Decline in circumcision rate could cost billions

[heavenlyboy34]

Or guys with real world military experience who have seen the MEDEVAC rates for uncircumcised guys. Which was the reason for the rael push for the procedure in the US post World War II - the number of non battle losses due to penile infection for uncircumcised men(over 110,000), compared to a handful of cases (less than 25) for circumcised men.

Makes no sense. Humans have been going to war and such for ages without that problems. The Europeans still do it (and did it during WWII). I can pretty much guarantee the culprit was a variable unaccounted for.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

[h=2]Just FYI.
http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html
What were the original motivations behind routine infant circumcision in the West?[/h]Routine circumcision as a preventative or cure for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of a number of diseases. The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace between 1870 and 1920, and it consequently spread to all the English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). None of these countries now circumcise the majority of their male children, a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact, nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of the past century has subsided.

"By about 1880 the individual... might wish[to]... tie, chain, or infibulate sexually active children... to adorn them with grotesque appliances, encase them in plaster, leather, or rubber, to frighten or even castrate them... masturbation insanity was now real enough--it was affecting the medical profession."​

(B. Berkeley, quoted from _Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma_, by Rosemary Romberg, Bergin & Garvey Publisher, Inc, S. Hadley MA, USA, 1985, ISBN 089789-073-6)
Dr. E.J. Spratling, who promoted this surgery by telling his colleagues that "...circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally..." prescribed in 1895 the method of circumcision as it is practiced in hospitals today.

"To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm... We may not be sure that we have done away with the possibility of masturbation, but we may feel confident that we have limited it to within the danger lines."​

(E.J. Spratling, MD. Medical Record, Masturbation in the Adult, vol. 48, no. 13, September 28, 1895, pp. 442-443.)
Here is an example of what another sexaphobic American doctor had to say about masturbation in 1903:

"It (self abuse) lays the foundation for consumption, paralysis and heart disease. It weakens the memory, makes a boy careless, negligent and listless. It even makes many lose their minds; others, when grown, commit suicide.... Don't think it does no harm to your boy because he does not suffer now, for the effects of this vice come on so slowly that the victim is often very near death before you realize that he has done himself harm. It is worthy of note that many eminent physicians now advocate the custom of circumcision..."​

(Mary R. Melendy, MD, The Ideal Woman - For Maidens, Wives and Mothers, 1903.)(The above material is quoted from J. Bigelow, The Joy of Uncircumcising, Hourglass Book Publishing, Aptos, CA, USA. Thanks to Robin Verner.)
In America, foreskins were not rare at the time circumcision was introduced into widespread practice. Paradoxically, then, the understanding of the intact male organ at that time was somewhat greater than it is today. (In particular, it never would have been possible to promote circumcision on the basis that it was "necessary for hygienic reasons"---this came later, when doctors themselves were mostly circumcised men.)
Further, in proposing circumcision as a preventative against self-abuse, physicians of the day understood very well that male masturbation involves stimulation of the foreskin. However they were incorrect in assuming that, by reducing the pleasure, masturbation itself could be reduced or eliminated.
[h=3]Porn Flakes:[/h]Interestingly, Messrs. John Harvey Kellogg and Sylvester Graham (advocates of fibre, of both the moral and dietary varieties) were involved in this movement.Here's what Dr. Kellogg recommended:

A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.​

(John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects," Plain Fact for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. (1888). P. 295) ...Isn't that enough to put you off Corn Flakes for the rest of your life? Visit this link for an essay by Carrie McLaren about Kellogg and Graham.Circumcision in America, England and the other countries received a strong boost during each of the World Wars, because it was claimed that the procedure was necessary for soldiers for "hygienic reasons". Some soldiers who refused to be circumcised, were disciplined and/or received dishonourable discharges.
In 1949, the important work of Gairdner appeared in Britain, which led to the virtual cessation of medically-motivated circumcision in that country. Australia and New Zealand now also have very low rates (5% or less).
The largest problem remains in the United States, where the procedure has become culturally entrenched. The American public largely still believes circumcision to be a useful procedure, even though the rest of the world does perfectly well without it. It is worth noting that in 1996 the Canadian Paediatric Society issued a statement depreciating the value of circumcision in rather strong terms. All Canadian provinces have dropped insurance coverage for circumcision.
Circumcision never became an issue in continental Europe and in most of Asia, where the vast majority of men are intact. Religious circumcision is popular in some African, Muslim and Middle Eastern countries.
[h=2]How is this genital reduction surgery perpetuated in the West today?[/h]From its original roots in anti-masturbation hysteria, circumcision continues in English-speaking western countries (the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) because of mistaken beliefs and unfounded fears about hygiene, disease, appearance and sexuality, and denial of the pain of infant circumcision. Please see the article Circumcision: A Medical or a Human Rights Issue? by Marilyn Fayre Milos, RN, and Donna Macris, CNM, MSN, in the Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, Vol.37,No.2 (Suppl.), March/April 1992.

For an excellent historical article detailing how circumcision became entrenched as a medical practice, see "From ritual to science: the medical transformation of circumcision in America", by David L. Gollaher, Journal of Social History, Fall 1994, vol. 28 no. 1, pp. 5-36. (Read the article)

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Not responding to my posts about your moral hypocrisy, I see. I'll take that as surrender. Besides, anyone with common sense can tell I'm right. Your sense of morality is completely arbitrary. It's fine if you want to have arbitrary morals, but just admit it. You have no reason to tell people that they should think like you except for the fact that if people thought like you, then maybe the world would be a more pleasant place... for you.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

Not responding to my posts about your moral hypocrisy, I see. I'll take that as surrender. Besides, anyone with common sense can tell I'm right. Your sense of morality is completely arbitrary. It's fine if you want to have arbitrary morals, but just admit it. You have no reason to tell people that they should think like you except for the fact that if people thought like you, then maybe the world would be a more pleasant place... for you.

You are rating "Matt Collins" on the scale of Full-Of-Yourself. Be careful.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Not responding to my posts about your moral hypocrisy, I see. I'll take that as surrender. Besides, anyone with common sense can tell I'm right. Your sense of morality is completely arbitrary. It's fine if you want to have arbitrary morals, but just admit it.

I did on the last page, but you decided it wasn't good enough (for no reason other than to artificially prop up your argument). There's nothing arbitrary about my moral sense. There was no hypocrisy in what I've said. No, people don't have to think like me-that's part of my moral code. It's when they want to act against others that issues arise.

You have no reason to tell people that they should think like you except for the fact that if people thought like you, then maybe the world would be a more pleasant place... for you.

Except if it weren't for people like me (and Hippocrates), there would be no moral standard for anyone to be held to and society would fall apart in chaos. (In this country, there used to be official state religions which dictated moral and ethical standards)

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You are rating "Matt Collins" on the scale of Full-Of-Yourself. Be careful.

I don't care. The point is he's not responding to my posts. I don't care how full of myself you think I'm being.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I did on the last page, but you decided it wasn't good enough (for no reason other than to artificially prop up your argument). There's nothing arbitrary about my moral sense. There was no hypocrisy in what I've said. No, people don't have to think like me-that's part of my moral code. It's when they want to act against others that issues arise.

Bullshit. You didn't respond to me because you can't. You responded to me all other times and then all of a sudden you stopped. I already explained to you how your beliefs are arbitrary. This is not even arguable. Opinions based on popular belief or the beliefs of a certain group of men "thinking about it" is arbitrary unless you can explain why they are not. All you have given as justification so far is "A bunch of other people thought about it and decided they weren't arbitrary". That's an assertion, not a valid argument. Saying it doesn't make it true.

Except if it weren't for people like me (and Hippocrates), there would be no moral standard for anyone to be held to and society would fall apart in chaos. (In this country, there used to be official state religions which dictated moral and ethical standards)

So you think you and a few people in the past are the only thing holding society together? Why do you think it's YOUR moral standards that are right? Even if society did fall apart without your moral standards, that doesn't mean they aren't arbitrary. That just means you happen to believe those moral standards without acknowledging the absolute source of those standards. Without an absolute source, there can be no absolute morality. Even if every single person on the planet and throughout history agreed with you, that would not make your moral standards right, nor would it make them absolute.

