Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
CubanPete said:
I accept the outcome of FGM is worse, but the intent is the same,
The intent is not the same at all. Given that all Abrahamic religions are patriarchal, it would be ridiculous that the idea of circumcision is to subjugate men. Whereas FGM is all about subjugating women.In Judaism, they circumcise men but do not carry out FGM. So you think a male dominated and controlled religion wants to put men at a disadvantage to women??
Yeah...right!
Jinx said:
If there is sufficient medical evidence that there is a good chance they would need the op later in life then yes. Vaccinations cause pain now, to avoid worse pain (and possible death) in the future - some even leave permanent scarring (BCG anyone?) should we be so fearful of causing pain now that we avoid our responsibilities for improving their future?
You’re comparing a small BCG scar to the abscence of the foreskin? Not really the same thing, besides tuberculosis kills, balanitis and phimosis don’t.It’s nothing to do with pain and everything to do with mutilation.
Such a tiny % of people actually need to have their foreskin removed as adults that it makes no sense to do it at birth. If the NHS thought it a good idea they’d do it (like vaccinations).
Jinx said:
If there is sufficient medical evidence that there is a good chance they would need the op later in life then yes. Vaccinations cause pain now, to avoid worse pain (and possible death) in the future - some even leave permanent scarring (BCG anyone?) should we be so fearful of causing pain now that we avoid our responsibilities for improving their future?
You can't compare being jabbed with a needle to having part of your penis removed, not only that but I don't think BCG is even done these days? I know most of us probably had one in high school but I don't think that is standard practise anymore. djc206 said:
You’re comparing a small BCG scar to the abscence of the foreskin? Not really the same thing, besides tuberculosis kills, balanitis and phimosis don’t.
It’s nothing to do with pain and everything to do with mutilation.
Such a tiny % of people actually need to have their foreskin removed as adults that it makes no sense to do it at birth. If the NHS thought it a good idea they’d do it (like vaccinations).
No I am comparing a small amount of pain and some slight scarring now in certain cases to offset worse scarring and pain in the future. I am not advocating circumcision for all, I am suggesting it is a suitable solution if the medical risk is there in certain cases. It’s nothing to do with pain and everything to do with mutilation.
Such a tiny % of people actually need to have their foreskin removed as adults that it makes no sense to do it at birth. If the NHS thought it a good idea they’d do it (like vaccinations).
I am also wary of those who are vocally "protecting the children" as I suspect their real motives are less noble.
Jinx said:
No I am comparing a small amount of pain and some slight scarring now in certain cases to offset worse scarring and pain in the future. I am not advocating circumcision for all, I am suggesting it is a suitable solution if the medical risk is there in certain cases.
I am also wary of those who are vocally "protecting the children" as I suspect their real motives are less noble.
I don’t like the idea of hurting babies on the off chance that it’ll save the adults a bit of pain. You’re an adult you can deal with it.I am also wary of those who are vocally "protecting the children" as I suspect their real motives are less noble.
No one is talking about banning medical circumcision so I really don’t know why you’ve decided to flog that horse.
k.Jinx said:
If there is sufficient medical evidence that there is a good chance they would need the op later in life then yes. Vaccinations cause pain now, to avoid worse pain (and possible death) in the future - some even leave permanent scarring (BCG anyone?) should we be so fearful of causing pain now that we avoid our responsibilities for improving their future?
Medical intervention isn't what's being discussed here. Medical intervention to treat a known condition that will impact that individuals quality of life = acceptable
Cutting boys because god told you to do it or it's a tradition in your culture, or because you had it done and it's never done you any harm = unacceptable
I've yet to see an argument where sticking a scalpel into a baby for anything other than medical welfare reasons can be in any way defended.
If circumcision could only be carried when the individual could make up their own mind, I suspect that the number of elective unrequired circumcisions would drop considerably. We seem to be applying the ethical standard that hurting babies is acceptable because they won't remember it and can't object. It's a strange ethical dichotomy when you consider we have an in-built desire to protect children from harm.
Jinx said:
No I am comparing a small amount of pain and some slight scarring now in certain cases to offset worse scarring and pain in the future. I am not advocating circumcision for all, I am suggesting it is a suitable solution if the medical risk is there in certain cases.
