R
Rau
Guest
I wondered how “genuine” some of the content on the site is. An Australian doctor referred to himself as an “MD”, yet in Australia, that is not the form of post-nominal used by medical doctors.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
4
4Squarebaby
Guest
Most of the circumcised people in the world did do it voluntarily. They are called Muslims Along with the Filipinos and South Koreans,( are they still considered “third world”?.) it is generally done between 9 and 12 years of age. And in the Philippines medical missionaries and governmental sponsored medical teams go out because boys have been known to try to self circumcise in situations when parents could not pay a doctor or a manunuli.The sentence of your above post that you bolded is really the crux of the matter - “But let it be because it is their choice…”
Newborn babies obviously cannot give their consent.
If genital cutting was a practice that people only underwent voluntarily, it would be an almost completely unheard of practice.
B
Blacksword
Guest
I think you and I differ in our opinions on the proper age of valid consent then. I don’t think a nine or ten or even twelve year old has proper intellect and ability to give valid consent: they are still children. This would mean that in, for instance, the case of Muslims, this remains very much a non-consensual surgery. Similarly, a child of 12 cannot give valid legal consent for sexual acts either, I’d say the same standard should apply.Most of the circumcised people in the world did do it voluntarily. They are called Muslims Along with the Filipinos and South Koreans,( are they still considered “third world”?.) it is generally done between 9 and 12 years of age. And in the Philippines medical missionaries and governmental sponsored medical teams go out because boys have been known to try to self circumcise in situations when parents could not pay a doctor or a manunuli.
H
Havard
Guest
They can’t give their consent for getting vaccines either. Or whether they’re bottlefed versus breastfed.The sentence of your above post that you bolded is really the crux of the matter - “But let it be because it is their choice…”
Newborn babies obviously cannot give their consent.
There’s lots of uproar about these issues too, that certain choices the parents, not the children, make, that may cause permanent, deleterious affects on the children. Do you want to mandate what parents do there?
What about parents that pierce their young childrens’ ears? Is that abuse? Where do you want to draw the line at stepping over the parents’ rights to make decisions for their young children?
As I mentioned to Blacksword once, there’s a de-baptism movement by people who are mad that they were baptised as babies (and therefore, without their consent). Continue down the path of stepping between parents and their children and the very right to raise children in a certain faith will be considered a violation of their rights.
M
Mulligan2
Guest
Your analogies are not an apples-to-apples comparison. Quite frankly, comparing vaccines, breastfeeding, or ear-piercing to the forcible removal of a perfectly functioning body part is absurd.They can’t give their consent for getting vaccines either. Or whether they’re bottlefed versus breastfed.
There’s lots of uproar about these issues too, that certain choices the parents, not the children, make, that may cause permanent, deleterious affects on the children. Do you want to mandate what parents do there?
What about parents that pierce their young childrens’ ears? Is that abuse? Where do you want to draw the line at stepping over the parents’ rights to make decisions for their young children?
As I mentioned to Blacksword once, there’s a de-baptism movement by people who are mad that they were baptised as babies (and therefore, without their consent). Continue down the path of stepping between parents and their children and the very right to raise children in a certain faith will be considered a violation of their rights.
The following link addresses and debunks every single excuse people use to justify this barbaric practice:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ceht-3xu84I
H
Havard
Guest
Nothing is an exact apple-to-apples comparison when it comes to vaccines or breast-feeding either. They are common in that they are choices that parents make that, as argued one way or the other, have permanent deleterious physical consequences for the child.Your analogies are not an apples-to-apples comparison. Quite frankly, comparing vaccines, breastfeeding, or ear-piercing to the forcible removal of a perfectly functioning body part is absurd.
The following link addresses and debunks every single excuse people use to justify this barbaric practice:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ceht-3xu84I
Most people would say that jeopardizing someone’s immune system or intellectual development is a greater harm than removal of their foreskin.
M
Mulligan2
Guest
Regarding your analogies, I can imagine a child growing up and thanking their parents for vaccinating them against preventable diseases. However, I cannot imagine a child growing up and saying “Mom and Dad, thank you very much for having the doctor forcibly remove 50% of the skin from my penis.”Nothing is an exact apple-to-apples comparison when it comes to vaccines or breast-feeding either. They are common in that they are choices that parents make that, as argued one way or the other, have permanent deleterious physical consequences for the child.
Most people would say that jeopardizing someone’s immune system or intellectual development is a greater harm than removal of their foreskin.
If you have time to watch the video link I referenced earlier, I suspect it will be eye-opening. And I fully stand by the point I made earlier - that if genital cutting was only undertaken voluntarily, it would be an almost entirely unheard of practice.
R
Rau
Guest
The analogies are reasonable. I urge you to read the material put about by the anti- vaccine advocates. “How dare parents subject their children, without their consent, to the risk of the potentially deadly affects of these vaccines!”Your analogies are not an apples-to-apples comparison. Quite frankly, comparing vaccines, breastfeeding, or ear-piercing to the forcible removal of a perfectly functioning body part is absurd.
The following link addresses and debunks every single excuse people use to justify this barbaric practice:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ceht-3xu84I
Their fervour is not unlike your own. In both cases, the parental action has rested on conventional medical wisdom (though that’s changed in the case of circumcision).
I asked earlier what % of pediatricians favour no circumcision, but there was no answer. As a purely medical issue, I should think parents ought to be influenced by a clear majority of the medical / health experts.
H
Havard
Guest
Perhaps I will be able to later, I don’t have audio at this computer.Regarding your analogies, I can imagine a child growing up and thanking their parents for vaccinating them against preventable diseases. However, I cannot imagine a child growing up and saying “Mom and Dad, thank you very much for having the doctor forcibly remove 50% of the skin from my penis.”
If you have time to watch the video link I referenced earlier, I suspect it will be eye-opening. And I fully stand by the point I made earlier - that if genital cutting was only undertaken voluntarily, it would be an almost entirely unheard of practice.
M
Mulligan2
Guest
Your comment about the fervor being comparable is probably correct. I’ll grant you that.The analogies are reasonable. I urge you to read the material put about by the anti- vaccine advocates. “How dare parents subject their children, without their consent, to the risk of the potentially deadly affects of these vaccines!”
Their fervour is not unlike your own. In both cases, the parental action has rested on conventional medical wisdom (though that’s changed in the case of circumcision).
I asked earlier what % of pediatricians favour no circumcision, but there was no answer. As a purely medical issue, I should think parents ought to be influenced by a clear majority of the medical / health experts.
I do not know the percentage you are asking about. I’m not sure if this information would be readily available or not. However, there is no professional medical association in the United States or anywhere else in the world that recommends routine circumcision as medically necessary.
R
Rau
Guest
I would think that that is so “today”. Even in the past, I doubt that “necessary” was even part of the medical view. Simply, “recommended”.…However, there is no professional medical association in the United States or anywhere else in the world that recommends routine circumcision as medically necessary.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
Well, there’s “recommended” and “strongly recommended.” As I understand it, the so-called “golden age” of circumcision was post WWII and driven by the hygiene experiences of soldiers who returned home to find the “Baby Boom Bible” of Dr. Spock having a lot to do with the middle-class assumption that circumcision was the way to go.I would think that that is so “today”. Even in the past, I doubt that “necessary” was even part of the medical view. Simply, “recommended”.
R
Rau
Guest
Here’s an article surveying the prevalence of circumcision in various parts of the world. Variation is quite high (even excluding areas influenced by religious considerations). North America looks to be at the higher end:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
P
Phemie
Guest
Actually, while the benefits you listed are real, they are not significant in that only a very small number of uncircumcised males will experience any of those things.Sorry but that does not outweigh the health benefits of circumcision.
Looking at it strictly from a ‘what could be prevented by doing a procedure at birth’ perspective, it would make more sense to perform bilateral mastectomies on all baby girls because more than 10% of them will eventually develop breast cancer. Nobody would ever suggest doing that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.