Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mibby529 · 08-23-2002, 04:28 PM

Aesthetics are subjective, AtlanticCitySlave. I can assume your theory is based on your own East Coast, prodominantly black or white (the two racial groups in America most likely to be circumcised) location. Why not ask a Chinese woman, since one in five people is Chinese?

As for the idea that smegma is somehow carcinogenic, I seriously doubt a carcinogenic substance would exist in mammals for so long. (Duhh...Read The Origin of Species some time.)

eldar1011 · 08-26-2002, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
Studies have shown that this is more likely than any medical information to influence your decision; if you were circumcised, chances are your son would be, too.

I can see why studies would bear that out.

Although, I am the only male in my family who is intact. That being said, I'd like to think that I wouldn't bury my head in the sand and ignore medical information simply because of my personal prejudice.

Quote:

Either way, unless perhaps you're posting from sub-Saharan Africa, it probably wouldn't make a difference in the kid's health or happiness.

No, I'm not posting from sub-Saharan Africa, but the heatwave this summer is nearly as bad.

Quote:

Congratulations on your future daughter, by the way.

Rick

Thank you, very much.

AtlanticCitySlave · 08-26-2002, 05:57 AM

"Aesthetics are subjective, AtlanticCitySlave. I can assume your theory is based on your own East Coast, prodominantly black or white (the two racial groups in America most likely to be circumcised) location. Why not ask a Chinese woman, since one in five people is Chinese?"

-I only date chinese women. They have all felt the same. And,aesthetics are not subjective. If we were looking at a portrait of a woman being raped and you said "that's beautiful", you would be wrong.

beausoleil · 08-26-2002, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by rbochnermd:


You're probably not likely to get an especially balanced view from an anti-circ site, either. But if you really want to be absolutely sure to get an opinion that's consistent with yours, just seek out a doctor that hasn't read anything in the past 3 years. The rest of us hold a variety of opinions, and those of us who know what we are talking about will tell you that the evidence shows some benefits from circumcision, though that evidence is not enough for us to offer a "blanket" recommendation one way or the other



What I was trying to get a sense of was how representative you as an MD are of MDs in general, since you seem vigourously pro-circumcision (perhaps I misinterpret, but there you go);. 'Anecdotally' was referenced to anecdotes about medical decision making rather than how the studies that decisions are based on were performed. Certainly, my experience of doctors is that they have far higher certainty in their conclusions than subsequent experience suggests was warranted.

In the paper, about 80% of the circumsized men were Muslims, the absence of uncircumsized Muslims and circumsized non-Muslims prevents any conclusions being drawn within a group. Between Muslims and non-Muslims there is a significant variation in HIV 'behaviour', but this correlates with anything that distinguishes Muslims from non-Muslims. Nonetheless, you seemed to offer it as conclusive evidence.

Your comment about papers being available online is quite sad. Presumably circumcision didn't start or stop being effective recently? I think a lot of scientists are reinventing the wheel by repeating studies of things that were tied up years ago.

I'm a research scientist myself, and so less impressed by the peer-review guff than a layman would be.

Hope you have a good holiday!

Mark_Chid · 08-26-2002, 01:55 PM

Quote:

I would much prefer my lover to be uncircumcised. Unfortunately, in America at this time, they are fairly rare in my experience. (Baby boomer generation is my frame of reference.)QB]

Outside of the US, circumcision is unusual amongst Gentiles. Indeed in the UK when I grew up I knew only 1 circumcised boy. I consider circumcision to be an obscene act of child abuse whatever the reason - religion is just another inadequate excuse. It should be illegal and treated exactly as any other pointless mutiliation of an innocent child, and to hell with the whinings of those who cry 'God said to do it' - if its that important to them, they can move to Tel Aviv or Karachi!

ybnormal · 08-27-2002, 12:27 AM

Gurdur:
Not wholly at you, but also at others, some far worse.

Then perhaps rb, and now you, should question [i/Why[/i] that is...

The circumcision debates seem extremely and inappropriately emotional, given the low morbidity rate.

There it is... the Why?

Proof there my friend that you, like rb, maybe ain't got a clue why this issue can be a warm one. It is not just some abstract math study by paid lab techs, or research by detached doctors who don't "get involved" with their patients' pain.

Just because folks like yourself may see this issue as just some old custom which happens millions of times a year, does not alter the fact that it causes real forced pain for those real helpless millions... nor does it alter the fact that folks like rb and yourself cause more of this unnecessary pain, by continuing to foster it, saying that it's inappropriate to be emotional about this real American sickness. And just maybe, what you perceive as emotion, is self-assuredness, in the same way that my perception of arrogance by rb, may also be self-assuredness.

Ya think folks participating here should consider it extremely inappropriate, to be told that their personal pain is inappropriate, after they have been made a part of this awful permanently injury?

Of course, to you, no one actually dies, so what's the big emotion deal, huh?

In my first post:
My older brother almost hemorrhaged to death after being cut, and then he stayed in the hospital with infections for a month, and then he was left with an embarrassingly deformed, downright ugly member on a wholly beautiful person, which needless to say, caused him significant emotional trauma his entire life... all for nothing...

Please don't tell me that rb's skeptics here are being inappropriately emotional... I don't see how you could know that.

This is the Science & Skepticism forum, where emotion should be left at the door... maybe if rb had even pretended to hear the collective-pain Skepticism to his cavalier Science, then maybe you would never have seen an absolute frustration which you perceived as bitter attacks...

And speaking of that, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from repeating your attacks on me, while you refuse to elaborate beyond your initial, in-general charge... which was, that I or someone, somewhere so bitterly and personally attack rbochnermd

To that charge, I asked:
Below, please find every instance in my prior post where I directly referred to rbochnermd, as I would appreciate knowing exactly where I so bitterly attack her/him.

You did not! Instead, you chided me again, then charged me again...

Gurdur:
It's a mite disingeneous to bitterly attack the entire medical profession in exaggerated terms, and then not to see it as also being an attack on rbochnermd, since he's a member of it.

Look friend, you specifically used the words, personally attack rbochnermd

I went back, copy & pasted every such instance for you to easily pick even ONE.

You did not!

Instead, you just changed your original charge... NOW, you are charging that some general attack was made indirectly on rb, by way of a bitter attack on the entire medical profession.

That is a whole nother debate...

Isn't it a mite disingenuous to change your charge, without first admitting error, which you avoid identifying? Isn't it also a mite disingenuous to imply that I am the one being a mite disingenuous?

And, your use of the word "entire" up there, was entirely your own exaggeration.

So, after going thru all that to avoid my challenge, changing your charge from a personal to an indirect one, you then go back to the initial "personal" charge...

Again you make what seems to be a personal attack on rbochnermd.

Great! We're making progress... at least now you've inserted, seems to be

How many exchanges will it take for us to resolve this aside of yours?

Let's try this. I have little against the "entire medical industry", altho I do have some issues with it, as most everyone does. As a whole, it is just great. I also have several stupendous doctors, and know several others, however, none of them have personally told me that every boy child in the country should have the end of his tiny penis chopped off for some unproven reason, other than as some form of perverted punishment. If you are unable to see that any attacks on the "medical industry" are by default, generally specific, being under the specific topic of "Circumcision", then I don't really know what you are after. I ain't gonna add a paragraph of clarification each time I refer to "doctors" or "medicine" or even "they".

I offered a "general" apology for your "general" charges. You'll get no more without a specific.

In the meantime, I'll next try to establish for you, how I see rb as representing the pro-circ issue, over and above the "entire" medical community and against its current, commonly accepted practices. Maybe that would help you understand why I see rb as vulnerable, as a poster here, as a physician, and as a member of the medical industry itself. I see it easy to make a case that rb is way out on a biased limb.

That is, if you'll either lay back or finally get specific with your initial charge.

Peace!

ybnormal · 08-27-2002, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark_Chid:
Outside of the US, circumcision is unusual amongst Gentiles.

Indeed in the UK when I grew up I knew only 1 circumcised boy.

Seems that money alone, was the reason for that in the UK. I wonder, in 1945, if the U.S. had...

<a href="http://www.nocirc.org/articles/gollaher.html" target="_blank">source</a>

Quote:

Meanwhile in 1945, England, whose experience with circumcision before World War II was roughly similar to America's, instituted a system of universal medical coverage under the National Health Services.

Since British doctors could not agree whether or not it was medically efficacious, circumcision was dropped from the list of covered services.

Henceforth, parents who wanted their sons circumcised were required to pay a surgical fee.

Based on army records, it was estimated that before the War 50 percent of working-class and 85 percent of upper-class Englishmen had been circumcised.

Under the National Health Services the rate plummeted. By the early 1960s, the figure was thought to be less than one-half of 1 percent.

MrDarwin · 08-27-2002, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
I'm advocating an objective evaluation and rational approach to circumcision. I have never performed a circumcision, but this thread and a prior one several months ago inspired me to review the literature on the subject. In doing so, I found that recent studies, particularly some published in the past 36 months, have demonstrated that circumcision has health benefits.

Rick, I hope you don't mind if I ask a personal question: if you were to have a son, would you have him circumcised? Why or why not?

brighid · 08-27-2002, 05:45 AM

I believe Dr. Rick is on vacation right now in St. Maarten, so I don't think he will be replying anytime this week.

Brighid

Corwin · 08-27-2002, 08:11 AM

Ok. I've been avoiding this argument like the plague.

Let me just say this. If you feel that the anti-circ crowd is being 'inappropriately emotional,' let's change the venue. Let's discuss taking you, strapping you down, and clipping off your fingertips. With a cigar cutter. After all... you can grip things just FINE without fingertips. Better even. And it'll keep you from getting dirt under the nails.......

08-26-2002, 10:47 AM	#124
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	Originally posted by rbochnermd: <strong> You're probably not likely to get an especially balanced view from an anti-circ site, either. But if you really want to be absolutely sure to get an opinion that's consistent with yours, just seek out a doctor that hasn't read anything in the past 3 years. The rest of us hold a variety of opinions, and those of us who know what we are talking about will tell you that the evidence shows some benefits from circumcision, though that evidence is not enough for us to offer a "blanket" recommendation one way or the other </strong> What I was trying to get a sense of was how representative you as an MD are of MDs in general, since you seem vigourously pro-circumcision (perhaps I misinterpret, but there you go);. 'Anecdotally' was referenced to anecdotes about medical decision making rather than how the studies that decisions are based on were performed. Certainly, my experience of doctors is that they have far higher certainty in their conclusions than subsequent experience suggests was warranted. In the paper, about 80% of the circumsized men were Muslims, the absence of uncircumsized Muslims and circumsized non-Muslims prevents any conclusions being drawn within a group. Between Muslims and non-Muslims there is a significant variation in HIV 'behaviour', but this correlates with anything that distinguishes Muslims from non-Muslims. Nonetheless, you seemed to offer it as conclusive evidence. Your comment about papers being available online is quite sad. Presumably circumcision didn't start or stop being effective recently? I think a lot of scientists are reinventing the wheel by repeating studies of things that were tied up years ago. I'm a research scientist myself, and so less impressed by the peer-review guff than a layman would be. Hope you have a good holiday!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-23-2002, 04:28 PM	#121
mibby529 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cali Posts: 170	Aesthetics are subjective, AtlanticCitySlave. I can assume your theory is based on your own East Coast, prodominantly black or white (the two racial groups in America most likely to be circumcised) location. Why not ask a Chinese woman, since one in five people is Chinese? As for the idea that smegma is somehow carcinogenic, I seriously doubt a carcinogenic substance would exist in mammals for so long. (Duhh...Read The Origin of Species some time.)

08-26-2002, 05:57 AM	#123
AtlanticCitySlave Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 251	"Aesthetics are subjective, AtlanticCitySlave. I can assume your theory is based on your own East Coast, prodominantly black or white (the two racial groups in America most likely to be circumcised) location. Why not ask a Chinese woman, since one in five people is Chinese?" -I only date chinese women. They have all felt the same. And,aesthetics are not subjective. If we were looking at a portrait of a woman being raped and you said "that's beautiful", you would be wrong.

