they should have at least re-shot the opening credits scene when the entire original cast had left
5 Likes
I know anecdote is not equal to data but umm yeah that was DEFINITELY NOT AN ISSUE for me. Probably TOO MUCH OF NOT AN ISSUE for me. TMI?
7 Likes
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.
They may outweigh the risks but do they outweigh the adverse consequences?
5 Likes
Even that flimsy stance that you, ahem, conveniently cut off at the best part, was immediately rebutted by a much larger group of physicians: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796
The 8 doctors that make up the entirety of the AAP “Task Force on Circumcision” are dicks openly accused of letting their cultural bias cause ignoring good science. But damn, what a task force to have your name on forever.
The internet is a great place to get more information on any subject, even ones as cutting as this.
20 Likes
That 1% though, who had no choice…
2 Likes
14 Likes
Child birth radically alters women’s sexual experiences, especially when an episiotomy is involved, often for the worse. But no one gives a shit about that, since it literally makes the human race possible.
15 Likes
Older technology
Blackadder – never let’s you down.
1 Like
I can see this conversation is one of those perfect shitstorms where some sea lions decided to exert the muscle… But I’m going to add my five cents here (that’s way less that would be considered a good tip nowadays)
In Spain until the late 80’s it was mandatory for girls to get their lobes pierced, inmediately after birth. It’s a cosmetic procedure, one that has no known side-effects (except for the ones alergic to metal), an still quite popular among both males and females.
The problem was the “mandatory” part. Some progressive parents wanted to be able to opt out, feeling it was something their child should decide with age and reason; but even when the “mandatory” part was striked out it was common for hospitals (specially the ones with church funding) to “accidentally” ignore the parent’s wishes and pierce the baby anyway.
In the mid 90’s the government had to intervene, forbidding to pierce the babies at the hospital -I think they raised the minimum age to three months or so- and ending a long standing tradition.
My reasoning is that circumcision should be subjected to the same idea: you want to do it? fine; check out to the nearest hospital to get circumcised. But it’s not cool to do it to someone who has not understanding of the procedure.
18 Likes
This is really all that needs to be said at the end of the day,
10 Likes
And that was for ear piercing, which if you take the earring out right away, will grow back!
Good example.
5 Likes
Knife boy (or is he Stab Man?) can count himself fortunate that he attacked someone with pepper spray. It’s overall less injurious than having that signpost jammed up an orifice, which was the next best alternative.
2 Likes
I have no dog in this fight. I’m not even arguing, just adding a data point in a very civil way.
You seem to be assuming that I’m pro circumcision when I’m just trying to have a conversation about something that has some interesting bigger points.
The macro issue here is above circumcision, it is the debate over when and how minors have decision making ability on medical care or procedures. Can a child refuse to get a vaccine if they want? Or if they are too young, should we not vaccinate them and wait until they are old enough to consent to it?
At what age would that be? Can they refuse to get their tonsils out? What about having a cavity filled or a tooth removed? Then there are harder ones like chemo and other devastating treatments where it isn’t clear whether the benefits may outweigh the suffering.
These are not difficult questions to answer: for legitimate medical decisions, a parent or guardian is required to make the decision for the child. Hence the court cases when parents are refusing standard medical treatment (chemo for a type of childhood cancer with a 99.9% success rate, for example). Unless there is an actual medical reason for male circumcision, having it done at birth, especially if it is overriding the parents’ wishes, is not the same thing.
Let’s put it another way: if you tell the doctors in the delivery room that your child will have a bris in a week, they won’t do it then. So clearly, it’s not medically crucial to do at birth for every baby boy. (Unlike the PKU test, for example, which has to be done as soon as possible.)
13 Likes
Note, though, that all those other health issues you mention are immediate health concerns for the child.
Virtually none of the “health concerns” mooted in support of infant circumcision are concerns for infants or young children.
No child will suffer for a parent not circumcising them, unlike all your other examples, where the consequences will occur during childhood, often before meaningful consent is even possible.
Circumcision is only a health concern for sexually active adults (or at least adolescents). If potentially sexually-active young men or their partners want the benefits of circumcision, they can always have the procedure done (like I did) with proper anesthesia and antisepsis in a medical facility. It’s a simple outpatient procedure.
There is NO medical need for a parent to make that decision on a healthy infant’s behalf. NONE.
So, yes, of course parents must handle consent issues for young children in cases of medical need. Nothing I’ve said disputes that or suggests otherwise.
But those are entirely different things than infant circumcision.
10 Likes
Circumcision is 99.99% of the time non-medical. It’s cosmetic. Like ear and tail docking in fighting dog breeds.
Your comparisons are irrelevant, pointless and a distraction from the real issue. At best.
9 Likes
Only if we ignore other important issues such as the ethical implications of parents making decisions for the child that precludes the child from making a different decision.
Prevention of these conditions is not seen as a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world (wikipedia).
One problem is that the advantages you claim just aren’t strong enough to justify violence against children and violating their rights.
A direct medical need would be a much stronger justification.
7 Likes
There are medical (read: non-cosmetic) reasons to do circumcsions on infants, but they are exceedingly rare.
8 Likes
I’m rather dubious of the claims of prophylactic circumcision being a panacea for STD protection. Think of all the other things we could slice off to prevent future disease. No testicles, no testicular cancer! No prostate, no prostate cancer!
However, I’d remind folks that condoms only reduce STD rates – people should use them for safer sex, but they don’t eliminate STD transmission. IIRC, there is only a 30% reduction in genital herpes transmission from using condoms. Still better than nothing, but not as good as having the person with herpes take anti-virals, which reduces transmission by 50%. I haven’t looked up studies in a while, though, so latest data may have shifted slightly one way or another.
2 Likes
