Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Yeah, I've had a few women tell me I should consider a reduction...they are just worried about their boyfriends....
HAHAHA i love you...
chicks 👍👎 ?
(i'm half joking. really.)
I absolutely will not...
Started by Doula-2-OB
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
HAHAHA i love you...
chicks 👍👎 ?
(i'm half joking. really.)
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I still remember how devastated you were when you discovered that I was not a dude.....it's totally legal until we decide to get married
Woah, that sounded quite suggestive...
Euthanasia is a big no-no.
And I refuse to do breast, or buttocks enhancement surgery. Sorry, but I'm not going to shove unnecessary silicon into someone.
Circumcision dramatically reduces the rate of HIV transmission.
See:http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/
and http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050124004711.htm
Now can we pick up the knife and chop it off already?
I think as a doctor, you are providing a service to the patient, and in this relationship the patient autonomy is the most important, and a few animals here and there are sacrifices for a greater good - to train you to be a good doctor so you can save people.
I still remember how devastated you were when you discovered that I was not a dude.....
Woah, that sounded quite suggestive...
And it's greatly appreciated 😛
Yes, doctors can refuse to perform abortions. i'm pretty sure they can refuse to perform any proceedure that they don't feel comfortable doing, or think causes unnecessary risk to the patient. In those cases they might be bound to refer the patient to someone else, but in the case of abortion i'm not even sure they're required to do that. i think if the infant is deemed incompatible iwth life, it can be terminated even if continuing the pregnancy poses no risk to the mother. But you can't just kill patients that think they're too old/sick/unhappy/etc. to live (or worse, if YOU deem them so...that's called murder 🙂)
I also refuse to do perform abortion. I definitely draw the line there.
Nice to see that you referenced so many of these dozens of papers. Thank you, thank you so much.
Wow, it's a great thing that one scientific paper seems to you that it proves that circumcision itself reduces the transmission of HIV. I'm glad you didn't take any time to actually research the issue and perhaps look at a competing paper like THIS one. I'm so glad that we can just use one paper to justify millions of surgeries (and thus millions upon millions of dollars) on a problem that could be greatly alleviated not by surgery, but by sex education that isn't abstinence-only.
I think circumcision is one I wouldn't perform. The data is just not there. Unless I'm working in Africa or in a population where condoms aren't generally available, it just doesn't make sense to CHOP OFF a currently healthy body part.
There's a great Penn & Teller BS show on this...
Other than that, I'd perform any medically necessary procedure, and probably most cosmetic procedures.
Especially if I score high enough to get a plastics residency...
There's a great Penn & Teller BS show on this...
Other than that, I'd perform any medically necessary procedure, and probably most cosmetic procedures.
Especially if I score high enough to get a plastics residency...
I'm really big on patient choice. I'd do a circumcision if someone could understand the pros and cons of circumcision for themselves, and then decide to undergo the surgery. However, there isn't enough medical evidence to justify routine infant circumcision in the United States, which is why no society recommends it. It is the patient's right to choose, and for a cosmetic procedure like circumcision, the parents should not have the ability to make the decision for them. If it were a medical issue, then yes, the parents would be acting in the best interest of the child by allowing intervention, but this is not the case in circumcision. In the United States especially, there is no reason to have routine infant circumcision.
I find it funny that this is such a big deal. Foreskin or no foreskin, it works just fine. My philosophy is this, "if your penis is currently working, don't change it"
If your penis is not currently working (phimosis that cannot be fixed by steroid treatment), then go for the medical circumcision. Cosmetic circumcision (which at this point is definitely the case in America) is just borderline ridiculous.
I can't really think of anything that I absolutely wouldn't perform in the specialties I could realistically see myself entering. I'm not a fan of cosmetic surgery, but I wouldn't be entering the field, so it's pointless to talk about whether I'd perform those operations. I mean, I doubt I'd WANT to perform a circumcision/abortion/choice mastectomy, but I don't think I'd vehemently refuse it unless there was a strong medical reason for doing so. Like, I had a problem with all these people who came to our clinic every 2 weeks asking for emergency contraception and yet would NOT agree to use condoms or regular hormonal contraception (even though it's cheaper AND has fewer side effects) - but I wouldn't be denying them EC just because I thought their behaviour was ridiculous. I really think docs should judge and withhold services less. All you can do is educate and if the patient still wants to do smth you don't approve of after finding out why you disapprove of a procedure/treatment, you shouldn't be refusing.
You mean to use the word "except".
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I guess I will have to do extra abortions to make up for the people who won't perform them.
And I'm glad you didn't take any time to consider Anne Buvé and Michel Alary's response to your mysterious online journal's paper.
Ouch!
Fixed.... although I find it somewhat amusing that I needed to edit a post I made what seems like FOREVER ago. (I realize it hasn't been that long, but it sure feels like it).
Thanks for the response, and no, I had not read that. Although I find it more than slightly ironic that a publisher would publish their own data on estimates regarding sex workers (even with the caveats that they included) and then proceed to call them basically useless. You'd think they would be fairly confident in their assessment if they found it prudent to publish the data, but I could be wrong.
Let's say that circumcision does have the purported benefits that some of these research articles are claiming to have. Do you really mean to tell me that you would rather spend the money circumcising every single infant and currently sexually active adult to have a chance of reducing HIV, or use that money for sex education and promoting condom use, which is unbelievably more effective. If a circumcised man has unprotected sex with multiple partners who have HIV, it's just a matter of time before he gets it; if he practices safe sex, the incidence is much lower. Just like in that paper that is referenced in the critique, "Increase in condom use and decline in HIV and sexually transmitted diseases among female sex workers in Abidjan".
The long-term solution for the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa is not circumcision, it is safe sex. I would hope that nobody would argue that point. Condoms are much more effective at stopping HIV transmission than lack of a foreskin ever would be.
I don't understand why everyone has to take it upon themselves to mess with another person's genitals. They have to live with their own penis and they are the ones that have to use it, when the time comes let them choose whether or not they want it hacked for convenience.
As for health reasons, I don't see this as that much of a problem. Any female that feels uncomfortable with the health risks associated with having sex with a male that has not been circumcised has the option not to have sex with him. Hell she can even try to convince him to get one. Unluck some other sexually related diseases, it's not like she won't be able to tell... As for cleaning, my goodness it's not that big of a deal. Proper education and informed parents is about all that's needed.
I don't know yet how I'd handle it if I even made it that far but I do know that I would definately advice against it unless some new revolutionary information becomes released.
Leave our stuff alone.
As for health reasons, I don't see this as that much of a problem. Any female that feels uncomfortable with the health risks associated with having sex with a male that has not been circumcised has the option not to have sex with him. Hell she can even try to convince him to get one. Unluck some other sexually related diseases, it's not like she won't be able to tell... As for cleaning, my goodness it's not that big of a deal. Proper education and informed parents is about all that's needed.
I don't know yet how I'd handle it if I even made it that far but I do know that I would definately advice against it unless some new revolutionary information becomes released.
Leave our stuff alone.
It depends on the circumstances. There are many barriers to adequate and effective sexual education and condom usage in these regions. Circumcision isn't intended to be a panacea, just a socially accepted weapon in the rather grave health crisis of HIV in Africa.
I agree that there are barriers to adequate sexual education, but barriers can be broken down. The cost of routine infant circumcision in Africa would be enormous, and I cannot imagine that given the same amount of capital, an educational reform program wouldn't be just as effective if not more effective. Circumcision isn't cheap.
The thing is, if people aren't educated about sex health, circumcision will not have the effects that people are hoping. If you continually practice unsafe sex with multiple HIV-infected partners, you will catch the disease, foreskin or no foreskin.
Imagine all you want, my sources are confident that circumcision is very valuable approach, particularly in areas with high endemnicity.
RPedigo said:
Here I really have to disagree. The beauty of circumcision is that it's foolproof. Snip and done. No more thinking must occur. It's a public health dream.
All that's foolproof about circumcision is that the foreskin gets removed. It is most assuredly not foolproof in any other regard, including eliminating risk of HIV transmission. No more thinking must occur, but that's the problem. No thinking means that people's sexual practices won't change-- or worse, they will become more reckless. If people are as uneducated with regard to safe sex as you've described, how do you think they will react to the "circumcision == HIV prevention"? Do you think they'll be any more safe in their sexual practices? The answer here is no.
I'm not debating that circumcision in Africa is completely without value. I'm saying there may be more long-term valuable approaches, especially when you consider that the problems of unprotected sex most assuredly don't stop at HIV transmission.
Sadly (actually happily) I have better things to do than to fight to get onto my campus' VPN so I can get access to scientific journal search engines, find the papers, and then post links that 80% of the viewers here won't be able to read because they're not on a campus server.
IF you want to be fully educated you can look for them yourself, there are lots around if you look, if you choose not to then that is your problem, not mine - I've read them.
I did post an overarching policy made by a well respected body in pediatric medicine that went over all the research and ultimately decided that it is not compelling enough to recommend automatic circumcision of all infants. Again, if you can't read or understand that - its your problem not mine.
1
154465
I have 2 penises, one circumcised, the other isn't. My parents couldn't decide on an all or nothing procedure. They both have their ups and downs (heh...heh...) I use them for different purposes really. Does anyone have any questions?
It's hilarious and sad at the same time that people will spend so much of there time arguing over a mildly controversial issue (circumcision) that has very little at stake but yet avoid discussing a enormously important issue (abortion) like the plague. My guess would be that most people here are not 100% either way about abortion and that's why they won't post. So even though reading everyone's vehement opinions about circumcision has been amusing, couldn't the time be better used discussing abortion rationally and actually learning something?
Here I'll start: To those undecided over the issue, and even those already decided, what is the difference between a fully grown fetus and an infant? If you're answer was "nothing" or "very little", then at what point during pregnancy does the developing child gain status as a human?
Also, I am confused about the rationale of those who are personally against abortion, yet have no problem letting others choose to do it. If you are against abortion for yourself, then presumably it is because you believe that an embryo or fetus are human and have rights. If you do believe that, wouldn't it be deplorable to support or participate someone else's violation of those rights?
Here I'll start: To those undecided over the issue, and even those already decided, what is the difference between a fully grown fetus and an infant? If you're answer was "nothing" or "very little", then at what point during pregnancy does the developing child gain status as a human?
Also, I am confused about the rationale of those who are personally against abortion, yet have no problem letting others choose to do it. If you are against abortion for yourself, then presumably it is because you believe that an embryo or fetus are human and have rights. If you do believe that, wouldn't it be deplorable to support or participate someone else's violation of those rights?
Yes, much like the death of a clown.
spart39 said:
What's the rationale for making 18 the point of reaching adulthood? Does something magical occur on midnight after living 17 years, 364 days? No, of course not. It's a somewhat arbitrary distinction that we, as humans, have made in order to deal with things pragmatically. It's a similar situation with abortion. The fetus is very different at day 1 versus week 39, but there is not mystical dividing line during development, so we usually impose an arbitrary one (viability) that appeases most sensibilities.
spart39 said:
Some folks believe that life begins at conception, others do not. Since God hasn't dropped a pamphlet stating exactly where life begins, the dominant feeling is that different views on this issue should be respected. Hence, while I would not personally perform an elective abortion, I cannot wag my finger at someone else who chooses to have one (particularly a first trimester termination).
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Abortion seems like a quick fix to a problem, but having had one, I can definitely tell you there is much more involved than a medical procedure. For those that have no problem doing them and won't change their minds, I hope you at least spend time counseling your patient (there are MANY alternatives). There is a wide range of emotional fallout that can and does happen. You might see an embryo or fetus as an "it" but the fact remains, regardless of belief, that it does eventually pop out of the mom 9 months after conception in the human baby form. You men, especially, may not understand why women (and some men) would grieve that loss, but even this year at Christmas time I think about the little girl/boy I would have had (who would be 13 this year) and how much joy they could have brought mine or someone else's life.
This is yet another topic that is so easy to comment on, but not many (especially the men) have actually been through. And those that have usually don't speak out for taboo's sake.
This is yet another topic that is so easy to comment on, but not many (especially the men) have actually been through. And those that have usually don't speak out for taboo's sake.
Then you're really saying nothing.
Clowns are scary, I give them no pity.
It is not acceptable to say OK we're just going to agree the birth confers personhood because that makes it easier. This is human life, not whether or not Johnny can buy a lottery ticket. Especially since we know that fetuses as early as 23 weeks can survive outside the womb. In 20 years who knows how early they will be able to survive.
I believe that human life at any age is held valuable because of its potential. The only reason that murder is wrong is because you are taking away someone else's minutes, hours, years of life that they would have otherwise. If this is true, then the same protection must be conferred upon a developing embryo or fetus. If it has the potential to exist further as a human, then it should be given the same rights as any other human.
Again I restate that if you personally believe abortion is killing a human being, then it truly is deplorable to support another person's killing of that human being.
Your candor is very much appreciated. I want to make clear that even though I argue harshly against abortion, that does not mean I hate every single person who has one. I am very sorry for your loss and empathize as much as one can without truly experiencing what you have gone through.
I have to disagree - arguing about abortion is pointless. No one here is afraid of it - we're just not wasting our time - its been discussed on here before. Nothign new (then again - neither is circumcision). I have never EVER met a person in college who didn't already have a stance on the issue and no one has ever changed anyone elses' mind about it. Not really - and certainly not on an anonymous internet forum.
Arguing abortion is unfortunately a pointless waste of time that will simply add 10 useless pages to an already ridiculous thread. At least when it was about circumcision it was fun. (jokes about penises are funny, jokes about aborted babies less so)
And the reason they were discussing circumcision is because that is an issue not deeply rooted in religious beliefs and morality like abortion is (except of course for Jews). Its actually possible to have a rationale discussion about pros and cons and change a few minds. I've convinced a lot of people to not circumcise their sons in the future - I gave up arguing abortion years ago.
As you are pro-life - I recommend you read Life's Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom by Ronald D. Dworkin. Actually it would be a great book for anyone to read. Basically he's a philosopher who argues (accurately) that most pro-life beliefs are based in religion and therefore it is pretty ridiculous to try to shove that belief off on others - we're not allowed to make laws regarding other religious beliefs - why this one. Its pretty compelling and makes points on both sides. Completely changed how I view the debate.
I am one of these people (although I won't do abortions as a physician either - I just don't believe abortion should be outlawed). Like I said - try that book its incredibly logical. And sure I believe it has human rights, because my religion tells me to. I can't write laws on that basis in this country - whether I like that or not. Jehovas Witnesses can't force the rest of us to witness to others about God once a week, orthodox Jews can't make us all not work on Saturdays, Catholics can't make everyone take communion. So why should Christians in general be allowed to outlaw abortion.
I don't think a fetus is human until it can live outside the womb. But I know that abortion is a hugely traumatic procedure, and I could easily seek an alternative. I've never (thankfully) been in the position where I had to choose whether or not to have an abortion. However, I believe that if my life depended on it, I would have the procedure done. Selfish, yes, but that's how I feel. So, I don't have any problem letting others choose to have an abortion, so long as they know the alternatives and risks of it.
50 years ago 23 week old babies couldn't live outside the womb, now many of them survive. Therefore, your argument would indicate that the definition of human life can be changed by technology or cultural influences. That is a particularly dangerous argument, especially when societies justify various genocides because of their definition of human life.
Fighting against long odds for seemingly lost causes has accomplished a lot in the world.
I don't think I ever mentioned religion in my arguments. I am arguing from a purely secular and ethical perspective. I might add that if something is a religious law that does not mean it not acceptable as a societal law. See stealing on the Ten Commandments.
That response was the mother of all cop-outs 🙄
How is saying, "circumcision has value in high-risk areas, but condom use is a better (and still viable) long-term solution" saying nothing? Please directly respond to both of my prior posts.
Not stealing has a non-religious basis that can be argued. Stealing hurts others therefore is wrong.
Abortion only hurts others if you think life starts at conception. If you have a scientific belief for why life starts at conception then good for you. I've never seen one that was actually a scientific argument and not a poor excuse for covering a religious belief.
So back to circumcision anyone? We could even merge this thread with the types of underwear and changing thread and have some good times! Anyone feel like discussing the sexual harassment implications of wearing briefs on an uncircumcised penis?
Well you see... when a sperm and a egg come together they form a embryo. That embryo will become a fetus in about 3 months. That fetus will become an infant in about 6 months. The infant becomes an adolescent in about 13 years. The adolescent becomes an adult 5-8 years after that. Stop me when you see a noncontinuous point in there. There is effectively no ethical difference between the time when an embryo is developing and the time a teenager is developing. It's all about the potential for further life.
I prefer boxers personally
So we're outlawing condoms while we're at it?
Also, thanks for not disappointing me. Same flimsy excuse for a scientific definition that everyone gives.
You know angel, you really need to get over this religion thing of yours. Seriously. I don't generally concern myself over who believes in Whom and why they believe it, but your absolute conviction that any objection to the killing of a human fetus must be inherently rooted in religion is getting seriously annoying. Even if the objector declares him/herself to be non-religious (or, as in my case, more-or-less agnostic) still you prattle on that abortion is a religious issue because you say it is. C'mon a little intellectual honesty will bring you a long way.
By stating the obvious (which no one disagrees with) you're not adding anything to the discussion beyond vapid platitudes.
So you agree that it's obvious that money that could be spent on circumcision would be better spent instead on promoting safe sex, providing free condoms, and health education, which would provide a long-term actual fix?
Again, sexual unawareness causes more problems than just HIV infection.
If I could magically circumcise all the kids in Africa for free, would I? Probably. But I don't see the cost:benefit working out in reality.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I have no idea when I "annoyed" you about this before - I only recall ever mentioning this once on this forum before. Don't remember you nor do I recall anyone ever arguing that they were atheist and thought it was still wrong.
But in that case: Religion/morality - its all the same - completely personal with no accepted basis in science or societal LAWS. Sorry if my beliefs annoy you, but the fact of the matter is - we have no scientifically accepted definition of the beginning of life (well we sort of do - right now its viability). THATS INTELLECTUAL HONESTY - and I agree - if people would get that into their heads it would take them far.
Saying that potential for future life defines human rights is a far cry from a scientific definition. (not only does it lack characteristics of a basic scientific definition - it also brings you into the very hairy area of meaning that sex without ability to procreate is also destroying potential for future life and should be illegal) Whether you accept that or not, its the truth - that WILL NEVER be accepted as the definition. And for 99% of people its based on a religious belief whether they think so or not - for those who are not religious its a personal morality thing (which really is exactly the same). You cannot inflict that on others. I personally think its incredibly immoral to cheat on a significant other/spouse. I find it disrespectful, cruel, and believe its one of the worst things one person could do to another. I'm sure a lot of people would agree with me. That doesn't mean I think we should make some law against it. Do you see the difference between a person finding something morally repugnant and the ability to create laws against that same thing?
I also don't see why you have such a problem with my point. I don't believe there is any scientific basis for which to make abortion illegal. Are you saying you disagree and feel that there is?
Why not? Birth confers personhood, and in most states viability confers protection. You clearly have a problem with this, but I don't.
spart39 said:
And I would posit that a blueprint isn't the same as a house. You might enjoy this article in Developmental Biology about the question of when life begins. It may come as a surprise that even the Catholic church didn't have a firm policy on when life begins until the 19th century. The most common view worldwide derives from Aristotle, who felt that ensoulment didn't occur until the quickening (about 40 days after conception).
spart39 said:
I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but I don't view my support for choice as being tantamount to being support for abortion. I'd be much happier if there were zero abortions, but at the same time I freely admit that I don't have all the answers and I don't have the right to push my views on others.
