Move to make circumcision illegal

"ctually it seems more like a pretty feeble attempt at a copout...a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the obvious---that that poster really has no evidence or facts to bring to the table... but a lot of empty verbage."

That'll be the elusive "manner" Keviesmum - somewhat more understandable now that others have retaliated to you in kind - but evident throughout your screeds nonetheless - before, I think, anyone had become irked and used it against you.

Feeble? Copout? Desperate attempt to deflect attention?

Ah - these are indeed the words of calm, reasoned, rational discourse as I know and love it....

0 Replies

What the bunny said, and it's "verbiage" not "verbage".

0 Replies

keviesmum wrote:

Actually it seems more like a pretty feeble attempt at a copout...a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the obvious---that that poster really has no evidence or facts to bring to the table... but a lot of empty verbage.

keviesmum, I don't mind at all if you want to call it a copout, remember what I said earlier.

Craven de Kere wrote:

One thing to remember is that whether or not someone bothers to take on this zeal you demonstrate does not indicate that it's well founded. It says more about their willingness to engage in such exercises.

0 Replies

Yes indeed, and, mind you, 'tis time I got out of here - I am well aware that I am being guilty of what I rail against.

Manner and all that....

0 Replies

Returning to the original question of Routine (non-therapeutic) infant circumcision.

Circumcision..

is not recommended by any medical organization in the world

does not cure or prevent any non-pathological condition or disease

has no proven benefit-real or potential

has proven harm and damage

has many proven risks --up to and including penile amputation and death

has many proven complications-immediate and long-term

is bannned in ANY form for ANY reason for US females

is a violation of the human right to bodily integrity

So, can anyone provide a rational reason why this should still be legal?

0 Replies

keviesmum wrote:

Returning to the original question of Routine (non-therapeutic) infant circumcision.

Circumcision..

is not recommended by any medical organization in the world

does not cure or prevent any non-pathological condition or disease

has no proven benefit-real or potential

has proven harm and damage

has many proven risks --up to and including penile amputation and death

has many proven complications-immediate and long-term

is bannned in ANY form for ANY reason for US females

is a violation of the human right to bodily integrity

So, can anyone provide a rational reason why this should still be legal?

This is a very ironic post, in that Kevie's Alleged Mummy has posted, at tedious length, dubiously derived statistics to support this screed. However, if one visits that linked page, and works backward to the home page, in very small print, almost illegible at the bottom of the home page is the following:

CIRP wrote:

The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. Tilted Media Group, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.

(emphasis added)

CIRP's disclaimer is a rather whimsical one, given that they then attempt to "prove" that circumcision is a medically "bad" practice. The "noharm" pages which The Parent of the Unfortunate Kevie links do not provide an "about us" link, which is actually uncommon for an informational site. However, they do praise at length the founder, one Mr. Tim Hammond. Nowhere in that panegyric is there any mention of medical credentials on the part of Mr. Hammond.

I don't mind that someone has an axe to grind--dog knows, axe grinding is an eternally popular activity, and often provides cottage industry opportunities for the ranting types among us. It is rather difficult to accept statements from authority, however, when the statements are so ill-founded.

0 Replies

Oh, and for all of the foreskin worshippers among us, i have a single word . . .

Smegma . . .

0 Replies

ADULT MALE CIRCUMCISION?Reader's Response

Dear Considering Clipping,

I am a male in my late 30s and I was born in a foreign country, but decided to get it done. I decided to get the procedure done about 5 years ago and wish I would have done it sooner. Like Alice said, do talk to a doctor before getting it done. I called ask a nurse and I went to the doctor and got it done. It takes two to three weeks to heal, but once it heals, the sex, to me, is much better than before. Sex is not a chore anymore and you stay a lot cleaner now, too. Good luck and take care.

Concerned

Go ask Alice-Columbia University's Health Question and Answer Internet Service.

This question and answer

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

keviesmum wrote:
Returning to the original question of Routine (non-therapeutic) infant circumcision.

Circumcision..

is not recommended by any medical organization in the world

does not cure or prevent any non-pathological condition or disease

has no proven benefit-real or potential

has proven harm and damage

has many proven risks --up to and including penile amputation and death

has many proven complications-immediate and long-term

is bannned in ANY form for ANY reason for US females

is a violation of the human right to bodily integrity

So, can anyone provide a rational reason why this should still be legal?

This is a very ironic post, in that Kevie's Alleged Mummy has posted, at tedious length, dubiously derived statistics to support this screed. However, if one visits that linked page, and works backward to the home page, in very small print, almost illegible at the bottom of the home page is the following:

CIRP wrote:
The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. Tilted Media Group, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.

(emphasis added)

CIRP's disclaimer is a rather whimsical one, given that they then attempt to "prove" that circumcision is a medically "bad" practice. The "noharm" pages which The Parent of the Unfortunate Kevie links do not provide an "about us" link, which is actually uncommon for an informational site. However, they do praise at length the founder, one Mr. Tim Hammond. Nowhere in that panegyric is there any mention of medical credentials on the part of Mr. Hammond.

I don't mind that someone has an axe to grind--dog knows, axe grinding is an eternally popular activity, and often provides cottage industry opportunities for the ranting types among us. It is rather difficult to accept statements from authority, however, when the statements are so ill-founded.

And I hardly think this addresses the question.. neither do the "big words" once again, I am reminded that:

"Character assassination is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Big words and little content.dancing around and avoiding the crucial questions.....nothing germane..

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Oh, and for all of the foreskin worshippers among us, i have a single word . . .

Smegma . . .

AND, how does this address the question?

And empty propaganda doesn't address the question either--perhaps one should actually research a word before using it?
The same old, old-wives tales, myths, and superstitions!

"Character assassination is the last refuge of the incompetent."

0 Replies

I have indulged in no character assassination, although i haven't the least doubt that you'll not be convinced. My point, which i also doubt you'll acknowledge, is to question both the motives and the accuracy of those who have created the sites you list here. As i've already noted, and you have avoided discussing, those sites do not list the sources for raw data, nor describe the methodology used when referencing their sources' interpretation of the putative statistics. When bandying statistics, it is all anectdotal unless and until the primary sources and the methodology are reliably reported. You make an extraordinary claim, and therefore you have the burden of proof. You have proven nothing.

As a starter, why don't you prove the character assassination content of my post?

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

ADULT MALE CIRCUMCISION?Reader's Response

Dear Considering Clipping,

I am a male in my late 30s and I was born in a foreign country, but decided to get it done. I decided to get the procedure done about 5 years ago and wish I would have done it sooner. Like Alice said, do talk to a doctor before getting it done. I called ask a nurse and I went to the doctor and got it done. It takes two to three weeks to heal, but once it heals, the sex, to me, is much better than before. Sex is not a chore anymore and you stay a lot cleaner now, too. Good luck and take care.

Concerned

Go ask Alice-Columbia University's Health Question and Answer Internet Service.

This question and answer

Thanks for this OPINION--other than a few misconceptions, this is not bad..

but I do not think this addresses the non-consenting forced circumcision of infants..what an adult wishes to do to his body is his business--no one is forcing something on him... except in a few parts of the world.

Now if you would like to exchange testimonies, I would be happy to do so, but I think it would be more profitable to actually confine this discussion to facts and evidence--

Start with this one:

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/fink1/

Abstract
Purpose: Evidence concerning the effect of circumcision on sexual function is lacking. Men circumcised as adults are potentially in a unique position to comment on the effect of a prepuce on sexual intercourse. We examine sexual function outcomes in men who have experienced sexual intercourse in the uncircumcised and circumcised states.

Materials and Methods: Men 18 years old or older when circumcised were identified by billing records during a 5-year period at an academic medical center. Medical charts were reviewed for confirmation of the procedure and to identify the indication(s). These men were surveyed to assess erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and overall satisfaction. Data were analyzed using paired t tests to compare category scores before and after circumcision.

Results: A total of 123 men were circumcised as adults. Indications for circumcision included phimosis in 64% of cases, balanitis in 17%, condyloma in 10%, redundant foreskin in 9% and elective in 7%. The response rate was 44% among potential responders. Mean age of responders was 42 years at circumcision and 46 years at survey.

Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.

Conclusions: Our findings may help urologists better counsel men undergoing circumcision as adults. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the relationship between circumcision and sexual function.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I have indulged in no character assassination, although i haven't the least doubt that you'll not be convinced. My point, which i also doubt you'll acknowledge, is to question both the motives and the accuracy of those who have created the sites you list here. As i've already noted, and you have avoided discussing, those sites do not list the sources for raw data, nor describe the methodology used when referencing their sources' interpretation of the putative statistics. When bandying statistics, it is all anectdotal unless and until the primary sources and the methodology are reliably reported. You make an extraordinary claim, and therefore you have the burden of proof. You have proven nothing.

As a starter, why don't you prove the character assassination content of my post?

Perhaps you can provide evidence that this purported "bias" of a site in any way has resulted in any alteration of the contents of the actual article?
How the site in any way affects the accuracy of the studies cited.

This claim without any evidence is an empty claim.. go read the article, check out the references, the place of publication, and try to substantiate the claim of any alteration--and then try to refute the study.

0 Replies

Quote:

As a starter, why don't you prove the character assassination content of my post?

"Oh, and for all of the foreskin worshippers among us, i have a single word . . .

0 Replies

Note that once again, Kevie's Obsessed Parent links a site which has a disclaimer to the effect: "The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner"

Under the circumstances, that disclaimer makes ludicrous a contention to the effect: "Thanks for this OPINION--other than a few misconceptions, this is not bad.. " When CIRP itself cautions that their material is not intended to replace professional advice, you have little basis to accuse Wilso of indulging misconceptions. Another note on the CIRP content: "Evidence concerning the effect of circumcision on sexual function is lacking." That is, of course, a direct contradiction of one of points you've been ranting about. In this case, CIRP reports its statistics, and does mention methodology. But, sadly, they didn't feel it necessary to actually cite the raw data source. Nor do they provide the text of the questionnaire, nor list what percentage of the men identified pariticipated in the putative study.

As a final note, i was hilariously amused to see that you somehow consider mentioning the word smegma constitutes character assassination. That's a hell of a chip you've got on your shoulder. The definition at Hyperdictionary reads: [n] a white secretion of the sebaceous glands of the foreskin. I found an amusing ironic coincidence in that Wiso's subsequent post contained the following comment by a man circumcized as an adult: " Sex is not a chore anymore and you stay a lot cleaner now, too."

Disagreeing with you does not constitute character assassination. Pointing out the disclaimer at CIRP and making a factual statement about the biography of Tim Harrison given at the noharm site do not constitute character assassination. Could you possibly be Mr. Harrison, and hence sensitive to any comments on that heading? Hmmm . . .

0 Replies

keviesmum wrote:

Quote:
As a starter, why don't you prove the character assassination content of my post?

"Oh, and for all of the foreskin worshippers among us, i have a single word . . .

And in what does the character assassination consist in that statement? Maybe you didn't like it--that does not make it character assassination.

0 Replies

44% of 123 is a very small sample - and the majority were HAPPY? This is supportive of your view?

A number of them appear to have had some sort of medical problems.

Also, some loss of erectile function in that age group over a few years is not all that unusual - circumcision or not!

0 Replies

Also note, Miss Bunny, that although the article states that 123 (definitely a statistically dubious number) men were circumcized, it does not state what number resonded to the survey.

0 Replies

Quote:

"Setanta"]Note that once again, Kevie's Obsessed Parent links a site which has a disclaimer to the effect: "The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner"

You have to love the "logic" here.. a standard disclaimer somehow automatically discredits the articles posted there.

Quote:

Under the circumstances, that disclaimer makes ludicrous a contention to the effect: "Thanks for this OPINION--other than a few misconceptions, this is not bad.. " When CIRP itself cautions that their material is not intended to replace professional advice, you have little basis to accuse Wilso of indulging misconceptions. Another note on the CIRP content: "Evidence concerning the effect of circumcision on sexual function is lacking." That is, of course, a direct contradiction of one of points you've been ranting about. In this case, CIRP reports its statistics, and does mention methodology. But, sadly, they didn't feel it necessary to actually cite the raw data source. Nor do they provide the text of the questionnaire, nor list what percentage of the men identified pariticipated in the putative study.

Is this supposed to be a refuttal of the Fink study? READ the actual study--it is posted on CIRP! Or is it too much trouble to actaully READ the artcile--or possibly you might find that your speculation is specious?

Quote:

As a final note, i was hilariously amused to see that you somehow consider mentioning the word smegma constitutes character assassination. That's a hell of a chip you've got on your shoulder. The definition at Hyperdictionary reads: [n] a white secretion of the sebaceous glands of the foreskin. I found an amusing ironic coincidence in that Wiso's subsequent post contained the following comment by a man circumcized as an adult: " Sex is not a chore anymore and you stay a lot cleaner now, too."

I have no problem with the word smegma it self, (it is harmless and rinses off easily and even have no problem with it since women also have it)--it is the characterization of "foreskin worshippers.

I hardly find that comment indicative of anything other than a comment from a man who CHOSE to circumcise himself for no other reason than sociological and cultural baggage.. and hence is happy even when the Fink study reported a loss of sensitivity and impairment of erectile function.

Quote:

Disagreeing with you does not constitute character assassination. Pointing out the disclaimer at CIRP and making a factual statement about the biography of Tim Harrison given at the noharm site do not constitute character assassination. Could you possibly be Mr. Harrison, and hence sensitive to any comments on that heading? Hmmm . . .

If this wasn't so pathetic and obvious, it would be humorous!

0 Replies

It says 44% did, Setanta.

0 Replies

Move to make circumcision illegal

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know