Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post Reply
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 30932
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue May 02, 2017 9:54 am

Because earrings.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 36467
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by Svartalf » Tue May 02, 2017 9:55 am

yeah, I've seen 4 yo with earrings and was shocked.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 16122
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue May 02, 2017 12:37 pm

How about nose, eyebrow and tongue piercings? Belly button piercings?
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by Forty Two » Tue May 02, 2017 1:25 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:How about nose, eyebrow and tongue piercings? Belly button piercings?
Not for my kid, but then again, I don't think that what I do should control what other people do.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by Forty Two » Tue May 02, 2017 1:28 pm

Svartalf wrote:yeah, I've seen 4 yo with earrings and was shocked.
If that shocks you, there's a four year old in Australia who went through a sex change.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by Forty Two » Tue May 02, 2017 1:39 pm

Animavore wrote:
It is literally mutilation by definition.
It's literally not mutilation, by any definition of the word. Mutilation is generally depriving a person of a limb or an ESSENTIAL part. Or, irreparably damaging something. According to the AAP and CDC, it's not mutilation. They have no objection to it, and find the benefits outweigh the downsides. That's not mutilation. The benefits of mutilation don't outweigh the downside.

Animavore wrote: It is abuse whether you like it or not. The only thing you're right about is that it isn't, for fucked up religious reasons, a crime.
You're saying that the AAP and the CDC (under Obama) had a fucked up religious reason, and they are lying about their findings? Are you ever going to address the evidence, or are you going to keep preaching?
Animavore wrote:
There's no winning argument for you here. There's no devastating blow. You're not going to convince me inflicting deliberate, potentially fatal, injury on an innocent and defenceless child is ok. Why would you even think that is a possibility?
I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than that reasonable people, including major medical organizations, find that there is good reason to do the procedure, and that the benefits in their view outweigh the risks. Nobody is saying you have to do it, or that you have to decide to do it for your kids.

Your rhetoric here is not backed up by the evidence. Calling it a potentially fatal procedure is about as accurate as objecting to "mutilating" children by pocking them with needles, and "assaulting" them by injecting substances into their bodies, which sometimes, in very rare instances, cause side effects. However, we assault and abuse children in that way, because statistically speaking the benefits outweigh the risks and downsides.

But, keep on pretending that there is "no reason" for this procedure, even when major, reputable medical organizations have outlined the reasons, and provided proof in the form of studies and evidence to back it up. Your subjective belief trumps that.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 54942
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by pErvinalia » Tue May 02, 2017 1:50 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:Because earrings.
:lol:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 54942
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by pErvinalia » Tue May 02, 2017 1:54 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Animavore wrote:
It is literally mutilation by definition.
It's literally not mutilation, by any definition of the word. Mutilation is generally depriving a person of a limb or an ESSENTIAL part.
" verb (used with object), mutilated, mutilating.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:
Vandals mutilated the painting.
"
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by Forty Two » Tue May 02, 2017 5:01 pm

pErvin wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:Because earrings.
:lol:
Or, because: "n 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement." http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585

And, because "[w]hen men are circumcised, they're less likely than uncircumcised men to get HIV from their HIV-positive female partners. + There are biological reasons why, for some men, male circumcision may decrease the risk of getting HIV during vaginal sex with an HIV-positive female partner. + Male circumcision also reduces the risk of a man getting herpes and human papillomavirus (HPV) from a woman who has those infections." https://wwwn.cdc.gov/hivrisk/decreased_ ... ision.html

And, because "the scientific evidence is clear that the benefits outweigh the risks," Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of the CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention. And, "Circumcision does reduce the risk of urinary tract infections in infants, according to the CDC guidelines." And, "There is no doubt that it [circumcision] does confer health benefits and there is no doubt it can be performed safely..." Dr. Susan Blank, Chairperson of the AAP Task Force on circumcision.
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/new ... -reasons#1

