Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pythian)
    Give yourself a break. This act has nothing to do with medicine and science. I'd much rather you say "I'm religious", and leave it at that.
    She has already admitted that she has longstanding cultural affiliation with routine circumcision, yet still expects people to believe that her support for it is purely pragmatic.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pythian)
    I am not aware of any legal cases going to court on circumcision so as to raise the legal issue.
    I'm not surprised. Empty rhetoric is not enough for legal case, reliable medical conclusions should be provided. Scissors and self-made definitions don't help.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I have explained so many times to you that there are associated benefits with male circumcision and the risks are minimal in comparison.
    The benefits are so minimal that bodies like the NHS and Medicaid refure to perform them as they consider the risks to outweigh any potential benefits.

    Also, you have agreed that clitoral hoodectomy (the physiological equivalent of male circumcision) can have benefits, so again, why do you consider one to be acceptable and the other not?
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Indeed.
    People by and large have circumcisions carried out on their babies and children for religious or cultural reasons and then when challenged seem to go 'yeah but apparently I saw someone on the internet say it's healthy or something'.

    It's an irrelevant argument, because it's not done for medical reasons and there is no urgent medical reason to have it done.
    Most people of an open & impartial mind are prepared to look at the evidence. It takes a while with somnambulant religious folk; but they usually get there.

    I think what annoys me most on this thread has been the dismissive, flippant & trivializing tone and attitude towards circumcision of boys. Female circumcision is quite properly received with revulsion and disgust. But, when directed at males, the idea that it might have long-term emotional/psychological effects is almost laughed off. Everybody knows it's designed to repress sexual pleasure and to disfigure the sexual organ. When people have facial burns, loose an eye, or undergo chemotherapy; the bulk of discomfort & suffering is not in the immediate surgery. As I said in a previous post; there is nothing unclean/wrong/mistaken/sinful with a man's penis and it doesn't need any readjustment. Circumcision critically defines a man & the manner in which he perceives himself and the act of sex. But, all they seem to consider is the immediate pain of an infant. That's it. It reminds me of Lady Ingram from Jane Eyre who casually remarked that children has no more feelings than a pack of dogs. Like talking to an illiterate brute.

    I hate to say this, but I've noticed most of this revolting stone-age "get over it" mentality seem to be a harem of female posters on TSR. They're disgusted at the indignity of FGM; but shrug off male circumcision.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    The benefits are so minimal that bodies like the NHS and Medicaid refure to perform them as they consider the risks to outweigh any potential benefits.

    Also, you have agreed that clitoral hoodectomy (the physiological equivalent of male circumcision) can have benefits, so again, why do you consider one to be acceptable and the other not?
    No I haven't
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    She has already admitted that she has longstanding cultural affiliation with routine circumcision, yet still expects people to believe that her support for it is purely pragmatic.
    I don't expect anyone to do anything. I know what I believe and I've given my reasons.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Did you ignore everything I said beforehand? The reason why all these studies are so FLAWED?
    Hold on.
    You presented three links to studies as evidence to support your argument.
    I showed that they did not, as they were about a different issue.
    You then claim that the reports are flawed??
    WTF!

    I'm guessing that you are probably quite young and do not have any experience with presenting an argument in a logical and academically rigorous fashion.

    What you are experiencing is what happens when you start with your conclusion (that non-essential circumcision is justified) and then try to manipulate observation (that it isn't) to fit.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Hold on.
    You presented three links to studies as evidence to support your argument.
    I showed that they did not, as they were about a different issue.
    You then claim that the reports are flawed??
    WTF!

    I'm guessing that you are probably quite young and do not have any experience with presenting an argument in a logical and academically rigorous fashion.

    What you are experiencing is what happens when you start with your conclusion (that non-essential circumcision is justified) and then try to manipulate observation (that it isn't) to fit.
    All reports based on sexual pleasure and sensitivity are flawed, I did tell you that yet you insisted I provide links.

    And ok :laugh:
    You've been debating with me for ages so why do you continue if I'm so young and inexperienced?
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    1. We test women because women have developed breast tissue and have an increased likelihood of developing breast cancer
    2. No it doesn't mean that they will get breast cancer, but they are more likely, especially as they age.

    Clearly medicine science have shown that circumcision has its health benefits
    For the sake of everyone's sanity, I think you should demur from making any more scientific declarations.

    Until you understand what a "syllogism" is, please confine yourself to religious scripture ...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pythian)
    For the sake of everyone's sanity, I think you should demur from making any more scientific declarations.

    Until you understand what a "syllogism" is, please confine yourself to religious scripture ...
    Ignore list
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by admonit)
    I'm not surprised. Empty rhetoric is not enough for legal case, reliable medical conclusions should be provided. Scissors and self-made definitions don't help.
    The legal matter would hinge on "religious rights" of parents weighed against the child's best interests. Our legal system is moving in the direction of the latter. Read the case I mentioned earlier. It's gradual affirmation of the supremacy of secular ethics in the face of superstition and ignorance (and the glacial rate of religious progress).

    I am studying law & jurisprudence, and I'm happy to debate the case law with you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Too much repetitiveness* and this has gone on for long enough. We will simply agree to disagree.
    *FGM has no benefits, so it is unnecessary.

    Centre for disease, control and prevention (CDC) support circumcision for health reasons
    Clitoral dehooding has benefits.

    The CDC opinion is based mainly on the African study of HIV transmission that has been called into question.
    More importantly, circumcision is not an alternative to condom use, so it should make no difference to infection risk. USA has the highest circumcision rate of any developed country (by a long margin), yet has at least double the HIV rate of countries with very low circumcision, like UK and Scandinavia.

    The map of countries with highest rates of circumcision closely matches those countries with the highest HIV rate!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preval...f_circumcision
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Clitoral dehooding has benefits.

    The CDC opinion is based mainly on the African study of HIV transmission that has been called into question.
    More importantly, circumcision is not an alternative to condom use, so it should make no difference to infection risk. USA has the highest circumcision rate of any developed country (by a long margin), yet has at least double the HIV rate of countries with very low circumcision, like UK and Scandinavia.

    The map of countries with highest rates of circumcision closely matches those countries with the highest HIV rate!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preval...f_circumcision
    What are the benefits?
    Cdc also mentions UTIs
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    All reports based on sexual pleasure and sensitivity are flawed, I did tell you that yet you insisted I provide links.
    So why claim that it does not lead to reduced sensitivity, if you claim that the source of that claim is flawed?

    Also, simply because a study relies on subjective data sampling, it does not mean that those studies are meaningless.

    And ok :laugh:
    You've been debating with me for ages so why do you continue if I'm so young and inexperienced?
    Think of it as a learning process. For both of us.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    So why claim that it does not lead to reduced sensitivity, if you claim that the source of that claim is flawed?

    Also, simply because a study relies on subjecting data sampling, it does not mean that those studies are meaningless.

    Think of it as a learning process. For both of us.
    I didn't claim that it doesn't lead to reduced sensitivity. I claimed that any study based on sensitivity and sexual pleasure is flawed. Despite this, you still asked me to link a study that argued against yours.
    It can't be meaningful if there have been several studies that all concluded differently. It cannot be meaningful if it is based on subjective human interpretation and not objective data.

    I haven't learned anything from you
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Ignore list
    In the flow & current of scientific logic & moral argument; why do the religious invariably opt for self-inflicted isolation ? It's a shame. When you're prepare to have a serious, honest & grownup conversation, let me know.

    Until then, your recommendation has been duly enacted.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    What are the benefits?
    Increased sexual stimulation, hygiene and aesthetics.
    Also, labiaectomy (labiaplasty) has benefits for some women.
    http://www.cosmeticgyn.net/blog/clitoral-hood-issues
    http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/labiapl...roduction.aspx
    So, as we know that male circumcision and and female circumcision both have claimed, but disputed benefits, as well as risks - why do you support one but not the other.

    Cdc also mentions UTIs
    The study I linked did not see the benefit as justifying the procedure.

    I think the CDC report should be taken with a pinch of salt. After all, it recommended routine circumcision for all males! Contrast this with all the European countries who see no medical benefit in routine circumcision.
    I'm sure the fact that circumcision in the US is a billion dollar industry (but one showing signs of shrinking) has nothing to do with the call for all parents to circumcise their boys.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I didn't claim that it doesn't lead to reduced sensitivity.
    CBA to go back and check, but I do know that you stated that you didn't claim STD risk as a benefit, but you then went on to claim reduced STD risk as a benefit. :rolleyes:

    It cannot be meaningful if it is based on subjective human interpretation and not objective data.
    Which shows how much you understand about statistical surveys.

    I haven't learned anything from you
    Your responses have been quite enlightening.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    So the way to defeat MRSA is to cease all circumcision operations?
    Well that's not the point I was making as I'm sure you are aware, but yes, fewer unnecessary surgeries can only be a good thing in tackling super bugs.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Increased sexual stimulation, hygiene and aesthetics.
    Also, labiaectomy (labiaplasty) has benefits for some women.
    http://www.cosmeticgyn.net/blog/clitoral-hood-issues
    http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/labiapl...roduction.aspx
    So, as we know that male circumcision and and female circumcision both have claimed, but disputed benefits, as well as risks - why do you support one but not the other.

    The study I linked did not see the benefit as justifying the procedure.

    I think the CDC report should be taken with a pinch of salt. After all, it recommended routine circumcision for all males! Contrast this with all the European countries who see no medical benefit in routine circumcision.
    I'm sure the fact that circumcision in the US is a billion dollar industry (but one showing signs of shrinking) has nothing to do with the call for all parents to circumcise their boys.
    There's no need for a newborn to have increased sexual stimulation. The risks includes pain during sex which is a pretty huge factor. It's mostly cosmetic as I said and the only health benefit is that is that the tissue would not become infected (doesn't mean that other parts of the vagina can't become infected) which is incredibly rare anyway in comparison to foreskin related conditions. An infection that arises from the penis (other than an std) is usually foreskin related. It doesn't prevent or reduce any health conditions or illnesses, therefore the only benefit associated with this procedure doesn't compare to the benefits of a circumcision.

    Nowhere does it say that this is a type of FGM though.

    'The guidelines do not outright call for circumcision of all male newborns, since that is a personal decision that may involve religious or cultural preferences, Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of the CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, told the Associated Press.'
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.