Arguments pro circumcision: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Typos; human rights link. |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
}}</ref> of the [[WHO]] which should have determined that [[circumcision]] should have a 60% protection against HIV/AIDS. This study is sharply criticized worldwide by experts. | }}</ref> of the [[WHO]] which should have determined that [[circumcision]] should have a 60% protection against HIV/AIDS. This study is sharply criticized worldwide by experts. | ||
*: A study by [[Bertran Auvert]] is used as a source, which supposedly wants to found an HIV infection risk reduced by up to 60%. | *: A study by [[Bertran Auvert]] is used as a source, which supposedly wants to found an HIV infection risk reduced by up to 60%. | ||
*: There are several comments: Firstly, the study design was already | *: There are several comments: Firstly, the study design was already destroyed with the start of the trial. The circumcised control group was circumcised directly at the beginning of the study. This means that the intact control group had a 'contagion lead' of six weeks which were applied until the circumcision wounds have healed. Secondly, the entire study was carried out in the region with the highest HIV rate around the world. Thus the results are not that meaningful as if the study would have been carried out in areas with 'normal' infection rates. Orange Farm, the village in South Africa, is well-known for the high rate of HIV. A third criticism is that the study of [[Bertran Auvert|Auvert]] comes up with mathematical legerdemain and was also canceled after two years, when the figures threatened to align themselves. Unfortunately, this study is also the basis on which the [[WHO]] performs worth millions [[circumcision]] campaigns with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. | ||
* '''"Circumcision supposedly protects against urinary tract infections (UTI)."''' | * '''"Circumcision supposedly protects against urinary tract infections (UTI)."''' | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
* '''“Circumcision supposedly protects against cervical cancer / HPV."''' | * '''“Circumcision supposedly protects against cervical cancer / HPV."''' | ||
*: The aforementioned diseases were mentioned during the modern history of [[circumcision]] to somehow justify non-medical circumcision medically. For prevention of the diseases mentioned however, other non-destructive measures (such as hygiene, condoms, etc.) are more appropriate. America with the highest circumcision rate of all western countries has also still the highest HIV / AIDS rate in all Western countries. There are now also well-tolerated vaccinations against the infection with HPV, such as Gardasil. | *: The aforementioned diseases were mentioned during the modern history of [[circumcision]] to somehow justify non-medical circumcision medically. For prevention of the diseases mentioned however, other non-destructive measures (such as hygiene, condoms, etc.) are more appropriate. America, with the highest circumcision rate of all western countries, has also still the highest HIV / AIDS rate in all Western countries. There are now also well-tolerated vaccinations against the infection with HPV, such as Gardasil. | ||
* '''“Circumcision supposedly protects against [[phimosis]]."''' | * '''“Circumcision supposedly protects against [[phimosis]]."''' | ||
*: Of course you cannot get [[phimosis]] without a [[foreskin]]. So this argument is as silly as if you would say that | *: Of course you cannot get [[phimosis]] without a [[foreskin]]. So this argument is as silly as if you would say that amputation of the feet protects from athlete's foot. [[Circumcision]] for [[phimosis]] prophylaxis is pure nonsense. - There are actually medically indicated cases of [[phimosis]]. But more than 90% of them can be corrected without surgery. One must clearly distinguish between the physiological ''(natural)'' and the pathological [[phimosis]]. Boys usually have a so-called physiological [[phimosis]]: the [[foreskin]] is bonded to the [[Glans penis|penis]] and cannot be retracted. Only by changes in the hormonal balance of adolescent boys, the bonded membrane dissolves slowly and allows to retract the [[foreskin]]. The average age here is 10.4 years. Each [[phimosis]] diagnosis that is made in an otherwise healthy boy before the end of puberty that can urinate without a problem, is a misdiagnosis. Especially during the enrollment examination, [[phimosis]] is often diagnosed because some doctors still mistakenly believe that on the enrollment the [[foreskin]] must be fully retractable. As a parent, please ignore this diagnosis. If the child has no problems, you have to make him any problems. | ||
*: The [[BVKJ|Professional Association of Paediatricians]] in Germany has now canceled the [[phimosis]] investigations in the examination books for boys in early childhood. | *: The [[BVKJ|Professional Association of Paediatricians]] in Germany has now canceled the [[phimosis]] investigations in the examination books for boys in early childhood. | ||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
== Trivializing arguments == | == Trivializing arguments == | ||
* '''"I've never heard anyone complain about being circumcised."''' | * '''"I've never heard anyone complain about being circumcised."''' | ||
*: Chances are that a man does not talk about his sexual or other (genital) issues to others at all. There are many personal stories of men who did and do complain. There is an organization named [[Men Do Complain]], there are books with [[Case Histories|case histories]] of many men who do complain. But it is not the question if men do complain. The question is: Is [[circumcision]] of children an illegal intervention in the physical integrity? That is continuously asserted by lawyers. The question for victims does also not arise here, because [[circumcision]] of children basically violates the fundamental rights of the child. | *: Chances are that a man does not talk about his sexual or other (genital) issues to others at all. There are many personal stories of men who did and do complain. There is an organization named [[Men Do Complain]], there are books with [[Case Histories|case histories]] of many men who do complain. But it is not the question if men do complain. The question is: Is [[circumcision]] of children an illegal intervention in the physical integrity? That is continuously asserted by lawyers. The question for victims does also not arise here, because [[circumcision]] of children basically violates the [[human rights| fundamental rights of the child]]. | ||
* '''"[[Circumcision]] is similar to removing a patch."''' | * '''"[[Circumcision]] is similar to removing a patch."''' | ||
| Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
== Moral arguments == | == Moral arguments == | ||
* '''"I want to keep my boy from [[Masturbation|masturbating]]."''' | * '''"I want to keep my boy from [[Masturbation|masturbating]]."''' | ||
*: [[Masturbation]] is something completely natural and part of the right to sexual self-determination. The excessive fight against the natural [[masturbation]] was the main motivation for the | *: [[Masturbation]] is something completely natural and part of the right to sexual self-determination. The excessive fight against the natural [[masturbation]] was the main motivation for the American doctor and racist [[John Harvey Kellogg]] to propagate [[circumcision]] all over the United States of America. | ||
* '''"If we ban it here, it is done illegaly or abroad."''' | * '''"If we ban it here, it is done illegaly or abroad."''' | ||
*: This so-called 'backyard' argument can be applied to almost all statutory, punitive bans and is just absurd. It is also listed in debates about drug addiction, abortion and [[FGM|female genital mutilation]]. During the [[Circumcision Debate]] 2012 in Germany, the author [[Harald Stücker]] has explained in a recommended article<ref>{{REFweb | *: This so-called 'backyard' argument can be applied to almost all statutory, punitive bans and is just absurd. It is also listed in debates about drug addiction, abortion and [[FGM|female genital mutilation]]. During the [[Circumcision Debate]] 2012 in Germany, the author [[Harald Stücker]] has explained in a recommended article<ref>{{REFweb | ||