Male Genital Mutilation

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't care, they have been got at by the bat shit crazy stuff.

Harm has clearly been caused, so they are wrong.

I care about not harming children.

Why don't you?
y

That is an irrational argument. Of course You are perfectly entitled to be emotional and irrational about children if you want but it's still a bad argument.

Harm is caused when children have all kinds of procedures - but generally people weigh up the risks, the pros and cons and make a decision based on what they think is likely to have the most beneficial outcome. Health professionals rarely make a decision based on making sure they do absolutely no harm. Having injections - metal needles stuck in your arm - causes harm but we all immunise our kids.

The WHO study states that male circumcision is considered a long-term HIV prevention strategy because randomized controlled trials show it has reduced heterosexual male HIV rates by 50-60%.

In societies where male circumcision is culturally practised, this seems a more effective HIV prevention strategy than the education and contraception strategies.

The WHO study states "There are several advantages of circumcising males at a younger versus older age, including a lower risk of complications, faster healing and a lower cost. However, some parents may wish to wait for an older age for religious
or cultural reasons, or have a preference to wait until the child can give consent for the procedure."

Obviously factors to consider are cost, availability and the perception of service quality.

The WHO review shows that circumcision complications are rare when conducted by trained and experienced providers with adequate supplies and in hygienic conditions. However, there is a clear need for comprehensive, ongoing training programmes for both medically trained and non-medically trained providers, which should cover all aspects of the procedure and after-care in order to avoid the current unnecessary morbidity associated with the procedure in many settings."

So if you want to make a good argument that might persuade someone to the rightness of your position, try again with some alternative studies that dispute the WHO study.

[Shaker]

That is an irrational argument.

Taking a blade to the genitals of babies and children of either sex in the name of a deity doesn't strike me as the gold standard of rationality.

So if you want to make a good argument that might persuade someone to the rightness of your position, try again with some alternative studies that dispute the WHO study.

Plenty of us have done this already - you don't carry out for all intents and purposes permanent body-changing surgery on a subject incapable of informed consent, and especially not in the service of the religion of a third party which the subject of the surgery isn't given a chance to exercise a free choice to adopt or refuse.

It doesn't seem to sink in with some people, however.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Taking a blade to the genitals of babies and children of either sex in the name if a deity doesn't strike me as the gold standard of rationality.
Plenty of us have done this already - you don't carry out for all intents and purposes permanent body-changing surgery on a subject incapable of informed consent.

It doesn't seem to sink in with some people, however.

Come back to me when you have a rational argument based on studies, not irrational emotive arguments based on your prejudices.

Asserting that you have a good argument is still just an assertion. Parents and health professionals make decisions about permanent body changing surgery on children all the time - one of the responsibilities of being a parent is to give informed consent on behalf of their children.

The WHO study stated  "There are several advantages of circumcising males at a younger versus older age, including a lower risk of complications, faster healing and a lower cost."

That may well be a factor in a parent's decision. Apart from HIV, male circumcision also helps prevent and control certain STDs and if there is less risk of complications if carried out as a baby and it is cheaper than adult circumcision, it is unlikely that this cultural practice will die out anytime soon, especially given the financial and emotional cost of HIV in families and societies.

[Shaker]

Come back to me when you have a rational argument based on studies, not irrational emotive arguments based on your prejudices.

That's the very phrase I should be using against you, but I know that I would be waiting a long, long, long time.

Like the other advocate of enforced surgery of infants on this thread, you lean on medical opinion for an act of religious barbarism when it suits.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That's the very phrase I should be using against you, but I know that I would be waiting a long, long, long time.

Like the other advocate of enforced surgery of infants on this thread, you lean on medical opinion for an act of religious barbarism when it suits.

Do you have anything other than a string of empty words about what you incorrectly think you know to counter the WHO study or not?

It doesn't suit. I am not for circumcision on religious grounds - in Islam male circumcision is a sunnah - preferable - it is not fard - compulsory. If I had a son I would not circumcise him based on religious grounds. But I might based on medical grounds. Got a study - or am I going to be waiting a very, very long time for a rational argument from you?

[Shaker]

What exactly is the overwhelming objection to leaving a body alone until such a time as the 'owner' (for want of a better term) is capable of fully informed consent as to what happens to it?

[floo]

As has been said before, circumcision should only be carried out if there is a medical problem specific to the person concerned.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What exactly is the overwhelming objection to leaving a body alone until such a time as the 'owner' (for want of a better term) is capable of fully informed consent as to what happens to it?

As stated in my previous reply based on the WHO study "Apart from HIV, male circumcision also helps prevent and control certain STDs and if there is less risk of complications if carried out as a baby and it is cheaper than adult circumcision, it is unlikely that this cultural practice will die out anytime soon, especially given the financial and emotional cost of HIV in families and societies."

There is a lot of money pumped into strategies to prevent or control HIV and in treating HIV and supporting societies and families dealing with widespread HIV in their societies - billions of dollars in fact. If circumcision of babies is an effective strategy because there is not enough take-up as adults then it's a valid argument.

[floo]

As stated in my previous reply based on the WHO study "Apart from HIV, male circumcision also helps prevent and control certain STDs and if there is less risk of complications if carried out as a baby and it is cheaper than adult circumcision, it is unlikely that this cultural practice will die out anytime soon, especially given the financial and emotional cost of HIV in families and societies."

Even if that is true, but I think it is doubtful,  it isn't right to circumcise all males, just in case!

[Shaker]

As stated in my previous reply based on the WHO study "Apart from HIV, male circumcision also helps prevent and control certain STDs and if there is less risk of complications if carried out as a baby and it is cheaper than adult circumcision, it is unlikely that this cultural practice will die out anytime soon, especially given the financial and emotional cost of HIV in families and societies."

Wouldn't those points be answered by the correct usage of condoms and not enforced surgery?

The fewer complications thing is invalid and irrelevant to the main issue anyway - there are zero surgical complications to surgery which isn't carried out in the first place.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Even if that is true, but I think it is doubtful,  it isn't right to circumcise all males, just in case!

Sorry - I just modified my answer above but you had already replied so I will repeat it here.

There is a lot of money pumped into strategies to prevent or control HIV and in treating HIV and supporting societies and families dealing with widespread HIV in their societies - billions of dollars in fact. If circumcision of babies is an effective strategy because there is not enough take-up as adults then it's a valid argument.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Wouldn't those points be answered by the correct usage of condoms and not enforced surgery?

Sure but for cultural reasons in certain areas - especially developing countries - men won't wear condoms and women do not have the power in the relationship to enforce condom use. So it seems that until there is widespread condom use, circumcision is the best option.

The fewer complications thing is invalid and irrelevant to the main issue anyway - there are zero surgical complications to surgery which isn't carried out in the first place.

There are various health organisations trying to roll out more circumcision programmes to control the spread of HIV. If it is less risky to have the procedure as a baby, than it becomes a relevant argument under these circumstances.

[floo]

Sorry - I just modified my answer above but you had already replied so I will repeat it here.

There is a lot of money pumped into strategies to prevent or control HIV and in treating HIV and supporting societies and families dealing with widespread HIV in their societies - billions of dollars in fact. If circumcision of babies is an effective strategy because there is not enough take-up as adults then it's a valid argument.

DEFINITELY NOT!

[Shaker]

Sure but for cultural reasons in certain areas - especially developing countries - men won't wear condoms and women do not have the power in the relationship to enforce condom use. So it seems that until there is widespread condom use, circumcision is the best option.

Then bollocks to "cultural reasons". Dish them out and educate people in correct use.

[floo]

Then bollocks to "cultural reasons". Dish them out and educate people in correct use.

Exactly.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Then bollocks to "cultural reasons". Dish them out and educate people in correct use.

They are dishing them out and educating people - it is isn't working. Got anything else that actually addresses the complexity of the problem apart from simplistic statements that don't work?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

DEFINITELY NOT!

Guess the health organisations disagree with you. Unless you have any studies to offer to the contrary?

[Shaker]

They are dishing them out and educating people - it is isn't working. Got anything else that actually addresses the complexity of the problem apart from simplistic statements that don't work?

Yes. Try harder.

Why isn't it working? Got anything that addresses the complexity of the problem apart from simplistic statements?

[ad_orientem]

Worth a read.

http://circumcision.org/bias.htm

[Shaker]

Worth a read.

http://circumcision.org/bias.htm

Indeed.

[ad_orientem]

Worth a read.

http://circumcision.org/bias.htm

And concerning circumcision and HIV.

http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes. Try harder.

Ok - and until the take-up rate is there and it becomes as effective in HIV control as circumcision, I'll continue to support circumcision.

Why isn't it working? Got anything that addresses the complexity of the problem apart from simplistic statements?

Condom use requires on-going use whereas circumcision is a one-time procedure, and unfortunately human nature is such that people can be lax about safe sex. Also cultural reasons - as I stated above. Maybe you should inform yourself of the current information on the issues and come back with an informed argument for me to consider.

For example:

"If HIV is tackled as a socioeconomic development, women’s empowerment, and human rights issue, it is easer to imagine long-term, sustained success in HIV prevention programs [53–55]. However, it is complex and unprecedented to influence deeply entrenched traditions, social norms, and beliefs; for policy makers to create an environment that reduces risk activities as well as promotes the well being of people living with HIV/AIDS is a challenge that such nations as Uganda and Thailand have met most successfully among those with serious epidemics"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2700301/

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Worth a read.

http://circumcision.org/bias.htm

Lot's of conjecture about possible psychological reasons for favouring circumcision, and doesn't say anything about the studies that show that circumcision is an effective strategy in preventing /controlling HIV and certain STD outbreaks that have a huge economic and emotional impact on societies and families.

[ad_orientem]

Obviously you didn't quite understand the article.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And concerning circumcision and HIV.

http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm

Yes I agree that circumcision won't protect you from the consequences of certain high-risk behaviours. People are told to take other measures, including condoms, even if they are circumcised and that message is sometimes not getting through. Circumcision is one strategy based on current studies. When less invasive strategies are shown to be effective, circumcision rates will probably fall.