Circumcision ?

[MVP]

It appears you do't know what vestigial means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigal. If you know what it means and still think the foreskin is not vestigial than I can no longer help you. There is a certain IQ I refuse to speak beneath and unfortunately you fit below that threshold.[/url]

Dude, you are the one with no IQ at all and needing help here. I love how you utterly ignoring every evidence and recommendations from all medical organizations all over the world except biased money driven AAP. You never addressed numerous positive functions and benefits of foreskin either.
And I know perfectly what vestigial is, you don't need to post links which actually make you look like an idiot. Foreskin is not vestigial by any definition.
You such a pathetic hypocrite, so 2000 old Jewish philosopher's opinion can be ignored as "non scientific" yet barbaric religious ritual which originated more then 5000 years ago is somehow justified as scientific in your twisted mind.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think you could argue that foreskin is vestigial. You could also argue it serves a valid purpose and therefore is not.

 

[MVP]

It appears you do't know what vestigial means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigal. If you know what it means and still think the foreskin is not vestigial than I can no longer help you. ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

Your bellowed Wikipedia article does not mention foreskin as vestigial. Only idiot like you could ever consider it as vestigial - it does not fit any definition of vestigiality - there is neither loss of function nor decrease is size.

 

[Siro]

If we could only start rejecting "I've been told that's what god wanted" argument, many of these debates would be instantly resolved.

The issue of whether foreskin is vestigial (obviously not) is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you're performing a serious surgical procedure on a non-consenting person in order to permanently alter their body to fit some arbitrary cultural or religious standards. I don't see how such behavior can be justified using any objective moral perspective.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

Your bellowed Wikipedia article does not mention foreskin as vestigial. Only idiot like you could ever consider it as vestigial - it does not fit any definition of vestigiality - there is neither loss of function nor decrease is size.

I never stated Wikipedia lists foreskin as vestigial, you did complete strawman fallacy i linked Wikipedia for an explanation of what vestigial means. I suggest you read this because you keep repeating fallacies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

[The Blue Elephant]

If we could only start rejecting "I've been told that's what god wanted" argument, many of these debates would be instantly resolved.

The issue of whether foreskin is vestigial (obviously not) is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you're performing a serious surgical procedure on a non-consenting person in order to permanently alter their body to fit some arbitrary cultural or religious standards. I don't see how such behavior can be justified using any objective moral perspective.

Not once have I used the argument "god told me to do it therefore we should do it." I have argued because of the overwheliming scientific data in favor of circumcision. I obviously linked much stronger scientific evidence than what is presented against me. Obviously you and AKMVP will disagree due to your inability to analyze science and are psuedo scholars/scientists. I suggest you to read and think before you reply Siro because you clearly have not done this. You guys are in deep confirmation bias of "religion is bad, religion does circumcision, therefore circumcision is bad."

 

[Gameface]

Not once have I used the argument "god told me to do it therefore we should do it." I have argued because of the overwheliming scientific data in favor of circumcision. I obviously linked much stronger scientific evidence than what is presented against me. Obviously you and AKMVP will disagree due to your inability to analyze science and are psuedo scholars/scientists. I suggest you to read and think before you reply Siro because you clearly have not done this. You guys are in deep confirmation bias of "religion is bad, religion does circumcision, therefore circumcision is bad."

You continue to dodge the fact that foreskin is functional...

 

[MVP]

i linked Wikipedia for an explanation of what vestigial means. [/url]

Which explains why foreskin is not vestigial. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

 

[MVP]

Not once have I used the argument "god told me to do it therefore we should do it." I have argued because of the overwheliming scientific data in favor of circumcision. I obviously linked much stronger scientific evidence than what is presented against me.

Single AAP statement ( which does not even recommend it!) vs numerous from World Health Organization and multiple medical organizations from all over the world. Anybody can see that overwhelming medical world majority is against circumcision - yet you continue to ignore it.

 

[Siro]

Not once have I used the argument "god told me to do it therefore we should do it." I have argued because of the overwheliming scientific data in favor of circumcision. I obviously linked much stronger scientific evidence than what is presented against me. Obviously you and AKMVP will disagree due to your inability to analyze science and are psuedo scholars/scientists. I suggest you to read and think before you reply Siro because you clearly have not done this. You guys are in deep confirmation bias of "religion is bad, religion does circumcision, therefore circumcision is bad."

I wasn't specifically talking about you, but it's hard to imagine many pro-circumcision arguments that aren't inspired by religiosity. Looking at the scientific evidence presented in this thread, it appears you are seriously outnumbered. ml66uk provided more reputable evidence against circumcision in one post than you have this entire thread. But again, such arguments are irrelevant. They are similar to the silly debate on whether homosexuality is "natural".

The problem with the scientific debate is that each side is trying to justify what they already believe for other reasons. This question is better understood if we imagine that circumcision is not a common practice, and we're evaluating whether we should perform the procedure for the first time. The uncircumcised state is the default one. All babies come that way. Had you never heard of the practice, would you ask the doctor to circumcise your infant based on the scientific evidence you presented?