08-27-2002, 12:27 AM	#126
ybnormal Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 430	Gurdur: Not wholly at you, but also at others, some far worse. Then perhaps rb, and now you, should question [i/Why[/i] that is... The circumcision debates seem extremely and inappropriately emotional, given the low morbidity rate. There it is... the Why? Proof there my friend that you, like rb, maybe ain't got a clue why this issue can be a warm one. It is not just some abstract math study by paid lab techs, or research by detached doctors who don't "get involved" with their patients' pain. Just because folks like yourself may see this issue as just some old custom which happens millions of times a year, does not alter the fact that it causes real forced pain for those real helpless millions... nor does it alter the fact that folks like rb and yourself cause more of this unnecessary pain, by continuing to foster it, saying that it's inappropriate to be emotional about this real American sickness. And just maybe, what you perceive as emotion, is self-assuredness, in the same way that my perception of arrogance by rb, may also be self-assuredness. Ya think folks participating here should consider it extremely inappropriate, to be told that their personal pain is inappropriate, after they have been made a part of this awful permanently injury? Of course, to you, no one actually dies, so what's the big emotion deal, huh? In my first post: My older brother almost hemorrhaged to death after being cut, and then he stayed in the hospital with infections for a month, and then he was left with an embarrassingly deformed, downright ugly member on a wholly beautiful person, which needless to say, caused him significant emotional trauma his entire life... all for nothing... Please don't tell me that rb's skeptics here are being inappropriately emotional... I don't see how you could know that. This is the Science & Skepticism forum, where emotion should be left at the door... maybe if rb had even pretended to hear the collective-pain Skepticism to his cavalier Science, then maybe you would never have seen an absolute frustration which you perceived as bitter attacks... And speaking of that, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from repeating your attacks on me, while you refuse to elaborate beyond your initial, in-general charge... which was, that I or someone, somewhere so bitterly and personally attack rbochnermd To that charge, I asked: Below, please find every instance in my prior post where I directly referred to rbochnermd, as I would appreciate knowing exactly where I so bitterly attack her/him. You did not! Instead, you chided me again, then charged me again... Gurdur: It's a mite disingeneous to bitterly attack the entire medical profession in exaggerated terms, and then not to see it as also being an attack on rbochnermd, since he's a member of it. Look friend, you specifically used the words, personally attack rbochnermd I went back, copy & pasted every such instance for you to easily pick even ONE. You did not! Instead, you just changed your original charge... NOW, you are charging that some general attack was made indirectly on rb, by way of a bitter attack on the entire medical profession. That is a whole nother debate... Isn't it a mite disingenuous to change your charge, without first admitting error, which you avoid identifying? Isn't it also a mite disingenuous to imply that I am the one being a mite disingenuous? And, your use of the word "entire" up there, was entirely your own exaggeration. So, after going thru all that to avoid my challenge, changing your charge from a personal to an indirect one, you then go back to the initial "personal" charge... Again you make what seems to be a personal attack on rbochnermd. Great! We're making progress... at least now you've inserted, seems to be How many exchanges will it take for us to resolve this aside of yours? Let's try this. I have little against the "entire medical industry", altho I do have some issues with it, as most everyone does. As a whole, it is just great. I also have several stupendous doctors, and know several others, however, none of them have personally told me that every boy child in the country should have the end of his tiny penis chopped off for some unproven reason, other than as some form of perverted punishment. If you are unable to see that any attacks on the "medical industry" are by default, generally specific, being under the specific topic of "Circumcision", then I don't really know what you are after. I ain't gonna add a paragraph of clarification each time I refer to "doctors" or "medicine" or even "they". I offered a "general" apology for your "general" charges. You'll get no more without a specific. In the meantime, I'll next try to establish for you, how I see rb as representing the pro-circ issue, over and above the "entire" medical community and against its current, commonly accepted practices. Maybe that would help you understand why I see rb as vulnerable, as a poster here, as a physician, and as a member of the medical industry itself. I see it easy to make a case that rb is way out on a biased limb. That is, if you'll either lay back or finally get specific with your initial charge. Peace!

08-27-2002, 05:45 AM	#129
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	I believe Dr. Rick is on vacation right now in St. Maarten, so I don't think he will be replying anytime this week. Brighid

08-27-2002, 08:11 AM	#130
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Ok. I've been avoiding this argument like the plague. Let me just say this. If you feel that the anti-circ crowd is being 'inappropriately emotional,' let's change the venue. Let's discuss taking you, strapping you down, and clipping off your fingertips. With a cigar cutter. After all... you can grip things just FINE without fingertips. Better even. And it'll keep you from getting dirt under the nails.......

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.