Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by GenitalIntegrityNow, Jun 4, 2008.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    If circumcision provided 100% protection against HIV, as one example, then no, of course I would not oppose it. But it does not. There is a lot of conflicting evidence on just how much protection, if any, it does provide. The medical authorities are saying it "might" provide some protection against HIV transmission. There is a lot of current research that has been provided in this thread which shows that the protection it does give is not a guarantee. Would I circumcise my son's based on the current research? No. As it stands, they are simply too young to be sexually active and I am not prepared to take away a part of their bodies based on the figures I am currently seeing. When they are old enough to decide for themselves and state they wish to be circumcised, I'll pay for it myself. It should be their decision to make, not mine or my husband's.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Right. And would I recommend not circumcising based on current research? No.

    We both have different views on what is normal. The scientific data is such that I see no reason to change our current practice, just as you see no reason to change yours.

    You can (an do) argue that your view of what's normal is "natural", but as your countryman Jon is fond of pointing out, just because something is natural doesn't mean it's best.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    I think those who don't have a fetish are just mislead by all their propaganda. II think they have the well being of the baby in mind.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Does the genital integrity group also target penis piercing?
  8. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    That is not what it results in. What does it matter if most of the world is intact? I am in America and most of us think being cut looks better. I think the banana is just a joke. You my not find it funny but it doesn't make the info on the site less true. The sources are listed.
  9. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    My response is in bold.
  10. Koalama Registered Senior Member

    Why do people use strawmans? :shrug:
  11. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    Your arguments rely on a false premise that not all of the penis is valuable. This is a good example. If this logic had merit, you could equally well propose removing any body part which requires occasional rinsing (i.e. any of them) from every child because a small number may be unable to perform basic hygiene tasks. It's really, really ridiculous.

    Do I want to brush my child's teeth every day for the rest of his life, because he cannot? NO! But if my child couldn't do it himself, then somebody else would need do it. I wouldn't remove his teeth as a solution. And I certainly wouldn't remove the adult teeth from every child because a few might be unable to care for themselves!

    Once again, you are merely preying on the sentiment you hope exists and wish to foster, that certain body parts are dirty, useless, and harmful. Grow up.
  12. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    I would say so, if it's done involuntarily on a minor. No one cares what you might chose to do on your own.
  13. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Aquaria89 actually its not a straw man. Compleate removal of all breast tissue WILL protect a women from breast cancer (not sure if it would also protect guys). So why dont we routinly remove breasts from babies?

    Because its THERE decision if they wish to remove there breasts to protect them from a potentual risk, not the parents. No doctor would EVER sign off on removing a babies breast tissue because it breaches the guidelines for parental concent.

    The ethical guidelines for perental concent state that "in order for a parent to concent to a treatment for a child it must be to:
    A) deal with an IMINATE risk
    B) have low risk of long term effects on body image ect

    If it doesnt staticfy the first critiria then the procidure should never happen, if the second is a problem then the issue is refered to the guardianship board.

    This is to protect babies from having there arms cut off because they might get a broken arm ect and i have been surprised that this standed has never been aplied to MGM
  14. Kadark Banned Banned

    Heh, I suppose only Asguard could compare circumcision to the complete removal of a woman's breasts. The argument which seems most prominent amongst the "Genital Integrity" crusaders is along the lines of, "let your child make the decision when the time is right". That, my friends, is a stinky heap of hypocritical bullshit. I suppose vaccinations fall under this logic as well, right? Considering the recent vaccination-autism outcries, who's to say that vaccinating your child does more good than potential harm? If the circumcision haters had things their demonic way, they would make it mandatory for parents to raise their children like soulless robots. They would just love it if parents abstained from doing anything to alter the state of a child, both physically and psychologically. Let's not teach them our religious values, because it will destroy their brains. Better to raise them like robots. Remove their foreskin? No, they will never recover from the fact that they lost some filthy slab of flesh which does more harm, medically, than good. Most circumcision haters are just bitter because their dicks were never de-foreskin'd, resulting in the genital catastrophe within their pants. Yeah, sure: there are some circumcision haters who have been circumcised, although they probably only hate circumcision because they think foreskin would make their undersized dicks look larger. Unbelievable, isn't it? A society wherein genitally-hideous individuals proudly roam about is never far from the brink of disaster. The worst part is that the circumcision haters have the audacity to tell us how to raise our kids. Maybe they should look at their own bacterial-hotbed of penile-disgustingness before pointing at our dicks.
  15. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    I love it when vacination comes into these debates, talk about a straw man.

    Firstly there is NO scientic evidence that vacinations lead to autisium. Actually try doing some rescurce.

    Secondly vacinations dont change body image or sexual function. I have never herd of a vacination leading to serality or sexual dysfuntion for starters. I also suggest you reread bells post on how much sensation is lost though MGM
  16. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    I remember guys like you from the playground.

