Perhaps ye Philistines should cleanse thyselves.

[LOCpunks]

All you asked is to provide reasoning for why the medical community espoused circumcision 50+ years ago (since not for HIV transmission). I never said that they were entirely legitimate, nor did I say that they were conclusive. My point to you was simply that a significant factor to the argument in favor of neonatal circumcision in the 19th and 20th centuries was the belief that it lowered transmission rates of venereal diseases.

This isn't even what I was talking about in the first place. You replied that I didn't "answer the question"...What question was this? I was simply responding to those who claimed neonatal circumcision was wrong in an of itself, and relating it to developing countries in which circumcision is entirely necessary to prevent the transmission of STIs/HIV - if not here in industrialized countries.

And yes, circumcision *may* reduce the probability of a transmission. Of course it does not halt transmission entirely! NOTHING WILL! Nobody is saying circumcision is a preventative cure for HIV......but it has become increasingly clear that it makes it significantly less likely to transmit. You imply that it doesn't matter - that a 2+ fold lower transmission rate doesn't matter because it doesn't guarantee safety...is this true? Because by your logic, condom use shouldn't be espoused because it does not completely halt transmission of HIV/STIs (an exaggeration, I know).

I'm just saying that in developing countries where HIV rates are extremely high and condom use is extremely low, circumcision can make a HUGE difference in stopping the proliferation of AIDS. In India alone, there are 6 million people living with HIV. A 2000 study showed that only 8.4% (531 out of 6345) used condoms and only 35.2% knew that condoms could prevent HIV transmission. You do the math. Tell me that a 2+ fold greater likelihood of contracting HIV doesn't make a difference under those circumstances.
(Abstract- http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAb...102241879.html)

[chi73inla]

I'll never forget how Dana Douglas used to be repulsed that I would fuck uncut street girls. Of course, Dana still ended up dying from the full blown aids.

[SarahG]

....circumcision shouldn't have anything to do with infant rights....

It's not about "infant rights"- those kids grow up eventually, this is about the fact that their bodies have been altered before their ability to make consent on such decisions.

You know why pedophilia is illegal in western society? Any idea? It is really simple: we believe that pedophilia is bad because it involves doing a sexual act with someone who is unable to consent to sex because they are too young to make a decision on such an action. That is the entire basis for all of our legislation regarding minors and sex acts, porn and other such things. IMO you can try to trivialize this all you want (I take offense to the notion of this issue being about "infant rights") but we as a global population need to come to terms with the reality that children/minors are not enslaved to their parents, nor are they property of their parents.

I see this no different from institutions that force, coerce or lie to parents to get them to endorse forced sex status assignment on intersexed newborns.

...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.

Just because something has benefits does not mean it is necessary to require it by law. Should condom use be required for everyone on the entire planet by law in order to curve std transmissions? Oh wait, I have a better idea... why don't we just use the government to demand that surgeons remove the heads from every male penis on the planet (since after all; if there is no pleasure there is no recreation, if there is no recreational sex aids transmission stats will go down...).

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.

And just what would the purpose of life be at all, if it is without liberty? There are always ways in which we could sacrifice liberties for a real or false sense of security on any number of issues in which innocent lives are at risk... choosing to abandon our rights in favor of these concerns is kinda like having your doctor tell you at your next physical that they want to decapitate your head to decrease your odds at developing a brain tumor. This is not something unique to this issue; if a principle is valid it will apply and work in any and all relevant situations. We could just as easily be talking about the so-called war on terror or any number of other issues where we are supposed to believe that sacrificing our liberties are a valid trade off in exchange for a real or precieved sense of security... and once you make that trade off there will always be one other issue in which the same argument reappears, the same dialog occurs and at the end the citizen is left with less recognized natural rights then they had before hand.

As much as some of you may think it is someone's "right" to leave their child uncircumcised

It is not their decision to make. Their child should be able to consent to what medical procedures are preformed to alter their body.

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.

Sounds to me just like a more educated version of the argument used in rural Africa to justify using rusty dull razor blades to forcefully mutilate the genitals of their female populations... Why not just round everyone with aids up and shoot them (note I am being sarcastic and not endorsing that concept) since after all, it will be a cheap and easy way to keep them from infecting others. It is truly unfortunate that conditions exist the way they do in some parts of the planet but until these populations stop the self destructive, self inflicted maladaptive behavers (aka start wearing condoms, no more of these "i can cure aids by fucking ___ virgins" myths, etc etc etc) then it really isn't going to make a difference how many rights you violate to try to help the world become a better place.

After much discourse with her, there is no doubt in my mind that forced tubal ligation in women is necessary.

Necessary? Truly? The history books (and in living semi recent history I may add) show that India tried forced sterilization policies for their population. I suggest you read up on those experiences before suggesting anything along those lines as a blanket, general proposal to counter something like aids progression or maternal fatality.

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.

No, she does have the right in the sense that it is a natural right; the issue is rather or not that right is respected and recognized... aka I have a natural right to bare arms. That doesn't change rather I am in Virginia, New York, London or Russia... rather or not those governments chose to recognize that right is a separate issue but that right is still there just the same. The saying goes that people are free but born bound in chains.

Again, this goes back to consent issues; these countries need to recognize the civil liberties of their female populations and need to make the reforms needed to ensure such rights are respected.

[SkyTwo]

Perhaps ye Philistines should cleanse thyselves.

Perhaps thou shouldst brush up on thine Oldespeake.

[ARMANIXXX]

^^

I disagree with your claim.

I DO agree that children are the "property", of sorts, of the parents.


You may take it the wrong way but make no mistake, the parent has a RESPONSIBILITY to protect their children and circumcision is, imo, the result of this said responsibility.


Children have no DECISION MAKING rights because children can not be counted on to understand, know or make proper decisions. If my little nephew had the choice, not only would he be uncircumcised, but he also would not go to school, he would play video games all day and definately WOULDN'T eat any of his vegetables.


Children are the property of responsible decision making parents.

I realize "responsible decision making" is rather arbitrary and leaves open lots of room for debate, But in this country, and pretty much all countries that I know of, the parent is the "owner" until parent is deemed or proven irresponsible...........as it should be.

[ARMANIXXX]

Here you go......

[SarahG]

-deleted-

[Jericho]

Yeah right, put your kids thru this:

[LOCpunks]

It's not about "infant rights"- those kids grow up eventually, this is about the fact that their bodies have been altered before their ability to make consent on such decisions.

I see this no different from institutions that force, coerce or lie to parents to get them to endorse forced sex status assignment on intersexed newborns.

This is ludacris. You are just oversimplifying everything. I can't even respond to this.

Just because something has benefits does not mean it is necessary to require it by law. Should condom use be required for everyone on the entire planet by law in order to curve std transmissions?

Willfull exposure laws exist in at least 28 states now. Disclosure and condom use IS required by law in cases of HIV. Some statutes are more lenient than others. But alas, I am talking in terms of developing countries with epidemical levels of disease. And you keep using these drastic examples of "mutilation"...We are talking about simple circumcision, in places with HIV epidemics and hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people who don't even know what HIV is or what condoms are used for. As much as you seem to deny it, we live in a socially responsible society. Public health MUST, in some cases, supercede individual rights. if you want to live in an anarchic society where the government and social entities have no bearing on your life, go to it. I'd be happy to live there.

Out of curiousity, where do you stand on court-ordered medication? Should society be put at risk because of a pathological psychotic w/ a history of violent crime and his right to refuse medication?

And just what would the purpose of life be at all, if it is without liberty? There are always ways in which we could sacrifice liberties for a real or false sense of security on any number of issues in which innocent lives are at risk... This is not something unique to this issue; if a principle is valid it will apply and work in any and all relevant situations. We could just as easily be talking about the so-called war on terror or any number of other issues where we are supposed to believe that sacrificing our liberties are a valid trade off in exchange for a real or precieved sense of security.

Again, you are just throwing out blanket statements and oversimplifying, positing that this issue compromises basic human rights. It doesn't. This is a matter of public health, not simply one of individual rights. Furthermore, I view the matter as the right of informed parents, and support a system where parents are informed on site at birth. There are obviously cases where a circumcision shouldn't be performed, whether it is a religious basis or what have you. But...in surveying mothers/female patients, the PHd I mentioned earlier found an overwhelming support for future circumcisions, even in Hindu families which adamantly opposed circumcision (for fear of Muslim conversion). I am simply saying that circumcision needs to be done at a far higher volume in places where HIV and STI (which obviously aid HIV transmission) epidemics exist.

It is not their decision to make. Their child should be able to consent to what medical procedures are preformed to alter their body.

What can I say? I wholeheartedly disagree. As ARMANIXXX said, parents have an obligation to act in their child's best interest. And as I said before, there is no doubt that in some cases, public health must supercede individual rights.

Necessary? Truly? The history books (and in living semi recent history I may add) show that India tried forced sterilization policies for their population. I suggest you read up on those experiences before suggesting anything along those lines as a blanket, general proposal to counter something like aids progression or maternal fatality.

This does not address the issue I was relating to at all. I am well aware of India's positions on forced sterilization. I have a feeling YOU are not aware of the maternal mortality rates at birth.

No, she does have the right in the sense that it is a natural right; the issue is rather or not that right is respected and recognized...

Again, this goes back to consent issues; these countries need to recognize the civil liberties of their female populations and need to make the reforms needed to ensure such rights are respected.

This is all fine and dandy, but again, you are being unrealistic. Mass cultural norms are not going to change overnight. Something needs to be done NOW, and you're just sitting here saying that they have natural rights to say no to sex. GREAT. Now that we know that their rights are not going to be respected, what do you propose to do about the constant impregnation of women unable to sustain childbirth? What do you propose to do about the high maternal mortality rate at birth? It's great to talk about a need for individual rights, but do you have any thoughts at all on these issues? Or on the prolilferation of AIDS?

Again, I am not talking about your personal experience from living in like...fucking New Jersey or something. I am trying to look at things from a public health point of view, and I don't think you know (or care) about the direness of the situation.

[BlackAdder]

"After much discourse with her, there is no doubt in my mind that forced tubal ligation in women is necessary."

You my friend, are a sick twisted individual..... I am soooooo glad youll never be in a position of power to decide something like that for the rest of us.

And for the record, I once again state that there is NO definitive proof that circumcision does anything at all to slow the spread or prevent stds. You can cook the data however you want, but my own discussions with the *surgeons* that used to come into my store a few years ago(surgeons are gamer geeks btw, have led me to the conclusion that male circumcision, and MOST CERTAINLY female circumcision, serves no useful purpose in modern society. My mother is also an RN shift manager at one of the larger local hospitals and after many rows with her over this even *she* admits now that circumcision is more then likely unnessary and damaging.



Btw, i dont give a fuck whats going on in India. The whole shitty place can fall off into the ocean for all I care.