Recent circumcizion ruling in Germany - Page 8 - Politics and Economics

Case Closed · 07-13-2012, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Is that 90% circumcised stat correct for America? That is pretty ridiculous for a cosmetic procedure with drawbacks where the vast majority of children getting it done arent doing so for religious reasons.

Speaking of religious reasons it is dumb to say this is some kind of slippery slope given religions are stopped from carrying out religious activities all the time. The obvious comparison is polygamy.

Or how about the ludicrous comparison of apostasy? Or for the Johova's Witnesses crowd, in the US hospitals can automatically take legal control over a baby who needs a blood transfusion and give it to them over the objections of their parents. Because their parents would rather let them die, and follow their rules, than allow a blood transfusion.

TomCollins · 07-13-2012, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Is that 90% circumcised stat correct for America? That is pretty ridiculous for a cosmetic procedure with drawbacks where the vast majority of children getting it done arent doing so for religious reasons.

Speaking of religious reasons it is dumb to say this is some kind of slippery slope given religions are stopped from carrying out religious activities all the time. The obvious comparison is polygamy.

It was probably correct 30 years ago, and might be correct in some regions. In a lot of regions in the US, uncircumcised is more common now.

TomCollins · 07-13-2012, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Is that 90% circumcised stat correct for America? That is pretty ridiculous for a cosmetic procedure with drawbacks where the vast majority of children getting it done arent doing so for religious reasons.

Speaking of religious reasons it is dumb to say this is some kind of slippery slope given religions are stopped from carrying out religious activities all the time. The obvious comparison is polygamy.

Yes, polygamy, where consenting adults choose to live a certain way. Certainly seems just like mutilating a kid without consent!

sards · 07-13-2012, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

What about the babies that die from it? Or have accidents from it and lose part of their penis?

For circumcisions done by competent doctors, the risks of these are approximately zero.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

Or the huge number of men who have decreased sensitivity due to it?

According to Wikipedia, there doesn't seem to be evidence of this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In January 2007, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [. . .] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[48] A 2010 review reported that "despite conflicting results in some of the historical observational studies, most recent articles do not show evidence of adverse effects on sexual function."[60] A review which analysed the data from eight clinical trials concluded that the "evidence suggests that adult circumcision does not affect sexual satisfaction and function."

TomCollins · 07-13-2012, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sards

For circumcisions done by competent doctors, the risks of these are approximately zero.

Approximitely zero != 0.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/ny...on-ritual.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep...ision-20110926

Quote:

Originally Posted by sards

According to Wikipedia, there doesn't seem to be evidence of this:

Yes, removing a huge amount of nerves in one of the most sensitive areas couldn't possibly cause any differences.

Also found this stat - These days, about 56% of boys born in the U.S. are circumcised in hospitals

[Phill] · 07-13-2012, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

Yes, polygamy, where consenting adults choose to live a certain way. Certainly seems just like mutilating a kid without consent!

1, I am not saying they are similar except that both are religious practices
2, the face that the consenting adults marrying is outlawed while the child mutilation isnt sums up the ridiculousness of where the line is being drawn

Montecore · 07-13-2012, 10:50 AM

I have to say I'm pretty surprised by the direction this thread has gone, particularly with the word 'mutilation' being thrown around by you intactivists (I learned a new word!). No one seemed to comment on the poster earlier ITT who wondered about how many of the anti-circ crowd is pro-choice (I would imagine a decent percentage) and I am interested in the answer to the question.

I think that the people arguing that circumcision can be done later in life don't really realize what that entails (or just don't care).

sards · 07-13-2012, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCollins

Approximitely zero != 0.

True. But nothing we do has exactly zero risk. For example, vaccination poses a bigger risk of death or serious complications than circumcision. It probably also is more beneficial, bot that's debatable.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/ny...on-ritual.html

This circumcision was not performed by a competent doctor (or even a doctor). I would definitely agree that it's time to do away with the "oral suction technique."

Quote:

Yes, removing a huge amount of nerves in one of the most sensitive areas couldn't possibly cause any differences.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But the evidence doesn't support the claim.

Montecore · 07-13-2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sards

True. But nothing we do has exactly zero risk. For example, vaccination poses a bigger risk of death or serious complications than circumcision. It probably also is more beneficial, bot that's debatable.

WTF are you talking about? Vaccination is multiple orders of magnitude more beneficial than circumcision, and it's very possible I'm understating that ratio.

sards · 07-13-2012, 11:04 AM

From a public health perspective, vaccination is very beneficial. But from an individual perspective it is less so, given the ability to free-ride on the herd immunity.

Edit: I mean in a place like America where almost everyone is vaccinated.

grizy · 07-13-2012, 11:05 AM

I found this poll online

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/sex/TU9EJCLL87L10UDCG

53% of respondents (presumably mostly women) prefer circumcised penises.

Unless there is some crazy psychological trauma I don't know about (I mean.. cutting placenta is almost certainly more traumatic), I'd say circumcision is +EV.

Montecore · 07-13-2012, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sards

From a public health perspective, vaccination is very beneficial. But from an individual perspective it is less so, given the ability to free-ride on the herd immunity.

Edit: I mean in a place like America where almost everyone is vaccinated.

There are communities out in west coast of America right now that are testing that hypothesis with less than satisfactory results. Issues in Europe have also arisen recently:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gerganak...teach-the-u-s/

TomCollins · 07-13-2012, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sards

True. But nothing we do has exactly zero risk. For example, vaccination poses a bigger risk of death or serious complications than circumcision. It probably also is more beneficial, bot that's debatable.

This circumcision was not performed by a competent doctor (or even a doctor). I would definitely agree that it's time to do away with the "oral suction technique."

I'm not saying it's impossible. But the evidence doesn't support the claim.

I like how you ignored the injuries caused by the trained doctors.

And yes, a vaccine, that carries enormous benefits is not even debatable unless you are a complete nutcase like Jenny McCarthy.

TomCollins · 07-13-2012, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grizy

I found this poll online

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/sex/TU9EJCLL87L10UDCG

53% of respondents (presumably mostly women) prefer circumcised penises.

Unless there is some crazy psychological trauma I don't know about (I mean.. cutting placenta is almost certainly more traumatic), I'd say circumcision is +EV.

Cool, then pay for your kids circ when they become old enough to realize this.

sards · 07-13-2012, 11:35 AM

Obviously if a big part of an entire community has the same idea, then everyone in the community becomes more vulnerable and the importance of vaccination increases. But that isn't the case in most places in the USA. In any case I am not trying to argue that vaccines are bad. I am only saying that they are similar to circumcision in that they have a small but real risk of serious adverse effects and only confer a small benefit (again, from an individual perspective.)