Or, because the World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) state - "There is conclusive evidence from observational data and three randomized controlled trials that circumcised men have a significantly lower risk of becoming infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." The WHO also notes that studies have shown that circumcision can help prevent urinary tract infections, inflation of the glans and foreskin, penile cancer, some sexually transmitted diseases such as chancroid and syphilis, HIV, and from passing on HPV which causes cervical cancer to female partners.
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/p ... 596169/en/ and http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumci ... fopack/en/

The American Association of Pediatricians, the United States Centers for Disease Control, and The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists -- all a bunch of religious nutters who are trying to trick you into "mutilating," "assaulting" and "abusing" your children for no good reason other than that they get the heebie-jeebies from looking at foreskin. And, my penis hurts, so circumcision is bad. There is no good reason for doing it, and the only thing that can be said for it is "because earrings."
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by lordpasternack » Tue May 02, 2017 5:50 pm

How many randomised controlled trials are the claims regarding HIV based on? Can the trials truly be reliable when they can't be blind, never mind double blind, or placebo controlled? What was the ABSOLUTE risk reduction reported in each case? Were the trials completed? Were there criticisms raised regarding how the trials were conducted? How do you think publication bias is likely to affect studies into HIV prevention?

And last but not least, given the absolute risk reduction that you've deduced - what would a white heterosexual male in the US have his risk reduced to, as a result of circumcision, taking the results at face value?
Last edited by lordpasternack on Tue May 02, 2017 5:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 36467
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by Svartalf » Tue May 02, 2017 5:53 pm

Heather !! :cheer:
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
AvtomatKalashnikova
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:32 am
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by AvtomatKalashnikova » Tue May 02, 2017 5:56 pm

Is we not thinking is irresponsible not to spay and neuter your childrens?

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by lordpasternack » Tue May 02, 2017 6:12 pm

I know the answers to the questions above (other than the actual answers to the sums), by the way, I'm just playing Socratic...
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by Forty Two » Tue May 02, 2017 6:22 pm

lordpasternack wrote:How many randomised controlled trials are the claims regarding HIV based on? Can the trials truly be reliable when they can't be blind, never mind double blind, or placebo controlled? What was the ABSOLUTE risk reduction reported in each case? Were the trials completed? Were there criticisms raised regarding how the trials were conducted? How do you think publication bias is likely to affect studies into HIV prevention?

And last but not least, given the absolute risk reduction that you've deduced - what would a white heterosexual male in the US have his risk reduced to, as a result of circumcision, taking the results at face value?
I don't know, but I didn't deduce anything. I simply reported the findings of the American Association of Pediatricians (and its task force on circumcision), the US Center for Disease Control, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health, all of which found a variety of benefits, including but not limited to HIV risk reduction. The links are provided.

The recommendation of these organizations is not that there is a medical need to "require" the procedure in all cases. Rather, the recommendation is that there is a reasonable basis for doing it, although it is also reasonable not to do it. My position is not that people who aren't circumcised are doing something wrong. My position is that it does not fit the description of an assault, abuse or mutilation for no reason. It's not stabbing. It's not hacking. It's not torture.

When we were having kids, before we knew we'd have girls, we talked about what to do about circumcision. I leaned against it. My wife was leaning in favor of it. I looked into the procedure to see if the activists railing against the procedure were correct, and what I found was that it wasn't nearly as one-sided an issue as they suggested.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Ban all genital mutilation of children

Post by Forty Two » Tue May 02, 2017 6:35 pm

For the health care costs folks - http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/21/i ... ill-spike/
If circumcision rates were to drop from the current 55% to 10%, urinary tract infections in baby boys may rise a whopping 212%, and in men, HIV infections could increase by 12%, HPV infections by 29% and herpes simplex virus type 2 by 20%. In women, dropping rates of male circumcision could increase cases of bacterial vaginosis by 18% and low-risk HPV by 13%.
Why circumcision lowers the risk of HIV - http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/17/w ... sk-of-hiv/
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests