Circumcision on the eighth day

Originally posted by Suzianne
Tell that to the World Health Organization. Circumcision has reduced the transmission of HIV in central Africa where it was pushed starting in the 80s.

Did you read the WHO paper at all?

You know, condoms are completely painless, and surprisingly, they too seem to limit the spread of HIV. I'm just saying. But we both know that baby boy's aren't tortured for health reasons. I mean, you wouldn't start cutting your baby's appendix out just because there's a slim chance it may get infected at some later point in life, would you?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Let me ask you, then. Would you rather have just your foreskin snipped off or would you rather have the entire glans removed (or, depending on who's doing the cutting, the entire penis)?

Please explain the relevance of that question.

Why don't you educate yourself on exactly what is the horror of FGM before trying to come in here and tell me it's "OK"?
I know quite a lot about it. What I am questioning is your ridiculous earlier post claiming that it is different from circumcision because:
a) circumcision has been practiced for a very long time.
b) circumcision is harmless whereas FGM is life threatening.

How many of the estimated 80% of girls in central Africa who get mutilated in this fashion are in hospitals?
I don't know. Do you?
How many of the boys who get circumcised in Africa are in hospitals (or dead)? Do you know? Please provide statistics before claiming one is worse than the other in terms of medical risk.

If you're lucky, maybe the blade will be sharp that day and maybe you won't bleed to death. Analgesics? Anesthesia? Antibiotics? Forget it.
Same applies to boys.

Compared to FGM, getting male circumcision is like getting a haircut.
In terms of pain experienced and medical risk, they are about the same until you prove otherwise.

What is your opinion on eunuchs?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Tell that to the World Health Organization. Circumcision has reduced the transmission of HIV in central Africa where it was pushed starting in the 80s.

Did you read the WHO paper at all?

Castration would be even more effective. Of course at the same time, religious nuts were going around telling everyone that using condoms is a sin - and even worse, trying to stop people from distributing condoms so they couldn't get them even if they wanted to.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Tell that to the World Health Organization. Circumcision has reduced the transmission of HIV in central Africa where it was pushed starting in the 80s.

Did you read the WHO paper at all?

How effective is FGM at reducing the spread of AIDS? After all, one of the reasons given for having it done is it reduces the chances of women having affairs (or so it is claimed).

Originally posted by Suzianne
Tell that to the World Health Organization. Circumcision has reduced the transmission of HIV in central Africa where it was pushed starting in the 80s.

Did you read the WHO paper at all?

As been said/implied by C Hess and twhitehead, we don't perform surgery on each and every boy just because there's a chance of AIDS later in life.

Do we remove everyone's appendix just to be sure? How about tonsils? How about we medicate young girls to stop the growth of breasts? No more breast cancer!

It's great that AIDS in Africa has been in decline, but there are far better ways of stopping this epidemic. Not even mentioning the danger of people thinking that circumcision will make you immune to AIDS.

How you considered the possibility that you are defending male circumcision so much because you are drenched in a culture in which it is deemed normal? Much like many people would defend female circumcision.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
There's more -

[quote]Hammond's (1997) sample of circumcised men reported emotional harm (83% ), physical harm (82% ), general psychological harm (75% ), and low self-esteem (74% ). The circumcised men frequently reported feeling mutilated (62% ), unwhole (61% ), resentful (60% ), abnormal/unnatural (60% ), that one's human rights had been infringed ( ...[text shortened]... done'? Throwing it back at ya, here you go. Educate yourself.

http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm

You know, I really should have expected this due to the huge numbers of European men in here. Europe has some of the lowest rates of circumcision of anywhere in the world, along with most of Asia.

Of those who get circumcised as newborns, I defy you to find any link to these kinds of numbers for these things. These numbers border on the ridiculous for those circumcised as newborns.

Either that, or Europeans are just wusses. Or maybe convinced by attorneys that they "have a case".

Originally posted by Suzianne
You know, I really should have expected this due to the huge numbers of European men in here. Europe has some of the lowest rates of circumcision of anywhere in the world, along with most of Asia.

Of those who get circumcised as newborns, I defy you to find any link to these kinds of numbers for these things. These numbers border on the ridiculous for ...[text shortened]... er that, or Europeans are just wusses. Or maybe convinced by attorneys that they "have a case".

thats nothing, there is a biblical account when they Israelites get circumscribed with flint knives, ouch!

Originally posted by Great King Rat
How you considered the possibility that you are defending male circumcision so much because you are drenched in a culture in which it is deemed normal? Much like many people would defend female circumcision.

I don't know anyone who would defend FGM. I can't see how anyone who would call themselves human would condone this procedure.

By comparison, male circumcision is many orders of magnitude less of a deal.

I could see your reaction to it if it resulted in half to all of the penis being amputated. That's really the only way you could compare male circumcision to FGM. As it is, it's nothing. And I have yet to hear anyone who was circumcised as a newborn complaining about it now.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You know, I really should have expected this due to the huge numbers of European men in here. Europe has some of the lowest rates of circumcision of anywhere in the world, along with most of Asia.

Of those who get circumcised as newborns, I defy you to find any link to these kinds of numbers for these things. These numbers border on the ridiculous for ...[text shortened]... er that, or Europeans are just wusses. Or maybe convinced by attorneys that they "have a case".

I don't really see what your xenophobic slur against European men has to with anything. This was a poll of American men. Also, 94% of the men questioned in this poll were circumcised in infancy, before the age of 1.

Now what evidence do you have to back up your claim that 'almost all men who were circumcised are glad it was done'?

Originally posted by Suzianne
I don't know anyone who would defend FGM. I can't see how anyone who would call themselves human would condone this procedure.

By comparison, male circumcision is many orders of magnitude less of a deal.

I could see your reaction to it if it resulted in half to all of the penis being amputated. That's really the only way you could compare male circu ...[text shortened]... thing. And I have yet to hear anyone who was circumcised as a newborn complaining about it now.

I would not know how it would be like not to be circumcised. So, why would I complain about it now?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
There's more -

[quote]Hammond's (1997) sample of circumcised men reported emotional harm (83% ), physical harm (82% ), general psychological harm (75% ), and low self-esteem (74% ). The circumcised men frequently reported feeling mutilated (62% ), unwhole (61% ), resentful (60% ), abnormal/unnatural (60% ), that one's human rights had been infringed ( ...[text shortened]... done'? Throwing it back at ya, here you go. Educate yourself.

http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm

You have used two completely different sources here.

The first two quotes you provided in two separate posts were both from the same paper reporting the survey. It can be found here: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2001_Bensley-Boyle.pdf

The respondents of this survey were Australian, not American. Granted, the second quote is talking about the second poll, but it appears in the first paper.



The last link you provide is a website about this second, separate poll taken of Americans. The very first paragraph of this site seems to make male and female circumcision equal, which they are not. It seems they have a horse in the race. Let's be clear here. This page came directly from the British Journal of Urology. Later in the page it mentions that the page was earlier printed in "Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy [Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Sexual Mutilations, Lausanne 1996]". Of course, we know that Lausanne is in the French-speaking part of Switzerland.

The bias is clear. The writer, probably British (I don't know for sure, I cannot find a "T. Hammond" with the background necessary for such a paper on the web), clearly believes male circumcision is tantamount to "mutilation". Even the name of the website, NOHARMM, stands for "National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males". Calling it "mutilation" is hyperbole at its finest, especially considering "female genital mutilation" is much more severe. They are trying to either downplay FGM or to overemphasize the severity of male circumcision, perhaps both.

I know, let's ask Mr. Hinds, who seems to be offering his status as a circumcised male. How about it, Ron? Do you feel "mutilated"?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I don't really see what your xenophobic slur against European men has to with anything. This was a poll of American men. Also, 94% of the men questioned in this poll were circumcised in infancy, before the age of 1.

Now what evidence do you have to back up your claim that 'almost all men who were circumcised are glad it was done'?

Purely anecdotal. I don't hand out "exit surveys".

😠

Originally posted by Suzianne
I don't know anyone who would defend FGM. I can't see how anyone who would call themselves human would condone this procedure.

Would it be OK if it was carried out on newborns under anesthesia?

So far every one of your arguments supporting male circumcision would also support female circumcision if carried out by medical professionals on newborns under anesthesia. So you must have some other objection that you are not willing to talk about.

I could see your reaction to it if it resulted in half to all of the penis being amputated.
Why?
Would that change the fact that male circumcision has been carried out for thousands of years?
Would it change the number of associated deaths?
Would it change the amount of pain experienced in the operation?
Would it change efficacy of it as an HIV preventative?
Which of your arguments in support of male circumcision would be changed?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Purely anecdotal. I don't hand out "exit surveys".

😠

I think you will find that men who are ashamed of the state of their penis, are unlikely to tell you so.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Calling it "mutilation" is hyperbole at its fine...

http://i.word.com/idictionary/mutilate

Seems to be the perfect word. You can't undo it (so irreperable damage), and let's face it - the dick is left in an imperfect state. I mean the surprise element is just gone. It most certainly is a mutilation. But personally, I have no objection to grown men carving away their foreskins. Whatever floats your boat, right? It's when helpless little babies are tortured that gets me. Call me a wuss, but I find it repulsive - the idea of inflicting unnecessary pain on little children against their will.