I am also wary of those who are vocally "protecting the children" as I suspect their real motives are less noble.
There is something just not right in the head with people who want to cut off bits of kids for no medical reason whatsoever. ( Be if foreskin, earlobes or whatever )I am also wary of those who are vocally "protecting the children" as I suspect their real motives are less noble.
IMO - It is a violation of that kids human rights.
And I haven't seen one reason on this thread to even remotely justify it
Dromedary66 said:
Nope. Here's a citation from the British Medical Journal disproving that notion. I know how you always demand sources yourself, except of course for your assertion above you didn't post anything.
NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST CANCER
EDITOR,—Although Morten Frisch and colleagues have made a valuable contribution to the study of penile cancer, they mistakenly repeat the myth that neonatal circumcision renders the subject immune to penile cancer.1 The reference given for this statement is not an epidemiological study but an opinion article by the American circumcisionist Abraham L. Wolbarst in 1932.2 Wolbarst invented this myth and was directly responsible for its proliferation; he based it on unverifiable anecdotes, ethnocentric stereotypes, a faulty understanding of human anatomy and physiology, a misunderstanding of the distinction between association and cause, and a unbridled missionary zeal. It was not based on valid scientific and epidemiological research.
All subsequent repetions of this myth are traceable to Wolbarst's article, though Wolbarst himself advocated universal neonatal circumcision principally as a preventive for epilepsy, paralysis, and masturbation. Circumcisionists such as Wolbarst do not seem to have promoted this myth because they have a genuine interest in reducing penile cancer; they used it instead as a scare tactic to increase the rate of neonatal circumcision. It is surprising that sober scientists such as Frisch and colleagues could have relied on such a reference in their research.
Epidemiological studies disproved Wolbarst's myth long ago.
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (London), Volume 312 Number 7033: Pages 779-780,
March 23, 1996.
Thank you for posting a link to a reputable journal. NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST CANCER
EDITOR,—Although Morten Frisch and colleagues have made a valuable contribution to the study of penile cancer, they mistakenly repeat the myth that neonatal circumcision renders the subject immune to penile cancer.1 The reference given for this statement is not an epidemiological study but an opinion article by the American circumcisionist Abraham L. Wolbarst in 1932.2 Wolbarst invented this myth and was directly responsible for its proliferation; he based it on unverifiable anecdotes, ethnocentric stereotypes, a faulty understanding of human anatomy and physiology, a misunderstanding of the distinction between association and cause, and a unbridled missionary zeal. It was not based on valid scientific and epidemiological research.
All subsequent repetions of this myth are traceable to Wolbarst's article, though Wolbarst himself advocated universal neonatal circumcision principally as a preventive for epilepsy, paralysis, and masturbation. Circumcisionists such as Wolbarst do not seem to have promoted this myth because they have a genuine interest in reducing penile cancer; they used it instead as a scare tactic to increase the rate of neonatal circumcision. It is surprising that sober scientists such as Frisch and colleagues could have relied on such a reference in their research.
Epidemiological studies disproved Wolbarst's myth long ago.
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (London), Volume 312 Number 7033: Pages 779-780,
March 23, 1996.
Medicine, as always, is an inexact science. Below is a reference to a literature review, performed after the paper you linked above and also not reliant on the 1932 paper which your reference justifiably criticised for its subjective nature.
This lit review, which includes research where there have been controlled studies, states that circumcision is associated with a reduced incidence of penile cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31398...
But penile cancer does not generally affect children.
https://www.sharecare.com/health/penile-cancer/doe...
It generally targets men over 55.
So why not let the kids decide when they are adult?
https://www.sharecare.com/health/penile-cancer/doe...
It generally targets men over 55.
So why not let the kids decide when they are adult?
DurianIceCream said:
Dromedary66 said:
Nope. Here's a citation from the British Medical Journal disproving that notion. I know how you always demand sources yourself, except of course for your assertion above you didn't post anything.
NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST CANCER
EDITOR,—Although Morten Frisch and colleagues have made a valuable contribution to the study of penile cancer, they mistakenly repeat the myth that neonatal circumcision renders the subject immune to penile cancer.1 The reference given for this statement is not an epidemiological study but an opinion article by the American circumcisionist Abraham L. Wolbarst in 1932.2 Wolbarst invented this myth and was directly responsible for its proliferation; he based it on unverifiable anecdotes, ethnocentric stereotypes, a faulty understanding of human anatomy and physiology, a misunderstanding of the distinction between association and cause, and a unbridled missionary zeal. It was not based on valid scientific and epidemiological research.
All subsequent repetions of this myth are traceable to Wolbarst's article, though Wolbarst himself advocated universal neonatal circumcision principally as a preventive for epilepsy, paralysis, and masturbation. Circumcisionists such as Wolbarst do not seem to have promoted this myth because they have a genuine interest in reducing penile cancer; they used it instead as a scare tactic to increase the rate of neonatal circumcision. It is surprising that sober scientists such as Frisch and colleagues could have relied on such a reference in their research.
Epidemiological studies disproved Wolbarst's myth long ago.
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (London), Volume 312 Number 7033: Pages 779-780,
March 23, 1996.
Thank you for posting a link to a reputable journal. NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST CANCER
EDITOR,—Although Morten Frisch and colleagues have made a valuable contribution to the study of penile cancer, they mistakenly repeat the myth that neonatal circumcision renders the subject immune to penile cancer.1 The reference given for this statement is not an epidemiological study but an opinion article by the American circumcisionist Abraham L. Wolbarst in 1932.2 Wolbarst invented this myth and was directly responsible for its proliferation; he based it on unverifiable anecdotes, ethnocentric stereotypes, a faulty understanding of human anatomy and physiology, a misunderstanding of the distinction between association and cause, and a unbridled missionary zeal. It was not based on valid scientific and epidemiological research.
All subsequent repetions of this myth are traceable to Wolbarst's article, though Wolbarst himself advocated universal neonatal circumcision principally as a preventive for epilepsy, paralysis, and masturbation. Circumcisionists such as Wolbarst do not seem to have promoted this myth because they have a genuine interest in reducing penile cancer; they used it instead as a scare tactic to increase the rate of neonatal circumcision. It is surprising that sober scientists such as Frisch and colleagues could have relied on such a reference in their research.
Epidemiological studies disproved Wolbarst's myth long ago.
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (London), Volume 312 Number 7033: Pages 779-780,
March 23, 1996.
Medicine, as always, is an inexact science. Below is a reference to a literature review, performed after the paper you linked above and also not reliant on the 1932 paper which your reference justifiably criticised for its subjective nature.
This lit review, which includes research where there have been controlled studies, states that circumcision is associated with a reduced incidence of penile cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31398...
Please cite your medical qualifications so that we may examine them.
DurianIceCream said:
Thank you for posting a link to a reputable journal.
Medicine, as always, is an inexact science. Below is a reference to a literature review, performed after the paper you linked above and also not reliant on the 1932 paper which your reference justifiably criticised for its subjective nature.
This lit review, which includes research where there have been controlled studies, states that circumcision is associated with a reduced incidence of penile cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31398...
Why do you keep banging on about doing this to babies to reduce a tiny risk by a tiny amount? There is no defensible reason for taking a scalpel to a baby for cultural or religious reasons, you must see this. Medicine, as always, is an inexact science. Below is a reference to a literature review, performed after the paper you linked above and also not reliant on the 1932 paper which your reference justifiably criticised for its subjective nature.
This lit review, which includes research where there have been controlled studies, states that circumcision is associated with a reduced incidence of penile cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31398...
The fact that you're twisting and turning around spurious prophylactic reasons to justify it, suggests that you know you're on the wrong side of this argument. Are there any other surgeries that you'd support? We could start routinely doing appendectomies on new-borns, or maybe we could whip out a lung, after all, that would halve the risk of lung cancer
On a personal note; I was at the birth of both my sons and when I was handed this little bundle I never thought "this little baby is nearly perfect, somebody hand me a scalpel and I'll make him perfect...." It's a bonkers thing to do to anyone for the sake of it, let alone a new born!
Jinx said:
No I am comparing a small amount of pain and some slight scarring now in certain cases to offset worse scarring and pain in the future. I am not advocating circumcision for all, I am suggesting it is a suitable solution if the medical risk is there in certain cases.
