Five-Year-Old Child Hides On Medical Centre Roof To Avoid Being Circumcised

[Caracus2k]

Evidence please? And seriously, no. Even a poorly conducted male circumcision is nowhere near as damaging as a properly conducted female circumcision.

What a strange thing to say!

I wish you could say that to David Reimer who lost his penis in a botched circumcision and ended up losing his whole penis as a result (with a tragic story to follow of being brought up as a girl ending in suicide).

(its not relevant that it was carried out for medical reasons here ...….its the implied assertion about he safety of the procedure 'poorly conducted or not) that's the point argued not the reasoning)

Tell that to the seven year olds who have herpes because of the 'unconventional' method in which the procedure was carried out on them by a Jewish Mohel.

Tell that to the other kids who have suffered complication or the parents of those that have died

The Law in the UK outlaws all female genital 'circumcision' (the law around adult female genital surgery for elective 'cosmetic' reasons is quite a grey area not really tested properly in law yet).

Types 2 and 4 could be argued to be comparable to male circumcision on even less serious depending on how they are carried out.

four major types, all of which may be relevant to the offences arising under the FGM Act 2003:

Type II: Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora;
Type IV: Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

 

[dowie]

Adult men are choosing to do it (80%).

You haven’t provided anything to back that up though. You’re confusing the % circumcised currently with people who have chosen to have it done. You’re then looking at %s for recent infants.

Nor did you answer the question posed to you.

 

[JBod]

Lol yes you should just leave it there.

Your refence:



To put it simply, this does not say "80% of adult males are choosing to be circumcised".

I can also run the numbers for your simply if you prefer. Starting with the basics, if 33% of babies are being circumcised today, a level actually lower than 5 years ago, how can 80% of adult males be electing circumcision. The maths works something like this: 100% - 33% = 67%

I could go further but I will leave it there....

I am going to go further. @Buddy isn't understanding how to interrupt the data. 80% of males are circumcised, but they are including every male still alive. The 80% number will drop overtime but won't match that 33% number until about current $US_male_life_expectancy from now. Which is after we are all dead.

 

[dowie]

To put it simply, this does not say "80% of adult males are choosing to be circumcised".

Indeed the only adult males referenced there are the ones born 60 years ago and 90% of them were circumcised.

The other poster might want to note that people born recently are not adult males and neither are people born 5 years ago.

 

[Dis86]

Those maths skills are worrying considering what he does for a living...

 

[dowie]

Those maths skills are worrying considering what he does for a living...

What does he do for a living?

 

[Buddy]

Yes I stand corrected. It's what you get for posting whilst walking to the car.

Doesn't change the fact that large numbers (of adults) are still weighing up and deciding to circumcise their children religious or not.

Also doesn't change the health benefits as per my original post. The counter arguments have been "lol". "Public health lol" , a lad bible article and a anti circumcision website that looks like it was made in someone's bedroom.

Public health "lol". Which make policies such as vaccinating your kids. Which ironically is how they are treating this topic in the US. Parents balance up what they feel is best for their kids and make a choice. You may not agree with their choice (antivaxxers) but in this situation the benefits outweigh the risks.

If you feel there is bias then you're welcome to dive into the said papers and pick them out.

(Ah @Dis86 jumping in after reading, accepting and replying to same post until someone else pointed it out to both of us it's also telling that you're not really interested in any debate or open to changing your mind. Even with the incorrect assumed high figures you had a one liner prepared)

 

[Dis86]

I didn't need to post anything more. The salient points had been made. All I had to do was highlight both your utter failure at maths and failure at logic.

 

[Buddy]

I didn't need to post anything more. The salient points had been made. All I had to do was highlight both your utter failure at maths and failure at logic.

Ah another one liner. You haven't added anything to the debate and didn't highlight anything. Trot on.

 

[Dis86]

Ah another one liner. You haven't added anything to the debate and didn't highlight anything. Trot on.

Nor have you, since everything you've posted is inaccurate!

 

[Buddy]

Nor have you, since everything you've posted is inaccurate!

So what are you thoughts on the research and findings by the American Academy Paedatrics? Fake news?

 

[bigmike20vt]

So what are you thoughts on the research and findings by the American Academy Paedatrics? Fake news?

I was just looking on pubmed and it seems to me at the very least, American Academy Paedatrics are not unified on their thoughts as there are plenty of papers saying it isnt necessary.

I dont have time to look into it too much however my question would be, do countries which generally dont do it have higher rates of stds and penile cancer etc when compared to the united states or other countries which DO have higher rates of it?. (ie France, Germany and the Netherlands).

I suppose if you are cut it is easier to keep clean, and i do accept that poor hygene is likely to lead to increased chance of infection and what not...... but I would argue that better hygene in general is a better solution (and will also have other positive benefits) than just cutting bits off which tend to capture "dirt"

comparing those who dont get circumcised to those who dont have vaccinations however is outrageous. (imo)

 

[coolsurfer]

Did you hear about the blind circumciser........he got the sack.


I'll get me coat.

 

[Buddy]

I was just looking on pubmed and it seems to me at the very least, American Academy Paedatrics are not unified on their thoughts as there are plenty of papers saying it isnt necessary.

I dont have time to look into it too much however my question would be, do countries which generally dont do it have higher rates of stds and penile cancer etc when compared to the united states or other countries which DO have higher rates of it?. (ie France, Germany and the Netherlands).

I suppose if you are cut it is easier to keep clean, and i do accept that poor hygene is likely to lead to increased chance of infection and what not...... but I would argue that better hygene in general is a better solution (and will also have other positive benefits) than just cutting bits off which tend to capture "dirt"

comparing those who dont have the snip to those who dont have vaccinations however is outrageous.

Thank you for a reasoned and balanced reply.

You're right. It is divided in the medical field. Often opens up a can of worms when discussed between doctors and on forums ends up with emotional responses from both sides with name calling. My attempt was to remove personal views on religion(let's not kid this is a factor in peoples response on here) and try to discuss this objectively.

With regards to the comparison to vaccination. This is the advice from public health in US. I think people find it more outrageous because it's removing a piece of skin rather that a more innocent sounding injection. Also because it's links to culture and different religions despite it being widespread in the US.

 

[Dis86]

Thank you for a reasoned and balanced reply.

You're right. It is divided in the medical field. Often opens up a can of worms when discussed between doctors and on forums ends up with emotional responses from both sides with name calling. My attempt was to remove personal views on religion(let's not kid this is a factor in peoples response on here) and try to discuss this objectively.

The trouble is you're talking about removing personal views on religion but that's not something you can do when so often it's carried out purely for religious reasons, not health. Keep in mind that the Jewish lobby in the states is extremely potent hence any reports originating in the US supporting its supposed benefits have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Give me a report from the UK and I'm all ears.

 

[Buddy]

The trouble is you're talking about removing personal views on religion but that's not something you can do when so often it's carried out purely for religious reasons, not health. Keep in mind that the Jewish lobby in the states is extremely potent hence any reports originating in the US supporting its supposed benefits have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Give me a report from the UK and I'm all ears.

I agree on lobby front.
I agree it's not necessary.


The papers from the Paeds association are there for you to critique. If there's bias I'm all ears - you're welcome to analyse. 90% of comments on this thread suggest no medical benefits when that's not accurate.

If you wanted to persuade the masses. Religious or not then you need to bring evidence of major percentile in risks. At present you only have the contrary for a procedure that takes 5 mins.

Thus it's left as a choice.

With that in mind there should be safety measures. Some Jewish communities still do it the old fashion high risk way in the UK. The procedure should be carried out by someone trained in the field and in a clinical environment (I believe these rules are coming into play).

Majority of those who have it done. Adult or neonatal. Medical condition or not have the plastibell method. Google away on the risks on this method. WHO quote 1 in 250 to 1 in 500 (0.002%) of minor reversible risk when carried out by a professional vs 20% untrained.

 

[krooton]

With regards to the comparison to vaccination. This is the advice from public health in US. I think people find it more outrageous because it's removing a piece of skin rather that a more innocent sounding injection. Also because it's links to culture and different religions despite it being widespread in the US.

No, people find it outrageous because vaccines actually serve a purpose and benefit the many...

 

[Buddy]

No, people find it outrageous because vaccines actually serve a purpose and benefit the many...

If you want to ignore professional findings that's up to you.

 

[krooton]

If you want to ignore professional findings that's up to you.

Reducing the chance of contracting an STD by a miniscule amount is a pretty poor justification, if it suddenly gave you condom-like STD avoidance then fair enough, but if you bare-back an infected person it isn't going to make any real-world difference. Certainly not enough to warrant cutting off a part of the body of someone who has no say in the matter.

But as you are cut, you will defend it to the hilt yo.

 

[Buddy]

Reducing the chance of contracting an STD by a miniscule amount is a pretty poor justification, if it suddenly gave you condom-like STD avoidance then fair enough, but if you bare-back an infected person it isn't going to make any real-world difference. Certainly not enough to warrant cutting off a part of the body of someone who has no say in the matter.

But as you are cut, you will defend it to the hilt yo.

60-70% reduction in HIV does not sound minuscule (WHO). I must admit I don't know the baseline risk but it's been used successfully in Africa to reduce rates.