Queries about circumcision

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I don't care if the number of deaths is low. There shouldn't be deaths for a procedure that has no benefits (other than saving 1m in the shower) especially on a person who hasn't consented to it.

Okay, we are going to look at the precise situation you are describing right here. The number of deaths is excessive in comparison to the amount of time it takes.
I will assume the average lifespan to be seventy years (though it is pointless in this calculation) and that the foreskin would have to be washed daily.
Time taken through washing-1m/day*365days/year*70years=17.74 days
Time taken through circumcision =70years
Likelihood of death through circumcision=16 in 90,000 (the high estimate. The low one is 1 in 500,000.)
70years*365days/year*16deaths/90000deaths=4.542 days
The amount of time lost to each death through circumcision is less a third of the amount of time used to clean a foreskin by your own estimate. I personally don't care., and I have no intention of having my own child circumcised, but looking at that I may actually be making the illogical choice there, especially if the low estimate is taken into consideration.

Time lost to death? Time taken through circumcision? What does that even mean?

I have no idea what you have posted, maybe it made sense in your head but it sure as shit doesn't on the post.

If you are trying to say that it saves you time in the day then just wake up an hour early and you'll gain years of time.

Pre-post EDIT

"The number of deaths is excessive in comparison to the amount of time it takes."

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying it has no benefits other than saving 1m in a day and people shouldn't die just because of such a pithy benefit.

Sorry, I was speaking math, but essentially what I meant was that the amount of time (life) used up through deaths by circumcision is less than the amount of time (life) used through washing foreskins. I also mislabeled a variable. I will edit that.

 

[lacktheknack]

I present a third side to this.

That side is the "Why the hell does anyone care" side.
Seriously.
Either way it's not that big of a deal, It's just a minor detail in someones life and arguing about it isn't going to change anything.

Why do we discuss most things?

Most thing in life are trivial, should we all just sit in silence?

No, but there's usually a "Really Good Bacon" option.

 

[Slayer_2]

Nah it's not painful at all. Which is why I'm unsure about circumcision in the first place. I'm considering going to see a urologist once college is done for the summer to get a professional opinion but I'd really rather not have to get the chop.

I've not got anything against circumcision, I just dread the thoughts of those first few weeks you mentioned.

Oh, in that case, I wouldn't even bother, I think tons of guys have that "problem". No pain caused by it, why bother? I guarantee the post-op will be uncomfortable, at best.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Sorry, I was speaking math, but essentially what I meant was that the amount of time (life) used up through deaths by circumcision is less than the amount of time (life) used through washing foreskins. I also mislabeled a variable. I will edit that.

Oh, I know math but I didn't think you would try to put someone's life simply as a variable.

Anyway, I countered your math by saying that waking up even 10m early each day would save 10x more time than circumcision and wouldn't affect you body in any noticeable way.

I think that things would be better if people would take the time to consider the math behind their decisions. Life is a simple variable really. It's just the amount of time you're got to spend. I actually really like using it as a variable to be honest.

Well that isn't fair. You can't use outside variables like that. It ruins the point of all the numbers I had to put into my calculator. Now I find my life to be purposeless. Why did you have to do that?

 

[JimB]

Sorry but what? I don't get your point.

Oh, I'm not making points yet. For now, I'm just exploring your position.

I am referring to competence in the legal sense. A child is generally incompetent to participate in his own medical care, so the power to make those decisions is given to the parents or guardians. Someone suffering from a severe enough dementia is incompetent, and the power to make those decisions is turned over to whoever has his durable power of attorney. From what I gather, you think no one but the patient himself should be allowed to determine what medical procedures he undergoes, and if the patient can't make statements of consent, then only the doctor should be able to. You think the wishes of the family members responsible for the patient's care should be kept out of the process. Is that right?

Issues of competence, I would assume anyone who is a trained doctor should be competent enough to perform a medical procedure.

So you believe a doctor will have the patient's best interests at heart more than the patient's family will? Or do you just assume the patient's family is too ignorant to make the decision? Because I work with doctors, and they're as likely to be morons as anyone else is. I've known doctors who refuse to prescribe pain medications for people dying of cancer because they think a dose of sub-lingual morphine will kill the patient.

Who's already dying.

Of cancer.

And is in pain.

And whose pain could be alleviated by a dose of morphine so small it probably wouldn't kill a sick golden retriever.

EDIT: ...Okay, in retrospect, that last bit is a point. Sorry about that.

 

[Freechoice]

snip

You know that this is an ethical discussion with tangential practicality as evidence, right? While you can measure human life in time, it's generally not seen as the "right" thing to do.

And whoo, you lose 17 days and change. I've wasted more time just sitting on my ass doing fuck all than I have cleaning my dick. You waste a year of your life at stoplights. If you're going to nickle and dime your time, you could do it in less than fatal ways.

Also, min-maxing sucks.

I present a third side to this.

That side is the "Why the hell does anyone care" side.
Seriously.
Either way it's not that big of a deal, It's just a minor detail in someones life and arguing about it isn't going to change anything.

Because we can.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

snip

You know that this is an ethical discussion with tangential practicality as evidence, right? While you can measure human life in time, it's generally not seen as the "right" thing to do.

And whoo, you lose 17 days and change. I've wasted more time just sitting on my ass doing fuck all than I have cleaning my dick. You waste a year of your life at stoplights. If you're going to nickle and dime your time, you could do it in less than fatal ways.

Also, min-maxing sucks.

Hey, I just thought it would be some fun math. I personally am still against having my own children circumcised, I just don't think that my choice is necessarily logical. He was the one bringing up the deaths by fuck-ups. If I made a real point there, it was that that line of argument was pointless.

 

[RipRoaringWaterfowl]

Shit.

This won't end well.

Anyone who wishes to survive may join me in my bunker. I have all the hookers and Blackjack you could ever want.

OT: Any doctor worth their salt will tell you that any medical procedure has risks and removing a small boy's foreskin for anything less than a medical concern is not a great idea.

I'll join you in the bunker. I know how these threads end.

 

[Freechoice]

So you believe a doctor will have the patient's best interests at heart more than the patient's family will? Or do you just assume the patient's family is too ignorant to make the decision?

There's a difference between having the best interest of someone and actually knowing what the best course of action is. Will doctors make mistakes? Yes. Does that automatically disqualify their 8+ years of medical training and residency? No.

And there are second opinions and personal research. Something the best dads ever that posted here probably never heard of.

snip

You know that this is an ethical discussion with tangential practicality as evidence, right? While you can measure human life in time, it's generally not seen as the "right" thing to do.

And whoo, you lose 17 days and change. I've wasted more time just sitting on my ass doing fuck all than I have cleaning my dick. You waste a year of your life at stoplights. If you're going to nickle and dime your time, you could do it in less than fatal ways.

Also, min-maxing sucks.

Hey, I just thought it would be some fun math. I personally am still against having my own children circumcised, I just don't think that my choice is necessarily logical. He was the one bringing up the deaths by fuck-ups. If I made a real point there, it was that that line of argument was pointless.

It's not pointless though. People have died because some stupid (religious) tradition predicated a bullshit procedure.

It's one less thing to kill someone. It's logical. And teaching your kids to wash themselves fosters responsibility.

 

[JimB]

I said the patient should decide what treatment they get. If they need surgery and cannot give consent then it should be made for them in their best interests. I don't think I ever mentioned who would make that decision this whole time, just that someone else should make it if they need surgery and cannot give consent.

Yes, but you're arguing against a parent's right to circumcise his child on the grounds that parents are ignorant, so clearly, some kind of system of oversight needs to be in place for these decisions, right? Which means parents would only be allowed to make choices as long as they concur with the choices a doctor or whatever other authority you appoint to the position would make, right?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

snip

You know that this is an ethical discussion with tangential practicality as evidence, right? While you can measure human life in time, it's generally not seen as the "right" thing to do.

And whoo, you lose 17 days and change. I've wasted more time just sitting on my ass doing fuck all than I have cleaning my dick. You waste a year of your life at stoplights. If you're going to nickle and dime your time, you could do it in less than fatal ways.

Also, min-maxing sucks.

Hey, I just thought it would be some fun math. I personally am still against having my own children circumcised, I just don't think that my choice is necessarily logical. He was the one bringing up the deaths by fuck-ups. If I made a real point there, it was that that line of argument was pointless.

It's not pointless though. People have died because some stupid (religious) tradition predicated a bullshit procedure.

It's one less thing to kill someone. It's logical. And teaching your kids to wash themselves fosters responsibility.

Except the likelihood of death is so low that the amount of time (life) it takes to wash your damn foreskin exceeds the amount lost to deaths. That is a very good sign that the loss of life is at an essentially meaningless level. Like taking a walk outside on a sunny day level. It is a meaningless degree of loss.

Teaching your children to wash themselves does foster responsibility. That's why you teach them to take showers or baths on their own. The increased degree of responsibility found in washing foreskins is pretty unimportant really.

 

[Superior Mind]

I said the patient should decide what treatment they get. If they need surgery and cannot give consent then it should be made for them in their best interests. I don't think I ever mentioned who would make that decision this whole time, just that someone else should make it if they need surgery and cannot give consent.

Yes, but you're arguing against a parent's right to circumcise his child on the grounds that parents are ignorant, so clearly, some kind of system of oversight needs to be in place for these decisions, right? Which means parents would only be allowed to make choices as long as they concur with the choices a doctor or whatever other authority you appoint to the position would make, right?

Not ignorant, irrational. Let's put it this way; a parent should have the right to make medical choices for their children if their reasons are based on some rationality. Belief that a child's soul will be forever tarnished if they don't get circumcised is not rational I'm afraid and what's more it's not in the child's best interest either but the parents'. The child, as you said, is incompetent and hasn't the cognisance to form a religious opinion, the only way the child is impacted is that it has to undergo an unnecessary procedure which, like any procedure, has risks no matter how small they are.

I'll give you a couple of rather extreme examples. My former neighbours had a kid. The kid got sick but instead of deciding to take her to a doctor they decided that it would be in their best interests if they prayed. Suffice to say it didn't work, the girl died. Likewise with Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions or organ/tissue transplants. They feel it is in their best interests to refuse the treatment even though on any rational ground it's not. Now while I'm not arguing against anyone's right to refuse treatment for whatever reason, even if it leads to their own death, I do find issue with people making these decisions on behalf of others and basing it on nothing more than their own beliefs. There's something quite insidious about thinking that the parents automatically have a right to alter their child's body.

 

[BakaSmurf]

I love how the people throwing out the "IT REDUCES SENSITIVITY" arguement are completely ignoring the "I've been circumcised only recently and not only is it just as sensitive as it was before, my girl actually prefers it this way" guys.

Anyways, onto the OP.

snipity

Watch some (ametuer) porn featuring a clipped fella, and then another one featuring an unclipped fella, the clipped fella is going to be just as capable as the unclipped fella, this I promise you.

His dick isn't going to to be nearly as unsightly as the unclipped fella's is either, just keep that in mind. Also. that aside, would you really rather you be more sensitive, and have the sex not last as long as a result? I may be odd in this line of thinking, but in my mind it's better for your partner since she gets to enjoy the Naughty Bad Fun Time longer anyways, and one should always be thinking of ways to make it more enjoyable for their partner.

Now, I'm retreating to my super-sonic jet and getting as far away from here as possible, since I know that no bunker will be able to withstand the fallout of this thread's end.

Spoiler: BAI YOU GAIZ!

 

[Freechoice]

snip

You know that this is an ethical discussion with tangential practicality as evidence, right? While you can measure human life in time, it's generally not seen as the "right" thing to do.

And whoo, you lose 17 days and change. I've wasted more time just sitting on my ass doing fuck all than I have cleaning my dick. You waste a year of your life at stoplights. If you're going to nickle and dime your time, you could do it in less than fatal ways.

Also, min-maxing sucks.

Hey, I just thought it would be some fun math. I personally am still against having my own children circumcised, I just don't think that my choice is necessarily logical. He was the one bringing up the deaths by fuck-ups. If I made a real point there, it was that that line of argument was pointless.

It's not pointless though. People have died because some stupid (religious) tradition predicated a bullshit procedure.

It's one less thing to kill someone. It's logical. And teaching your kids to wash themselves fosters responsibility.

Except the likelihood of death is so low that the amount of time (life) it takes to wash your damn foreskin exceeds the amount lost to deaths. That is a very good sign that the loss of life is at an essentially meaningless level. Like taking a walk outside on a sunny day level. It is a meaningless degree of loss.

Teaching your children to wash themselves does foster responsibility. That's why you teach them to take showers or baths on their own. The increased degree of responsibility found in washing foreskins is pretty unimportant really.

Ok, so the convenience of many people is worth the life of some people? Let's say that for every 500,000 children, 1 dies (wiki estimate). That means, by the current American population, 300 some odd guys are dead just so everyone else saves 17 days of their lives?

300 people are dead for just that little bit of convenience.

You also lack the data to account for problems that do not cause fatalities and cause a loss of time anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Complications

Point is, stupid tradition: unjustifiable by any means save for South Saharan Africa, a place God left long ago.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

snip

You know that this is an ethical discussion with tangential practicality as evidence, right? While you can measure human life in time, it's generally not seen as the "right" thing to do.

And whoo, you lose 17 days and change. I've wasted more time just sitting on my ass doing fuck all than I have cleaning my dick. You waste a year of your life at stoplights. If you're going to nickle and dime your time, you could do it in less than fatal ways.

Also, min-maxing sucks.

Hey, I just thought it would be some fun math. I personally am still against having my own children circumcised, I just don't think that my choice is necessarily logical. He was the one bringing up the deaths by fuck-ups. If I made a real point there, it was that that line of argument was pointless.

It's not pointless though. People have died because some stupid (religious) tradition predicated a bullshit procedure.

It's one less thing to kill someone. It's logical. And teaching your kids to wash themselves fosters responsibility.

Except the likelihood of death is so low that the amount of time (life) it takes to wash your damn foreskin exceeds the amount lost to deaths. That is a very good sign that the loss of life is at an essentially meaningless level. Like taking a walk outside on a sunny day level. It is a meaningless degree of loss.

Teaching your children to wash themselves does foster responsibility. That's why you teach them to take showers or baths on their own. The increased degree of responsibility found in washing foreskins is pretty unimportant really.

Ok, so the convenience of many people is worth the life of some people? Let's say that for every 500,000 children, 1 dies (wiki estimate). That means, by the current American population, 300 some odd guys are dead just so everyone else saves 17 days of their lives?

300 people are dead for just that little bit of convenience.

You also lack the data to account for problems that do not cause fatalities and cause a loss of time anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Complications

Point is, stupid tradition: unjustifiable by any means save for South Saharan Africa, a place God left long ago.

When the many outnumber the few 500,000 to one, yes, it certainly does. As for the other data, there are also a load of random minimal benefits to circumcision. I think in the end without a whole day's worth of data analysis I could not say whether those random benefits are greater than those random things that make it worse, but whatever. I still think the choice is less black and white than people like to make it out to be, and that my choice, not having any children I have circumcised, may not be the right way to go. I just hate it when people against it act like circumcision is some great crime.

 

[Aprilgold]

Wasn't the point in places like the desert so your penis doesn't get infected, thus stopping it from having to be medically cut off later?

I don't understand any hate after it. "ITS INHUMANE" it was done about 2 days after I was born when there was no way in hell for me to actually remember. "IT LOOKS BAD" Unless your gay or a straight woman, it isn't any uglier then say a uncircumcised penis does, and even then its subjective.

Honestly, theres no reason that can't be dismissed on either side.

-------------------------------------------

As someone else mentioned, uncircumcised penises just look... well, weird. In fact when I was a kid I never thought there was a difference until sex ed class. They showed pictures of uncircumcised penises, and my first though was, "Whoa! What the hell is that?".

Anyways I was circumcised and don't really mind. If I have a son, I'll probably do the same for him. To me it just seemed like one of those steps you take when your child is born, sorta like vaccinations. (Note: I am not saying that circumcision is equivalent to or as important as childhood vaccinations.)

Why not respect your child and let him make that decision on his own?

Well, if its a child, then it can't decide for itself, its not allowed.

 

[Freechoice]

act like circumcision is some great crime.

HA HA, FUNNY YOU SHOULD SAY THAT [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation]

Equivalence? Not really. Same reasons across different cultures though because people are fucking stupid.

So we can just kill off some people to save some time. What a fuckin' reasonable thing to say.

And if it's obviously the logical choice, why not have it done to your kids? I mean, 17 days sure sounds like a lot of time. It's worth the risk, right? You did the math. Hell, you can tell'em the importance of that as well.

"Daddy saved you two and a half weeks kiddo."

Of course, if your kid dies from it, well, that was just statistical improbability, right?