SF Circumcision Ban Makes November Ballot

[Golding]

http://www.norm.org/lost.html

A rather deceptive link. The site lists foreskin as a component lost during circumcision, but for some reason also lists histological components of the foreskin along with it. Listing skin with "blood vessels, Langerhans cells, sebaceous glands, apocrine glands, endocrine receptors, lymphatic vessels, immunologic system, and Meissner's corpuscles" is redundant. Listing them tells me a few things. First is that there isn't really a very impressive list of what actually is "lost" in circumcision, necessitating redundancy to make a list look more impressive than it actually is. Second is the deceptive value of implying that sebaceous glands, Langerhans cells, etc. are somehow unique to the foreskin rather than disseminated innumerably throughout the entire integument.

And then there is the listing of absolute fallacies. I'm not sure what the author is seeing in Netter's Atlas, but the truth is that Dartos Fascia's functional component is within the scrotum. Not the glans.

 

[nobody's_hero]

But there are no medical benefits to circumcision. So I don't understand your argument.

If you can cut off the foreskin for no medical reason, then you can justify cutting anything off.

A more accurate analogy though, would be singeing the pads of the child's fingertips so that he can never feel touch as sensitively as someone without singed fingertips -- because circumcision DOES reduce sensation.

You believe there are no benefits to circumcision.

I believe there are.

http://www.circinfo.net/

I respect that you have stated that it is preferable NOT to involve government, and that alternatively we should educate others if we wish to see change. I have no issue with that. I have more of an issue with those seeking to find a one-size-fits-all solution to a controversial issue.

 

[Yieu]

Honestly, I haven't seen very much literature in the way of "debunking" the disparity of HIV and HPV rates between circumcised and uncircumcised populations. But truth be told, I haven't really come across anyone who actually has used that as a reasoning for circumcision when the question is actually asked. More often than not, it tends to come down to personal preference.

Removing the eyelids of a patient leaves the eyes prone to drying out and becoming damaged. The foreskin, frankly, is not something that can honestly be called "vital", and thus its removal doesn't exactly fall under your description as a theft of liberty. I've seen children who undergo surgery to remove extra fingers that they were born with. Is it a denial of liberty that the parents made the decision for the child before he was old enough to make it himself?

Further muddying this issue in my view is that circumcision has legitimate therapeutic value as the treatment for existing disease (ie: Balanitis). Shall circumcision be banned for such patients?

You have your view of circumcision, that it's "genital mutilation". I totally respect your view, and would not push for the government to legislate against your beliefs.

Here are links to rebuttals to the HIV/HPV/STD studies:

http://www.circumstitions.com/index.html#disease
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA-garenne.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html#cervical
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer-cervNEJM.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/STDs.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/STDs.html#fergusson

Yes, removing the eyelids would dry out the eyes and keratinize them. Just like how removing the foreskin dries it out and keratinizes it (hardens it with keratin), causing it to feel much less sensation, in addition to the loss of the most sensitive nerves which are in the foreskin. The glans is naturally an internal organ that is designed to be soft and moist, like the inside of your cheek or your eyelid.

It does violate an individuals liberty to have this important body part removed without consent, as it serves a multitude of natural functions, including preventing infections. I hope this helps.

 

[Yieu]

A rather deceptive link. The site lists foreskin as a component lost during circumcision, but for some reason also lists histological components of the foreskin along with it. Listing skin with "blood vessels, Langerhans cells, sebaceous glands, apocrine glands, endocrine receptors, lymphatic vessels, immunologic system, and Meissner's corpuscles" is redundant. Listing them tells me a few things. First is that there isn't really a very impressive list of what actually is "lost" in circumcision, necessitating redundancy to make a list look more impressive than it actually is. Second is the deceptive value of implying that sebaceous glands, Langerhans cells, etc. are somehow unique to the foreskin rather than disseminated innumerably throughout the entire integument.

And then there is the listing of absolute fallacies. I'm not sure what the author is seeing in Netter's Atlas, but the truth is that Dartos Fascia's functional component is within the scrotum. Not the glans.

