International intolerance to female genital mutilation day - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14889339
Yes some groups do view FGM as a religious requirement. Do you know why?

Also you say there are no draw backs to tattooing the face of a newborn baby so if it were practiced by a religious group you wouldn't oppose it. Do you not count the psychological draw back to someone who chooses to reject their parents religion but have been branded since birth in accordance with their dogmatic beliefs?
#14889350
jessupjonesjnr87 wrote:Yes some groups do view FGM as a religious requirement. Do you know why?


Which groups?

Also you say there are no draw backs to tattooing the face of a newborn baby so if it were practiced by a religious group you wouldn't oppose it. Do you not count the psychological draw back to someone who chooses to reject their parents religion but have been branded since birth in accordance with their dogmatic beliefs?


So now we are discussing imaginary problems caused by an imaginary custom.

My answer is that they can pray to the faeries to amke it all disappear.
#14889354
I really don't want to get sucked back into this silly thread again:



You are saying that people should have circumcision as babies because the operation is more painful/complicated for adults and that circumcision will allegedly prevent the spread of STD's for when they become sexually active, right?


Not the pain thing. I am not certain whether or not it is "more painful" as an adult. There is no good reason for anyone to experience significant pain from the procedure. I know it is more frightening to adults. I don't think it is complicated except rarely when done for therapeutic reasons.

And yes, when considering the few diseases for which circumcision offers some modicum of prevention/transmission the answer is, of course. HPV is a great example.

The US has about 3/4 of its adults circumcised while Europe has next to 0 circumcised males and yet the spread of STD's is massive in the US compared to Europe, all other things considered being equal(cultural and sexual norms), how do you account for this discrepancy?



Thank you for that post Neoman. It is an absolutely classic example of amateurs googling their confirmation bias.

None of the diseases you mention has anything to do with circumcision except for one study on syphilis that has mostly been discredited. That is why you ought to leave these things to people who know how to read studies. Here is what YOU need to know:

March 25, 2009 - Circumcised men have a 25% lower risk of genital herpes and a 35% lower risk of HPV, the virus that causes genital warts and cancers.

The data come from a study in Uganda that already has shown circumcision effective in reducing a man's risk of HIV infection from heterosexual sex. The two-year study by Johns Hopkins researcher Aaron A.R. Tobian, MD, PhD, and colleagues enrolled nearly 3,400 men negative for HSV-2, the genital herpes virus.

"These findings ... indicate that circumcision should now be accepted as an efficacious intervention for reducing heterosexually acquired infections with HSV-2, HPV, and HIV in adolescent boys and men," the researchers conclude. "However, it must be emphasized that protection was only partial, and it is critical to promote the practice of safe sex."


More studies have followed with much the same result.
#14889483
Drlee wrote:On page 5 of this thread, in a direct answer to your question, which for some reason you repeat several times after that I made the following post:

Yes I remember your deflection that sidestepped the question of why infants need to be cut rather than children, adolescents or adults. Do you remember when I mentioned S Koreans doing the procedure on teenagers? What does a 1 month old get from the procedure that a 15 year old doesn't?

Drlee wrote:Thank you for that post Neoman. It is an absolutely classic example of amateurs googling their confirmation bias.

Perhaps Americans who are circumcised fail to practice safe sex as rigorously as Europeans because they believe that circumcision reduces their risk of all diseases rather than a select few. There's a vaccine for HPV so the limited benefits of circumcision makes it look even more drastic.
#14889539
What does a 1 month old get from the procedure that a 15 year old doesn't?


Actually, usually younger than a month. But that is a quibble. You are arguing just to hear yourself argue. I reject your premise entirely. You are just putting the football where you want. Remember AFAIK, that I said that it was a choice for the parents. Did I not say that? It is a choice I would make. NOBODY is advocating mandatory circumcision except those who consider it a religious requirement and I am not one of them. Let them defend themselves.

Why pick 15? 15 year old boys are children and can't consent to elective surgery. If you want it to be an adult decision you have to wait until they are 18. Of course by then well over half have had intercourse and even more oral sex. (IF you want the number for 15 year old boys it is just over one in five.) So one could easily argue that by that time the proverbial horse has already left the barn.

Perhaps Americans who are circumcised fail to practice safe sex as rigorously as Europeans because they believe that circumcision reduces their risk of all diseases rather than a select few.


