|
DarkCrawler posted:The child gets to make the decision. What is offensive about this to you? Absolutely nothing, I think I've come to agree with you actually, but saying that society gets to decide to appeal to democracy is real hosed up. So's saying my parents hosed up my sex life, but whatever.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I thought you said that society gets to make the decision? Now it sounds like you get to make the decision. Rational modern society, not some pre-modern garbage. The point of modernity is that we would kill idiotic practices like these things. But go ahead being stuck in the 14th century with your leeches and geocentrism. EDIT: Also, what about "let the kid choose, not the mentally broken parent" is an appeal to democracy? rkajdi fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Rational modern society, not some pre-modern garbage. The point of modernity is that we would kill idiotic practices like these things. But go ahead being stuck in the 14th century with your leaches and geocentrism. Why don't we let "rational modern society, defined as people who agree with me" decide all our laws, sounds like they'd do a great job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Absolutely nothing, I think I've come to agree with you actually, but saying that society gets to decide to appeal to democracy is real hosed up. You shouldn't appeal to democracy when it comes to human rights in either case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:EDIT: Also, what about "let the kid choose, not the mentally broken parent" is an appeal to democracy? Nothing. "Let society choose for everyone, unless they choose the wrong thing in which case let a different society choose for them." is.. I don't know what it's an appeal to, but it's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Absolutely nothing, I think I've come to agree with you actually, but saying that society gets to decide to appeal to democracy is real hosed up. So's saying my parents hosed up my sex life, but whatever. People get a bit frustrated because it's like talking to a wall. We are on page 15 of what essentially boils down to people defending tooth and nail body modifications that were done to them before they had a choice. If you changed this thread to debate about head or foot binding and invited a bunch of ancient mayans or chinese the arguments wouldn't change much. And then after 15 pages of disputing the health benefits to babies of being able to have unprotected sex with an HIV+ person someone comes in and posts "you guys have no idea what you're talking about, have you read the WHO report on HIV?"  
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Nothing. "Let society choose for everyone, unless they choose the wrong thing in which case let a different society choose for them." is.. I don't know what it's an appeal to, but it's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
literally the only thing this thread is good for is making a list of which goons have weird cut up penises and which goons have weird turtleneck looking penises.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:People get a bit frustrated because it's like talking to a wall. We are on page 15 of what essentially boils down to people defending tooth and nail body modifications that were done to them before they had a choice. If you changed this thread to debate about head or foot binding and invited a bunch of ancient mayans or chinese the arguments wouldn't change much. If you changed the debate to head or foot binding we'd be able to clearly point out the harmful long term effects of such practices, instead we're listening to you claim American doctors are part of some foreskin conspiracy. That's why the conversation always seems to rest on issues of consent. The thing is that parents get to make approximately 10 billion other decisions for their children that will affect their lives infinitely more. To a lot of people you sound like Richard Dawkins suggesting that raising your child religiously is child abuse. Actually scratch that, you sound much crazier. 7c Nickel fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
There's less risk of complications if you circumcise a newborn than if you wait. But that's only relevant if you assume that circumcision is necessary and the only debate is when to do it. If it's not necessary (it's not) then there's no reason not to wait until the patient can decide whether the benefits are worth it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Getting cut will not protect you from AIDS. That is some nonsense voodoo poo poo collected from people who believe that condoms are a sin. Wear condoms, you assholes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:If you changed the debate to head or foot binding we'd be able to clearly point out the harmful long term effects of such practices, instead we're listening to you claim American doctors are part of some foreskin conspiracy. That's why the conversation always seems to rest on issues of consent. The thing is that parents get to make approximately 10 billion other decisions for their children that will affect their lives infinitely more. Except that those choices affect their lives and it is extremely important for the parent to have the right to make those choices. This choice is a permanent cosmetic body modification with small medical benefits that has no medical reason for being performed on a non-consenting individual. There is no reason circumcision can't be done when the child is older and can say yes. It removes the problem of people being forced to undergo a circumcision - or if they still are, it at least opens an legal avenue for them to demand compensation. Everyone who wants a circumcision still gets one. For the millionth time in this thread, what is the problem with that? 7c Nickel posted:To a lot of people you sound like Richard Dawkins suggesting that raising your child religiously is child abuse. Actually scratch that, you sound much crazier. And to me you sound like a person defending a parent's right to decide what their child's dick looks like for no logical reason...how crazy do you think you sound?