Corwin

Bullshit. My assertions have been substantiated numerous times by numerous people on numerous threads.

Quit dodging the question. Any 'benefits' are clearly negligible, and can also be achieved without surgery. (But that's not as much fun, now is it?)

Also don't think I haven't noticed you dodging the question.... shall I take this as an admission that you'd rather not have somebody slicing parts of your anatomy off without your consent? Or is that ok with you?

Yes or no? And be glad you're ABLE to give an answer. Most boys in your position aren't.

Dr Rick

You've presented no scientific evidence to back-up that assertion or your assertion that circumcised males have a 3 times higher rate of sexual dysfunction.

Please do.

Rick

Corwin

You've presented no scientific evidence that circumcision is any more effective at preventing HIV infection than a condom.

You've also presented no moral argument that explains why it's acceptable to mutilate someone who is unable to say yes or no to the procedure.

[Edited to add]

You've also presented no answer to my question...

*breathes on the cigar cutter and buffs it on his lapel*

Well?

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]</p>

Dr Rick

I never asserted that circumcison was more effective than condoms in preventing HIV aquisition, I know of no evidence that it is or is not; that's another of your strawmen. Both are beneficial in preventing HIV aquisition.

Condoms have not been shown to prevent neotnatal UTIs or penile cancers, however, though circumcison has.

My argument is not that the procedure is or is not moral; that's another strawman, and still you provide no evidence to back up your false assertions.

Rick

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Corwin

I'll provide said evidence when accessing those links won't leave red flags in a firewall... (I believe I've mentioned that little issue once or twice?)

You're just dodging the moral issue. I'll acknowledge that there can be some minimal benefits from the procedure, however they're nowhere near enough to justify an invasive surgical procedure with significant detrimental effects. You, of course, don't believe there are no significant detrimental effects.... mainly because you ignore the repeated testimonials and studies posted here and in other threads attesting to the effects of circumcision... you also ignore the history of routine circumcision. That history being the fact that the effects I'm referring to were the entire REASON gentiles started circumcising.

What exactly is it that you think gives you the right to decide to cut off part of someone else's body, when the procedure provides no significant benefit that can't be achieved at least as effectively, if not more so, through non surgical means? Particularly since the patient in this case is incapable of giving consent?

You're looking at this entirely as a medical issue. Not psychological, not moral, not ethical.

It's easy to make judgement calls like this when you aren't talking about your own body.... which would explain why you continue to ignore my very simple question... what if it was you? What if it was your fingers? What if it was your ears? What if it was your scalp? You don't get any say in this.... we're just going to cut it off... for reasons we feel are valid.

Can you understand why someone might resent this?

Can you come a few steps down out of your ivory tower and deal with mere practical issues? Like the fact that some of us might... just MIGHT... resent having a perfectly normal and functional part of our bodies cut off for extremely dubious reasons? This isn't a nose job we're talking about here... this is removal of functioning, healthy tissue... tissue that serves a purpose. Tissue that DOES something. And somebody just cut it off, not only while we had not given consent... but BECAUSE we were unable to refuse, and even before we had any sort of frame of reference to understand the pain.

Exactly how fucking much data do I need to provide for something as obvious as 'gee... maybe slicing people up without their permission probably isn't going to make you terribly popular in the long run....'

Dr Rick

Yes, for the purposes of this thread, that is all I am doing.

Rick

Dr Rick

That's a double negative, but if you're trying to assert that I don't know that there are risks to every procedure including circumcision, that is false; and really an outright lie: I know very well that there are risks and have acknowledged that there are on this thread and in the older one.

There really is no point in misrepresenting my views or what I post, as I'll correct you when you do.

<strong> Testimonials are not scientific evidence; they are unverifiable. You have still not produced evidence to back-up your false assertions

<strong> This is a non sequitor; it has nothing to do with the medical and scientific evidence.

<strong> Here you've combined a strawman with one of your false assertions.

<strong> I choose to discuss the medical issues on this thread. Several erroneous posts on them were made, and I replied with objective evidence. If you want to discuss some other issues, go ahead, but not with me.

<strong> Just enough to support your assertions, which you still have not done.

Rick

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

One of the last sane

[aside to the audience]I dunno, maybe I'm the only one that thinks this, but it seems just a tad hypocritical for Rick to accuse others about ad hominem attacks and name-calling after his remark to Corwin about his mother and his smegma.[/aside to the audience]

Corwin

And in so doing you're failing to acknowledge that other issues, such as the personal preference of the individual being mutilated might take precedence. You're also dramatically overstaing the benefits. Again, while you state that cirucmcision grants a threefold decrease in rates of UTI's, and that circumcision has been proven to reduce rates of penile cancer, you fail to note that rates of urinary tract infection in uncircumcised boys is less than 1% to begin with, and breastfeeding has a marked ability to prevent such infections, and that penile cancer affects less than 10 men per million worldwide.

<a href="http://my.webmd.com/content/article/3609.107" target="_blank">http://my.webmd.com/content/article/3609.107</a>

I suppose you're going to brush off WebMD as an 'anti-circ nutcase' site?

Here's a few more for you to brush off.

<a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/milos-macris2/" target="_blank">A discussion of the effects of and rationale behind circumcision.</a>

<a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/" target="_blank">A discussion of circumcision with regards to women's sexual enjoyment as well as men's.</a>

And in case you don't read far enough to click on it,

<a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/" target="_blank">The study referred to in the previous link.</a>

Just as a warning, the previous link does involve pictures, so click at your own risk.

<a href="http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/" target="_blank">Another site, this one a fathering resource.</a>

<a href="http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/0904/circno.html" target="_blank">There do seem to be a lot of these general pages, don't there?</a>

Dr Rick.... in putting forward these 'facts' with no background information or frame of reference, you force me to question your medical ethics. Granted, circumcision isn't a part of your specialization, but can you honestly, in good conscience, be ethically ok with providing only half of the story?

Dr Rick

You are correct, I apoligize to all and to Corwin for the remark.

I'll review and address Corwin's most recent post in a later reply, but right now it's Friday night...

Rick

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>