Parents face so many difficult decisions when it comes to having a child: decisions about nursing, sleep patterns, discipline, teaching methods and, in the case of boys, whether or not to circumcise. In addition to being the most common surgery for males in the U.S., circumcision has been practiced in various cultures for centuries. Yet when it comes to the health and best interest of your newborn, is circumcision the way to go?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Should Boys be Circumcised?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pro-Circs Ignore History and Arguments Flawed
Most parents do not know the history of circumcision, including where the purported medical benefits originated. In the vast majority of cases, these studies are either flawed, exaggerated, or basically just lost in translation over the years. Kind of like a 60+ year game of "telephone".
Sociology is a funny thing - especially when it comes to common beliefs on something where the origination has all but been forgotten.
People should look into what is called "The Straw Man" argument when researching any subject, but especially this one. This is where one argues their case by summarizing the OPPOSITION'S position INACCURATELY so as to weaken it and then refutes that INACURATE rendition.
And closely related to this is the Weak Man argument: a person sets up the opposition's weakest argument for attack, but its more opaque because it contains a grain of truth and bears little similarity to the stronger arguments that should also be presented, thus cleverly disregarding info.
- boygirlboy August 7, 2008 10:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (14)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ok
Ok, so since you know where it came from, why don't you post and show us where Circumcision came from. As a Jew, I can tell you. But I want to see where you think it came from.
- justsomeguywithanopinion
November 13, 2008 2:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Origin of circumcision
The Jewish story says circumcising came from God through Abraham. Physical evidence shows that it predates Abraham's era by more than a thousand years, maybe much more. Ashley Montagu has an essay called "Mutilated Humanity" http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/montagu.html that talks about circumcision's deep origins, and the difficulties inherent in trying to discover them. He does give us an important clue. Circumcision of females is unknown in egalitarian societies, as most hunter-gatherer societies are, and male circumcision is rare. This points, he says, to a relatively recent origin for circumcision, in male-dominator societies, post hunter-gatherer.
Well, what comes after hunter-gatherer societies?
Agriculture.
And then?
Slave agriculture.
I think circumcision was invented by early farmers in the middle east, to enslave hunter-gatherer "agricultural pests". After all, the early farmer's limiting factor in terms of how much food s/he could produce and provide for the tribe was his or her own body - human labor. Far better to catch the "pests" hunting and gathering on the farm than to kill them. What a waste! Put them to work instead! If life gives you hunter-gatherers in your fields, make slaves!
But after you catch them, how do you make them do what you want them to do? You have to instill great fear, with which you then may get compliance. Genital mutilation is the obvious first candidate to try. It worked. This is how early farmers in the middle east transitioned from agriculture to slave agriculture. Circumcision began as an economic decision, in the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture to slave agriculture, thousands of years ago. Jewish circumcision history is an afterthought. Religious involvement in genital mutilation comes later, after there is a circumcised population trying to understand where the catastrophe came from. The first generation knows where it came from. Explaining the disaster to their children, they said what we all say when we get hit too hard by life to come up with any other explanation: "We don't understand why this had to happen to us, but God must have a reason. It must have been God's will." Eventually this turns into Genesis 17, the story about God telling Abraham to do it.
- Van Lewis
December 11, 2008 6:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Circumcision is mutilation
Make sure you know what is actually lost: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj6UjduMTiU
And how awful an experience it is for a newborn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MLtxCwdMv0
Finally, understand that Schoen and Morris have a psychological need to validate the harm that was done to them by twisting the science to re-enact their injury on others. This document should be uploaded as one or more of the debate arguments: http://knol.google.com/k/george-hill/circumcision-and-human-behavior/2y9nanfagw8nr/13 #
Hopefully George Hill will sign on as a verified expert and post it in full.
- GenitalIntegrityPolicy August 7, 2008 12:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (14)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No: Circumcision is Wrong for Girls AND Boys
Americans believe that male circumcision is harmless, even beneficial, while female circumcision is harmful and mutilating. Male circumcision is something that "we" do because it's (allegedly) healthier, cleaner, sexier, and normal. Female circumcision is something that "they" do because they want to control sexuality and diminish pleasure.
Yet women who circumcise their daughters in other cultures claim it's because circumcision is healther, cleaner, more appealing to men, prevents disease, and is normal....besides, they say, I'm circumcised and I'm normal and enjoy sex! Sound familiar?
Both men and women have foreskins. Both originate from the same tissue in the fetus. Both male and female foreskins are full of nerve endings and are necessary to normal sexual functioning.
All babies have human rights. All babies, male and female, deserve to be protected from forced genital cutting. Circumcision violates a baby's human right to keep his body whole.
- ProWholeness
August 7, 2008 4:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (14)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the morality of the issue
Its not as simple as a "right or wrong"
decision. The main issue here as I see it is that the person involved has not given consent.
Its a right decision if the person (male or female) consents. All other cases are an outright violation of that persons rights. Further to this there is no genuine evidence that it prevents aids etc.
Doctors sadly will always promote procedures that fatten their wallets and prey on the ignorant and ill-informed. You only have to see how many
unnecessary drugs are prescribed for people who dont actually need them.
- brakers
August 7, 2008 7:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (13)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Always Look For The Hidden Agenda
One of the keys to understanding this argument is to look at the agengas of people promoting this. Just ask yourself : What do the doctors have to gain? Would they do it for free?
How much evidence is there to support this practice being done for health reasons?
Always be suspicious of any so called "health professional" promoting something where they can gain from it, either financially or simply to satisfy their own bloated egos.Let the person involved make an informed decision. Dont take this choice away from them.Above all take medical advice with a grain of salt.
- brakers
August 8, 2008 12:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (11)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Waskett ? ? ?
Brian Morris: "The NOCIRC-funded study by Sorrells and other anti-circ activists on sensitivity was debunked after a proper statistical analysis of the data by Waskett & Morris in the same journal."
Brian, surely you know that Jake Waskett is employed in the computer business in England and has no formal education in the medical arts or any practical experience in medicine? According to this, you worked with him directly to present this study. How could you not know this fact? In fact, the evidence would suggest that you and Waskett have never even met face to face, only on internet discussion sites. How could you and Waskett possibly perform a "proper statistical analysis" under these circumstances?
For a claim of this study to stand, should the reader take medical advice from his/her accountant, Plumber, Auto mechanic or anyone else not involved in or educated in the medical profession and research?
Have you been duped by someone who claims medical credentials?
- Frank OHara August 8, 2008 4:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (16)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Circumcision harm must be minimized.
The pro-argument for circumcision is presented as if circumcisions were done in ideal conditions, with competent operators and virtually all positive results. Not so! These abuses must be addressed.
1. Forced circumcisions, such as in Kenya this year, are sexual assaults. They should be dealt with like other sexual assaults, and be heavily penalized.
2. There must be clear rules for parents who disagree on circumcision. The best solution is to let the owner of the foreskin decide what to do with it when he reaches adulthood.
3. Dangerous practices like bush circumcision and metzitzah b’peh should be banned or at least strongly discouraged. Laws must ban unqualified operators from operating, and penalties must be severe.
4. Because feelings run so high on this subject there must be protection from discrimination on the grounds of circumcision status.
It is imperative that the law cleans up its act. There is no excuse for inaction.
- Michael Glass
August 8, 2008 5:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (11)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thank you, Van Lewis
Thank you for noting the nature of Dr. Schoen's "expertise" in light of his hypocritical statement that "NOCIRC seems to be unaware that local anesthesia is now the standard of care for newborn circumcision." His expertise lies in circumcising countless children without even the benefit of anesthesia!
Will he explain why he never cared for the pain he caused his patients?
Why only AFTER his chairmanship of the AAP Task Force on Circumcision did anesthesia become the standard of care?
Did Dr. Schoen actively obstruct the recognition of the need for anesthesia, or was he merely negligent, or cruel?
- GenitalIntegrityPolicy August 8, 2008 10:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (14)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jake waskett credentials
As Mr o Hara said, Jake waskett is hardly a medical expert. He is a young gay man who works as a computer software engineer in England, This can be verified by his wikipedia home page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User :Jakew
He has set up an account with the sole purpose of editing circumcision-related articles to give them a pro-circumcision bias ,as you can see from his list of edits here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special :Contributions&limit=500&target=Jakew
You just have to look at the circumcision page to see how much work he has done to show circumcision in as positive light as i can be shown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
So, should we really trust this man's opinion? he is obviously extremely biased. Anyone looking at the o'hara website will see that what they say doesn't really need "evidence", it is just common sense.
- woodthorpe82
August 9, 2008 3:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (15)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who do you trust to design your baby?
God/MotherNature/Evolution (anyone notice a holy trinity there?) did a magnificent job, to say the least, of designing and producing human sex organs (and a [large] number of other vitally important things in this universe). The idea that any human being can correct this stupendous sexual handiwork by chopping up babies' highly complex, healthy sex organs is one of the stupidest and craziest, or one of the most deliberately evil ideas (I'm not sure which it was) human beings ever came up with. The wonder is that so many otherwise decent and intelligent human beings still fall for it. A hundred years from now no one will be able to understand such madness: I don't think anyone understands it now. Beware of ANYONE who tries to convince you that they know better than God/MotherNature/Evolution how to design and make human bodies. They do not. Don't let them try to "correct", with medically unnecessary and harmful, potentially lethal surgery, the "mistakes" they hallucinate in your child.
- Van Lewis
August 9, 2008 9:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (13)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mandatory Circumcision Victim's Fund
Every circumcision should be accompanied by at least a million dollar Victim Satisfaction insurance policy. That way, if too much skin is removed, or if the victim is unsatisfied in any way, there will be compensation available.
Anyone circumcised against his or her will is due a huge reparation payment. Anyone performing a circumcision has to know that they are vulnerable to a gigantic lawsuit 18 years down the line.
- geskoi
August 9, 2008 10:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (12)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where is the "dotted line"?
A friend of mine tells of looking for the dotted line on his penis, where it's "supposed" to be cut. He never could find it, and is happily intact.
What I want to know is what these circumcisers think is a "proper" circumcision? I'll tell you what mine looked like, the skin was so short that my penis only ever jutted straight out, it never hung down like all the pictures I would see. That was very confusing, and embarrassing in the locker room. I still see men like that in the locker room.
Fortunately, as I used skin expansion techniques, I gained enough skin that my penis DOES hang down, now. I am, as you can imagine, ecstatic about that!
So tell me, circumcision advocates, how do you keep from embarrassing some poor fool half to death with an extremely foreshortened penis?
Or is that what you really want? Where is the "dotted line"?
- geskoi
August 9, 2008 4:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (12)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where is the dotted line ?
Since I had a complete foreskin the first 42 years of my life and can actually short time cover my glans with the shortened foreskin: in my experience my penis tends to be shorter when covered by the foreskin as it is pulled up toward the body.
Also in many instances most "showers" that are circumcised appear to have more hang than I would expect to see if the foreskin were restraining it.
Of course my circumcision was not done high and tight- in fact might not be considered "optimum".
However I do know that I like what I have- a little extra skin below but with the upper coronal rim nicely exposed to stimuli.
If you are worried about length- be aware that if you contract Prostate cancer and opt for a prostatectomy you will lose about 3/4 inch in addittion to poorer erections or complete impotence.
Fortunately orgasm and the preceding great sensations are possible with a fairly limp organ.
- Hal 84
December 14, 2008 3:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's cruel and unnecessary
People have been trying for 100 years to show that circumcision prevents or cures something, but have failed. They used to say it prevented epilepsy and bedwetting and masturbation! Now they are saying HIV and UTIs and other infections. Nothing has been proven. A foreskin is normal, easy to keep clean, most men never experience a problem, but do enjoy the gliding motion it provides.
Medical associations worldwide have stated there is no need for infant circumcision. I fail to see how some doctors, one of whom is not a medical doctor, the other one gets a financial benefit from promoting circumcision, should be considered experts in this area. Besides what foreskin experience do they have other than removing it?
- strawberryfields August 9, 2008 9:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (13)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Should girls be circumcised?
In the USA, we know now that genitally normal, healthy girls should not be circumcised for any reason, "medical", cultural, religious, or otherwise. In fact, it is illegal to do so, a federal felony. Try it and see what happens. There will be a cell in a federal penitentiary waiting for you. (We didn't know this for a long time. I have a female friend younger than I am who was circumcised when she a six-year-old child in Kansas, in the 1950s, by a U.S. doctor. Blue Cross Blue Shield paid for it in some states until 1977.) Has Schoen, has the U.S. medical profession ever heard of the U.S. constitution, and it's requirement for equal protection of the law? Boys killed by circumcising are just as dead as any girl killed by it. Why are boys' constitutional and human rights not given equal protection in this very sick country? This is the only country in the world where the medical profession circumcises the majority of infant males. In no other country could they get away with it. Abolish
- Van Lewis
August 10, 2008 3:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (9)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
of course they should be circumcised
"Most parents do not know the history of circumcision, including where the purported medical benefits originated..."
Of course but we have moved well beyond that while you need to keep harking back for the rhetorical benefit.
