Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 60 of 60

Thread: Circumcision to be banned in San Francisco

  1. #51
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Circumcision to be banned in San Francisco

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    I wouldn't force somebody to have it done, but uncircumcised penii look like tapeworms to me. Or like the worm from "Dune", only lots smaller.
    hahaha penii! I had to laugh at that one.

    I think the correct word is penises or penes.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  2. #52
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Circumcision to be banned in San Francisco

    Your link is from Joe Blows website. He doesn't even cite sources. Does he just pull it out of his ass?

    Quote Originally Posted by theAngryAmerican View Post
    1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!
    Is there a point?

    Quote Originally Posted by theAngryAmerican View Post
    2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.
    I believe this is a lie and the rest is a misrepresentation:

    Please cite the source that says
    1) "Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection". How does that compare to non-circumsiced?
    2) "young adult circumcision gives a large degree of protection"

    Quote Originally Posted by theAngryAmerican View Post
    3 ... The Human Papilloma Virus thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse.
    That is interesting. Now can you provide a source for that info to verify it or are we supposed to take Joe Blows word for it that?

    Quote Originally Posted by theAngryAmerican View Post
    An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?
    source?


    According to VERIFIABLE research and not Joe Blows website:
    Meta-analyses by Van Howe[178] and Bosch et al.[179] of observational studies reached differing conclusions as to whether circumcision reduces infection with human papillomavirus (HPV)


    Quote Originally Posted by theAngryAmerican View Post
    4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

    A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.
    This appears to be the case except you go too far in asserting that the reason for higher infection is HIV thriving in the foreskin.

    From what I see its UNKNOWN why circumcised men have a lower rate of HIV reception.

    Quote Originally Posted by theAngryAmerican View Post
    5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.
    This does NOT appear to be the case:

    Studies evaluating the effect of circumcision on the incidence of other sexually transmitted infections have reached conflicting conclusions. A meta-analysis of observational data from twenty-six studies found that circumcision was associated with lower rates of syphilis, chancroid and possibly genital herpes.[185] A large randomized prospective trial in Uganda found a reduction in HSV-2 infection, but not syphilis infection, in the circumcision arm of the study.[180] In contrast, some studies have failed to find a prophylactic benefit to circumcision. A prospective trial in India found that circumcision offered no protective benefit against herpes simplex virus type 2, syphilis, or gonorrhea.[186] A clinical study of 5,925 women from Uganda, Zimbabwe and Thailand found that the circumcision status of their partner did not significantly affect the incidence of Chlamydia, gonorrhea or trichomoniasis.[187] Laumann et al. examined observational data from the United States and found no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.
    6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by theAngryAmerican View Post
    7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.
    Another misrepresentation by Joe Blow's source-less assertions:

    Here is actual data with sources from wiki:
    [I]The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: " there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene."[70]

    An inflammation of the glans penis and foreskin is called balanoposthitis; that affecting the glans alone is called balanitis. Both conditions are usually treated with topical antibiotics (metronidazole cream) and antifungals (clotrimazole cream) or low-potency steroid creams. Although not as necessary as in the past, circumcision may be considered for recurrent or resistant cases.[188][189] Escala and Rickwood recommend against a policy of routine infant circumcision to avoid balanitis saying that the condition affects no more than 4% of boys, does not cause pathological phimosis, and in most cases is not serious.[190]

    Fergusson studied 500 boys and found that by 8 years, the circumcised children had a rate of 11.1 problems per 100 children, and the uncircumcised children had a rate of 18.8 per 100. During infancy, circumcised children were found to have a significantly higher risk of problems than uncircumcised children, but after infancy the rate of penile problems was significantly higher among the uncircumcised. Fergusson et al. said that the great majority of penile problems were relatively minor (penile inflammation including balanitis, meatitis, and inflammation of the prepuce) and most (64%) were resolved after a single medical consultation.[191] Herzog and Alverez found the overall frequency of complications (including balanitis, irritation, adhesions, phimosis, and paraphimosis) to be higher among the uncircumcised children; again, most of the problems were minor.[192] In a study of 398 randomly selected dermatology students, Fakjian et al. reported: "Balanitis was diagnosed in 2.3% of circumcised men and in 12.5% of uncircumcised men."[193] In a study of 225 men, O'Farrell et al. reported: "Overall, circumcised men were less likely to be diagnosed with a STI/balanitis (51% and 35%, P = 0.021) than those non-circumcised."[194] Van Howe found that circumcised penises required more care in the first 3 months of life, and that circumcised boys are more likely to develop balanitis.[195]

    The American Medical Association states that circumcision, properly performed, protects against the development of phimosis.[13] Rickwood and other authors have argued that many infant circumcisions are performed unnecessarily for developmental non-retractability of the prepuce rather than for pathological phimosis.[196][197] Metcalfe et al. stated that "Gairdner[155] and Oster[198] made a strong case for leaving boys uncircumcised, allowing the natural separation of the foreskin from the glans to take place gradually, and instructing boys in proper hygiene. This obviates the need for 'preventive' circumcision."[199] In a study to determine the most cost-effective treatment for phimosis, Van Howe concluded that using cream was 75% more cost-effective than circumcision at treating pathological phimosis.[200]

    Quote Originally Posted by theAngryAmerican View Post
    8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.
    Another mispresentation that leaves out important facts:


    A meta-analysis of 12 studies (one randomised controlled trial, four cohort studies and seven case-control studies) representing 402,908 children determined that circumcision was associated with a significantly reduced risk of urinary tract infection (UTI). However, the authors noted that only 1% of boys with normal urinary tract function experience a UTI, and the number-needed-to treat (number of circumcisions necessary) to prevent one urinary tract infection was calculated to be 111. Because haemorrhage and infection are the commonest complications of circumcision, occurring at rate of about 2%, assuming equal utility of benefits and harms, the authors concluded that the net clinical benefit of circumcision is only likely in boys at high risk of urinary tract infection (such as those with high grade vesicoureteral reflux or a history of recurrent UTIs, where the number needed to treat declined to 11 and 4, respectively).[201]

    Some UTI studies have been criticized for not taking into account a high rate of UTI's among premature infants, who are usually not circumcised because of their fragile health status.[70] The AMA stated that “depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI," and noted one decision analysis model that concluded that circumcision was not justified as a preventative measure against UTI.[13]




    --------

    As with any medical procedure, the benefits must be weighed against the risks. So far AngryAmerican has only shown the benefits of circumcision and the risks of non-circumcision while conveniently ignoring or cherry-picking out the risks of circumcision.

    Circumcision is a fairly safe procedure if done by a qualified medical professional but there are risks and complications DO occur.


    Here are the risks of circumcision:

    * Infection, ranging from minor to life threatening.

    * Irritation of the exposed tip of the penis (glans) as a result of contact with stool or urine.

    * Permanent damage to the opening of the urethra, which leads from the bladder to the tip of the penis (meatal stenosis).

    * Scarring of the penis from infection or surgical error. For example: The entire foreskin may not be removed, leaving portions of it attached to the penis (skin bridge). This may cause pain during erection.

    * Scar tissue can grow outward toward the tip of the penis from the cut edge of the foreskin. Repeat surgery on the penis may be required to improve appearance or to allow normal passage of urine if the opening from the bladder has been blocked by this scar tissue.

    * The outer skin layer (or layers) of the penis may be removed accidentally.

    * An opening that is too small for the foreskin to retract over the penis (phimosis) can happen if too little foreskin is removed.

    * A complete removal of the skin covering the shaft of the penis, causing the penis to appear to have been completely surgically removed.

    * Too much bleeding. Stitches may be needed to stop the bleeding.

    * Partial or full removal (amputation) of the tip of the penis. (This is extremely rare.)

    * reduced sexual pleasure

    Circumcision-Risks

    Circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Overall, it appears the only rational reasons for circumcision are as follows:
    1) A young boy is highly susceptible to UTIs (such as those with high grade vesicoureteral reflux or a history of recurrent UTIs.
    2) you live in an area with an HIV epidemic where safe sex is not practiced or access to condoms is not available or limited.

    3) Its part of your religion.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761
    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    Commonly accepted genital mutilation as far as I can tell.
    I agree, it's so common and for some is a cultural decision. Should not be banned.

    Oh and anyone that suggests doing that when you're old enough to remember is either some kind of crazy or doesnt have a penis to mutilate. Female circumcision is a different story.

  4. #54
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Circumcision to be banned in San Francisco

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrannosaur View Post
    It should be the person's choice, when they become an adult (or possibly even a teenager) and they decide they want to mutilate their penis, then they can do so. Parents shouldn't force their infants to have it done to them at birth.
    Umm.. Why not?


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  5. #55
    Professor
    ElCid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-11 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,784
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Circumcision to be banned in San Francisco

    Originally, the accusation was that Jewish doctors established the practice as standard procedure in America, to eliminate circumsicion as a means of identifying Jews, in the wake of the Holocaust. I've been told that in anti-Semitic countries, circumsicion isn't SOP.

  6. #56
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Circumcision to be banned in San Francisco

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    It just seems kind of unethical to do something permanent, and optional(I'm not exactly sure of the medical benefits of circumcision, if there are any) to someone without their consent. But that's coming from a female, so take my word with a grain of salt.
    The problem I've heard about waiting until they are older is that there are higher rates of circumcision complications for adolescents and men as compared to infants.
    Last edited by scourge99; 04-28-11 at 08:24 PM.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Circumcision to be banned in San Francisco

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Umm.. Why not?


    Tim-
    So you strongly support a babys right to life but not to keep his dick intact? That's kinda funny.

  8. #58
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Circumcision to be banned in San Francisco

    I would back this 100% if it were for women and girls because that is barbaric, no to mention it's part a Cult ritual.

  9. #59
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,911

    Re: Circumcision to be banned in San Francisco

    Quote Originally Posted by dontworrybehappy View Post
    So you strongly support a babys right to life but not to keep his dick intact? That's kinda funny.
    I like the look better, i think it should just be personal choice of the parent. I mean, the majority of american women scream at the sight of an uncircumcised penis.

  10. #60
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Circumcision to be banned in San Francisco

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    I like the look better, i think it should just be personal choice of the parent. I mean, the majority of american women scream at the sight of an uncircumcised penis.
    I've never had a woman scream at mine until she felt it.

    I support this law, but it won't last a month until it's swatted down in court and everyone who actually believes in circumcision is going to go right out and get it done.

    This is a waste of taxpayer time and money.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •