|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:41 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
the problem is that the peole who do get it are not people who have a religious belief. The people who get it are BABIES. Do babies have the mental capacity to make such a decision? Circumcision should be legal for adults. It shouldnt be legal to force it onto babies. *beep* religion. |
Babies don't have the mental capacity to opt out of being Christian Scientist and asking for a blood transfusion. Babies don't have the ability to ask to be taken to a real doctor instead of Benny Hinn. Unfortunately in our society we currently let parents let their children suffer horribly and die because of their beliefs. Yes, I agree religion can go fork itself. But simply saying that won't change anything. I'll await the day the state can step in.
How do you suppose we affect this change? |
Get elected and ban the practice? I dont know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IlIlNine wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
That's true. Although I would sure rather get cut back when I was a baby and can't remember anything. But your logic is valid. |
Why?
I guess the question is -- and I hope this isn't too much of a strech --
If it was found that chopping a little part of somewhere else (you pick!) had similar health benefits to circumcision, would you do it?
This, to be honest, is how I've formed my opinion about this topic. I wouldn't - in my fully concious state - choose to do it... so why would I condone it being done to my (say) son? Granted -- your answer may be different... and I assure you, I didn't mean to put you on the spot (so feel free not to answer).
Arguing on the internet is fun.. but if science found that trimming off some skin from your scrotum (sorry) meant that you were (debatably and inconclusively) 23% (random number) less likely for you to contract some (pick one!) STD that's otherwise prevented by condom use (or something else equally as simple) - would you do it? Even if some girls said it looked pretty?
I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say (well, guess really..) that if everyone in the US waited until they were 16 to get it done - not many would get it done. |
I think you have hit the nail on the head.
Belzond and jinju were irrationally arguing an untenable position- that circumcision causes harm to the child. Of course all scientific studies show the opposite, that circumcision is advantageous.
However, unlike the two aforementioned over-emotional ranters, I'm a reasonable, objective and honest man. I agree that an irreversible removal of part of a childs genitals while they are too young to consent, is morally unnaceptable, and except in the case of medical necesity, the option should be left for them to decide from the age of 16 upwards.
Ignoring the ridiculous language of jinu & co, lets also accept that most parents opting to circumcise their infants do so not as "baby abusers"  but as responsible parents who are doing so in what they believe to be the best interests of the child. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:52 am Post subject: yes |
|
|
You guys are way off topic, not me.
The Op wrote about lower risk of contracting HIV without as foreskin. Now it has become a moral argument about a child's rights, talking about urinary infection, etc.
I think this is not a good thing to teach people, as it gives people some sort of false hope that without a foreskin, they are somehow safe. Tell that to Africans, and you may be responsible for another 10,000 cases of HIV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
belzoond
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Location: united states
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nautilus has gone from posting misogynistic personal attacks and disgusting jokes about rape, and now he tries to save face by making himself look reasonable the only way he can - by conceding the basic unacceptability of needlessly altering a child's genitals. Well, good for him.
Moving on...
It's tedious to have to repeat myself, but... infant circumcision is not endorsed as an advantageous procedure by any medical body in the western world. That means that the potential benefits have not been found to outweigh the risks and harms.
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Circumcision on a baby doesn't involve a long recovery process. It's a removal of a fold of skin. It's not lung surgery. You're not bed ridden for weeks.
What evidence, beyond supposition, do you have that circumcision can affect a human's mental development because x amount of non-reoccurring pain was inflicted in the first year of life? |
To begin with, let me just say that the burden of proof as to whether neonatal circumcision is a harmless and benign act rests upon the circumcisers. They are the ones who endorse what is manifestly cruel and irrational. The burden of proof, in all fairness, should not not rest upon those who oppose the thing.
I have already posted links to studies that have addressed this. Marshall (1982) and Howard (1994) http://www.cirp.org/library/birth/marshall1/ have studied the effect of the pain, stress, and trauma, of male neonatal circumcision upon subsequent feeding behavior: they each found that neonatal circumcision was a disruptive influence. Read it.
There was recently some research that was unfortunately interrupted. They used MRI and PET scanning equipment to study the metabolic activity in the brain of an infant who underwent a circumcision and found permanent, consistent changes hours, days, and months after the surgery � the child�s brain never returned to its baseline configuration. You can read more about it and why the hospital forced him to destroy his research here:
http://groups.msn.com/circabolition/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=2261
This doctor is the director for the Pacific Institute of Advanced Study. His scientific credentials are extraordinary and his findings reveal what should be obvious anyway.
