Summations Only

How do you know the cleanliness issue is a myth?

My pediatrician told my parents to circumcise me so that it would be easier to keep the penis clean and avoid infections. You don't want bits of feces getting lodged up in there and its kind of a bitch to pull it back or swab it. I thought it was more about the kind of explosive shits that infants have that get all up in everything possible.

Little evidence to affirm it doesn't mean its wrong.And I'll go with this quote from your source:

quote:

---

In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

---

My pediatrician said to do it for cleanliness. It was my parents decision and they went with the doctor. Even without published scientific data, doctors make recommendations to their patients based on their own experiences. He was a good man and if he thought it was beneficial then I'll go with him. I don't think there was anything wrong done that anybody need to be blamed for. A surgery that almost everybody here does, that has been done forever, and that makes you more sexually appealing! Count me in

There's plenty of medical procedures done on children that they don't consent to. Many of them, like, say, immunizations, are ones that you don't want to wait until they can consent to do. In my case, circumcision was the same way. My doctor and parents saw a benefit that was not worth waiting for my consent on. It was done at infancy because that's when you're shitting your pants and having trouble keeping it clean. Waiting until the age of concent removes all the reasons for doing it.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : apalling spalling

And to the people who are comfortable in utelizing the procedure based on anecdotal recommendations from their doctor?Who are you to tell them they can't do it because you're not convinced that its worth it?

Well no, not you all by yourself. But if you're supporting outlawing it then you're saying that you have the right to tell people they can't do it. You not being convinced of the benefit is not a good reason for that. I don't think its mutilation nor that the children need to consent. But doctors do recommend it for non-cultrual and non-religious reasons.

That's more of a criticism of western medicine in general than circumcision in particular. You say its a "huge" problem... how so?I don't think medicine can nor should be constrained by good scientific rigor. You know, there's a reason doctors call it "practice" Its a decision for the parents with their doctor. That's fine, you should follow your doctor's advice. I'm not advocating that we do necessarily circumsize people, I just don't think you should be advocating outlawing it.

And when you get a disease that nobody has any idea what's causing, nor exaclty how to treat, are you just gonna wait around for the scientific community, or are you going to just follow your doctor's advice?That's part of the problem, we don't have either the data or the time to determine much scientific accuracy.And if you don't like the way a doctor is treating you, then find another doctor that you do like and can trust. If you doctor believes that your daughter needs to be circumsized and you make the decision to go along with it, then I wouldn't have any problem with it.

So far from you, I've seen that the science is clear that they have failed to affirm one particular good reason. That doesn't mean there isn't any. Too, it depends on what kind of reasons are good enough for you. If the parents and their doctor have a reason that is good enough for them, but has failed to be affirmed by science, then they should be able to move forward with it. No, that doesn't bother me at all, and I don't really see any good comparison between the outlawing of Female Genital Mutilation and your position on the outlawing of male circumcision. The outlawing of FGM had good reasons, and it was responsive to something new to the US. Too, it would be a better comparison if male circumcision removed the whole penis and/or "results in the occurrence of physical and psychological health effects that harm the (person) involved" legislation. Too, the law does allow it to happen if your doctor does these sorts of things and you have a good reason to.

The legislation for outlawing it was in 1996 and responsive to African immigrants who were performing FGMs, it didn't have anything to do with 19th centrury phycological claptrap.ABE:From Message 271: You could reject it by not circumsizing your own children.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

'Might be' is often reason enough for medicine. And the fact that its already routine makes me think we'd more need a good reason to stop rather than to continue.The decision is between the parents and the doctor. If the doctor thinks it might help, and the parents are good to go with that, then that's how the decision should be made. I don't see how those are comparable. Where do we have doctors telling parents that they should bind feet? Or deny blood transfusions? Or to use chelants for therapy in autism? Out of curiosity: Do you think infant ear piercing should be outlawed too? Why or why not? No, because FGM completely destroys the vagina and circumcision barely affects the penis. From an unbiased third perspective, I would honestly go: 'Holy shit, FGM is terrible! Circumcision? Not so much.' And that can be good enough. Maybe not for you, but its up to the parents and thier doctor. Anecdotal evidence from the doctor could be plenty to make this decision. If the FGM was just the removal of some excess labia, then it might be able to be justified. But scraping off the entire vagina isn't something I can imagine being justified in any way - and this is why they're not really comparable for me.

Hmh, I coulda swore the vagina contained the vulva... oh well. On the street, 'vagina' means that whole mess down there Yeah, I think so. That's what I'm familiar with and that's how I like it. It seems to be well thought out and works just fine. I don't see any good reason to move it from where it is. Scientific consensus has lead to bad times too. I only clicked on the 'American' links But they seem to agree with me:

quote:

---

...parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

---

quote:

---

...parents should be given very complete information about circumcision so that they can make an informed decision...

---

. I don't have any children. When I asked my mother why I was circumcized, she said that my doctor recommended it for cleanliness. When you're wearing diapers all the time and shitting your pants, you can get bits of feces stuck under the foreskin and it can get infected. Its easier to keep the penis clean if the foreskin is removed. Since we wear clothes n'stuff, so you don't really need it.I don't mean to be telling people that they should be circumcizing their kids and I don't have any problem with people who want to stop doing it, or even people who want to try to convince other people to stop doing it. I'm just against outlawing it. The doctors should be advising what they believe is best for the individual in the particular case. I wouldn't advocate turning them into droids that recite stock phrases like that.

Huh? We didn't start it.. No, its not only the doctor. Its the parents decision and they should be following their doctors advice. That's just how we do medicine 'round here. Okay, and I don't think we should be comparing male circumcision to FGM. It could be better I think your argument could be used against ear piercing too. I misspoke about the vagina. I was thinking vulva. To me, Female Genital Mutilations is an African practice of removing most of the vulva... sometimes with a rock... just scraping the labia off. It fucking barbaric and terrible. I don't think that should be being compared to circumcision.If there's also female circumcision, where the clitoral hood is trimmed back or something, then I'm not sure about that one. I guess I'd have to hear the doctors case for why it should be done. I haven't seen a justification for outlawing that either tho. Required by law? I dunno. I think people should be consulting doctors for medical decisions. I don't think the particular reasoning of the parents is all that improtant as long as the child isn't being harmed. Yeah, I did. As I said to Mod, on the street "vagina" just means that whole mess down there. I should have typed "vulva". Chopping the whole clit off? No. Trimming the hood back? I suppose that could be justified, but I'd want to talk to the doctor recommending it.

Well, you yourself don't need a good reason to not circumsize your kid. But you will need a good reason to outlaw the practice, imho. I suppose you don't have to have one, but good luck with that Are there any other things that we outlaw just because there isn't a good reason for people doing them? I still don't feel like FGM has any place in this discussion. Are you not special pleading circumcision? But those aren't the reason why I was circumcised. They're irrelevant to me. And I don't think my circumsicion harmed me, so that isn't really weighing in on my opinion either.I can understand why you don't want to, and/or won't, circumcise your kid, but I still haven't seen a good reason why it should be outlawed.

For me personally, the curcumsicion was intended to help during the infancy stage. You can't really do that if you wait until past infancy.