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Getting cut will not protect you from AIDS. That is some nonsense voodoo poo poo collected from people who believe that condoms are a sin. Fer serious, the supposed "health benefits" of circumcision are, at best, marginal enough that you really shouldn't be getting surgery for them (unless you're also going to get a whole host of other procedures done "just in case" too), but mostly just betray some hilariously skewed ideas about how the world works (which is why my two fav pro-circumcision arguments are the cleanliness thing, and the blowjob thing). A lot of "intactivists" are hella histrionic about this actually not very big issue, but it doesn't make the attempts to justify circumcision in any way other than a cultural thing any less stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:If you changed the debate to head or foot binding we'd be able to clearly point out the harmful long term effects of such practices, instead we're listening to you claim American doctors are part of some foreskin conspiracy. Long term effects such as when the circumcisions go terribly wrong? These don't exist? And there aren't any people that had it performed on them before they had a choice and now resent it? You're just going keep hand-waving those away, right? Can't make an omelet without cutting a few foreskins. But let's say that every single circumcision went perfect and there were never any complications and no one ever resented not being given the choice. I take it then that you have no problem with rhinoplasty or blepharoplasty of infants for cosmetic reasons? quote:The thing is that parents get to make approximately 10 billion other decisions for their children that will affect their lives infinitely more. To a lot of people you sound like Richard Dawkins suggesting that raising your child religiously is child abuse. Actually scratch that, you sound much crazier. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:But let's say that every single circumcision went perfect and there were never any complications and no one ever resented not being given the choice. I take it then that you have no problem with rhinoplasty or blepharoplasty of infants for cosmetic reasons? Well what if you wait and that infant grows up and decides he likes his nose the way it is and the parents have to look at his gross unsculpted nose? That would be terrible! Better put 'em under the knife before they can talk so the parents can customize their babies' features to their liking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Long term effects such as when the circumcisions go terribly wrong? These don't exist? And there aren't any people that had it performed on them before they had a choice and now resent it? You're just going keep hand-waving those away, right? Can't make an omelet without cutting a few foreskins. If the operations were as simple as circumcision, as widely accepted culturally and had been proven to have minor health benefits I probably wouldn't give a poo poo. Hell, if there was a culture that considered giving children a small scar across the bridge of their nose as an important cultural marker I wouldn't give a poo poo about that either. I think people freaking out about principles instead of actual harm done in the real world are idiots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:I think people freaking out about principles instead of actual harm done in the real world are idiots. He says, while freaking out about criticism of a tradition that he  doesn't give a poo poo about.The harm done by criticism is zero, so God why do you care about this so much on the internet you weirdo, jeez. Actually, since your position is that circumcision is such an unimportant worthless issue to even talk about, then I guess you'd be just fine with a ban too since that would also do no actual harm in the real world. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
I'm just making fun of goony babies who think this is a serious issue. I don't care if everyone on earth decided to stop circumcising their kids tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Obtaining consent for medical procedures: not a serious issue. Apparently. Are you posting from the 18th Century?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Hell, if there was a culture that considered giving children a small scar across the bridge of their nose as an important cultural marker I wouldn't give a poo poo about that either. I think people freaking out about principles instead of actual harm done in the real world are idiots. Does this mean you're ok with clitoral pricking?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:If the operations were as simple as circumcision, as widely accepted culturally and had been proven to have minor health benefits I probably wouldn't give a poo poo. Begging the question a little bit, aren't you? "If a practice is culturally accepted, the average individual in that culture will un-critically accept that practice" isn't exactly a ground-breaking thesis. You can use that to justify literally any practice a culture adopts. No sane person should be depending on their circumcision to shield them from HIV, period, full stop. For the average hetero male the benefit is incredibly minor - we're talking about increasing your odds of staying HIV-free when banging a HIV-positive woman without protection by ~3% over the course of a year. At the cost of permanent bodily modification. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:If the operations were as simple as circumcision, as widely accepted culturally and had been proven to have minor health benefits I probably wouldn't give a poo poo. quote:I think people freaking out about principles instead of actual harm done in the real world are idiots. quote:I'm just making fun of goony babies who think this is a serious issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Obtaining consent for medical procedures: not a serious issue. Apparently. It should not be performed without consent. Parents are empowered to make medical decisions for their children. Johnny Cache Hit posted:Does this mean you're ok with clitoral pricking? As a long as it's done in a manner that doesn't result in any harm? I certainly support it as a harm reduction measure in place of traditions that might otherwise do actual damage. Paul MaudDib posted:Begging the question a little bit, aren't you? "If a practice is culturally accepted, the average non-critically-thinking individual in that culture will accept that practice" isn't exactly a ground-breaking thesis. You can use that to justify literally any practice a culture adopts. Yeah it can be used to support any practice that doesn't actually cause harm. The second part is so stupid that Im not even going to respond to it. Here's lets take this for example.  My concerns here are lack of a topical anesthetic and unsanitary conditions. 7c Nickel fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:It should not be performed without consent. Parents are empowered to make medical decisions for their children. Ah, well let me catch you up on the last few centuries, where the "children are a man's property" maxim has fallen out of vogue and there's a new theory that children have human rights and agency as well, so the parents' role in making medical decisions is on behalf the best interests of a child and not based on whatever dick or neck or head shape the parents happen to enjoy. This should clear you up on why the topic is being discussed, and why some people are pointing out that parent-mandated cosmetic surgery is in conflict with these values. Now that you're in the twentieth century, make sure you check out the 1960's, they were rad. Now you might be saying "Oh, but a cut dick/tramp stamp/elongated neck/flat skull is hot, so obviously the parents' decision to do those things was actually in the child's best interests!" Maybe. But if that child grows up and doesn't like the tramp stamp tattoo or whatever daddy put there, then that is a (very minor) harm, and it's something we should probably discourage. And since that child can go get his tattoo or his dick clipped later if it turns out he does want it, nothing is lost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:It should not be performed without consent. Parents are empowered to make medical decisions for their children. Stop being obtuse. It's not a necessary medical procedure by any definition and there is nothing about the procedure that makes it essential that it is done to a non-consenting infant. 7c Nickel posted:I'm just making fun of goony babies who think this is a serious issue. I don't care if everyone on earth decided to stop circumcising their kids tomorrow. "I don't care lol, goony babies caring about dicks* *Is on the side of tens of millions of people who would throw a massive poo poo fit if they couldn't decide how their child's dick is supposed to look*
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Yeah it can be used to support any practice that doesn't actually cause harm. The second part is so stupid that Im not even going to respond to it. So you think it's impossible for circumcision to cause harm? Because you're wrong. Furthermore by definition the average person in a culture will uncritically accept their own "accepted cultural practices", that's a tautology, which is why your argument isn't insightful or convincing in the least. If a practice does cause harm, they will find a way to rationalize it away, just like you're doing. 7c Nickel posted:Here's lets take this for example. If you think the only problem with this situation is that it needs a topical anesthetic and an alcohol swab you probably do need to step into the 20th century. The face doesn't belong to the parent, performing permanent cosmetic alterations before a child has the faintest idea what the gently caress is going on is wrong. Even so I'd agree that something cosmetic like this is probably better than cutting off a functioning piece of someone's genitals. With modern medicine it might even be reversible if it turns out the kid doesn't want racing stripes. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:So you think it's impossible for circumcision to cause harm? Because you're wrong. I assume you're referring to botched circumcisions? Yeah in that case it's also possible for curling your lashes to cause permanent blindness. When the medical community evaluates the data and says that on balance it's mildly beneficial, I'm inclined to believe them. I know that won't impress you much since we're back to the conspiracy of perfidious American doctors falsifying their reports in order to harvest those sweet sweet foreskins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Here's lets take this for example. just gonna quote this again so everyone knows youre either a good troll or a major idiot. Also lol if you don't realize that the AAP's mealy mouth statement isn't just pandering to tradition and "mah child's dick". They used to be ok with pricking too but now are with the rest of the civilized world in calling it FGM. Johnny Cache Hit fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:I assume you're referring to botched circumcisions? Yeah in that case it's also possible for curling your lashes to cause permanent blindness. quote:Here's lets take this for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
So this thread is just a consensus and one guy who has admitted to trolling you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
No he's a false flag anti-circ poster, and gushing approvingly of a photo of a kid's face getting slashed up to make cool scars (but only in medical setting!) is his way of making pro-circs look foolish and barbaric. Good show 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:So this thread is just a consensus and one guy who has admitted to trolling you? im pretty sure this thread is a bunch of guys dick-fencing in a totally not gay way
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
The only time parents should have a choice about their children's health is when saying no would be medically harmful.Johnny Cache Hit posted:Also lol if you don't realize that the AAP's mealy mouth statement isn't just pandering to tradition and "mah child's dick". They used to be ok with pricking too but now are with the rest of the civilized world in calling it FGM. Lol, that's why they changed their opinion after more medical studies showed the medical benefits. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Lol, that's why they changed their opinion after more medical studies showed the medical benefits. medical benefits so overwhelmingly strong their entire recommendation amounts to "eh do whatever you want we wont stop ya!!" Let's be honest: if the benefits were so good they'd recommend every infant be circumcised. What they came up with was carefully tailored to try to offend neither side. Which is the same thing they did with clitoral pricking - try to strike a balance between both sides. It remains to be seen if it'll hold or if, 10 years from now, they'll be walking it back too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:Which is the same thing they did with clitoral pricking - try to strike a balance between both sides. It remains to be seen if it'll hold or if, 10 years from now, they'll be walking it back too. No you see pricking the clitoris with a needle is an intolerable form of genital mutilation but removing the foreskin is perfectly reasonable if the parents really care that much. Of course these recommendations are in no way influenced by the cultural setting in the US, how could you even suggest something like that? This is strictly a medical issue and the decision was completely unbiased.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:medical benefits so overwhelmingly strong their entire recommendation amounts to "eh do whatever you want we wont stop ya!!" You're just wrong on so many levels. The AAP used to have the "carefully tailored" answer, then they changed it in 2012 it to support circumcisions because the medical evidence supports it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/new-circumcision-guidelin_n_1826069.html posted:"The tone of the policy certainly shifts somewhat in favor of circumcision in that it recognizes that there are clear medical benefits that outweigh the risks of the procedure, and that those benefits are sufficient to justify coverage by insurance," said Dr. Douglas Diekema, a member of the academy's circumcision task force. Also the AAP only supports "nicking" as alternative to a family doing something worse and as a way to get parents to do it with a doctor rather than a priest: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/1088.full posted:The American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on newborn male circumcision expresses respect for parental decision-making and acknowledges the legitimacy of including cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions when making the choice of whether to surgically alter a male infant's genitals. Of course, parental decision-making is not without limits, and pediatricians must always resist decisions that are likely to cause harm to children. Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm. But keep sticking your fingers in your ears and continue to ignore the legitimate health and safety reasons why newborn male circumcision should be an option available to parents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
I already agree with you that it should be a legal option because religious fundamentalists are super irrational about their superstitions and will blithely risk their child's health and safety to please their dead ancestors, so overall it's probably less harm to keep it legal in a medical setting than to have it done by butchers in the back alleys.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:There are actual people in the world who are mad that they were circumcised. This is all that should really matter, beyond medical concerns which have apparently been debunked. I don't really give a poo poo either way, but apparently some people do and it isn't my place to tell them that they shouldn't care. Honestly, this applies to many issues. People who tell others they shouldn't care about things (whether it's something comparatively minor like this or something like racial discrimination) are almost always being assholes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're just wrong on so many levels. The AAP used to have the "carefully tailored" answer, then they changed it in 2012 it to support circumcisions because the medical evidence supports it. You know, now that you mention the health benefits I think I'm actually starting to lean to your side. For weeks I've been trying to get condoms that will fit my kid but to no avail, I better have him circumcised to reduce the odds he'll catch AIDS from some hussy at the kindergarten.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
I circumcised my kids to show my solidarity with Israel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 01:08
|
|
