Results 21 to 30 of 42
-
06-21-2007 #21
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Posts
- 108
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)
sometimes it feels like shame...less than two shades away from kindness.
-
06-21-2007 #22
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- LA
- Posts
- 220
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.
-
06-21-2007 #23Originally Posted by LOCpunks
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.
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.
After much discourse with her, there is no doubt in my mind that forced tubal ligation in women is necessary.
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.
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.
-
06-21-2007 #24
Perhaps ye Philistines should cleanse thyselves.
Perhaps thou shouldst brush up on thine Oldespeake.
-
06-21-2007 #25
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- Bay Area, CA
- Posts
- 3,105
^^
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.
-
06-21-2007 #26
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- Bay Area, CA
- Posts
- 3,105
Here you go......
-
06-21-2007 #27
-
06-21-2007 #28
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Corner booth at the Titty Twister
- Posts
- 10,507
Yeah right, put your kids thru this:
I hate being bipolar...It's fucking ace!
-
06-22-2007 #29
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Posts
- 108
Originally Posted by SarahG
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?
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.
It is not their decision to make. Their child should be able to consent to what medical procedures are preformed to alter their body.
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.
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.
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.
sometimes it feels like shame...less than two shades away from kindness.
-
06-22-2007 #30
"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.