 

[LogGrad98]

From what I have seen in my 100% thorough and exhaustive 10 minute search on google, circumcision is recommended by WHO in countries where there is a strong endemic risk of HIV and a few other such infections, but that other than in those areas it is not medically indicated. They note that is can result in a reduction of the incidence of certain types of cancer and infections, such as UTI, but that the instance of those conditions themselves are so small (<1% of all cancers that men are subject to and about that percentage of the population that are susceptible to UTIs) that the improvement is negligible at best, and that most often the risk of circumcision, even with those risks being admittedly very very small, is equal to or greater than any possible mitigation of other medical conditions, which still does not lower the risk of those conditions to 0. Again the articles I read showed that this is a much bigger issues in so-called "third-world" countries, where a lack of hygiene and clean water and living conditions already cause far more problems than circumcision will ever fix.

 

[MVP]

Had you never heard of the practice, would you ask the doctor to circumcise your infant based on the scientific evidence you presented?

Other way to look at it is to ask him - would doctors still do it at the same rate if they would not get paid for it? ( UK example shows it dropped to 0.5% rate after they stopped getting paid for it)

 

[LogGrad98]

So even from wikipedia you get this:

The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering neonatal circumcision as having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks to viewing it as having no benefit and significant risks. No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure.[7] Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and autonomy have been raised over non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.[8][9]

A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis of studies done on sexually active men in Africa found that circumcision reduces the infection rate of HIV among heterosexual men by 38–66% over a period of 24 months.[10] The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa,[11][12] where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV.[11] Circumcision reduces the incidence of HSV-2 infections by 28%,[13] and is associated with reduced oncogenic HPV prevalence[14] and a reduced risk of both UTIs and penile cancer,[5] but routine circumcision is not justified for the prevention of those conditions.[2][15] Studies of its protective effects against other sexually transmitted infections have been inconclusive. A 2010 review of literature worldwide found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a median complication rate of 1.5% for newborns and 6% for older children, with few severe complications.[16] Bleeding, infection and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited.[16][17] Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.[18]

And the biggest thing in most of the literature seems to be reduction of the chance of penile cancer. Yet from the penile cancer wikipedia page:

Circumcision—Some studies show that circumcision during infancy or in childhood may provide partial protection against penile cancer, but this is not the case when performed in adulthood.[19] It has been suggested that the reduction in risk may be due to reduced risk of phimosis;[11][19] other possible mechanisms include reduction in risk of smegma and HPV infection.[11] Several authors have proposed circumcision as a possible strategy for penile cancer prevention;[1][16][20] however, the American Cancer Society points to the rarity of the disease and notes that neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommend routine neonatal circumcision.[11]

So there is hardly any overwhelming evidence of circumcision being the best thing for penile health.

 

[LogGrad98]

Other way to look at it is to ask him - would doctors still do it at the same rate if they would not get paid for it? ( UK example shows it dropped to 0.5% rate after they stopped getting paid for it)

While I agree that circumcision itself is at best an option procedure with no real problems either way, I think this argument is silly. How much would you do at work when you were told you wouldn't be paid for it anymore? Every doctor faces this decision in their negotiations with insurance companies and it has as much to do with economics as the well-being of the patient. I am sure if you told an oncologist he wouldn't be paid for administering chemotherapy anymore what you would see is oncologists leaving the field rather than eating what is often 6-figure costs for each patient and putting themselves in the poor-house to make sure their patients get the best care possible.

So of course for a procedure like circumcision, which has no overwhelming benefits, if you stop paying them they stop doing them. But that in and of itself does not mean that none of those doctors think it is an important procedure.

 

[Deleted member 848]

There is no reasons besides religious to do it. Period.

circumcised dicks look better. Pls refer to franklin's sig. TIA.

 

[Siro]

circumcised dicks look better. Pls refer to franklin's sig. TIA.

Aesthetics are subjective and mostly based on familiarity. I myself am circumcised (duh, Muslim family), but I CERTAINLY won't have any potential children of mine cut.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Aesthetics are subjective and mostly based on familiarity. I myself am circumcised (duh, Muslim family), but I CERTAINLY won't have any potential children of mine cut.

Dude. Eww. Foreskin = gross.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I'll probably have my kids cut cuz its a cultural thing, and it worked well for me and I'm glad my parents did it pour moi. I completely sympathize with-- and understand the other side of the spectrum.

I'm happy that we all have the ability to choose this sort of thing-- and one option isn't forced onto us all.

Good day.

 

[MVP]

I'm happy that we all have the ability to choose this sort of thing-- and one option isn't forced onto us all.
.

But aren't you forcing it upon your kid? Why not wait until he is 18 and let him decide by himself?

 

[MVP]

I'll probably have my kids cut cuz its a cultural thing,

Theoretical question - just what if you will fall in love and marry a Sikh girl and she would be against it because of her religion? Would you compromise?