"People should look into what is called "The Straw Man" argument when researching any subject, but especially this one. This is where one argues their case by summarizing the OPPOSITION'S position INACCURATELY so as to weaken it and then refutes that INACURATE rendition."
At least you are honest about the beginning of your post.
"a person sets up the opposition's weakest argument for attack"
I don't know where you are heading with that but anti-circs weakest argument is the claim there is no potential medical benefit and the benefits keep being cited. Do you have a problem with that? In reality the benefits simply provide a good reason to circumcise.
- deni August 10, 2008 3:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Benefit" to risk: Which order of magnitude is it, circumcisers?
Schoen claims benefits of circucmising outweigh risks: "The benefit to risk ratio varies from 6:1 to 12:1 ..." Morris claims the same, but by a higher order of magnitude: "Thus, benefits of circumcision exceed the risks by over a hundred to one." Why can't these so-called "experts" get their story straight? At least they should be able to agree on the same order of magnitude for their fabrications, right? And what about certain damage, where the "risk" is 100%? You have NO chance of escaping it if they circumcise you. Would they claim there is NO risk involved here because there is no uncertainty about the outcome? Morris finishes up with "These days, the medical evidence is so strong that the decision to circumcise an infant boy really is a simple ‘no-brainer’ — Just seek a competent doctor and get it done!" Here's the REAL no-brainer: NO human being, let alone Morris or Schoen, is smarter than God/MotherNature/Evolution. Just seek a competent doctor. S/He won't do it.
- Van Lewis
August 10, 2008 4:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (8)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Really, she won't
"Just seek a competent doctor. S/He won't do it." Van Lewis, that's Christianne Northrup, MD, Ob/Gyn, (specialty does most US infant circumcisions). She won't do anymore; horrible screaming and writhing from painless (so say Schoen and Morris) surgery told her something's wrong with it. She read that overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence in favo[u]r of it and found it unreliable and unconvincing. In her book, Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom, she says male circumcision isn't good for women who suffer painful sex with circumcised men, and gives big plug to book, Sex As Nature Intended It, by Kristen O'Hara. Is she a pedophile by opposing male circumcision? Is she discredited by the magical ad hominem wand of Doctor Morris? Does it work that way? Good grief, this extremely conscientious and professional health care provider has done so much to advance women's health. Is she now destroyed in such a way? Read up on it: see "circumcision" in index of Dr Northrup's book.
- ricardo diaz August 24, 2008 4:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Please be reasonable
All credit to those who advocate preventative medicine under fire.
One opponent of circumcision said above "Above all take medical advice with a grain of salt". The no group also seem to have the attitude of "Above all take the weight of scientific research with a grain of salt".
I have researched the issue a few times. In the context of current scientific knowledge, those who advocate putting babies at risk by failing to circumcise don't appear reasonable. Is there any relevant ‘fact’ argued in that direction which isn't proven incorrect by the weight of research?
I am aware there is research which goes against the grain. But if those opposing preventative medicine have confidence in it then why do false comparisons with FGM and misuse words like “amputate” or pretend that parental responsibility is a violation of human rights? That suggests desperation not confidence.
- Michael Bates August 10, 2008 7:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Medical literature on circumcision is suspect.
Mr. Michael Bates wants to accept all of the voluminous medical literature regarding male circumcision at face value. This is an incorrect approach because much of this literature is written by persons who grew up in circumcising cultures, and most likely, are circumcised themeselves. Male circumcision has emotional effects in addition to the more obvious physical effects.
One effect is the need of circumcised men to justify their personal mutilation. Medical doctors who are circumcised do this by attempting to find some prophylactic value to the lopping off of the protective foreskin.
- George
August 16, 2008 6:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (8)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Re Please be reasonable From Michael Bates
Thanks for the quote from Mr Bates. Yes I absolutely recommend taking medical advice with a grain of salt.Many treatments for various illnesses and conditions have consequences. Its not irrational to leave a person intact if they are healthy , and when they can make a decision about their own body , let them make it. Dont take away their rights because they are infants. Lets throw this rubbish out along with many other out-moded and over-prescribed medical customs and make doctors more accountable.
