SM
"They did not recommend against the procedure which would have stripped it of medicare funding (which it still retains) and suggested that the decision be left to the parents."

As far as I know,
"Routine circumcision is not currently covered by Medicare in Australia."
http://tinyurl.com/ykbh8hp

They still cover circumcision when there is a medical need, but not for routine circumcision.

"...what on earth has it got to do with you?"

Anybody who values freedom of choice has a right to comment on any issue they like.
Don't you find it in the least bit unethical that baby boys cannot consent and have no choice in the matter? I do!

Because I value freedom of choice, I don't only comment on circumcision, but also on other issues that might not immediately effect me.

E.g.
I am a proponent of voluntary active euthanasia, even though I'm not terminally ill, I'd still like to comment on the issue!

Even though I have never been a refugee I still may comment on the issue of 'boat people'.

Even though I'm not an aboriginal living in a remote area, I may still comment on the conditions they live in and their rights.

mjpb
I focus on circumcision in Australia. There is no need for circumcision to prevent HIV in Australia.

After the APA adopted an anti-circumcision policy in 1971, they "...have continued to review scientific evidence of the relative health risks and benefits of male circumcision since that time, they maintain that there is no medical indication for the routine circumcision of male neonates. Routine circumcision is not currently covered by Medicare in Australia."

(Same source as the link I used above)

Shadow Minister, "...99% of men who have had the procedure are perfectly happy"

That is a number you have snatched out of the air. In any event it is akin to saying that 99% of women who have been similarly butchered are in favour of doing it to others. That is what keeps the creepy interference in the genitals of children going.

As I outlined earlier, the treatment of children in the past was often abominable. Slowly the lid is being lifted and if information and education do not encourage religious fundamentalists to stop this wretched practice, future massive compensation claims by children who have been harmed will.

mjpb, "What I oppose is the anti-circ misinformation that contradicts the research and suggests that circumcision sexually compromises men."

Who needs to argue that when a significant benefit and justification for circumcision of boys was to prevent 'harmful' masturbation? Of course the destruction of the natural means of masturbation limits the options of circumcised men for their lifetime. I assume you always have a bottle of lubricant handy and you have had to be inventive.

But by what right do you or your fundy mates presume to permanently interfere in the sexual enjoyment of another human anyhow?

Rather than conceal your proselytising for circumcision in other people's threads, why not start a new topic?

Celivia,

For someone that values freedom of choice, you certainly seem to want to deny the freedom of choice to the parents, and considering that there is a net benefit to the kids, (as recognised by medicare see below) the parents have the right to make some decisions on the behalf of the child.

In late 2009, the scheduled fee for a male under 6 months of age was A$43.95, with the Medicare benefit being A$37.40 (85%) or A$33.00 (75%)

http://www.circinfo.net/cost_of_circumcision.html

Other decisons parents have over their kids that have a far greater effect include what school they go to, what type of medical treatment they get etc. It would be far more useful to ban parents from subjecting children to ineffective and occasionally harmful homeopathic "cures".

The issue of allowing adult boys to choose has a major flaw in that the procedure at this age is considerably more painful, and has greater risks. It is similar to applying a 9 month waiting period to abortion so that it actually becomes a moot point.

The reason I asked what on earth it had to do with you is that you as a woman are taking up a cause for which the vast majority of male "victims" are perfectly happy.

If this was female circumcision which had negative health and lifestyle consequences, then there would be a point.

Shadow Minister:

<<< The issue of allowing adult boys to choose has a major flaw in that the procedure at this age is considerably more painful, and has greater risks. It is similar to applying a 9 month waiting period to abortion so that it actually becomes a moot point. >>>

WTF?

Your dick will give birth?

I am trying very hard to be sincere here, if you wish to continue this nonsense, then start a topic about circumcision and stop this prattle on a thread about fluoridation.

My apologies to Supertooth whose well informed post started this topic.

Cevilia,

”Anybody who values freedom of choice has a right to comment on any issue they like.
Don't you find it in the least bit unethical that baby boys cannot consent and have no choice in the matter? I do!”

I am happy to advocate freedom of choice for the parents and I also believe they are entitled to get accurate information. Baby boys can’t consent to many things that are in their interests. For a long time parents have the duty to look after them and make decisions on their behalf. Shadow Minister has pointed out that parents do a lot more significant things to them. Do you feel the same way about immunization?

”I focus on circumcision in Australia. There is no need for circumcision to prevent HIV in Australia.”

It is becoming an increasingly small world. Can you predict with certainty what the future holds? In the UK HIV was a disease of homosexuals but with migration it is now predominantly heterosexual. Things change. After all HIV has gone up 40% in the last 4 years here:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/young-need-better-safe-sex-education-20091201-k1g1.html

”… Routine circumcision is not currently covered by Medicare in Australia."

Was it an anti-circumcision website?

Cornflower,

” In any event it is akin to saying that 99% of women who have been similarly butchered are in favour of doing it to others..”

Very few women have their clitoral hood removed.

“”That is what keeps the creepy interference in the genitals of children going.”

The “creepy interference in the genitals of children” is your thing. To me it is just like immunization.

”Who needs to argue that when a significant benefit and justification for circumcision of boys was to prevent 'harmful' masturbation?... “

From all I have seen that wasn’t a significant factor until anti-circs started using it as a straw man. Originally they rightly put it forward as absurd but now they are singing a similar tune.

TBC

”But by what right do you or your fundy mates presume to permanently interfere in the sexual enjoyment of another human anyhow?”

It has nothing to do with sexual enjoyment. If anything it promotes it but the difference isn’t great and Severin has suggested that it might be a temporary artifact. I take it religion isn't a strong point of yours either. Christians' religious obligation is baptism not that.

I merely mentioned that all three main aspects of preventative medicine are beneficial. Since then I have been responded to the less informed comments.

Severin,

“WTF?

Your dick will give birth?”

So it isn’t obvious? Take away many of the medical benefits and change an incredibly low risk preventative medical procedure to an increased risk. Throw in a lack of education campaign on the topic that would even afford men the opportunity to turn their mind to it and the need for an adult man to not only have stitches in for 2 weeks (infants have thin foreskins that don’t need stitches – within a week they have healed to the extent they look like it happened years before) but also to refrain from sex for 6 weeks and you are putting up a formidable barrier. Would a comparison with waiting until a child grew up and made a free choice whether or not to immunize (in the absence of any education campaign) work for you? The free choice in preventative medicine for babies argument anti-circs have conjured up is transparent to SM and I. I don’t relate to being taken in by it.