I see right through you, HB34. You call yourself an anarchist, but at heart you are a statist who wishes everyone to simply accept your moral standards because "they are right because I and a bunch of other people said so". You also don't seem to be bothered by the fact that the state loves your position on conventional vs. alternative medicine. You are not at all bothered by the fact that your chosen medicine is also favored by the FDA eliminating all competition from the marketplace. You also are not above using buzzwords to further your argument when that's all you have.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Bullshit. You didn't respond to me because you can't. You responded to me all other times and then all of a sudden you stopped. I already explained to you how your beliefs are arbitrary. This is not even arguable. Opinions based on popular belief or the beliefs of a certain group of men "thinking about it" is arbitrary unless you can explain why they are not. All you have given as justification so far is "A bunch of other people thought about it and decided they weren't arbitrary". That's an assertion, not a valid argument. Saying it doesn't make it true.



So you think you and a few people in the past are the only thing holding society together? Why do you think it's YOUR moral standards that are right? Even if society did fall apart without your moral standards, that doesn't mean they aren't arbitrary. That just means you happen to believe those moral standards without acknowledging the absolute source of those standards. Without an absolute source, there can be no absolute morality. Even if every single person on the planet and throughout history agreed with you, that would not make your moral standards right, nor would it make them absolute.

Still not true.

I see right through you, HB34. You call yourself an anarchist, but at heart you are a statist who wishes everyone to simply accept your moral standards because "they are right because I and a bunch of other people said so". You also don't seem to be bothered by the fact that the state loves your position on conventional vs. alternative medicine. You are not at all bothered by the fact that your chosen medicine is also favored by the FDA eliminating all competition from the marketplace. You also are not above using buzzwords to further your argument when that's all you have.

Actually, you see nothing. I never called myself an anarchist. Calling me a statist is fucking laughable. I don't know how anyone could think such a thing with a straight face. I don't prefer state measures. We have non-State solutions, as always, such as private law. Show me an anarchist who doesn't believe in law at all, and I'll show you a libertine pretending to be an anarchist. I would also take away state legal protections from doctors who commit this act and replace it with unlimited liability. However, in the prevailing system, the best we can do is offer males the same protections afforded females from unnecessary and irrational (and permanently disfiguring) surgical procedures they cannot consent to.

My method for finding moral standards are the same as those used by all medical ethicists. It's true that everyone's agreeing with me alone would not make me right. However, the important thing is that those people agree with me because it has been proven correct (assuming the goal is rational and ethical behavior).

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Still not true.

Another assertion without any explanation, logic, or evidence. I see a theme occurring.

Actually, you see nothing. I never called myself an anarchist. Calling me a statist is fucking laughable. I don't know how anyone could think such a thing with a straight face. I don't prefer state measures. We have non-State solutions, as always, such as private law. Show me an anarchist who doesn't believe in law at all, and I'll show you a libertine pretending to be an anarchist. I would also take away state legal protections from doctors who commit this act and replace it with unlimited liability. However, in the prevailing system, the best we can do is offer males the same protections afforded females from unnecessary and irrational (and permanently disfiguring) surgical procedures they cannot consent to.

My method for finding moral standards are the same as those used by all medical ethicists. It's true that everyone's agreeing with me alone would not make me right. However, the important thing is that those people agree with me because it has been proven correct (assuming the goal is rational and ethical behavior).

It has not been proven correct. How do you prove a moral standard correct? If somebody says "you should not kill yourself", how can you prove that is a "correct" statement?

My point about being a statist is that someone who I've seen advocating the an-cap idea is now in favor of the FDA regulating medicine and creating a favorable market for their medicine, which also happens to be your medicine. At the very least, you are not liberty-oriented. You have the propaganda down pat and you advocate the state medicine that is currently in place. Oh, sure, you may not like the method of enforcing it sometimes, but the very fact that you think the FDA is justified in promoting this type of medicine (I use the word "justified" loosely here, so don't get your panties in a bunch) just screams statist. The very fact that you can look past all the statist mandates and state-run healthcare and still think they are just trying to get the right medicine out to the right people is just laughable. Does it not bother you that you happen to be fighting alongside the state to eradicate virtually harmless forms of alternative medicine, as opposed to your medicine, which kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year? No? That's why you are a statist.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

You didn't respond to my post... can I call you a statist now?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You didn't respond to my post... can I call you a statist now?

Are you talking to me? I can't tell. But yes, I actually did respond to your post. Refer to post #246.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Riddle me this, PaulC: Since we've established that you believe the only standard necessary for an elective surgery on an infant is the parents' subjective opinion and the remote possibility of "better" hygiene, what other preemptive procedures are okay? Appendectomy? Tonsillectomy? Mastectomy? Clitoridectomy? Root canal? All these procedures and more can be justified using the reasoning you've put forth here. (Remember, you say that ethics are subjective-so no appealing to ethics or morality)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Another assertion without any explanation, logic, or evidence. I see a theme occurring.

Your disagreeing with me does not mean I provided no explanation, logic, or evidence. I've done it so many times it's redundant. I also see a theme occurring. Your using arbitrary standards and sketchy evidence to justify a claim.



It has not been proven correct. How do you prove a moral standard correct? If somebody says "you should not kill yourself", how can you prove that is a "correct" statement?

My point about being a statist is that someone who I've seen advocating the an-cap idea is now in favor of the FDA regulating medicine and creating a favorable market for their medicine, which also happens to be your medicine. At the very least, you are not liberty-oriented. You have the propaganda down pat and you advocate the state medicine that is currently in place. Oh, sure, you may not like the method of enforcing it sometimes, but the very fact that you think the FDA is justified in promoting this type of medicine (I use the word "justified" loosely here, so don't get your panties in a bunch) just screams statist. The very fact that you can look past all the statist mandates and state-run healthcare and still think they are just trying to get the right medicine out to the right people is just laughable. Does it not bother you that you happen to be fighting alongside the state to eradicate virtually harmless forms of alternative medicine, as opposed to your medicine, which kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year? No? That's why you are a statist.

LMFAO!! Now you're just making shit up in desperation. I've repeatedly advocated private law to handle matters like this. I've also numerous times on these forums supported abolishing all the government medical bodies. The only reason I bring up orgs like the FDA is because in your mind, organizations that aren't wealthy and/or well-connected are "illegitimate". (Doctors Against Circumcision, etc, etc)
Does it not bother you that you have to bring in red herrings and strawmen (and various other measures of obfuscation and distortion) to debate me? Keep dreaming, son. I'm no statist. Every statist you know of would hate my guts and "disappear" me if given half a chance. You know well I don't even believe in Constitutionalism. Statist? My goodness, I hope you were joking because you made a total fucking fool of yourself if not.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Riddle me this, PaulC: Since we've established that you believe the only standard necessary for an elective surgery on an infant is the parents' subjective opinion and the remote possibility of "better" hygiene, what other preemptive procedures are okay? Appendectomy? Tonsillectomy? Mastectomy? Clitoridectomy? Root canal? All these procedures and more can be justified using the reasoning you've put forth here. (Remember, you say that ethics are subjective-so no appealing to ethics or morality)

I'm not saying they're subjective. I'm saying they're subjective if you don't have an absolute source of morality. I think all of those procedures are okay. I'm not sure exactly what a clitoridectomy is, but what's so wrong about the parents deciding if their kid gets a root canal or an appendectomy if they really need it? A circumcision doesn't harm nearly as much as an appendectomy. The appendix used to be thought to be useless, but it's actually an important part of the immune system. If the child can't make these decisions, who does? A circumcision leaves every function part of the male's body intact. It's debatable that it has an effect on sex life, but for the most part, from experience, I can tell you I feel pretty normal. I certainly don't feel mutilated, amputated, or "non-intact". If you're going to come up with some horror story about how circumcision is so bad, you're going to have to tell me why I'm so much worse off for it because I don't see it in my life or the life of anyone else who's been circumcised.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Your disagreeing with me does not mean I provided no explanation, logic, or evidence. I've done it so many times it's redundant. I also see a theme occurring. Your using arbitrary standards and sketchy evidence to justify a claim.

I know my disagreement doesn't mean you didn't provide explanation, logic, or evidence, but the post I was referring to didn't. It was just a bland assertion with no backing whatsoever. One sentence. Is it really necessary to post these redundant assertions?

LMFAO!! Now you're just making shit up in desperation. I've repeatedly advocated private law to handle matters like this. I've also numerous times on these forums supported abolishing all the government medical bodies. The only reason I bring up orgs like the FDA is because in your mind, organizations that aren't wealthy and/or well-connected are "illegitimate". (Doctors Against Circumcision, etc, etc)
Does it not bother you that you have to bring in red herrings and strawmen (and various other measures of obfuscation and distortion) to debate me? Keep dreaming, son. I'm no statist. Every statist you know of would hate my guts and "disappear" me if given half a chance. You know well I don't even believe in Constitutionalism. Statist? My goodness, I hope you were joking because you made a total fucking fool of yourself if not.

