People,its just a distraction just like whenever the don't ask "issue" is brought up that no one can agree on and ends up doing its job perfectly.
I expect you could find similar examples for many other ostensibly routine medical procedures; which causes me to think that such a study is more a comment on the necessity of ensuring that such procedures are performed safely by qualified personnel, rather than simply banning the procedure outright.Chamale said:[
Here's a study [http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/] that says 100 baby boys die every year in the United States from botched circumcisions. This is the crux of the issue: Circumcision does endanger baby boys, we understand that danger, and parents shouldn't be allowed to endanger their children like that. Banning circumcision would save more lives than legally requiring carseats for children.
If someone really wants whatever benefits circumcision gives, let that man choose for himself at age 18.
I want to say upfront that I am not trying to minimize those deaths. That is absolutely horrific. But at the same time, I notice that article only talked about those deaths in the context of overall infant deaths, which I would hope to be low to begin with in an industrialized nation like this. Again, not trying to minimize this, but 100 is a very low number compared to the number of births. Also, I want to point out that the article does not mention deaths from OTHER botched medical procedures.Chamale said:Here's a study [http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/] that says 100 baby boys die every year in the United States from botched circumcisions. This is the crux of the issue: Circumcision does endanger baby boys, we understand that danger, and parents shouldn't be allowed to endanger their children like that. Banning circumcision would save more lives than legally requiring carseats for children.Avatar Roku said:It's completely different, because a girl who is circumcised IS damaged for life, whereas (again, as a circumcised man) men are not affected seriously.
If someone really wants whatever benefits circumcision gives, let that man choose for himself at age 18.
"According to the World Health Organization (WHO), global estimates suggest that 30% of males are circumcised, of whom 68% are Muslim."Ultratwinkie said:Actually no, circumcised is becoming a curio in America. Hispanic immigration means that less people are circumcised. To the Hispanic community, circumcision is bullshit. Unless the Vatican mandates it, they wont follow traditional American culture and its pseudo science if you can call it that. Hell, American culture pushes mysticism while demonizing science. It's culture, and even then over 90% of the men in the world are not circumcised. America is one of the few nations that still practice this, but Europe abolished the practice long ago when they realized it was a barbaric practice.inFAMOUSCowZ said:What the hell happened to our rights? Sure our parents may have chosen for me, but hell I don't care(it is normal for Americans, and we arent even religious)
I would like to know a proper opinion on this next statement as nobody has yet to really answer it. So, here goes;LadyRhian said:Here's my opinion on this as a woman. I think it should ever only be up to the person getting circumcised. That means the guy whose dick is going under the knife. Not the parents, not the religious authorities... the person who is going to have the procedure done to them.
To those who say that having a foreskin is a health risk- there is a slightly higher chance of certain diseases, most, if not all of which can be changed by simply cleaning well under the foreskin. I've heard women saying men with a foreskin have a certain "odor" that uncircumcised men do not. Again, wash under the damn thing and it goes away. Really.
To those complaining about its looks- you're complaining because it isn't what you are used to. If there were more uncut men around, you probably wouldn't notice or care. If it means that much to you, don't take an uncircumcised man as a lover. See how easy it is? However, you then cannot complain about men wanting only big-boobed women with blonde hair. You are choosing on something equally as superficial.
Ok, I usually don't do this, but that genuinely pissed me off. Granted, this won't be the same for every Jewish man, but for me, that is genuinely an important part of my identity as a Jew, and I would appreciate it if you would not call it barbaric.Chefodeath said:I'm going to say no just because its a dirty law that will be awkward in enforcement and creates a precedent that gives power to the state that it frankly doesn't deserve.
I am not defending circumcision, I am defending what is a private and meaningful ritual from state interference. Personally though, I find it a barbaric practice and its frankly shameful that its still so widely practiced.
To a certain degree yes.Jumplion said:I would like to know a proper opinion on this next statement as nobody has yet to really answer it. So, here goes;LadyRhian said:Here's my opinion on this as a woman. I think it should ever only be up to the person getting circumcised. That means the guy whose dick is going under the knife. Not the parents, not the religious authorities... the person who is going to have the procedure done to them.
To those who say that having a foreskin is a health risk- there is a slightly higher chance of certain diseases, most, if not all of which can be changed by simply cleaning well under the foreskin. I've heard women saying men with a foreskin have a certain "odor" that uncircumcised men do not. Again, wash under the damn thing and it goes away. Really.
To those complaining about its looks- you're complaining because it isn't what you are used to. If there were more uncut men around, you probably wouldn't notice or care. If it means that much to you, don't take an uncircumcised man as a lover. See how easy it is? However, you then cannot complain about men wanting only big-boobed women with blonde hair. You are choosing on something equally as superficial.
Isn't it the parent's job to decide what is good for their child? Playing devil's advocate here, if you will, I've already stated my opinion, but I have yet to see anyone who is pro- or anti-circumcision deal with that aspect of it.
.....aaannnnd? C'mon man, don't leave me hangin' here, elaborate! Start a discussion, good for the soul, dude.marfoir(IRL) said:To a certain degree yes.Jumplion said:I would like to know a proper opinion on this next statement as nobody has yet to really answer it. So, here goes;
Isn't it the parent's job to decide what is good for their child? Playing devil's advocate here, if you will, I've already stated my opinion, but I have yet to see anyone who is pro- or anti-circumcision deal with that aspect of it.
Thank you for referring to a part of my anatomy as mutilated.BlueMage said:Can we please refer to circumcision correctly? Its proper term is "Male Genital Mutilation."
Key difference: Circumcision is optional. If we ban circumcision, 100 babies who would have been killed accidentally instead survive.Avatar Roku said:I want to say upfront that I am not trying to minimize those deaths. That is absolutely horrific. But at the same time, I notice that article only talked about those deaths in the context of overall infant deaths, which I would hope to be low to begin with in an industrialized nation like this. Again, not trying to minimize this, but 100 is a very low number compared to the number of births. Also, I want to point out that the article does not mention deaths from OTHER botched medical procedures.
Parents' rights absolutely do not extend to endangering their child. Circumcision against a baby's consent creates a measurable risk - 100 accidental deaths a year. 1 in 10,000 circumcisions result in death. If a parent let a baby sit in a car without a carseat or seatbelt, the parent would be condemned for irresponsibility. Circumcisions, like car trips, are risky. Parents don't have the right to unnecessarily endanger the lives of their own kids.Jumplion said:Isn't it the parent's job to decide what is good for their child? Playing devil's advocate here, if you will, I've already stated my opinion, but I have yet to see anyone who is pro- or anti-circumcision deal with that aspect of it.
Don't go there then. That would be aCaligulust said:My penis is outlawed in San Francisco.
Good day.
Because it is an important part of my religion, and has been for thousands of years.SpaceSpork said:Why was it legal to cut off baby penis skin in the first place?