RE: Cut or Uncut ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Zensee -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 10:52:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee
Your kids have nothing to compare the experience to thus their opinion is prejudiced thus is irrelevant.


I would have to say that if that is the reasoning we are going to use, the arguments of those who are uncut would be irrelevant also.


Good rhetorical point. The argument either way is irrelevent but it certainly does not lend any support to the knife happy folks, though they love to trot it out every few posts.


Z.




somethndif -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 10:56:45 AM)

Of course you are right.  There are good medical reasons supporting circumcision for all men.  I posted this in a forum a year and a half ago, but it is worth repeating.
 
Recent studies show that circumcised men significantly reduce their chances of contracting the HIV virus and, of course, AIDS. 
 
Here is the first paragraph from a news report and the link to the full story.

Policy Updates - December 2006

National Institutes of Health Halts Two Studies on Male Circumcision and HIV
On Wednesday, December 13, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was stopping two clinical trials in Kenya and Uganda examining potential protective effects of male circumcision against HIV infection.1  According to data released by NIH, male circumcision was found to reduce a man’s risk of acquiring HIV by up to 50%.  Over 6,000 previously uncircumcised men ages 1549 from Uganda and Kenya were enrolled in the study; half of the participants were randomly assigned to be circumcised and the other half acted as a control group, remaining uncircumcised.  The results of the study were so significant that researchers halted the study early and offered circumcision to all participants.
 
http://www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/pdate0297.html

 
The United Nations and the World Health Organization are now strongly recommending circumcision to prevent the spread of AIDS.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2007-03-28T130607Z_01_L28623672_RTRUKOC_0_US-AIDS-UN.xml&src=nl_ushealth1100

Key findings are:

"They said that countries with high rates of heterosexual HIV should urgently improve access to male circumcision, giving priority to sexually active young men, while continuing to promote condom use and encourage regular testing."
 
"The WHO and UNAIDS said increasing male circumcisions could prevent 5.7 million sub-Saharan African men from contracting HIV over the next two decades, and save 3 million lives."
 
"Researchers have previously noticed that HIV tends to be less prevalent in areas where circumcision is common, and three large African studies have in past months found that circumcised men are 50 to 60 percent less likely to catch the AIDS virus.
Experts believe cells on the inside of the foreskin, the part of the penis cut off in circumcision, are particularly susceptible to HIV infection."

 
The Kenyan and Ugandan studies were conducted by The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  The co-principal investigators of the Kenyan trial are Robert Bailey, Ph.D., M.P.H., of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Stephen Moses, M.D., M.P.H., University of Manitoba, Canada. In addition to NIAID support, the Kenyan trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and included Kenyan researchers Jeckoniah Ndinya-Achola, M.B.Ch.B., and Kawango Agot, Ph.D., M.P.H. The Ugandan trial is led by Ronald Gray, M.B.B.S., M.Sc., of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. Additional collaborators in the Ugandan trial were David Serwadda, M.Med., M.Sc., M.P.H., Nelson Sewankambo, M.B.Ch.B., M.Med.M.Sc., Stephen Watya, M.B.Ch.B., M.Med., and Godfrey Kigozi, M.B.Ch.B., M.P.H.
 
In the article I referenced -- and to which I provided the link -- there is another link to this press release by the NIH which provides more information about the studies.  These were carefully done, scientific studies.  Here is the link to the NIH press release. 
 
 
And here is a relevant quotation from the NIH press release:

“Many studies have suggested that male circumcision plays a role in protecting against HIV acquisition,” notes NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. “We now have confirmation—from large, carefully controlled, randomized clinical trials—showing definitively that medically performed circumcision can significantly lower the risk of adult males contracting HIV through heterosexual intercourse. While the initial benefit will be fewer HIV infections in men, ultimately adult male circumcision could lead to fewer infections in women in those areas of the world where HIV is spread primarily through heterosexual intercourse.”
 
"The findings from the African studies may have less impact on the epidemic in the United States for several reasons. In the United States, most men have been circumcised. Also, there is a lower prevalence of HIV. Moreover, most infections among men in the United States are in men who have sex with men, for whom the amount of benefit provided by circumcision is unknown. Nonetheless, the overall findings of the African studies are likely to be broadly relevant regardless of geographic location: a man at sexual risk who is uncircumcised is more likely than a man who is circumcised to become infected with HIV. Still, circumcision is only part of a broader HIV prevention strategy that includes limiting the number of sexual partners and using condoms during intercourse."
 
As explained in the highlighted passage above, NIH believes that the results of these studies has application here in the U.S., as well as in Africa.
 
Dan




Raechard -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 10:59:58 AM)

So in theory we should be asking the people who have experienced both situations and are happy to talk about their regrets or lack there of. Also we should be looking at medical health studies rather than continuing this pointless partisan discussion we have going on here.




Raechard -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:01:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: somethndif
Of course you are right.  There are good medical reasons supporting circumcision for all men.  I posted this in a forum a year and a half ago, but it is worth repeating.
 
Recent studies show that circumcised men significantly reduce their chances of contracting the HIV virus and, of course, AIDS. 
 
Here is the first paragraph from a news report and the link to the full story.


I mentioned this study earlier if you read back. Are you suggesting people should implement the results of it instead of practicing safe sex?




Aneirin -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:11:30 AM)

Granted, I am aware of that report, it was available via the link I posted in my original posting. That is something that has since been discovered to be beneficial in reducing the likelihood of infection from the various STD's andn HIV.

But I am interested in understanding the medical reasons for male circumcision, like why is a product of nature deemed so faulty at birth that medics know better and remove something which has a use, and from what I have read, a procedure carried out without anaesthesia, an understanding that a babie's nervous system is not yet fully developed to feel the pain.

The prepuce I read contains many nerve endings, circumcision removes these nerve endings.Can't help thinking somewhere along the line those nerve endings might of been  of some use to me.


(Oh, if I may recommend a book for men this one I have and have used for the last ten years ):


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UAeKyTLnhXUC&client=firefox-a






SteelofUtah -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:18:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah

Don't like it? Well be glad you ain't my kid.

Steel


Heh heh heh... guess who's going to be looking after you when you are too old to take care of yourself. Maybe some of your choices and attitudes will come back to haunt you then. Then you can learn the humility of not having choices first hand.

Like kittin said - you don't own your children.


Z.



No Not really

I have a Living will, a DNR and a STRICT Understanding of what is to be done My Kid Brother is The ONLY Living person who has Legal Right over my Body and my Wife, Mother, Father and Direct Family all have signed the Affidavit that state they understand. I am to DIE Period and one day should I be in an Old Folks Home, I have IRA's that are set up to help with that cost but I will live unassisted until I am supposed to die and that is how I have it set up. I have to renew all the paperwork every 10 years but it is worth it. I Don't EVER want to be kept alive at the expense of my Family.

When it is time for someone to die it is simply time and in times like that who the hell will care about thier fucking foreskin?

Steel




SteelofUtah -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:23:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah

In my opinion here is what it comes down to Untill the midget is 18 his ass is mine and since I am responsible for every STUPID thing he does till he is 18 (Or 24 if he goes to college here in the states) I am gunna have him how I think it is best for him.



You do not own your children.


Never really said I did.

I did say his ass is mine and it is, I make the decisions for him right or wrong I do what I think it right because he is not old enough or of the right mind to make such decisions.

So Untill he is 18 I am responsible for everything he does and well he will live by my rule and I will be responsible for everything he does I will pay for it no matter what the situation, Then when he turns 21 I have the right to reverse contracts that she signs, and I will be financially responsible for him till he is 24 if he goes to college.

The truth of the matter is I do the best I can, but it seems that isn't good enough for you, so I ask you what makes your decisions for my children better than my own? Why are you more qualified?

I ask this because you are adament about MY decisions to raise my child wheather they make sencse or not they are still MY decisions. and I can only do what I have learned from those who came before me to do the BEST THAT I CAN.

I can't stand the people who think they would do a better job raising the world.

Steel




SugarMyChurro -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:24:15 AM)

Anyone that thinks that USA/UK style male circumcision is anything less than a barbaric practice carried out on innocents when they have no ability to defend themselves is inhumane in their outlook, in my not so humble opinion.

One tries to think of useful analogies, but it's difficult. We are talking about removing something nature provides - it's part of the body. How does cutting off a part of your body make sense? When people enter into adulthood, I respect their right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Why not leave them all of the possible choices?

Absent a religious or medical need, I oppose the practice. FWIW, I don't think much of the religious argument but people do believe in all kinds of kooky shit anyway. Isn't it a more pronounced sign of the covenant if the circumcision were to take place as an adult, and by choice? Harming a child is no sign of anything except cruelty and whatever happens to be in the heads of the adults raising the child. How is it a sign from the child?




Aneirin -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:27:54 AM)

An interesting article ;

http://www.noharmm.org/herbal.htm




SugarMyChurro -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:28:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah
Why are you more qualified?


Because he can recognize mutilation when he hears of it.

-----

Let me ask you this: why leave the child a penis at all? I mean, he can procreate by test tube if need be. Why not cut the whole thing off? And hell, why bother with doctors? Just use a pair of scissors. That child can't feel anything, right?

And the little girls - why not cut off their clits and labias? They can still reproduce.

Makes perfect sense. "Sin" becomes if not impossible, not worth it. That should make someone happy.

[8|]




SteelofUtah -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:34:30 AM)

Explain your Tonsils, Gall Blatter, and Apendix. They are not used to anything anymore as far as science can see however they POISON the Host Body when they go faulty.  Nature made it! So why cut it out? Because Nature doesn't really affect the system as it once did. The Gall Blatter is believed to have removed toxins from stream water, The Toncils believed to have removed Bacteria from freshly eaten foods and the Apendix is something that processed chemicles that the human body no longer sees.

Sure they can remain in the body just fine but they can also cause serious illness when NOT fine.

I see the difference in the two situations but again NATURE Created it and it ISN'T PERFECT.

Much of nature ISN'T Perfect sorry to tell you.

most of it is necessity. Things change because they HAVE to.

Steel




mistoferin -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:39:34 AM)

To no one in particular~

I think that it is odd that the only people on this thread that keep attributing the decisions of parents regarding circumcision to religion are the anti-circumcision folks. Maybe I missed it somewhere but I don't remember seeing anyone on this thread say that they circumcised their child because of some religious dogma. Just saying....

Paraochial school for me was a barbaric tradition that I didn't escape from unscathed too....but it had it's benefits and my parents made the decision they thought was best at the time. I still talk to them.




SugarMyChurro -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:42:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah
Explain your Tonsils, Gall Blatter, and Apendix.


Again, absent a medical need why have a surgery? I have all of those bits still.

I feel fine.

The analogy fails.




SteelofUtah -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:45:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah
Explain your Tonsils, Gall Blatter, and Apendix.


Again, absent a medical need why have a surgery? I have all of those bits still.

I feel fine.

The analogy fails.



Your analogy is quite better I guess because since you can't see fault in your own body the problem must not exist.

Please tell me you never plan on becomeing a doctor.

Steel




Raechard -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:46:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah
Explain your Tonsils, Gall Blatter, and Apendix. They are not used to anything anymore as far as science can see however they POISON the Host Body when they go faulty.  Nature made it! So why cut it out?


That argument might have some weight except for the fact no one can prove the foreskin was designed for a now redundant function.

The appendix might not end up poisoning anyone if it was still utilised as it once was. Have you noticed how buildings fall into disrepair and become a danger if they are no longer used as they once were?

Use it or loose it doesn't really apply if you can't prove the function isn't now redundant. 




SugarMyChurro -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:48:05 AM)

Why would you take a part of someone's genitals away from them? What is the sound medical reason for doing so?

There isn't one. It's mutilation, plain and simple.

Maybe we should pass a law that adults can have their children circumcised, but first they have to sacrifice a thumb.

Snip, snip, snip...




SugarMyChurro -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:53:33 AM)

SteelofUtah:

I want to test your commitment to male circumcision. How about you become a gelding, eh? Just show us some proof that you have cut off your own balls without anesthesia and we'll let this male circumcision thing drop.

Take one for the team, bud!




SteelofUtah -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 11:54:49 AM)

I respect your Views on things like this. I will not question your decision NOT to.

I only ask the same in return.

Steel




SugarMyChurro -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 12:01:50 PM)

I can't respect harming a child without a good personal or sound medical reason.

Sorry.

[8|]




Raechard -> RE: Cut or Uncut ? (5/5/2008 12:02:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
Granted, I am aware of that report, it was available via the link I posted in my original posting. That is something that has since been discovered to be beneficial in reducing the likelihood of infection from the various STD's andn HIV.

That study has a few slight imperfections in terms of its scope.

One issue is it was conducted in a part of the world where a man thinks he can cure himself of Aids by having sex with a virgin, where sex education is so bad that infection rates are hard to keep track of.

It was proven in that study that the risk of infection was reduced among heterosexual men who were circumcised but it didn't prove what psychological effect such knowledge would have. It's people attitudes towards safe sex that are the biggest factor in preventing HIV spread but sadly this study seems to have given some a false sense of security.

My point about the place the study was conducted is simple and that is the fact any measure couldn't have made the situation worse there but here in the western world it can however especially if people cite it as being a case for circumcision because then it muddies the water and implies it's a method of safe sex which it will never be.

The writers of the report highlighted this issue so it is important anyone that uses it as an example also does.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.15625