I don't believe that you think you are a statist. Of course you don't. However, you do argue like one and the views you hold and the way you behave is similar to the way a statist sometimes behaves when confronted.

You defend the state medicine monopoly. You may not defend the FDA, but you defend their products. You defend widespread vaccination and the use of pharmaceuticals and believe the government-funded science that supports these things. If the state were to disappear, so would all this pseudo-medicines along with it. In a free market, they would deteriorate as accepted science very quickly. What's more, you join the state in its cause of wiping out HARMLESS forms of alternative medicine. I have brought this point up so many times and you keep ignoring it. Why do you feel the need to wipe out alternative medicine when it is virtually harmless and your medicine kills hundreds of thousands of people per year? If you didn't turn a blind eye to the state monopoly on medicine, you would realize how hypocritical it is that you can rail against the horrors of circumcision and alt medicine for their rare accidents and then defend something that has 'death' as a side effect on the label.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I know my disagreement doesn't mean you didn't provide explanation, logic, or evidence, but the post I was referring to didn't. It was just a bland assertion with no backing whatsoever. One sentence. Is it really necessary to post these redundant assertions?



I don't believe that you think you are a statist. Of course you don't. However, you do argue like one and the views you hold and the way you behave is similar to the way a statist sometimes behaves when confronted.

You defend the state medicine monopoly. You may not defend the FDA, but you defend their products. You defend widespread vaccination and the use of pharmaceuticals and believe the government-funded science that supports these things. If the state were to disappear, so would all this pseudo-medicines along with it. In a free market, they would deteriorate as accepted science very quickly. What's more, you join the state in its cause of wiping out HARMLESS forms of alternative medicine. I have brought this point up so many times and you keep ignoring it. Why do you feel the need to wipe out alternative medicine when it is virtually harmless and your medicine kills hundreds of thousands of people per year? If you didn't turn a blind eye to the state monopoly on medicine, you would realize how hypocritical it is that you can rail against the horrors of circumcision and alt medicine for their rare accidents and then defend something that has 'death' as a side effect on the label.

Ummmm...You're dead wrong. I'm totally against the State medicine monopoly. (I'm practically an anarchist) Why are you fabricating a bunch of shit to slander me? Literally everything you've said about me is 100% wrong. You must have me confused with someone else...or perhaps suffering with some bizarre CND (central nervous disorder) or something.

Please see a doctor of psychiatrist STAT.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Ummmm...You're dead wrong. I'm totally against the State medicine monopoly. (I'm practically an anarchist) Why are you fabricating a bunch of shit to slander me? Literally everything you've said about me is 100% wrong. You must have me confused with someone else...or perhaps suffering with some bizarre CND (central nervous disorder) or something.

Please see a doctor of psychiatrist STAT.

Do you or do you not think pharmaceuticals and vaccines are the best way to treat and prevent illnesses?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Do you or do you not think pharmaceuticals and vaccines are the best way to treat and prevent illnesses?

Why does my opinion matter? I'm not in the medicine biz. But no, pharma drugs don't prevent illness(nor are they designed to). Can vax prevent illness? Apparently in some cases, but one has to weigh the cost/benefit ratio to determine if he wants to take them. Are vax the best prevention? Probably not for everyone. Vax can (and have) also cause illness in some people. None of these questions are relevant to your blatantly false claim about me previously. Why ask?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Why does my opinion matter? I'm not in the medicine biz. But no, pharma drugs don't prevent illness(nor are they designed to). Can vax prevent illness? Apparently in some cases, but one has to weigh the cost/benefit ratio to determine if he wants to take them. Are vax the best prevention? Probably not for everyone. Vax can (and have) also cause illness in some people. None of these questions are relevant to your blatantly false claim about me previously. Why ask?

Because that's what I was basing all those posts on. If I was wrong, tell me. I thought I saw you advocating for it, though.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Decline in circumcision rate could cost billions: study

Last year I did a lot of reading about circumcision - how it got started, how it was/is done, the difference in the way it's done today compared to how it was done prior to just a hundred years or so ago, which ethnic and religious groups do it today, what parts of the world it's done and what percentage of the population, and so on.

Very interesting.

Start off with a few tubes of actual procedures performed here in the US. It will disturb and upset you (I was literally in tears), but if one wants to understand the issue, one needs to see it.