Comparing circumcision with vaccination

[HYHYBT]

Some study claims a significant medical benefit to circumcision; article contains an attempted parallel between those against circumcision and against vaccination; suggestion that circumcision should be mandatory in the headline. I'm not yet sure what to think on it, but my first thought was of Fratching since it's been argued here before.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...=Cheat%20Sheet

[anakhouri]

Vaccination is medically necessary to keep a person healthy.

The medical benefits of circumcision have long been debated but as yet there's no firm proof that it's medically necessary.

Therefore I say it's apples and oranges. No real comparison can be made.

[siead_lietrathua]

not to mention vaccination is not just about health as an individual, but it's also about the health of the herd.

[Ginger Tea]

A few years ago and I might have brought it up before, so appologies if I have, a guy posted a piece about Bill Gates' charity work and there was a piece on circumcision in Africa and either the piece or the guy posting about it, slanted it to be

get circumcised and not have to worry about STD's/AIDS again.

In other words utter tosh, it was more about keeping you knob clean and lacking the foreskin meant those who were less thorough cleaning it before had less of an excuse.

Outside of religious and extreme medical grounds it should be up to the individual who's knob is up for the chop.

If I was Jewish I would have no say in the matter, White South Africans do it in infancy as a cultural norm as South Africans do it as a right of passage at 18, so not being circumcised makes you the odd one out, I don't know if anyone would bow to peer pressure living there and not having the snip.

I didn't check, but someone posted about this in the South Korean Army, being circumcised is purely optional, but Army is mandatory (unless you spend the relevant years abroad or renounce citizenship etc) and one of the first things you get after the hair cut is the snip.
So if that is true it is no longer optional but inevitable.

[Sleepwalker]

Yeah, no. It is number massaging (vaccines both give far more benefit, and have far lesser risk)and ignoring that there are far better preventive methods currently being used. There's not nearly enough benefit for the general population to have it be standard medical preventive care, much less mandatory. Just look at how they quote mined the AAP's stance- if you read their entire statement, you find that they found that circ is beneficial enough that it shouldn't be BANNED as an elective procedure requested by parents. They then go on to say it shouldn't be routine.

There IS a lot over overlap in the people and verbiage involved int he anti circ and anti vax communities, though.

[fireheart17]

Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin from the penis. Usually done for religious reasons, or when the foreskin is unable to retract.

Vaccination is the introduction of an inactive or dead virus with the intent of protecting a human being from getting a deadly disease and/or complications from said disease.

Really don't see how the two are exactly "routine." If you're worried about the transmission of HIV, wear a condom.

[patiokitty]

I'm firmly of the opinion that if the foreskin is not meant to be there then baby boys wouldn't be born with it. Yes, my son still has his toque. Yes, I took a lot of flack from my family for it. But, y'know, it was MY decision as his mother to make...if he wants to have it removed, then it will be his choice to make and knowing my kid, it would be a very informed decision because he'd study all options available.

[bex1218]

Circumcision is a case to case issue. If it was medically necessary I could see why someone did it. If it was for the parents to be happy it was done, then no. That is mutilation. Sure you birthed the kid. But it does not give you the right to take something away thats attached to them cause you think its icky and you can't be arsed to actually help take care of it (thats for the "its easier to take care of" people).

[TheHuckster]

Circumcision is a case to case issue. If it was medically necessary I could see why someone did it. If it was for the parents to be happy it was done, then no. That is mutilation. Sure you birthed the kid. But it does not give you the right to take something away thats attached to them cause you think its icky and you can't be arsed to actually help take care of it (thats for the "its easier to take care of" people).

I've heard this argument made before, and frankly, I consider it to be extremely offensive. No, my parents did not "mutilate" me, and I don't consider myself to be mutilated, thank you very much.

[patiokitty]

Circumcision is a case to case issue. If it was medically necessary I could see why someone did it. If it was for the parents to be happy it was done, then no. That is mutilation. Sure you birthed the kid. But it does not give you the right to take something away thats attached to them cause you think its icky and you can't be arsed to actually help take care of it (thats for the "its easier to take care of" people).

I don't consider it to be mutilation anymore than I consider body piercings to be mutilations - they aren't. The only time I consider something mutilation is if the finished result is horrific and has a loss of use/mobility in the affected area. Done right, circumcision does not leave massive scar tissue - especially if the parents keep it properly cleaned while healing, and if there are no complications during the surgery itself.

[Ginger Tea]

But with the body mod analogy, you would throw a fit if you found some baby with a clit ring and pierced nipples would you not?
Tattoos and piercings are age restricted for a reason.

I am of the mind that the only thing that should be cut from a baby is the umbilical cord, hell I still have my appendix, that's more a time bomb than if my willy isn't cut.

I am on the fence about the phrasing of mutilation, it's done by a trained professional and as long as correct after care is performed nothing should really amount to it, I don't mind it in the religious sense but as a 'I did it because everyone else did' I would shy away from personally.

But I can see how the word gets used as female circumcision is referred to as Female Genital Mutilation, although it is more barbaric to read up on than its male counterpart.

[patiokitty]

I can see where you are coming from, Ginger Tea. And yes, I would shit the proverbial brick if I found a baby with any of that. I also get pissed when I see babies with their ears pierced. I firmly feel that the decision to be cut, pierced, branded, tattooed etc., should be made by the person who will most be affected by any of the above - as in, let them decide when they are old enough to understand the implications and the permanence of such a thing.

My point was that circumcision is no more a mutilation than getting pierced, regardless of the age.

And I have seen circumcision by a professional go wrong - my brother is only partially circumcised due to the doctor performing the snipping having issues with the special ring that is used to separate the foreskin from the head of the penis. It came off before he could finish the procedure, and because they do not use any sort of anesthesia during this my brother was screaming his head off so the doctor left him half done. Yes, it was a horrible mess to deal with as it healed, and yes, my brother had to make the decision later to finish it because the scarring made it rather painful for him at times. But, no, that was not why I decided that my own child would not be done as I had made that decision prior to any of that going on with my brother - and, before you ask, there is 10 years difference between us, and I was forced to grow up rather quickly and make my own decisions about a great many things that most children wouldn't even be aware of until they were much older.

Oh, and no, I am not a fan of female circumcision either as that is done to deaden the girl's sensitivity down there so they won't enjoy sex. At least that is what I have come across in my readings about the subject. Now, if a grown woman were to decide that is what they wanted, all the power to them.

[Ginger Tea]

Chances of a woman finding someone willing to perform it are slim, its outlawed in the west, I am not sure even the most extreme body modifiers would be willing to risk the legal ramifications.

There are also cases of the child being sewn shut and only able to pee, the procedure being partially reversed (as with the other kind parts are permanently removed) only when said woman either reaches maturity or is married, a barbaric chastity belt if you will.

But back to piercings being 'the same' technically no, my nipples healed up (the right worked its way out but I cant see much if anything I can tell being the scar), foreskins do not grow back unless your name is Logan.

It's an irreversible and in some cases purely lifestyle choice, that's why I am cool with an adult getting themselves circumcised of their own free will, but a non Jewish parent doing it, some times it boils down to "well everyone else had their kid cut".

if there is no medical or religious reason behind it, then its just "because I can".

If it was deemed that Jews cut of pinkies instead of part of their 'pinkies' would anyone else follow suit? In Japan that would be a sign of failing the Yakuza, but would people in the west grow up having one or both little fingers missing or severed at a knuckle because it is the done thing to do?

There are plenty of cultural body modifications around where children do get backs and faces mutilated because they are now a certain age, as a westerner its rather barbaric to see a child having tribal designs cut into their faces, but its a cultural thing that I let slide as with the religious aspects, a westerner doing the same to their child, CPS 999 911 Ghostbusters anyone, get the nutter locked up.

[telecom_goddess]

I never had to deal with making that decision because I never had boys. But I think if I were to have a boy I probably wouldn't circumcise. My girls all did get their ears pierced when THEY were ready and wanted to, not as babies.

My girlfriend is not circumcised (if that doesn't make sense I can explain, but I have explained the situation in the past so hopefully y'all remember ) and she does just fine. She's also against circumcision and I don't blame her.

[Ginger Tea]

First conclusion jumped to is FTM, I do recall reading someone say that if you were to under go full genital reconstructive surgery that having a foreskin is preferred as most of the nerve endings that make up the clitoris will be coming from there, circumcised is doable, but the sensations will not be the same.