BS: Circumcision: pros and cons

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 09:43 PM

"...I suggest making all forms of child abuse illegal and subject to prosecution as they are now in the UK..."


               It's not working. They still send children to church.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 10:09 PM

But what do you define as child abuse.

I'd nominate just about all the programming on these so-called kids channels on TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:27 PM

Then there is smacking, male circumcision, junk food...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:33 PM

My point being, when things need to get banned that has to be in a specific manner, and on the basis that they are harmful enough to justify a legal ban, not because they fall under some nebulous term like "child abuse" where the definition is going to vary in the opinion of different people.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:53 PM

Yeah. Besides, if everything that some bunch of loudmouthed, soreheaded, prejudiced people don't like got banned in this world...nothing would be legal. Absolutely nothing. We do not need more laws to restrict peopl'es choices.

I mention that not in defence of circumcision, but in response to Rinslinger's last comment. I make it in defence of all human beings' right to decide for themselves what they like and what they believe in...and their responsibility to leave other people alone so that they can made a similar decision on their own part, rather than clamoring for laws that will force everyone else to be like them and do only what they think is the right thing to do!

A society that legally banned people from attending the church of their choice would be just as despicable and dictatorial as one that made it a legal offense NOT to go to church. Societies that ban all religion have existed. Pol Pot's Khymer Rouge regime was one of them. Mao's initial experiments in extreme authoritarianism in China were another.

p.s. I don't go to church. That's my choice. I don't metaphorically spit on people who do either.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:56 PM

"...We do not need more laws to restrict people's choices..."

Amen. Especially where common sense, maturity, and taking responsibility for own's own actions and decisions is supposed to take over.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 04:16 PM

Child Abuse is not a "nebulous" term. It is the term used in the UK to describe when an adult harms a child or a young person under the age of 18.

Child abuse can take four forms, all of which can cause long term damage to a child: physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect and child sexual abuse.

Prosecutions for child abuse are heard in court and therefore subject to legal definitions and proof.

"Physical abuse includes hitting, shaking, kicking, punching, scalding, suffocating and other ways of inflicting pain or injury to a child. It also includes giving a child harmful substances, such as drugs, alcohol or poison. If a parent or carer reports non-existent symptoms of illness in a child, or deliberately causes illness in a child, this is also a form of physical abuse"

Might I remind you McGrath that you were the person to bring up the concept of "evil" Those people working to protect children from abuse also work with and aim to help the abusers too!

Now you folks who argue that we don't need more laws to restrict personal choice may I suggest you read some of the comments on the smoking threads!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 04:34 PM

"...and their responsibility to leave other people alone so that they can made a similar decision on their own part..."


                  That's exactly my point. Church goers should leave children alone and let them decide for themselves if they want to be brain washed.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:17 PM

By "nebulous" I mean that it is not always clear what it includes and what it doesn't include, and that this is liable to change over time. The relevant question should always be whether something does sufficient harm to children to justify legal sanction, not whether it can be characterised as in some sense constituting a kind of child abuse.

So, in this context, I would see it as wholly right for "female circumcision" to be illegal, but wrong for such a ban to extend to cover male circumcision as practiced by Jews and Moslems. That's based on a judgement about the balance of harm and good that such a ban would produce. (There are some forms of "male circumcision" for which a ban would certainly be appropriate.)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:25 PM

What "forms of male circumcision" should be banned, McGrath? Surely you are not referring to castration.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:33 PM

No. Look up incision and skinstripping on this site The Geography of Genital Mutilations

Human beings are sometimes pretty weird.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:35 PM

Emma, I have never suggesting making smoking illegal. I have merely suggested moving it outdoors where the smoke can disperse into the open air. That does not interfere with a person's choice to smoke or not to smoke. I have a good friend who is a smoker by choice, and she asks visitors to smoke outside, as she does, so that her own house won't smell like an ashtray.

I am also in favor of legalizing the smoking of marijuana, although I don't wish to smoke it, but I would likewise suggest that it be done outdoors, not inside buildings....because inside a building it affects everyone there not just the smoker.

I do not intend to take away anyone's right to suck smoke into their own lungs.

It is people's violent or destructive behaviour against others that we need laws against, and we already have all those laws. We have laws against theft, murder, assault, rape, property destruction, fraud, embezzlement, slander, arson....all of those are cases of a direct attack of some kind on another human being or their property...or an attack on society in general. Those are the laws we need, and we have them.

We do not need more laws that restrict people's free choice in matters that are NOT an attack on another human being or on society.

Rinslinger: If, as you say, "churchgoers should leave children alone and let them decide for themselves if they want to be brain washed"....Well, HEY.....then so should capitalists, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, atheists, heterosexuals, gays, conseratives, liberals, and everyone else who does anything that in any way influences the future thoughts and beliefs of their own children in such a way as to superimpose those thoughts and beliefs UPON their children...ahem! To brainwash them, in other words.