I am also wary of those who are vocally "protecting the children" as I suspect their real motives are less noble.
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to correct you on this!I am also wary of those who are vocally "protecting the children" as I suspect their real motives are less noble.
If you've read through my earlier posts, you'll know that my father was circumcised at 9 years old due to ongoing and indeed painful tight foreskin issues.
I was neonatal circumcised as a preventative measure.
Despite being circumcised, my father STILL had regular and indeed very painful tight foreskin problems, but only in the later stages of his life, they occurred right up to his death at 84 years old.
Circumcision doesn't necessarily completely fix the problem but hopefully you will never experience the same issues.
I've never experienced any problems but that isn't to say that just because I've been circumcised I never will do.
Carrying out the procedure purely on preventative grounds is deeply flawed.
In any case, the vast majority of circumcisions happen only for religious/cultural reasons so I'm not really sure why you insist on banging the 'preventative' drum.
DurianIceCream said:
Thank you for posting a link to a reputable journal.
Medicine, as always, is an inexact science. Below is a reference to a literature review, performed after the paper you linked above and also not reliant on the 1932 paper which your reference justifiably criticised for its subjective nature.
This lit review, which includes research where there have been controlled studies, states that circumcision is associated with a reduced incidence of penile cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31398...
In the review you linked to a few lines stand out in the Conclusions and Introduction sections: Medicine, as always, is an inexact science. Below is a reference to a literature review, performed after the paper you linked above and also not reliant on the 1932 paper which your reference justifiably criticised for its subjective nature.
This lit review, which includes research where there have been controlled studies, states that circumcision is associated with a reduced incidence of penile cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31398...
"Men circumcised in childhood/adolescence are at substantially reduced risk of invasive penile cancer, and this effect could be mediated partly through an effect on phimosis."
"Penile cancer is relatively rare globally with an annual incidence of less than 1 case per 100,000 person-years (pyr) in Western countries."
"Penile cancer typically occurs in later life (median age at diagnosis in the United States of America (USA) is 68 years)."
Hopefully pasting in those lines is permissible and seen as highlighting rather than cherry-picking?
So, do we:
A) Cut the babies now in case their 1 in 100,000 chance of bad luck hits in 60-something years?
B) Re-categorise circumcision as a medical-needs-only procedure?
RTB said:
Why do you keep banging on about doing this to babies to reduce a tiny risk by a tiny amount? There is no defensible reason for taking a scalpel to a baby for cultural or religious reasons, you must see this.
The fact that you're twisting and turning around spurious prophylactic reasons to justify it, suggests that you know you're on the wrong side of this argument.
It's a bonkers thing
Etc etc
A question was asked, not by me, about penile cancer. I responded. Are you suggesting that I should not respond or only respond with "yes, I am so, so wrong"?The fact that you're twisting and turning around spurious prophylactic reasons to justify it, suggests that you know you're on the wrong side of this argument.
It's a bonkers thing
Etc etc
As we are now up to page 15 or so, I would have thought it is quite clear by now that you and your peers asking "surely must see it our way" that I do not see it your way.
As for why, I've already stated that several times, it is just beyond your comprehension to accept a view which is in conflict with your own: circumcision is within the things which are reasonable for parents to decide for infant children and the procedure also has mild medical benefits.
DurianIceCream said:
A question was asked, not by me, about penile cancer. I responded. Are you suggesting that I should not respond or only respond with "yes, I am so, so wrong"?
As we are now up to page 15 or so, I would have thought it is quite clear by now that you and your peers asking "surely must see it our way" that I do not see it your way.
As for why, I've already stated that several times, it is just beyond your comprehension to accept a view which is in conflict with your own: circumcision is within the things which are reasonable for parents to decide for infant children and the procedure also has mild medical benefits.
But there are no medical benefits for the child. As we are now up to page 15 or so, I would have thought it is quite clear by now that you and your peers asking "surely must see it our way" that I do not see it your way.
As for why, I've already stated that several times, it is just beyond your comprehension to accept a view which is in conflict with your own: circumcision is within the things which are reasonable for parents to decide for infant children and the procedure also has mild medical benefits.
Why not let the child decide when they are an adult?
You haven't come close to answering this one.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff