 |
Should I circumcize my son?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes, of course. |
   |
20 |
25.32% |
| No, why would you? |
   |
51 |
64.56% |
| Try it on a banana first. |
   |
8 |
10.13% |
| Total: |
79 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom31
I think you’ve presented the “medical” arguments fairly, but I think your analysis needs to be taken to another level. Suppose doctors said the following to parents of newborns:
“If we cut off one of your baby’s little fingers, s/he will never get it caught in a car door and it will never develop hangnail or arthritis. These benefits are extremely minor, but on the other hand, the surgical risk of removing the finger is quite low as well. Since the harms and benefits are pretty evenly balanced, we leave it up to parents to decide whether their children should have 10 fingers or 9.”
This would suggest that people in this country had a tradition of sacrificing children’s fingers, and the medical profession was afraid of the consequences if it said the obvious: that cutting off a child’s finger is contrary to medical ethics and just plain stupid. |
I was merely giving an overview of the controversy.
Actually the official recommendations of the American Association of Pediatricians and the American Association of Family Practitioners have been against circumcision since the 1980s, when studies showed that babies do indeed feel pain from the procedure. I don't generally recommend them either. Definitive studies on the role of circumcision in the prevention of HIV infection are being conducted now. If it turns out that circumcision conveys strong protection against HIV infection then conceivably the recommendations may change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Obviously not. There are more reports saying either there's no real difference between cut and uncut men and AIDS and that cut men are more vulnerable than there are saying uncut men are more vulnerable. There are reports saying all three things, 28 known such reports, and when the data from all 28 reports is put together, there is a "significantly higher chance" for cut men to get HIV -- if they DO NOT WEAR A CONDOM. This is a moot point, you should be wearing a condom! 
Modern studies have tended to show the opposite of what you're saying, anyway, so I wouldn't try to use it anymore.
BTW, if you're interested, I posted a couple links in this thread that specifically debunked and told where errors were made in the sampling for the studies who said uncut men are more vulnerable... |
The reports you're quoting didn't sum the total number of cases, they merely compared the total number of studies published that showed protection vs. thoswe which did not, and even then they did not include all the studies published. When a true meta-analysis is done, i.e., the total number of subjects in all the studies is analyzed there appears to be a protective effect. Studies done in African men tend to show a higher effect, since these studies look at transmission from the vagina to the penis. Studies done on American and European men tend to show less effect since in these areas most of the subjects are gay and transmission is most likely to be penis to anus. Finally, most studies done to date have not been prospective, so there may be other factors determining the rate of viral transmission. The few prospective studies that have been conducted did show a protective effect, but only about 50%. IS 50% good enough? Not in my book.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tom31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MOBIUS
I'm glad I wasn't cut - from personal experience the bell end is just too damned sensitive not to be kept under wraps by the foreskin... |
Different parts of the penis respond to different stimuli. From its flared shape, you can tell the "bell end" is designed to respond mainly to pressure. The "fine touch" nerve endings of the penis are concentrated in the foreskin. The foreskin also acts as a "motion detector." The penis acts as a unit--every part of it has a purpose. See http://research.cirp.org/func1.html
Last edited by Tom31 on 10-08-2002 at 22:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tom31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
If it turns out that circumcision conveys strong protection against HIV infection then conceivably the recommendations may change. |
The real issues are consent and gender equality. Lots of body parts could be removed from babies as a “disease-prevention” measure. For instance, breast tissue could be removed from babies to reduce their risk of breast cancer. The question is whether it’s ethical for doctors to perform such operations, and whether the consent forms that parents sign for such operations are legally valid. As I think the finger analogy shows, the “medical pros/cons” have been a kind of smokescreen thrown up to hide a touchy ethical and legal problem.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom31
The real issues are consent and gender equality. Lots of body parts could be removed from babies as a “disease-prevention” measure. For instance, breast tissue could be removed from babies to reduce their risk of breast cancer. The question is whether it’s ethical for doctors to perform such operations, and whether the consent forms that parents sign for such operations are legally valid. As I think the finger analogy shows, the “medical pros/cons” have been a kind of smokescreen thrown up to hide a touchy ethical and legal problem. |
I'm not arguing in favor of circumcision, but I think you're overplaying the "ethical" argument. First of all, let me point out that no western medical society recommends it, so the procedure can no longer be looked on as needless surgery imposed on little boys by a vested interest. The matter is now strictly a matter of parental preferrence. That it should remain legitimately so can be inferred by the fact that circumcised men don't appear to suffer from the procedure. There does not appear to be a higher rate of sexual dysfunction resulting from the procedure, so it would appear that the foreskin's role as an essential sensory organ is over stated. You might as well argue about the right of a parent to have a child's hair or fingernails cut.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tom31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You might as well argue about the right of a parent to have a child's hair or fingernails cut. |
Unlike hair and fingernails, foreskins don't grow back. The penis is a well-integrated organ. The various parts, including the foreskin, have specific functions.
http://research.cirp.org/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom31
Unlike hair and fingernails, foreskins don't grow back. The penis is a well-integrated organ. The various parts, including the foreskin, have specific functions.
http://research.cirp.org/ |
Yes, I read that article, but as I pointed out the role as a sensory organ is overstated, as there appears to be no functional difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tom31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The matter is now strictly a matter of parental preferrence. |
The problem is that in general, elective procedures can only be legally consented to by the person undergoing the procedure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tom31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
there appears to be no functional difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men. |
There is a continuum here. If don't do ANYTHING to the penis, THEN there is no functional difference. If you cut off the entire penis, then there is a BIG functional difference. Circumcision lies somewhere between leaving the penis alone and cutting the whole thing off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom31
The problem is that in general, elective procedures can only be legally consented to by the person undergoing the procedure. |
We're not in Canada where children are the property of the people's state, Tom. In the US parents can give consent even to elective procedures as their child's legal gardian.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom31
There is a continuum here. If don't do ANYTHING to the penis, THEN there is no functional difference. If you cut off the entire penis, then there is a BIG functional difference. Circumcision lies somewhere between leaving the penis alone and cutting the whole thing off. |
Can you supply clinical data demonstrating such a hypothetical functional difference?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tom31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The problem is that uncut can never understand the cut and vice versa, however, we can all get off the same.
|
Guys who have lost half their penis due to an accident can still get off. In fact, even guys who have lost their ENTIRE penis can still manage to get off. That's not the point!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tom31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Can you supply clinical data demonstrating such a hypothetical functional difference? |
This study found that circumcised men engage in a "more elaborated set of sexual practices," i.e. they masturbate more and get more oral sex. Maybe this is because they require stronger stimulation.
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/
Of course there are tons of anecdotal reports.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SuperSneak
Aren't you clever? Psychology is but one of my degrees. And seeing as how you don't even hold one, perhaps you'd best wait until you do to contribute to the topic. |
You're right, it takes someone with at least one degree to figure out that a psychology degree is worthless. Hmm. Or not...
What are your other degrees, Sneak?
quote:
I'd think after the spanking you got from White Elephant |
He was spewing nonsense about never paying cash for a car because you should be investing that money in the stock market. Not everyone wants to invest every single penny they get, especially considering if that happened last year I'd be paying interest on a car AND losing thousands in the stock market. He has a different approach to buying cars, but I don't believe he's got the right one. He treats cars as an investment, I treat them as a necessary product.
quote:
and the current mountain of logic that Dr. Strangelove is hurling on your screechy hypothesis |
What the hell are you talking about? Dr. Strangelove agrees with me for the most part.
quote:
And, as I said before...I'm not averse to printing this (and other) rather revealing threads up and sending them to your parents. |
Just shut the hell up, Sneak, you wouldn't know where to send them in the first place. Stop trying to pull that ****.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-08-2002 18:47
|