    Have you heard of 'projection'?
  17. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    If there are parents piercing the penises of their kids, of course.
  18. GenitalIntegrityNow Registered Member

    I find it quite remarkable how some people actually demonize certain normal human body parts. Especially since it is done exclusively by those from whom such parts were removed. It really shows how powerful social conditioning is.
  19. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    I have heard that too, but somehow it didn't apply to me.
  20. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    It's the most cost-effective program they've been able to come up with.
    You just have to be joking. What exactly do you plan on teaching these people? Risk analysis and management? Deferred gratification? Western morality-oh wait, promiscuity is pretty high over here too.
    In many African countries there is no tradition of circumcision at all so it's more like 100%.
    Here's one I picked at random from the CDC. They talk about a 60% reduction but they don't say what the before and after numbers were.
    I don't understand what you're referring to as "laziness." Are you attempting to overlay Western attitudes on sub-Saharan Africans? Sort of what the British and other colonial powers tried to do during their centuries-long occupation? The exact type of arrogant, elitist, racist boneheaded meddling that got the Third World into the mess it's in?
    I'm talking only about HIV. "Traditional" STDs are not the same order of magnitude as a public health issue. Since the invention of antibiotics they don't decimate populations. If these people get gonorrhea it's not going to cripple their countries.
    Life is full of tough decisions and we have to do the best we can. There's a compact between parents and children that comes with the universe. Modern medicine has only been around for a few generations so we're still getting the hang of it. I agree that in a perfect world you would probably be safe to allow a male child to wait and make his own decision at puberty. But many societies have far more social pressure than our individualistic Western model, and adolescents are under tremendous pressure to conform. So it comes down to this: Should you make a decision that has a profound impact on the health and the life expectancy of your son, or do you want to leave it to a gang of juvenile delinquents who are certain they know more about the universe than the adults around them?
    If I hear one more person bring condoms and abstinence into the HIV discussion I think I'm going to barf. They don't work in America and they're sure as hell not going to work in the Third World. The reason is that they rely on self control and that's a commodity in short supply. Schools are being sued successfuly for teacing abstinence and it's about damn time. We're talking about horny teenagers here!
    What's the alternative, 24/7 surveillance to make sure he fulfills his promise to never have unprotected sex? We don't have that technology here so I doubt that they have it in Africa either.
    The CDC paper I cited reports a study of men who were circumcised as adults and therefore are in a position to comment on the difference in erogenous sensation. Apparently on the average it's noticeable but unimportant.

    If retaining the foreskin delayed orgasm you might start getting some support from the women.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    We can't get Americans to do this reliably. Do you really think you're going to get it in the backwoods of Africa? Give me a break.

    Your strategy for the AIDS epidemic is simply unrealistic. These are actual people you have to deal with, not computer simulations. Not only real people but real people in some pretty marginal situations. People get drunk before having sex. Many are initiated into it as soon as they hit puberty. Some commit rape. This is not a demographic that's going to carry a pack of condoms in their pocket or purse or limit themselves to one partner.

    You just have to get real about this. It's far too important to base on some 18th century Protestant ideal of how you think human beings ought to behave.

    Condoms are a pretty good idea but they require planning and a certain level of discipline. Not to mention, I remember condoms from the days before I got a vasectomy and frankly they suck. The ones made out of skin are better but because they're actual animal tissue they don't block infection.

    But if you want to talk about something that REALLY sucks, that would be abstinence! If the objection to circumcision is that it causes a minute decrease in sensitivity to erotic stimulation, I don't understand how forgoing erotic stimulation entirety can be a logical preference.
  21. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    So you're not going to tell them what it's for, just create an open wound on their penis? If you tell them it will prevent HIV, they will think they're safe and get it anyway.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    What I find interesting about this debate is its vehemence.

    I notice that the strongest objections are coming from Americans. 95% of American men today are circumcised. Originally, circumcision was introduced because it was thought to reduce masterbation, which is considered a sin.

    It is not surprising that with the US being far and away the most religious of western nations, old opinions and traditions die hard. Meanwhile, the rest of the developed world is waking up.
  23. Bells Staff Member

    There have been a lot of reports posted in this thread that gives a vast array of numbers as well as disputes in regards to those figures.

    And your proposal is what exactly? Force circumcision on those who don't want it for their children? What was it you said? Ah yes:

    Every boy child on earth should be circumcised for the next two or three generations as a matter of public health.

    You do realise that not all African or Asian cultures believe or circumcise their baby boys, don't you? But you're willing to force people to remove the foreskin of their male children for the next few generations? You want to talk about "arrogant, elitist, racist, boneheaded meddling"?

    The use of condoms is recommended by all international medical bodies, as well as the vast number of Governments across the African continent, since that gives a hell of a lot more protection than circumcision ever could. Are you about to tell the UN, WHO as well as other medical bodies that the promotion of condom usage is "arrogant, elitist, racist, boneheaded meddling"? But you would recommend the forced circumcision of all male children instead? Ya right.

    And you're still not seeing what is being written. Circumcision is not a guaranteed preventative against the transmission of HIV. Hence why organisations like the UN and WHO recommend the promotion of safe sex practices and proper medical practices, as well as no needle sharing, to stop the transmission. Circumcision has been found in some research to possibly reduce the level of transmission. In that circumcision "might" prevent the transmission of the disease up to a point. But telling people that AIDS or HIV won't be transmitted if they are circumcised is not only wrong, it is dangerous. Because circumcision is not guaranteed to stop the spread of the disease.

    But if you want to analyse the spread of HIV, I'd suggest you look at the figures of transmission rates in Europe (where the majority of males are not circumcised) and that of the US, where the majority are circumcised.

    I think those "juvenile delinquents" should still have a say whether they lose a part of their bodies such as their foreskin or not, don't you think?

    So far, research has shown that the circumcision debate is one that is uncertain, with research being disputed with other research. In light of this, I would rather not hack off a piece of my son's foreskin just in case. That is a decision that will be left to them. Because based on the research that is coming out at the moment, I wouldn't even consider it.

Share This Page