Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain
Nice response!
There are medical benefits but they are mostly seen to be minimal with the addition that there is a possible complication in the procedure itself.
" The medical benefits of circumcision are multiple, but most are small. The clearest medical benefit of circumcision is the relative reduction in the risk for a UTI, especially in early infancy. Although this risk [figure: see text] is real, the absolute numbers are small (risk ranges from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000), and one investigator has estimated that it may take approximately 80 neonatal circumcisions to prevent one UTI"
" Most of the other medical benefits of circumcision probably can be realized without circumcision as long as access to clean water and proper penile hygiene are achieved"
So I wouldn't say that people are pushing things they they know to be untrue. There is a grey area here, and I think that a lot of us believe when there is not a clear and observable gain that we should not be subjecting an infant to such an invasive procedure.
As for the comparison to female circumcision, it is mostly a comparison in that there is no real pressing need for it to be done. Similarly, there does not seem to be a pressing need for male circumcision. I don't think people are generally trying to make it out to be as traumatic when it clearly isn't.
As for your other post: Parent's choice - yes, it is clearly in the hands of parents these days, but that does not necessarily lend itself to being a good choice. It is not the same as the school you go to, the neighbourhood you live in. None of these removes a body part from you. You might consider this loss negligible, but the fact remains that this may not be true for everyone who undergoes the procedure. All of the benefits you outlined that you appreciated - you could have still experienced all of these by choosing to take this route at a later age.
"Parents are entitled to make decisions for you that will affect the rest of your life. In fact, that's their legally defined role as parents."
Ironically, it was brought up earlier sarcastically that at least someone didn't get their kids sleeve tattoos. I think the comparison could actually be made that they are somewhat similar. You might actually love that you have sleeve tattoos and happy that your parents made that decision for you. And surely they would be within their rights to make that decision.
Essentially what I am trying to argue is that not all decisions that parents make are the same. I feel that a tough to reverse body modification that doesn't provide a clear medical benefit should be scrutinized.
(source for my italic quotes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11732129) |
People are pushing facts they know to be untrue. Like you've done several times in your post, they are making jumps in logic and exaggerating small effects or dismissing large effects.
The medical benefits are more than minimal. The protection against STDs is substantial. Yes you can get better protection from condoms, but realistically...people slip up.
People were making the comparison to female genital mutilation in more than "both are unnecessary" kind of way.
There are no grey areas here. The medical benefits of circumcision are very real. The fact is that most of us will never be exposed to HIV, so it's not necessity in North America. However, the consequences of an HIV or even a herpes infection, personally, would be so devastating that I would recommend circumcision regardless of what the statistics are.