+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 61
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    3
    Reviews
    0
    If it was 1948 I'm sure the same thing would happen here. But it is 2015 and there is a mountain of scientific evidence indicating health benefits. That wan't known back then. They just had some vague idea it improved health.

    Quote Originally Posted by serendipity22 View Post
    And so he should have.
    In the UK in about 1948, funding was dropped and rates plummeted to near zero. (And have remained there since, except for religious circ). Yes, loss of the freebie
    could account for a decline.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    I'm sorry, but you can't argue your point with "I thinks" and anecdotal evidence. Well, I mean - you can. But it hardly stands up. There has even been a decline in the US, where circing has always been much more common than other Western nations. And that is a fact, not an opinion


    Quote Originally Posted by DeniG View Post
    Thanks but the medicare figures are used to show a recent decline and I'm skeptical about a recent decline. I think the appearance of a decline is just the medicare crackdown and there is really a large increase if anything. There have been indications of increased circumcision in NSW and Victoria based on media articles and in Queensland anecdotal indications are of an increase if anything (eg. a childcare worker asking why everyone is circumcising these days or 100% of male toddlers at a swimming school who shower publicly being circumcised.). I think that now it is clearly established that there is health benefits it is reasonable to expect that people will get their babies taken care of.

    I know there is still a strong vocal opposition to vaccination and circumcision in the teeth of the scientific evidence showing how effectual these things are and I know two families who don't consider these things to have benefit but generally I don't believe people will avoid very safe procedures that protect their kids health (places like Nimbin excepted) (ironically in both families a son had to be circumcised later for medical reasons and in one all the kids got whooping cough- obviously bad luck was a factor).

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    MsViking  (13-06-2015)

  4. #53
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    No mountain of evidence, there is in fact a mountain of evidence that supports safe sex and vaccinations though - as I posted in the other thread and you are ignoring. It's a pet peeve of mine when someone only takes bit's of scientific information to back up their already strong held beliefs, it's called cherry picking - and anti vaxxers do it all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeniG View Post
    If it was 1948 I'm sure the same thing would happen here. But it is 2015 and there is a mountain of scientific evidence indicating health benefits. That wan't known back then. They just had some vague idea it improved health.
    Last edited by beebs; 12-06-2015 at 11:10.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    MsViking  (13-06-2015)

  6. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    7,242
    Thanks
    5,043
    Thanked
    3,637
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    1000 posts in a week500 Posts in a week
    750 Posts in a week400 Posts in a weekBusiest Member of the Week - week ended 12/2/15Busiest Member of the Week300 posts in a week
    Old thread is old. I'm sure @JohnC can rebut your comments about the supposed "health benefits" of circumcision better than I ever could.

    DH is circumcised and was done so at around 8 for medical reasons. When we found out we were having a boy, I surprised myself by asking if he wanted it done (my previous stance had been that the future father of any of my sons wouldn't have a say). Luckily he did his own research on it and came to the conclusion that there was no need to get it done. I wouldn't have my son's tonsils or appendix removed at birth "just in case" he might have issues with them in the future so I saw no reason to remove his foreskin, either.

  7. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    7,242
    Thanks
    5,043
    Thanked
    3,637
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    1000 posts in a week500 Posts in a week
    750 Posts in a week400 Posts in a weekBusiest Member of the Week - week ended 12/2/15Busiest Member of the Week300 posts in a week
    Old thread is old. I'm sure @JohnC can rebut your comments about the supposed "health benefits" of circumcision better than I ever could.

    DH is circumcised and was done so at around 8 for medical reasons. When we found out we were having a boy, I surprised myself by asking if he wanted it done (my previous stance had been that the future father of any of my sons wouldn't have a say). Luckily he did his own research on it and came to the conclusion that there was no need to get it done. I wouldn't have my son's tonsils or appendix removed at birth "just in case" he might have issues with them in the future so I saw no reason to remove his foreskin, either.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Apple iPhart6 For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (12-06-2015)

  9. #56
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Deni, I would just like to point out that I am not anti circ, I am anti people making claims and statements with nothing to back them up while pushing an agenda. Sure if you want to circ, circ - but why are you so interested in pushing the pro circ agenda? Surely and un-circed child will not affect you in any way?

  10. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    3
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    Deni, I would just like to point out that I am not anti circ, I am anti people making claims and statements with nothing to back them up while pushing an agenda. Sure if you want to circ, circ - but why are you so interested in pushing the pro circ agenda? Surely and un-circed child will not affect you in any way?
    Hi @beebs,

    To begin with, I should declare that I view this issue from a pro-circumcision perspective; I generally agree with you, though, that anecdotes do not, in and of themselves, provide solid evidence for either 'side' in this debate.

    In saying that, I would argue that the 'accepted wisdom' for those against circumcision, by which I mean the prevailing lay-person's opinion among parents choosing not to circumcise their baby boys, has tended to have been "nobody circumcises babies anymore", or the like. What I'm suggesting is that this position among anti-circumcision parents is often just as anecdote-based as some claims made by the pro-circumcision side. For instance, I've heard it said that, "nobody circumcises these days; my [insert friend/relative here]'s baby is uncircumcised", and so on.

