So with a 31% reduction in infection chance already established (at least experimentally, if not commercially available), with great improvements likely within the next 30 years (ie., the meaningful time-frame w.r.t. the lifespan of babies now being born), can we put to bed the silly argument that a few percentage points' difference in lifetime infection chance is any sort of meaningful argument pro- this procedure?
31%<32%. So no. We can't put to bed the rational argument that a few percentage points difference in lifetime infection is a a meaningful argument in favor of this procedure.
Going from 31% to 32% is just as much improvement as going from 5% to 6%. If it was good enough before to raise the argument, it'll remain good enough until a 100% reduction in chance is achieved.
31%<32%. So no. We can't put to bed the rational argument that a few percentage points difference in lifetime infection is a a meaningful argument in favor of this procedure.
Umm. What is this 32% number and where did you get it from? Are you saying circumcised men are 32% less likely to contract HIV? Because that is a far, far higher reduction rate than the studies I've read indicated.
Going from 31% to 32% is just as much improvement as going from 5% to 6%.
No, going from 31 to 32% is a lot different from going from 0 to 32%. It's a whole 31% different, in fact. This is even assuming I accept your 32% figure, which I won't without documentation.
It means the argument pro is now "it causes a fractional improvement in chances to avoid HIV infection" rather than whatever other improvement you're claiming it once made. And this is STILL completely disregarding the issues of ethics, and of just teaching the stupid kid to wear a frickin condom.
So while I still think the entire "HIV" argument is complete bollocks from top to bottom, it's now much *weaker* bollocks even by the standards of those who might be swayed by it.
Male circumcisions were ordinally preformed by the Hebrews to set themselves apart from other people, it had nothing to do with sexual pleasure.
They also had nothing to do with hygeine, at least, nothing that can be proven from a historical perspective. The Biblical term "unclean" here is used in the sense of ritual uncleanliness, not physical uncleanliness.
When my mother was in nurse's training she helped with a circumcision. She said that the baby started crying as soon as he was held down, not when the doctor preformed the circumcision.
Well, naturally, it's not in the habit of being able to make effective use of its limbs but it IS able to wave them about, and having them restricted must be frustrating. Babies will cry for much less. Since crying would typically continue through the circumcision, this really isn't evidence of anything, because it doesn't prove the baby doesn't begin to feel pain as soon as the procedure commences. It would be silly - and meaningless - to try to do some comparison of decibel level, though to some it might be an effective argument.
My mother also worked for many years in nursing homes. She told me that she hated to take care of uncircumcised men because they were more work to clean up and most of them were either to sick or to senile to clean themselves.
So babies should have part of their body cut off for the possible convenience of paid nurses 70-80 years later?? Are you even listening to yourself? So the job's a dirty job, either quit, ask for a raise, or shut up and work.
Also little boys pretty much never have good hygiene. I don't see how someone can expect a little boy to clean under the foreskin all the time when you can hardly get them to wash their hands.
Maybe if we weren't so intent on teaching them that that part of their body is "dirty" and "sinful", we'd have time left over to teach them hygeine, and they might be able to receive such instruction. It's not the child's fault if his parents are prudes who are too wrapped up in their religion to provide him with proper training in hygeine, and it's certainly not something he deserves to lose a body part over.
Somehow I doubt that very many mothers want to be cleaning under their son’s foreskin everyday until they are old enough to do it themselves.
I don't see where "every day" comes into it, but you do realize the human species got along just fine for millions of years before anyone ever got the brilliant idea to start cutting off bits of baby penises, right? I submit that cleaning your child is part of the job called motherhood, and there's no reason to be squeamish about it. It's your child, you *created* their body inside you, how can it disgust you?
I have also read that a woman who's husband is uncircumcised will have a higher risk of getting cervical cancer.
This one is commonly stated but only rarely backed up by any sort of link to a study or source. And again: so what? Sounds to me, if there really are women out there who'll use a BS excuse like "I might get cervical cancer at a fractionally increased chance" to avoid being with a man whose equipment scares and freaks them out because they've never seen an uncut ***** before, then I say you're doing your son a favor by helping him avoid winding up with a woman that shallow.
Seriously? A few percentage points difference chance of getting an already unlikely illness is actually going to determine someone's romantic choices? You realize that (not all, but some) women stay with men who beat them to within an inch of their lives, right? I really don't think the cervical cancer thing is going to put your son out of any marriage offers - I think the appearance of his unit is more likely to. And that's certainly no one's fault except the woman if that happens.
Umm. What is this 32% number and where did you get it from? Are you saying circumcised men are 32% less likely to contract HIV? Because that is a far, far higher reduction rate than the studies I've read indicated.
preventive measures are typically additive. 31% from the vaccine + 1% from circumcisoin = 32$% The improvement from the HIV vaccination doesn't magically render the improvement from something else non-existent, as you seem to be claiming.
Are you going to argue that the vaccine isn't necessary since people can use condoms and they provide greater percentage protection than the vaccination? (FYI I got the 31% from the article that was linked).
Here, how about this. replace the 32% with 31.01%. its still an improvment. The vaccine alone is not as effective as the vaccine + circumcision. That was my point. Granted Circumcision doesn't provide much of a boost. but the boost it does provide isn't diminished in any way by the existence of the vaccine.
