Circumcision

[Ivor the Engineer]

Does it have any medical benefits on the level of increased resistance to some STD's and UTI's?

In a wonderful stroke of irony, a research group found that even after adjusting for confounding variables, female circumcision had a strong PROTECTIVE effect against women contracting HIV.

Because the world has decided that FGM is wrong, the researchers concluded this was a "conundrum", rather than calling for large scale randomized trials

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think you've misunderstood.

Circumcision of both males AND females was introduced by Western physicians as a cure for the "disorder" of masturbation. The female version did not catch on in the West, whilst the male version had an ever growing list of aliments that it treated.

Um, this does not seem to be correct at all. As masturbation by doctors was a very popular medical procedure at the time. You needed to massage the vagina until there was a hysterical spasm. This was not publicly thought of as being a sexual process.

There was also a strong selling of medical vibrators(including early steam powered models) it was not until porno films showed demonstrated to the prudes that these where sexual in nature that they got discontinued for a few years.

 

[kellyb]

Does it have any medical benefits on the level of increased resistance to some STD's and UTI's?

Logically, it would have to interrupt the spread of some STDs. (some forms of FGC, at least, like removal of the labia.) The herpes virus is adapted to intact genitalia, so if you start cutting things off, you'll interrupt it's normal mode of transmission.
But I don't think it's ever been studied outside of that one study that found that some form of FGC prevents HIV transmission.
It would have to be studied before the detalils would be known, though.

Also, labial adhesions are fairly common in girls and cause UTIs, so removing the labia should, in theory, reduce UTIs in female children, as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Or religion? Your "pro-circumcision" camp certainly has all the hallmarks of fundie faith.

So the AMA is a fundie faith now.

Cool the Pro Vaccine crowd is also a fundie faith too, they demand that everyone get these painful shots for small children as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It looks like a fairly minor procedure that can be performed in an outpatient clinic, but the physicians who do it also work at hospitals?


http://www.femalegenitalrefinement.com/procedures.php
http://www.femalegenitalrefinement.com/procedures/hoodectomy.php



http://www.drroyalbenson.com/

I will try to remember to look into these later and see if they correspond to standard FGC practices. I think that they are likely NSFW.

 

[kellyb]

Um, this does not seem to be correct at all. As masturbation by doctors was a very popular medical procedure at the time. You needed to massage the vagina until there was a hysterical spasm. This was not publicly thought of as being a sexual process.

There was also a strong selling of medical vibrators(including early steam powered models) it was not until porno films showed demonstrated to the prudes that these where sexual in nature that they got discontinued for a few years.

All that happened before the advent of EBM, so there were doctors out there back then doing all kinds of strange things. But many did recommend circumcision to cure epilepsy and mental disorders. Many doctors thought masturbation caused all kinds of bad things, and prescribed circumcision as a cure.
I'll find good links on all that if you want.

 

[kellyb]

So the AMA is a fundie faith now.

Does the AMA recommend routine infant circumcision?

 

[Lonewulf]

So the AMA is a fundie faith now.

I repeat Kelly's question.

Cool the Pro Vaccine crowd is also a fundie faith too, they demand that everyone get these painful shots for small children as well.

Do they strip away a piece of the arm, never to be replaced for the rest of that child's life?

Well, at the least, YOU make responses just like a fundie.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In a wonderful stroke of irony, a research group found that even after adjusting for confounding variables, female circumcision had a strong PROTECTIVE effect against women contracting HIV.

Because the world has decided that FGM is wrong, the researchers concluded this was a "conundrum", rather than calling for large scale randomized trials

Interesting, then it would seem that some forms of female circumcision might well be justifiable.

The problem is that there are many different effects that are lumped together in these groups.

I would find a protective benefit for the removal of the clitoris strange with regards to HIV as it is not very near where the seminal discharge would be and seems an unlikely entry route for that reason.

 

[Loss Leader]

...because of a non-rational belief, in other words.

Sorry, non-rational is not just another word for arbitrary. You are wrong on that count.

In any case, I am not circumcising my children because God told me to. I am circumcising them because we are Jewish and the religious leaders I trust advise circumcision. I have no opinion on whether such behavior does or does not please God - an entity which may or may not exist.

Now that is abuse.

Edited by prewitt81: 

Incivility removed.

I love my children and every action I take is done because I believe it is in their best interests.

If you honestly believe that I am committing child abuse, I will be happy to supply you with my name and address as well as the number for the local Child Protective Services and you may dial the phone and report me. The only condition is that if your report is determined to be unfounded, you will pay all of my out-of-pocket and legal expenses.

Edited by prewitt81: 

Incivility removed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

All that happened before the advent of EBM, so there were doctors out there back then doing all kinds of strange things. But many did recommend circumcision to cure epilepsy and mental disorders. Many doctors thought masturbation caused all kinds of bad things, and prescribed circumcision as a cure.
I'll find good links on all that if you want.

If you can find good ones for it with regard to females that would be of interest.

 

[Lonewulf]

Sorry, non-rational is not just another word for arbitrary. You are wrong on that count.

In any case, I am not circumcising my children because God told me to. i am circumcising them because we are Jewish and the religious leaders I trust advise circumcision. I have no opinion on whether such behavior does or does not plead God - an entity which may or may not exist.

So a religious leader tells you to do something, and you do it, for no religious reason? Then why trust the religious leader?

As to that, you can go [rule10] yourself. I love my children and every action I take is done because I believe it is in their best interests - even when I believe it is not in my best interests.

So do the parents that give their children homeopathic medication instead of real medication, or forgo real medication altogether because God will "make them better".

If you honestly believe that I am committing child abuse, I will be happy to suply you with my name as well as the number for the local Child Protective Services and you may dial the phone and report me. The only condition is that if your report is determined to be unfounded, you will pay all of my out-of-pocket and legal expenses.

Otherwise, STFU.

Ah, yes. The old, "If the law agrees with me, it MUST be right" excuse.

I'm sure slavery was just fine when the law was okay with it. No reason to think that slavery was wrong, the law said it's right.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Does the AMA recommend routine infant circumcision?

It is not against it, wich is funnily enough the exact stance that those being accused of being fundies here have. Its refusal to recognised the TRUTH that there is no benefit and many problems with male circumcision marks it clearly in the pro circ fundie crowd.

 

[fls]

Actually, no. My point was that everyone who tends to agree on a subject does not harm their point. Everyone can agree that the moon is not made of cheese, but this doesn't put them into a "moon-is-not-cheese" bigoted fact-denying biased "camp". There's a reason they all agree.

Just like when it comes to circumcision.

I agree. That's kinda my point. Agreement on the issue is not what I'm talking about.

As for my strong feelings; I know what a circumcision is like. I've been through it while old enough to be able to remember it, remember. I find it interesting as I describe how painful and uncomfortable it is, people really don't seem to care. I've actually been through the process. It's not fun. It's not something that I would want forced on me ever again.

Yeah, I had my tonsils out when I was eight. I care any time someone goes through pain (children in particular).

But what do I get in a thread like this? Derision. In fact, it was pointed out (rather blatantly and rudely) that babies can't consent, ever, as if this made it even more okay to go ahead and snip off a piece of their penis. That's what I find so disturbing about all of this.

I'm sorry, I missed that. I wouldn't consider derision a reasonable response.

Parents are charged with consenting on behalf of their babies, and in the absence of their consent, it's not okay to snip off anything.

It seems as if people are advocating doing things to people that can't consent more than they would to people who could consent and say "no".

I didn't notice anyone advocating that. I may not have paid enough attention.

If the Koran condoned child abuse, and I made sure to only slap around my baby when it was too young to remember the pain... does it suddenly become okay then? It's religion, and the baby can't consent, it's okay, right?

I don't see how any of those reasons would make it acceptable. But I also don't see the relevance.

Linda

 

[fls]

So you're in favor of the "medicalization" of FGC? Where women take their daughters in to doctors to have the procedure performed in sterile clinics?

No. That does serve to fill those requirements.

Linda

 

[3point14]

Pretty bad form to quote oneself, but I'm going to do it anyway.

In short, circumcision hurts, I do not inflict pain on those I love without good reason.

I have seen no good reason.

In any case, I am not circumcising my children because God told me to. i am circumcising them because we are Jewish and the religious leaders I trust advise circumcision. I have no opinion on whether such behavior does or does not plead God - an entity which may or may not exist.

I'm sorry, but 'because someone told me to, but I can't explain why.' is not a good enough reason.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I repeat Kelly's question.


Do they strip away a piece of the arm, never to be replaced for the rest of that child's life?

Well, at the least, YOU make responses just like a fundie.

You talk about pain, well it does involve pain now you are changing your arguements again, now you are advocating the perfection of the unaltered human form.

 

[fls]

Or religion? Your "pro-circumcision" camp certainly has all the hallmarks of fundie faith.

Ponderingturtle is pro-circumcision?

Linda

 

[kellyb]

Does this seem specific to you? (from Table 5 from your link):

Percentage of women who have had Clitoridectomy/Excision:

Benin (2001) 84.0
Burkina Faso (2003) 90.8
Burkina Faso (1998–99) 31.3/67.7
Eritrea (2001–02) 4.1
Eritrea (1995) 61.5/4.4
Guinea (1999) 44.0/46.2
Mali (2001) 81.4
Mali (1995–96) 52.1/46.9
Mauritania (2000–01) 75.3
Niger (1998) 66.5/4.8
Nigeria (2003) 43.5
Nigeria (1999) 82.2/6.8
Sudan (north) (2000) 21.5/1.7
Sudan (north) (1990) 14.8/2.7
United Republic of Tanzania (1996) 56.6/35.3

Percentage of women who have have pinching or nicking:

Benin (2001) 7.0
Burkina Faso (2003) 1.2
Eritrea (2001–02) 46.0
Guinea (1999) 1.7
Mali (2001) 2.0
Mauritania (2000–01) 5.4
Nigeria (2003) 2.0

Percentage of women who have had infibulation:

Benin (2001) 3.5
Burkina Faso (2003) 2.0
Burkina Faso (1998–99) 0.7
Côte d’Ivoire (1998) 2.3
Egypt (1995) 0.7
Eritrea (2001–02) 38.6
Eritrea (1995) 34.0
Ethiopia (2000) 3.0
Guinea (1999) 7.4
Mali (2001) 1.9
Mali (1995–96) 0.5
Niger (1998) 0.0
Nigeria (2003) 3.9
Nigeria (1999) 3.7
Sudan (north) (2000) 74.1
Sudan (north) (1990) 82.3
United Republic of Tanzania (1996) 5.2

As you can see, the majority of procedures done are worse than routine male circumcision.

(I apologize in advance if I screwed up any of my editing.)

Linda

Clitoridectomy can mean excision of all or part of the prepuce or clitoris.
It's excision of the prepuce that is most common, and excision of the clitoris is relatively rare in comparison.

Are you saying removal of the female prepuce is worse than removal of the male?

 

[Lonewulf]

I agree. That's kinda my point. Agreement on the issue is not what I'm talking about.

Yeah, I had my tonsils out when I was eight. I care any time someone goes through pain (children in particular).

And I agree. But some people here are just fine with that for "religious reasons".

I'm sorry, I missed that. I wouldn't consider derision a reasonable response.

Well, I'm just in the "anti-circ" camp, so who cares?

Parents are charged with consenting on behalf of their babies, and in the absence of their consent, it's not okay to snip off anything.

That's just the problem, though. The parents are charged with consenting on behalf of their babies... for what? Not giving them medication that they desperately need? Inflicting gratuitous pain that they'll never remember? Injecting them with experimental drugs for the hell of it?

Parents do not get a "Get-Out-Of-Child-Abuse" card just because their children can't consent and need the parents to consent for them.

I didn't notice anyone advocating that. I may not have paid enough attention.

An individual here made a pretty big point of how their baby was not able to consent. He said that he tried his "hardest" to get the baby to consent, but the baby wouldn't. So, hey, that must have made it okay, right?

I don't see how any of those reasons would make it acceptable. But I also don't see the relevance.

So circumcision isn't a religious ritual? Perhaps you should talk to Loss Leader about that one.

He inflicted a permanent body modification on his child because of religious principles.

You talk about pain, well it does involve pain now you are changing your arguements again, now you are advocating the perfection of the unaltered human form.

Can you tell me how the hell I'm changing my argument? Are you REALLY that dishonest?

I've never once said that it was okay to permanently alter someone's body without their consent. It is not changing my argument when I bring up how that's a BAD thing.