The debate "Should infant mutilation be allowed circumcision piercings etc." was started by
May 18, 2019, 12:01 pm.
By the way, JDAWG9693 is disagreeing with this statement.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 26 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
killer posted 2 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 6 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, hollieg and 6 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, killer, saad786, lukeluckynuke123, YEET, sssk, Potatochiper and 19 visitors disagree.
its alot of work debunking a video full of arguments, even one full of weak arguments. besides the thread where I volunteered for it, please try to paraphrase your favorite points. citing proof is one thing, but outsourcing your arguments is not fun.
warning, the video is medical grade and goes over procedures... it may be graphic in parts.
the pro/con segment starts at 10:29
I will reference a UCLA Health video titled "circumcision - indications, controversies, complications, and more" on YouTube. (sorry for absent link). a more professional video. UCLA Health is the name of the channel.
a much more boring, technically detailed, and intellectually honest, review.
also, it is just me or did he ignore the first 3 of 5 reasons and only focused on the cancer and HIV. most of the reason for circumcision is UTIs and the foreskin swelling
if my condom has an 80%chance of stopping hiv... that's 1/5 times that it will not stop it. having another 60% backup, sounds nice. it's not like condoms and circumcision are exclusive.
I think I'll stick to the actual medical studies that seem to nearly universally agree with it's small beneficial aspects and it's near zero risk
appendix has immune benefits, so even with the risk, there is benefit to keep it. the foreskin has some risk and almost no benefit.
he isnt even considering what the appendix does in the body. uber fail
also, if you get penile cancer, I dont think removing the foreskin will help you at that stage. I would prefer not to risk my penis.
you have to weight the risk to reward, and he did not accurately compare the risks. removing appendix/breast now vs later... obviously later. it's like paying $50 now or later. later.
removing foreskin now vs removing bigger, more important parts of a very important and beloved organ later.... that's very much different. would you pay 50 now or 5000 later? take my 50, that's how insurance works.
finally.found his medical arguments half way thru the video.
is he really comparing USA to Denmark? i always find it suspicious when people.use only a single example, especially an example that is so strange to the USA. Denmark is, if I'm not mistaken, a country with an extremely health population. great air quality, great diet, and a tiny population. the total opposite of USA. cancers have many variables, and although they lack circumcisions, the lifestyle differences like diet and exercise and close the gap. this is oversimplified.
if you look at the American cancer society page on penile cancer, the #1 risk factor is getting the HPV virus which directly causes the cancer.... and #2 is not being circumcised. while trying to look up data on penile cancer and circumcision rates of various, more populous, European countries, I found academic article after article linking penile cancer to not being circumcised.
and his analogy to the appendix and breasts is off base since those are easy to remove when they become diseased, and have major roles in the human body, whereas foreskin is just a flap of skin with zero complications to its removal, besides the default complications of any surgery (immediate infection/bleeding risk, no lasting risks).
hes not comparing apples to apples.
Nemiroff, here is a better argument than I could provide.
that's why there's vaccines right?
that is your right, but it is hardly an argument for change.
to add a bit of nuance, this is in no way an insisted technique. the cancer prevention isnt particularly high, like not smoking. the infection risks can be mitigated, and STDs are avoidable. it is beneficial, and the risk is low, but nobody is making a fuss about it like when parents refuse chemo. it is optional.
AlsoI haven't heard any serious complaints from the millions of people on whom it is forced. it seems mostly appreciated.
Okay, I will agree that causation is often the beat we can get in medicine. I would say, them, that the studies done are not enough to convince me.
literally all mental health drugs have zero evidence of causation. it is completely illegal and unethical to do experimentation on living human brains.
ALL mental health drugs have other uses they were originally created for, when scientists or doctors noticed a correlation with mental health relief.
to the person who thumbs it down...
are you saying you would withhold low risk treatment with a high correlation of benefit until impossible studies that noone will do, get done?
this is not theory, this is applied medicine. these treatments can help prevent illness and save lives. what possible moral justification do you have for withhold these treatments?
there is certainly evidence of positive correlation. you do know that most known carcinogens are mostly based of correlation. as with all things in medicine, it is impossible to control all the variables of a persons life, especially over many years.
if you have something with positive correlation and minimal risk, are you going to withhold beneficial treatment until impossible and unethical experiments are carried out?
I just, personally, don't see any evidence that there are positive effects from circumcision.
medicine isnt theoretical science. it is applied science. when finding direct causation is impossible or unethical, cautious correlation is enough. if you disagree you disagree with a many many many common medical procedures including all mental health treatments. as experimenting on human minds is very unethical and banned in most 1st world countries.
The cancer thing had almost everything to do with phimosis, not being uncircumcised. And, if there is no evidence for causation, then it isn't really evidence at all.
Also, just because not everybody will properly clean their child is not a reason to circumcise them.
causation is often difficult to prove in medicine due to the expense of long term studies and the impossibility to ethically control for variables throughout the human lifespan.
if a procedure has correlation with better outcomes and minimal risk, noone will do unnecessary, expensive, and ethically compromised studies.
if something is correlated with better outcomes and has few if any complications, it's a no brainer.
When I looked up the articles, from what I could tell, the cancer thing had mostly to do with phimosis and the STD thing showed correlation with no evidence for causation
not everyone will clean properly. also the benefits are more then just infection prevention, but also std and cancer prevention.
the risks are minimal and the same as with any procedure.
I want to.post a web md article titled circumcision basics as proof but cant copy and paste. please look it up.
There are no positive outcomes from circumcision. As long as one washes their child properly, it makes no difference. The male will, however, lose a great deal of sensation on the penis because of the procedure.
And, infants shouldn't be pierced because that is a procedure that the child did not/cannot consent to and is not a necessary procedure.
so i agree infants shouldnt be mutilated, I disagree with your (imo) exxagerated definition of mutilation.
piercing of a flap of skin is hardly mutilation, and Male circumcisions are medical procedures with positive health outcomes.... unless you consider every surgery to be "mutilation".
I do not, I think that's actually wrong.