Perhaps ye Philistines should cleanse thyselves.

[LOCpunks]

Actually, all of the Abrahamic religions historically espouse(d) circumcision...EXCEPT Christianity. It's kind of amusing that you (Chefmike) are relating the issue to "Christian fundamentalism."

Frankly, in the medical world (and especially in 3rd world countries), circumcision shouldn't have anything to do with infant rights. With AIDS as rampant a problem as it is, and circumcision proven to be a significant and direct prevention technique to the spread of AIDS (and a host of other STIs), circumcision is quite necessary. The fact of the matter is, people do not use protection, and child prostitution is a way of life for many families. Even with circumcision, the dangers will never cease, and with education so ineffective in places like rural India, people are ignorant to the dangers. Even equipped with the knowlege, and with protection, HIV simply spreads much more easily with uncircumcised penises.

It's sad that here in America people are so hung up on rights that they'd rather see thousands and potentially millions die simply from ignorance. As much as some of you may think it is someone's "right" to leave their child uncircumcised, it is not their right to spread HIV and other invasive diseases to their children, spouses, communites. And that is simply what failing to circumcise (among other easily-done and cheap procedures to ensure future health in developing countries) is: a means to that end.

And SarahG, in many cases in developing countries, a mother bearing for the 3rd or even 2nd time can and often does mean death for the mother and often the child. A close friend of mine is a PHd researching this very subject - the effects of circumcision on the spread of HIV and STIs, as well as on the subject of women's medical rights in India. After much discourse with her, there is no doubt in my mind that forced tubal ligation in women is necessary. What you don't understand is that without it, they will keep birthing children until death. As soon as they give birth, they are impregnated again; this all leads back to the lack of condom use in India (and other 3rd world countries). As much as you educate, and as much as you try to spread awareness...it doesn't change the fact that without forced tubal ligations, you are condemning them to certain death. Impoverished, malnourished women are not fit to give birth time and time again. But it is NOT their choice to have sex. This is what you must understand. A woman there does NOT have the right to say no to sex or subsequent impregnation.

Like I said, granting these "rights" (to negate natal circumcision or to avoid tubal ligation) often means ensuring a patient's right to death. Not only their death, but the likelihood that they will keep spreading these invasive diseases.

[chefmike]

I could give a flying fuck about circumcision, or whatever religious cult supports it, LOC...this clown's idiotic bible-banging has established him as one of the american taliban that the chimp-in-chief bows and scrapes before IMO...and that's MY point... all religious fundamentalism(and perhaps religion itself) is a detriment to humanity, and it's also tax-fucking free.

[Rogers]

Here's a question for you, ARMANIXXX. If God didn't think Man having foreskin was a good idea, then why did he give us it? The simple reason is, that it's there for our protection, in case we get stung by a bumble bee there when we're naked in the Garden of Eden.

[panama_red]

Is ARMANIXXX serious about being religious? If the Bible is anything to go by he is heading straight to Hell for fantasising over t-girls.

[BeardedOne]

"... but I do have some intersexed cousins and am too fimiliar from the extreme of such consent violations; when a hospital and/or parent decides to force their child who is between sexes into one without waiting to see what gender the child has mentally... no one should arbitrarily pick an intersexed child minutes after birth and randomly guess a sex to "turn it into."

I briefly romped with an intersexed boifriend that frequently told me that "..the doctors are invariably wrong in their choice of gender for us...", so I can throughly understand this.

And before anyone says that the parents give their permission, there was a case in the UK many years ago concerning people who used an S & M club. One man was convicted of grievous bodily harm for using a sword to cut hs friend, even though the friend had given permission.

Was this the "Spanner" case? That was one sorely fucked up prosecution.

[tonkatoy]

I think there are many religious practices that have no grounds or reason seated in religion, but are more about public policy or public health. Muslims do not eat pork on religious grounds, but the real reason pork is forbidden is that swine need too much water to be raised in the desert. So instead of trying to get people to abandon a source of meat that was tasty but was a severe drain on scarce resources voluntarily, they made it a sin to eat.

There are many other examples, the catholic rosary was so that uneducated peasants people could follow the mass, which was read in latin. Also many aspect of kosher food and the jewish diet were inspired by a desire to not get trichinosis and other diseases. In these cases the practice has taken on a mystique out of proportion to its real importance. Maybe we could stop global warming by making carbon emissions a sin.

[LOCpunks]

Brilliant.

[LOCpunks]

I rolled my eyes because your post doesn't answer the question. The research of HIV/STD infections is only 20 or so years old. The whole circumcision practice goes back for more than 50+ to atleast 100 years. If the study is only research is only recent about transmission effectiveness, then what was the purpose circumcision practices 50+ years ago?

It wasn't for HIV/ AIDS because, they didn't know anything about that back then. So, your post doesn't make much sense to me.

If you read my response, I mention a few times about other diseases more easily transmitted when circumcision is not present. If I'm not mistaken, VD has been around for a hell of a long time. One of the original points of practicing circumcision 100-150 (give or take a few) years ago was to prevent disease. I thought this was common sense. So your reasoning here doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, I concentrated on HIV because it is has the most important application here, but I did not neglect to mention the effect of circumcision on STIs, which goes hand-in-hand with HIV transmission risks.

[LOCpunks]

That's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is; If the research is only a few decades old. What was the reasoning 50+ years ago? I'd like to see a link supporting your claims.

Are you really going to say STIs have only been studied for the past 20 years?

Circumcision Enforced by Law
By J.M. Vandavel, MD, Waco

(Read at Convention, Loue State Medical Society, Houston, June 25, 1889)

"While we agree in a measure with the statement that the world is governed too much by prohibitory or implied prohibitory acts, we must also agree in the fact that governments are organized, fostered and perpetuated for the general welfare of the constituency, individually and collectively.

It is the duty of the civic or municipal, state and national governments to look after the habits and customs of their citizens respectively, and direct in a legal way whenever it is apprehended, or discovered, that general prosperity is crippled, general health injured and the sanitary status are of such a character as to impede sanitary invironment [sic] and healthfulness; dwarf the civilian in physique and thought; degenerate robust muscularity and mental acumen, legislative action becomes s paramount as the quarantine to prevent yellow fever, small-pox, cholera Asiatica, and as absolutely necessary as the interstate commerce bill to prevent discrimination in freight rates and railroad travel; because these affect the general welfare."

"This proposition being granted as true, the question of the enforcement of circumcision is the one most needed to be discussed. That circumcision should be enforced by law only obtains in so far as we can show that consumption, scrofula, glandular enlargements, rheumatism, heart trouble and eczema are sequelae in any manner of syphilis. [3]

The transmission of syphilis is one of the medical axioms: i.e., syphilis often pure and simple in the offspring — often syphilis in a modified form, for we see daily, syphilis transmitted and assuming the form of dermal eruptions, osseous dyscrasia, deformations, and in whatever way this taint manifests itself, it carries along with it deterioration of a physique which otherwise might have been an admirable specimen of God’s handiwork. If we can check the ravages of disease, cut off inherited diseases transmitted by marriage and illegitimate cohabitation, calm excited brain and vaso-motor nerve centres, soothe supra reflex nerve excitation, we will have, in a measure, cured in advance many diseases and imagined diseases, both of mind and body, originating in an elongated prepuce, bringing on onanism, early cohabitation, phimosis, paraphimosis, and syphilis and sequelae."

Sorry, no link. It's a paysite for scholarly journals...but the point is there, as early as 1889.

[LOCpunks]

Circumcision as prevention for contracting syphilis; 1855
http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/2...runc_sys.shtml