Parents face so many difficult decisions when it comes to having a child: decisions about nursing, sleep patterns, discipline, teaching methods and, in the case of boys, whether or not to circumcise. In addition to being the most common surgery for males in the U.S., circumcision has been practiced in various cultures for centuries. Yet when it comes to the health and best interest of your newborn, is circumcision the way to go?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
To begin this thread:
The opening statement by NOCIRC is correct. The point by point discussion - for both sides - that follows is a Misdirection type of false argument to the Physician's Cultural Broker issue. Where the misdirection started is of no concern. Also, though, NOCIRC's point by point reply to Dr. Morris' statements are correct.
I will continue this thread, for the most part, responding to Dr. Morris' issues of which there are many unspokens.
- DevilDocRetired
August 15, 2008 2:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(8)
Side: No
Dr. Morris' opening statement has hidden moods and motivations. It is Dr. Morris who argues an Ignoratio Elenchi - an ignorance to the facts. What maintains him and Dr. Shoen requires more than one post.
Yes, most doctors are interested in evidence based facts. BUT some aren't. Morris uses here a Composition false argument - what is true for the part is true for the whole.
The attack on Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) is a Pepito Principii - begging the question assuming what one is trying to prove. Morris' 'Grandoisity' to DOC is mirror-image.
Dr. Morris is most pitiful with a Ad Hominem against Dr. Fleiss - a personal attack against a person to destroy their credibility. How Dr. Fleiss got in over his head to help his daughter is of no concern and meaningless to the argument. There are doctors who take cases others won't because of difficulty and will NATURALLY have a highter complication rate.
To continue:
- DevilDocRetired August 15, 2008 3:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(8)
Side: No
continued:
The "fantasies" spoken of by Dr. Morris do not reside in Marilyn Milos or NOCIRC but rather in Dr. Morris himself, as well as Dr. Shoen.
When time permits I will discuss possible relational fantasies that appear to be present in Dr. Morris and Dr. Shoen. Hopefully afterward they will seek professional help. No complete diagnosis can be made in this forum. But all should consider what I will present.
This can get ugly if taken wrong, especially with issues of one's identity when self-confronted.
Introspection is required by both sides, somewhat in the anti-circumcision group, but a whole lot of introspection is required by those advocating and defending circumcision.
- DevilDocRetired August 15, 2008 11:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(8)
Side: No
Stigmatic/eligibilic involves desires for objects to "become eligible." The social ritual of circumcision gives access to the object genitals of others. Amputation of the prepuce represents power which is also a psychological indicator for child molesters. Dismemberment is a hallmark of lust killings.
Stigmatic/eligibilic is thought to result from childhood sexual erotic tregedies that vandalize the child and alter one's lovemap for what is sexually attractive when they become adults.
The genitals become "eligible" to a person doing the circumcision like Shoen as a physician, or 'eligible' to those like Morris who travel to Africa to watch mass circumcisions.
- DevilDocRetired August 15, 2008 11:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(8)
Side: No
Three forms of stigmatic-eligibilic are:
(1). "Acrotomophilia" - sexual arousal toward amputees, for partners missing limbs, aka: amputee fetishism.
This pertains to females toward circumcised males, yet also in parts of Islam by males with mutilated females.
(2). "Apotemnophilia" - the desire to acquire a disability, to be an amputee.
This is alo called "wannabeism" and "transability."
(3). "Transformation fetishism" - the desire for people who undergo a physical transformation usually from body modification.
Transformation is an essential step in ritual process and used by some in psychotherapy.
(And). Even though a person may not be actually sexually accessable the psychological component remains. The circumcised prepuce becomes a social token and often a personal psychological token. Certain types of serial sexual predators take tokens from their victims and use the tokens to re-experience the crime often with masturbation.
- DevilDocRetired August 16, 2008 12:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(10)
Side: No
13
8
8
9
11
2
1
2
7
4
4
3
5
4
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Here are the Main Benefits of Circumcision
- From Dr Brian Morris
By Dr. Brian Morris - Professor of Molecular Medical Sciences
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Biased probably because you are cirucmcised yourself
What a load of bull . If you look at the studies you will see a lot of them were flawed.
The risks of complications far outweigh any negligible medical benefits - if there are any! Which is basically what the whole medical community agree upon. So no, you should definitely not circumcise.
No affect on sensitivity! Are you kidding me?
You can point to a number of hand-picked studies saying there is no difference. But if you look at the studies they are often highly flawed. Are you seriously asking people to believe that a layer of tough skin forming over the glans of the penis has no effect? There have been studies showing that the foreskin is highly concentrated in nerves. Just go to www.sexasnatureintendedit.com to see more on this.
Circumcision is barbaric and has NO benefits. The fact that Dr Schoen is Jewish has likely coloured his view on this considerably - the guy has made a career out of
- woodthorpe82
August 7, 2008 6:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (13)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
YES - Biased probably because you are circumcised yourself
Your topic heading refers to Repetition Compulsion.
Circumcision for some is a form of Repetition Compulsion that not only involves a person in the personal aspect, but also expands as a form of Societal Repetition Compulsion.
Circumcision, ritual, as a Basic Social Act is an avenue toward an Acculturated Posttraumatic Attachment. This then creates a social common human identity in shared neurosis.
Ritual as the Basic Social Act by Roy Rapport referenced in "Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice," by Dr. Catherine Bell. See: Hobsbawn, eric, et al., "Mass Producing Traditions: Europe, 1970-1914." section "The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge Univ. Press.
- DevilDocRetired
August 17, 2008 4:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (10)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Cherry picking...
Prof. Morris must have cherry picked all the studies that show the highest benefits of circumcision and ignored the rest (if he is quoting studies at all).
Even fellow arch-circumcisionist Tom Wiswell only claims 1 intact boy in 100 gets a UTI, compared to 1 in 1000 circumcised boys. That means for every 1000 circumcisions, 990 are wasted on boys who would never get a UTI, and one on one who gets them anyway. Meanwhile FOUR in 100 girls gets a UTI without anyone ever thinking of surgery.
The same for his other claims. The studies that show no reduction in sensation are so bad as to be funny. They do that by ignoring the foreskin itself! Any man who has one laughs at such "science".
- Hugh7
August 10, 2008 1:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (14)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Comepletely flawed
Less than 1% of uncircumcised men ever need to be circumcised later in life. Penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer, and has an equal frequency in America (mostly circumcised) and Denmark (mostly uncircumcised). HPV - a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE - casues cervical cancer, and this is prevented by a) not having unsafe sex, and/or b) a simple vaccine. HIV transmission reduction in African studies is extremely flawed: The circumcised men are taught more about safe sex practices than the ones left out of the study, the rate of "protection" is 50% less chance of contracting it from an infected woman -- abstinance/being faithful to one's wife/partner guarantees 100% protection, and condoms afford 99% protection. I think we see which type of education is needed here : safe/protected and faithful sexual practices, not cutting of the penis and cutting him loose to have sex with any potentially infected partner he wants, under the very false guise of having protection from HIV.
Urinary tract infection? These occur 30 times more often in women/girls than men/boys (either circumcised or not), and less than 1 boy in 100 gets a UTI (circumcised or not). In ALL cases of female UTIs the treatment is ANTIBIOTICS -- NOT cutting their genitals.
There is no medical, social, or ethical defense for this unnacceptible and barbaric practice.
- chrism86 September 7, 2008 7:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.