No, going from 31 to 32% is a lot different from going from 0 to 32%. It's a whole 31% different, in fact. This is even assuming I accept your 32% figure, which I won't without documentation.
If you bothered to read and think about what I wrote, rather than just jumping on me because you disagreed with me you would see that I never said circumcision gave 32% decrease.
It means the argument pro is now "it causes a fractional improvement in chances to avoid HIV infection" rather than whatever other improvement you're claiming it once made. And this is STILL completely disregarding the issues of ethics, and of just teaching the stupid kid to wear a frickin condom.
And, apparently, your argument anti is now "preventive measures cannot add to each other, so a fractional improvement doesn't count as an improvement"
So while I still think the entire "HIV" argument is complete bollocks from top to bottom, it's now much *weaker* bollocks even by the standards of those who might be swayed by it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't the the HIV prevention argument is strong either, and in appropriate countries carries little to no weight with me. But the presence of the vaccine does not alter its weight in the slightest, and shouldn't alter it for someone who it does carry weight with.
Maybe if we weren't so intent on teaching them that that part of their body is "dirty" and "sinful" , we'd have time left over to teach them hygeine, and they might be able to receive such instruction. It's not the child's fault if his parents are prudes who are too wrapped up in their religion to provide him with proper training in hygeine, and it's certainly not something he deserves to lose a body part over.
The only person who seems to be thinking that bolded part is you. I was certainly never taught that being uncircumcised was Dirty or Sinful. Unless your jewish I suppose, I'm not so I don't really konw wahts going with that currently).
I don't see where "every day" comes into it, but you do realize the human species got along just fine for millions of years before anyone ever got the brilliant idea to start cutting off bits of baby penises, right? I submit that cleaning your child is part of the job called motherhood, and there's no reason to be squeamish about it. It's your child, you *created* their body inside you, how can it disgust you?
Seriously? A few percentage points difference chance of getting an already unlikely illness is actually going to determine someone's romantic choices? You realize that (not all, but some) women stay with men who beat them to within an inch of their lives, right? I really don't think the cervical cancer thing is going to put your son out of any marriage offers - I think the appearance of his unit is more likely to. And that's certainly no one's fault except the woman if that happens.
Out of curiosity: would anything short of a 100% prevention of {something} be enough to convince you that infant circumcision is ok? Because It seems like we're arguing a bunch of back and forth, and you don't really want to try and listen to the other side, so much as just yell at them and tell them they are wrong and are horrible people.
When my mother was in nurse's training she helped with a circumcision. She said that the baby started crying as soon as he was held down, not when the doctor preformed the circumcision.
Is it your claim that taking a knife to a very sensitive area of the body does not cause pain?
My mother also worked for many years in nursing homes. She told me that she hated to take care of uncircumcised men because they were more work to clean up and most of them were either to sick or to senile to clean themselves. Also little boys pretty much never have good hygiene. I don't see how someone can expect a little boy to clean under the foreskin all the time when you can hardly get them to wash their hands. So being circumcised or not may have very little hygiene issues for a teenager or a grown man, it is an issue for the very young, the very old, or the very sick. Somehow I doubt that very many mothers want to be cleaning under their son’s foreskin everyday until they are old enough to do it themselves.
And yet we are not hearing about the epidemic of penile infections among prepubescent boys.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I haven't read most of the thread, so pardon me if this has been mentioned, but I would like to point out that if there is any difference in the rate of STD infection between circumcised and uncircumcised men, it may be linked to their moral or ethical views on sex as taught by their parents. I think it would be safe to assume that families who circumcise their young would be predominantly religious, implying a conservative upbringing where sex is concerned. I believe that more non-religious, or more liberal-minded families would choose to leave their young uncircumcised, connotative of a more liberal upbringing in terms of promiscuity, possibly leading to higher rates of STD infection caused by more sex with more partners.
I haven't read a single thing in this thead, not even the OP, so I don't even know what the debate is (although I can only assume it's for/against).
I just wanted to put (dim) .02 in
My junk may be a little bit scarred and altered from being clipped, but it sure looks a whole helluva lot nicer than you unclipped lot. Plus it's cleaner, or so I hear.
preventive measures are typically additive. 31% from the vaccine + 1% from circumcisoin = 32$% The improvement from the HIV vaccination doesn't magically render the improvement from something else non-existent, as you seem to be claiming.
OK, I definitely did misread you. Sorry about that. I thought you were saying something other than what you were.
If I had a point, it was that relying on a "1%" argument is sillier now because by the time modern babies grow up, this drug will probably be on the market and reducing transmission rates. I'm basically saying there's even less call for a +1% improvement in risk avoidance when you start with a baseline of 31% rather than of 0%.
Or let's make this more clear. Suppose ALL human males have a baseline 5% chance to avoid contracting the virus even when exposed, regardless of vaccine, circumcision, etc. The vaccine represents a 620% increase above natural resistance. Circumcision represents a 20% increase by comparison. If you have the vaccination THEN the circumcision is only an 8.3% improvement over the new baseline of 36%.
You could argue that rather than seeing natural + vaccination resistances as the baseline, one could see natural + circumcision resistances as the baseline. But I don't think it's too hard to differentiate which is less drastic and will be more commonly adopted on a worldwide scale.
(The above has been a presentation by a person who knows jack-squat about Statistics, so feel free to correct any errors I've made.)
Are you going to argue that the vaccine isn't necessary since people can use condoms and they provide greater percentage protection than the vaccination? (FYI I got the 31% from the article that was linked).
I'm arguing that it's a case of extreme diminishing returns, and that the benefit is not even remotely worth it for the cost. (Since we don't even really know WHAT the cost is, the only logical way to treat the cost is to assume it is the highest *likely* suspected cost - lowballing is neither wise nor ethical.)
And then when we factor in additional means such as teaching a child safe sex practises (I wouldn't venture to guess the risk reduction rate of that), or making efforts to increase condom usage rates (multiply rate of usage x a modern high-quality latex condom's 99%+ protection rate vs. AIDS to get the actual protection rate)... I'm just saying, stacking all those things up as potential ways to reduce risk, it seems completely outlandish to me to say that throwing another 1% onto that towering pile is worth paying an unknown but possibly high cost for.
If you bothered to read and think about what I wrote, rather than just jumping on me because you disagreed with me you would see that I never said circumcision gave 32% decrease.
Quite right; sorry about that.
The only person who seems to be thinking that bolded part is you. I was certainly never taught that being uncircumcised was Dirty or Sinful. Unless your jewish I suppose, I'm not so I don't really konw wahts going with that currently).
I don't think that myself, though I was raised Christian and trust me, there's plenty of that sort of thought about. I was raised Christian by bleeding-heart liberal parents, far from bible-thumpers, and nevertheless I got the whole "it's dirty, it's a sin to touch yourself... down there" talk as a little boy. I know my parents meant well, and I eventually got over it and feel no body shame today - but it goes to show how even well-meaning and very open-minded parents can instill body shame into boys over their penises, and it's not hard to show that that shame can indeed lead to a failure to teach hygeine.
It also leads to society's widespread reluctance to discuss this issue, and the "taboo" surrounding it. There's no way I could have had a frank discussion with either of my parents, as a boy, about my genitals; they would have been too embarassed to even speak. As a result, I had to teach myself how to clean myself. If these quasi-religious beliefs in the "sinfulness" or "dirtiness" of the ***** were to ease, the resulting improvement in male genital hygeine would far outstrip any imaginable benefit from circumcision.
(And btw, it's not like circumcised penises don't require daily attention as well. If you disagree, here's an experiment for the circumcised men reading this: go a week without bathing your junk, and then ask your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/SO/whatever for sex. When they complain about the funk, tell them, "But at least I'm circumcised, how can you complain?" I'm betting they'll still hand you a washcloth and point you towards the shower. So the whole thing is a non-issue.)
Out of curiosity: would anything short of a 100% prevention of {something} be enough to convince you that infant circumcision is ok? Because It seems like we're arguing a bunch of back and forth, and you don't really want to try and listen to the other side, so much as just yell at them and tell them they are wrong and are horrible people.
I am listening, but since almost none of the other side's arguments speak to the issue of *ethics*, it really doesn't matter much to me. Most of the other side's arguments are utilitarian in nature - that the child will live longer, be healthier, get HIV less frequently, be cleaner, or be more accepted. These are all utilities. But my stance is that this strays outside the acceptable bounds of ethical custodial consent, because it violates the child's natural right to self-determination, bodily integrity, and freedom of (and from) belief/worship.
As such, even if you could prove to me that circumcising an infant gave them the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound and outrace a speeding bullet, with no other drawback beyond altering their appearance against their will - even if you could prove to me it causes no pain! - I would still oppose it, because they didn't choose it and it didn't need to be done. They can have it done at 18 if they want to, and it will have the same effects then. So what's the rush?
(also, re: pro-circ arguments, I haven't read any in this debate that I haven't heard a thousand times before, and debated and re-debated to death, on the Talk:Circumcision page at wikipedia. God, the flame-wars there just go on endlessly. >_< So if I seem not to listen, it's because I've already considered all these arguments and decided for each one how much merit I give it.)
My mother works in a nursing home now and she never complains about that (she does complain about various other stuff). I also fail to see why it would be so much work. Many are too sick or senile to clean themselves, but this goes for every part of their body (including, say, the anus), and a little bit more attention to the tip of the ***** will hardly make it that much more of a burden.
Well, this is more of that "sin and filth" belief-system coming to the fore. Naturally, you are quite right; at least from a strictly medical standpoint, fecal matter is definitely more hazardous than smegma and urine. So if one of those two orifices were to be described as "dirtier" by unbiased medical analysis, it would be the anus. The fact that that poster's mother considered an uncut ***** to be "worse" shows how her upbringing and belief systems have altered her perceptions of reality.
This is similar to the HIV argument. The transmission works the same, only a different viral agent is involved.
Huh? Are you saying cervical cancer is caused by a viral or microbial agent?? I hadn't heard this.
