Bogus Evidence That Male Circumcision Prevents HIV Spread
- Thread starter efields
- Start date
Third_Density_Resident
Jedi Council Member
I agree with the above three posts. I find circumcision is a barbaric, unnecessary practice. Any so-called scientific evidence which suggests it should be done routinely is warped and corrupted, either knowingly or unknowingly (I tend to favour knowingly). I almost feel as if those arguing in its favour do so with the aid of paramoralisms, if that makes any sense.
I hear that people don't get ear infections if you cut off the ears and scoop out the ear drums as a baby. Perfectly sane, practical, and healthy preventive measures against future ear infections. Yep. Also, the best way to prevent corns, warts, and athletes foot? Chop em off! 100% effective. Don't need to bother with the anesthetic, though. Babies don't remember that far back anyways.
greendestiny
A Disturbance in the Force
From my own observations of my body, the foreskin does represent an actual hygiene issue.
greendestiny said:
Circumcision might help hygiene but it seems a small gain compared to the trauma experienced by the child during this mutilation.
Unfortunately this trauma happened a long time ago (usually during early childhood) and adults have suppressed/erased this terrible memory making themselves believe it's was not a big deal.
So emphasizing a small gain (hygiene) over a huge loss (trauma and suffering) is a form of paramoralism. A bit like a torturer cutting the feet of one of his victim and presenting it as a positive deed since it will reduce the socks/shoes budget.
greendestiny
A Disturbance in the Force
I've seen a documentary that attempts to recreate the conditions present at Guantanamo camp. Volunteers play the 'inmates' and may quit when they wish, if they can't stand the abuse any longer. One of them is a young male Muslim (~25 years old), and at a certain hour, when he needs to ritually wash himself, he uses dirt. Later on, he explains that 'this indeed is allowed, when water is not available'. To him, the concept of 'being clean' is more important than the real cleanliness.Belibaste said:
greendestiny
A Disturbance in the Force
'Real' = "verifiable by others".Azur said:
I was quite shocked to hear that "routine circumcision" was practiced in the US - wasn't aware of that. Being from European origins I am used to circumcision as "medically indicated", Now this probably leaves the door open to interpretation as well ... what exactly is "medically indicated"?
The short answer is "phimosis" ... which is a narrowing of the foreskin such that complications from that arise. I myself had a partial circumcision at age 20 - on my request, due to phimosis. This was performed under local anaesthesia by a competent surgeon - still VERY unpleasant, not so much the procedure itself, but the approximately one week following. This may have had traumatic effects on me and may have reduced feeling in the glans of the penis - but I just didn't have any choice. Or maybe this is an other situation alltogether - not entirely sure.
But I think that ANY unnecessary medical procedure is to be condemned, as there is always a risk of complications - no matter how careful and experienced the medical team involved. And this is even more true if the "patient" is a child, who has no say in that.
The short answer is "phimosis" ... which is a narrowing of the foreskin such that complications from that arise. I myself had a partial circumcision at age 20 - on my request, due to phimosis. This was performed under local anaesthesia by a competent surgeon - still VERY unpleasant, not so much the procedure itself, but the approximately one week following. This may have had traumatic effects on me and may have reduced feeling in the glans of the penis - but I just didn't have any choice. Or maybe this is an other situation alltogether - not entirely sure.
But I think that ANY unnecessary medical procedure is to be condemned, as there is always a risk of complications - no matter how careful and experienced the medical team involved. And this is even more true if the "patient" is a child, who has no say in that.
Brenda86
Jedi Master
I know this is an old thread, but I always find it interesting when people use hygiene as a reason to circumcise a male infant, citing lower rates of UTIs but fail to mention that even UNcircumcised males will see many fewer UTIs throughout their lifetime than females.
I suppose by failing to mention this fact many people can continue to justify the slight hygienic benefit, as most people are already appalled by female genital cutting and so do not like to hear the comparisons. If you were to tell someone who circumcised their son that you are cutting your daughter because it will reduce her rate of UTIs, they will balk at you for your barbarism and yet they've done the very same thing to their son! It blows my mind!
Luckily, boy or girl, I've already had this conversation with my partner and we will NOT be circumcising a son if that is what we have this time. My heart sinks thinking about little babies being subjected to such a painful thing at such a tender age - and in the US its almost immediately after the already traumatic birth process when the baby needs warmth, milk, and love - not to have a piece of its body cut off!!
I already know many family members on my partner's side are going to have a lot to say about it. I may try to explain, but more likely, as I doubt they will really be ready/willing to hear it, I will just tell them, "My research has led me to believe that the benefits do not outweigh the risks." and if anything further is said, "It's my child and my decision. End of discussion."
I suppose by failing to mention this fact many people can continue to justify the slight hygienic benefit, as most people are already appalled by female genital cutting and so do not like to hear the comparisons. If you were to tell someone who circumcised their son that you are cutting your daughter because it will reduce her rate of UTIs, they will balk at you for your barbarism and yet they've done the very same thing to their son! It blows my mind!
Luckily, boy or girl, I've already had this conversation with my partner and we will NOT be circumcising a son if that is what we have this time. My heart sinks thinking about little babies being subjected to such a painful thing at such a tender age - and in the US its almost immediately after the already traumatic birth process when the baby needs warmth, milk, and love - not to have a piece of its body cut off!!
I already know many family members on my partner's side are going to have a lot to say about it. I may try to explain, but more likely, as I doubt they will really be ready/willing to hear it, I will just tell them, "My research has led me to believe that the benefits do not outweigh the risks." and if anything further is said, "It's my child and my decision. End of discussion."
Just thought I'd add what I found while reading about circumcision and the HIV hypothesis:
So Dr. Valiere Alcena is credited with beginning this hypothesis in 1986. He's a North American doctor who said that the reason there were high amounts of HIV infections in Africa was because they were largely uncircumcised. What a stroke of genius, right? That led to digging up the old "foreskin is dirty" hypothesis and led to a number of studies and meta-analysis that found very little evidence in support of it all, due largely to so many confounding factors. From Wikipedia:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV
So, around 2005-2007 3 experiments were carried out in Africa. As I was reading I kept noticing that the studies were stopped due to ethical considerations. Sure. Well, according to _http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html the lead researchers in charge of the trials were all circumcision advocates. Also, though I haven't been able to find out for sure, it looks like those circumcised were advised not to have any sexual activity for 6 weeks in order to heal from the surgery. It looks like the other group was not given such a warning! Then the trials were cut short, perhaps before the number of infected individuals in the circumcised group caught up to the other group. Gross, isn't it? And this of course led to the mass circumcision of however many thousands of men who, it turns out, believed they were almost immune to infection. Lies, lies, lies. Thought I'd share.
So Dr. Valiere Alcena is credited with beginning this hypothesis in 1986. He's a North American doctor who said that the reason there were high amounts of HIV infections in Africa was because they were largely uncircumcised. What a stroke of genius, right? That led to digging up the old "foreskin is dirty" hypothesis and led to a number of studies and meta-analysis that found very little evidence in support of it all, due largely to so many confounding factors. From Wikipedia:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV
So, around 2005-2007 3 experiments were carried out in Africa. As I was reading I kept noticing that the studies were stopped due to ethical considerations. Sure. Well, according to _http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html the lead researchers in charge of the trials were all circumcision advocates. Also, though I haven't been able to find out for sure, it looks like those circumcised were advised not to have any sexual activity for 6 weeks in order to heal from the surgery. It looks like the other group was not given such a warning! Then the trials were cut short, perhaps before the number of infected individuals in the circumcised group caught up to the other group. Gross, isn't it? And this of course led to the mass circumcision of however many thousands of men who, it turns out, believed they were almost immune to infection. Lies, lies, lies. Thought I'd share.
Doctors Opposing Circumcision said: