|
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 |
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
