May 25, 2011|By Martha Groves, Los Angeles Times
Performing a circumcision on a boy under age 18 — even for religious reasons — would be illegal under a measure that a San Diego group hopes to place on Santa Monica's November 2012 ballot.
Go SD! :)
May 25, 2011|By Martha Groves, Los Angeles Times
Performing a circumcision on a boy under age 18 — even for religious reasons — would be illegal under a measure that a San Diego group hopes to place on Santa Monica's November 2012 ballot.
Go SD! :)
Removing the foreskin of an infant boy is nothing but genital mutilation and is causing the infant boy nothing but harm any way you want to define it.Quote:
Originally Posted by csrakate
you have the option of doing it... the freedom of choice..... but I need to check something with your statement...Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside2009
are you refering to non consentual stranger rape, or the legal defination of rape and the same with slavery, is it the defination of people in chains, or the legal defination.....
the reason I ask, is that sex without consent, is legally a form of rape, if the female doesn't give consent.... and husbands have been charged with marital rape....
with slavery, the removal of freedom of choice by means of intimidation, coercion or mental / emotional manipulation, is a form of slavery.... and that includes people in relationships and marriage where they have limited freedom and rights... including forms of BDSM...
what I said to katja is not that she doesn't have the right to a opinion, but that I would like to hear her opinion, if she was able to experience a adult male circumcisin...... as I have often said the only people that can really tell you about adult circumcision, are the ones that have experienced it... and they have first hand experience and knowledge of what it is like.....
it comes back to what I have been saying that what first time parents say, is often very different to second time parents.... as they learnt from the first experience that things we say, sound good to us... but often we do the opposite.... and that is why they change their wording.....
but yes I know, I am wrong... I am always wrong... cos its me saying it... and the fact that many peoples say the same thing as I do, doesn't make me right, it still means that I am wrong, they are right.....
where is the video of the adult.... ???? you know... the one that is not used cos it doesn't have the shock value or work the sympathy angle..... cos believe me, there is a lot more skin, tissue and blood involved so its a lot more graphic....but its harder to feel the same sympathy for a adult as it is for a child..... so the child vid is used cos most people would react to it....Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside2009
my point is proven there by way of the comments about how its better if a adult goes thru it than a child.... yet if people saw the mess it made of a adult... then they would realise the truth of what they are saying......
a adult can rationise out why a operation is being done.... and a child can't ? true.... now go back to what I have said, about harming a child and while we as adults can rationise things out and do the we do it cos we love the child, the child doesn't understand that we put them thru surgery to make them better, they understand it fucking hurts.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside2009
as I said to katja, we can rationize and reason out why we do things to children, and how it may be right in our eyes, but it still fucking hurts...... now you are saying that adults can rationize pain and reasoning but children can't......
why are you using the stances I have, if my stances are wrong and do not apply to the issue.... are you going to tell yourself that you are out of line now... or does that only apply to me ?
Likewise.... go be with an adult female that has had an adult mastectomy that takes... to heal... and tell her why she shouldn't have been spared the pain by routine neonatal double mastectomy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
I think the females (requiring adult mastectomies) will outnumber the males (requiring adult circumcision) more than 10 to 1.
With over a magnitude of difference, shouldn't we start lopping off breasts of females at birth?
Due to the high rate of female breast cancer - 1 in 8 women in a lifetime, plus all the women who develop other breast problems that would be more easily 'solved' by just loping the breast off. Men on the other hand have 1 in 5000 lifetime chance of developing penile cancer. Less than 1% of the adult male population are circumcised for any valid medical reason at all (closer to .1% actually)
wow, that ... is really... stretching... kinda blips over and warps reality of any perspective...Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Should I lop off the healthy legs of my children at birth - because some people lose their legs in automobile accidents, and some to disease? - sort of logic...
"My children have a 75% probability of having a painful death in their lifetime so I should euthanize them at birth so they don't have to go through that pain" would be the ultimate conclusion of the logic you're using, LDD.
females generally do not have developed breasts at birth..... so its going to be a lil hard to do a mastsectomy on underdeveloped breasts isn't it......Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebiyou
boys are born with a foreskin.... so it can be removed.....
now I would suggest you go to the library and find some books with pics of babies in them and then go view some adult porn, so you can see the difference between a baby and a adult female, and then you will see how hard it is to do a bloody mastsectomy on a baby.... and why its done on maturing or matured females.....
and in answer to your seond statement
no, blue.... I am not suggesting you do that... I am letting you decide as a parent of your children, decide what is best for your children.... and watching you tell other people how to bring up their children according to the rules of bluebiyou..... and honestly, if my children has a 75% chance of a violent death... I would think very seriously about what i am letting my children get involved in, if the risks are that high... so blue, I will politely suggest you move to a remote island in the middle of nowhere if you are really that concerned about the risks to your chidlren in todays society....
btw, are you related to sue bradford in NZ, the greens party politician that got spanking banned in NZ, to protect the children.... yet she was often seen belting her own 4 children and screaming at them, while telling other people how wrong they were with the way they brought up their own children
and her idea was that it would reduce the number of cases of children abuse by empowering the children...... strange enuf, the cases of infant death by abuse have tripled and are climbing....... and where is sue bradford ??? she quit parliament and got the hell out of government.....
Quote: LDD
where is the video of the adult.... ???? you know... the one that is not used cos it doesn't have the shock value or work the sympathy angle..... cos believe me, there is a lot more skin, tissue and blood involved so its a lot more graphic....but its harder to feel the same sympathy for a adult as it is for a child..... so the child vid is used cos most people would react to it....
my point is proven there by way of the comments about how its better if a adult goes thru it than a child.... yet if people saw the mess it made of a adult... then they would realise the truth of what they are saying......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no video of an adult circumcision posted here, for the simple reason that the topic we are discussing on this thread is the routine circumcision of infants. Everyone here seems to understand that but you, why is that?
However, in the interests of fairness. If you think it is relevant by all means post a video of an adult having a circumcision. We can compare screams, from an infant that doesn't know what is happening to it, with an adult that does.
Now you can scrape up one excuse after another to try and distract the discussion from the topic, the only effect these excuses are having is to make you look more and more absurd with each post you make.
The only stance I am adopting is against the routine circumcision of infants. It is a stance I have held and maintained throughout this debate.
I have no difficulty differentiating between an operation performed for medical reasons, that has a benefit to the patient. Compared with one that is performed for cultural reasons, that has no benefit to the patient whatsoever, and puts his life at risk for no good reason.
Neither do I have any difficulty differentiating between the risks of an operation to an adult, and the risks of that same operation to an infant child.
Neither do I think an infant will heal in a couple of days after a circumcision, apparently you do for some reason, although all the evidence is to the contrary.
[QUOTE=Long Duck Dong;201111]
what I said to katja is not that she doesn't have the right to a opinion, but that I would like to hear her opinion, if she was able to experience a adult male circumcisin...... as I have often said the only people that can really tell you about adult circumcision, are the ones that have experienced it... and they have first hand experience and knowledge of what it is like.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You most certainly implied that Katja's opinion was invalid, simply because she had not been circumcised herself and then went on to compound it by saying only those who had had an adult circumcision could tell us about it.
That would exclude the opinions and experience of those surgeons who have performed such operations and the nurses and spouses involved in post operative care. Not to mention the doctors and pharmacists who decide what might be safe doses of analgesics to give you to combat the pain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but yes I know, I am wrong... I am always wrong... cos its me saying it... and the fact that many peoples say the same thing as I do, doesn't make me right, it still means that I am wrong, they are right.....[/QUOTE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you end your post with maudlin self-pity. Very droll, really! The debate is only served if you remain rational and save the drama for those that appreciate it.
Let me deal with this hypothesis of me being male and circumcised. Why would I, other than if it were required medically undergo such a thing? I would not. But if I did, it would only serve to reinforce my hatred of it being inflicted upon a new born child. Most of those adult males who undergo such an operation will not have had their sons circumcised, and I am quite sure that because of their experience it would reinforce their belief that their decision to leave their son penile intacto the right one.
Circumcised fathers mostly do not remember their circumcision. They dont at a day or two old. But if they did, or they could be placed into the body of an uncircumcised male for the duration of an adult circumcision, I doubt very many of them would be pro infant circumcision either. That too is a hypothesis, but equally as valid as having it done to me.
I will now deal with female mastechotomy of an infant. Infant females do not have fully formed breasts it is true. But it is perfectly feasible for the tissue which in time will develop into breasts to be surgically removed. I know of no instances, but I would have thought it likely that the immature breasts of young girls have been removed for perfectly sound medical reasons but not many in society would recommend it as a precaution against disease and having it done for any other reason without the permission of the person concerned is an illegal act. As indeed is removal of female genital tissue. Why then do we allow male genital tissue to be removed without the permission of the individual concerned?
[QUOTE=Darkside2009;201122]darkside... learn the difference between opinion, and personal experience will you... for christ sakes....Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
I have personal experience as a circumcised male, katja doesn't... neither of us have the personal experience of being circumcised as a adult male..... we both have opinions about it..... but lack the personal experience.....
therefore we have opinions not based on personal experience of being circumcised as a adult male
I said to katja that if she was to EXPERIENCE a adult circumcision on her OWN penis, I would be curious to see if it changed her OPINION about adult male circumcision after EXPERIENCING what a adult male goes thru.....
it does NOT make her opinion invalid, cos if it does, it makes the opinion of ANY person that have not EXPERIENCED a adult male circumcision ( and I am refering to being circumcised, not being the doctor or nurse etc that does the op or hands out the pain meds ) totally invalid as well.... cos their OPINION is not based on personal experiences.....
again, katjas OPINION is not invalid cos she doesn't have a penis, it simply means she lacks the personal EXPERIENCE of being circumcised, something I have, but we both lack the personal EXPERIENCE of being circumcised as a adult male, so we both only have OPINIONS about it
And I say to you LDD, why would I want to? It has no bearing, but if it did, I repeat, it would certainly reinforce my beliefs regarding routine infant circumcision.
I do believe most women, and men for that matter, were they to experience your hypothesis would feel preciseley the same where they were pro or anti routine infant circumcision at the outset.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
You complained loudly enough when you thought anti-circumcisionists were making jibes at pro-circumcisionists, by calling them, mutilated, monsters and child molesters. Yet you engage in the same inflammatory behaviour yourself. Your apology has been notable by its absence.
Civility doesn't cost anything.
You're wrong about slavery and BDSM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
What's done in BDSM even within Master/slave total power exchange relationships is not actual slavery at all.
In a Master/slave relationship it's all totally consensual and the slave has control over what happens to him/her and can leave or terminate the relationship at any time.
Not everyone that has a Master/slave relationship even does it full time like you're assuming. Many people who are in consensual Master/slave relationships only do them during sex only.
A Master/slave BDSM relationship has nothing to do with modern or historical non-consensual slavery and should not be compared to it.
This has nothing at all to do with circumcision or Male genital mutilation so why are you even bringing it up as a topic at all?
I found this article and it's an excellent read and it actually has to do with the topic unlike your posts.
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/gmas/
Part 2 in next post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio Cruz
Part 2 of the article in previous post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio Cruz
Ty BiDave for rescuing this chaotic, well distracted debate on infant circumcision from the inanity of those who would by their insistence in talking dross ruin a debate on an incredibly important issue of human rights. Interesting article and very much to the point which is more than can be said about some of the posts on this thread.
BiDave & Katja
It is an interesting article but the comment from Carla Miller seems probably sensationalized due to her own history? At least, I hope that the doctor who did my circumcision was not feeling alive by doing such a procedure.
"Like rapists, serial killers, and other sociopaths, serial circumcisers probably get a chemical high from doing the circumcision. The very act of shredding and mutilating a baby's penis with knives, clamps, electrocautery guns, or fingers affects the circumciser's brain chemistry like a drug, as irresistible as heroin. Carving, crushing, burning, and slicing a baby's penis, reducing it to gore, getting his hands covered with penis blood, and filling his ears with shrieks and screams of agony and terror are the potent elixir the serial circumciser needs to make himself feel alive." "
As far as BiDave comment, this is not an isolated approach to discussion and debate by this poster. I believe others have referred to this strategy as "circular logic" or circular reasoning". I'm not sure if it is or not but others have made such statements similar to your own.
" A Master/slave BDSM relationship has nothing to do with modern or historical non-consensual slavery and should not be compared to it.
This has nothing at all to do with circumcision or Male genital mutilation so why are you even bringing it up as a topic at all?"
The one part of the article I may take issue with is the part about serial circumcisers. I believe they are more likely to become desensitised rather than 'turned on' by the volume of circumcisions they perform over a number of years. Rather like a production line worker. Some may well get a high, but even that will involve being desensitised to the suffering of the child.
The term "serial Circumciser" is unusual to me but a minor point in the article. These people are doctors for the most part (excluding Jewish and Muslim?) and would be desensitized as they would be to any operation. I'm not certain but yes, I suspect that circumcision was part of a specialist category and not Family Practioner. I don't know what they think but suspect that most would have thought that they were doing something appropriate and look at it as no different from giving an injection to a child , tonselectomy and adnoid removal (which was also far more frequent at one time than may have been needed). Now, these may not be seen as equivalent to circumcision though by some. I was also a young child who had both of those operations done and I'm happy that it was. I was one that suffered from a lot of colds/sore throats and the medication available at one time may not have been as successful as today's meds. I remember crying with pain in my throat and ears particulary. Even though my parents prepared me for an operation as best as they could, once it started all hell broke lose with my behaviour. (lies about icecream and jello after..pfft ;) I'm sure that I carried on screaming and fighting them off as a four to six year old as soon as they put the anesthetia over my face...lol (think that I can remember it just a bit too..lol) There was no kid size valium or needle to make me drowzy first. Yucky tasting, awful smelling ether. (no idea why I associated it with a taste but I still can vaguely experience the sensation...sick as a dog after too) I doubt that my doctor thought of himself as a "serial tonselectomist" even though that would have been a specialist category (ear, nose throat doctor)...lol I would have not been the only kid to fight until under I bet...lol (opps floating off topic kinda)
I do agree that I hope that it would be more desensitized rather than get pleasure. That would be just too creepy.
I never said it was actual slavery.... I said by defination......Quote:
Originally Posted by BiDaveDtown
" with slavery, the removal of freedom of choice by means of intimidation, coercion or mental / emotional manipulation, is a form of slavery.... and that includes people in relationships and marriage where they have limited freedom and rights... including forms of BDSM
I never said it was actual slavery, but a form of slavery..... and I would know cos I have been in the lifestyle and I still belong to some groups as a observer and advisor.......
some of the following, use the basis of slavery as a implied role, in their role play......
gorean lifestyle is a lifestyle where the female is property and the gorean master *sell / trade * their female property.... a slave has no rights at all, some people live it 24 / 7
master / mistress and slave, the slave has limited freedom and rights, be it consentual.....
rope play and bondage, the person is bound and tied up, restrained etc....
and your ignorance is blindingly obvious.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside2009
acknowledging that her opinion IS valid, as a mother, parent, caregiver, lover, pro rights advocate, etc... is something I have done, darkside....
lack of ownership of a penis nor not being circumcised, DOESN'T invalidate her opinion and nor did I say it did...... that was your understanding of what I said
you are the one saying that I implied that katjas opinion is invalid.. I have stated clearly it isn't and on what grounds, and even shown where the same statement applied to me as well......
now I would suggest you apologise to both of us...
and yes, i would be inclined to agree.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Katja
the following is strictly personal feelings and doesn't make any other parent or person wrong....... and nor it is pro or anti circumcision, its anti surgeries
pre emptive surgery is great as risk reduction.... but honestly, I would want a 100% money back quarantee that my child would have a medical need for a operation at 8-9 etc etc and want proof of it if I was to agree to a infant circumcision.... but I would perfer a non medical option that would be quaranteed to eliminate any need of surgery for any reason
I personally am sick to death of having surgeries so I would not want to inflict that on a child, if possible.. and even if it was medically needed, I would be looking at ways to reduce any pain and suffering on a child, so they do not suffer in any way...... and that comes from my own experiences as a child, my first op was at age 5 and I suffered badly for 2 weeks
I have watched a number of my partners, friends and family go thru multiple operations.... and if possible I would love to be able to remove surgery as a option and have miracle healing in its place....but I am realistic in that, its not going to happen any time soon
if we could find a way to have foreskins that regen like a lizards tail, that would be a compromise.... but again, I would perfer that nobody has to have surgery at all for any reason......
Who cares?Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with male genital mutilation, female genital mutilation, or any type of surgery, mutilation, or even actual valid medical procedure (which female and male circumcisions are not since they're mutilation of the genitals), at all.
If you want to go off on tangents about completely different subjects like this complete with pointless navel gazing that are not about the topic in the main thread why not just make a completely new thread?
Stop trying to pointlessly brag. I've been involved with BDSM, BDSM and leather groups and organizations, and even total power exchange Master/slave and other type of relationships for longer than you've been alive; but you don't see me pretending to know it all, or going off on tangents, navel gazing, and other topics out of nowhere that have nothing to do with the main topic in the thread.
BDSM and even Master/slave relationships even if they are 24/7, involve any sort of bondage, and even if they are doing Gorean BDSM Master/slave total power exchange relationships are not a type of slavery and therefore are not included in the actual legal definition of "slavery" (as in Chattel slavery or other types of illegal slavery that's non-consensual) since they're agreed upon by all the people involved, contracts are even made up in many cases and signed, and it's entirely consensual unlike chattel slavery which is not consensual or roleplay at all.
Back to what this topic is actually about, here's an informative essay I found.
Quote:
Each and every single day, thousands of innocent, helpless, newborn baby boys are taken into an operating room, strapped onto a restraining table, arms and legs firmly bound, and literally have their penises 'skinned alive'.
First, surgical instruments are used to tear the skin loose from the head of the penis. This delicate, highly-innervated, extremely erogenous tissue is then peeled back from the helpless baby's tiny penis, like ripping a fingernail off a finger.
The peeled-back tissue is then placed in a vise-clamp, and the tissue is crushed for approximately 10 to 20 minutes, while the baby screams in abject horror, his poor body twisting and convulsing from the pain. His tiny heart nearly explodes as his heartbeat soars to a staggering two hundred or more beats per minute.
Then, as shock begins to set in, his breathing stops and his body turns blue. A doctor then takes a knife and amputates all this exquisite tissue from the baby's penis, forever altering that innocent child's life.
There are no painkillers, no sedatives, no anesthesia - the baby is wide awake through the entire horrific experience. All the while, the unrelenting, inescapable pain permeates every fiber of that little baby's mind. If he's one of the more fortunate ones, he'll lapse into a comatose, catatonic state as his body shuts down while trying to escape the bombardment of his senses with unimaginable pain.
After the amputation, there are no sedatives, no painkillers, no magical soothing ointments, lotions, or salves. His tiny, bloodied, nearly-skinless penis is a giant open wound - raw, bleeding, and extremely painful - and it is left in agony, to 'heal itself' over the course of the next several weeks or months.
And while the penis heals, each and every time the baby urinates he is subjected to incredible pain, as the uric acid comes in contact with the exposed flesh.
This 'procedure' is euphemistically referred to as a 'simple circumcision'.
Every year more than a million and a half helpless baby boys are sexually mutilated in North America. These children have the most private and personal parts of their bodies amputated for the sole purpose of depriving them of their natural right to experience the exquisite range of sensual pleasure God intended them to have. All other excuses put forward in the hopes of justifying this butchery, whether medical, religious, or otherwise, are lies designed to perpetuate the mutilations.
Society will not permit circumcision of a girl's clitoris, but the foreskin is a man's clitoris ... they are sexually analogous. The foreskin is the primary erogenous zone on a man's body! It is an abomination that this atrocity continues to be perpetrated in every hospital in North America, day in and day out, with such impunity!
The 1999 British Journal of Urology featured a study of American women who have experienced sex with both intact and circumcised partners. "The results of the survey are truly astonishing. Among other things, the vast majority of women indicated that they overwhelmingly prefer intercourse with a man with a natural penis (approximately 90%). More astonishing is the fact that many women actually rated circumcised intercourse a negative experience when compared to natural intercourse." The following is a summarization, excerpted from the report.
For tables/charts that don't translate well onto this web forum see the original page.
www. webmagician.com/pubservice/circinfo/bju_excerpt.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by British Journal of Urology International
Interesting articles, BIDave. I too, think the doctors probably become inured to the baby's distress, rather than experiencing some sexual gratification from it. One Dr. Mengele in the World was enough. The thoughts of the money they make from it probably salves their conscience.
I am glad to hear there are a growing number of people and organisations in the US against this practice and hope that one day this stain against your national character will be removed completely.
Hurrah! for Texas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiDaveDtown
roflmao........ so foreskins make people better lovers ??? roflmao.... does that mean that lesbians are useless in bed for they do not have a foreskin....
sorry... that study doesn't prove the validity of circumcision... it merely shows the personal preference of a study group.....but don't take my word for it.... start a poll in the site here.. and ask them if a foreskin makes you a better lover......
No pain relief at all? What a fucking joke. I am done with this thread. This is no longer a debate on the merits of circumcision or even the merit of the proposed ban that was in the OP. It's just another opportunity for people who don't know jack about actual procedures to go post their personal opinions and have them stated as gospel. There are several methods of pain blocks used before the surgery. Yes SURGERY, not a mutilation. SURGERY. Do some more research don't just post anonymous people in anonymous blogs trying to make something sound like a Mengele experiment, which by the way was in very fucking poor taste to anyone on this board who has any family members involved in the Holocaust.
ahh darkside was the first to bring it up in post 160, I replied in 163..... and yet, its my fault... snorts..... so am I responsible for darksides actions too ????Quote:
Originally Posted by BiDaveDtown
I understand now.... slave and mistress has nothing to do with slavery even tho it uses the term slave......
consenting slavery has nothing to do with slavery cos its consenting.....
bondage has nothing to do with limiting freedom, cos you are only tying people up, they are not actually restricted in any way by being tied up
quess I am wrong again, and the BDSM is right cos they talk about enjoying being slaves to masters, and thats not slavery.....
so when are you going to join with the rest of the people that want to rewrite the dictionary definations to have new meanings..... IE your defination v's the rest of the worlds
btw, extreme body modding can involve aspects of bdsm...... unless the sites that deal with that are wrong too, and the media and news reports are wrong too.... or shock horror.... they are all right... and I am wrong....
I just went and checked out your study....Quote:
Originally Posted by BiDaveDtown
ACTUAL-STUDY-Do-Women-Prefer-Uncut-Cock
This survey surveyed 138 women. Of that group 20 (14.5%) preferred non-intact circumcised sexual partners while 118 or (85.5%) preferred intact non-circumcised sexual partners. This means that about 6 out of 7 women preferred intact non-circumcised partners while about 1 out of seven preferred non-intact circumcised partners.]
Of the 139 surveys returned, one considered a man who was undergoing foreskin restoration as having a foreskin; this survey was excluded from analysis. Not all questions were answered by all respondents. Contradictory answers showed that not all respondents understood the questions; the responses and unanswered questions were excluded from the analysis. The demographic profile of the respondents is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 The demographics of the respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Mean/median number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean (SD) age (years) 37.3 (9.2)
Number of partners;
Mean (SD) 14.7 (11.2)
Median (SD)
Preferred vaginal orgasm 71
Preferred position for attaining
vaginal orgasm;
woman on top 54
man on top 54
rear entry 4
no preference 9
While this study shows clearly that women prefer the surgically unaltered penis, it does have shortcomings. The respondents were not selected randomly and several were recruited using a newsletter of an anti-circumcision organization. However, when the responses from respondents gathered from the mailing list of the anti-circumcision organization were compared with those of the other respondents, there were no differences. This selection bias may be compensated to the degree that each respondent acted as her own control, using her subjective criteria on both types of penises. The findings cannot be completely attributed to selection bias.
quess your study is built on limited people that did not answer all questions or understand them and that some data was removed from the study.....
that would invalid it as a genuine case study, as the results have been altered while the findings were calculated........
Found this interesting video on circumcision, by a Jewish guy. I think he is from Chicago, it contains an excerpt from a man that was circumcised as an adult. It is about an hour long, but bear with it :-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx89x...eature=related
And this second link to a video by a mother who had circumcised her first two sons:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u5qoRnxiyk&NR=1
And a third link:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSSvB...eature=related
Two parts of the same video link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc70...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPxjhLq3eUQ&NR=1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Katja is neither a mother or a parent, so who on Earth are you talking about now? As I suggested before, it might be a good idea if you reviewed and edited your posts before you posted them. It might clarify in your mind what you are trying to say. It will also make the task of trying to follow your line of reasoning a lot easier.
I've read enough of these opinions and so many of them is misguided. It sounds so nice to think we are protecting our children, but I wonder how many of those intactavist in San Franciso are against abortion? Not many, I bet. But beyond the religious aspect of circumscion, there a many reasons for it and you cannot equate the male circumscion with female genital mutilation. For the female, the removal of the clit causes infections and prevents orgasm, for the male, we circumsized men seem to perform pretty well. But more importantly, the World Health Organization recomends it. Circumsized men are 60 percent less likely to contract AIDS and less likely to get urinary tract infections. The health issues alone should make those in San Franciso notice.
No one is trying to stop people getting circumcised Chuck. We are trying to prevent infant circumcision of young children without their consent. Remove breast tissue and girls are 100% less likely to develop breast cancer. No one is suggesting or would suggest removing young girls breast tiissue without their consent when they are healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck1124
The figures you quote are arguable and while you may be right that is insufficient reason too foist upon an infant something which should be his decision. The vast majority and I mean the overwhelming majority of uncircumcised men do not develop either penile cancer or urinary tract infection and the numbers do not justiify such a serious alteration of a penis. We are likely to develop many diseases in our lifetime. Must we start surgically removing every part of our body which is prone to disease?
The argument of female and male circumcison is pertinent. It is true that the procedure for girls is far more invasive and destructive, but to deny that the two are not two peas from the same pod is an ill-advised and misconceived attempt by those in favour of infant circumcision of rationalising that one gender needs legal protection and the other should have his rights of choosing for himself removed from him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck1124
Chuck, I would suggest that you start from the beginning of the thread and read through it from the start, including the links provided. You will see it deals with this myth that circumcision prevents Aids and urinary tract infections, and the many so-called 'health benefits' it provides.
A moments thought should be enough to convince you on the Aids argument. The US has the highest rate of HIV infection of all the Industrialised countries in the World, it is also the one industrialised country that routine circumcision is performed on infants.
Now if routine circumcision provides this protection, why is the rate of HIV infection greater in the US than say France, Germany or the UK? Or even of the European Union as a whole, which has a greater amount of population.
The simple answer is, it doesn't. Urinary tract infections in males are uncommon and can be easily treated with anti-biotics, there is no need to remove a part of the penis containing thousands of nerve endings.
Lastly, the medical associations in all of the industrialised nations in the World do not advocate routine circumcision of infants. That includes the main medical associations in your own country.
You don't need to take my word for that, just do the research yourself, google it.
What the advocates in San Francisco are trying to do is make circumcision illegal for those under the age of eighteen. Once the person reaches eighteen they can decide for themselves if they wish to be circumcised. Their body, their decision, when they are old enough to make an informed choice. Not someone else's decision to perform an unnecessary operation on their body.
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Your country makes people wait until they are twenty-one before they can legally start drinking in a bar. Isn't making a decision about their own body more important than deciding between a beer or a soft-drink?
Similarly, the law makes it illegal before the age of eighteen, to walk into a tattoo parlour and get a tattoo. Isn't a decision about cutting off part of your own body more important than deciding which tattoo to have and which inks to use? At least a tattoo can be removed by laser, if you grow bored with it. You can't replace a foreskin with all those nerve endings.
Circumcision cuts cervical cancer rates
13:40 11 April 2002 by Emma Young
Increasing the rate of male circumcision could slash cases of cervical cancer in women, according to a new report.
A team led by Xavier Castellsagué at Llobregat Hospital in Barcelona reviewed seven studies from five countries on a total of almost 2000 couples.
Women with "low-risk" partners - men who had previously had fewer than six sexual partners - had a similar risk of cervical cancer, whether their partner was circumcised or not. But women with "high-risk" partners were 58 per cent less likely to develop cervical cancer if their partner had been circumcised.
The team also found that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) was present in almost 20 per cent of uncircumcised men, but in fewer than six per cent of circumcised men. HPV is sexually transmitted and contributes to the development of nearly all cases of cervical cancer. Circumcision is important because the inner lining of the foreskin is thought to be especially vulnerable to infection.
Easily cured
A link between male circumcision and reduced risk of cervical cancer has long been suspected. But the new study quantifies that risk.
"If we assume that 25 per cent of men around the world are circumcised, then the general adoption of circumcision might lead to a further reduction in the incidence of cancer of the cervix of 23 per cent to 43 per cent," write Hans-Olov Adami of the Karolinksa Institute in Sweden and Dimitrios Trichopoulos of the Harvard School of Public Health, US, in a New England Journal of Medicine editorial accompanying the research paper.
Worldwide, there are about 466,000 cases of cervical cancer each year. The disease is easily cured if detected early enough, and most deaths occur in the developing world.
Castellsagué's team used data from Brazil, Spain, Thailand, Colombia and the Philippines.
Journal reference: New England Journal of Medicine (vol 346, p 1105)
The information below is taken from this site:-
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-c...cancer-vaccine
I would suggest you note the dates, and the number of people involved in the study.
Once again, why would you want to cut a piece of your child's body when a simpler option of a vaccine is freely available? It is being routinely offered to school-girls in the UK.
HPV vaccines
Can you tell me about the vaccine to prevent HPV (human papilloma virus)?
This page is about the new vaccines to prevent HPV which prevents cervical cancer. There is information about
What the human papilloma virus (HPV) is
HPV and cancer
Research into vaccines to prevent HPV
The HPV vaccination programme
Men and boys and the vaccine
Research into views about HPV
If girls are sexually active before having the vaccine
Side effects of the vaccine
Do we still need cervical cancer screening?
What the human papilloma virus (HPV) is
There are over 100 different types of human papilloma virus (HPV). It is sometimes called the wart virus or genital wart virus as some types of HPV cause genital warts. A number of HPV types are passed on from one person to another through sexual contact. Many women will be infected with the HPV virus at some time during their lifetime. Often the virus causes no harm and goes away without treatment.
Back to top
HPV and cancer
Some types of HPV can increase the risk of developing cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is cancer of the neck of the womb. About 2,900 women are diagnosed with this type of cancer every year in the UK. Most women infected with HPV don’t go on to develop cervical cancer. But for some, infection with HPV can go on to cause
Genital warts
Changes in the cervix, which may develop into a cancer
Changes in the vaginal tissues, which may develop into vaginal cancer
Of the different types of HPV, types 16 and 18 cause about 7 out of 10 (70%) cancers of the cervix. Most of the remaining 30% of cervical cancers are associated with other high risk HPV types. HPV types 6 and 11 cause genital warts but are rarely linked to cancer. You can find out more about the risks and causes of cervical cancer in the cervical cancer section of CancerHelp UK. HPV is also a risk factor for other types of cancer including vaginal cancer, vulval cancer, anal cancer, cancer of the penis and mouth and oropharyngeal cancers.
Back to top
Research into vaccines to prevent HPV
Several research trials have tested vaccines as a way of preventing infection with HPV. A trial testing Gardasil called FUTURE II reported its results in October 2005. This phase 3 trial involved over 12,000 women aged between 16 and 26. These women did not have HPV before the start of the trial. The women were divided into two groups. Half the women were given Gardasil and the other half had a dummy vaccine (placebo). Both groups of women had 3 injections of either the vaccine or placebo over six months. Over the following two years the women had regular checks to see if they had got HPV, or had any pre cancerous changes to the cells of the cervix, which could develop into a cancer. The group who had the vaccine showed no pre cancerous changes. Of the 5,258 women who had the placebo, 21 had pre cancerous changes, which is 0.4%. The researchers found that Gardasil protected against HPV types 6 and 11, as well as 16 and 18. Gardasil was licensed in the UK in September 2006 for girls and women aged between 9 and 26.
Two phase 3 trials have tested the vaccine Cervarix. The first was for women under 26. It involved over 18,000 women from all over the world, including the UK. This study was called PATRICIA (PApilloma TRIal to prevent Cervical cancer In young Adults). The second was for women of 26 and over. The trials found that Cervarix was useful in preventing HPV infection. Cervarix was licensed in the UK in 2007 for the prevention of pre cancerous changes in the cervix in girls and women between the age of 10 and 25. It is used in the NHS HPV vaccination programme, which started in Autumn 2008.
There is not enough evidence at the moment that the vaccine prevents other types of cancer. Research has shown that Gardasil can prevent the development of anal warts which are caused by HPV types 6 and 11. At the moment we don’t know whether the vaccine will prevent HPV infection in the mouth. There is research going on to look at the link between HPV and these other types of cancer and how to prevent it.
Back to top
The HPV vaccination programme
In the UK, girls in year 8 at school (aged 12 to 13) are offered the Cervarix vaccine. Girls have three injections over 6 months given by a nurse. A letter about the vaccine and a consent form is sent to the parents of the girl before she has the vaccine. It is up to her whether she has the vaccine.
It is also possible to have the vaccination privately. The cost for private treatment varies from doctor to doctor. We are hearing reports of about £500 being charged for a course of 3 injections.
If girls take up the vaccination, the programme will prevent at least 7 out of 10 cancers of the cervix and possibly even more in the future. But it takes between 10 and 20 years for a cancer to develop after HPV infection. So any benefits in reducing cervical cancer won’t be seen for quite a long time. But the number of cases of pre cancerous changes in the cervix (CIN) will fall quite rapidly. It is not certain how long the vaccination gives protection for. So far the trials have followed people up for 6 years so we know that it lasts at least this long. It is expected that the vaccines should last for life but more research is needed to find out if this is the case. It may be that women will need a booster dose at some time.
Back to top
Men and boys and the vaccine
The HPV vaccine is not licensed for men in the UK at the moment. HPV does increase the risk of other types of cancer including penile and anal cancers in men. However it is not the only cause of these cancers and we don’t know how many of these cancers would be prevented by having the vaccine. They are rare cancers and vaccinating all men would be very expensive. It is thought that by vaccinating girls it will reduce the number of men getting HPV because you become infected through sexual contact.
Back to top
Research into views about HPV
A large project called The HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) Core Messages Study is looking at the scientific evidence about HPV as well as finding out people’s views about HPV testing. Based on this, the project aims to develop messages that could help people make informed decisions about HPV testing and vaccination. You can find information about HPV trials on the CancerHelp UK clinical trials database.
Back to top
If girls are sexually active before having the vaccine
The vaccine is being offered to girls from the age of 12 because they are unlikely to be sexually active and to have caught HPV. The research so far has shown that the vaccine works best at preventing HPV infection in younger women. If you are sexually active before you have the vaccine you may already have HPV and the vaccine won’t get rid of it. But there are still benefits from having the vaccine. There are many different types of HPV so even if you have HPV it may not be HPV 16 or 18. Types 16 and 18 are the types that are most likely to cause cancer of the cervix and it is these types that the vaccine protects against.
If girls become sexually active during the course of the vaccine injections it is important to complete the course of injections. There is no research yet into how much protection, if any, girls will have against HPV infection after the first or second injection. It is only after the 3 injections that we know the vaccine is protective.
Back to top
Side effects of the vaccine
The side effects are usually mild and include
Headache
Aching muscles
Redness and soreness around the site of the injection
Fever
Feeling and being sick
Stomach pain
Diarrhoea
Itching, rash
Dizziness
Back to top
Do we still need cervical cancer screening?
Yes – we will definitely still need the cervical screening programme in the UK. The vaccines don't prevent infection with all types of HPV. Also from the research so far, we don't think the vaccines will help prevent cervical cancer in women already infected with HPV. And it takes about 10 to 20 years after HPV infection for a cervical cancer to develop. So it’s very important to remember that women will still need cervical cancer screening (smear tests) for many years to come. There is more information about cervical cancer screening in the cervical cancer section of CancerHelp UK.
Back to top
Increase text
Decrease text
Print this page
Glossary
E-newsletter
Help
Contact us
Join Race for Life
Print basket
Save pages here and print in one go
Add this page
View basket
What's this?
What do you think of our website?
Please complete our short user survey and let us know
Mrs Renée Dangoor
CancerHelp UK is generously supported by Dr N E Dangoor OBE to honour the life of Mrs Renée Dangoor
Questions about cancer?
Call our nurses on freephone 0808 800 4040 9am until 5pm Monday to Friday.
Cancer Chat
Visit our forum to talk to other people affected by cancer
Updated: 19 April 2011
About CancerHelp UK Terms and conditions Privacy Accessibility Contact us Site map
Cancer Research UK is a registered charity in England and Wales (1089464) and in Scotland (SC041666).
Registered as a company limited by guarantee in England & Wales No. 4325234.
Registered address: Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London EC1V 4AD.
Long Duck here are your own opinions and words about how male circumcision is a bad thing and how you do think that it's genital mutilation done to boys and their penises. You can try to deny it all you want or claim that you never said it but you did.
I did a search and I found some of your own words and opinions on male circumcision, how you believe that yes it is genital mutilation and that you're not for parents' mutilating their sons' penises, and the lasting effects of what being circumcised did to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Gardasil side effects examined
Published On Wed Aug 19 2009Email Print Rss Article
Andrea Gordon
Family issues reporter
Thirty-two deaths and 12,424 adverse reactions ranging from dizziness to autoimmune disorders were reported in the United States in the two years after the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was launched, according to a new study.
The study, published in today's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, said the rate of adverse reactions to the Gardasil vaccine reported between June 2006 and the end of 2008 was consistent with results from earlier clinical trials, and for other vaccines.
But it noted the exception was a higher proportion of fainting and blood clots reported following the 23 million doses administered during that period.
"It's generally a very safe vaccine and the benefits seem to continue to outweigh the risks," lead author Dr. Barbara Slade said in an interview from Atlanta. Only 6 per cent of the adverse reactions were serious, but the authors noted the need for ongoing long-term studies of the effects.
Slade, a medical officer in the immunization safety office at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said this is the first major summary of reported side effects and gives physicians, parents and young girls who may be immunized a reference point for discussing the risks and benefits.
Two other articles in the current issue of the journal sounded a cautionary note about the controversial vaccine, which has been introduced across Canada for girls ages 9 through 26 and involves three doses over six months.
The vaccine is aimed at preventing four types of sexually transmitted HPV that are responsible for up to 70 per cent of cervical cancer and 90 per cent of genital warts.
An editorial by Norwegian physician Dr. Charlotte Haug noted "the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain.
"Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened.
``So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk of harmful effects from the vaccine," she wrote.
A separate article titled "Marketing HPV Vaccine" raised questions about manufacturer Merck & Co. Inc.'s aggressive campaign pitching Gardasil as an anti-cancer vaccine rather than to guard against the virus.
It also raised concerns that professional medical associations in the U.S. received funding and company materials used for public education about the vaccine.
"By making this vaccine's target disease cervical cancer, the sexual transmission of HPV was minimized, the threat of cervical cancer to all adolescents maximized, and the subpopulations most at risk practically ignored," wrote authors Sheila and David Rothman.
In Ontario, this fall will mark the third year Gardasil is being offered to Grade 8 girls at no cost. During its first year, 49 per cent of eligible girls in the province received the first dose.
Toronto Public Health statistics show a higher uptake, with 69 per cent of Grade 8 females receiving the first dose last fall, up from 63 per cent the first year.
remember when you said that I was implying that katjas opinion was invalid.... and I told you to learn the difference between opinion and experience.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside2009
katjas opinion is valid.... her opinion that children should have a choice..... but any other opinion about what happens to a child that is being circumcised or is circumcised, or putting children thru surgery. why and how parents do it etc, is not based on any personal experience at all
katjas opinion is still valid, most of her statements that are not based on personal experience, are hearsay.... as it is people like DD that are parents and mothers , that have valid opinions about what happens with a circumcision as they have been there and seen it happen in front of them.....
now I did not imply that, its a simple fact, supported by your statement that katja is not a mother or parent....... so I would suggest you stop trying to make out that other people are trying to invalidate her valid opinion, when you are busy blowing holes in most of her statements by showing she has no experience in those areas......