Of course, science does not rest on unsubstantiated claims, no matter how authoritative the author. But if Tinari's findings were to ever be repeated successfully, published, and replicated, the implications would be most uncomfortable. Keep in mind that thousands of babies are circumcised every day in the United States: there are undoubtedly many parents who will insist on circumcising their child, but would be willing to allow their son to participate in a study like this. Replicating this kind of study during a circumcision that�s going to happen anyway would be very inexpensive, and it�s unconscionable not to replicate it immediately. You can�t put a drug on the market without years of expensive testing and proofs of safety. There is absolutely no excuse for not doing more studies like this to document the true effects of circumcision on infants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| belzoond wrote: |
| Nautilus has gone from posting misogynistic personal attacks and disgusting jokes about rape, and now he tries to save face by making himself look reasonable the only way he can - by conceding the basic unacceptability of needlessly altering a child's genitals. . |
what an idiotic troll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| lzond and jinju were irrationally arguing an untenable position- that circumcision causes harm to the child. Of course all scientific studies show the opposite, that circumcision is advantageous. |
you are a filthy liar. Actually the links you provided come out wit totally differebt conclusions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| belzoond wrote: |
| Nautilus has gone from posting misogynistic personal attacks and disgusting jokes about rape, and now he tries to save face by making himself look reasonable the only way he can - by conceding the basic unacceptability of needlessly altering a child's genitals. . |
what an idiotic troll. |
you are the troll. You did make sicko jokes about rape and women. Do I have to quote you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| belzoond wrote: |
Nautilus has gone from posting misogynistic personal attacks and disgusting jokes about rape, and now he tries to save face by making himself look reasonable the only way he can - by conceding the basic unacceptability of needlessly altering a child's genitals. Well, good for him.
Moving on...
It's tedious to have to repeat myself, but... infant circumcision is not endorsed as an advantageous procedure by any medical body in the western world. That means that the potential benefits have not been found to outweigh the risks and harms.
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Circumcision on a baby doesn't involve a long recovery process. It's a removal of a fold of skin. It's not lung surgery. You're not bed ridden for weeks.
What evidence, beyond supposition, do you have that circumcision can affect a human's mental development because x amount of non-reoccurring pain was inflicted in the first year of life? |
To begin with, let me just say that the burden of proof as to whether neonatal circumcision is a harmless and benign act rests upon the circumcisers. They are the ones who endorse what is manifestly cruel and irrational. The burden of proof, in all fairness, should not not rest upon those who oppose the thing.
I have already posted links to studies that have addressed this. Marshall (1982) and Howard (1994) http://www.cirp.org/library/birth/marshall1/ have studied the effect of the pain, stress, and trauma, of male neonatal circumcision upon subsequent feeding behavior: they each found that neonatal circumcision was a disruptive influence. Read it. |
The problem is you're making a rather astounding claim that some one time pain could have some long lasting psychological effects. This is what I assume from your statement about the first year of life being a critical time of mental development for a child. If you mean the one time pain might affect a human's mental development with negative repercussions beyond the first year of life, for that, I'd like to see some evidence.
In any regard, the HIV protection benefit suggested by this recent study in the west probably does not outweigh the risks in the west. The medical establishment should be encouraged to advise parents to avoid this procedure. However, for religious reasons, it would be hard to make it illegal.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:58 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| nautilus wrote: |
| lzond and jinju were irrationally arguing an untenable position- that circumcision causes harm to the child. Of course all scientific studies show the opposite, that circumcision is advantageous. |
you are a filthy liar. Actually the links you provided come out wit totally differebt conclusions. |
When did you actually lose it? You used to be a rather well balanced, reasonable poster with a clutch of nice photos. What turned you into this bitter person? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
| nautilus wrote: |
| lzond and jinju were irrationally arguing an untenable position- that circumcision causes harm to the child. Of course all scientific studies show the opposite, that circumcision is advantageous. |
you are a filthy liar. Actually the links you provided come out wit totally differebt conclusions. |
When did you actually lose it? You used to be a rather well balanced, reasonable poster with a clutch of nice photos. What turned you into this bitter person? |
he lied about what transpired. Links to studies he says support circumcision, links he gave, actually dont support it as a preventive measure for any of the conditions he brought up. He is lying about what has transpired in this thread and to me that makes him a liar. I know why he's lying...he feels like a fool. He is the first person Ive debated that has given reference sources that kill his own argument.
| Quote: |
| Of course all scientific studies show the opposite, that circumcision is advantageous |
nothing but a filthy lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
belzoond
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Location: united states
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
The problem is you're making a rather astounding claim that some one time pain could have some long lasting psychological effects. This is what I assume from your statement about the first year of life being a critical time of mental development for a child.
If you mean the one time pain might affect a human's mental development with negative repercussions beyond the first year of life, for that, I'd like to see some evidence.
|
So would I - but evidence supporting either position would be incredibly difficult to go about collecting. If you take another look at what I have actually written, I have not made *claims* to that end - I have only shown you some research that hints at what may, for all you or I know, be the tip of the iceberg. I found your repeated effort to equate the trauma and aftereffects of circumcision with that of vaccination to be disingenuous and that it ignored basic qualitative differences. Neonatal infants were once believed to have extremely minimal nervous systems and to have received no lasting impressions from the first year of life; that is now known to be false. Given that we are talking about what is now believed to be an important stage of human development, I don't believe there is anything particularly astounding about the idea. I hope my fears are misplaced, but it will take more than what I have seen here to dispel them. That is all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
I think you lost control there. Your reponse was chock-full of ad hominem attacks and it doesn't signify the composure of a stoic. What were you saying about the women in order to attack someone? |
Well now its always the same on this forum isn't it? I try to keep a civil and objective discussion going politely for as long as possible, other people assume i am weak and attack me with insults, then when I respond in the same vaein suddenly i am judged to be the perpetrator.
If you look back through the thread, you'll see that I was attacked first, not the other way round. But of course on daves nobody ever notices that.
So now i've evened the score, I'm quite happy to continue the discussion in a civil manner. As was my plan all along anyhow. |
Yes, but you can still restrain yourself. I know I am sounding like one of our teachers from back home. But this is a forum, not someone at Gecko's asking you to prove your manhood and pushing you. You can respond, there is nothing wrong with that, but you can do it in a different way, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: yes |
|
|
| Ilsanman wrote: |
You guys are way off topic, not me.
The Op wrote about lower risk of contracting HIV without as foreskin. Now it has become a moral argument about a child's rights, talking about urinary infection, etc.
I think this is not a good thing to teach people, as it gives people some sort of false hope that without a foreskin, they are somehow safe. Tell that to Africans, and you may be responsible for another 10,000 cases of HIV. |
If being circumcised helps you become safeer, it does not necessarily mean people will have a lot more sex than they do now in Africa. You are assuming a lot. Anyway, saying that is like saying telling Western men that they have a far less chance of getting the virus than women will simply encourage them to have sex, and we shouldn't tell them that.
We do know sex is very tempting and if circumcision does in fact help or may help it is better to be safe than sorry.
You have heard of people as adults who actually had circumcisions, and it was not because they converted to Orthodox Judaism or perhaps Islam. Some had to do it for health reasons. Have others heard of such cases?
I think what some Turks do of having some children who are 4 or 5 circumcised is ridiculous. I remember seeing an old issue of National Geographic where this blonde red face Turkish kid was crying about the idea of getting circumcised and they were giving him all this money. If you are going to do it, do it when they are much younger than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: Re: yes |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Ilsanman wrote: |
You guys are way off topic, not me.
The Op wrote about lower risk of contracting HIV without as foreskin. Now it has become a moral argument about a child's rights, talking about urinary infection, etc.
I think this is not a good thing to teach people, as it gives people some sort of false hope that without a foreskin, they are somehow safe. Tell that to Africans, and you may be responsible for another 10,000 cases of HIV. |
If being circumcised helps you become safeer, it does not necessarily mean people will have a lot more sex than they do now in Africa. You are assuming a lot. Anyway, saying that is like saying telling Western men that they have a far less chance of getting the virus than women will simply encourage them to have sex, and we shouldn't tell them that.
We do know sex is very tempting and if circumcision does in fact help or may help it is better to be safe than sorry. |
I find it's never a good idea to carry out a policy on a large number of people with the assumption that they are all smart. If there was another operation out there that you could perform on your children that would decrease the chance of them getting pregnant by 30% I don't think it should be done either. You could throw all the educational and free condom programs at them in the world after that and the conclusion they would come to would still be "less chance of knocking my girl up! Awesome! Sex twice tonight!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| He is the first person Ive debated |
Normally i wouldn't bother 'debating" with a silly embittered troll such as yourself, because your style is too predictable: you make a statement based on emotion, then try in vain to back it up with science.
When that of course fails, you try to stay in it by throwing insults to garantee a response, or twisting the facts to say what they do not. or, even more deperately, make outlandish claims as to the personality of your "adversary" eg "he is a baby mutilator who rapes girls" etc etc .
Juvenile and the stuff of a first time "make a name for myself" poster, but it was a slow day and i needed a laff.
If you look at the original post and title of this thread, you will see that it is about studies that confirm circumcision helps to prevent HIV transmission. Maybe you'd better argue with the scientists who made the research? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
