Ah, just like cutting off a mole from a child's face is "no less barbaric than doing it to girls"? Removing a tumor or other unwanted growth from an otherwise healthy child should be banned? After all, adults should have the right to choose weather or not that benign growth on their arm that looks not unlike a small potato should be removed through surgery! Far be it from parents, who have the LEGAL RIGHT and OBLIGATION to make health decisions for their children, to choose to commit their child to a harmless operation that produces PROVEN MEDICAL BENEFITS.
Your silly articles go after the trials done in Africa. Here's one done on men in San Francisco: From PLOS-1: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000861 [plosone.org]...Table 2 shows the proportion of visits by circumcised men at the San Francisco municipal STD clinic from 1996 through 2005 by sexual orientation, syphilis and HIV infection status. There was a trend towards a protective effect of circumcision for syphilis infection in heterosexual HIV-uninfected men and in a lesser extent in HIV-infected men."
"The prevalence of circumcision refers to the proportion of males in a given population who have been circumcised. It does not refer to the proportion of newborn males that are being circumcised today. Estimates of the proportion of males worldwide that are circumcised vary from 16[3] to 13.[4] The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that globally 30% of males aged 15 and over are circumcised, with almost 70% of these being Muslim.[5]" -Wikipeia
I pointed out how male circumcision is like removing a mole or other unwanted growth from your body. If done properly, it is harmless, and is likely to lead to better health. I am very happy that I was circumcised, and, more importantly, I am very happy that my parents had the RIGHT and the GOOD SENSE to make that choice FOR ME as an infant. if it is not done properly, which it appears to unfortunately have been in your case, it can have side effects. But I have news for you, and you can get up on a chair and scream and yell and get mad all you want. But when you are a newborn infant, your body is NOT your own. For all intents and purposes, "you" belonged to your parents as a newborn, who have LEGAL RIGHTS to make health decisions for you, which YOU are trying to take away.
If you are grown with an unsightly tumor on your body, your parents can make the choice to "mutilate" you, commit "violence" against you, and remove that tumor. Hey, maybe you, as an adult, WANT that tumor on your face! hey, shouldn't you want the right to have remove it yourself? Your logic is rediculous. 30% of the world's men are NOT mutilated, any more than a person who has an unwanted growth removed is mutilated.
Idiot. the side effect of any botched operation can be bad. But the side effects of NOT having circumcision performed can outweigh the drawbacks, as multiple sources show.
The AAP has put forward multiple studies showing the efficacy of male circumcision in reducing certain STDs and diseases. You just don't like the science. You folks are just like the climate change deniers.
Thanks for linking to Garbage Science. Here's proof these people have no idea what they are talking about:
Your link has "No field-test has been performed to evaluate the effectiveness, complications, personnel requirements, costs and practicality of proposed approaches in real-life conditions. These are the classic distinctions between efficacy and effectiveness trials, and between internal validity and external validity [6]." Crap crap crap. Form the NYTimes:
" In updating its 1999 policy, the academy’s task force reviewed the medical literature on benefits and harms of the surgery. It was a protracted analysis that began in 2007, and the result is a 30-page report, which includes seven pages of references, including 248 citations.
Among those are 14 studies that provide what the experts characterize as “fair” evidence that circumcision in adulthood protects men from H.I.V. transmission from a female partner, cutting infection rates by 40 to 60 percent. Three of the studies were large randomized controlled trials of the kind considered the gold standard in medicine, but they were carried out in Africa, where H.I.V. — the virus the causes AIDS — is spread primarily among heterosexuals. "
That's 14 studies. Your article talks about three studies in Africa. Mine talks about 14. I wonder why your article didn't mention the other 11?
Why don't you quote from a respected journal rather than some HACK journal?
Here ya go: From PLOS-1: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000861...Table 2 shows the proportion of visits by circumcised men at the San Francisco municipal STD clinic from 1996 through 2005 by sexual orientation, syphilis and HIV infection status. There was a trend towards a protective effect of circumcision for syphilis infection in heterosexual HIV-uninfected men and in a lesser extent in HIV-infected men."
Those methods were proven wrong because the science showed them to be so.
But some scientific claims, such as evolution, made in the 19th century have turned out to be true. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's wrong.
It turns out the evidence is INCREASING the good reasons for circumcision.
"However, an AAP task force formed in 2007 examined scientific studies conducted between 1995 through 2010 to evaluate if a revision was needed. The new, stronger language is a result of emerging evidence that found links between circumcision and decreased risk of urinary tract infections, some kinds of cancer, HPV, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases."
The article by the AAP points out that they examined MULTIPLE studies.
"However, an AAP task force formed in 2007 examined scientific studies conducted between 1995 through 2010 to evaluate if a revision was needed. The new, stronger language is a result of emerging evidence that found links between circumcision and decreased risk of urinary tract infections, some kinds of cancer, HPV, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases."
You just don't like the science because it goes against your morality. You are just like the climate-change deniers. When you don't like the evidence, go after the messenger.
They looked at multiple studies of men who had been circumcised over the world and those who had not. Not just one study. I note that the article states ""The new policy statement will be published in the September issue of Pediatrics. It is also endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.""
So the gynecologists are looking out for their trade members when commenting on the health benefits of male circumcision?
Or, like the global warming denialists, you are objecting to the science without evidence?
And YES, I want my parents to decide for me, when I am unable to decide for myself, whether or not a painless operation is good for me. That is what parents are for.
Should we bar parents from removing a mole or separating conjoined twins because they might want that mole or want to live at conjoined twins at a later date? If course not. This is idiocy.
Ah, so because it's private the science behind it is automatically invalidated? Or is it just that a bunch of respected scientists came to a conclusion you find morally objectionable?
"The new policy statement will be published in the September issue of Pediatrics. It is also endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."
I've provided a link to back up my claims. You have provided none to back up yours. From the link:
***
Many studies on the benefits of circumcision have been performed in Africa, where, because of the prevalence of HIV and other STDs, the effect can be seen more quickly. The task force found evidence that circumcision has a preventative effect on:
HIV: Studies in Africa and a CDC math model study found that circumcision reduces HIV infection among heterosexual men.
HPV: Another African study found that circumcision reduces the spread of human papillomavirus, some strains of which can cause cervical cancer in women.
Other sexually transmitted diseases: A variety of studies suggest that circumcision is linked with decreased risk of contracting syphilis and genital herpes.
Urinary Tract Infections: Although still uncommon for boys, UTIs are more common among uncircumcised males in the first year of life. Treatment at this age can be painful and require hospitalization.
Penile cancer: An association was found between circumcision and decreased risk of this rare type of cancer.
Prostate cancer: A new study suggests that circumcision could be tied to a slightly lower rate of prostate cancer. While critics say circumcision decreases sexual pleasure, there are currently no scientific studies to support this claim. In fact, study participants in Africa who had been circumcised as adults reported either no effect or increased pleasure.
**
So this is all garbage science? Or is it science that reaches a conclusion you don't agree with?
Bullshit. We are at war with extremists around the world. The drones are our weapons of war. If you somehow think that it is unamerican to support America using weapons of war to wage war, you are complete fucking moron.
Of course the terrorists in Mali, who have burnt and destroyed centuries-old important Islamic texts, as well as overrun multiple civilian towns to place them under Sharia law, are executed without a chance to defend themselves. We are at war with them. Idiot.
Q. "Hey dude, I'm Officer McIlroy...this guy just stole an old lady's handbag and knocked her to the ground. Quick, did you see which way she went?" A. "I want my lawyer."
Q. "So you have come to report your car was stolen. Approximately what time did you notice it missing?" A. "I want my lawyer."
Q. "You are calling to report your house was broken into and your computer was stolen?" A. "Yes, but I want my lawyer."
Q. "Everyone remain calm...we need everyone to evacuate the building. There's a fire in the basement. Follow us, we will lead you to safety." A. "I want my lawyer."
Q. "So your ex-boyfriend reached into your car window, grabbed your Bichon Frise and tossed it into oncoming traffic? That's horrible! Where does your ex-boyfriend live? We will go get him." A. "I want my lawyer."
I've had cops actually come to my residence after looking up my info from my license plate to let me know my car had been broken into, and ask if Iwould I like to file a police report. I don't live in a tony neighborhood either.
So everyone's experiences may differ. But the blanket statement that "Cops will not help you" and "Never talk to a cop ever" is outright stupid.
So when I have been able to get my stuff back after making a police report, that was a complete fantasy? The people in SF who recently had their bike returned after the cops raided a guy who stole bikes...that was just a fantasy?
That may be true, but they are doing their job in that circumstance; their job is to be intimidating in certain situations.
But I have gone to the cops on multiple occasions when my stuff was stolen; I live in a big city and it happens once every few years. I've never had a bad experience with a cop while reporting a crime or a theft; in fact they have always been honest about what they could or couldn't do in each instance. I have had cops call me to tell my car had been broken into, because they drove by and saw the window on my car smashed out a few years ago. They looked up my license plate, looked up my info, and knocked on my door to let me know my car was broken into and if I wanted to file a report.
I realize that half the paranoid idiots who post here would consider that a breach of law, or intimidating, or cops getting a power fix or something; I was very glad they did that. Does that make me a sheep? Idiots.
The point is that some people believe, foolishly, that it is unwise to talk to police for any reason, because you are putting your own well-being in danger. Whether or not the cop can do anything about the crime you have reported is irrelevant to the fact that most cops are not going to immediately suspect you of committing the crime you have just reported.
"You imply that if you did tell the police about your mugger and lost wallet, they would actually do a damn thing about it." this is from a poster below. Did you read any of the other responses to my comments? Seems like most of them think the best course of action is to actually not talk to cops, ever, even to report crimes. Why don't you go argue with them instead of me?
You are a moron, and part of what is wrong with society today.
On the day something horrible happens to you, perpetrated randomly by a stranger, I will bet my left testicle you will rethink your refusal to involve the cops.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm making claims based on studies backed by multiple health organizations.
The World Health Organization, for fuck's sake, says circumcision is good.
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
You are correct, the WHO has an agenda...to lower the cases of AIDS around the world.
Maybe, depends on the growth.
Maybe, depends on where it is.
No, but standardization is not relevant to the ethics of removing it.
Ah, just like cutting off a mole from a child's face is "no less barbaric than doing it to girls"? Removing a tumor or other unwanted growth from an otherwise healthy child should be banned? After all, adults should have the right to choose weather or not that benign growth on their arm that looks not unlike a small potato should be removed through surgery! Far be it from parents, who have the LEGAL RIGHT and OBLIGATION to make health decisions for their children, to choose to commit their child to a harmless operation that produces PROVEN MEDICAL BENEFITS.
Your silly articles go after the trials done in Africa. Here's one done on men in San Francisco: ...Table 2 shows the proportion of visits by circumcised men at the San Francisco municipal STD clinic from 1996 through 2005 by sexual orientation, syphilis and HIV infection status. There was a trend towards a protective effect of circumcision for syphilis infection in heterosexual HIV-uninfected men and in a lesser extent in HIV-infected men."
From PLOS-1:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000861 [plosone.org]
Are those hack scientists too?
30% of men in the world have been circumcised.
"The prevalence of circumcision refers to the proportion of males in a given population who have been circumcised. It does not refer to the proportion of newborn males that are being circumcised today. Estimates of the proportion of males worldwide that are circumcised vary from 16[3] to 13.[4] The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that globally 30% of males aged 15 and over are circumcised, with almost 70% of these being Muslim.[5]"
-Wikipeia
I pointed out how male circumcision is like removing a mole or other unwanted growth from your body. If done properly, it is harmless, and is likely to lead to better health. I am very happy that I was circumcised, and, more importantly, I am very happy that my parents had the RIGHT and the GOOD SENSE to make that choice FOR ME as an infant. if it is not done properly, which it appears to unfortunately have been in your case, it can have side effects. But I have news for you, and you can get up on a chair and scream and yell and get mad all you want. But when you are a newborn infant, your body is NOT your own. For all intents and purposes, "you" belonged to your parents as a newborn, who have LEGAL RIGHTS to make health decisions for you, which YOU are trying to take away.
If you are grown with an unsightly tumor on your body, your parents can make the choice to "mutilate" you, commit "violence" against you, and remove that tumor. Hey, maybe you, as an adult, WANT that tumor on your face! hey, shouldn't you want the right to have remove it yourself? Your logic is rediculous. 30% of the world's men are NOT mutilated, any more than a person who has an unwanted growth removed is mutilated.
Idiot. the side effect of any botched operation can be bad. But the side effects of NOT having circumcision performed can outweigh the drawbacks, as multiple sources show.
The AAP has put forward multiple studies showing the efficacy of male circumcision in reducing certain STDs and diseases. You just don't like the science.
You folks are just like the climate change deniers.
Thanks for linking to Garbage Science. Here's proof these people have no idea what they are talking about:
Your link has
"No field-test has been performed to evaluate the effectiveness, complications, personnel requirements, costs and practicality of proposed approaches in real-life conditions. These are the classic distinctions between efficacy and effectiveness trials, and between internal validity and external validity [6]."
Crap crap crap. Form the NYTimes:
" In updating its 1999 policy, the academy’s task force reviewed the medical literature on benefits and harms of the surgery. It was a protracted analysis that began in 2007, and the result is a 30-page report, which includes seven pages of references, including 248 citations.
Among those are 14 studies that provide what the experts characterize as “fair” evidence that circumcision in adulthood protects men from H.I.V. transmission from a female partner, cutting infection rates by 40 to 60 percent. Three of the studies were large randomized controlled trials of the kind considered the gold standard in medicine, but they were carried out in Africa, where H.I.V. — the virus the causes AIDS — is spread primarily among heterosexuals. "
That's 14 studies. Your article talks about three studies in Africa. Mine talks about 14. I wonder why your article didn't mention the other 11?
Why don't you quote from a respected journal rather than some HACK journal?
Here ya go: From PLOS-1: ...Table 2 shows the proportion of visits by circumcised men at the San Francisco municipal STD clinic from 1996 through 2005 by sexual orientation, syphilis and HIV infection status. There was a trend towards a protective effect of circumcision for syphilis infection in heterosexual HIV-uninfected men and in a lesser extent in HIV-infected men."
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000861
Those methods were proven wrong because the science showed them to be so.
But some scientific claims, such as evolution, made in the 19th century have turned out to be true. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's wrong.
It turns out the evidence is INCREASING the good reasons for circumcision.
"However, an AAP task force formed in 2007 examined scientific studies conducted between 1995 through 2010 to evaluate if a revision was needed. The new, stronger language is a result of emerging evidence that found links between circumcision and decreased risk of urinary tract infections, some kinds of cancer, HPV, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases."
The article by the AAP points out that they examined MULTIPLE studies.
"However, an AAP task force formed in 2007 examined scientific studies conducted between 1995 through 2010 to evaluate if a revision was needed. The new, stronger language is a result of emerging evidence that found links between circumcision and decreased risk of urinary tract infections, some kinds of cancer, HPV, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases."
You just don't like the science because it goes against your morality. You are just like the climate-change deniers. When you don't like the evidence, go after the messenger.
They looked at multiple studies of men who had been circumcised over the world and those who had not. Not just one study. I note that the article states
""The new policy statement will be published in the September issue of Pediatrics. It is also endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.""
So the gynecologists are looking out for their trade members when commenting on the health benefits of male circumcision?
Or, like the global warming denialists, you are objecting to the science without evidence?
And YES, I want my parents to decide for me, when I am unable to decide for myself, whether or not a painless operation is good for me. That is what parents are for.
Should we bar parents from removing a mole or separating conjoined twins because they might want that mole or want to live at conjoined twins at a later date? If course not. This is idiocy.
Ah, so because it's private the science behind it is automatically invalidated? Or is it just that a bunch of respected scientists came to a conclusion you find morally objectionable?
"The new policy statement will be published in the September issue of Pediatrics. It is also endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."
I've provided a link to back up my claims. You have provided none to back up yours. From the link:
***
Many studies on the benefits of circumcision have been performed in Africa, where, because of the prevalence of HIV and other STDs, the effect can be seen more quickly. The task force found evidence that circumcision has a preventative effect on:
HIV: Studies in Africa and a CDC math model study found that circumcision reduces HIV infection among heterosexual men.
HPV: Another African study found that circumcision reduces the spread of human papillomavirus, some strains of which can cause cervical cancer in women.
Other sexually transmitted diseases: A variety of studies suggest that circumcision is linked with decreased risk of contracting syphilis and genital herpes.
Urinary Tract Infections: Although still uncommon for boys, UTIs are more common among uncircumcised males in the first year of life. Treatment at this age can be painful and require hospitalization.
Penile cancer: An association was found between circumcision and decreased risk of this rare type of cancer.
Prostate cancer: A new study suggests that circumcision could be tied to a slightly lower rate of prostate cancer. While critics say circumcision decreases sexual pleasure, there are currently no scientific studies to support this claim. In fact, study participants in Africa who had been circumcised as adults reported either no effect or increased pleasure.