Well, in that case: how long can this agent survive on/in a man? Because if the answer is "not long" (ie., weeks or less), then obviously the woman's husband has not been limiting intercourse solely to her... so once AGAIN safe sex practises seem to be indicated as a much more foolproof and much less drastic measure to prevent this illness.
believe that more non-religious, or more liberal-minded families would choose to leave their young uncircumcised, connotative of a more liberal upbringing in terms of promiscuity, possibly leading to higher rates of STD infection caused by more sex with more partners.
Bingo. There are too many correlated social factors for such a study to consider, and to be honest, it wouldn't be appropriate for them to try to cram all such angles into a study, it would clutter it. Unfortunately, that black-and-white simplicity lends itself to being latched onto and misused by people who are unable or unwilling to imagine ways in which the data does not accurately represent reality.
I haven't read a single thing in this thead, not even the OP, so I don't even know what the debate is (although I can only assume it's for/against).
I just wanted to put (dim) .02 in
So... thanks, I guess? The rest of us went to the effort to read before we got involved, but apparently you're too busy to waste your time on such things? So glad you decided to drop by and dispense your pearls of wisdom to us.
My junk may be a little bit scarred and altered from being clipped, but it sure looks a whole helluva lot nicer than you unclipped lot. Plus it's cleaner, or so I hear.
Wow. THAT was what you had to say that was so important you couldn't be bothered to read what had been said before? Seriously?
I'm curious why you think scars look "nicer" than unscarred skin. Do you think it might just possibly be due to your upbringing, or observer bias?
I think being circumcised makes you look bigger. Plus it reminds me of a mushroom, which is just awesome!
You should be excited bro. your rod has the mainstream look!
anyways, take it from me; sex is not that great. Magic the gathering is. you should be more worried if you lost last weekends match than if you preformed well for woman you picked up last night.
What is with the pointless three-line posts in this thread today? Spam infraction.
I have the same position on circumcision as I do on other body modifications: Let someone decide whether or not they want it when they're an adult. I don't care if it's a tradition: It causes bodily pain and permanently modifies the physiology of someone who didn't consent to it.
And yet we are not hearing about the epidemic of penile infections among prepubescent boys.
Still doesn't come down to just hygiene though, which more or less traditionally comes down to the primary care giver. Time saved is time saved to do other activities.
Considering from a psychological stand point for jobs such as nurses and the like too, it's often not the large annoyances but the small ones that wear people down and create burn out faster.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Circumcision is a way to prevent possible health issues with your genital regions which are prone to infection, inflammation and other immune responses. you must know that the genital areas, of men and women both, are prone to small to large infections.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't wounds and cuts also prone to infections? I'm not certain what the statistics are, but a certain number of people recovering from surgeries every year in hospitals get staph and other infections. Of that percentage, a certain percentage get a very serious infection that could threaten their life.
So you are talking about a miniscule reduction in a potential future risk for infection, at the cost of an immediate and real threat of infection right now, in a baby. Babies die of infections sometimes, you know that? They're just not that strong yet and an infected wound can just kill them where an adult might have survived.
I'm not saying it's likely, hell, it's probably rare as hell. At least we're sanitary barbarians. But still, adding that risk seems senseless to me when we look at how rare the incidence is of what it is meant to "prevent".
Have you ever talked to women? The number of things that can happen to them in this area is quite alarming and the things they live with daily too.
I'm confused. What do women have to do with this? Are you advocating for routine female neonatal circumcision as well?
On the sex part, hmm, you'll just last longer, and even that isn't guaranteed.
Actually, I have heard of some data indicating that circumcised men have a higher incidence of poor ejaculatory control / premature ejaculation problems. The results are hotly contested, though I personally find them convincing. After I get some sleep, I will attempt to hunt down a link to this conjecture.
All in all it comes down to a individual case basis.
Well, since we're discussing a matter of ethics, I really doubt that. That would be like saying you can justify murder if the person really, really deserved it - an individual case basis. Ethics doesn't work that way, at least not in an egalitarian society where we believe in equal treatment. If non-medically-indicated surgery is unethical to do to one baby boy, it's wrong to do to all of them, and vice versa.
Considering from a psychological stand point for jobs such as nurses and the like too, it's often not the large annoyances but the small ones that wear people down and create burn out faster.
Oh, that is undoubtedly true. But what does the burnout rate of rest-home caregivers matter to the potential future happiness of a baby boy? He might not even live to that age. He might not ever go to such a home. He might remain capable to the end of his days of taking care of his own hygienic needs (and of course, we all hope that will be our fate). So if that best-case scenario occurs, what utility will this decision have? There will be no caregivers to benefit.
This is similar to the idea of microchipping humans at birth. It would make things much easier for law enforcement, but it would violate the dignity and privacy of all those of us who *don't* grow up to be criminals. As such, it's unethical.
This is similar to the idea of microchipping humans at birth. It would make things much easier for law enforcement, but it would violate the dignity and privacy of all those of us who *don't* grow up to be criminals. As such, it's unethical.
Microchipping under 7-10 years of age? Works for me. Kid turns 10, take it out. It'd stop placing so much potential political issues with "pedophiles in the neighborhood" and place more emphasis on using a tracking device to find junior before the sex offender gets too far.
