This is weird, and I'm trying to figure out if it's because I'm tired or you're just stirring, because your first reply made a lot of sense and had some good arguments, whereas this one seems more a disjointed hodgepodge of stuff that is mostly not relevant to what was being talked about in either my post or our replies.
So I apologies if I'm missing the point or something. Feel free to correct me.
My rant was pretty much about Western society and circumcision. The situation in Africa is a completely different kettle of fish. As I made clear, I'm quite okay with circumcision for solid medical reasons. If circumcising boys makes a an impact on the AIDS problem, then I'm for it.
Better education and condoms would probably help as much if not more, but given the situation, I'd actually be in favour of all three being used until things were under control. I know this isn't likely to happen for all sorts of reasons, so circumcision is definitely the easiest, cheapest, and best option for now.
But to go briefly back to your first point about numbers, and how on a worldwide stage even small numbers look significant, you can make that same argument for the people dying of AIDS in Africa. On a world scale, it's actually not that many, so why is it important?
I know that's not what you're saying. The point I'm making is, even if the numbers are small, they are significant to those affected. I don't really see a difference between the suffering of 1 person in 1000, and the suffering of 10,000 people in 10,000,000. Some suffering can't be avoided, but some can.
Ignoring the people with demonstratable physical problems caused by circumcision that go on to have psychological problems - are the mental issues cause or effect? I don't claim to know, but if they weren't circumcised to begin with, it's at least something you can cross off the list of potential causes.
The giving up hygiene argument is one of those where I wasn't sure if this whole reply wasn't just you taking the piss. Again, there is fairly solid medical evidence to back up the importance of hygiene. Beyond that, a child taught to wash their hands after every trip to the loo has the option of not doing so if they wish to make that choice - well, if they don't have someone there telling them to wash, anyway. When a part of one's body is removed by surgery, you can't choose to have the operation undone and have everything back the way it was. There is no choice on the part of the recipient.
The final vaccination comment from left field felt more like a parting slap than a genuine point. But in reply, there is solid medical evidence supporting the argument to vaccinate. I've already lost one child, and I don't want to risk losing another. I am aware that there are a very small percentage of children that suffer complications or even die because of vaccinations, and I deem the risk worth it for the reduction of other potential risks to my kid.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-04 11:09 am (UTC)So I apologies if I'm missing the point or something. Feel free to correct me.
My rant was pretty much about Western society and circumcision. The situation in Africa is a completely different kettle of fish. As I made clear, I'm quite okay with circumcision for solid medical reasons. If circumcising boys makes a an impact on the AIDS problem, then I'm for it.
Better education and condoms would probably help as much if not more, but given the situation, I'd actually be in favour of all three being used until things were under control. I know this isn't likely to happen for all sorts of reasons, so circumcision is definitely the easiest, cheapest, and best option for now.
But to go briefly back to your first point about numbers, and how on a worldwide stage even small numbers look significant, you can make that same argument for the people dying of AIDS in Africa. On a world scale, it's actually not that many, so why is it important?
I know that's not what you're saying. The point I'm making is, even if the numbers are small, they are significant to those affected. I don't really see a difference between the suffering of 1 person in 1000, and the suffering of 10,000 people in 10,000,000. Some suffering can't be avoided, but some can.
Ignoring the people with demonstratable physical problems caused by circumcision that go on to have psychological problems - are the mental issues cause or effect? I don't claim to know, but if they weren't circumcised to begin with, it's at least something you can cross off the list of potential causes.
The giving up hygiene argument is one of those where I wasn't sure if this whole reply wasn't just you taking the piss. Again, there is fairly solid medical evidence to back up the importance of hygiene. Beyond that, a child taught to wash their hands after every trip to the loo has the option of not doing so if they wish to make that choice - well, if they don't have someone there telling them to wash, anyway. When a part of one's body is removed by surgery, you can't choose to have the operation undone and have everything back the way it was. There is no choice on the part of the recipient.
The final vaccination comment from left field felt more like a parting slap than a genuine point. But in reply, there is solid medical evidence supporting the argument to vaccinate. I've already lost one child, and I don't want to risk losing another. I am aware that there are a very small percentage of children that suffer complications or even die because of vaccinations, and I deem the risk worth it for the reduction of other potential risks to my kid.