|
are you circumcised? (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
So, yes there are complications. But, for every one complication 6 urinary tract infections will not occur on boys how have been circucised. Sounds like a pretty good trade off to me. |
You are implying that a surgical complication and a urinary tract infection are inherently problems of the same magnitude. Urinary tract infections usually aren't any more of a problem than is a common cold. I'd rather risk that than have a doctor accidentally cut a bit too deep.
| quote: | | I am still waiting for someone to show me why it is beneficial not to be circumcised. |
Because the head of a dick is a rather sensitive membrane for which it is good to be covered in protective casing.
| quote: | | In the end it's called preventitive medicine. There are a number of conditions a circumcised individual will never have to deal with, all of which I listed before. Like any preventitive medicine proceedure there are risks, but with circumcision they are ridiculously small. Every year thousands get colonsocopies to prevent colon cancer, yet there are post-operative risks involved. Should all preventitive medicine with the slightest risk be banned? Circumcision has a low rate of complication for a huge amount of benefits. |
Since children upon whom this procedure is enacted are not consenting individuals, this sort of preventive medicine should be discouraged from being carried through. There is a low rate of complications, but there most certainly isn't a huge amount of benefits either. |
|
|
| starglider |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Well, since everyone is ignoring what I said before, I'll post again. First, the chance of complication due to a circumcision is 1 out of every 476 proceedures. Second, for every one circumcision complication, 6 urinary tract infections are avoided because of the proceedure.
So, yes there are complications. But, for every one complication 6 urinary tract infections will not occur on boys how have been circucised. Sounds like a pretty good trade off to me.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...00111074855.htm
I am still waiting for someone to show me why it is beneficial not to be circumcised.
In the end it's called preventitive medicine. There are a number of conditions a circumcised individual will never have to deal with, all of which I listed before. Like any preventitive medicine proceedure there are risks, but with circumcision they are ridiculously small. Every year thousands get colonsocopies to prevent colon cancer, yet there are post-operative risks involved. Should all preventitive medicine with the slightest risk be banned? Circumcision has a low rate of complication for a huge amount of benefits. |
Since you evidentally didn't read the article Arbiter posted, I'll quote it for you:
In the last fifty years, circumcision advocates in the medical profession have promoted various claims. The most widely used current medical claim for circumcision is that it decreases the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life. However, the UTI studies this position is based on have been criticized by other physicians, most notably by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). They concluded that the test designs and methods of these studies may have “flaws.” A similar study found no confirmed cases of UTI in intact male infants without urinary birth defects. Furthermore, the UTI defense of circumcision is weak, not just because the methods are flawed, but because the logic and reasoning leading to the conclusion are flawed.
The UTI studies do not justify routine infant circumcision for the following reasons:
Even according to the questionable studies, the overwhelming majority (96-99 percent) of intact male infants do not get UTIs in the first year. It is not reasonable to subject them to circumcision and the associated pain without demonstrable benefit.
The studies do not consider the potential harm caused by circumcision. The rate of surgical complications is reported to be from 0.2 to 38 percent. (The higher rate included complications reported during the infants’ first year.) There are at least twenty different complications including hemorrhage, infection, surgical injury, and in rare cases, death. Other harm includes loss of the foreskin and behavioral consequences.
Circumcision involves cutting off normal, healthy, functioning tissue to prevent potential UTI problems in the future. There is no disease or infection present at the time of surgery. If we were to apply this principle in trying to prevent other potential problems, then we would be pulling healthy teeth to prevent cavities. Clearly, this principle is irrational.
UTI is treatable with antibiotics. If good medical practice requires the least intrusive form of effective treatment, then circumcision is not justified. Circumcision is a radical surgical treatment.
Females have a higher UTI rate than males, yet no doctor advocates genital surgery to reduce female UTI.