We live in a paranoid society today, might as well go that direction for tracking purposes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Microchipping under 7-10 years of age? Works for me. Kid turns 10, take it out. It'd stop placing so much potential political issues with "pedophiles in the neighborhood" and place more emphasis on using a tracking device to find junior before the sex offender gets too far.
We live in a paranoid society today, might as well go that direction for tracking purposes.
Ugh, please. You seem to be forgetting that the vast majority of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child already knows and trusts, usually someone in their own family. The idea of the stranger in the trench-coat handing out candy in the playground is completely fictional, and the fact that it keeps on being waved around to justify harmful legislation to curb our civil rights just goes to show the power of ignorant fear.
Also, why on earth would you bother to insert the chip just to remove it at the age of 10? Are you assuming that our all-seeing government would somehow be able to determine who would grow up to be a criminal by that point, or something?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Xantcha, Phyrexian Reject
Jodah, Archmage Eternal
Tovolar, Howlpack Alpha
Pivlic, Orzhov Informant
Crixizix, Master Engineer
Feather, Boros Peacekeeper
Marisi Coilbreaker
O-Kagachi
Gix, Phyrexian Praetor
Karn, Father of Machines
Yawgmoth, Father of Machines
Serra, Mother of All Angels
Tevesh Szat, Doom of Fools
Leshrac the Nightwalker
Jeska, the Thrice-Touched
Elspeth Returned
Crucius the Mad
Taysir the Infinite
Urza's Head (Unglued!)
Male circumcisions were ordinally preformed by the Hebrews to set themselves apart from other people, it had nothing to do with sexual pleasure.
But the issue of reduced sexual pleasure is a valid one still, no?
When my mother was in nurse's training she helped with a circumcision. She said that the baby started crying as soon as he was held down, not when the doctor preformed the circumcision.
So you're saying it doesn't hurt?
I have also read that a woman who's husband is uncircumcised will have a higher risk of getting cervical cancer.
You're usually pretty vocal on the topic of female rights, but it seems that many of the assumptions and anecdotal points you've brought up would sound like something said by a male chauvinist, applied to the other sex.
You're:
A) denying any loss of function, which, as has been said, is hard to confirm or deny, most of all coming from a woman.
B) Implying that it doesn't hurt babies - well, I'm pretty sure babies feel pain.
Your input from the female slant of things is usually appreciated on the forums, but to be honest, in this case, this is a male issue and a male choice, and what you are saying sounds as absurd and uninformed as a man's opinion would sound on the topic of pain and loss of function in female genital mutilation cases.
But the issue of reduced sexual pleasure is a valid one still, no?
Well, if you're going to sink to debating this on the basis of utilitarianism, you're bound to get bogged down in a point-by-point slogging match over quibbling details of whether x or y study proves that the adult male will get quibbling benefit x or y from lacking a foreskin.
The whole thing becomes much simpler when you simply examine it from the standpoint of ethics.
Your input from the female slant of things is usually appreciated on the forums, but to be honest, in this case, this is a male issue and a male choice, and what you are saying sounds as absurd and uninformed as a man's opinion would sound on the topic of pain and loss of function in female genital mutilation cases.
Well, those of us opposing the procedure feel it *should be* a male choice (and, more importantly, a personal choice), but as things currently stand, it's commonly a woman's choice - the mother's. There are more single female parents than single male parents, so on balance it would appear this decision is being made more often by women than by men.
B) Implying that it doesn't hurt babies - well, I'm pretty sure babies feel pain.
During the 1950's they believed just that, and circumsized infants without a local anesthetic. This policy changed during the 60's or 70's when it was proven that infants can indeed, feel pain.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Utilitarianism
- noun
the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons.
Utilitarianism is ethics.
OK, well, what I meant was a myopic view that some take that this or that specific benefit or loss caused by the results of the procedure is what should be paid attention to, when the larger issue is one of self-determination. And that has a higher utility than these lesser issues.
I'm not against utilitarianism in the broad sense as you're referring to it. I'm against people overlooking ethical breaches and seeing only relatively unimportant points.
31%<32%. So no. We can't put to bed the rational argument that a few percentage points difference in lifetime infection is a a meaningful argument in favor of this procedure.
Going from 31% to 32% is just as much improvement as going from 5% to 6%. If it was good enough before to raise the argument, it'll remain good enough until a 100% reduction in chance is achieved.
Umm. What is this 32% number and where did you get it from? Are you saying circumcised men are 32% less likely to contract HIV? Because that is a far, far higher reduction rate than the studies I've read indicated.
No, going from 31 to 32% is a lot different from going from 0 to 32%. It's a whole 31% different, in fact. This is even assuming I accept your 32% figure, which I won't without documentation.
It means the argument pro is now "it causes a fractional improvement in chances to avoid HIV infection" rather than whatever other improvement you're claiming it once made. And this is STILL completely disregarding the issues of ethics, and of just teaching the stupid kid to wear a frickin condom.
So while I still think the entire "HIV" argument is complete bollocks from top to bottom, it's now much *weaker* bollocks even by the standards of those who might be swayed by it.
They also had nothing to do with hygeine, at least, nothing that can be proven from a historical perspective. The Biblical term "unclean" here is used in the sense of ritual uncleanliness, not physical uncleanliness.
Well, naturally, it's not in the habit of being able to make effective use of its limbs but it IS able to wave them about, and having them restricted must be frustrating. Babies will cry for much less. Since crying would typically continue through the circumcision, this really isn't evidence of anything, because it doesn't prove the baby doesn't begin to feel pain as soon as the procedure commences. It would be silly - and meaningless - to try to do some comparison of decibel level, though to some it might be an effective argument.
So babies should have part of their body cut off for the possible convenience of paid nurses 70-80 years later?? Are you even listening to yourself? So the job's a dirty job, either quit, ask for a raise, or shut up and work.
Maybe if we weren't so intent on teaching them that that part of their body is "dirty" and "sinful", we'd have time left over to teach them hygeine, and they might be able to receive such instruction. It's not the child's fault if his parents are prudes who are too wrapped up in their religion to provide him with proper training in hygeine, and it's certainly not something he deserves to lose a body part over.
I don't see where "every day" comes into it, but you do realize the human species got along just fine for millions of years before anyone ever got the brilliant idea to start cutting off bits of baby penises, right? I submit that cleaning your child is part of the job called motherhood, and there's no reason to be squeamish about it. It's your child, you *created* their body inside you, how can it disgust you?
This one is commonly stated but only rarely backed up by any sort of link to a study or source. And again: so what? Sounds to me, if there really are women out there who'll use a BS excuse like "I might get cervical cancer at a fractionally increased chance" to avoid being with a man whose equipment scares and freaks them out because they've never seen an uncut ***** before, then I say you're doing your son a favor by helping him avoid winding up with a woman that shallow.
Seriously? A few percentage points difference chance of getting an already unlikely illness is actually going to determine someone's romantic choices? You realize that (not all, but some) women stay with men who beat them to within an inch of their lives, right? I really don't think the cervical cancer thing is going to put your son out of any marriage offers - I think the appearance of his unit is more likely to. And that's certainly no one's fault except the woman if that happens.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
preventive measures are typically additive. 31% from the vaccine + 1% from circumcisoin = 32$% The improvement from the HIV vaccination doesn't magically render the improvement from something else non-existent, as you seem to be claiming.
Are you going to argue that the vaccine isn't necessary since people can use condoms and they provide greater percentage protection than the vaccination? (FYI I got the 31% from the article that was linked).
Here, how about this. replace the 32% with 31.01%. its still an improvment. The vaccine alone is not as effective as the vaccine + circumcision. That was my point. Granted Circumcision doesn't provide much of a boost. but the boost it does provide isn't diminished in any way by the existence of the vaccine.
If you bothered to read and think about what I wrote, rather than just jumping on me because you disagreed with me you would see that I never said circumcision gave 32% decrease.
And, apparently, your argument anti is now "preventive measures cannot add to each other, so a fractional improvement doesn't count as an improvement"
Don't get me wrong, I don't the the HIV prevention argument is strong either, and in appropriate countries carries little to no weight with me. But the presence of the vaccine does not alter its weight in the slightest, and shouldn't alter it for someone who it does carry weight with.
The only person who seems to be thinking that bolded part is you. I was certainly never taught that being uncircumcised was Dirty or Sinful. Unless your jewish I suppose, I'm not so I don't really konw wahts going with that currently).
I don't see where "every day" comes into it, but you do realize the human species got along just fine for millions of years before anyone ever got the brilliant idea to start cutting off bits of baby penises, right? I submit that cleaning your child is part of the job called motherhood, and there's no reason to be squeamish about it. It's your child, you *created* their body inside you, how can it disgust you?
Out of curiosity: would anything short of a 100% prevention of {something} be enough to convince you that infant circumcision is ok? Because It seems like we're arguing a bunch of back and forth, and you don't really want to try and listen to the other side, so much as just yell at them and tell them they are wrong and are horrible people.
Is it your claim that taking a knife to a very sensitive area of the body does not cause pain?
And yet we are not hearing about the epidemic of penile infections among prepubescent boys.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I just wanted to put (dim) .02 in
My junk may be a little bit scarred and altered from being clipped, but it sure looks a whole helluva lot nicer than you unclipped lot. Plus it's cleaner, or so I hear.
Spam.
OK, I definitely did misread you. Sorry about that. I thought you were saying something other than what you were.
If I had a point, it was that relying on a "1%" argument is sillier now because by the time modern babies grow up, this drug will probably be on the market and reducing transmission rates. I'm basically saying there's even less call for a +1% improvement in risk avoidance when you start with a baseline of 31% rather than of 0%.
Or let's make this more clear. Suppose ALL human males have a baseline 5% chance to avoid contracting the virus even when exposed, regardless of vaccine, circumcision, etc. The vaccine represents a 620% increase above natural resistance. Circumcision represents a 20% increase by comparison. If you have the vaccination THEN the circumcision is only an 8.3% improvement over the new baseline of 36%.
You could argue that rather than seeing natural + vaccination resistances as the baseline, one could see natural + circumcision resistances as the baseline. But I don't think it's too hard to differentiate which is less drastic and will be more commonly adopted on a worldwide scale.
