Sauron,
> As info, I’m trying to find some contact information for Dr. Schoen and the other doctors you accused of being “pedophiles.” I imagine they’d want to know about this. <
No, [remainder of post edited by David B to remove potentially libelous material, as I explained in my warning on the previous page]
[Edited by David B on 11-08-2000 at 06:37 PM]
Falcon,
> This MEANS: “Most victims of FGM assert that their sex life is changed because of the surgery.” Therefore, bunny IS saying that their sex life has changed. Of COURSE it has! <
You're right about what she is saying. And, I said that this statement was wrong because FGM victims in Africa say that their sexuality is unharmed !
> Oh, and your comment on treatment for cancer and such being a waste for people over age 70? I’ll tone down my response, since I’m not in the Pit, but you’re wrong. All 4 of my grandparents are alive thanks to agressive medical care when they were 60. So kindly shut up. Thanks. <
Obviously, you didn't take the time to read the post, thoroughly, again. What we are doing here is a charade whereby someone is taking the pro-circumcision position that there is a net savings in medical costs if a baby has his most erogenous body part amputated. So, we are looking at the eventual costs for penile cancer therapy. The baby really appreciates it when we really do our best to make the right decision by his future sex life. I'm sorry if that offends your sensibilities.You know, Jack, if I were Dr. Schoen I’d take offense to your description of me (which I won’t quote because I suspect David or Gaudere will be editing shortly). In fact, I’d be thinking about a lawsuit against you.
Felice
David B,
Why am I not allowed to make comparisons between pedophiles, child rapists, and child-mutilating pedophiles? Why can I not argue that a circumcising doctor falls into one of these classes?
It is not libelous for me to say anything I want about anyone in a forum. The courts have already ruled that this is protected under the First Amendment. IOW's, statements made in forums such as this are not considered public statements. In any event, I would be more than happy to go on record as insisting that I can prove my accusations against Schoen in court. If Schoen desires that I make myself available for the service of papers he has but to let me know.Cite?
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Libel is not protected by the First Amendment. And this is not a court of law.
The statements that you made are against the rules of the SDMB. If you don’t like it, go post somewhere else. If you want to argue about it, use the Pit or e-mail.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Jack,
The article I posted does not refer to diseases of the foreskin only but to diseases of any genital skin. I suggest you read it before you comment further.
Also-please check Medline-as I said there are hundreds of studies on the foreskin.
Finally-I am curious as to how you developed your theory of the correct way to have sex, seeing that nobody in the world but you does it correctly. Also-anybody here tried Jack’s method? Is it really so much better?
I’m not really an insane rabbit, I just play one on the net.
We are looking at the eventual costs of many behaviors and medical possibilities that have been linked with uncircumcised men. Penile cancer is one of them.
And I would LOVE to hear any interviews or surveys you’ve done with babies that would back up the statement you made above.
Face it, Jack. Arguing about “what a baby wants” or “what a baby appreciates” is pointless. I won’t argue that “circumcision doesn’t hurt,” because judging by a baby’s reaction it obviously does. But also judging by a baby’s reaction, it’s my opinion that it quits hurting fairly quickly. This is based solely on my observation of several babies being brought back into the nursery after having their circumcisions performed. I have yet to see one cry for more than five minutes. I’m sure your legion of undercover operatives have more detailed evidence to the contrary, though.
If you’re arguing that we shouldn’t do things that have a potential health benefit but also hurt a baby or a child, then you’re arguing against immunization, as well.
You’ve got to be able to prove it first, friend. Just saying “X person is Y because I say so . . . isn’t it common knowledge” in GD will get you this much - nobody will believe you if they’ve got their head screwed on tight (and it ISN’T common knowledge).
In addition to that, this site is run off the Chicago Reader. You have to play by the rules of the SDMB to post here. Regardless of what rights of yours are or aren’t being violated, those are the rules. Play nice or bye-bye.
Just an aside to those who might know . . . if Schoen et al found Jack saying these things about them, can they sue the Reader? In the sense of, do they have due cause?
I imagine they could name the Reader in a suit, but I’m pretty certain the Reader would be absolved … particularly considering David’s fast (and apparently completely deserved) editing job.
If I recall correctly, Cecil covered a similar topic in a column a few months back. A professor was being maligned on a public board that was designed to provide feedback on classes at a particular university. (I think I’ve got the generalities right, but my memory is a tricky thing.) The case was not resolved at the time, but legal authorities seemed to be taking a pretty dim view of singling out one non-famous person by name on a board designed for use by the general public.
At any rate, I don’t believe Jack has the right to make the assertions regarding Dr. Schoen and others. I’m not a lawyer, so my opinion in that matter means squat.
Speaking of Jack, where is he? Or, for that matter, Acksiom? Have we finally convinced him that circumcision is a good thing?
However.
Have Jack’s previous references to them as you-know-whats (I’d rather not disgrace people who know far more than I do on this subject, and who have not yet personally insulted me) been edited out?
Jack posts in dumps. He’ll post a bunch and then go away to do whatever.
Hold yer water, you hasty pudding you. I’ve got people in RL to take care of. My responses are mostly done, just need a little touching up.
In the meantime, if I could present you with evidence indicating that Schoen (and his little friends Weiss and Wiswell) had lied in print about the body of penile cancer research, would it cause you to view his (and their) own research from a more jaundiced perspective?
Ya gotta understand, I’m pretty sure I’m more familiar with these guys than you are. Now, unlike Jack, I don’t assume they’re pedophiles. . .but I do think their professional credibility started out poor and has been shot all to hell since.
There’s four fundamental reasons why the medical proponents of male genital reduction should be viewed suspiciously:
1). The money. The latest stats I have on total costs of male genital reduction in the usa for 1999 is over two billion dollars. That’s from HCIA-Sachs via a contact of mine who’s working on a white paper about the profit motive to this. Mean costs per procedure was about $1899.00. Infant male genital reduction is one of – if not still THE – most common billing items in usa medicine. We all like to think our medicos are above such things. . .but when you add insurance & HMOs into the picture, suddenly it’s no longer the PATIENTS getting defrauded, it’s a Faceless Corporation. . .and that’s a different story entirely, now isn’t it?
And I haven’t even touched upon the potential veritable nightmare of malpractice litigation waiting in the wings. . . .
2). The Denial Part A. You tell me how likely a doc who’s been doing these things to boys for years is likely to accept the documentation that it causes permanent, meaningful neurological losses and sensory detriment. Not likely at all. Doctors are not gods. They’re just as subject to the same human failings that everyone else has to deal with. And that includes guilt, repression, denial, and the construction of elaborate ice cream castles in the air for self-justification.
Please note, BTW, that Wiswell did not have his OWN sons genitally reduced. One has to wonder. . . .
3). The Denial Part B. How many doctors who have had this done to THEM are likely to rationally, objectively consider the possibility that THEY have suffered permanent, meaningful neurological losses and sensory detriment? Again, not likely at all. And again, if the documentation exists and cannot be easily dismissed. . .then the potential for responses of repression, denial, and the construction of elaborate ice cream castles in the air for the defense of one’s self-image is notably increased.
4). The Faith. This one is by no means broadly applicable, but be honest now: would you take the word of a sunnah conforming islamic doctor about the ‘benefits’ of comparable female genital reduction at face value? No, I didn’t think so. Nor do I think the word of a jewish doctor, who is likely to have a vested interest in the protection of this practice from legislative interference, should be accepted unquestioningly. I’m not an anti-semite, in fact I’m what the jews have been crying out for for centuries: I DON’T GIVE A TINKER’S DAMN IF SOMEONE’S JEWISH OR NOT.
The drawback to that is, well, jews don’t get any SPECIAL treatment from me just for being jews, EITHER. And that means their assertions about empirical reality get put under the same examination glass as everyone else’s.
I expect some people will want to argue these points. Save it. I’m not interested.
Much longer reply than I originally intended and I have to get back to my Da. Later.
It would depend on, among other things, the source and date of the evidence. I’m not going to assume, given Jack’s opinions of those doctors, that he looked terribly hard for evidence refuting anything you had.
Not likely at all if there isn’t any . . . did I miss something?
So why the heck bother posting it in the first place if you’re not going to discuss it? Seems to me like a drive-by post. Cleanup in Aisle 1, anyone?
I wonder how Acksiom found his way to the SDMB?
Esprix
It certainly would. Just as I’ve viewed Jack’s assertions with more than a glance askance. If Schoen et al. have been brought up before medical review boards, or have been the focus of an unbiased review by a reputable organization and have come up lacking, it would have a definite effect on my opinion of them. As it stands right now, they are medical professionals who have done studies on the very procedure we are discussing. I have no idea if they have an agenda, and you (or Jack) saying that they do means squat. Proving that they do, however, can and will make a difference.
You might wanna get with Jack on this – he puts the figure at $3 billion. Maybe some of the findings of his undercover operatives haven’t been figured into the equation.
Seriously? I mean, if we get an itemized bill from the hospital, will it say “Infant male genital reduction - $2400” on there? I bet a lot of guys would quit asking for their sons to be circumcised if this is the way it shows up. Or are you engaging in a bit of editorial license there?
But as Jack has pointed out ad nauseum, there’s been no physiological study of the foreskin, so how can you claim “meaningful neurological losses and sensory detriment”?
Tough, sport. You post in Great Debates, prepare to defend your points and not make baseless pronouncements or accusations. Otherwise, prepare to have your message/crusade/effort roundly criticized and derided. This ain’t MPSIMS.
Purely hypothetical question for either you or Jack: If medical evidence proved that circumcising infant boys increased their lifespan by 20 years, would you agree to it? At what point does the benefit outweigh the cost, in other words?
I’ve always been a bit suspicious of arguments of that form.
It’s like the Bloom County debate between Meadow Party candidates. Milo attacks Opus.
“Reducing speed from 65 mph to 55 would save 35,123 lives a month, surely my opponent would not oppose this?”
“Saving lives is good, I’m in favour of that.”
“What about 35, then, hm? 35 mph hour would save an additional 20,067 lives!”
“35 is awfully slow…”
“There you have it, my opponent is in favour of mass murder! I bet he zips along at 55 mph as he goes to get his manicure, you know, Hitler got manicures…”
The problem is identifying how much harm, and whether some simple lessons in cleanliness might cancel it out, and whether there might not indeed be some benefits, if not in increased pleasure, then at least psychologically.
The NORM guy would probably happily engage this debate, if people responded to his claims, I’d be willing to relay.
Here, again, are his earlier rehttp://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=38549 sponses.
Grr. Should’ve checked where I was pasting that. 
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=38549
Sauron,
> We are looking at the eventual costs of many behaviors and medical possibilities that have been linked with uncircumcised men. Penile cancer is one of them. <
No, we are engaging in a charade whereby we assume that there is some connection with these problems and intact penises. You have no studies showing that there actually is a connection. You only have the word of some very disreputable physicians.
> And I would LOVE to hear any interviews or surveys you’ve done with babies that would back up the statement you made above. <
Ten out of ten babies oppose circumcision. They say so with their screams.
> Face it, Jack. Arguing about “what a baby wants” or “what a baby appreciates” is pointless. I won’t argue that “circumcision doesn’t hurt,” because judging by a baby’s reaction it obviously does. <
Why don't you wait until the baby can speak and is old enough to make an informed decision for himself? Is it because you will no longer have any power over him if you wait? Is it because you just wish you had this kind of power over one of your ex-husbands?
> But also judging by a baby’s reaction, it’s my opinion that it quits hurting fairly quickly. <
Who knows?
> If you’re arguing that we shouldn’t do things that have a potential health benefit but also hurt a baby or a child, then you’re arguing against immunization, as well. <
Vaccines don't have "potential" health benefits, vaccines have DEFINITE health benefits. That's the difference.You know, Jack, this is the same argument that the cigarette companies have used for years to deny that there is a connection between cigarettes and lung cancer.
(Adopting best reasonable tone) So, let’s try a slightly different approach. The data shows that there is a correlation between uncircumcised penises and incidence of penile cancer. But, correlation does not necessarily mean causation, as my stats professor was fond of saying. So, what would you accept as evidence indicating that there is a causal relationship between lack of circumcision and penile cancer? I’m not saying there is any such evidence, now. I’m asking you to try to think outside of your one-track mind and imagine that there might be some beneficial aspects to circumcision. And then asking you to define what sort of evidence you would consider to support that such an argument. Try being skeptical about your own beliefs. For a change.
Sauron,
> Purely hypothetical question for either you or Jack: If medical evidence proved that circumcising infant boys increased their life span by 20 years, would you agree to it? At what point does the benefit outweigh the cost, in other words? <
Based upon my own personal research, I would say that neonatal circumcision is a fate worse than death. The reason that I say this is that RIC prevents a man from ever truly completing a sexual act. He can ejaculate, but he cannot experience the sensations that his neurophysiology will demand. This in turn leads to porno-holism, violent sex crimes against women and children, or at the very least, low self-esteem.
Those men that can contain themselves from committing crimes will still experience some level of systematic anti-social personality disorder such as hyper-religionism or, in some cases, hype-governmentism. Or, they may strife to occupy some other position of authority where they can abuse others such as doctor (circumcising doctor?) or any position of authority. You'll see that the nature of their ASPD will always have a major sexual element. That's why I feel strongly that the persons who have perpetrated this crime on these men must fix these men. These men deserve a life.
You know Mark Twain remarked in one of his books that women have ten times the libido of men. This is probably because in Twain's time, circumcision was extremely rare. Nature's delicate balance has been turned upside down in our society.