Listing those things may seem redundant to someone who already knows about them. But the list is supposed to show what is lost, and those things are lost, and not everyone may know about them. But the most important thing is the nerve tissue that is lost. There are other useful features removed in there that you did not mention as well. The amount of skin lost is about the same as the size of an index card, and it is full of densely packed nerves -- nerves that you can not feel with because they are not there. That means a reduction in sensation. And the glans also dries, hardens, and thus also loses sensation. Depriving someone of the natural sensations of their body is depriving them of their liberty.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Listing those things may seem redundant to someone who already knows about them. But the list is supposed to show what is lost, and those things are lost, and not everyone may know about them. But the most important thing is the nerve tissue that is lost. There are other useful features removed in there that you did not mention as well. The amount of skin lost is about the same as the size of an index card, and it is full of densely packed nerves -- nerves that you can not feel with because they are not there. That means a reduction in sensation. And the glans also dries, hardens, and thus also loses sensation. Depriving someone of the natural sensations of their body is depriving them of their liberty.

Losing foreskin is like losing your eyelids, you aren't protected anymore. Then it will become callused and brittle by the time you're in your 40s.

 

[Roxi]

I'm going to say no. If circumcisions killed people, there'd be about 75-80% less males in the U.S. population.

Somewhere between 100 and 300 children do die every year from complications from circumcision.

Also, there is no scientific evidence to support the "increased risk of UTI" myth

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You believe there are no benefits to circumcision.

I believe there are.

http://www.circinfo.net/

I respect that you have stated that it is preferable NOT to involve government, and that alternatively we should educate others if we wish to see change. I have no issue with that. I have more of an issue with those seeking to find a one-size-fits-all solution to a controversial issue.

This is not a trustworthy site^^. It makes claims of "medical benefits" to circumcision, but the studies to date that have tried to "prove" this have been refuted-these "benefits" have always been and always be urban legends. There is not a single national or international medical association that claims there are health benefits to warrant routine infant circumcision.

Besides, if it wasn't intended to be there, nature would not have put it there.

 

[Golding]

Listing those things may seem redundant to someone who already knows about them. But the list is supposed to show what is lost, and those things are lost, and not everyone may know about them. But the most important thing is the nerve tissue that is lost. There are other useful features removed in there that you did not mention as well. The amount of skin lost is about the same as the size of an index card, and it is full of densely packed nerves -- nerves that you can not feel with because they are not there. That means a reduction in sensation. And the glans also dries, hardens, and thus also loses sensation. Depriving someone of the natural sensations of their body is depriving them of their liberty.

The fact that I already know about them is what gave away the deception in the link. That's sort of my point. The link listing "lost" components of the foreskin is utilizing the average patient's poor understanding of anatomy in order to deceive. The alleged damage by "losing" Langerhans cells and lymphatics to the foreskin is the most obvious of the deceit. There is no immunocompromise related to circumcision.

You mention that the amount of skin lost is about the same as the size of an index card. Not sure how many circumcisions you've observed, but I've observed a few. I've yet to see an infant with the glans length and circumference of an index card. Seems to be an exaggerated statement on your part.

Up to now, you've dwelled a bit on the alleged "loss of sensation" related to circumcision. Indeed, I've found some studies that support your claim. But I have also found studies that suggest the exact opposite -- that there is an increase in sensation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593). But the majority of papers I have found on the subject actually seem to point towards there being no difference in regards to sensation between the two populations.

The suggestion that circumcision causes the glans to "dry out" (keratinize) isn't well-supported. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20098294)

 

[Agorism]

three major societies say

The Canadian Paediatric Society issued this statement "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns"

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) established a task force and said the following "existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these the data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision". They also noted that cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions could be considered in addition to medical factors, and that pain control should be provided. Although this statement was reaffirmed in 2005, the AAP is reviewing this position, given recent evidence of the protective effect of circumcision against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supported AAP Conclusions

 

[Yieu]

Losing foreskin is like losing your eyelids, you aren't protected anymore. Then it will become callused and brittle by the time you're in your 40s.

