Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[jdp]

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?

Sure 11 in this study, I guess that means that's all there were nationwide and it's not like the risk of nosocomial resistant infections has increased since then.

Where individual human rights are being overiden in favor of "Family Rights" yes it is. Since when did my penis belong to my family anyway?

 

[The Big Dog]

Sure 11 in this study, I guess that means that's all there were nationwide and it's not like the risk of nosocomial resistant infections has increased since then.

Where individual human rights are being overiden in favor of "Family Rights" yes it is. Since when did my penis belong to my family anyway?

It is curious, I mentioned and linked to sites showing increasing anti-biotic resistance in UTI, and get no response..... Curious. Your study of 11 in hospitals with obvious hygiene deficits is about a decade old. The AAP report and recommendations, along with the WHO reports I cited are of much more recent vintage.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

That is curious because the medical evidence of the benefits of circumcision are getting stronger.

 

[jdp]

It is curious, I mentioned and linked to sites showing increasing anti-biotic resistance in UTI, and get no response..... Curious. Your study of 11 in hospitals with obvious hygiene deficits is about a decade old. The AAP report and recommendations, along with the WHO reports I cited are of much more recent vintage.

You need a more recent outbreak? Fortunatly, it didn't involve infants but it shows how all too easy it is for these hospital aquired infections to spread to the general population even when the most stringent efforts are used to control the spread.

You did get a response, but perhaps not the one you were expecting or one that you liked. The response was that the problem with anti-biotic resistance is a two way street (something you seem to refuse to recognize) and that nosocomial ABX resistant infections are just as much a problem, if not larger, than community aquired infections. That particular study may be a decade old but that doesn't mean that the risk is any less or gone.

 

[Rat]

That is curious because the medical evidence of the benefits of circumcision are getting stronger.

They don't seem that way to me, but it's still irrelevant. They would have to be stupendous benefits with no reasonable alternatives to justify preventive surgery. As several others have pointed out, there are lots of non-essential parts of the body that we could remove at birth to avoid a lot of different diseases, but we don't.

 

[The Norseman]

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.

Any discussion regarding how society treats and cares for those who cannot consent is never silly. Why would you seek to dismiss it so cavalierly?

 

[The Norseman]

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.

This paper that has been quoted is simply trying to drum up more money for those who wish to perform this non-essential operation. After all, if it were medically necessary then the insurance companies wouldn't resist paying for it so strongly, would they?

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.

No, that AAP meta-analysis isn't data; it's a conclusion. The AAP attempt at money-grabbing is based on faulty data that has been shown to be faulty.

That is curious because the medical evidence of the benefits of circumcision are getting stronger.

So where are these studies then, that show all of these strong benefits? One may get some people such as myself who oppose RNC to change their minds, after all. In fact, as an aside, I've changed my mind on at least two strongly-held positions after reading long and thoughtful threads on the subjects here on JREF.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

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.

Yup. Discussions like this one have proven to me that there simply aren't sound arguments for circumsicion. In rational societies that aren't dominated by traditional or religious thinking, this can only lead to circumsicion going away. It may not happen in one year, or five, or 10, but trust me, it will. Personally, I'm surprised it hasn't a long time ago.

 

[Lithrael]

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.

Funny enough it was a blog article on this subject, that was the main one I was talking about a few pages ago when I mentioned hateful screed showing up in web comments. The reaction to the article was intensely negative, ranging from 'why is this obvious self-hating Jew allowed to post articles in our Jewish webzine' to 'you don't know what you are talking about' on the more polite end, to 'people like you are the biggest threat to the existence of Jews' etc etc. as well as the more blunt, youtube-comment type of replies.

(The article gently suggested it might be OK to not circumcise and/or might in the future be OK not to circumcise, as well as the discussion of the history.)

 

[rustypouch]

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'm curious, because I don't think this is a grey area, as you suggest.

There are indeed boundaries. Since we're talking about chopping bits off of babies for no good reason, my limit for this is none.

There are people here for who the limit is something more than none. I'd like to know how much parents can alter their infants, based on tradition or esthetics. Ideally something more than "it depends." There is a limit, I hope.

If it's something important to a religion, let the person decide for themselves. That way, the choice will actually be meaningful and show their commitment, rather than a body mod being done to them without consent.

 

[PGH]

That is curious because the medical evidence of the benefits of circumcision are getting stronger.

Funny, I'd think the evidence should be pretty strong BEFORE they go cutting parts off. Not down the line somewhere.

 

[The Big Dog]

Funny, I'd think the evidence should be pretty strong BEFORE they go cutting parts off. Not down the line somewhere.

Well it is like me, I was plateaued at 285 on the bench, pretty strong right? So I took a week off, made some adjustments to the routine, and a couple of weeks later BOOM! 315!

FIRE POWER!

That is just like the revised AAP Scientific Analysis.

 

[PGH]

Well it is like me, I was plateaued at 285 on the bench, pretty strong right? So I took a week off, made some adjustments to the routine, and a couple of weeks later BOOM! 315!

FIRE POWER!

That is just like the revised AAP Scientific Analysis.

Nice bench, got me beat. I maxed at 250 and even dropped down since then.

But while our muscle mass/strength can increase or decrease depending on circumstances, once that foreskin is gone it's gone. If we're not sure that cutting it off is necessary maybe we shouldn't be doing it.

 

[catsmate]

Funny enough it was a blog article on this subject, that was the main one I was talking about a few pages ago when I mentioned hateful screed showing up in web comments. The reaction to the article was intensely negative, ranging from 'why is this obvious self-hating Jew allowed to post articles in our Jewish webzine' to 'you don't know what you are talking about' on the more polite end, to 'people like you are the biggest threat to the existence of Jews' etc etc. as well as the more blunt, youtube-comment type of replies.

(The article gently suggested it might be OK to not circumcise and/or might in the future be OK not to circumcise, as well as the discussion of the history.)

Yeah since the no-circumcise movement has started to gain momentum within Judaism it's come under attack.

Funny, I'd think the evidence should be pretty strong BEFORE they go cutting parts off. Not down the line somewhere.

Indeed.

 

[Baylor]

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.

Autospies are not anecdotes.

Pro-tip: don't start a sentence with pro-tip if it's not a pro-tip.

You know what IS a pro-tip. This: Read read an article on a well-controlled study and not an agenda driven meta-analysis.


CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102

/thread

 

[The Big Dog]

Autospies are not anecdotes.

Pro-tip: don't start a sentence with pro-tip if it's not a pro-tip.

You know what IS a pro-tip. This: Read read an article on a well-controlled study and not an agenda driven meta-analysis.


CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102

/thread

Why did you post an "an agenda driven analysis" in big letters along with crazy smilies?

/well that was easy! LOLZ!

 

[sadhatter]

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 you disagree with parents who are punished for denying their child medical care? After all they are, for the same type of reasons, making a medical decision for their child.

If you do, then or opinions on what is right and wrong are so vastly different i don't think we will ever agree. If you don't you are being quite hypocritical.

 

[The Big Dog]

So you disagree with parents who are punished for denying their child medical care? After all they are, for the same type of reasons, making a medical decision for their child.

If you do, then or opinions on what is right and wrong are so vastly different i don't think we will ever agree. If you don't you are being quite hypocritical.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267415

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267415

The last sentence makes your "rule" invalid.

 

[Locknar]

Scanning the past few pages things seem to have gotten a bit heated. As a general reminder please ensure your posts are on topic (rule 11), address the argument (vs attack the arguer)(rule 12) and are civil and polite (rule 0).

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar