Posted on 01/28/2006 7:21:40 PM PST by chet_in_ny
The cultural setting of Muslim men in Africa is far different than that in Europe or Australia. Most especially, the African Muslim communities tend to be uniformly Muslim. In Europe and Australia, the victims of gang-rape are virtually always non-Muslim.
And the key is the comparison between groups in proximity, and as I stated non-Muslim Africans tend to be far more promiscuous than Muslim Africans.
And rape is a phenomenon totally separate from promiscuity, might I add. Might I also add that women are also a vector, and Muslim women are dramatically less promiscuous than non-Muslim.
There are no NET health benefits to cutting off a boy's foreskin. The small medical benefits do not outweigh the risks and harms. There is no other surgery that doctors will perform on children with the same ratio of benefits to risks as infant circumcision. It is the only exception to the normal standard of care that doctors use for surgery on children.
It is past time for American doctors to start treating a boy's penis with the same standard of care they use for the rest of his body, i.e. surgery is only done when there is a medical condition present that requires surgery for treatment.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. Infant Male Circumcision. Jun 2004. https://www.cpsbc.ca/cps/physician_resources/publications/resource_manual/malecircum
"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."
What does this Jewish ritual have to do with the Catholic Church?
More and more it is being discovered there are health reasons that favor circumcision.
No professional medical organization in the world recommends that boys should be circumcised. The small potential medical benefits do not outweigh the medical risks and harms
Non-religious male and female circumcision started in the USA in the late 1800s because doctors thought it would keep boys and girls from masturbating.
A recent study found circumcised women have a lower HIV infection rate. It appears there are health reasons that favor female circumcision too.
Thank you! I agree. I'm leaving this thread on your post!
How 'antiguv' can you be if you are talking about using state power on a topic that doesn't affect yourself?
Non-religious male and female circumcision started in the USA in the late 1800s because doctors thought it would keep boys and girls from masturbating.
A recent study found circumcised women have a lower HIV infection rate. It appears there are health reasons that favor female circumcision too.
Whoever said it has anything to do with HIV? And last I heard, most reputable medical organizations recommended leaving the decision to the parents in the case of infant circumcision. And you are underestimating the benefits.
Also, don't cloud the subject with moronic talk about female circumcision.
I was circumcised as an infant without a valid medical indication. I wish I still had all the parts I was born with.
In my opinion there needs to be a compelling reason before it is ethical to cut off a normal, healthy, functional part of a child's body. For non-Muslim and non-Jewish parents the reasons given for infant circumcision don't even come close to being compelling.
Doctors have a legal and ethical duty to do what is in the best interest of the patient, not what someone else wants done for cultural or social reasons. For infant circumcision, the patient is the boy, not the parents. If American doctors were doing their legal and ethical duty to protect their patients from medically unnecessary surgery, there would be no need for government intervention.
Would that include female circumcision and human sacrifice? What about that aboriginal fellow some years back who killed someone as part of his religion? The state does have the right when it affects another (in this case the kid). Now I don't happen to believe that Male circumcision damages a boy to the point it should be regulated but ignoring the states role only makes containing it more difficult..
Many African men feel the same way about uncircumcised women.
"women are also a vector"????????
Every professional medical organization in the world that has a policy on circumcision says the medical benefits of circumcision are about equal to the risks and harms. In other words there is no net medical benefit. To the best of my knowledge infant circumcision is the only surgery that doctors will perform on a child that has no net medical benefit. For all other surgeries the normal standard of care requires the medical benefits of the surgery to significantly outweigh the risk and harms. Infant circumcision does not meet that standard of care.
If you know of any other surgery that doctors will perform on a child where the medical benefits of the surgery do not significantly outweigh the risk and harms or the surgery does not correct a birth defect, please let me know what it is.
Also, don't cloud the subject with moronic talk about female circumcision.
The main difference between male genital cutting and female genital cutting is there are more varieties of female genital cutting. There is one form of female genital cutting that is similar to male circumcision. Sunna circumcision cuts off the prepuce of a girls clitoris. Male circumcision cuts off the prepuce of a boys penis.
Both sunna circumcision of girls and male circumcision of boys are not medically necessary. Both remove a normal, healthy part of a child's genitals without a medical indication. Both are done mainly for cultural or social reasons. Both are done by doctors; in America doctors circumcise boys and in Egypt doctors circumcise girls.
Please explain the ethical difference between a doctor cutting off the prepuce of a girl's clitoris without a valid medical indication and a doctor cutting off the prepuce of a boy's penis without a valid medical indication.
apparently circumcision is a major protective influence against invasive penile cancer.
i'm not actually advocating circumcision. i'm not a medical doctor or an expert on health effects of circumcision.
but it seems to me, that it would make more sense to look at the overall health effects, pro and con, before taking a strong position either way.
More men in the USA die of male breast cancer than die of penile cancer. Also more women die of vulva cancer than men die of penile cancer. If parents cut off their daughter's labia, she will never get cancer of the labia.
"Nevertheless, because this disease (penile cancer) is rare and occurs later in life, the use of circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified." - American Medical Association. Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99), Neonatal Circumcision. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-2511.html
American Medical Association. Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99), Neonatal Circumcision. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html
thanks for the reference.
since both the AMA and the American Pediatric Association recommend against ("non-ritual")circumcision as a routine practice, i think the health issue is settled for now.
I'm curious... regarding your comment that many African men feel the same way about non circumcised females...
Are you African? Or is there another source of your
comments?
thanks,
ampu
I am not African. My comment is based on conversations with men from countries where female genital cutting is common. Also according to organizations trying to end female genital cutting, hygiene and cleanliness is one of the reasons given for the practice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.