Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
Orpheus wrote:
-We have a foreskin for a reason. We evolved to have one, just like like most things on the human body. Yes there are some things like the appendix that are now unnecessary, but they're few and far between. If you think it looks better and might reduce ear infections by 8%, would you be willing to nip off your child's earlobe? Why not?
What reason that is relevant today? And as for your other example, you're right that it's pretty much the same (though to be the same, it has to involve not you but society thinking lobe-less ears look better). I'm not sure what that proves, though.
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Circumcision Policy Statement TASK FORCE ON CIRCUMCISION
Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 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.Pediatrics 2012;130:585–586
_________________ Chicago 1998/Indianapolis 2000/Champaign 2003/Indianapolis 2003/Toledo 2004/Kitchener 2005/Chicago 2006/London 2007/New York City 2008/Cleveland 2010
Last edited by track12 on Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Oh, platypus...you are so much better than this. I hadn't heard of this particular issue, but this is what I get from your article:
The AAP is 100% against female genital mutilation, but suggested that if people are going to do it anyways, to please use a less "mutilating" technique.
One of my pet peeves is when people try to discredit an entire group or professional agency simply by digging up some headline-grabber that is not quite as preposterous as it appears. Did you read the abstract?
"The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm, counsels its members not to perform such procedures, recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC, and urges its members to provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the harms of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters."
_________________ Chicago 1998/Indianapolis 2000/Champaign 2003/Indianapolis 2003/Toledo 2004/Kitchener 2005/Chicago 2006/London 2007/New York City 2008/Cleveland 2010
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:21 am Posts: 23078 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Gender: Male
track12 wrote:
Oh, platypus...you are so much better than this. I hadn't heard of this particular issue, but this is what I get from your article:
The AAP is 100% against female genital mutilation, but suggested that if people are going to do it anyways, to please use a less "mutilating" technique.
One of my pet peeves is when people try to discredit an entire group or professional agency simply by digging up some headline-grabber that is not quite as preposterous as it appears. Did you read the abstract?
"The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm, counsels its members not to perform such procedures, recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC, and urges its members to provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the harms of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters."
Uh, did you listen to the podcast? The one where a representative of the American Academy of Pediatrics states that doctors could be allowed to cut a portion of a baby's clitoris to appease families who do it on the basis of "cultural traditions"?
The attention-grabbing headline, in this case, is absolutely accurate. The AAP endorsed (listen to the podcast, there's no getting around it) a form of clitoral mutilation, then quickly backtracked because, you know, it's a fucking stupid thing to do.
_________________ For more insulated and ill-informed opinions, click here.
No, I read the STATEMENT, because that is all that matters. If you read the statement, there is no "backtracking", they clearly, unequivocally say that they do not endorse it. So a singular representative clearly misspoke and THAT is enough for you to discredit the whole AAP?
_________________ Chicago 1998/Indianapolis 2000/Champaign 2003/Indianapolis 2003/Toledo 2004/Kitchener 2005/Chicago 2006/London 2007/New York City 2008/Cleveland 2010
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:21 am Posts: 23078 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Gender: Male
track12 wrote:
No, I read the STATEMENT, because that is all that matters. If you read the statement, there is no "backtracking", they clearly, unequivocally say that they do not endorse it. So a singular representative clearly misspoke and THAT is enough for you to discredit the whole AAP?
The version of the statement you quoted is the amended statement, issued after the controversy, which includes the addition of an extra clause:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm, counsels its members not to perform such procedures, recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC, and urges its members to provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the harms of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters."
Listen to the podcast, there is no misspeaking. She is clearly stating AAP policies. The word "compromise" is used generously.
_________________ For more insulated and ill-informed opinions, click here.
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:21 am Posts: 23078 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Gender: Male
Anyway, I don't know that anyone will be dissuaded in any direction in this conversation. AAP stated a position that goes against the choices made by most of the civilized world, and an increasing number of Americans. Fair enough. It's easier for me to sit here in indignant outrage and say "this is ridiculous, this is all about money, the AAP sucks, look at this, these guys are destroying babies" than it is to acknowledge that this is a cultural divide that I can't quite wrap my brain around. At the end of the day, it sounds like neither party wants to believe it's their dick that looks freaky and weird.
_________________ For more insulated and ill-informed opinions, click here.
The version of the statement you quoted is the amended statement, issued after the controversy, which includes the addition of an extra clause:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm, counsels its members not to perform such procedures, recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC, and urges its members to provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the harms of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters."
The bolded clause that you claim is a "gotcha!" is rather extraneous. It is quite clear, even in the absence of that clause, that they do not "endorse" any version of FGC. Again, what ONE representative said on a podcast is not horribly interesting to me. What is relevant is the statement from the Academy. That is what we are debating re: male circ, and I don't care to mince (ha!) words regarding what a rep said.
_________________ Chicago 1998/Indianapolis 2000/Champaign 2003/Indianapolis 2003/Toledo 2004/Kitchener 2005/Chicago 2006/London 2007/New York City 2008/Cleveland 2010
To be clear, as I've said before, I don't necessarily 100% agree with the AAP circ position. I just think that trying to discredit all AAP positions by pouncing on a podcast is a tactic I usually see in the context of political posturing.
_________________ Chicago 1998/Indianapolis 2000/Champaign 2003/Indianapolis 2003/Toledo 2004/Kitchener 2005/Chicago 2006/London 2007/New York City 2008/Cleveland 2010
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:40 am Posts: 2114 Location: Coventry
knee tunes wrote:
Everytime I see this thread title, I picture two people fighting over a foreskin.
ok, go on...
A sword fight?
_________________ "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them" -Karl Popper
The New York City Board of Health unanimously passed a regulation on Thursday that will require consent from parents before an infant can have a form of Jewish ritual circumcision, prevalent in parts of the ultra-Orthodox community, in which the circumciser uses his mouth to remove blood from the incision.
_________________ Chicago 1998/Indianapolis 2000/Champaign 2003/Indianapolis 2003/Toledo 2004/Kitchener 2005/Chicago 2006/London 2007/New York City 2008/Cleveland 2010
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum