…and this is a 
Want to spend an hour cringing and twitching? This is the abridged version of "Cut: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision", and you will suffer if you watch it. It is a wasteful, terrible thing to do to a child.
One rabbi interviewed is at least honest about circumcision: "It's painful, it's abusive, it's traumatic, and if anybody does it who isn't in a covenant ought to be put in prison…I do abusive things because I'm in covenant with god." What nonsense. What a wretched excuse for abusing children.
(Warning: lots of shots of babies getting chopped, as well as closeups of adult penises.)
The arguments for circumcision are pathetic and awful.
"You either believe [in the covenant of circumcision] or else nothing is true". I've heard that before: it's the argument creationists use to defend the absolute literal truth of the book of Genesis, because if that's not true, the story of Jesus falls apart, and therefore the whole of Christianity is false. Yeah, so? Then it's false.
"The mystery of circumcision is profound". Ignorance should not inspire the kind of awe that motivates one to mutilate another person's body.
The health benefits. Total bullshit. As one of the speakers in the movie explains, there have been progressive excuses: from it prevents masturbation to it prevents cancer to it prevents AIDS. The benefits all vanish with further studies and are all promoted by pro-circumcision organizations. It doesn't even make sense: let's not pretend people have been hacking at penises for millennia because there was a clinical study. Hey, let's chop off our pinkie toes and then go looking for medical correlations!
It's tradition. Grandpa and great-grandpa and great-great-grandpa did it, so I'll perpetuate the cycle of abuse to my children. I have to reject that: it reduces a decision to do irreparable damage to a child to repetitive, superstitious, mindless behavior.
There is no reason, other than certain rare and specific medical conditions, for maiming anyone's genitalia. Don't do it to your children.
(Also on FtB)
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: Sylphs
|
October 19, 2011 12:06 PM
You mean the CDC is a pro-circumcision organization http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm ?
I work in an HIV lab, and my PI always says "If there were any drug or microbicide that worked half as well as circumcision, it would be amazing." Please don't talk out of your ass.
Posted by: Techskeptic
|
October 19, 2011 12:19 PM
"...there have been progressive excuses: from it prevents masturbation..."
well at least I know that one is definitely not true.
Posted by: catherinajtv
|
October 19, 2011 12:21 PM
Sylphs - I doubt that the HIV risk factors of a baby would be influenced at all by routine circumcision. Adult, sexually active men can make their own decisions about their own bodies. Anyone who pulls out the "circumcision reduced the risk of HIV transmission in sexually active, promiscuous men in central Africa" studies as an argument for routine circumcision in infant in the US is surely talking out of their arse.
Posted by: frank
|
October 19, 2011 12:23 PM
take a look at google scholar and you'll see a hoard of relevant peer-reviewed studies (by researchers at universities, not pro-circumcision organizations)showing health benefits. definitely not so clear CUT an issue....
Posted by: sj4
|
October 19, 2011 12:29 PM
I want my foreskin back! Even if i have to wear it in an amber amulet around my neck.
Posted by: Raskolnikov35
|
October 19, 2011 1:04 PM
Sorry PZ but I will definitely be doing it to my children. I've thanked my parents for having done it to me a thousand times over (silently, to myself, of course). I think you carrot dicks just have penis envy.
Posted by: Donald
|
October 19, 2011 1:21 PM
Somebody please imprison Raskolnikov. I'm all for the segregation of the mentally insane.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
October 19, 2011 1:48 PM
The question never arose for me and my wife: We only have one daughter, and nobody would even think of... oh, wait....
Posted by: Gadfly47
|
October 19, 2011 1:57 PM
As an uncircumcised male I've never had any problems. Haven't had any complaints from the ladies, either. I chose to not circumcise my son and have never regretted it. He's a grown man now, so he can do what he wants with his penis.
Posted by: mackhitch
|
October 19, 2011 1:59 PM
My parents decided not to have me circumcised, but when I was three my foreskin stopped growing making urination difficult. Hence, my belated circumcision which I have never regretted. I have learned this is a common enough occurrence to have a medical name and have often wondered if this might be the origin for the perceived need for the operation.
Posted by: seanchk
|
October 19, 2011 2:00 PM
I agree 100% with Raskolnikov35. I was circumcised at birth and am extremely grateful to my parents for it. I don't remember the procedure so if it hurt me I don't have any memory of it. I would definitely have my sons circumcised if I had any.
Posted by: ludovico
|
October 19, 2011 2:26 PM
I knew it! Circumcision is just a conspiracy by the lube manufacturers!
Posted by: Bill_BO
|
October 19, 2011 2:40 PM
For people who do not bathe regularly, one benefit of circumcision is a reduction in groin odor.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 19, 2011 2:54 PM
A standard principle of medical ethics is you never resort to a more invasive, more risky procedure for any given indication if a less invasive, less risky procedure that achieves the same end is available.
And when it comes to infants, there is a far less invasive (though granted that it too is often done by parents without the infant's consent...) and far less risky procedure for the above indication, already available.
It's called a "bath".
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkpTu9aUfZq3Hxc-8MO2khEO8o82dchJoQ
|
October 19, 2011 3:44 PM
The Lancet
Volume 369, Issue 9562, 24 February-2 March 2007, Pages 657-666
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607603134
“4996 uncircumcised, HIV-negative men aged 15–49 years who agreed to HIV testing and counselling were enrolled in this randomised trial in rural Rakai district, Uganda. Men were randomly assigned to receive immediate circumcision (n=2474) or circumcision delayed for 24 months (2522).”
[In the circumcised group]”...HIV incidence over 24 months was 0·66 cases per 100 person-years in the intervention group and 1·33 cases per 100 person-years in the control group”
The Lancet
Volume 369, Issue 9562, 24 February-2 March 2007, Pages 643-656
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607603122
“a randomised controlled trial of 2784 men aged 18–24 years in Kisumu, Kenya. Men were randomly assigned to an intervention group (circumcision; n=1391) or a control group (delayed circumcision, 1393)”
“The 2-year HIV incidence was 2·1% (95% CI 1·2–3·0) in the circumcision group and 4·2% (3·0–5·4) in the control group (p=0·0065); the relative risk of HIV infection in circumcised men was 0·47 (0·28–0·78), which corresponds to a reduction in the risk of acquiring an HIV infection of 53% (22–72). “
#1. I would say that the difference between 98% and 96% is 2% not 50%. Otherwise, if I pay zero dollars tax this year and one dollar next year, that would be an infinite increase in my taxes. Correct?
#2. If the control group is going to be circumcised anyway, then I think we can assume this study was done by a pro-circumcision group.
Posted by: Rjaye
|
October 19, 2011 4:13 PM
First-to those so thankful for their circumcision: why? The so-called evidence for it is not convincing, and as far as how the penis looks-well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
As for reducing HIV infection, I would like to know the second half of that equation: what were the HIV rates among women in those studies before and after? There's an unintended consequence here in that HIV is an infection spread by intimate contact between people, and that while circumcision may have some protection for men, it does nothing to encourage safer sex practices for the protection of women and given the social and political climate in Africa, to encourage a practice that may give men another reason not to use condoms seems irresponsible.
Posted by: Rjaye
|
October 19, 2011 4:16 PM
Oh, and I'm popping corn right now.
Posted by: SkepticalTao
|
October 19, 2011 4:43 PM
I love the irony of creationist types who argue for circumcision and include the health benefits. Yep. It was designed so well, we have to chop it off.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 19, 2011 4:45 PM
The mystery of how to get a ship in a bottle is also profound. Profundity is overrated.
Posted by: John Salerno
|
October 19, 2011 4:48 PM
PZ, aren't you always telling men to get over it and that male circumcision isn't that big of a deal?
Even in comparison to female circumcision, why shouldn't a big deal be made about men as well? It's the only way to highlight the absurdity and abuse of the practice. It doesn't help to say, "Come on guys, at least you don't have it as bad as women."
Giving any leeway to the male practice over the female practice only seems to help to condone it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 19, 2011 4:56 PM
John Salerno #20
Not quite. PZ and many of the commentariat tell men (and some women) to stop whining about male circumcision when the topic is female circumcision. It's telling the "what about the menz" brigade to shut up when women are being discussed.
This is not the first thread devoted to male circumcision. If the anti-male circumcision folks want to whine about losing part of the peepee, then this is the place to do it. It's just asked they not take over threads devoted to womens' situations to to their whining.
If you don't want to be circumcised, then don't have it done. If it's already been done, then it's too late so don't whine about it. End of discussion.
Posted by: John Salerno
|
October 19, 2011 5:00 PM
Ok, that makes perfect sense, and if that's what the case really was, then my point isn't really valid. But from what I had read in the past, it seemed more like "It's not as bad for men, so stop complaining."
Seriously!? If it's already done, just shut up about it? Do you mean about YOURSELF, or about circumcision in general? Just because it's already been done doesn't mean a person can't still criticize the practice and maybe even use him/herself as an example.
And I wonder, does this comment about "if it's already done, stop whining" apply to women too? Or are you just telling men to shut up?
Posted by: John Salerno
|
October 19, 2011 5:02 PM
I guess I forgot the most obvious point of all: it's pretty hard for a ~6 month old baby to tell his parents he'd rather not have his penis cut up.
Isn't that the issue here? Performing this act on babies and children who have no say in the matter?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 19, 2011 5:04 PM
Obviously you can't stop whining about it. But that's okay. This is the place for you to do your whining. Besides, if all you have to whine about is losing a bit of skin from the end of your wee-wee, then you're doing well.
Posted by: School of Science
|
October 19, 2011 5:04 PM
I would ask just one thing of the pro-cutters: Be there at the time this 'tradition' is honoured. Be there to watch your beautiful new son have his arms and legs strapped down to mitigate his anguished writhing.
Be there to watch a piece of useful flesh needlessly and bloodily removed without pain-killers. Be proud of the agony, the screams and the sheer torture your son has endured so soon after entering the world. Be proud that no (American) girl will run away in horror at the sight of one of those ugly things adorning your own flesh and blood.
BE THERE. You utter fucking scumbags.
Nick.
Posted by: John Salerno
|
October 19, 2011 5:13 PM
I'm whining? Really? Because I don't like the practice and I think male circumcision should be criticized as well as female circumcision?
Is that really whining? Or are you just trying to defend circumcision by making me out to be some kind of letter-to-the-editor loon who's only happy when he's the victim?
Posted by: vreejack
|
October 19, 2011 5:15 PM
As for pinkie-toe removal, it does result in fewer cases of ingrown toenail.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 19, 2011 5:16 PM
Yes really. But as I said, that's okay. This is the thread for you whiners to get your whining done. Have a nice time. Let us when you're done whining so we can discuss important topics like could River Tam kick Buffy's butt or should Pluto still be considered a planet.
Posted by: Gadfly47
|
October 19, 2011 5:19 PM
Quick question: any studies on the number of male infants permanently damaged by botched circumcisions or post surgery infections?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 19, 2011 5:21 PM
Indeed.
And note, John Salerno, the total dearth of these MRA-types making comments on this thread, or over at the FtB one; the utter, complete, cricket-chirping silence form them.
You see, those typical MRAs who infest those other threads aren't interested in discussing male circumcision in good, honest faith, at all.
They're only interested in using it as a rhetorical bludgeon in threads about female circumcision and other female-centered topics.
Posted by: John Salerno
|
October 19, 2011 5:21 PM
Mmmkay, now I know not to take you seriously, because I started my comments here trying to ask a real question and find the difference between PZ's posting of this video and his previous comments about men who "whine" about circumcision.
To find myself immediately lumped into that group of whiners (by you) is actually rather funny, since I know I'm not a part of that group -- unless by "whiners" you mean anyone opposed to circumcision at all.
But it's easier for the simple-minded to cast their opponents into easy-to-understand categories. I suppose they are less scary that way.
Posted by: Frogisis
|
October 19, 2011 5:37 PM
I was enrolled to go hatless for legit medical reasons (something about extra membranes) when I was about 7 and got to miss a week of school, staying home to watch cartoons all day and be brought ice cream and new Transformers and recline while a woman rubs cream into my genitals. Moreso than any lingering soreness, I remember that week was the first time I saw both The Simpsons and Star Blazers. And when I was healed enough to walk around again, I was so jazzed about the cleanly parabolic stream of amber I could make that my mom still tells me about a man walking out of the department store bathroom saying "a little boy in there just told me he can pee for three meters." Three? You know how kids exaggerate. Overall I look back on the whole thing as a positive experience. It's just a piece of flesh and it should work for me - I'd still rather lose the whole damn thing than a major finger or something equally useful and publicly visible.
Interestingly it was also completely painless afterwards until the doctor asked if I wanted to see, and of course I did, but it started to hurt as soon as I looked and actually saw less blood than I was expecting, which combined with the ointment and padding made it look somehow more like an intestine than an appendage. Years later as a teenager when having an unsightly skin thing removed my forearm, I turned down a chance to look deep inside through the muscle down to the bone, saying it would start to hurt at that point like circumcision and expecting to be praised for "knowing myself", but to this day I regret not looking anyway.
...That turned out longer than I planned, but I guess it's one more anecdote for your "this doesn't actually count towards policy" file.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 19, 2011 5:48 PM
I'm sorry, John Salerno. Apparently you're not a whiner. Perhaps I shouldn't have called you a whiner. Do you prefer your whines to be called grouses, cavils or gripes?
One of my objections to the circumcision whiners is how melodramatic they get. "If only my foreskin was still intact then my orgasms would be earth shattering!" "Theresa Spermatozoa won't give me a blowjob because my dick's too small, but if it still had that extra millimeter or two of foreskin then she'd be on me like stink on shit."
Posted by: Sylphs
|
October 19, 2011 6:03 PM
#1. Wrong. The risk of acquiring HIV was 4% in the uncircumcised group and 2% in the circumcised group. Meaning that the circumcised group risk was 50% of that in the uncircumcised. The measles vaccine reduced the case rate from ~400,000 in the beginning of the 1960s to ~20,000 at the end of the 1960s. The correct comparison is the case rate of 0.2% per year lowered to 0.01% per year, not comparing 99.8% to 99.99% of people who did not acquire measles.
#2. Wrong. It is profoundly unethical not to at least offer circumcision to the control arm at the conclusion of the study. Longitudinal studies had already suggested a link between circumcision and lower risk of HIV infection. The controlled and randomized studies were done to reduce the number of confounding effects. Given that circumcision is a relatively low-risk procedure, and the benefit in terms of HIV acquisition is so great, both arms were offered circumcision. It is standard practice in clinical trials, when efficacy has been overwhelmingly demonstrated, to stop the trial and offer the treatment to everyone.
Wow. Seriously, who are you, the Pope? Firstly, the evidence is not as strong, but there is an indication that male circumcision reduces male-to-female transmission. Secondly, it's a treatment that lowers HIV transmission. Less people infected in general is a good thing, for women as well. Also, the men don't become infected with HIV. That's good enough for me.
I am not arguing for or against infant circumcision. But just because you don't like infant circumcision is not a reason to dismiss clear evidence that circumcision does protect against HIV acquisition.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/icZyUQRjoeQFGS30SZYbEw4oChJAAZKcaw--#934fe
|
October 19, 2011 6:17 PM
From the African study:
"The World Bank and the U.S. State Department support a major push for adult male circumcision. But the economists estimated the cost-benefit ratio for such circumcisions at 23:1.... Other improvements "are so cheap and effective" they jumped to the top of the list, he said. Preventing mother-to-child transmission by treating HIV-positive pregnant women with medication and improving the blood supply had a cost-benefit ratios of 95:1 and 393:1, respectively.
"Making blood transfusions safe costs almost nothing, but we're not doing it," Lomborg said."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-09-28/global-hiv-prevention-circumcision/50594330/1
If the major excuse for pushing circumcision is stopping the spread of HIV, there's little evidence that is the best way to go about it.
Posted by: ultimatedeliveryoption
|
October 19, 2011 6:37 PM
'Tis Himself,
It's my opinion that you are being a jerk. Please note my concern.
UDO
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
October 19, 2011 6:58 PM
The idea of circumcision as a prophylactic against HIV is silly and goes against standards of medical ethics as practiced in other situations.
Circumcision has a ton of associated risks ranging from infection through mutilation to death. (I knew two men whose circumcisions cause them serious pain whenever they have an erection. Since they are healthy young men, that's several times every day. For some odd reason, they are serious masochists.) These risks to not outweigh the risks of death from HIV infection.
And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, men who think they are supermen immune to HIV because of their circumcisions are more likely to spread HIV and other diseases. The cure for that is what, to tell them, no, they have use a condom anyway?
The arguments for circumcision could be transferred to teeth. Look: teeth are dangerous. Kids use them to bite each other, which leads to dangerous infections. Teeth are ugly; they get dirty and smelly; and they scare animals when children show them. Therefore kids should get all their teeth pulled. It doesn't hurt much (the nerves aren't all that well-developed) and the kids seem to get over it pretty quickly.
(Eegh. I felt horrible writing that.)
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 19, 2011 7:17 PM
No. Quite the contrary. My position has been consistent: circumcision is child abuse and should be stopped.
The problem is a mob of privileged male near-illiterates who interpret my statements that FGM is far worse as a claim that I'm arguing circumcision does no harm. But only morons made that claim. You're not a moron, are you?
Posted by: stuntmonkeys
|
October 19, 2011 8:24 PM
Timberwoof said:
"The arguments for circumcision could be transferred to teeth. Look: teeth are dangerous. Kids use them to bite each other, which leads to dangerous infections. Teeth are ugly; they get dirty and smelly; and they scare animals when children show them. Therefore kids should get all their teeth pulled. It doesn't hurt much (the nerves aren't all that well-developed) and the kids seem to get over it pretty quickly."
Such an argument could be transferred, but only poorly. When foreskin has the utility of teeth, I will consider your analogy meaningful.
Posted by: stuntmonkeys
|
October 19, 2011 8:30 PM
By way of disclosure, I am circumsized and circumcized my son about four months ago.
I'd be curious to know whether there is any indication that infant circs actually cause any trauma or other malady of any sort. Without evidence to the contrary, my everyday experience is that there is no difference in the intellectual or emotional development of children who were "abused" in such a manner.
What I'm getting at, hopefully cogently, is the issue of how much utility is required before the negative effects (whatever they may be) are outweighed.
Posted by: Rjaye
|
October 19, 2011 8:37 PM
Sylphs' comment:
"Wow. Seriously, who are you, the Pope? Firstly, the evidence is not as strong, but there is an indication that male circumcision reduces male-to-female transmission. Secondly, it's a treatment that lowers HIV transmission. Less people infected in general is a good thing, for women as well. Also, the men don't become infected with HIV. That's good enough for me."
Number one, no, I am not the pope, and two, I don't give a damn about circumcision. Your automatic kneejerk reaction to questions about attitudes and preliminary studies shows you really aren't thinking rationally.
Others have responded to your statement about HIV infection prevention, and I would add that until you offer a cite that supports the reduction of HIV in all populations as a result, I'm going to call bullshit on your hypothesis. The other thing I would note is that at the number of people in those studies, I am underwhelmed.
As far as I'm concerned, when a boy reaches a certain age, he can decide for himself. Whether that's thirteen or eighteen, I don't care. That it's done on infants seems ridiculous to me and a violation of another human's body integrity, but that it doesn't seem to impact the function of the organ too much, so, well, I can't get too worked up about it. But if it came to a vote, I would vote against it.
And as for your last comments, wow. Just wow.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 19, 2011 8:52 PM
Stuntmonkeys@39;
Ah, but it's only the milk teeth that get pulled. Once the permanent teeth are in, there will be no permanent harm or detriment.
Stuntmonkeys@40;
Ultimately it doesn't matter if there are no permanent harmful effects in most cases. The ethical issue here is subjection to risk without justifiable reason.
And it doesn't matter how low the risk actually is, if there is no valid justification, if there is basically no benefit, then performing the procedure cannot be warranted.
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
October 19, 2011 9:20 PM
Stuntmonkeys, you asked for evidence that infant circumcision causes trauma. You asked about "malady of any sort" even though I just pointed some out—did you read my post? Leaving complications aside (including the painful erections I mentioned), you have only to watch the procedure and listen to the screams to ascertain whether there is trauma.
As for long-term effects, there is a formal study underway in San Francisco to measure the sensitivities of cut and uncut men. In my own experience, circumcision seems to leave men with much reduced sensitivity; masturbation techniques that are ho-hum on cut guys would require secure restraints on me.
I have spoken to men who have attempted, with some success, to regrow foreskin by stretching. They report a return of sensitivity. I await the findings of the formal study. (This just means that cut men can, if they want, restore their foreskins. It does not mean it's okay to cut it off in the first place.)
Your criterion seems to be that if it doesn't cause a whole lot of harm, it's okay. Mine is that if it doesn't provide a whole lot of benefits, it's not worth the risks.
Posted by: Annie
|
October 19, 2011 10:01 PM
Assuming that circumcision is performed competently, infants really do not - and cannot - remember what happened to them at that age, nor is it apparently painful for more than a very short time.
Also, just my personal 2 cents here: I find it much more pleasurable to give a blow job to a man who is circumcised than not.
YMMV.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
October 19, 2011 10:17 PM
" … anybody does it who isn't in a covenant ought to be put in prison…I do abusive things because I'm in covenant with god."
Wow. That is the money quote. I am surprised the thread spun into pro and con without anyone picking up on this weapons grade crazy:
1. He thinks it should be illegal.
2. He gives himself a pass on it.
Yikes!
What if I took up Druidism and started to practice human sacrifice?
Posted by: evergreenotter
|
October 19, 2011 10:20 PM
In Western nations you cannot perform female genital cutting on a minor for ANY reason, whether thousand year old tradition or modern claim of health benefits. So why do boys not deserve that same right?
People who support male genital cutting in minors ultimately support inequality under the law to the point of allowing unnecessary surgery on children. Thus the HIV debate is a flagrant attempt by pro-circumcision Americans and religious peoples to obscure the basic issue of human rights and equality at stake.
Additionally when I hear men state how they circumcise their sons, I think of anthropological studies of female genital mutilation, where it is the mothers who actively continue the practice. Most women subject to FGM further claim they are happy with their status, so again the 'thankful' circumcised men here again show the same patterns of conduct/abuse.
Posted by: evergreenotter
|
October 19, 2011 10:27 PM
So Annie #45 are remembrance and level of pain the only parameters in ethics?
Applying your 'moral' framework, a rape using a complete sedative that prevented me from being aware of the rape as it happened or from feeling pain would make it no worse than circumcision, if not less a act, since I would still have all my body parts unlike the baby boy.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill
|
October 20, 2011 12:06 AM
Sylphs:
Pity he's never heard of condoms.
Posted by: TLCTugger
|
October 20, 2011 12:10 AM
Of course infants should be left alone to grow up and make their own rational informed choice amidst all this controversy. NOT ONE national medical association on earth (not even Israel's) endorses routine infant circumcision.
Adult STI data has no more bearing on infant foreskins than adult cancer data has on baby girls' breasts. But the HIV results ARE quite mixed. In 2009, Wawer/Gray reported that circumcising Ugandan men made them 50% MORE likely to infect their partners with deadly HIV. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth.
But forget STIs. The reason to leave the foreskin there is that infant circumcision is very haphazard (Google circumcision damage) and foreskin feels REALLY good.
Posted by: Haleac
|
October 20, 2011 1:05 AM
My wife has shown much gratitude on countless occasions for my circumcision. She has told me that she was never able to perform oral sex on an uncut man as the odor was overwhelming. They were clean men. A friend of mine got a circumcision at 16 as none of his girlfriends would perform oral sex on him. Again, he was a clean person. There are many reasons to circumcise.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 20, 2011 1:23 AM
Haleac, many reasons, and that's one of the more spurious ones I've ever seen.
She's appeasing your manhood with gentle strokes, there, and you're buying it.
(There, there)
Posted by: Sylphs
|
October 20, 2011 1:32 AM
I only ask if you're the pope, since he exhibited the same sort of behavior. The Ugandan strategy to reduce HIV infection has been quite effective - ABC - Abstinence, Be faithful, Condom use. The order is important. Abstinence is obviously the most effective strategy. But fidelity is quite effective as well, more effective than condom use. Condoms can break. Two, and only two, HIV- people will not infect each other. When the pope discouraged condom use because it promoted unsafe sexual practices, he was roundly condemned, because condoms are incredibly useful in the HIV fight (but not as good as fidelity or abstinence). If we're now at ABCC, you're doing the same shit that he was.
We will never have a prophylactic strategy against HIV that remotely approaches 100% efficacy. Any vaccine that approaches the efficacy of circumcision would be considered a godsend. But this argument of "It promotes unsafe behavior!" will be with us until we reach that threshold. Even though you have data literally in hand suggesting otherwise.
The link between circumcision and reduced infection rate has been known for more than a decade. It was explained to the study participants in the papers in post #15, and despite what some people have said here, the risks of surgery in general and circumcision specifically were taken into account in these studies. Patients don't undergo surgery, and doctors don't do it, unless there is a compelling reason. That's why longitudinal studies were done before randomized trials - the doctors don't have a jones for cutting... they wanted to know if HIV and circumcision were related.
Thus, in every study that has been done on circumcision/HIV for at least the last 5 years, the potential reduced risk has been clearly explained to the study participants. If they took that as license to fuck everything that moved, without a johnnyhat, that should be reflected in transmission rates to circumcised males. And they're still 50% lower! Again and again. and again.
Lest this be unclear... I. do. not. fucking. care. about. Americans. and. foreskins. I care about HIV, and I care about Africa.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmk6Rbson33madhZmOmJjIFpkpoDv0i9hU
|
October 20, 2011 1:37 AM
@Sylphs I'm not sure if you really read the article at CDC that you posted:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
..but it's got a long way to go before it is a truly pro-circumcision statement. It cites 3 African studies as the strongest studies which if you look into them there is reason to want more, better controlled, and broader randomization in future studies. The only US study regarding HIV transmission mentioned is "Prospective" and other studies mentioned are meta analyses and such or are only studying side effects of circumcision not benefits. I'm all for letting the science fall where it will and if the science says its useful then so be it. BUT, the article plainly states that in 1999 the AAP changed from a neutral stance on circumcision to not recommending it unless warranted by a medical condition, and reaffirmed in 2005.
The article reminds me of a lot of the articles you find in NCCAM where moderately positive results for Alternative Medicine in a few studies uncorroborated by others that would normally leave scientists saying "insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion" or "insufficient results to warrant further study" instead has the authors saying "positive effects equal to or slightly greater than placebo suggest this is a useful modality and deserves more study"
Glad to be shown that I'm wrong but it looks like the positive statements in the article (pretty much all based on the African studies which when you read them are weird and weak in my opinion) are counterbalanced by moderate results and demonstration that the authoritative groups such as AAP are moving away, not toward, circumcision. Maybe you could point out the clinical trial abstracts that are most convincing.
Posted by: cowalker
|
October 20, 2011 1:45 AM
We did not make a decision for our son based on the premise that he would be promiscuous. It seems to me that female circumcision is based on that same assumption. I hastily acknowledge that female circumcision is more horrific by orders of magnitude in its intended and unintended effects. But female circumcision IS based on the assumption that a natural woman is a slut who cannot control her sex drive. It seems to me that the decision to circumcise male babies is based on the same assumption.
We hoped that we could teach our son to control his sex drive, whether heterosexual or homosexual, and to protect his partners. This appears to have been a reasonable hope, as he is now grown up, and in a committed relationship with a woman.
We talked with our son about these issues during his high school years, and his secular private school provided a superb and scientifically grounded sex education.
We had tremendous advantages.
But still. Is it reasonable to make the decision for circumcision because your male child might become an irresponsible, promiscuous player?
Just our personal decision, but we assumed that we would have some influence on our son's moral development. Of course we could have been wrong. I would say that the pro-circumcision default is wrong.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 20, 2011 1:48 AM
Lest this be unclear... I. do. not. fucking. care. about. Americans. and. foreskins. I care about HIV, and I care about Africa.
Well, asshole, you seem to have quite missed what this post was about when you jumped in with your idiotic comment #1.
Posted by: evergreenotter
|
October 20, 2011 1:50 AM
@Haelec letter No. 50
I note a trend that some men who were circumcised as children (i.e. without personal consent) exhibit an obvious need to announce their virility in these debates.
It must be hard on some level to think part of your natural body was taken from you without your consent. Despite your bravado, alleged gratefulness, etc., you really have no idea what you are missing. Even if you had a homosexual experience with a natural man, you would still only see a foreskin vicariously.
All I know as a woman is that virtually no men in Europe where I am from seek circumcision for any reason but religion. Without rationalisations and patterns of cyclical abuse, sane, informed men in developed nations other than the United States choose to keep their natural genitals.
As for the uncircumcised penis being too 'dirty' or 'smelly', that sounds like the one perverse claim used to justify female genital mutilation, i.e. making the genitals 'cleaner'. The genitals are supposed to be moist in certain parts in both men and women. It seems insane to me that people find a dried out penis head so desirable.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmk6Rbson33madhZmOmJjIFpkpoDv0i9hU
|
October 20, 2011 2:02 AM
The wikipedia article on Circumcision and HIV is pretty comprehensive and gives great perspective on the studies done, the state of the science and arguments or differing opinions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV
Posted by: Sylphs
|
October 20, 2011 2:10 AM
"Well, asshole, you seem to have quite missed what this post was about when you jumped in with your idiotic comment #1."
HIV is what is important to me. It's the sole reason for me posting here. But, again, Uganda serves as a good example. There were people in the US that were not happy to keep their problems here. It was important that the entire world agreed with them. So they sent some emissaries... no.. missionaries, to raise awareness of their problem in Kampala. See, they didn't like gay people, and they decided they needed everyone to agree with them. They didn't understand how what they said might reverberate in a place they have no context of, but they were more than happy to say it anyway. And now people are facing death as a result.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 20, 2011 2:20 AM
If it's that important to you, you should be doing something more productive.
See, I know about the complicity of American religious nutcases in the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" bill, and every one else here probably does too. Now, what the fuck does your condescending crap have to do with circumcising infants?
Posted by: Sylphs
|
October 20, 2011 2:38 AM
Well, actually, I work on Hepatitis C, not HIV, but this is my off-time after a 12 hour day. I should probably be doing something more productive, like sleeping.
Literally nothing. But it does have something to do with fanatics that can't tolerate anything opposing their point of view. Pros or cons be damned.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
October 20, 2011 2:41 AM
Right. You're trolling.
Intellectually dishonest pap.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill
|
October 20, 2011 3:54 AM
Sylphs:
No, that's not why the pope discouraged condom use. The pope discourages condom use because he discourages ALL forms of "unnatural" contraception. The Roman Catholic Church has a religious ideology that "natural" fertility should not be interfered with. Roman Catholic ideology is the root of some of the worlds biggest problems.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/aB1hPVMOr_3ywwFYirBf34B1V6GzRm7.o72sLMk-#012ba
|
October 20, 2011 4:57 AM
The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene."
- Yet somehow the myth persists. It's funny I hear the myth of cleanliness regurgitated most often by (American) ladies who then are shocked when made to think about the logical outcome...
"So are you telling me you'd not prefer a freshly washed, uncircumcised penis over a circumcised penis that's been unwashed for, say, three days? Because circumcision doesn't actually make the penis any cleaner if you already clean it; all it does is make it superficially look clean when you don't. The three days worth of bacteria, sweat, dirt and other crud is still gonna be there, you're just not gonna be aware of it..."
Ladies also tend to find the AIDS/STD argument a lot less convincing when you point out to them that it offers no protection whatsoever to the woman.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 20, 2011 5:01 AM
Sylphs talking out of his ass @ 1,
The benefit you claim is only seen in high-risk HIV populations such as in sub-saharan Africa, not in any Western country. Surely as someone "working in a HIV lab" you should know this ? Condoms prevent HIV and STDs, circumcision doesn't.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/aB1hPVMOr_3ywwFYirBf34B1V6GzRm7.o72sLMk-#012ba
|
October 20, 2011 5:42 AM
Rorschach, I was thinking the exact same thing about Sylphs post.
Not only are condoms far more effective at preventing HIV than circumcision (99% protection for both partners vs. 40% and 0% protection for the male and female respectively for circumcision) but also early treatment of HIV-infected people with antiretrovirals protect 96% of partners from infection (Source: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), "Treating HIV-infected People with Antiretrovirals Protects Partners from Infection", NIH News, 2011 May).
So what your PI thinks he knows Sylphs, just aint so!
Posted by: Musuko
|
October 20, 2011 7:35 AM
@29
"Quick question: any studies on the number of male infants permanently damaged by botched circumcisions or post surgery infections?"
Any number of infants damaged by an unnecessary surgical procedure that's greater than zero is too many, in my opinion.
And I know of at least one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
Posted by: Musuko
|
October 20, 2011 7:40 AM
Incidentally, circumcision appears to be a strangely American fad. It really rarely happens over this side of the pond.
I'm a 26 year old British gay man with average sexual experience, and I've never seen a cut one in the flesh.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
October 20, 2011 7:48 AM
Somewhat off-topic (but still dealing with babies, medical ethics, and religion):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15335899
In Spain, a long-running scandal has come to light, where for many years (starting under Franco, and continuing until the 1990s), parents who were deemed "unsuitible" would have their babies taken from them (and be told by the doctors etc that they had died, but that they couldn't see the body) and given (or sold!) to more "suitible" families.
Originally it way a way for the Franco regiem to ensure the children of disidents were brought up by loyalists, but later became based on "moral" grounds.
And I bet can't imagine what organisation played a critical, driving role in all this. Go on, give it a guess...
Damn! Who would have thought?
A doctor involved in the scandal is interviewd:
Dr Vela grabbed a metal crucifix which had been standing on his desk. He moved towards me brandishing it in my face. "Do you know what this is, Katya?" he said. "I have always acted in his name. Always for the good of the children and to protect the mothers. Enough."
Posted by: owmyhands
|
October 20, 2011 9:23 AM
Um, putting aside circumcision for a moment, at about 50 minutes in, did they actually give that 8-day-old baby alcohol?
Posted by: barefoothiker
|
October 20, 2011 10:14 AM
@'Tis Himself:
Tis, would this be your advice to women who'd been circumcised? "It's done; stop whining about your hoo-hah"? Seriously? I think you're missing the point, which is the issue of consent regardless of gender, and security of the person, again, regardless of gender. Either that you're being deliberately obtuse.
Posted by: Science Avenger
|
October 20, 2011 11:29 AM
Had it done, don't remember it, never missed it, glad it was done, think the whole issue is overblown (heh), and the ladies on this side of the pond seem to overwhelmingly prefer it. If you dismiss that as some sort of male-ego stroke, I suggest you are guilty of counter-macho kneejerk rationalization. If ladies elsewhere don't care, bully for them. If some people don't want to do it to their kids, bully for them. Would I do it to my kid? Not sure, my life choices render that question permanently hypothetical.
On the lighter side, without circumcision we'd have never had the classic SNL skit of "Ubermann, champion of untruth, injustice, and the Nazi way" [points to the groin of another man] "that man is a Jew!"
Posted by: kelehe
|
October 20, 2011 2:55 PM
This is mutilation, it is irreversible and anyone who does this is a sick fuck. If you choose to do it to yourself, that is your right, but you don't have a right to physically mutilate a baby just because you are the parent.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
October 20, 2011 4:22 PM
I still haven't seen any rational reason given why children (in the West at least) should be circumcised. (Unless you count "so they can get a blowjob from Haleac's wife when they grow up").
Sure, as unnecessary surgical procedures go, it's not that bad. Almost everyone survives it with no complications, and it is neither as debilitating nor as noticable as other wacky cultural forms of body modification (FGM, ritual scarification, Artificial cranial deformation, etc).
But still, given that it is:
a) invasive surgery
b) permenant (at least without further cosmetic surgury)
c) carries a small risk of serious complications
d) almost invariably "justified" with spurious arguments
e) can be done later in life if you (or your partner) really want it
I have no qualms about saying the whole procedure is crazy, and so are the people who advocate it (barring those few instances where there is a real medical reason).
Posted by: Darwin Harmless
|
October 21, 2011 9:38 AM
For those who were done as infants and have no problem with that, I'm happy for you. I wish I felt the same.
The good news is that this issue is being discussed and debated. When I was a teenager, it was a given, never mentioned, and anybody who questioned the practice was looked on as a nut case. My friends and I just looked with envy at the boys who still had a slider to wank with, but we kept our mouths shut. I believe the practice will go the way of Chinese foot binding, and the medical justification will be seen as the equivalent of blood letting. It will take some time.
Look at the cognitive dissonance around this issue. We are asking parents to say they have harmed their children. We are asking doctors to say they have performed unnecessary and harmful surgery that amounts to mutilation. We are asking children to say their loving parents damaged them. No wonder there is a lot of irrational justification and rationalization.
I'm just looking forward to the next wave of angry teenagers who may discover they can actually sue their doctor, their rabbi, or their parents for mutilating them with no medical justification. If anything can stop the practice, that might do it. We need to add a risk factor to chopping off a part of somebody's body without their consent.
How I wish the people I could sue weren't dead already. If you are young enough to be able to sue the people who did it to you, I sure hope you go for it. Take them to court. Who knows, maybe you could win some compensation, or at least make people realize that not everybody is happy to lose a part his dick before he can protest.
Posted by: zmandel
|
October 21, 2011 9:59 AM
its NOT abuse! what a stupid post. Of course you can make it look any way you want, but there are safe, painless ways to do it. I did it to my child and he didnt cry or bothered him (with anesthetic, an experienced doctor and a drop of wine). The way rabbis do it is more painful, harder and riskier, but still wouldnbt call it abuse.
Posted by: pra
|
October 21, 2011 11:00 AM
Well, ain't it great that the profit of the copyright mafia is more important than child abuse?
GEMA, go get yourself circumcised.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 21, 2011 1:00 PM
Safe is relative. Painless is relative. There is no such thing as a 100% safe surgical procedure.
And if there is no good reason to proceed, then even the safest surgical procedure is unjustifiable.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 21, 2011 1:03 PM
Tis has participated extensively in previous female genital mutilation posts, so those of us who have been around know, for a fact, that this ISN'T his advice to women who have been circumcised.
Posted by: evergreenotter
|
October 21, 2011 4:49 PM
Darwin Harmless No. 74 offers a clairvoyant look at post No. 75.
See zmandel proclaim "its NOT abuse!" while then admitting in a succeeding sentence "I did it to my child ".
And yet I would make a strong bet, zmandel fancies himself morally superior to African parents that have their daughters cut. While the harm done might not be identical, the mentality is.
That is what makes these traditions so grotesque and disturbing, the unwillingness of people to admit they did wrong is the strongest force for continuing a senseless practice.
Posted by: Freetotebag
|
October 21, 2011 9:58 PM
While I realize the male package is not known for being as pleasing to the eyes as the female form, an flacid uncut piece looks like a deflated balloon.
Posted by: Darwin Harmless
|
October 22, 2011 12:25 AM
@zmandel Your comment fairly screams cognitive dissonance. You have a huge emotional commitment to the belief that circumcision is okay. Admitting that it is abuse would mean accepting that you abused your child, albeit unintentionally because no doubt you did it without thought or investigation, and that's a hard reality to face.
@evergreenotter Yes exactly. Thanks for noticing.
@Freetotebag "pleasing to the eyes" is all in the mind. When people understand what a penis should look like they see a circumcised dick as mutilated and unnatural, hardly pleasing. Would you see a woman's pudenda stripped of labia and clitoris as pleasing to the eye? There are many who do. Seeing the glans of the penis looking like a dried out mudflat is hardly pleasing to one who knows that it should look like the inside of your cheek, a naturally moist mucous membrane.
Posted by: Tumara Baap
|
October 22, 2011 2:37 AM
I was very surprised that only U.S. and Israel routinely circumcise their baby boys. I was under the impression muslims also circumcise their boys. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt ... that's already quite a large swathe of humanity.
P.S. India is majority Hindu but still has one of the largest muslim populations of any country
Posted by: Tumara Baap
|
October 22, 2011 2:54 AM
One of our relatives was furnished with all relevant information conveying to the parents there is no sound medical reason to circumcise but did still did it to their baby boy. They explained in the U.S. almost everyone does it. They did not want their son being made fun of in school for being the odd one out. They did not want women to think he is a freak like in one particular Sex in the City episode. One would think the threshold for partaking in something so cruel would be very high. But the affair becomes blase if a lot of other people do it. A story on CNN about parents tattooing their kids makes folks go postal. But routine mutilation of the genitals and no one bats an eyelid. And as always religion plays a tawdry role in many an act degrading to human dignity. And as always its usually those espousing secular ethics who first raise awareness of culturally entrenched stupidities.
Posted by: Darwin Harmless
|
October 22, 2011 3:39 AM
@Tumara Baap Thanks for sharing that information, though it makes me feel sick to think that parents can be so thoughtless. Does it never occur to them that their boy might someday move to a country where everybody is not circumcised and have to face ridicule there? That happens to be my situation at the moment, though I'm not getting a lot of ridicule. Most adults are kinder than that.
It's hard to underestimate power of the herd mentality. Recently experimenter placed subjects in a room with a large group of other subjects, but without knowing that all the others are plants. Then lines of various lengths are projected on a screen and the "subjects" are told to say which is longest. All the conspirators choose one that obviously isn't the longest, and a very large percentage of the time the actual test subjects go against the evidence of their own eyes and agree with the group. They would rather deny what they see than stand out from the crowd.
The real pity is that people like your relatives are too stupid to understand that they are stupid, or be convinced that they were wrong, so they continue to promote the same behavior. But perhaps some day their son will tell them what idiots they are.
If my boys ever complain about not being circumcised, I can hand them a couple of hundred bucks and send them to a doctor. What are your relatives going to say if their son isn't happy with his condition? Oops? Sorry?
Posted by: bernarda
|
October 22, 2011 4:19 AM
There are several organizations opposing circumcision. Here are two.
Cirp http://www.cirp.org/
Doctors Opposing Circumcision http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
Years ago I wrote to ask Amnesty International why they are active against female sexual mutilation but not male sexual mutilation. They wrote back that no international organization like the UN, etc. had made regulations against it.
Since when, I asked, did AI have to have the approval of other international organizations to carry out their own policies? They didn't reply. What is AI afraid of?
As for Xians, Jews, and Muslims, didn't god make man in his own image? How can you be so arrogant to think that you can improve on god's work.
Posted by: docrick11
|
October 22, 2011 10:23 AM
I cut people up for a living (and for good reason) and that video really bothered me. My two boys are uncircumcised, it wasn't even of a debate.
How a parent could allow, let alone witness that is beyond me.
Posted by: joseph4gi
|
October 22, 2011 7:54 PM
The bottom line: The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genital anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.
Doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less stoking a parent's sense of entitlement.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkxauLxtF1MxpfNiPYrjc__uJA78-o2JTo
|
October 22, 2011 8:14 PM
It's a universal law of the internet: even just mentioning circumcision will spark a passionate debate between men whose definition of a normal penis is their own, and any other definition of a normal penis threatens their manhood (with a few men who are less emotionally attached to their dongs and can see the other side of things. Almost always the circumcised siding with the uncircumcised). Maybe those who do not own penises (unbiased with their facts; well, more so anyway) can clearly mark their posts so that we can take all the rest with a grain of salt.
Also: I am uncircumcised, and (surprise) oppose irreversibly modifying a baby's body without a specific medical reason.
Posted by: joseph4gi
|
October 22, 2011 8:28 PM
The African "studies" are all complete hogwash, and even the authors themselves know it. Hence the insistence of condoms and sex education.
Let's dissect some of the obvious flaws in the so-called "random controlled trials."
1. Written by long-time circumcision advocates who have been long trying to circumcise the world.
2. The call these studies "the gold standard," implying that they were actual RCTs; by the very nature of circumcision, true RCTs are impossible, because true RCTs would be completely unethical. How do you placebo a circumcision? How do you keep people, participant and conductor, from knowing who is circumcised? If participants are men who are paid to be circumcised, can this truly be a "random selection?"
3. The men were told about condoms and sex education. So what caused the reduction in HIV?
4. The circumcised group of men were told to abstain from sex for 6 weeks following their operation. This alone gives the circumcised group of men a head start in the race.
5. The assumption is that the men who acquired HIV did so by female to male sexual transmission; other studies have shown that this is not a very efficient way to transmit HIV. How about the use of needles and gay sex, which, in Africa, it can mean death to admit?
6. Promoters of circumcision love to tout this "60% reduction" buzz phrase, but what does it really mean? Does it mean that if you circumcise 100 men, 40 of them will get HIV, and the other 60 will not? No. That's not what it means.
For sake of brevity I'm pooling data here:
For the three RCTs, a total of 5,411 men were circumcised, and a total of 5,497 were left intact. After 20 months, 64 of the men in the circumcised experimental groups had HIV,
compared to 137 in the non-circumcised control groups. That 60% figure is the difference circumcised and intact men in the subgroup of 201 out of 11,054 men in the study. When you take into account ALL of the men involved in the so-called "study," the REAL reduction was 1.31%, which, even if we were to take this "study" seriously, is, in the grand scheme of things, insignificant.
What's worse, six hundred and seventy-three men were lost to follow-up, their HIV status unknown, confounding the 1.31% reduction even further.
All of this plus the fact that real-world data contrasts with these "studies." HIV transmission was found to be prevalent in 10 out of 18 countries, according to USAID. Despite near-universal circumcision, HIV is RISING in other countries, such as Malaysia, the Philippines and Bangladesh.
For whatever reason, nobody seems to think it's a big deal that, even though 80% of US males are circumcised, America has higher STD transmission rates, including HIV, than various countries in Europe where circumcision is rare.
But here's the bottom line; would we EVER consider similar "studies" or "benefits?" When it comes to female circumcision? Why? Why not?
We keep trying to justify what we do to boys, because "there just might be potential medical benefits," but would there ever be enough "potential medical benefits" to make us re-consider female circumcision?
What if we could perform circumcision in a way that only removes "extra bits of skin," leaving the clitoris etc. intact? Yes? No?
Would we ever be supportive of "research" that seeks to find "benefit" in female circumcision? What would we think if Johns Hopkins, NIH etc. funded "studies" to circumcise 1,000 women and see which ones got STDs? Yes? No?
The answer is, no. We wouldn't. These studies would be deemed un-ethical and we would never approve of them, let alone consider them to change medical policy.
It's called a sexist double-standard.
Instead of seeking new uses for a surgery, shouldn't "scientists" be seeking ways to OUTDATE it?
The bottom line is, any "medical benefit" that you say circumcision can afford, can already be afforded by other, more effective, less invasive means.
"Scientists" who are "studying" circumcision may as well as also be "studying" new uses for the 8-track player or the guillotine.
There are better, more effective ways to prevent HIV, keep clean etc.
Time our country knew about those instead of paying "researchers" to keep their heads up their ass.
Posted by: jlruby123
|
October 23, 2011 1:31 AM
There is no evidence that circumcision causes harm. Yes, babies who are circumcised cry for a minute or so. That's all, by the way. I've seen a number of circumcisions (including those of both of my sons) and the babies cry for about the same amount of time that they cry when blood is drawn or they get a shot. Other than that, there's no indication of either short or long-term pain or damage. Urination isn't affected and cleaning the scabbed area until the wound heals causes the baby no discomfort. So anyone who uses words like "traumatic" to describe circumcision is making shit up. (What, you don't think there are rabbis who make shit up?)
The arguments against circumcision that I've read, including those here, fall into two categories: (1) made up stuff, unsupported by evidence, that it's traumatic and causes harm to the child, and (2) emotional expressions about how icky it is.
When you say "circumcision is child abuse and should be stopped," what you're actually saying is, "Jews should have their children taken from them and they should be sent to prison." That is, you're saying that you're willing to make little Jewish boys into orphans in order to keep their penises intact.
And don't say, "well, parents should obey the law and then they won't go to prison." Maybe PZ really does believe that if Jews are so moronic that they would go to prison for their fantasy religion, that's where they belong, but the point is that they will go to prison, their children will be fatherless, and a great deal of harm will be done. There's no benefit that would justify the amount of suffering and damage to children that would result if circumcision were banned.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/icZyUQRjoeQFGS30SZYbEw4oChJAAZKcaw--#934fe
|
October 23, 2011 2:19 AM
It's disappointing, but perhaps predictable, that no one commented on what i posted earlier in the thread - that the African study also found, and I repeat, that CLEANING THE BLOOD SUPPLY UP and GIVING AIDS DRUGS TO HIV INFECTED PREGNANT WOMEN would be a much more effective way to combat the spread of HIV in Africa than circumcision.
But those things would benefit women and children, therefore no one has any interest in them. It's much more important to go on and on and on about surgery to the almighty penis, since we all know damn well men refuse to wear condoms even when they are cheap and easily available and they have had it beaten into their heads over and over that it could save their lives to wear them.
Posted by: Musuko
|
October 23, 2011 4:33 AM
@90
"When you say "circumcision is child abuse and should be stopped," what you're actually saying is, "Jews should have their children taken from them and they should be sent to prison." That is, you're saying that you're willing to make little Jewish boys into orphans in order to keep their penises intact."
Surgically removing the nipples.
Surgically removing the bellybutton.
Surgically removing the earloves.
Surgically removing the fingernails.
Surgically removing the toenails.
Surgically removing the foreskin.
If any parent pushed to do any of these things for cosmetic or hygene reasons, they would likely have their children taken from them. And if they actually did these things, they would likely be convicted and imprisoned.
All except for one of the things on the list. Why is that?
None of the other things on this list cause harm. So should parents be allowed to do them to their children if they desire?
If not, why not? Explain yourself.
Posted by: joseph4gi
|
October 23, 2011 5:15 AM
"There is no evidence that circumcision causes harm."
That all depends on how you define "harm" now, doesn't it. Yes, parents who allow female circumcision on their daughters don't believe what they are doing is "harm" either. It's a double-standard when cutting off a healthy part of the genitals is called "harm" in one sex, but not the other. Get your head out of your ass. You're not bluffing anyone.
"Yes, babies who are circumcised cry for a minute or so. That's all, by the way."
Both male and female.
"I've seen a number of circumcisions (including those of both of my sons) and the babies cry for about the same amount of time that they cry when blood is drawn or they get a shot."
How many baby GIRL circumcisions have you seen? Would you care to? Because they cry for about the same amount of time too.
"Other than that, there's no indication of either short or long-term pain or damage."
You seem to be making up the rule that the length of how much somebody cries is indicative of the long-term pain and damage. You also seem to think that your eyes are the only ones who have ever witnessed a circumcision. Yes, I'm afraid anybody can look up a circumcision on YouTube and see what it really entails. And other parents have had their children circumcised like you, only they don't hide the fact that their babies cried every time they changed their bloodied diapers. Aren't you going to talk about THAT?
"Urination isn't affected and cleaning the scabbed area until the wound heals causes the baby no discomfort."
You must seriously think your readers were born yesterday. There are plenty of videos on YouTube of regretful mothers changing their child's diaper, and the child crying incessantly every time the mother tries to dab that child's penis clean. The child's wound sits in urine and feces until it heals, and every diaper change is an ordeal. Contrary to popular belief, it is very hard to take care of a healing child, as one has to work to make sure the remaining foreskin does not adhere to the glans penis. 'Tis the origin of many circumcision revisions that have to be made.
Did you know that there are doctors that specialize in re-circumcisions? It's true. Circumcision botches happen so much that there are doctors whose sole living is made up of fixing other people's mistakes. But let me guess, this didn't happen with *your* sons. Lucky you.
"So anyone who uses words like "traumatic" to describe circumcision is making shit up. (What, you don't think there are rabbis who make shit up?)"
And anybody that makes the above claim thinks people were born yesterday. Yes, there are rabbis who make shit up all the time, such as the ones that say circumcision "isn't harmful" and that "the baby feels no pain."
It's called self-serving BULLSHIT.
"The arguments against circumcision that I've read, including those here, fall into two categories: (1) made up stuff, unsupported by evidence, that it's traumatic and causes harm to the child, and (2) emotional expressions about how icky it is."
1) No, actually, there is plenty of evidence, not like cutting off part of a healthy child's penis isn't obvious enough.
2) Maybe what you think about female circumcision is just an "emotional expression" too.
"When you say "circumcision is child abuse and should be stopped," what you're actually saying is, "Jews should have their children taken from them and they should be sent to prison." That is, you're saying that you're willing to make little Jewish boys into orphans in order to keep their penises intact."
Well, provided Jews were the only people on earth who circumcised their children. Idiots like you seem to think you can fool the world into believing that circumcision is unique to Jews, and that absolutely nobody else circumcises their children. Must I remind you that of the men who are circumcised in this country, only about 3% are Jewish? Spare me the anti-Semite card, it's getting to be pathetically old already.
You don't seem to have a problem with the fact that circumcisers of girls have to go to jail. So what are you trying to say? Only parents who circumcise their girls are monsters and don't love their children?
Circumcisers should go to jail and pay hefty fines, both of the Jewish and Gentile variety, the latter of which there are exponentially more.
"And don't say, "well, parents should obey the law and then they won't go to prison.""
That seems to be the rule for female circumcision...
"Maybe PZ really does believe that if Jews are so moronic that they would go to prison for their fantasy religion, that's where they belong, but the point is that they will go to prison, their children will be fatherless, and a great deal of harm will be done. There's no benefit that would justify the amount of suffering and damage to children that would result if circumcision were banned."
Again, special pleading.
Nobody seems to have a problem that female children will lose their parents.
Sexist, ad hoc, self-serving hogwash.
Parents that circumcise their daughters are sick disgusting monsters who don't love their children, intentionally harm them, and all need to be locked up.
Parents that circumcise their boys? They're only people who are trying to exercise their freedom of religion and parental choice.
Yes, that's what it is I'm sure.
Posted by: joseph4gi
|
October 23, 2011 5:22 AM
So what else do parents get to do with their children in the so-called name of "religious freedom" and "parental choice?"
Should the law permit parents to force their children to hold snakes and drink poison?
Arrange their marriages?
To older men?
Deny them urgently needed medical care?
Inject Botox into them so that they could win the pageant?
Tattoo them?
Brand them with a hot iron? (It's happened.)
Slash their heads on the holy day of Ashura?
Have sex with their children?
For Satanic rituals?
Where does it end?
Quite frankly, if parents could do whatever they wanted with their children, there would be no need for child protective services.
If cutting a girl lands you in jail, then so should cutting a boy.
This is the only exception where politicians and doctors play ring-around-the-rosie with "religious freedom," "parental choice," and children's rights.
Posted by: joseph4gi
|
October 23, 2011 5:28 AM
Lemme guess, it's back to the AIDS argument again...
Remember folks: A return to "scientific" arguments of "potential medical benefits" demonstrates quite clearly that arguments of "religious freedom" and "parental choice" have no real validity.
Notice how we briefly dabbled with "religious freedom" and "parental choice," and how those oh-so-poor orphans would suffer if we took them away from people who were trying to mutilate them.
But it's *intactivists* who are being "emotional."
(Boo-hoo...)
Posted by: Darwin Harmless
|
October 23, 2011 6:47 AM
This subject always causes very heated and emotional debate, but there are things we don't know and things we need to find out.
There seem to be four common justifications for routine infant circumcision, now that the doctors have realized that masturbation doesn't actually cause any problems: religious tradition, prevention of disease, cleanliness, and aesthetics.
There is a survey I urge you to participate in:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6R2MTBF
Do any of you intact men have a problem keeping your dick clean? Does the foreskin cause actual problems for those who own one? Does the lack of a foreskin cause a problem for those who don't have one? (In my case, my circumcision scar has often been irritated and sore.) Has any woman out there experienced a problem because of her sexual partner's foreskin, or lack thereof? What's your opinion on the reduction in sensitivity and natural sexual function that circumcision causes. (Moses Maimonides, Rambam, gave reducing sexual pleasure as a major reason for infant circumcision.http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/) It would be especially useful to hear from any man who was circumcised as an adult, and has had sexual experience both as intact and as cut.
The survey attempts to be unbiased on the subject of banning circumcision, but tries to determine people's attitudes. Some of the opinions it has gathered defy credulity, like the comment by an ex-marine medical officer who stated that he performed two "emergency circumcisions" while in the military and that ten percent of intact men will require "emergency circumcision" later in life. (According to this guy, Europe is going to have some very busy surgeons any day now.) Crazy as such a claim may seem, it still indicates somebody's firmly held belief. What's yours? Men, both intact and cut, how do you feel about your dick? Women, what is your experience and preference?
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6R2MTBF
Posted by: bernarda
|
October 23, 2011 7:07 AM
jlruby123 #90 doesn't have a clue and is a child abuser for having his sons circumcised. Yes, Jews who do this should be in jail. The Jewish parents who permit it are unfit to be parents.
Still, the majority of circumcisions are done in hospitals and not by fanatics like him. So this has nothing to do with targeting Jews and his argument is totally false.
Posted by: joseph4gi
|
October 23, 2011 7:24 AM
@Darwin
Something that irritates me is that while male circumcision can be the subject of a "debate" about "pros and cons," the same is not true for female circumcision.
We can sit here and talk about how "there are some medical benefits to male circumcision," and that thus intactivists are being "emotional."
But what other part of the body do we sit there and "debate" the "pros and cons" of its elimination?
How many "studies" and "medical benefits" would it seriously take to convince parents to cut off their children's earlobes? Nose? Pinkies? Clitorises? Toes?
What number of "studies" would convince doctors to offer this to parents? IS there a number?
No.
There is not.
It is quite obvious that "medical benefits" don't matter, only finding a good-sounding alibi for what is already being done out of pure tradition.
Why not "study" better ways to prevent disease?
Instead of preserving the human body, why the "study" to preserve an ancient tradition?
Not scientific.
Not scientific at all.
When are we finally going to move out of the Medical Dark Ages?
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
October 23, 2011 7:40 AM
Another thing, I really don't get the argument that "they recover/don't remember the pain, therefore its OK".
I sufferered a nasty burn on my hand when I was about 5 or six (unwittingy put my hand on a hotplate). I don't remember the pain (although I do remember that it was extremely painful), and I actually found going to hospital and having lots of fuss made over me kind of fun. But that wouldn't have meant it was okay for someone to have inflicted that burn deliberately.
Similarly, I suffered a nasty (probably third-degree) burn to the back of my hand about six years ago (accidently touched the red-hot heating element while taking a pizza out of an oven). It really didn't hurt much (characteristic of third degree burns, as they are deep enough to destroy the nerve endings), wasn't debilitating, and the scar is almost gone now. But if someone had inflicted it deliberately, it would be treated as a serious assault.
And in any case, I would dispute that it is painless. I once saw a video of a religious circumcision performed without anesthetic. The baby wasn't making much noise, which was claimed to be a sign that it didn't hurt much. But based on the sorts of gasping noises it was making, the shaking of the body, and the expression on its face, it looked to me that it was so overcome py pain and fear that it had gone beyond the crying/screaming stage.
Posted by: Darwin Harmless
|
October 23, 2011 8:30 AM
@GravityIsJustATheory
Believe me I sympathize with your views. But I keep hearing from people who make claims about the benefits for circumcision and I want to know whether ANY of the claims are true. For example, an associate told me that her husband had himself circumcised in his sixties for a medical reason. She also has a son who is a doctor who told her that he approves of the operation and thinks it's a good idea to do to infants. It's hard to convince such a person that it's mutilation and should be banned.
It seems very obvious to me that we shouldn't allow people to cut parts off another person's body without consent. But I keep hearing from circumcised men about how happy they are, and occasionally from people like this associate. We really don't have any facts when it comes to people's attitudes.
I am a raving intactivist. I was circumcised as an infant, and have been angry about it ever since I learned what was done to me. In recent years, as I've learned more about the anatomy of the penis and the function of the foreskin, I've become almost offensive on the subject, to the point that I'm not very persuasive when talking to friends and family. And I recognize that we don't have a lot of facts. I think it's wrong, so obviously wrong that it should be illegal. I think that there's no such thing as an "emergency circumcision". It's skin. It can stretch. If can be altered without chopping it off. And "emergency circumcision" makes as much sense as an emergency removal of eyelids.
I think ALL the justification for doing it to an infant is bullshit. Apparently many otherwise caring and intelligent people disagree with me.
The survey wants to get opinions from everybody. It also includes information which many people might not have. It asks questions such as if you are intact, has your foreskin ever caused you a problem? I don't know the answer to that question, and I'd like to know it.
If we are going to win this argument, we need information. There's nothing wrong with collecting it.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/PxckwTE5h.aX2IKVBbVpSwG7pnzF1A--#8e772
|
October 23, 2011 9:58 AM
The ancient Israelites knew nothing about science, and not much about the rest of the world. So it's no surprise that most of what they wrote is wrong. However, there are still some Biblical verses that say good things, and this is one of them. Genesis 22:12
"And he said: 'Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him; for now I know that thou art a God-fearing man, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from Me.' "
What makes us human is more than just physical features like walking on two legs and being mostly hairless. It's also principles of ethics that were discovered gradually over hundreds of thousands of years. This verse symbolizes one such discovery, which is only now being taken to its logical conclusion.
The only reason we know that everything else on the list in #94 is abusive is because at some time in the past it was discovered to be.
America realized, 10 years or so ago, that the continued immigration from Mexico would result in an overpopulated job market. So American politicians declared that the immigration had to stop. If they had then started to phase out immigration and close the Mexican border, it wouldn't have been a problem. Instead, they made it immediately illegal and retroactively condemned all Mexicans already living here.
We know that's wrong. Yet there are people here who would retroactively condemn everyone who had their son circumcised, despite the fact that the discovery that circumcision is abuse is still being phased in.
Revolution has always been a c____y way to solve problems, but until recently it's been the best thing we have. But now we have the internet and the social media, and it's possible to debate diplomatically on a global scale.
There are many men -- and the thought had struck me too -- who would take this page as evidence of a tort against their parents that occurred when they were circumcised. However, as a participant in scienceblogs, where skepticism is encouraged, I don't accept the notion of a tort being pointed out by a third party without any prior claim from the would-be plaintiff. As implied in #74, this seems like an attempt to foment revolution, which is useless (or worse) considering this can easily be solved diplomatically.
The question is which are you more afraid of: allowing infants to be circumcised, or quoting a Biblical verse? Because the following technique would be acceptable by Jews if only people like you would promote it:
One rabbi picks up the baby and the knife and makes a motion as if he's about to cut the baby. Then another rabbi snatches the baby away, chants the paragraph containing Genesis 22:12, and returns the baby to his parents. Then the first rabbi performs the cut symbolically by cutting the stem off a citron.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 23, 2011 12:24 PM
Yeah, that was a good thing to say.
You know what would have been even better?
If god, in keeping with the morality expressed in that statement, had not ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son in the first place.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 23, 2011 12:30 PM
This is exactly what this blog post is doing. Don't confuse "diplomatic" with "mealy-mouthed".
If that following technique would be so acceptable, why should they need "people like us" to prompt them?
Why should they not go ahead and adopt it on their own?
Are they not ethical beings, capable of making their own moral choices, and acting on them, independently?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 23, 2011 12:32 PM
And what are YOU doing, wasting time here, haranguing us?
Why aren't YOU out there, promoting this through the appropriate avenues?
Posted by: jlruby123
|
October 23, 2011 1:36 PM
"Yes, Jews who do this should be in jail. The Jewish parents who permit it are unfit to be parents"
It's good that we're clear on this. Anti-circumcision activists believe that intact foreskins are much more important than intact families. The suffering that would result when men with guns take children away from their parents doesn't bother them at all.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/PxckwTE5h.aX2IKVBbVpSwG7pnzF1A--#8e772
|
October 23, 2011 3:17 PM
Firstly, what God told Abraham is only relevant to those who believe Biblical characters such as Abraham existed. I don't. I don't believe in the characters Aesop wrote about either. That's not the point. The point is that things we consider abominable today were once thought to be just part of life. The Israelites proclaimed the end of human sacrifice, and they wrote it in the literary style of their time. Whether they initiated this proclamation or whether they got the idea from another tribe, it was a discovery worthy of being noted. This learning process has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, and are still going on today. Incidentally, I used the phrase "hundreds of thousands of years" in my previous post. Yet you answered me as if I were taking the Bible literally. Are you really that bad at reading English, or do you just not care?
Secondly, using the horrifying-video gambit popularized by the anti-abortionists, and accusing millions of people of not loving their children, is not diplomacy by any rational standard. And if you're using an irrational standard to be sarcastic, I don't play that game.
Thirdly, how do you define an "ethical being"? Where do you think ethics comes from? Do you think it was just handed down from God? If you do, your fellow Pharyngulites now know you're not really an atheist.
As I explained in my previous post, which you obviously did not read, ethics were discovered, over hundreds of thousands of years, as part of the evolution of human culture. This evolution is still going on, and the ethic against circumcision is still spreading. (Why am I the one who's lecturing you on this?)
Fourthly, what kind of an "avenue" is Pharyngula supposed to be? You started this by haranguing people like me, and kvetching about a problem you provide no solution for. I contribute a solution, and that makes me the enemy trying to discuss ways to end the subject of your video industry.
Posted by: Tumara Baap
|
October 23, 2011 5:03 PM
RE: post #88. I very much doubt posters here side depending on whether they themselves are circumcised. I suspect some of the most vocal opponents of routine circumcision are actually circumcised men who are disgusted at what was done to them by their most loved ones. They could never have consented or weighed upon what was being done to them. At that tender age their cognitive involvement in such matters was only limited to one innate and unspoken compact: the unconditional love of mom and dad.
P.S. you get not even the briefest sympathy from me that your traditions or religion commands you to do such things to your helpless baby. It only makes you that much an idiot for subscribing to your religion and traditions.
Posted by: jlruby123
|
October 23, 2011 8:18 PM
Tumara Baap:
IYou seem to have some sort of unexamined belief, coming from who knows where, that individual physical autonomy is a social value that trumps all others and must be vindicated at all costs. You are willing to rip families apart in order to keep foreskins intact. The steps that would have to be taken to vindicate your beliefs would hurt children and destroy families, and therefore you are an evil person and your ideas are revolting.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
October 23, 2011 9:09 PM
I can't speak for Tumara Baap, but for me, and many others who have posted here and actually explained the sources of their value judgements, this is not an "unexamined belief" at all.
Just as the cell is the foundational unit of life, and the atom the foundational unit of matter, individual autonomy is the foundation unit upon which all other social values are built, and from which all other social values derive their ethical justification. For example, the ONLY reason families should be kept intact is BECAUSE the individuals participating in them WISH TO, and CHOOSE TO, keep them so, and thus, in working to keep a family intact we are honoring the INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY of the individuals within that family wishing to stay together.
If that individual autonomy is taken away, if the individuals within that family no longer wish to stay together as a family, then the act of keeping that family together with some outside coercive force is in fact an UNETHICAL act.
So yes, individual autonomy does, indeed, trump all.
Now this is a piece of raving hyperbole that requires justification. Citations and explanations, please.
You know what else hurts children? And is demonstrably proven to do so, at least some of the time?
Circumcision.
Learn the distinction between risk and harm before making such comments on an issue such as this, or else you will, without doubt, end up making a total fool out of yourself.
Posted by: Darwin Harmless
|
October 23, 2011 9:29 PM
@Tumara Baap Your suggestion that we wish to rip families apart, or send fathers to jail, is aprojection on your part. I would be happy, however, to send a few doctors and rabbis to jail. It's very seldom that a father or mother circumcises an infant. Usually it is a third party, and usually part of the motive is money.
But really, this issue will be decided in the court of public opinion. Proposing a law making ALL infant circumcision, male and female, illegal serves to send a clear message to the public that we think the practice is wrong. Proposing such a law stimulates debate, such as you have been reading here. Debate on this issue is good. It's fairly new. When I was young it was not debated at all, certainly not in public. When I was a child it was barely admitted in public that men have penises.
People who want to circumcise their infants, male or female, should be made to at least examine their motives. I'm all in favour of making them feel ashamed of themselves. Anybody who wants to circumcise an infant should run into shock and horror, and refusal, when they make the suggestion to anybody or ask a third party to pick up a knife.
Now, I'm asking you to see the big picture here. This abhorrent practice won't disappear quickly. It may take a generation or two before it goes. It may never go. But we don't have to, as a social group, accept it as normal. We can imagine a society without circumcision. I believe it would be an improvement. Certainly nobody is going to miss the practice, once it is a century or so in the past.
