@bi4smooth said in Party of family values part 1 
:
@chanelkokoro said in Party of family values part 1 :
So if circumcision is such a great and wonderful thing, perhaps you can explain why it is mostly prevalent in Northern Africa and the Middle East - 2 areas of the world most highly regarded as leaders in human disease prevention, hygiene, and general excellence in all things intellectual and science-based! (Proof: look at all the lunar and martian landings these countries account for! Not to mention the UNCOUNTABLE numbers of Nobel and other prizes for science and medicine they have achieved!) (end sarcasm)...
Indeed, it's such a great and wonderful thing, the prevalence of it in America (US) has dropped from about 80% in the 1950s to roughly 50/50 in the 2000's... those dumb American parents!
when non Africans argue with an African about Africa... 
This is a strawman argument. The rate of circumcisions in the west, has nothing to do with its efficacy, and everything with the media and the perception of circumcision in those places over the years. This is like saying that because 40% of Americans still refuse to get vaccinated because people without medical degrees decided to get on fox news and make it a national debate, the vaccines must not be effective.
Secondly, it's a fallacy to compare Africa to the West in the first place. Africa is a continent of underdeveloped nations while much of the west is industrialized. STDs in Africa occur due to a number of factors, that doesn't mean that circumcision doesn't help lower the number of incidents, as the studies have indicated, over and over again.
Let me explain what you are doing using my own arbitrary made up numbers:
Let's say canada has a 1000/1 million std rate and they don't circumcise much.
then Liberia has a rate of like 10000/1 million std rate and they circumcise 80%
Studies compare the parts of Liberia that circumcise and the parts that don't and realize that the parts that circumcise have 62% less incidents of stds than those who didn't (which is actually what the cdc studies are indicating.)
just because 10,000/1million is higher than 1000/1million does not mean circumcision did not prevent stds. but this is what you are arguing.
Now, saying that we shouldn't circumcise our children because we are living in a first world country with enough wealth and resources to treat or prevent penile health incidents is a MUCH better and sound argument, than looking at these 2 different numbers with no context and saying that circumcision has no health benefits. Because that's false.
Lastly, the united states has the highest rate of stds in the industrialized/developed world. So bragging about how our circumcision rates have lowered when among first and second world countries we're number 1 in STD rates is a weird flex to say the least.
Honestly, and I know I'm repeating myself here, if there was any REAL evidence of any SIGNIFICANT benefit to circumcising male children (or female - gotta include @raphjd here), don't you think there would be world-wide campaigns to get it done?
we can't even get people to do something as simple as wearing masks in the middle of a global pandemic. and we can't get our red states to teach sex ed in schools, but sure, we'll be able to convince people to take off the loose skin off their baby's dick.
the most the US has done is make circumcision free under government health programs.
The FACTS are that STD rates, urethra infections, and rates of most other genital-based diseases and problems in the US/Canada, Australia, Japan, S. Korea, Russia (as much as is reported), and Europe are statistically so even - despite the WIDELY disparate rates of circumcision (e.g.: virtually never done in Asian countries!) - that the BEST you can say is that while circumcision does not appear to help, it also appears to do no harm either!
this is a real simple and flawed logic. that's not how this works. for instance you know why japan's std rate is low? because they ain't fucking!
sidenote: the wikipedia article you liked shows that south koreans are doing it at a rate of 75% and climbing.
Indeed, the fact that it cannot really be shown to be either helpful or harmful is precisely why it remains "optional" around the world.
Look, all I did was quote the cdc, same as you did, which is filled to the brim with health and medical experts from all over the world who have said they have tested and studied this issue for literally decades and have found that male circumcision has so many health benefits that they recommend people circumcise their children. They gave you 61 pages worth of research and studies they've conducted. they were a reliable source for you before, when you wanted to show @raphjd his irrationality, so what changed? You are cherry picking what you want to believe based on your own politics/beliefs and ignoring the science.
If the CDC, National Institute of Health, and World Health Organization which all say that male circumcision has numerous health benefits are out here and you're still holding onto stats with no context and debates from the 80s done by people with no medical degrees to defend your position, then you're never going to be convinced of anything else. There is no informed medical consensus you will ever accept. Just like the people who say manmade climate change is a hoax despite the fact that 98% of the world's scientists are in agreement that it's not, the only reason why this is still a debate are because of the people who want to keep it debate.
As for people doing it for religious reasons, who cares? A broken clock is right twice a day. I'm completely secular, but that doesn't mean I'm going to find fault in them doing something medically beneficial for their child because they've deluded themselves into thinking it's for god.