No, I agree that circumcision is effective in preventing HIV transmission, and that safe sex promotion also plays a role. Whoop dee frickin' doo.
As for cost effectiveness, see Cost-Effectiveness of Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in a South African Setting:
I don't think you're getting it.
"MC generates large net savings after adjustment for averted HIV medical costs."
Condom use would generate a larger net savings, because condoms are more effective.
"demonstrated a protective effect against HIV acquisition of 60%."
60% over the study, not over a lifetime after the study was concluded. These studies were stopped early, which means that the study reflects only a fraction of the sexual partners they will have. Which means repeated exposure to HIV will still result in infection.
I really don't know what else I can say. Condoms have a larger benefit, including in non-HIV problems (other sexually transmitted infections, unplanned pregnancy, etc). Condoms, by virtue of their greater efficacy, will give a larger net savings, and will prevent more infections.
"MC generates large net savings after adjustment for averted HIV medical costs."
Condom use would generate a larger net savings, because condoms are more effective.
"demonstrated a protective effect against HIV acquisition of 60%."
60% over the study, not over a lifetime after the study was concluded. These studies were stopped early, which means that the study reflects only a fraction of the sexual partners they will have. Which means repeated exposure to HIV will still result in infection.
I really don't know what else I can say. Condoms have a larger benefit, including in non-HIV problems (other sexually transmitted infections, unplanned pregnancy, etc). Condoms, by virtue of their greater efficacy, will give a larger net savings, and will prevent more infections.
I think I remember you-- Panda Bear had attacked you under the assumption that you supported abortion. You said you didn't support them but since the only objections you had were religious, you couldn't condemn them either. Or something like that. It was a few months ago, methinks. There was at least one other time, too, because I definitely remember you as Religious-Girl-Who-Only-Sees-Abortion-In-Religious-Terms.
Um... angel? It is impossible to have laws with an "accepted basis in science." That is to say, scientific understanding in and of itself provides us with no cues as to what should or should not be legal in and of itself. All science does is give us a snapshot of what IS and what we CAN DO. When it comes to what we OUGHT to do, science is silent. This is where that dreaded word morality comes in.
I note above that you conflate religion and morality. How disturbing. Would you suggest, then, that all agnostics and athiests should be set free from the bounds of everything currently considered moral since "we cannot force our beliefs upon them?" Sweet, good to know that I can now shoplift, discriminate against people that look different than me, and kill people who piss me off. Seriously, I do hope that you at least go through a personal athiest period or something so that you can come to understand how fundamentally untrue this is. In the meantime, here's an "easy read" essay on the subject by an athiest:
http://mwillett.org/atheism/relmor.htm
And a more in-depth one by Mark Hauser and Peter Singer:
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/recent/HauserSingerMoralRelig05.pdf
So, leaving religion behind (which I hope we can do for the moment) let us focus on morality (which I hope we can eventually agree is separate from religion). Most Americans, and it sounds like you are one of them, believe in the concept of natural rights- that is, that all humans should be free to pursue life, liberty and happiness and that neither other humans nor the government should stand in their way. So the real question is: is the zygote an individual human? And for this, we come back to science.
You wrote above about how both the sperm and the zygote have continued potential for life, and this is true. However, the fundamental difference between the two is that the zygote produces human proteins and enzymes that direct its own growth and development. And that issue, the direction of own growth and development, is what is so key and provides the delineation between the zygote as "appendage" tissue and the zygote as an individual human organism. A sperm is alive but it is not an individual human life because (a) it does not have the 46 chromosomes needed to provide the blueprint for the life and (b) it is unable to control how the information in the chromosomes is used. The zygote on the other hand not only has the chromosomes but uses them to grow and develop independently.
At present, the definition of life includes motion, reproduction, consumption, growth, and stimulus response. The sperm can move and engage in stimulus response. It cannot, however, reproduce more of itself, consume, or grow. The zygote, though, can move, reproduce within its life cycle, consume, grow and respond to stimuli. Thus, it is alive. And since a quickie DNA analysis of the zygote will reveal it to be Homo sapien, the zygote is a living human.
