A nevus removal is for cosmetic reasons. It’s a simple removal of healthy tissue to lessen the impact of being taunted by other kids and by waiting until the child is bigger, the nevus is bigger, making any possible scar also bigger. The nevus does not have a function, nerve endings that will be sexually stimulated when the child is an adult, is not a protective sheath, etc.
Wisdom teeth are sometimes removed because they are highly likely to cause problems down the line. I don’t know of this being done to infants or how likely this is to be done during childhood. The appendix situation I don’t know enough about, but I would thing because it’s a useful organ and the need for appendectomies during one’s lifetime is relatively rare and problems usually don’t end up in death, I would think it shouldn’t be removed just because a surgeon is working near the area.
But you just want to say, “But catsix said healthy parts should never be removed and I’m trying her to prove her wrong even though nevus removal is not in the same ballpark as circumcision”. Well grow up.
Not true. It’s an interesting and commonly used “debate” tactic by people who don’t have the facts on their side, dismissing their opponents as “unreasonable”, but that doesn’t make it true. The FACTS are this: there is X chance of negative consequences on the patient’s health due to circumcision. There there is Y chance of negative consequences on the patient’s health due to remaining uncircumcised. Y is greater than X. You just can’t get around that simple fact, no matter how hard you try and weasel out of it. If I’m given a choice between two bad outcomes, I’m going to make the choice that has the least possibility of a bad outcome, no matter how remote either of those outcomes might be. A “reasonable” person can do nothing else. The only way to make your case is to show me evidence that having a foreskin is medically preferable to not having one, a question I’ve asked three times now. Can you? (BTW, a blurb from Dr Edell and an anti-circ video do not constitute proof)
It is true. Deciding to remove a foreskin because of the teeniest amount of a greater chance of penile cancer is idiotic. It ignores the other risks involving getting circumcised such as “pain, bleeding, infection of the circumcision site and at the opening of the urethra, and irritation of the exposed tip of the penis. Long-term problems are even rarer but can include damage to the opening of the urethra, excessive bleeding that requires stitches, severe infection, or scarring and other problems from surgical error.”
It’s very easy to get around that inconsequential fact and catsix gave you one example: “It would’ve been much safer to remove your daughter’s breast buds at birth, considering the rate of incidence for breast cancer in the United States, but I suppose you let her keep those.”
Also, you’re pretending that penile cancer is the only consequence to consider.
And you weighed all the pros and cons are is penile cancer your only concern?
Then what kind of cite is good enough for you? Dr. Edell is pretty well respected in the medical community. What from that cite did you object to? Eh, never mind. Do whatever you want to your kids so they may never get penile cancer.
I considered all that. The chances of that were less than the chances of penile cancer (and now HIV). Why is this so hard for you to understand? You’re arguing that the chances of either are minuscule. I accept that, and agree with it. I just chose the option with the least amount of health risk. You still haven’t made even a dent in that calculation.
Catsix gave a completely unrelated analogy. Breasts are needed to nourish the young. Without them the young would die, and our species would become extinct. That’s a pretty big, no, an enormous plus that has no analog in the foreskin.
Nope, I’m not. Currently, HIV susceptibility has been added to the list of things circumcision can lower. Botched circumcisions are still less likely than either of those. You can win this debate very easily, all you have to do is provide what I’ve asked for over and over again: Proof that evidence that having a foreskin is medically preferable to not having one. Got any?
Answered in great detail before.
Actually, I respect Dr. Edell a lot. He has a no-nonsense approach to medicine that warms my heart. However, on the subject of circumcision, he goes off the track, away from what I respect him so much for. Just look at his summation line from your link:
“The foreskin may have functions not yet recognized or understood.”
It MAY have. It very well MAY have functions not yet recognized or understood. Until those functions are recognized and understood, I’ll happily stand where I am; on the side of what has been proven. Again, I ask you: Can you show me show me evidence that having a foreskin is medically preferable to not having one? Until you can, you’re just spinning your wheels.
Rubbish. Babies that are not breast-fed survive all the time in our culture, even without the services of a wet-nurse. If you want to increase your son’s survival chances by about 0.000045% by cutting his foreskin, you should be all over the prospect of increasing your daughter’s chances by a huge margin, and say “Let them drink formula” to your prospective grandchildren. Breast is better than formula, but not to the extent that you should play fast and loose with a woman’s life.
Incidentally, if you’re pro-circ because of that absurdly small percentage cited above, I hope like damn that you’re paying attention to all other health issues with an equal or greater percentage payoff. Otherwise it might look like you made up your mind at the outset to be pro-circ and are resorting to sophistry to justify not having to change your mind. :dubious:
To use your words: Rubbish. Sure, we humans have advanced beyond that strict need for women to nourish their babies through suckling, but that is still the purpose for breasts and still the best way to nourish a baby. Show me a similar purpose for the foreskin. Please, show it to me.
Straw man. I’m talking about circumcision here. All you have to do, and Jesus God it’s so simple, I’ve been saying it over and over again is this: Provide me proof that having a foreskin is medically preferable to not having one. Can you do that? I doubt it, but I am eager to be proven wrong.
Because talking to your son about hygeine and condoms would’ve been too difficult? Both of those are far, far more effective in STD prevention than circumcision is. The HIV statistics you keep alluding to are for sub-Saharan Africa where hygeine is often lacking and condom usage is virtually nonexistent.
You actually think that proof is required for justification to not cut off a body part? I’d expect that in any other case, those who want to permanently alter a normal, healthy body part without the consent of the person whose body is being altered should be the ones providing some damn good proof that what they are doing is necessary.
As for the removal of the wisdom teeth (20 year molars), by the age when that becomes an issue, I would imagine most people have significant input into their own medical decisions, or are making them on their own entirely. Or is DSeid suggesting that unwilling 17 year-old people are being strapped down and forced into oral surgery?
I don’t have to. You said “Breasts are needed to nourish the young.” They aren’t, and I have explained why. That’s all I need to do to falsify your assertion.
Oh, it’s a straw man to point out that you’ve been arguing for the health benefits of circumcision, is it? And to point out that in that case it’s surprisingly blinkered of you to keep trumpeting microscopic health benefits for one procedure and ignore comparatively massive benefits of others? I don’t need to point out where having a foreskin is medically preferable. All I need is to point out a few camels you’ve been swallowing while straining this particular gnat, no matter how you try to argue that your position can be falsified only by showing that possession of a foreskin is a health benefit.
Chotii thanks for trying. You see, the fact is that there are kids getting “big dark birthmarks” removed because of a small but real increased risk of cancer occurring in it at some future date. Most of the time abdominal surgery is performed near the appendix the appendix is removed. (The logic is that it potentially eliminates a future surgery for possible appendicitis and I would be shocked if those immediate families didn’t consent to an “incidental appendectomy” at the time.) Debating the wisdom of those choices is not the issue in my question any more than this question is to debate the medical wisdom of removing the prepuce. Wisdom teeth may or may not cause future problems despite your claim that it is “a given.” In each case you may or may not agree with the medical choice, I may or may not agree with the medical choice, they are not absolute indications, but by catsix’s standard it shouldn’t matter. A future risk, big or small, is immaterial. Her problem is “with the removal of a non-defective body part that’s not causing problems.” Parents working with their doctors should not be allowed to decide on behalf of their children. The state should not allow it.
D White, you don’t quite get it either. catsix isn’t just debating whether or not a circumcision is a good or a bad idea from a medical perspective. She is saying that it should not be allowed. As a pediatrician the general subject of what limits we place on parental medical decision making is of great interest to me. I wanted to understand her point of view. She somewhat offered her guideline eventually. I am unclear from your post - are you also arguing that parents shouldn’t be allowed to make the assessment for themselves? Or should Weirddave and his partner have had the freedom to make a medical decision on behalf of their son that you disagree with?
Again, I have zero interest in again participating in another debate over the pros and cons of routine circumcision as a medical procedure. That subject I’ll leave with merely agreeing that it is debatable. But you endorse the removal of healthy functional tissue (a nevus) in a fairly major to-do procedure to possibly avoid a child being teased later? You are right, the removal of a prepuce and of a large nevus are not comparable: the removal of a large nevus is a much bigger deal with much greater risks. What they share is that the choice is debatable. Some parents will look at the pluses and minuses and decide to do and some not and for both you can find doctors who would argue to do it or not. The issue is the same - in those cases of debatable decisions, who gets to have the final say?
What a surprise, the only “pro-foreskin” argument is inertia, all the while comparing circumcision to debilitating female circumcision or mastectomies. They’re not coming up with a medical reason to keep the foreskin, because there isn’t any.
The reality of circumcision is that it’s a very safe, very simple procedure that has been performed millions of times over thousands of years without the recipients considering themselves damaged goods. That’s not the case with female circumcision and mastectomies, and you all know it. It’s not invasive surgery like an appendectomy either.
Parents decide what is right for their children, from what they eat, where they go to school, what they wear, to what medical / cultural / cosmetic procedures they get. That is the ONLY way it can be, you’re proposing to handcuff parents and remove them from the decision making process, which is ridiculous to even consider. Who should choose, the doctor? I’m not letting a doctor decide whether or not my child gets a procedure, the doctor tells me the risks and benefits and I choose the course of treatment.
