Looking at a penis does not necessarily imply that you enjoy looking at the penis. What if you shower with a large group of men, say at work? To me it is like looking at any other body part.
Tide turning on Circumcision, Push to circumcise all male infants
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Looking at a penis does not necessarily imply that you enjoy looking at the penis. What if you shower with a large group of men, say at work? To me it is like looking at any other body part.
American Academy of Pediatrics: Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks
The decision is finally out:
The decision is finally out:
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health...can-academy-of-pediatrics/831390/1?csp=34news
Before you whinge about me calling them unethical. If you act without regard for ethics you are unethical, one of the FUNDERMENTAL principles of ethics is autonomy, unless you can show are VERY significant reason to do so you can't simply ignore this principle. Therefore they are acting unethically by not pushing for self determination and therefore are unethical
"Instead, it says the final decision rests with parents." Quite an unethical stance. Would your desire to force parents to accept your morals be more ethical?
3 years later...
Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Pediatrics
...and for shit and giggles...
... a reference found in the op's article
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Why the derogatory tone? By now it's pretty well known that circumcision greatly reduces the probability of a man contracting HIV from a partner. If African men continue to embrace the adult circumcision campaign, the odds are good that it will put an end to the continent's AIDS epidemic. AIDS has created so many orphans that they have overwhelmed Africa's already-limited ability to care for them, creating yet one more catastrophic social problem for the former colonies.
This doesn't mean that the same campaign needs to be launched in other parts of the world.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It's not "well known", that study was in fact deeply flawed in it's methodology.
oh
almost forgot
patients get a nifty care package
contents: torah and matzo
I will make you exceedingly fertile, and make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. . . . I assign the land you sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be their God. . . . Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:6,8,10)
/hoohah
almost forgot
patients get a nifty care package
contents: torah and matzo
I will make you exceedingly fertile, and make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. . . . I assign the land you sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be their God. . . . Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:6,8,10)
/hoohah
Actually YES it is unethical, the decision should rest with the CHILD, THATS what self determination means, if for some strange reason (because im with orleander on this, i have NEVER herd of a man who was unmutilated CHOSING to be multilated) they want it done when they turn 16 (or younger subject to the usual maturity tests for medical treatment) then im all for it, would even be compleatly fine with medicare paying for it (even though they wont pay for cosmetic surgury unless its NEEDED). The same for girls who chose to be mulitlated.
Just because you call yourself a "parent" (parents should protect there children from harm, not cause it so these people AREN'T parents) doesnt mean you get to mutilate your children. It would be completaly illegal for a "mother" to cut the breast tissue out of her daughter no matter HOW strong the family history of breast cancer is, it IS illegal to do ANYTHING to the genitalia of little girls without consent (and sometimes with consent which i think goes to far, women can make up there own minds).
Parents make such determinations for their children until they are old enough to do so themselves. That's true in lots of cases, not just this one.
Yes, you do, actually. You can tear holes in their ears (get their ears pierced) expose them to deadly pathogens (get them vaccinated) mutilate them (separate conjoined twins) and change their gender (do ambiguous genitalia corrective surgery.) However you can't starve them or beat them or remove their ears.
"Wait a minute!" you say. "Of course you can vaccinate them! That's totally different! That's good for them!" Ah, but that's just one opinion; some people think that vaccines put a child at high risk of autism, disease and death. Who gets to decide what's OK? Doctors as represented by medical organizations (such as the AAP) get to decide what is medically benign or advantageous to children.
Not if she has breast cancer.
Again, no it's not. Read up on ambiguous genitalia corrective surgery. Parents decide.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
That's the first I've heard of it, compared to at least ten articles in well-respected publications saying that it was done right. There was one in the Washington Post (the newspaper of record of the nation's capital) just a week or two ago. Can you please provide a link to a well-respected publication for your argument?
Facial
Valued Senior Member
Given that male circumcision has known benefits, would removal of the appendix and tonsils be mandatory from birth as well? These decisions, especially regarding the sensitive reproductive organs of the body, should be left to the individual only. I think of it as an invasion of privacy. It is unusual for me to be libertarian on any issue, but there is a reason why the sexual anatomies is referred to as private parts.
If promiscuity is a problem then it is the parents who should shoulder that blame for not raising their kids properly. Some adolescents are more sexually active than others, but the awareness of HIV and other STD's rests on their interpretation. I have no guilt or remorse if there is a mistake made by either parent or minor concerning sexual activity which results in disease transmission. To put it another way, genital mutilation should not be an excuse for parents' poor upbringing of a child, particularly concerning sex education.
I was never circumsized, and have had no sex life in my 26 years so far. I do intend on keeping my foreskin.
If promiscuity is a problem then it is the parents who should shoulder that blame for not raising their kids properly. Some adolescents are more sexually active than others, but the awareness of HIV and other STD's rests on their interpretation. I have no guilt or remorse if there is a mistake made by either parent or minor concerning sexual activity which results in disease transmission. To put it another way, genital mutilation should not be an excuse for parents' poor upbringing of a child, particularly concerning sex education.
I was never circumsized, and have had no sex life in my 26 years so far. I do intend on keeping my foreskin.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
How about the University of Oxford?
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/