Male Genital Mutilation

[Bubbles]

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/hiv-aids/circumcision-and-vaccines-twins-separated-birth

So maybe we shouldn't vaccinate babies either? After all they can't consent and there is a small risk with a vaccination ( probably a bigger one)

Both are considered beneficial, both have people who don't agree with it.

Same ethical arguments, the baby can't consent. Autism etc.


Oh! Vaccines don't involve religion, that's it then, the deciding factor isn't  the ethical argument.

[Bubbles]

I saw this....

"The health benefits of male circumcision 'outweigh the risks 100 to one'
Half of uncircumcised men develop a health problem as a result, it is claimed
It would be 'unethical' not to offer it to the parents of all baby boys, the researchers state"


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2595307/Circumcision-offered-like-vaccines-parents-baby-boys-study-claims.html#ixzz4lW1URVSA
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2595307/Circumcision-offered-like-vaccines-parents-baby-boys-study-claims.html

😉

( Gabriella, bet they criticise the source 😂 Instead of engaging with the argument )

[ad_orientem]

The argument is that health reasons, based on heavily biased arguments including those of the WHO, are being used to maintain are barbaric cultural practice.

[Bubbles]

The argument is that health reasons, based on heavily biased arguments including those of the WHO, are being used to maintain are barbaric cultural practice.

See link above.

It's not just the WHO, and your evidence that they are biased?

I expect anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is biased, even those who have done research.

[Bubbles]

It says

"He added: ‘The new findings now show that infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination and that as such it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy.
‘Delay puts the child's health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen.’
He said in infancy, the strongest immediate benefit is protection against urinary tract infections (UTIs) that can damage the kidneys.
Professor Morris and co-investigator Dr Tom Wiswell, of the Centre for Neonatal Care in Orlando, Florida, showed last year that over the lifetime, UTIs affect one in three uncircumcised males.
Professor Morris, with Dr John Krieger, of the Department of Urology at the University of Washington in Seattle, showed that there is no adverse effect of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure.
This helped dispel one myth perpetuated by opponents of the procedure.
Prof Morris added: ‘Taken together, the new findings should send a strong message to medical practitioners, professional bodies, educators, policy makers, governments, and insurers to promote this safe, simple procedure, best done in infancy under local anaesthesia and to increase access and third party coverage, especially for poor families, who tend to suffer most from foreskin-related diseases.
‘Infant circumcision has, moreover, been shown to be cost saving.’  "


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2595307/Circumcision-offered-like-vaccines-parents-baby-boys-study-claims.html#ixzz4lW2rb9ol
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[ProfessorDavey]

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/hiv-aids/circumcision-and-vaccines-twins-separated-birth

So maybe we shouldn't vaccinate babies either? After all they can't consent and there is a small risk with a vaccination ( probably a bigger one)

Both are considered beneficial, both have people who don't agree with it.

Same ethical arguments, the baby can't consent. Autism etc.


Oh! Vaccines don't involve religion, that's it then, the deciding factor, not the ethical argument.

The vast majority of circumcisions are performed for religious reasons, not health reasons. As far as I am aware no-one decides to vaccinate for religious reasons.

And the point about vaccination is that the benefits (and not just for the child vaccinated) massively outweigh any downsides (e.g. side effects) even if there are any. Under those circumstances it is reasonable to suggest that parents may choose to vaccinate when the child cannot consent as it is in the child's best interests.

The same cannot be said for circumcision where the purported benefits are dubious in the extreme and the harm obvious. And parents are, in the vast majority of case, circumcising not due to this being in the child's best interests on health grounds (which would be extremely hard to justify) but for cultural, usually religious, reasons.

[Gordon]

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/hiv-aids/circumcision-and-vaccines-twins-separated-birth

So maybe we shouldn't vaccinate babies either? After all they can't consent and there is a small risk with a vaccination ( probably a bigger one)

Both are considered beneficial, both have people who don't agree with it.

Same ethical arguments, the baby can't consent. Autism etc.


Oh! Vaccines don't involve religion, that's it then, the deciding factor, not the ethical argument.

Vaccines aren't administered in order to comply with religious or cultural tradition, so not quite the same thing.

Moreover vaccines offer specific tailored protection to the individual from known health risks, which has seen the eradication of the likes smallpox and polio: no chopping of of bits of baby are boys involved and, of course, girls get vaccinated too.

[Bubbles]

Here is why it isn't recommended to wait until the boy can give consent.

" Why Medical Bodies and Others Should Not Advise That Circumcision Should be Delayed Until the Boy Can Make the Decision for Himself

Summary:

WHY CIRCUMCISION SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED

• Protection against UTIs and kidney damage in infancy is lost.

• Freedom from phimosis and balanitis in childhood and at puberty is lost.

• Circumcision after boys become sexually active means loss of more benefits associated with STI prevention.

• The risk of complications is higher for later circumcisions.

• The cost (to the individual or the public purse) is much higher.

• Educational resources for boys to make an informed decision are lacking

• Large-scale adolescent circumcision would strain medical resources.

• Boys who choose circumcision will certainly wish it had been done in infancy.

• Many boys will not want to face an operation even though they wish to be circumcised.

• Major international and American health and medical organizations are now urging circumcision, especially in infancy.

http://www.circinfo.net/circumcision_why_you_should_not_delay.html

So if Jews and Muslims want to have their baby boys circumcised in hygienic conditions, why on earth would I object?

As long as it's not forced on the whole population and we are free to decline, why should I interfere with someone else's choice?

It's THEIR choice.

[Bubbles]

Vaccines aren't administered in order to comply with religious or cultural tradition, so not quite the same thing.

Moreover vaccines offer specific tailored protection to the individual from known health risks, which has seen the eradication of the likes smallpox and polio: no chopping of of bits of baby are boys involved and, of course, girls get vaccinated too.

Your opinion is driven by your prejudice against religion Gordon.

As far as I can see with male circumcision there are benefits and I am more than happy to leave such decisions to the parents of the baby boys concerned.

I'm not objecting to it, because they belong to a religion, that's the bottom line. It doesn't matter if they belong to a religion, what matters is the research.

It's a balance between what parents think is important for their son, weighed against the negatives it's only a choice parents can make.

You obviously think religion is barbaric, because that's how you describe it, that's your prejudice.

The ethical thing to do, given that there is much in favour health wise of doing it, is to allow others to follow their own conscience on the matter.

Not to describe people's religions as barbaric and try and force your own opinion on them.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

He said in infancy, the strongest immediate benefit is protection against urinary tract infections (UTIs) that can damage the kidneys.
Professor Morris and co-investigator Dr Tom Wiswell, of the Centre for Neonatal Care in Orlando, Florida, showed last year that over the lifetime, UTIs affect one in three uncircumcised males.

Complete non-sense.

So circumcision might reduce incidence of UIT.

But it might not. So you remove a key part of the male genitals on the basis that a child might get a UTI - but then they might not Even in his view two thirds won't gat a UTI over their lifetime. And even if they did UTI's are readily treatable with antibiotics and in all but the most extreme cases UTIs are annoying but completely treatable and do not result in lasting damage.

You might just as well argue for precautionary mastectomy for all girls as 1 in 8 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in their  lifetime, and breast cancer, unlike a UTI, is a very serious condition.

[ProfessorDavey]

As far as I can see with male circumcision there are benefits and I am more than happy to leave such decisions to the parents of the baby boys concerned.

Why not leave it to the child themselves to make the decision when they are old enough. There is no imperative (except religious and cultural norms) for infant circumcision, so leave it to the boy to decide whether or not he'd like his penis to remain intact.

[Bubbles]

Complete non-sense.

So circumcision might reduce incidence of UIT.

But it might not. So you remove a key part of the male genitals on the basis that a child might get a UTI - but then they might not Even in his view two thirds won't gat a UTI over their lifetime. And even if they did UTI's are readily treatable with antibiotics and in all but the most extreme cases UTIs are annoying but completely treatable and do not result in lasting damage.

You might just as well argue for precautionary mastectomy for all girls as 1 in 8 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in their  lifetime, and breast cancer, unlike a UTI, is a very serious condition.

It's hardly a key part....... lol

[Bubbles]

Why not leave it to the child themselves to make the decision when they are old enough. There is no imperative (except religious and cultural norms) for infant circumcision, so leave it to the boy to decide whether or not he'd like his penis to remain intact.

I've already posted an answer to that.

[Shaker]

Supporters of this fatuous and ignorant abomination witter on about everybody's choice ... everybody that is except the choice of the subject directly and immediately involved in having it forced upon them without their informed consent.

A truly warped set of priorities some people have.

[Bubbles]

Complete non-sense.

So circumcision might reduce incidence of UIT.

But it might not. So you remove a key part of the male genitals on the basis that a child might get a UTI - but then they might not Even in his view two thirds won't gat a UTI over their lifetime. And even if they did UTI's are readily treatable with antibiotics and in all but the most extreme cases UTIs are annoying but completely treatable and do not result in lasting damage.

You might just as well argue for precautionary mastectomy for all girls as 1 in 8 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in their  lifetime, and breast cancer, unlike a UTI, is a very serious condition.

 It doesn't say might, not in the clip you have provided.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's hardly a key part....... lol

Not being funny, but I don't think you are in any position to judge.

I think any man (uncircumcised) will recognise it is a key component for sexual pleasure.

[ProfessorDavey]

It doesn't say might, not in the clip you have provided.