How are we going to achieve that? How are we going to end ALL brainwashing of children by people who, like all people, naturally want to bring their kids up in their own minset?   ;-) We AREN'T going to achieve it. And we shouldn't, because we have no right to. Therefore, forget it. Your beliefs, your philosophy, and your prejudices are no more sacrosanct than anyone else's....and your children may one day resent having had some of those beliefs and prejudices foisted on them when they were young and impressionable.

You never know...

(I say that because my parents foisted a lot of their beliefs and prejudices on me when I was a child. Naturally! That's what parents do to their children. They almost can't help it. It just happens. I later completely rejected some of their attitudes and beliefs, while I retained others. I developed independent beliefs of my own. Give young people the benefit of the doubt! Give them credit for having some brains of their own. Whatever their parents brainwashed them into when they were young, chances are that they will take a fesh look at it at some point as they move into adolescence or adulthood. If they do, fine. If they don't, it is no one else's business to pass a law forcing them to.)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 05:50 PM

And don't go singing those folksongs in the presence of your children, they might grow up liking them.

Though it might work the other way. And so might a refusal to allow your children to attend church. You can't avoid influencing your children, one way or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 06:14 PM

Yes! The pernicious influence of folksongs, foisted on innocent young minds, led millions of young people into horrible fates! ;-) I witnessed the human wreckage all around me in the 1970s. Matter of fact, I was part OF that human wreckage.

LOOOOONG hair! Cruddly old blue jeans with bell bottoms and holes in the knees! Belts so wide you could hardly handle them! BO and dirty bare feet! A pathological desire to avoid work! Deep and abiding prejudice against "straights", "suits", cops, older people! Rampant drug use! Tie-died shirts! Lining up for hours to watch the midnight screening of the "Rocky Horror Picture Show". My God, man, my blood runs cold when I think about it........

All this happened because our parents were allowed to brainwash us with their folksongs and their liberal humanistic propaganda.

There oughta have been a law... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 06:25 PM

"All this happened because our parents were allowed to brainwash us with their folksongs and their liberal humanistic propaganda."


                  And it had nothing to do with going to church?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 07:03 PM

Riginslinger, I was babtized and educated in the High Anglican faith. Brought up by an evangelical grandmother and entered a left wing organization by my own choice in my teens. I decided to train for Social Work in later life in order to help my fellow man after a career in chemical research.
I don't think I'm "special" in making my own decisions in life.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 07:05 PM

Emma - It looks like you saw the light!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 04:46 PM

Is the implication that there is some inconsistency between left wing politics and religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 05:42 PM

Screaming Lord Sutch used to have a banana in his stage act. He would hold it up and peel back a quarter of the skin and yell "one skin" another and yell "two skins, the third and yell "three skins", the last and yell "four skins", he would then let out a deafening scream and yell "circumcision", whereupon his band, the Savages who were dressed in leopard skins would come crashing in!!Just to get things in context among the religeous pontificatones!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 05:48 PM

No, Rinslinger, it had nothing whatsoever to do with going to church, at least not in my case... My parents were atheists, and so was I. I was a militant atheist, as a matter of fact, and very proud of myself for being so brilliant, too. ;-) Like most people of that youthful age, I knew everything there was to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 05:55 PM

"Is the implication that there is some inconsistency between left wing politics and religion?"

For some people there is...for some there isn't. It all depends on whom you talk to about it. The Left is not, by definition, a movement espoused only by atheists, although some leftists will swear up and down that it is. That's their presumption. It says something about them, not about socialism. Some of the most inspired socialists in history have also been people with strong spiritual beliefs, and Jesus' teachings, to me, sound a lot like radical socialism. (this in spite of the fact that rabid anti-socialists can be found among conservative Christians...big deal...doesn't mean a thing as far as I'm concerned. Anyone, no matter what their political beliefs, may or may not be inclined to belong to a religion or to have spiritual beliefs.)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 06:19 PM

"Is the implication that there is some inconsistency between left wing politics?"

Coulda written it like that, ya know!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 07:32 PM

Okay, back to the original thread...

I always figured (once I started thinking about it) that male circumcision as a cultural practice (USA, 1950s & '60s) was the medical industry's way of saying, "Do you want fries with that?" And came up with "medical" reasons to get the insurance companies to pay for it. By the way, when I was born in 1949, the hospital bill was $80.

As far as the religious use of male circumcision, it seemed to me to be ritual token sacrifice. And I wondered at its use by Christians since Christianity had thrown out the Jewish dietary laws, and other ritual legal requirements.

I've had both circumcised and uncircumcised lovers (before my marriage to Curmudgeon 25 years ago) -- and I really never noticed the difference. And circumcised and uncircumcised seemed to get the same amount of pleasure.

If I had had children, the males would not have been circumcised if I had anything to say about it. I never saw the point of a surgical procedure that seemed to serve no useful purpose but to enrich those who performed it.

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 07:39 PM

"the medical industry's way of saying, "Do you want fries with that?"


LOL!!! Right on, Linn. That's my key objection to it right there. Ditto with my objection to yanking out every kid's tonsils (once very fashionable) and yanking out every young adult's wisdom teeth.

They aren't things that are normally done because they need doing, they are industry add-ons, and lucrative ones at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 08:52 PM

Many of the old Jewish practices were based on sound health and hygiene principles at the time. Unfortunately, many of them (particularly the dietry requirements and those relating to contact with the deceased) no longer apply but nevertheless male circumcision does seem to have a correlation with prevention both of AIDS HIV and cervical cancers.

I don't think I ever suggested that left wing principles were in any way inconsistent with Christian principles, at least those that advocated loving thy neighbour as thyself.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,banjostring
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 09:29 PM

well, by that logic..

surely the most effective worldwide prevention for AIDS HIV and cervical cancers.

would be to take every single [& married] todger in the world

and chop it off at the balls...!!!!!!????????


nah.. I think sensible educated employment of soap & water and condoms

should be sufficient.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: robinia
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:41 AM

I thought about this a lot some forty years ago when my son was born and circumcision (in the US) was standard procedure. It was also assumed to be done -- and to have been done from time immemorial--for health reasons, something I had great difficulty in believing when I saw the bandaged penis and tried to imagine watching my son cut. Surely, I thought, the prople who first practised circumcision were motivated by more than a vague belief in the child's statistically improved future health. Surely, it MEANT something to them: an offering to God, a commitment . . . And what did it mean to me? That I'd gone along with what everyone else did.
   To be sure, that "everybody did it" was what my husband said; he never questioned the procedure; in fact, he thought that looking like other boys was quite sufficient reason for it (and of course looking like him). And I only belatedly questioned it--belatedly felt a coward.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 07:51 AM

There do seem to be health benefits, probably a lot more in the ancient world than now. Of course, there are studies that indicate an significant lower incindence of HIV AIDS in circumcised males in Africa than in non-circumcised populations.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:45 AM

The answer for STIs and STDs that are contracted through coitus is condoms. Circumcision is a different issue. There is statistical evidence regarding c vs non-c; however, it ain't much of a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,banjostring
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:13 PM

..so basically its accepted social & health planning..


that its preferable to predict


that millions of male babies
are so likely to grow up to be too stupid and unhygenic
to be allowed to keep the foreskins
that nature/god so foolishly trusted them with..!!!??????


ehhh..!!!!?????

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:21 PM

Basically, yes. Happy now?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:26 PM

GUEST,banjostring, the answer is really very simple. You don't want that done to your son, then don't have it done.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 03:42 PM

One advantage of our NHS is that there is no financial advantage for the medical profession in stuff like tonsillectomy and circumcision, so there is no incentive to encourage such procedures where there is no medical justification.

The evidence about circumcision reducing the risk of getting Aids is interesting - but it's worth noting that it's a statistical reduction, it appears to reduce the danger, but still leave the risk very high indeed for unprotected sex with strangers. Not a risk any sensible person would run. A bit like taking an extra bullet out of the gun when playing Russian Roulette, but leaving a couple in there - improves the odds of surviving a bit longer, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 04:21 PM

"French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine."

Ok I accept that a 70% reduction is "statistical" but it's an interesting statistic and worth not simply dismissing!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 04:28 PM

Mastectomies would also reduce the incidence of breast cancer significantly.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 04:38 PM

Of course not to be dismissed from a public health point of view - but not worth relying on for an individual. Anyone who said "I've been circumcised, I needn't worry about getting Aids" would have to be completely off their trolley.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 05:55 PM

'"French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus."'


                   I read that too. What am I missing? If they found it was successful, why would they call off the study?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:04 PM

"If they found it was successful, why would they call off the study?"

The study was designed to see if circumcision resulted in a reduced rate of infection by the AIDS virus. Since the data showed overwhelming evidence that it did there was no need to continue it. This is common practice where studies are undertaken to test the efficacy of a drug or treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:05 PM

Ethics! - they couldn't justify having a "control" group.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:05 PM

I think that the world doesn not care a damn about AIDS in Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:10 PM

There is certainly a lot of negative stigma attached to that disease. Some idiots out there still think it's "God's Judgement" on bad people.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:12 PM

Hell Cluin - someone preached our recent floods were an indictment on civil partnerships!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:33 PM

And some actually think God tells them to start a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 08:01 PM

It's no accident that Ronald Reagan and AIDS came upon the world stage at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 10:37 AM

And I'm listening to Screaming Lord Sutch (RIP)!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 09:13 PM

"And some actually think God tells them to start a war."


                      But given his credibility problem, why would they listen?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 09:26 PM

That's just them conveniently assuming that God is marching to the beat of their particular drum. What hubris! ;-)

Why blame such self-serving opportunism on "God"? Blame it on those who do it in God's name.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Aug 07 - 08:17 AM

I think it's important to get the sequence of events right. First they invent goD, then they do something in his name.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 07 - 07:59 PM

Yeah, that's true. They invent a God of their choosing and their design and their supposition. But that's not "God's" fault, is it? It's their fault.

Something that doesn't exist, Rinslinger, cannot be assigned blame. ;-)

Your quarrel is with other people, not with God.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 08:50 AM

Okay! I'll try not to quarrel with windmills either.