- brakers
August 16, 2008 3:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (8)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Please be reasonable yourself, Michael Bates
Michael Bates claims it a misuse of "amputate" to say circumcising amputates foreskins. Has he never heard of dictionaries? Does he know how to use one? He seems to think it reasonable to amputate healthy tissue to prevent it getting sick: Kill the baby so it can't get sick. That is not reasonable. It is not preventative medicine. It is murder. All doctors have an ethical obligation to preserve healthy human tissue whenever possible. There is legitimate preventative medicine, but amputating healthy human tissue ain't it. Those who advocate actively injuring healthy babies without medical necessity/adequate medical justification and putting them at additional risk, including risk of death, by circumcising are unreasonable. This is assault and reckless endangerment of children by adults. Finally, FGM and MGM are both Human GM. Claiming they are entirely different is false. In the most important ways, they are identical. Both are human rights violations that can and do kill babies. Stop.
- Van Lewis
August 18, 2008 1:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (7)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It isn't YOUR body
Circumcision is an elective cosmetic surgery. And everyone deserves genital integrity. That is just the bottom line. I respect my childrens right to make decisions about their body. It will remain the way it started as much as possible until they can. The fact that there is even a debate about it is nonsensical to me. Cutting of a healthy body part is mutilation.
- jyurina August 10, 2008 9:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (11)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Equal Protection Under the US Law
We're not amputating other body parts for prophylactic reasons so why healthy genitals - on a newborn? Would I reduce my daughters genitals just to avoid her chances of labial adhesions, lichen sclerosis, decrease the likelihood of a UTI (which is FOUR times GREATER than an INTACT male), decrease the severity of a yeast infection or a bacterial infection, OR because Men might prefer the look of reduced female genitals and if left intact she could have problems finding a partner? NO I WOULD NOT! Men in our country deserve the same respect. This is a crisis in which Americans do not have equal protection under the US Law.
- keepyoursonWHOLE
August 10, 2008 10:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (12)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
St. Paul and the Memphis Jug Band got it right
Here is the bottom line: It isn't your penis. Keep your hands to yourself. If you have to mutilate somebody's sex organ, go mutilate your own.
"I only wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate [or castrate] themselves."
St. Paul, Galatians 5:12
"Take your fingers off it!
Don't you dare touch it!
You know it don't belong to you!"
Memphis Jug Band
- Van Lewis
August 10, 2008 10:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (12)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Shonky
You gotta do better than that. Shoen's statistics are 0.2-0.4%. Your's are 0.2-0.6%. Thus your "relavent source" is other than Shoen. What is it? Give a citation. Now, read my post from my textbook given August 7, 2008 at 11:56 PM. Still waiting for Shoen to answer if he got his decimal point wrong. Nothing wrong with that, that's a part of what peer review is for.
- DevilDocRetired
August 10, 2008 10:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (11)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
definition
"Circumcision is ...cosmetic surgery."I'm glad you like the appearance but I'd suggest the potential medical benefits are a better incentive.
"And everyone deserves genital integrity."
If removing the foreskin from a penis violates some aspect of bodily integrity than stabbing with an immunising syringe is grievous bodily harm.
"That is just the bottom line. I respect my childrens right to make decisions about their body. It will remain the way it started as much as possible until they can..."
But what if they get sick or die because you neglected to make a decision on their behalf? As a baby we need to take responsibility.
"... mutilation."
I assume you are referring to the foreskin as a "healthy body part". Mutilation is mutilation. Apart from the rhetorical effect of using irrelevant extreme words mutilation has no relevance to a competently performed circumcision.
It seems people want to reinforce my point about confidence in research.
- Michael Bates August 10, 2008 10:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Twisting Law
Do not confuse Law with Philosophy. Ethics resides in philosophy. If slavery was legally acceptable, would it then be ethical? According to your statement it would be. Your correlation to the question about ethics states: "Is non-therapeutic immunisation ethical?" is a wrong correlation. A more proper correlation to your thread would be for someone to say to you: "If you were given the Date Rape Drug and then taken advantage of, a rape did not occur."
- DevilDocRetired
August 10, 2008 11:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (10)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Anesthesia
To expand the Date Rape Drug analogy: This drug is given by sexual predators so their victims will not feel or remember the rape. This is the same reasoning for giving anesthesia prior to circumcision. Thus, if the victim does not feel or remember the violation, then the violation did not happen. The argument about circumcision is NOT about technique but IS about whether or not the procedure is medically and ethically appropriate. Fundamentally, the topic of anesthesia is a diversion.
- DevilDocRetired
August 11, 2008 12:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (11)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
wow this one made me laugh
"But what if they get sick or die because you neglected to make a decision on their behalf? As a baby we need to take responsibility"
of course we need to make decisions regarding our childrens immidiate heath but no one has ever died from an intact penis. several have died from botched circumcisions or blood loss
- superherom03
August 11, 2008 6:29AM
Reply to this