**
So this is all garbage science? Or is it science that reaches a conclusion you don't agree with?
The American Association of Pediatrics believes the benefits of circumcision outweighs the risks.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/aap-circumcision-recommendation
Because it turns out there are good health reasons for circumcising babies.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/aap-circumcision-recommendation
Calling circumcision "violence" is like saying a doctor using a scalpel to cut off a person's overgrown mole or cyst is violence.
It indicates you, and the rest of the anti-circumcision freaks have no idea what the word "violence" means.
Rule 34. Look it up.
Bullshit. We are at war with extremists around the world. The drones are our weapons of war. If you somehow think that it is unamerican to support America using weapons of war to wage war, you are complete fucking moron.
Of course the terrorists in Mali, who have burnt and destroyed centuries-old important Islamic texts, as well as overrun multiple civilian towns to place them under Sharia law, are executed without a chance to defend themselves. We are at war with them. Idiot.
The solution is to use other things that tasty salty, but which are not, to flavor your food.
I make and eat Thai food all the time. Thais use fish sauce in lots of their dishes, which is quite salty, as is soy sauce.
The idea of using salt in my freshly made bowl of Tom Kha Gai would give me a heart attack.
Zombie Jesus day is right around the corner, btw.
Q. "Hey dude, I'm Officer McIlroy...this guy just stole an old lady's handbag and knocked her to the ground. Quick, did you see which way she went?"
A. "I want my lawyer."
Q. "So you have come to report your car was stolen. Approximately what time did you notice it missing?"
A. "I want my lawyer."
Q. "You are calling to report your house was broken into and your computer was stolen?"
A. "Yes, but I want my lawyer."
Q. "Everyone remain calm...we need everyone to evacuate the building. There's a fire in the basement. Follow us, we will lead you to safety."
A. "I want my lawyer."
Q. "So your ex-boyfriend reached into your car window, grabbed your Bichon Frise and tossed it into oncoming traffic? That's horrible! Where does your ex-boyfriend live? We will go get him."
A. "I want my lawyer."
I've had cops actually come to my residence after looking up my info from my license plate to let me know my car had been broken into, and ask if Iwould I like to file a police report. I don't live in a tony neighborhood either.
So everyone's experiences may differ. But the blanket statement that "Cops will not help you" and "Never talk to a cop ever" is outright stupid.
So when I have been able to get my stuff back after making a police report, that was a complete fantasy? The people in SF who recently had their bike returned after the cops raided a guy who stole bikes...that was just a fantasy?
http://richmondsfblog.com/2013/02/21/police-blotter-february-22-2013-sex-offender-arrested-outside-school/
Do I actually have to post stories of cops doing good deeds to show you cop-haters how silly you sound?
It's an extraordinary claim to claim that is an extraordinary claim. Now provide extraordinary evidence.
That may be true, but they are doing their job in that circumstance; their job is to be intimidating in certain situations.
But I have gone to the cops on multiple occasions when my stuff was stolen; I live in a big city and it happens once every few years. I've never had a bad experience with a cop while reporting a crime or a theft; in fact they have always been honest about what they could or couldn't do in each instance. I have had cops call me to tell my car had been broken into, because they drove by and saw the window on my car smashed out a few years ago. They looked up my license plate, looked up my info, and knocked on my door to let me know my car was broken into and if I wanted to file a report.
I realize that half the paranoid idiots who post here would consider that a breach of law, or intimidating, or cops getting a power fix or something; I was very glad they did that. Does that make me a sheep? Idiots.
The point is that some people believe, foolishly, that it is unwise to talk to police for any reason, because you are putting your own well-being in danger. Whether or not the cop can do anything about the crime you have reported is irrelevant to the fact that most cops are not going to immediately suspect you of committing the crime you have just reported.
"You imply that if you did tell the police about your mugger and lost wallet, they would actually do a damn thing about it." this is from a poster below. Did you read any of the other responses to my comments? Seems like most of them think the best course of action is to actually not talk to cops, ever, even to report crimes. Why don't you go argue with them instead of me?
You are a moron, and part of what is wrong with society today.
On the day something horrible happens to you, perpetrated randomly by a stranger, I will bet my left testicle you will rethink your refusal to involve the cops.