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

[dowie]

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.

You stated you were glad you had it done and I asked whether you chose to have it done or you had that choice made for you - you've not answered which is perhaps rather telling in itself.

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.

No the counter arguments have been to highlight that the health benefits are dubious and might well apply in some cases to FGM too.

It has also been pointed out to you that AAP members have themselves been profiting from this unnecessary procedure over several decades and there is rather a lot of self interest in wanting to justify it (strangely enough European Paediatricians don't seem to share the same view on the subject as the AAP... why do you suppose that might be???)

You do realise that the reason it started in the US was "public health related" in particular the supposed dangers of masturbation....yes LOL to that, just citing "public health" doesn't in itself give your argument any additional credibility especially when the foundations for the public health argument are incredibly dubious. The current public health argument is seemingly based around AIDS and cancer - the AIDS studies are rather dubious especially when applied to western populations/infants and the cancer argument has already been responded to - it seems like an organisation trying to cherry pick low quality evidence to support a practice that was introduced and carried on over decades for clearly dubious reasons (unless you're going to now take the anti masturbation stance as a "public health benefit" too?).

Might as well throw in a couple of links mentioning both the above mentioned cultural bias and the dodgy evidence the AAP (and the CDC which has basically just adopted the AAPs stance) used.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796.long

Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. In this commentary, a different view is presented by non–US-based physicians and representatives of general medical associations and societies for pediatrics, pediatric surgery, and pediatric urology in Northern Europe. To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fped.2015.00018/full

Among other issues, critics have pointed out that the bulk of the data used to justify the AAP/CDC policies was derived from studies of adult circumcision carried out in sub-Saharan Africa – a geographic region whose epidemiological environments and patterns of disease transmission are dissimilar, along numerous dimensions, to those elsewhere in the world (13–16). This is important, because the spread of disease, including sexually transmitted infections, is determined much more by socio-behavioral and situational factors than by strictly anatomical-biological factors, such as the presence or absence of a foreskin (17, 18). In other words, the apparent findings from these studies cannot be simply mapped on to non-analogous public health environments (15), nor to circumcisions performed earlier in life, i.e., before an age of sexual debut (19). As Bossio et al. (20) argue in a recent comprehensive review, not referenced by the CDC, “At present … the majority of the literature on circumcision is based on research that is not necessarily applicable to North American populations”

so just to reiterate from the first link:

"only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss."

That sounds like very dubious grounds, ethically, to be advocating this surgery.

 

[Buddy]

Interesting article will read and digest.

We have debated before and alluded to this, you know I'm muslim. Pretty much answers your question?

I have invited critique and also pointed out the opposing views from the medical profession around the world. There is no attempt here of intellectual dishonesty if that is what you're implying.

You're trying to infer some classes of FGM is equivalent and thus in those who defend Male circumcision why don't they do the same with FGM. You haven't provided data of sorts (risks etc). It's a moot argument. Its pretty much banned worldwide which I agree with. Not sure why you keep pushing this? If you want to present the case of FGM go right ahead.

 

[dowie]

We have debated before and alluded to this, you know I'm muslim. Pretty much answers your question?

I've had discussions with plenty of members on here, I don't remember everyone's religion etc...

I have invited critique and also pointed out the opposing views from the medical profession around the world. There is no attempt here of intellectual dishonesty if that is what you're implying.

Well it is just a bit odd that you seemed to have ignored the stance of professionals in other developed countries and focused on the AAP's rather dubious stance.

You're trying to infer some classes of FGM is equivalent and thus is those who defend Male circumcision why don't they do the same with FGM. You haven't provided data of sorts (risks etc). It's a moot argument. Its pretty much banned worldwide which I agree with. Not sure why you keep pushing this? If you want to present the case of FGM go right ahead.

Why do you agree with male circumcision but oppose the equivalent in females? (again not talking about the more extreme forms)

I'm not presenting the case for FGM, if you think that then you've completely missed the point - I'm highlighting both the hypocrisy of people being anti FGM even in the Midler forms while being pro male circumcision and also pointing out that some of the dubious health arguments could well apply to FGM too.

Yes the fact that FGM is banned does somewhat limit the same studies being carried out - amusingly the guy in the below blog puts forth a similar ethical argument you scoffed at earlier in the thread - namely that yes cutting off part of the body perhaps does reduce the risk of cancer...

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.u...s-decision-in-the-matter-of-b-and-g-children/

I argue that a distinction based on “health benefits” cannot be used to justify differential legal treatment of male and female forms of non-therapeutic, non-consensual genital alteration, due to the fact that this apparent difference between the two is in large part actually a consequence of the current legal situation. Specifically, due to the fact that all forms of FGM are prohibited by law in Western countries, it is not actually possible to conduct a scientific study to determine whether a minor, sterilized form of the procedure would in fact confer some kind (or degree) of health benefit.

The logic here is fairly simple. Removing any part of the body would likely reduce (or even eliminate) the risk that it would fall prey at some point to disease. Removing a young girl’s breast buds, for instance, would dramatically reduce her risk of acquiring breast cancer, just as removing a child’s lips would reduce his or her chance of getting a cold sore. I think there are good reasons why neither of these interventions is commonly recommended, even on purely “medical” grounds, and I have little doubt that both would be considered a form of criminal assault if they were done without consent. But what about the female genitalia? As I have noted elsewhere: “the vulva has all sorts of warm, moist places where bacteria or viruses could get trapped, such as underneath the clitoral hood, or among the folds of the labia; so who is to say that removing some of that tissue (with a sterile surgical tool) might not reduce the risk of various diseases?” (Earp, 2015).

Also note that the proponents of FGM present similar dubious health benefits that you have done as a circumcision proponent:

As it happens, defenders of FGM in some countries actually do cite such “health benefits” as “a lower risk of vaginal cancer … less nervous anxiety, fewer infections from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris, and protection against herpes and genital ulcers” (Svoboda & Darby, 2008). Jarringly, at least one study conducted by Western researchers has shown a link between “female circumcision” and a reduced prevalence of HIV—a result that the authors, both experienced statisticians, characterized as a “significant and perplexing inverse association between reported female circumcision and HIV seropositivity” (Stallings & Karugendo, 2005). The authors expressed a dire need for further research into the issue. Yet as the medical anthropologist Kirsten Bell has noted (personal communication):

These findings, which were presented at an International AIDS Society conference in 2005, have never been published in a peer-reviewed journal and it is difficult to imagine any agency willing to entertain Stallings and Karugendo’s call for further research. Indeed, the topic is self-evidently a non-starter. Regardless of any evidence that might suggest an association, it is impossible to imagine a parallel research agenda [to the one on male circumcision] solidifying around the procedure, irrespective of whether the surgery was conducted in a medical context and [irrespective of] the extent of cutting involved.

Be that as it may, we can take the thought experiment one step further. With respect to causal plausibility, it seems relevant to point out that the key biological mechanism through which the foreskin in males is generally speculated to become a vector of HIV transmission (although this theory is contentious; see Van Howe, 2015)—namely Langerhans cells—are also present throughout the vagina, including in the clitoris and the labia (see Hussain and Lechner 1995). Moreover, at the demographic level, there is an apparent geographical association between the prevalence of HIV in parts of Africa and a lack of “circumcision” for both females and males (Caldwell, Orubuloye & Caldwell, 1997).

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Barbaric practice. Illegal on women. Fine on men. Go figure.

 

[bigmike20vt]

We have debated before and alluded to this, you know I'm muslim. Pretty much answers your question?
.

Just to put it out there i am not a religious person (C of E technically but definitely not practicing) but no offence meant if i say something off hand, it is never my intention to insult or in any way offend people for their views.

but from a completely objective view often some religious practices ARE actually grounded in common sense at the time they were written.

keeping fish and meat separate for instance, is actually a pretty sensible idea esp at a time before fridges
draining the blood from meat i think makes it last longer

others I feel a more down to mass population control or simple cost cutting - ie catholic church not wanting to pay for priests partners I believe is a reason why they did not allow them to marry.

but from a logical view i suppose i can see an argument for circumcision from many many years ago when we didnt know as much about hygene as we do now....... dont shower for a long weekend and it can get a bit unpleasant down there !!!
so historically I can see an argument for it, and therefore i can understand how it may have been bought into religion (still mass population control but in this instance one which could well be with the best of intentions imo)

however in the modern day, I feel we know so much more about personal hygene that I feel any historical benefits are now pretty much "old hat" ( )

There is also the "anti masturbation" logic as well..... circumcision does reduce the sensitivity so i can see why people may have thought it would reduce the need to knock one off.... but clearly.... like Kellogg's cornflakes it didnt work and besides..... despite what my mum told me... it doesnt make you go blind, if it did i think 99% of the population (both male and female) would need white sticks and guide dogs.. so even if it did reduce the urge... then so what?.

 

[Buddy]

@dowie

Not she why you want me to comment on an opinion of the same opinion you shared earlier. The breast bud argument is ridiculous for the reasons I stated in an earlier post. I've never given much thought to FGM as it will never be an issue or decision in my life. It's only done in pockets of the world. There are also arguments you could have about functionality, risks ( much higher including death) etc.

I purely focused on AAP stance because it's the US. My opening gambit was "religion aside". It was an example of a non religious entity whatever you're feeling on lobbies are. It was an attempt at objectivity rather than the usual path threads like these go down. Just a few posts above yours I highlights the conflicting evidence across the globe. You have now provided a counter article which I plan to read.

This is becoming circular.

 

[dowie]

I'm not sure how it is becoming circular, you didn't answer the question about your stance though - you've stated you're anti FGM and you're seemingly OK with male circumcision. Why is that?

Stating that you've never given much though to FGM doesn't answer the question, it just avoids it.

The breast bud argument is indeed deliberately ridiculous, what you seem to have missed is that so are the arguments for circumcision, it is simply highlighting that! Namely that cutting off a part of the body as a result of that purported health benefit is ridiculous.

 

[Buddy]

I'm not sure how it is becoming circular, you didn't answer the question about your stance though - you've stated you're anti FGM and you're seemingly OK with male circumcision. Why is that?

Stating that you've never given much though to FGM doesn't answer the question, it just avoids it.

The breast bud argument is indeed deliberately ridiculous, what you seem to have missed is that so are the arguments for circumcision, it is simply highlighting that! Namely that cutting off a part of the body as a result of that purported health benefit is ridiculous.

I have literally answered it lol. You want me to comment when theres is no evidence because its banned. You want to compare removing breasts which have multiple functions vs foreskin which has none (I have already posted about this). You want me to comment on the lower stage FGM and give you a decision when there is no evidence of outcome and risks. Going by the fact that most fgm end up with reduced pleasure, long term problems and death - I'm against. Based on that little evidence no matter what stage there you go. Pretty clear no?

You're now going to say oh but foreskin removal affects pleasure. But then you've already answered this yourself earlier on the thread. Desensitization/sensitisation.

Yes this is incredibly circular.

 

[dowie]

You didn’t literally answer it, also your assertion that foreskin has no function is naive.

Yes I asked you about the apparent hypocracy of your position, I did this in reference to the milder forms of FGM, you’ve again decided to deliberately conflate this question with the side effects of the rather more brutal forms. The main circular part of this discussion is the evasion and rather dishonest arguments you’re putting forth.

So no your blanket opposition to FGM isn’t pretty clear. There is a rather clear inconsistency that hasn’t been addressed.

Let’s try again shall we - if you’re opposed to all FGM then you’re opposed to simply pricking with a pin to draw blood right?

Why are you opposed to that but happy to allow male circumcision?

Same question with regards to the other type IV methods of FGM scraping, slicing(with no excision).

Are you, honestly, going to answer that you need a study on the effects of a pin ***** in order to answer here?

 

[Buddy]

Let’s try again shall we - if you’re opposed to all FGM then you’re opposed to simply pricking with a pin to draw blood right?

Lol.

Thanks for this. Pretty much summarises your level of debate. I'm glad you agree the breast analogy was ridiculous. You are regularly selective in picking out my responses or ignoring whole sentences. Complete waste of time for me. If you don't like my answer ask another 100 times.

Have fun

 

[dowie]

Well I didn’t like your answer as it didn’t address the criticism and again you’re being evasive.

I was simply looking for clarity here, you might think it is ridiculous to pose such a question but when not spelled out before you deliberately conflated things with the effects of the more extreme forms in your answer.

 

[krooton]

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.

Myth: Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS.

Reality check: Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.

In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.

It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...cision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

 

[aardvark]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...cision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

bah - don't come in here with your facts, you can prove anything with facts.

 

[JBod]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...cision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

Does this mean we close this thread now? There are zero health benefits (not to be conflated with it being a medical solution for a specific condition). It is entirely steeped in both outdated religious necessities before modern hygiene and the crazy guy that invented Corn Flakes.

It should be as illegal as FGM and a choice someone can make after the age of 18.

OCUK solved it guys!

 

[Unisol Magic]

Glad it never happened to me

Something that seems barbaric, totally unnecessary and unnatural

 

[krooton]

Glad it never happened to me

Something that seems barbaric, totally unnecessary and unnatural

Yet somehow homosexuality is unnatural whereas this is not to some people...

 

[something daft already!!]

Yet somehow homosexuality is unnatural whereas this is not to some people...

What rubbish. You cannot assert homosexualty is unnatural when it is perfectly natural to a them. It occurs throughout nature, not just humans.

 

[RDM]

What rubbish. You cannot assert homosexualty is unnatural when it is perfectly natural to a them. It occurs throughout nature, not just humans.

I think krooton was alluding to the fact that religions that support circumcision are also amongst the religions that are against homosexuality.

 

[krooton]

I think krooton was alluding to the fact that religions that support circumcision are also amongst the religions that are against homosexuality.

On the nose

 

[LeMson]

Why are they waiting till kids are sentient to do this?