    In other words, I think that in addition to the anti-circumcision position based in statistics etc., there's a more informal position that the practice is just not the "done thing" anymore. Now, given that 'nobody does it nowadays' is an accepted perception in some circumcision discussions, I would argue that it is reasonable to consider whether that anecdotal perception matches with people's experiences. So, if I hear the line repeated that "circumcision's really rare now", but I then have the experience of seeing more circumcised baby boys in 'the real world', so to speak, than may have been the case in the past, wouldn't it be reasonable to consider whether the anti-circumcision perception of it as rare matched with my experience?

    I realize that my experience does not count as statistical analysis; but, if anti-circumcision views are also partly based in personal anecdotes as to baby boys' foreskins being frequently seen as the basis for saying 'nobody does it anymore', why should the visibility of circumcised baby boys' glans not be accepted as anecdotal evidence, in saying 'maybe more people are doing it than we're led to believe'?

    Do you see what I mean?

  11. #58
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    I see what you mean, and whilst I agree with you. I don't think you can have a discussion about anything to do with health and expect to have it hold up if everything single thing you post is a personal opinion. Sure mix it up, here is some evidence, here is my personal opinion. But if it is just opinion... You know what I mean? I admit, I tend to rely on statistics, and science. Even in 99% of boy were circumcised - I would still want to see the "evidence" before I made the decision either way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nkozi View Post
    Hi @beebs,

    To begin with, I should declare that I view this issue from a pro-circumcision perspective; I generally agree with you, though, that anecdotes do not, in and of themselves, provide solid evidence for either 'side' in this debate.

    In saying that, I would argue that the 'accepted wisdom' for those against circumcision, by which I mean the prevailing lay-person's opinion among parents choosing not to circumcise their baby boys, has tended to have been "nobody circumcises babies anymore", or the like. What I'm suggesting is that this position among anti-circumcision parents is often just as anecdote-based as some claims made by the pro-circumcision side. For instance, I've heard it said that, "nobody circumcises these days; my [insert friend/relative here]'s baby is uncircumcised", and so on.

    In other words, I think that in addition to the anti-circumcision position based in statistics etc., there's a more informal position that the practice is just not the "done thing" anymore. Now, given that 'nobody does it nowadays' is an accepted perception in some circumcision discussions, I would argue that it is reasonable to consider whether that anecdotal perception matches with people's experiences. So, if I hear the line repeated that "circumcision's really rare now", but I then have the experience of seeing more circumcised baby boys in 'the real world', so to speak, than may have been the case in the past, wouldn't it be reasonable to consider whether the anti-circumcision perception of it as rare matched with my experience?

    I realize that my experience does not count as statistical analysis; but, if anti-circumcision views are also partly based in personal anecdotes as to baby boys' foreskins being frequently seen as the basis for saying 'nobody does it anymore', why should the visibility of circumcised baby boys' glans not be accepted as anecdotal evidence, in saying 'maybe more people are doing it than we're led to believe'?

    Do you see what I mean?
    Last edited by beebs; 12-06-2015 at 18:19.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Apple iPhart6  (12-06-2015)

  13. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked
    808
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    [html]
    Quote Originally Posted by denig View Post
    thanks but the medicare figures are used to show a recent decline and i'm skeptical about a recent decline. I think the appearance of a decline is just the medicare crackdown and there is really a large increase if anything. There have been indications of increased circumcision in nsw and victoria based on media articles and in queensland anecdotal indications are of an increase ...
    What "Medicare crackdown" would that be? I'm sorry, but the Medicare data is evidence, which clearly you don't like but you can't dismiss it with vague reference to an imaginary crackdown, let alone replace it with "anecdote".

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to JohnC For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (13-06-2015)

  15. #60
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Anti vaxxers do this too, they ask for evidence, you show them peer reviewed data and all of a sudden they say they don't trust it, Big pharma, the Man, where are the scientists getting their money? Oldest trick in the book- people dismissing evidence when it doesn't back up their own opinions.


    Quote Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
    [html]

    What "Medicare crackdown" would that be? I'm sorry, but the Medicare data is evidence, which clearly you don't like but you can't dismiss it with vague reference to an imaginary crackdown, let alone replace it with "anecdote".


 

Similar Threads

  1. Prep numbers
    By 2BlueBirds in forum Preschools and Schools
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 19-06-2013, 23:37
  2. 12 week NT ultrasound, really bad numbers? DS 1:2
    By 2gemini2009 in forum Pregnancy Tests & Help / Support with Results
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-05-2013, 21:12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Boody Organic Bamboo Baby Wear
Softer than your bub's bum Boody Organic Bamboo Baby Wear
Australia's favourite eco brand has delivered a gorgeous baby collection. Made from organic bamboo, Boody's extraordinarily soft and stretchy, skin-friendly tops, bottoms, onesies, bibs and wraps don't 'cost the earth'. Get 20% OFF! Code BUBHUB16.
sales & new stuffsee all
True Fairies
True Fairies is the first interactive website where children can engage and speak with a real fairy through the unique webcam fairy portal. Each session is tailored to the child, and is filled with enchantment and magic.
Visit website to find out more!
featured supporter
SRC Pregnancy & Recovery Shorts
Want pain relief during pregnancy, and to continue working and exercising? Fancy a speedy recovery after childbirth? Want to regain your pre-baby body shape fast? Recommended by healthcare professionals, SRC compression products will let your body do its most important work.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!