Comparing circumcision with vaccination

[Gravekeeper]

Playing the victim card is seriously not helping your argument. -.-

[TheHuckster]

Hey you guys have already said that you believe me to be calling you mutilated, mutilators and everything else. Even when i have repeatidly said that I don't. It was the choice of yourselves and your parents...not mine. So thank you for constantly judging me and making me feel as if my view alone for myself or any male children I might have to be worthless. Because hey I can't call something what I see it as because oh noes other people will take offense to it and put words in my mouth to make themselves feel better.

Again I am SEPARATING the two as I have been. Please PLEASE try to look at it as a separation before you once mopre cast me into the depths of your hatred. Just because you find that doesn't fit in your logic...it fits in MINE.

YOU are putting words into OUR mouths, not the other way around. Not once did we did not express hatred towards you. I do respect your view to elect against circumcision for your child, and that is a personal decision that I am not going to judge.

Look, I get the jist of what you're saying. I get that you don't consider me horribly deformed, and I get that you don't consider my parents to be terrible abusive demons. And I appreciate that sentiment. You just have to understand that it is logically impossible to consider what was done to be a mutilation without considering me mutilated. The only condition that would make that a logically sound statement is if my foreskin has since magically regrown.

You can say my parents took a risk that you wouldn't do yourself. You can say you believe what my parents did was unnecessary, or even wrong. But, just understand that, whether you mean it or not, when you believe what they've sanctioned upon me to be a mutilation, there is no way to say "oh, but they aren't mutilators, and you aren't mutilated." because, again, READ A DAMN DICTIONARY. This isn't a case of personal opinion or views, but of a fact in the English language. Mutilated is a past participle of the verb "to mutilate" and a mutilation. Hell, I'll even give you a friggen definition right here. A mutilation is defined as the action of mutilating or being mutilated.

This is becoming like the other thread that was made recently where one is trying so hard to defend an opinion that is based on false facts, and when called out on it declares their statement "just an opinion so you can't call me wrong." By saying "it doesn't fit in your logic, it fits in mine" is pretty much just that. Logic is an absolute. You can't say 1+1=3 and declare "it fits in my logic." Unless you are literally expecting us to redefine the English language to fit your logic, by calling circumcision a mutilation, you must therefore call every circumcised individual mutilated because that is how it is defined.

[HYHYBT]

It's not even a matter of connotation; it's the same word with the same meaning, only moved to a different part of speech.

[TheHuckster]

This debate has reached a point where there's really no point in continuing the cyclical "I didn't say that or mean that - yes you did" so I'm just going to make my final point here:

First of all, Aethan, I do not believe you fall in the category of people I took offense to in the beginning of this whole debacle. You make it clear that you don't consider myself to be horribly disfigured nor my parents to be terrible people. Under the strict definition of the term "to mutilate" I am mutilated and my parents are mutilators. Mutilation is simply a term, however, which only has as much emotional baggage as you intend, and I don't believe you are intending to use the term as a derogatory or as terrible a term as others have.

In the other reaches of the Internet, outside of this forum, people have used the term "mutilation" to describe circumcised males as disfigured, and their parents who sanctioned the practice as abusers who basically ruined their sons' lives, and compared the action to other far more debilitating forms of mutilation such as feet-binding and female circumcision. I can't say what percentage of these people are serious and which are trolls, but I can guess that at least a sizable portion of this group of people seriously believe I can't enjoy sex, my penis looks disgusting, and my parents are loathsome sadists who did so in the name of tradition. Both myself and my wife can testify that all three of those statements are patently false.

This is why I do get a bit sensitive when they throw out the term "mutilation" to describe circumcision. Again, I really don't care what other people do with their own or their sons' foreskins. It is their decision, and I respect both points of view on the subject.

[wolfie]

Thus I would assume, way back somewhere, someone noticed a correlation between weiner covers and syphilis. Then made it a religious thing to avoid said syphillis. Much like shellfish.

When you mention shellfish, I assume you're talking about the "covenant with God" circumcision of Jews. Slight flaw in that reasoning - from what I've read, syphilis was unknown in the "old world" until Columbus and his sailors brought it back with them from the New World. The practice had been around for a long time before that, so it couldn't have been someone noticing a correlation with syphilis. Also, if that were the source, there would need to have been relatively large numbers in both "camps" (curcumsized and not) to observe differences between - why would the "snipped" group have existed in the first place?

[siead_lietrathua]

...from what I've read, syphilis was unknown in the "old world" until Columbus and his sailors brought it back with them from the New World....

that's one hypothosis. the second is that is already existed, and had just not been given a name to the symptoms until real medicine began developing. there is no definitive answer to where it came from.

however, the issue of UTI would still have existed. UTIs are very easy to get in.. unhygenic.. enviroments, and can cause everything from "oh god my pee hurts" to "oh god why is my pee blood" to "why are my kidneys not working....*dies*"

[Gravekeeper]

Slight flaw in that reasoning - from what I've read, syphilis was unknown in the "old world" until Columbus and his sailors brought it back with them from the New World. The practice had been around for a long time before that, so it couldn't have been someone noticing a correlation with syphilis.

Syphilis was just a random example of a crotch focused affliction.

Also, if that were the source, there would need to have been relatively large numbers in both "camps" (curcumsized and not) to observe differences between - why would the "snipped" group have existed in the first place?

There were large numbers in both camps and even cycles where it went in and out of fashion in the same areas of the ancient world. To the point where your weiner status was legally acceptable evidence in court for the Romans. As for why they existed in the first place; there's like 30 different theories because the practice developed independently in several different areas.

So there's definitely a common thread throughout human history of people looking at weiners and thinking there was a problem here. If you don't have access too or the desire for regular hygiene, things can get unpleasant down there fairly quick. Until, as siead puts it, you're peeing blood and you kidneys shut down (*dies*).

[Andara Bledin]

I find the idea of altering the body of someone too young to object for what amounts to almost purely cosmetic purposes to be selfish and objectionable. I take similar disliking to baby girls with pierced ears, as if they're some accessory for the mom to upgrade or something.

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.

Fun fact: They've realized that the appendix actually serves an important function in the gut, and you should leave it alone unless it develops a problem (which is usually caused by it doing its job).

As for circumcision, itself, while there are some marginal (in some cases so marginal as to be functionally nonexistent) benefits to having it done, there are also some marginal chances for things to go horribly wrong. I personally, find the potential of the latter to cancel out the potential of the former to the point where it's just not worth the risk at this point in medical history.

ASIDE: Re: mutilation - Circumcision doesn't (typically) maim or interfere with the function of the recipient, so it's de facto not mutilation. You can call it such, but you'll be using some special English that doesn't align with common English, so don't be surprised if people don't get what you're going on about. There are other words that actually mean what you want that one to mean, so you'd be better off looking them up and using them, instead.

[Gravekeeper]

As for circumcision, itself, while there are some marginal (in some cases so marginal as to be functionally nonexistent) benefits to having it done, there are also some marginal chances for things to go horribly wrong. I personally, find the potential of the latter to cancel out the potential of the former to the point where it's just not worth the risk at this point in medical history.

We already covered that ground, and while the risk to benefit ratio makes it elective in western society, there are still a good number of developing countries and third world countries where the benefit does outweigh the risk.

Again, pragmatically speaking:

Pros:
Reduced rate of HIV, HPV, UTI ( Especially in very young children ), penile fungal infections, penile cancer and cervical cancer. The WHO considers it a major tool against the spread of HIV in high risk countries ( Reduction of up to 66% in infection rates ).

The CDC judged it a cost effect method of preventing the spread of HIV in the US. Where it reduces the life time chance of HIV infection by 16% on average. As well as a minor increase in quality adjusted life years. It also saves $87,000 per quality adjusted life year in HIV treatments.


Cons:
Nothing.

The risk of complications from a neonatal circumcision performed by a medical professional are extremely small. Minor complications occur in less than 1% of all cases in the US. Complications in general occur in 1.5% of all cases, worldwide ( Including both doctors and just dude's with knives in the Sahara ). Major complications occur in 0.2% of all cases. Severe complications in 0.0001% of all cases.

The rate of complications, however, increased with age.