Nonsense. I have never even heard this mentioned before. Kids don't generally know it and those who do would have been taught that the protection is not universal. I am not even certain your premise is correct and that American children having sex do not practice safe sex as much as their European counterparts. But that is irrelevant.

There's a vaccine for HPV so the limited benefits of circumcision makes it look even more drastic.


There is. And it should be used. Sadly, because of that personal choice of which you are so fond, only 60% of them get it. And since the CDC recommends that it be given between 11-12 years of age, guess who makes the decision? The parents. You know. The ones you think should not make decisions for their kids... Now that we have covered that, why don't we talk about HIV and herpes? No vaccine for them. .Circumcision offers a modicum of protection for both. (And a couple of other conditions as well such as penile cancer but it is very rare anyway.)

For bonus points we can add that both male and female partners they might have like circumcised penises better. Indeed, that Korean phenomenon you mention is interesting when you ask Korean men why they almost universally do it.
#14889544
Drlee wrote:Thank you for that post Neoman. It is an absolutely classic example of amateurs googling their confirmation bias.

None of the diseases you mention has anything to do with circumcision except for one study on syphilis that has mostly been discredited. That is why you ought to leave these things to people who know how to read studies.


Are you saying that the data is wrong? That the US does not have a higher prevalence of STD's than Europe? Based on what? Your bias? You mentioned that confirmation bias earlier which was probably directed at my post presenting the view of the British Medical Association, are you saying British and European doctors are biased against circumcision?

Here is what YOU need to know:
More studies have followed with much the same result.


What I need to know is what our doctors recommend:

British Medical Association wrote:In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral.
The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks (see section 4.4). It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child’s best interests falls to his parents.


......

Doctors should ensure that any parents seeking circumcision for their son in the belief that it confers health benefits are fully informed of the lack of consensus amongst the profession over such benefits, and how great any potential benefits and harms are. The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.


Europe has not been circumcising its males and our STD's prevalence is lower than the US, our sexual experiences are absolutely fine and our women just as happy. Our doctors and medical associations recommend that we should not circumcise our children, so why exactly are we supposed to subject our children to a potentially harmful and irreversible removal of their foreskin?
#14889585
Are you saying that the data is wrong? That the US does not have a higher prevalence of STD's than Europe? Based on what? Your bias? You mentioned that confirmation bias earlier which was probably directed at my post presenting the view of the British Medical Association, are you saying British and European doctors are biased against circumcision?


Pay attention Neoman. Really. None of the diseases you mentioned have anything to do with circumcision and are therefor irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes. Some European docs seem to be ignoring the evidence. Are you surprised?
#14889595
Drlee wrote:Pay attention Neoman. Really. None of the diseases you mentioned have anything to do with circumcision and are therefor irrelevant to this discussion.


I am not following what you are trying to say here. The data does not claim that the prevalence of std's in the US is due to circumcision but that does not change the fact that the only difference between US and European sexual norms is circumcision.

If anything European doctors are far more interested for public health than corporate American doctors where the Health system is corporate-run instead of public-run.
#14889657
Drlee wrote: Remember AFAIK, that I said that it was a choice for the parents. Did I not say that? It is a choice I would make.

If you waited until the age of 12 or 13 it could be a joint decision.

You're trying to sell me on a procedure that kills hundreds of babies due to bleeding and infection and has narrow and delayed benefits. You keep bringing up women's aesthetic preferences, which suggests that this is actually a cosmetic procedure on many levels.

Do you recommend pulling out kids' teeth before they have a chance to develop cavities too?
#14889702
For AFIK. Sorry. You are just being silly now. Come back when you want to have a serious discussion.

I am not following what you are trying to say here. The data does not claim that the prevalence of std's in the US is due to circumcision but that does not change the fact that the only difference between US and European sexual norms is circumcision.


This is far from true. STD rates in Israel are much lower and they have almost universal circumcision. This is a thread about circumcision. Why are you mentioning STDs that have nothing to do with the thread or circumcision. Circumcision does not prevent gunshot wounds either and Europe has fewer of them too. Same deal?

If anything European doctors are far more interested for public health than corporate American doctors where the Health system is corporate-run instead of public-run.