Most of these arguments would be applicable to any claimed medical benefit. Circumcision advocates can only make the dubious claim that an unlikely or rare condition will be less likely to occur in the circumcised male. This benefit is sufficient justification for many people partly because circumcision is a surgical procedure that is done on someone else. It is pertinent to ask: Would you voluntarily submit to an unanesthetized surgical procedure on your healthy genitals for this “benefit”? The answer is also evident from the fact that intact male adults are not generally seeking to have themselves circumcised. Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the flawed reasoning of supposedly reputable studies has contributed to the confusion on the circumcision issue.
Indeed, the medical community itself has acknowledged that it has not maintained very high standards in its published work. Researchers and authors Charles and Daphne Maurer cite an editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association:
In a study of 149 articles selected at random from ten widely read and highly regarded medical periodicals . . . less than 28% have sufficient statistical support for drawn conclusions.
Maurer and Maurer explain why so much “nonsense” is published: (1) Experimental design and statistical analysis are not typically taught in medical school; and (2) medical schools discourage questioning of authorities.
Our science is affected by our cultural values. Circumcision reflects a cultural value, and a principal method for preserving cultural values is to disguise them as truths that are based on scientific research. This “research” can then be used to support medical practices. This explains the claimed medical “benefits” of circumcision.
Blind acceptance of science and belief in “objective” reality is imprudent. There is no such thing as objective observation, because observations are made by people who have inherent theories and expectations about how things should be. Studies defending circumcision make this clear by ignoring vital information (such as the functions of the foreskin) that conflicts with observations, results, and conclusions.
Because it is unnecessary surgery, the burden of proof in the circumcision debate rests with those who advocate it. They must show that it is both safe and effective. Neither has been demonstrated. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
You are implying that a surgical complication and a urinary tract infection are inherently problems of the same magnitude. Urinary tract infections usually aren't any more of a problem than is a common cold. I'd rather risk that than have a doctor accidentally cut a bit too deep. |
The article says that of those complications, by far the most common was intraoperatal bleeding. That occurs in any proceedure, it just means you bleed. Yeah, if you get part of your penis cut off that happens, but I don't consider that a "high magnitude" risk. If you don't believe my cost/risk analysis, here is one from a Canadian research team, and one from the University of Michigan.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/to/
| quote: | | Conclusions: In Ontario, 23,000 infant boys are circumcised annually. Uncertainty about the medical indications and 3-fold risk of hospitalization from UTI supports the notion that neonatal circumcision protects infant boys from UTI, the relative risk is low compared to the relative risks of UTI reported by others. |
http://www.lib.umich.edu/taubman/re...choenEdgarJ.pdf
| quote: | Conclusions. Newborn circumcision results in a 9.1-
fold decrease in incidence of UTI during the first year of
life as well as markedly lower UTI-related medical costs
and rate of hospital admissions. Newborn circumcision
during the first year of life is, thus, a valuable preventive
health measure, particularly in the first 3 months of life,
when uncircumcised males are most likely to be hospitalized
with severe UTI. |
| quote: |
Because the head of a dick is a rather sensitive membrane for which it is good to be covered in protective casing. |
I agree, but unless you're walking around naked, I don't see this as much of an issue.
| quote: |
Since children upon whom this procedure is enacted are not consenting individuals, this sort of preventive medicine should be discouraged from being carried through. There is a low rate of complications, but there most certainly isn't a huge amount of benefits either. |
Ahh...so since children don't give consent, we shouldn't perform preventitive medicine on them? I think that would open up a very big debate, since children are unable to give consent. I guess we're just going to have to let a lot of children deal with their medical issues until they're 18. There go childhood immunizations, since the risk of acutally aquiring the illness is low in developed countries in comparision to the risk of complications from the immunizations. |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Ahh...so since children don't give consent, we shouldn't perform preventitive medicine on them? I think that would open up a very big debate, since children are unable to give consent. I guess we're just going to have to let a lot of children deal with their medical issues until they're 18. There go childhood immunizations, since the risk of acutally aquiring the illness is low in developed countries in comparision to the risk of complications from the immunizations. |
The thing is that it's not some banal common preventive medicine. It's cutting part of your dick, ffs. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by paranoik0
The thing is that it's not some banal common preventive medicine. It's cutting part of your dick, ffs. |
Again, no one seems to be ready ANY of the links I have posted giving the medical FACTS of being circumcised. I'm not going to repeat myself yet again. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by paranoik0
The thing is that it's not some banal common preventive medicine. It's cutting part of your dick, ffs. |
I suppose they should stop cutting the umbilical cord too? That's a part of you too.
Sorry, I'm not "pro-cut", I don't necessarily believe that it should be forced on infants, but your one-line arguments don't hold much water (and that goes for many people in this thread, not just you obviously). At least NeoPhono's backing up his position on this. |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| I find it ironic that serious topics are being hijacked and/or end up in flame wars while supposedly "fun" threads evolve into intelligent debates :eyes: |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
I didn't say there were no advantages of being circumcised. Though i reckon i didn't put anything to backup my argument.
Cutting part of your dick is very different from cutting the umbillical cord because it's a sexual issue and people are very picky about their sexual organs, it's something very personal. You won't see many people complaining nowadays cause someone cut their umbillical cords, nobody cares. But people obviously care about their dicks. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
The article says that of those complications, by far the most common was intraoperatal bleeding. That occurs in any proceedure, it just means you bleed. Yeah, if you get part of your penis cut off that happens, but I don't consider that a "high magnitude" risk. If you don't believe my cost/risk analysis, here is one from a Canadian research team, and one from the University of Michigan. |
Yes, bleeding is the most common complication, and it is not a high-magnitude risk, but there are some other less common complications that are a higher-magnitude risk than a simple UTI.
| quote: | | I agree, but unless you're walking around naked, I don't see this as much of an issue. |
Well, I dunno, even below my underware, my head feels kinda...unprotected when I retract the foreskin.
| quote: | | Ahh...so since children don't give consent, we shouldn't perform preventitive medicine on them? I think that would open up a very big debate, since children are unable to give consent. I guess we're just going to have to let a lot of children deal with their medical issues until they're 18. There go childhood immunizations, since the risk of acutally aquiring the illness is low in developed countries in comparision to the risk of complications from the immunizations. |
It is true that the risk of getting the infection is low (mainly because of the very procedure of vaccinization), but once you get those infections, unlike with urinary infections, the risk of death or severe consequences is very high. Besides, vaccination doesn't leave any permanent scars of the magnitude left by circumcision.
Oh, and a question for you, do you still have your wisdom teeth and appendix or did you have had those removed too? |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Oh, and a question for you, do you still have your wisdom teeth and appendix or did you have had those removed too? |
My wisdom teeth are removed and if I develop an appendicitis my appendix will be gone too. Both of those are far more invasive and far more prone to complication then a circumcision. |
|
|
| TranceSpeeder |
| ive never had sex before, but. wont my forskin flap back and forth while gettin a blowjob? thats why im so confused about it, on if i should really get this cut, im 17 and i dont know, i might have sex soon one day and i wanna know some . |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
You or your g/f can hold back your "flap" when you're getting a BJ.
This is not to scare you, but just make sure your "first" is someone that you care for (not that I would suggest otherwise for anyone). As I'm assuming she'll be American, and most American women have only seen uncircumcised men. That's all Americans see in porn, movies, etc, and also what the overwhelming majority of American men are. If you are with someone who cares for you the intial "shock" (if there is any) of an uncircumcised penis will be much easier to deal with.
And yes, this can be an issue as many of my friends that are girls have told me "horror" stories of the first time they encountered an uncircumcised penis. It's just a cultural thing (American) and most American girls prepare themselves to only see circumcised penises. I'm sure they get used to it though. |
|
|
|
|