(The above has been a presentation by a person who knows jack-squat about Statistics, so feel free to correct any errors I've made.)
I'm arguing that it's a case of extreme diminishing returns, and that the benefit is not even remotely worth it for the cost. (Since we don't even really know WHAT the cost is, the only logical way to treat the cost is to assume it is the highest *likely* suspected cost - lowballing is neither wise nor ethical.)
And then when we factor in additional means such as teaching a child safe sex practises (I wouldn't venture to guess the risk reduction rate of that), or making efforts to increase condom usage rates (multiply rate of usage x a modern high-quality latex condom's 99%+ protection rate vs. AIDS to get the actual protection rate)... I'm just saying, stacking all those things up as potential ways to reduce risk, it seems completely outlandish to me to say that throwing another 1% onto that towering pile is worth paying an unknown but possibly high cost for.
Quite right; sorry about that.
I don't think that myself, though I was raised Christian and trust me, there's plenty of that sort of thought about. I was raised Christian by bleeding-heart liberal parents, far from bible-thumpers, and nevertheless I got the whole "it's dirty, it's a sin to touch yourself... down there" talk as a little boy. I know my parents meant well, and I eventually got over it and feel no body shame today - but it goes to show how even well-meaning and very open-minded parents can instill body shame into boys over their penises, and it's not hard to show that that shame can indeed lead to a failure to teach hygeine.
It also leads to society's widespread reluctance to discuss this issue, and the "taboo" surrounding it. There's no way I could have had a frank discussion with either of my parents, as a boy, about my genitals; they would have been too embarassed to even speak. As a result, I had to teach myself how to clean myself. If these quasi-religious beliefs in the "sinfulness" or "dirtiness" of the ***** were to ease, the resulting improvement in male genital hygeine would far outstrip any imaginable benefit from circumcision.
(And btw, it's not like circumcised penises don't require daily attention as well. If you disagree, here's an experiment for the circumcised men reading this: go a week without bathing your junk, and then ask your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/SO/whatever for sex. When they complain about the funk, tell them, "But at least I'm circumcised, how can you complain?" I'm betting they'll still hand you a washcloth and point you towards the shower. So the whole thing is a non-issue.)
I am listening, but since almost none of the other side's arguments speak to the issue of *ethics*, it really doesn't matter much to me. Most of the other side's arguments are utilitarian in nature - that the child will live longer, be healthier, get HIV less frequently, be cleaner, or be more accepted. These are all utilities. But my stance is that this strays outside the acceptable bounds of ethical custodial consent, because it violates the child's natural right to self-determination, bodily integrity, and freedom of (and from) belief/worship.
As such, even if you could prove to me that circumcising an infant gave them the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound and outrace a speeding bullet, with no other drawback beyond altering their appearance against their will - even if you could prove to me it causes no pain! - I would still oppose it, because they didn't choose it and it didn't need to be done. They can have it done at 18 if they want to, and it will have the same effects then. So what's the rush?
(also, re: pro-circ arguments, I haven't read any in this debate that I haven't heard a thousand times before, and debated and re-debated to death, on the Talk:Circumcision page at wikipedia. God, the flame-wars there just go on endlessly. >_< So if I seem not to listen, it's because I've already considered all these arguments and decided for each one how much merit I give it.)
Well, this is more of that "sin and filth" belief-system coming to the fore. Naturally, you are quite right; at least from a strictly medical standpoint, fecal matter is definitely more hazardous than smegma and urine. So if one of those two orifices were to be described as "dirtier" by unbiased medical analysis, it would be the anus. The fact that that poster's mother considered an uncut ***** to be "worse" shows how her upbringing and belief systems have altered her perceptions of reality.
Huh? Are you saying cervical cancer is caused by a viral or microbial agent?? I hadn't heard this.
Well, in that case: how long can this agent survive on/in a man? Because if the answer is "not long" (ie., weeks or less), then obviously the woman's husband has not been limiting intercourse solely to her... so once AGAIN safe sex practises seem to be indicated as a much more foolproof and much less drastic measure to prevent this illness.
Bingo. There are too many correlated social factors for such a study to consider, and to be honest, it wouldn't be appropriate for them to try to cram all such angles into a study, it would clutter it. Unfortunately, that black-and-white simplicity lends itself to being latched onto and misused by people who are unable or unwilling to imagine ways in which the data does not accurately represent reality.
So... thanks, I guess? The rest of us went to the effort to read before we got involved, but apparently you're too busy to waste your time on such things? So glad you decided to drop by and dispense your pearls of wisdom to us.
Wow. THAT was what you had to say that was so important you couldn't be bothered to read what had been said before? Seriously?
I'm curious why you think scars look "nicer" than unscarred skin. Do you think it might just possibly be due to your upbringing, or observer bias?
....NAHHH.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
You should be excited bro. your rod has the mainstream look!
anyways, take it from me; sex is not that great. Magic the gathering is. you should be more worried if you lost last weekends match than if you preformed well for woman you picked up last night.
What is with the pointless three-line posts in this thread today? Spam infraction.
Still doesn't come down to just hygiene though, which more or less traditionally comes down to the primary care giver. Time saved is time saved to do other activities.