Sort of. But may of the sources I posted were government public health people. No corporate affiliation at all. But to follow your logic consider this. There is no profit for our private health care in circumcisions in most cases. Doctors who work with insurance companies should oppose circumcision as a cost saving measure.

The lower rate of the specific STDs you mention may or may not be significant. It is also odd to lump all Europeans together. The infection rates within the EU varies considerably by country. It varies within any number of communities and nations are particularly poor demographics to consider. National statistics say little about the acquisition of infections or sexual practices. The sample sizes are far too large. An example. The US leads the world in successful cancer treatment yet within the US access to this treatment varies considerably. And though we have worse outcomes with most diseases than the EU does, we do much better with cancer.

In epidemiology it is important to look at comparable demographics.
#14889994
Drlee wrote:This is far from true. STD rates in Israel are much lower and they have almost universal circumcision. This is a thread about circumcision. Why are you mentioning STDs that have nothing to do with the thread or circumcision. Circumcision does not prevent gunshot wounds either and Europe has fewer of them too. Same deal?


You mentioned STD's and how circumcision protects you from them so I thought to take a look at STD rates between circumcised and uncircumcised groups and discovered that your theory does not actually translate as such. :eh: Where is your data for Israel?

Sort of. But may of the sources I posted were government public health people. No corporate affiliation at all. But to follow your logic consider this. There is no profit for our private health care in circumcisions in most cases. Doctors who work with insurance companies should oppose circumcision as a cost saving measure.


The fact is that your entire circumcision culture is a trend based on the debunked theories of some guy back in the day and that circumcision has become widespread in the US despite the fact that you are Europeans and thus culturally antithetic to the practise. Which means that to switch from a to b you have been subjected to a long campaign of misinformation made easier in your case due to the corporate nature of your health care.
#14890039
From what I recall of the post-war period,the issue of circumcision in the UK was about STI's,which gave rise to the increase in infant circumcision throughout the 1950-60's period.

Based on that history,it's clear that STI's, being transmissable infections,are patently an issue,at root, of poor hygeine practices,both before & after coitus.

This really illuminates the false basis on which medical intervention on infants by circumcision is justified.

That disease more often comes about through infection by sexually active persons, not the sexually inactive amongst us,such as infants or children,demonstrates that circumcision is a 'prescribed' action decided on by parents,doctors or religious influences, contrary to the interest of those on which circumcision has been performed & without any proper or meaningful consent at such an early age.

It's all a bit like 'docking' a dogs tail, no questions asked, no thought given to the dogs interest, only the owner, who thinks that any species other than humans(even including them in the past)is just 'property'.

It seems that religion is a hindrance to progress, but then we know that don't we, even if it's not the original main driver of this action,though I suspect that it is.
#14890048
Well. Not a single thing Nonsense said, was true. I suppose his is an admirable name.

You mentioned STD's and how circumcision protects you from them so I thought to take a look at STD rates between circumcised and uncircumcised groups and discovered that your theory does not actually translate as such. :eh: Where is your data for Israel?


You did not discover that. What you discovered was that circumcision does not protect from the three diseases you mentioned. It does offer some protection for the diseases I mentioned. Do you see that now?

It seems that religion is a hindrance to progress, but then we know that don't we, even if it's not the original main driver of this action,though I suspect that it is.


Actually, if you look at Africa, religion is saving millions of lives through circumcision for religious purposes though I specifically have said that I am not concerned with religion in this regard. But since you brought it up, if you look at Christianity as an example, it is disregarding religion's demands that gets one infected...Not following them. If everyone followed the Christian rules we would wipe out all venereal diseases in a generation or two. (Save a few; ironically two that would be reduced in frequency if circumcision was practiced in addition to the other rules.)
#14890109
Drlee wrote:Well. Not a single thing Nonsense said, was true. I suppose his is an admirable name.


I see where you are coming from,just not where you are going?

So, do tell me, specifically, where,"Not a single thing I said was true" anything that what I said was untrue?
#14890118
From what I recall of the post-war period,the issue of circumcision in the UK was about STI's,which gave rise to the increase in infant circumcision throughout the 1950-60's period.

No. It was about a combination of preference, religious belief and leftover 19th century myths. In fact, the practice declined in the UK during the 50's-60's.

Based on that history,it's clear that STI's, being transmissable infections,are patently an issue,at root, of poor hygeine practices,both before & after coitus.


This statement is meaningless. I think you may think you are saying something. Some STDs can be reduced by hygiene and others not.


This really illuminates the false basis on which medical intervention on infants by circumcision is justified.


No it actually doesn't. It says nothing about it.

That disease more often comes about through infection by sexually active persons, not the sexually inactive amongst us,such as infants or children,demonstrates that circumcision is a 'prescribed' action decided on by parents,doctors or religious influences, contrary to the interest of those on which circumcision has been performed & without any proper or meaningful consent at such an early age.


Wrong again. You have presented no evidence that circumcision is "contrary to the interest...." and I have presented evidence that it may be in their best interest.

It's all a bit like 'docking' a dogs tail, no questions asked, no thought given to the dogs interest, only the owner, who thinks that any species other than humans(even including them in the past)is just 'property'.


Silly. Just silly.

It seems that religion is a hindrance to progress, but then we know that don't we, even if it's not the original main driver of this action,though I suspect that it is.


Read what I posted last time about this. I see you chose not to respond to the facts again. I understand that you do not like religion but what you like is not at issue here. Nor is it evidence.

Clear enough for you now?
#14890240
Drlee wrote:From what I recall of the post-war period,the issue of circumcision in the UK was about STI's,which gave rise to the increase in infant circumcision throughout the 1950-60's period.


No. It was about a combination of preference, religious belief and leftover 19th century myths. In fact, the practice declined in the UK during the 50's-60's.

The introduction of the NHS was the main reason for the decline, as despite being, 'FREE at the point of use', the NHS(rightly)turned away parents wanting it done, of the few exceptions being allowed,were MUSLIMS.
This was a throwback to 'Clive' of India,whereby the English were only allowed to trade if the representatives of the East India Company had,without exception,to prove that they had been cut & a large payment was made to seal the contract to trade.
Before the NHS, the practice was more widespread,supported by doctors,as well as the Army,but after the creation of the NHS doctors were actively against the practice as they did not & still do not see it as 'therapeutic'.

This change by doctors is the main reason for it's decline,otherwise, with the 'treatment' being 'free' on the new NHS,it may well have escalated into what we now experience as a 'financial crisis' in the NHS.

Statistics on the prevalence of the practice are sketchy,as well as anecdotal, no 'official' stats exist,but between the wars when it was paid for, the incidence was higher,this would most likely have persisted without the NHS or until doctors saw the light,as opposed to the income from doing such work.
Fairly reliable sources from peer publications mention the highest level as being approx 30%, declining to just under 16% & currently ,around 10%.

Post war-years between the early 1950-1990's saw the largest increase in STI's after which they fell,but have been climbing since,surprisingly in the older age groups,which may be related to divorce rates & consequent 'lifestyle' changes.

Drlee wrote:No it actually doesn't. It says nothing about it.


So, you don't think that STI's are the result of poor hygeine before & after coitus?

I strongly disagree, it's a well known FACT, that wherever bacteria are present on genital areas of the body, so too can viruses which cause diseases, particularly from coitus.

Wrong again. You have presented no evidence that circumcision is "contrary to the interest...." and I have presented evidence that it may be in their best interest.


The medical profession has already proven that for the simplest of reasons, that infantile circumcision before the age of sexual activity is not in any way justifiable, after all, doctors 'treat' patients for existing ailments.

Innoculations are one of the few 'preventative' ways to avoid diseases, hardly justifiable reason to do so on an infant just a few days old, nor is it 'therapeutic' either.

Silly. Just silly.


I was making a point that the level of arrogance posessed by people in deciding the 'interest' of vulnerable creatures such as their own infants, do not make the basis for good judgements, even when the advice is given by self-interested experts.

]Read what I posted last time about this. I see you chose not to respond to the facts again. I understand that you do not like religion but what you like is not at issue here. Nor is it evidence.
Clear enough for you now?



'Religion' is the main reason that is used to 'justify' the clinical barbarity of inflicting a knife to cut an infant's body.

Take that as you will, it's a FACT.
#14890250
Yea. I have already spoken to all of your points, time and again in this thread. You are wrong on most points, but you are free to practice whatever you like. I have said it from the start.

Do not decide to study medicine or epidemiology. The science will deeply disappoint you.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]