what is "eroding family rights" and what does it have to do with anything?

And explain how circumcision prevents UTI.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ya right, because possible exposure to MRSA via unnecessary surgical operations is a much better idea. And "Family Rights"? What a crock.

A crock? Makes note that Article 8 of the Euro Convention on human rights is: a CROCK. Relative "human rights." Yikes.

Yeah, you posted that MRSA article before. 11 cases, fully explained, a decade ago. Gee President Madagascar, should we SHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING?

Well the British Journal of Urology & RUNY agree with my claims "regarding 'dulled sexual sensation."

Show me where any member of the aap said there are no complications from circumcision.

And what is "eroding family rights" and what does it have to do with anything?

And explain how circumcision prevents UTI.

Already answered, and I answered enough questions.

But I'll take on the eroding family rights: you are going to substitute governmental BANS for parental control based on independent medical advice.

 

[Baylor]

Already answered, and I answered enough questions.

Just a link, or at least the page number that will guide me to your elucidation please. ETA: elucidation how circumcision prevents UTI

But I'll take on the eroding family rights: you are going to substitute governmental BANS for parental control based on independent medical advice.

LOL. Seriously, you can't be serious. You are saying there should not be government bans on medical practices and the choice should be left to families and doctors.

 

[Baylor]

you are going to substitute governmental BANS for parental control based on independent medical advice.

Government BANS like, say, prohibiting doctors from prescribing psychotropic drugs to toddlers.

Psychotropic drugs that can and do kill children are, in fact, prescribed to toddlers:

"The medical examiner on hand identified the cause of death as heart and lung failure brought about by the medications she was on. (Four-year-old) Rebecca was being prescribed Depakote, Seroquel, and Clonidine by Dr. Kayoko Kifuji, a Tufts–New England Medical Center child psychiatrist."​

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/toddl...ic-meds-how-drugging-kids-became-big-business

Govenment BANS like that "erode family right" but save children from mental impairment and death.

From the FDA website:

"Most drugs prescribed for children have not been tested in children."

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143565.htm

But 16.5 thinks untested prescription drugs should be prescribed to toddlers and children anyhow because apparently he thinks outlawing such barbaric medical practices "erodes family rights" and protecting "family rights" is more important than children's health, safety, and development.

 

[Wildy]

A crock? Makes note that Article 8 of the Euro Convention on human rights is: a CROCK. Relative "human rights." Yikes.

So what do you think Article 8 of the ECHR says?

But I'll take on the eroding family rights: you are going to substitute governmental BANS for parental control based on independent medical advice.

Is that for all independent medical advice or just independent medical advice on things you support?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Is this the lob a bunch of questions at 16.5 thread?

If it was it'd be pointless as any time you're asked something remotely challenging you do everything in your power to avoid answering.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why do you need to know? Are you planning on performing some number of procedures just under that limit on your own child?

Honestly, I don't understand the demand by some people that exack black and white boundaries need to be drawn. Most boundaries, in the physical and the legal world) break down into slow gradations at the finest level. When is a horse a zebra? How much difference in driving ability is there between someone with a BAC of .79 and that of .8?

All we really need to know is whether infant circumcision is within the bounds of an acceptable decision for a parent to make. It is. It's far inbounds. It's close to the middle of the court. No nordic country is ever going to ban circumcision. The United States is never, ever going to ban circumcision. Your personal opinions will never change this.

The topic is just silly.

In case you missed my previous questions put to you: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9568056&postcount=827

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A crock? Makes note that Article 8 of the Euro Convention on human rights is: a CROCK. Relative "human rights." Yikes.

I know you like ignoring things that you find inconvenient, but the actual text of the article you're citing explicitly says that it only applies in so much as it doesn't infringe on other people's human rights. Before citing any document, you should probably read it first, to ensure that it doesn't actually say the very thing that you're mocking. Given that what you're citing is only 2 sentences long, you really have no excuse for not already having done so.

I also have to say that I find it amusing that you consistently dismiss the findings of European health agencies and the recommendations of European medical professionals for being "authoritarian", yet you consistently cite the European Convention of Human Rights. If you really want to restrict yourself to talking about the US, then you should be only citing Human Rights treaties that the US has ratified.

 

[Vilhelmo]

Are there any adult Jewish men (or any non-Jewish man for that matter if circumcised as an infant) who resent the fact that they were circumcised, even if a minority? Haven't their rights as an individual been violated then?

There are many historical accounts of ancient Jews trying to regrow their foreskin.

From Wiki:

In classical Greek times, the exposure of the glans of the penis was considered offensive and men with short foreskins would wear the kynodesme to prevent its accidental exposure.