It says just one in three men get a UTI over a lifetime, two in three don't - so I think might is entirely the right word.

[Gordon]

Your opinion is driven by your prejudice against religion Gordon.

As far as I can see with male circumcision there are benefits and I am more than happy to leave such decisions to the parents of the baby boys concerned.

I'm not objecting to it, because they belong to a religion, that's the bottom line. It doesn't matter if they belong to a religion, what matters is the research.

It's a balance between what parents think is important for their son, weighed against the negatives it's only a choice parents can make.

You obviously think religion is barbaric, because that's how you describe it, that's your prejudice.

The ethical thing to do, given that there is much in favour health wise of doing it, is to allow others to follow their own conscience on the matter.

Not to describe people's religions as barbaric and try and force your own opinion on them.

If this research is so strong then you'll need to explain why circumcision isn't routinely carried out here in the UK: after all, we'd like to think the UK is well advanced in terms of medical practice so surely that circumcision isn't routine implies our paediatric care is lacking compared with, say, the US where they are happy to chop bits off of a sizeable proportion of their baby boys at the drop of something sharp (followed by a drop of something red).

Surprised that you've become an apologist for barbarism.   

[ProfessorDavey]

It's THEIR choice.

It demonstrably isn't THEIR choice - thats the whole point. No infant being circumcised chooses to do so.

[Shaker]

So maybe we shouldn't vaccinate babies either? After all they can't consent and there is a small risk with a vaccination ( probably a bigger one)

Both are considered beneficial, both have people who don't agree with it.

Same ethical arguments, the baby can't consent. Autism etc.

Goodness only knows where you dredge up your so-called evidence from but you seem unaware (not to my surprise) that there is absolutely zero reputable scientific evidence of any link between vaccination and autism. Ever heard of Andrew Wakefield?

[ad_orientem]

See link above.

It's not just the WHO, and your evidence that they are biased?

I expect anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is biased, even those who have done research.

I posted the link earlier in the thread. Here it is again: http://circumcision.org/bias.htm

[Bubbles]

Supporters of this fatuous and ignorant abomination witter on about everybody's choice ... everybody that is except the choice of the subject directly and immediately involved in having it forced upon them without their informed consent.

A truly warped set of priorities some people have.

Not as warped as the intolerant one, who uses any excuse to have a dig at religious people, while hiding behind double standards.

It's just an excuse for prejudiced people to have a dig at Jews/Muslims/or other ethnic/religious group without getting called out for discrimination.

But that's what it is.

Babies are given injections or any other non religious procedures without their informed consent, but that's ok because it doesn't feed people's religious prejudices.

I'm not convinced any of you are really interested in the actual babies, if you were, you would look at the research for it, and recognise that this matter has to be decided by the ones who love the baby the most, the parents with the advice of their doctors.

It isn't even something I chose for my own sons, that was our choice , but I recognise people with an anti religious agenda, and that's what I see here.

People who are biased.

[Gordon]

Here is why it isn't recommended to wait until the boy can give consent.

" Why Medical Bodies and Others Should Not Advise That Circumcision Should be Delayed Until the Boy Can Make the Decision for Himself

Summary:

WHY CIRCUMCISION SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED

• Protection against UTIs and kidney damage in infancy is lost.

• Freedom from phimosis and balanitis in childhood and at puberty is lost.

• Circumcision after boys become sexually active means loss of more benefits associated with STI prevention.

• The risk of complications is higher for later circumcisions.

• The cost (to the individual or the public purse) is much higher.

• Educational resources for boys to make an informed decision are lacking

• Large-scale adolescent circumcision would strain medical resources.

• Boys who choose circumcision will certainly wish it had been done in infancy.

• Many boys will not want to face an operation even though they wish to be circumcised.

• Major international and American health and medical organizations are now urging circumcision, especially in infancy.

http://www.circinfo.net/circumcision_why_you_should_not_delay.html

So if Jews and Muslims want to have their baby boys circumcised in hygienic conditions, why on earth would I object?

As long as it's not forced on the whole population and we are free to decline, why should I interfere with someone else's choice?

It's THEIR choice.

Perhaps next time you cite a source you should check the that the author really is an expert: it seems that this chap has his critics (inc. genuine experts). That this attracted the Daily Wail (that you linked to earlier) is no great surprise.

http://mondofown.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/critique-of-brian-morris-of-circinfonet.html

[Gordon]

Babies are given injections or any other non religious procedures without their informed consent, but that's ok because it doesn't feed people's religious prejudices.

That would be because modern medicines (inc. vaccinations) aren't administered just in order to comply with religious superstitions rooted in antiquity - I'd have thought that would be kinda obvious.

[Gordon]

People who are biased.

Yep: I'm happily biased against mutilating baby boys in order to comply with religious traditions or cultural preferences.