You are witnessing the transition, and just the beginning of the transition. Please stop throwing hysteria into the discussion.
Posted by: Tripelkonzert
|
October 24, 2011 9:52 AM
In breaks my heart to see my baby boy in pain when he gets a shot as part of his vaccination schedule. But I am able to tolerate this feeling as I know it helps preventing horrible diseases and reduces dangerous health risks. To inflict even worse pain (I watched the video and by no means are the baby's calming down as quickly as after a shot) for reasons of traditions proves one more time that "good people do good things and evil people evil things, but it takes religion for good people to do evil things".
Posted by: Musuko
|
October 24, 2011 12:08 PM
@105
"It's good that we're clear on this. Anti-circumcision activists believe that intact foreskins are much more important than intact families. The suffering that would result when men with guns take children away from their parents doesn't bother them at all."
We are saying that having no parents is better than having a parent that abuses you.
So yes, you are clear on what we are saying. Thank you for understanding the situation.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/PxckwTE5h.aX2IKVBbVpSwG7pnzF1A--#8e772
|
October 24, 2011 8:50 PM
So the truth comes out at last. Atheists do not want world peace. Musuko wants to start an atheist militia to steal children from their parents, or to kill the parents.
Meanwhile, religious Jews are doing something that really stops circumcision:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html
This is a glorious day for Judaism!
Posted by: Musuko
|
October 25, 2011 7:03 AM
@113.
When did I say that I want to kill the parents?
And why do you think that "stealing" children away from parents that abuse them is a bad thing?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/PxckwTE5h.aX2IKVBbVpSwG7pnzF1A--#8e772
|
October 25, 2011 9:48 AM
Because circumcision has no proven relationship to anything else in a parent's life, except belief in God. So this amounts to kidnapping millions of children because of belief. If one religion did this to another, it would be an example of the evil of religion. Yet your group would give itself carte-blanch to wage this multinational armed invasion because you carry the "no God" card inside your heads. This is a contradiction, because only a god could read that card to grant you that authority.
How would you find the millions of parents you accuse? Would you hack into confidential medical records? Would you make boys undress to show you their anatomy? Would you question the parents on matters of philosophy, and take belief in God as a proxy?
What would you do with the millions of boys that you confiscate? Enroll them in sweatshops?
And how would you subdue the millions of people, both parents and children, who defend themselves against your invasions, without resorting to lethal force?
Posted by: Musuko
|
October 25, 2011 10:56 AM
@115
You haven't answered 50% of my questions in post 114. I find it rude of you to demand I answer your questions before you have finished answering mine.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/PxckwTE5h.aX2IKVBbVpSwG7pnzF1A--#8e772
|
October 25, 2011 11:05 AM
You didn't have to say it. It was a reasonable assumption, considering you didn't specify how else you're going to fend off all those millions of parents.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/PxckwTE5h.aX2IKVBbVpSwG7pnzF1A--#8e772
|
October 25, 2011 11:34 AM
Besides which, in #112 you quoted a comment from jlruby123 claiming you'd send men with guns. You said she understood you correctly.
Posted by: PaulStars
|
October 26, 2011 2:41 AM
It is very disappointing to see so many skeptics jumping into the woo-woo of the anti-circumcision crowd. When PZ starts off by talking about rabbis I just know he is going into a religion tangent, but circumcision is mostly unlinked to religion in the U.S. I remember meeting men who were circumcised as adults to improve sex. Funny how some people have convinced themselves otherwise. But for just a minute consider: a) using that video is like the "silent scream", isn't it; b) modern scientific evidence doesn't justify religious nonsense but it is scientific evidence and should not be discarded; c) please, if nothing else, do not use the phrase "female circumcision" - it's an abuse of the English language - it is also when this whole mess started; d) for the sake of your sanity, please see the Skepdoc's article on circumcision - click here; e) C. Hitchens got into trouble when he added circumcision to a discussion on religion and it made him look bad (can't find the URL); f) look at the emotion in the comments above - when there is that much emotion and so few facts, what does that tell you about the arguments?
Posted by: Musuko
|
October 26, 2011 3:17 AM
@118
Again, I ask why you think that "sending men with guns" means expressing support for killing parents.
By making such rash assumptions, you overstate your case and completely throw the argument into the water.
We've started on a topic discussing whether surgery should be allowed on children for non-health reasons, and you've managed to end up imagining Waco.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/PxckwTE5h.aX2IKVBbVpSwG7pnzF1A--#8e772
|
October 26, 2011 8:47 AM
You said in #67 that circumcision is mainly an American fad. So I assume your team will be going to America.
If your team breaks into an American house with guns loaded and drags a boy out, his parents will fight back. We have the right to bear arms. A Waco-type event will be unavoidable.
You've set up a situation in which you can claim forever that I haven't answered your questions, so according to your rule I can't ask you anything, like what the guns are for. Thus you threw this into the water by making your agenda invulnerable to debate.
If this were really a discussion about surgery, you'd be talking about the medical risks and the alternatives. Instead, you constructed the artificial side-effect of being judged to be better off without one's parents. This classification is in your head.
You do not have the authority to make absolute judgments about millions of people.
Posted by: jlruby123
|
October 26, 2011 6:36 PM
PaulStars-
When PZ talks about "ritualized child abuse" he's talking about Jews. He's making the claim that Jews are ritual child abusers. It doesn't matter that there's no evidence of either short or long-term harm to children from circumcision. It's a religious practice, so PZ doesn't like it. Which is fine, he can sneer at whatever he wants to sneer at. But when he says that the people who do it belong in prison, then he's gone a step too far.
Remember that we're talking about perhaps the most successful minority group in America in terms of family stability, low divorce rates, educational attainment, strong intergenerational ties, economic, academic, political, and particularly scientific success - and according to PZ and Musuko we're all the victims of child abuse and all criminal child abusers ourselves.
This isn't like the Catholic victims of abusive priests who come forward with tales of childhoods destroyed and lives permanently damaged. Jews aren't clamoring to prohbit circumcision. No, what we have is an associate professor at a tiny college in Norwegian Village, Minnesooo-ta, who wouldn't know a Jew if he tripped over one a subway platform, who watched a propaganda movie and is now announcing that his betters are evil criminals who belong in prison.
Take this year's Nobelist in Medicine, a geneticist named Bruce Beutler. Beutler has three sons. If PZ ever had the privilege of being in the same room with him, would he tell Beutler that he's a ritual child abuser whose children should have been put in foster care, and who himself belongs in prison? Isn't that just about the stupidest thing you've ever heard?
Posted by: evergreenotter
|
October 26, 2011 9:01 PM
Wow, amazed to see this is still going. I see the pro-child cutting crowd feels uncomfortable with a prominent atheist having the moral courage to call this child abuse for what it is.
@PaulStars No. 119
So human rights are now "woo-woo"?
Medical ethics are now "woo-woo"?
Because that is a casual topic of conversation? I am not a man, so perhaps men do speak of such things, but claims like that sound like absurd attempts to manufacture evidence by vague anecdote. And yet again it is you accusing us of "woo-woo".
You also cite the Skepdoc's article, which concludes with this preposterous passage:
In other words the woman who wrote the article cannot comprehend the difference between putting a pin-sized hole in someone's ear with amputating part of their genitals.
Numerous people call her out on how profoundly stupid that made her sound. The author proved a complete coward who eventually ran away in the face of sustained criticism. The best defence she could muster of her statement above was a list of possible complications from ear piercing without comparing it to male genital cutting.
In any case I oppose ear piercing until a child is old enough to ask for it themselves.
Posted by: Mike Crichton
|
October 27, 2011 12:34 AM
Tumara Baap: In Islam, circumcision usually takes place when the kid is 7 or so years old. As the recipient is at least theoretically able to withhold consent to it, it's not quite is depraved as the way us mostly-Christian-or-Jewish Americans do it.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/PxckwTE5h.aX2IKVBbVpSwG7pnzF1A--#8e772
|
October 27, 2011 1:07 PM
The film "Cut" was directed by a religious Jew:
http://www.tabletmag.com/life-and-religion/1244/a-sensitive-issue/
So how are PZ Myers and his supporters showing "courage"? There is already a group of Jews saying that circumcision is abuse. PZ Myers uploads their film without credit, and the post and comments make it seem like atheists thought of it first.
Whether you like it or not, you are supporting a Jewish movement to correct a Jewish problem. You have shown that you do not have the courage to admit where your idea came from. Nor do you have the honesty to accept that a religious group is capable of starting a cause you agree with.
This is our sin, our evolution, and our atonement. It is none of your f___ing business.
Posted by: morintech78
|
December 4, 2011 4:45 PM
Sylphs | October 19, 2011 12:06 PM
"If there were any drug or microbicide that worked half as well as circumcision, it would be amazing."
Really? There is absolutely no evidence that circumcision is better than microbicide, virucide, good hygiene or condoms. If you've got proof, show it.
Posted by: morintech78
|
December 4, 2011 4:50 PM
Posted by: Techskeptic | October 19, 2011 12:19 PM
"...there have been progressive excuses: from it prevents masturbation..."
well at least I know that one is definitely not true.
Really? You don't know your medical history very well: http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=0
The very brother of the founder of Kellogg's promoted circumcision all over as a punishment and/or cure to masturbation and all sorts of ailments.
Posted by: Stanton
|
December 4, 2011 5:06 PM
He promoted circumcision as a punishment for masturbation?
Uh, before or after the child did it?
Posted by: dzzzz
|
December 20, 2011 7:50 AM
Horrendous video. Had to turn it off. They should make circumcision illegal. Except in severe medical complications.
Posted by: eident___9
|
December 22, 2011 12:47 AM
A bit late on your part PZ, and well after the jewish groups abrupted the democratic process on the Massachusetts & San Fran initiatives. But glad you finally got it. Will you finally apologize for the "For the Boys with Boo-Boos" post?
-eident9