A form of foreskin restoration, historically known as epispasm, was practiced among some Jews in Hellenistic and Roman societies

 

[catsmate]

Agreed. I have a Xian cross branded on my forehead. Painless (as far as I can recall) and only remotely dangerous medically. It was important to my parents, though I'm a tad miffed that it's off-putting to other denominations

Ya right, because possible exposure to MRSA via unnecessary surgical operations is a much better idea. And "Family Rights"? What a crock.

Surgery has risks, anesthesia reaction, bleeding, accident, infection. It really should be avoided unless there's an actual advantage.

There are many historical accounts of ancient Jews trying to regrow their foreskin.

Yes most Jews don't seem to understand the history of the cultural practice very well; originally only the very tip of the foreskin was cut away. During the Hellenisation period many young Jews had their foreskin restored, under pressure from the Greeks(who viewed even the slight circumcision then practiced as an offense against the physical body).
This upset the traditionalists who instituted the periah, the removal of the entire foreskin.
Oddly the original pre-periah custom hasn't been re-instituted.

 

[The Big Dog]

Just a link, or at least the page number that will guide me to your elucidation please. ETA: elucidation how circumcision prevents UTI
LOL. Seriously, you can't be serious. You are saying there should not be government bans on medical practices and the choice should be left to families and doctors.

Yeah, that is EXACTLY what I am saying!

Pro-tip, anecdotes are NOT data.

You know what IS data? The AAP meta-analysis which I've linked and discussed frequently in this thread.

You should read it. jaw-drop.

 

[Loss Leader]

I beg to differ.

There was a thread a while back titled, something along the lines of "Medical procedures today that will be considered barbaric in the future." Cutting off part of a infant's penis should and likely will be considered barbaric in the future.

And swine will emanate forth from my bowels.

 

[Rat]

And swine will emanate forth from my bowels.

I don't think it likely in my lifetime, but I'm certain that it will happen. The problem is that if you've grown up with it, it seems normal to you, and it takes time to denormalize it. You can't understand how utterly and insanely weird it seems to those in other societies to discover that some people want to cut off the end of their child's genitals.

 

[Rolfe]

^ ^ ^

Wins thread.

Rolfe.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

A crock? Makes note that Article 8 of the Euro Convention on human rights is: a CROCK. Relative "human rights." Yikes.

Yeah, you posted that MRSA article before. 11 cases, fully explained, a decade ago. Gee President Madagascar, should we SHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING?



Already answered, and I answered enough questions.

But I'll take on the eroding family rights: you are going to substitute governmental BANS for parental control based on independent medical advice.

So if the independent medical advice changed (to match that of many other countries so hardly unlikely) would you change your views on circumcision.

I have already asked this in a different form but you seem reluctant to answer. It seems a reasonable question - especially if I have understood your position correctly as 'The doctor advised it so we did it, it was nothing to do with traditional or religious practices or just trying to fit societal norms for our area'.

I'm not trying to trap you in an inconsistency, I'm genuinely interested in checking that my assumption that since you did it on 'doctor's advice' you would not do it if the doctor advised against.

I'll be completely honest and say I have a suspicion that you may also be biased by the fact that you have been circumcised, just as I am probably biased because I haven't been, but that is not the point of the question.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Why do you need to know? Are you planning on performing some number of procedures just under that limit on your own child?

Honestly, I don't understand the demand by some people that exack black and white boundaries need to be drawn. Most boundaries, in the physical and the legal world) break down into slow gradations at the finest level. When is a horse a zebra? How much difference in driving ability is there between someone with a BAC of .79 and that of .8?

All we really need to know is whether infant circumcision is within the bounds of an acceptable decision for a parent to make. It is. It's far inbounds. It's close to the middle of the court. No nordic country is ever going to ban circumcision. The United States is never, ever going to ban circumcision. Your personal opinions will never change this.

The topic is just silly.

I respectfully disagree - at least with the spirit of the statement if not the letter of it*. I suspect the US will lag behind on this one and I accept it will take time even in the more civilised world p) but I genuinely feel that circumcision is on the way out. It may take several generations but people will look back on it as a bizarre primitive practice - like FGM, foot binding or whatever. Obviously in and of itself, my opinion is no more valid than yours but I do have the history of similar practices on my side (se FGM, foot binding etc - if you don't see these as similar practices then that is only because you are personally invested) and, as another poster has illustrated, rates are already in decline.

*It may not be specifically banned as that may prove unnecessary as it dies out naturally although in some interpretations of the law it is actually already banned...