Considering from a psychological stand point for jobs such as nurses and the like too, it's often not the large annoyances but the small ones that wear people down and create burn out faster.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't wounds and cuts also prone to infections? I'm not certain what the statistics are, but a certain number of people recovering from surgeries every year in hospitals get staph and other infections. Of that percentage, a certain percentage get a very serious infection that could threaten their life.
So you are talking about a miniscule reduction in a potential future risk for infection, at the cost of an immediate and real threat of infection right now, in a baby. Babies die of infections sometimes, you know that? They're just not that strong yet and an infected wound can just kill them where an adult might have survived.
I'm not saying it's likely, hell, it's probably rare as hell. At least we're sanitary barbarians. But still, adding that risk seems senseless to me when we look at how rare the incidence is of what it is meant to "prevent".
I'm confused. What do women have to do with this? Are you advocating for routine female neonatal circumcision as well?
Actually, I have heard of some data indicating that circumcised men have a higher incidence of poor ejaculatory control / premature ejaculation problems. The results are hotly contested, though I personally find them convincing. After I get some sleep, I will attempt to hunt down a link to this conjecture.
Well, since we're discussing a matter of ethics, I really doubt that. That would be like saying you can justify murder if the person really, really deserved it - an individual case basis. Ethics doesn't work that way, at least not in an egalitarian society where we believe in equal treatment. If non-medically-indicated surgery is unethical to do to one baby boy, it's wrong to do to all of them, and vice versa.
Oh, that is undoubtedly true. But what does the burnout rate of rest-home caregivers matter to the potential future happiness of a baby boy? He might not even live to that age. He might not ever go to such a home. He might remain capable to the end of his days of taking care of his own hygienic needs (and of course, we all hope that will be our fate). So if that best-case scenario occurs, what utility will this decision have? There will be no caregivers to benefit.
This is similar to the idea of microchipping humans at birth. It would make things much easier for law enforcement, but it would violate the dignity and privacy of all those of us who *don't* grow up to be criminals. As such, it's unethical.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
Microchipping under 7-10 years of age? Works for me. Kid turns 10, take it out. It'd stop placing so much potential political issues with "pedophiles in the neighborhood" and place more emphasis on using a tracking device to find junior before the sex offender gets too far.
We live in a paranoid society today, might as well go that direction for tracking purposes.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Ugh, please. You seem to be forgetting that the vast majority of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child already knows and trusts, usually someone in their own family. The idea of the stranger in the trench-coat handing out candy in the playground is completely fictional, and the fact that it keeps on being waved around to justify harmful legislation to curb our civil rights just goes to show the power of ignorant fear.
Also, why on earth would you bother to insert the chip just to remove it at the age of 10? Are you assuming that our all-seeing government would somehow be able to determine who would grow up to be a criminal by that point, or something?
Xantcha, Phyrexian Reject
Jodah, Archmage Eternal
Tovolar, Howlpack Alpha
Pivlic, Orzhov Informant
Crixizix, Master Engineer
Feather, Boros Peacekeeper
Marisi Coilbreaker
O-Kagachi
Gix, Phyrexian Praetor
Karn, Father of Machines
Yawgmoth, Father of Machines
Serra, Mother of All Angels
Tevesh Szat, Doom of Fools
Leshrac the Nightwalker
Jeska, the Thrice-Touched
Elspeth Returned
Crucius the Mad
Taysir the Infinite
Urza's Head (Unglued!)
But the issue of reduced sexual pleasure is a valid one still, no?
So you're saying it doesn't hurt?
You're usually pretty vocal on the topic of female rights, but it seems that many of the assumptions and anecdotal points you've brought up would sound like something said by a male chauvinist, applied to the other sex.
You're:
A) denying any loss of function, which, as has been said, is hard to confirm or deny, most of all coming from a woman.
B) Implying that it doesn't hurt babies - well, I'm pretty sure babies feel pain.
Your input from the female slant of things is usually appreciated on the forums, but to be honest, in this case, this is a male issue and a male choice, and what you are saying sounds as absurd and uninformed as a man's opinion would sound on the topic of pain and loss of function in female genital mutilation cases.
Well, if you're going to sink to debating this on the basis of utilitarianism, you're bound to get bogged down in a point-by-point slogging match over quibbling details of whether x or y study proves that the adult male will get quibbling benefit x or y from lacking a foreskin.
The whole thing becomes much simpler when you simply examine it from the standpoint of ethics.
Well, those of us opposing the procedure feel it *should be* a male choice (and, more importantly, a personal choice), but as things currently stand, it's commonly a woman's choice - the mother's. There are more single female parents than single male parents, so on balance it would appear this decision is being made more often by women than by men.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
During the 1950's they believed just that, and circumsized infants without a local anesthetic. This policy changed during the 60's or 70's when it was proven that infants can indeed, feel pain.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
OK, well, what I meant was a myopic view that some take that this or that specific benefit or loss caused by the results of the procedure is what should be paid attention to, when the larger issue is one of self-determination. And that has a higher utility than these lesser issues.
I'm not against utilitarianism in the broad sense as you're referring to it. I'm against people overlooking ethical breaches and seeing only relatively unimportant points.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*