What a surprise, the only “anti-foreskin” argument is pointing out the anatomical unnecessity of the foreskin. They’re not coming up with a medical reason to justify this lifesaving procedure while neglecting that one, because there isn’t any.
Another modest proposal: Harvest eggs from all females at menarche, then tie their tubes. Unwanted pregnancy has far more health risks associated with it than the presence of a foreskin, and while sterilisation isn’t 100% effective, it’ll cut the incidence of unwanted pregnancies by two or three orders of magnitude. Someone else can work out the hard numbers, but a nationwide circumcision programme would be doing well to save two lives per year.
I’ll give you a pro-foreskin argument that isn’t “inertia”. And at the same time I hope to banish the notion that foreskin is unnecessary:
We uncut boys can (and do) masturbate without the use of lotion or lubricants. It’s practical, pleasurable and saves money in the long run. You might say that the foreskin is a built-in p*ssy. Unnecessary my ass. How many of you scalped boys wouldn’t want one of those?
You mean outside of reducing the incidence of penile cancer and the transmission of AIDS, right? The other procedures are neglected because they are much more dangerous than circumcision. Feel free to suggest an alternate “lifesaving” procedure that is even remotely as non-invasive as circumcision.
This doesn’t quite fit the bill.
The problem here is that you’re trying to come up with an analogy, but there really isn’t another procedure quite like circumcision available to compare it to. If circumcision was as invasive as any of these procedures you’ve been suggesting it wouldn’t be done. It’s a very minor procedure that’s been done on hundreds of millions of men around the globe, because it’s a very minor procedure.
BTW, if you had a reversable sterilization procedure, that was similar in invasiveness and side effects to circumcision, I’d be totally in favor of it, and so would you.
That depends on where on earth you are, doesn’t it? Since apparently for generation after generation in some parts of Africa, women have been cutting the genitals of their daughters because they believe it is the ‘right’ thing to do, and don’t consider themselves damaged as a result.
The practice isn’t legal in any western society, regardless of the severity, and you’d be hard pressed to find an American who would argue that parents should be allowed to decide to remove their daughter’s clitoral prepuce at birth, regardless of their reasons for wanting to do so.
And when a boy or a man does consider himself damaged, or that he was mutilated, because his parents chose to have his foreskin cut or burned off, the pro-circ crowd dismisses his feelings, tells him to ‘man up and get over it’, and refuses to accept his feelings as legitimate at all. Men who do come forward about feeling mutilated due to unnecessary circumcisions are ridiculed, unfairly IMO, but they still do exist.
Penile cancer? Penile shmenile. Reduce the incidence from one in 4.5 million to one in 9 million by circumcising every male in the land? How is that remotely justifiable? In terms of cost/benefit it would make much more sense to remove breast buds. I grant you that’s more invasive, but it would save several orders of magnitude more lives.
And its health benefits are correspondingly minor, and cited as a justification by those who’ve already decided that it’s the shizzle. My modest proposal would save thousands of lives, reduce expenditure on contraception, do away with complications caused by hormones and IUDs, and more or less end abortion at a stroke. Even allowing for the invasiveness, its cost/benefit analysis beats circumcision’s like a red-headed stepchild.
Hey, if reversing circumcision was as quick and easy as circumcision, I’d be totally in favour of it too.
Well, obviously he does - in diet, medicine, personal habits, and education. We must assume so, for otherwise there’d be some kind of special pleading going on here for circumcision. :dubious:
With or without communication with my son, circumcision makes him safer. What part of that do you not understand? Why is this so hard for you?
When the statistics, scientifically derived statistics, show that he is healthier without the body part then with it, yes, absolutely I think proof is required to justify not cutting it off. What the hell kind of crack are you smoking that you think that’s unreasonable?
Actually, his relative health status does not change based on whether he has a foreskin or not. What changes is his risk of contracting a particular virus, and his risk of developing a particular cancer. There are a lot of body parts that can develop cancer or otherwise contribute to health risk, but in general we do not preemptively remove them as a risk-lowering measure.
Um…you haven’t falsified anything. Mankind developing formula in the last century doesn’t change the function of breasts. By your logic, one could argue that as soon as we develop perfectly reliable artificial insemination techniques, all men should have their penises cut off as unnecessary.
Jesus, you’re an idiot. You say that I’m ignoring “comparatively massive benefits” from other surgical procedures, but what you’re omitting from that calculation is that the other surgical procedures, you know, the ones that yeild “massive benefits”, also demonstratively harm the patient. Circumcision doesn’t. Sorry, you lose. Make a coherent, factual argument and I’ll listen, but so far…you’ve got nothing, as I expected.