Yes, indeed it is.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Besides, if it wasn't intended to be there, nature would not have put it there.

I was waiting for that to pop up (no pun intended). Just remember that sentiment if you ever get a staphylococcus aureus infection.


"Nature."

Anyway, this is the point in which internet debates ultimately devolve to the point where people make their personal decisions to believe the sources they want to believe, and citations, regardless of how numerous, could not resolve this stalemate. Everyone is guilty of it, myself included.

All I can say is, believe what you want to believe, that is your right.

Ron Paul, 2012

 

[Agorism]

Anyway, this is the point in which internet debates ultimately devolve to the point where people make their personal decisions to believe the sources they want to believe, and citations, regardless of how numerous, could not resolve this stalemate. Everyone is guilty of it, myself included.

That's why I used only reputable sources unlike the other sources posted.

 

[Golding]

Here are links to rebuttals to the HIV/HPV/STD studies:

http://www.circumstitions.com/index.html#disease
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA-garenne.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html#cervical
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer-cervNEJM.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/STDs.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/STDs.html#fergusson

Yes, removing the eyelids would dry out the eyes and keratinize them. Just like how removing the foreskin dries it out and keratinizes it (hardens it with keratin), causing it to feel much less sensation, in addition to the loss of the most sensitive nerves which are in the foreskin. The glans is naturally an internal organ that is designed to be soft and moist, like the inside of your cheek or your eyelid.

It does violate an individuals liberty to have this important body part removed without consent, as it serves a multitude of natural functions, including preventing infections. I hope this helps.

Thanks for providing those links. Any actual studies that are peer reviewed, however? I have no doubt that I could find websites making claims of "shonky" statistics published in "Voodoo Science" magazine, but I otherwise can't take their word any more than I can simply believe your heuristic claims solely on the faith that you're probably a nice guy.

Removing the eyelids would most certainly keratinize the eyes and lead to vision impairment because the eyes require constant lubrication. As noted in my reply just before this, studies do not support the claim that the glans keratinizes any more in circumcised populations than uncircumcised populations.

There are pros and cons inherent to circumcision as there are for any procedure. Leaving the foreskin in place does have its own health risks, as does removing the foreskin. It's the responsibility of the parent to make a personal, informed decision for their child. While I respect your position against circumcision, I do not respect any use of that position to legislate against those who do not agree with your position. That's simply what makes this proposed ban wrong.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the use of circumcision as a treatment option for certain disease (Balanitis, again, is the specific disease I have in mind), and the effects of a ban on the healthcare needs of a patient population.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I was waiting for that to pop up (no pun intended). Just remember that sentiment if you ever get a staphylococcus aureus infection.


"Nature."

Anyway, this is the point in which internet debates ultimately devolve to the point where people make their personal decisions to believe the sources they want to believe, and citations, regardless of how numerous, could not resolve this stalemate. Everyone is guilty of it, myself included.

All I can say is, believe what you want to believe, that is your right.

Ron Paul, 2012

Piss poor counter-argument. Nature does not give you a staph infection as part of one's nature. Staph is not a natural part of the human anatomy, unlike the foreskin.

 

[Golding]

three major societies say

Take the time to understand what the three groups you cite are saying. They do not recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. A routine procedure is a procedure that is done across the board for every child. For example, it is "routine procedure" by to screen children for Phenylketonuria. Indeed, the risks and benefits are rather evenly balanced for circumcision (both quite minimal), to the point where they will not endorse circumcision for every child.

That is why, for these societies, circumcision is left to the discretion of the parents. They are (as a whole) neither benefiting nor harming their child in either decision they make.

 

[Yieu]

Besides, if it wasn't intended to be there, nature would not have put it there.

Yes, if God did not want us to have a foreskin, we would be born without them. He designed us to have one, because He wants it to be that way.

That alone is good enough for me, but the fact that it does harm in multiple ways (removal of tissue, reduction of sensation) is also reason enough for it to be anti-liberty to remove it from someone without their adult consent.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks for providing those links. Any actual studies that are peer reviewed, however? I have no doubt that I could find websites making claims of "shonky" statistics published in "Voodoo Science" magazine, but I otherwise can't take their word any more than I can simply believe your heuristic claims solely on the faith that you're probably a nice guy.

Removing the eyelids would most certainly keratinize the eyes and lead to vision impairment because the eyes require constant lubrication. As noted in my reply just before this, studies do not support the claim that the glans keratinizes any more in circumcised populations than uncircumcised populations.

There are pros and cons inherent to circumcision as there are for any procedure. Leaving the foreskin in place does have its own health risks, as does removing the foreskin. It's the responsibility of the parent to make a personal, informed decision for their child. While I respect your position against circumcision, I do not respect any use of that position to legislate against those who do not agree with your position. That's simply what makes this proposed ban wrong.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the use of circumcision as a treatment option for certain disease (Balanitis, again, is the specific disease I have in mind), and the effects of a ban on the healthcare needs of a patient population.

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."
-PEDIATRICS, Volume 103, Number 3, Pages 686-693, March 1, 1999.

"As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine circumcision as preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer. The American Cancer Society does not consider routine routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers.
Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades.
Likewise, research claiming a relationship between circumcision and penile cancer is inconclusive. Penile Caner is an extremely rare condition, effecting one in 200,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries which do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer.
Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate."

Hugh Shingleton, M.D.
National Vice President
Detection & Treatment


Clark W. Heath, Jr., M.D.
Vice President
Epidemiology & Surveillance Research

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Chicago, Illinois, July 6, 2000. Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99)

"It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a routine to remove the prepuce, based on the current evidence available." -The Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons

And many, many, many more.

 

[Golding]

Yes, if God did not want us to have a foreskin, we would be born without them. He designed us to have one, because He wants it to be that way.

That alone is good enough for me, but the fact that it does harm in multiple ways (removal of tissue, reduction of sensation) is also reason enough for it to be anti-liberty to remove it from someone without their adult consent.

Out of my most legitimate curiosity (and I asked this in a previous post, but it was unfortunately not addressed), if a child is born with superfluous digits, do you see it as the same denial of liberty for the parent to have them surgically removed? By the same argument, if God didn't want the child to have additional fingers, the child would not have been born without them.

And indeed, the removal of extra digits would be maligned by removal of viable tissue, each with their own sensation, blood supply, lymphatic system, Langerhans cells, risk of affecting neighboring digits. Would that make this procedure anti-liberty?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Take the time to understand what the three groups you cite are saying. They do not recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. A routine procedure is a procedure that is done across the board for every child. For example, it is "routine procedure" by to screen children for Phenylketonuria. Indeed, the risks and benefits are rather evenly balanced for circumcision (both quite minimal), to the point where they will not endorse circumcision for every child.

That is why, for these societies, circumcision is left to the discretion of the parents. They are (as a whole) neither benefiting nor harming their child in either decision they make.

But your whole argument (the objective part of it, at least-not the even weaker argument that the parents' subjective whim is enough) is that it offers "medical benefits". There is simply no evidence to support your claim.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Out of my most legitimate curiosity (and I asked this in a previous post, but it was unfortunately not addressed), if a child is born with superfluous digits, do you see it as the same denial of liberty for the parent to have them surgically removed? By the same argument, if God didn't want the child to have additional fingers, the child would not have been born without them.

This isn't a very good analogy to make in the first place, as a foreskin is NOT superfluous. That aside, it is not legitimate to amputate these extra fingers if there is no medical reason to. (The extra fingers may even prove to be a benefit someday-playing piano, for example) It's also poor reasoning to use genetic defects counter the argument regarding the natural state of the foreskin as being intact. (you are trying to make an analogy where there is none)