Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:12 PM
Sgent (3,775 posts)
Benefits of male circumcision reconfirmed as rates decline
Source: USA Today
Evidence that male circumcision has health benefits is growing, even as the quick but often-controversial surgery becomes less common in the United States, say medical experts making new efforts to publicize the benefits. In a study out Monday, researchers say falling infant circumcision rates could end up costing billions of U.S. health care dollars when men and their female partners develop AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections and cancers that could have been prevented. Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics is about to issue a new policy statement that says infant circumcision has "significant" health benefits, replacing a statement that takes a more neutral stance. <cut> The researchers say that if U.S. rates dropped to 10% — the level seen in European countries where insurers don't cover circumcision — the results would include: •211% more urinary tract infections in baby boys. •12% more HIV cases in men. •29% more human papillomavirus (HPV) cases in men. •18% more high-risk HPV infections in women. Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-08-20/male-circumcision-rates/57169976/1?loc=interstitialskip
|
261 replies, 22205 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| Sgent | Aug 2012 | OP | |
| KG | Aug 2012 | #1 | |
| valerief | Aug 2012 | #5 | |
| Dash87 | Aug 2012 | #22 | |
| spooky3 | Aug 2012 | #25 | |
| villager | Aug 2012 | #29 | |
| Arugula Latte | Aug 2012 | #81 | |
| UnrepentantLiberal | Aug 2012 | #91 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #165 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #38 | |
| Nine | Aug 2012 | #45 | |
| wordpix | Aug 2012 | #49 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #70 | |
| Codeine | Aug 2012 | #93 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #113 | |
| Warren DeMontague | Aug 2012 | #140 | |
| yellowcanine | Aug 2012 | #154 | |
| Codeine | Aug 2012 | #177 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #127 | |
| Confusious | Aug 2012 | #57 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #131 | |
| roguevalley | Aug 2012 | #61 | |
| yellowcanine | Aug 2012 | #104 | |
| Codeine | Aug 2012 | #62 | |
| unc70 | Aug 2012 | #89 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #130 | |
| MadrasT | Aug 2012 | #95 | |
| hifiguy | Aug 2012 | #100 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #121 | |
| Thor_MN | Aug 2012 | #96 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #119 | |
| NickB79 | Aug 2012 | #141 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #143 | |
| kiva | Aug 2012 | #101 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #117 | |
| Codeine | Aug 2012 | #152 | |
| yellowcanine | Aug 2012 | #153 | |
| yellowcanine | Aug 2012 | #103 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #115 | |
| yellowcanine | Aug 2012 | #125 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #134 | |
| cali | Aug 2012 | #108 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #114 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #128 | |
| yellowcanine | Aug 2012 | #135 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #142 | |
| ElboRuum | Aug 2012 | #123 | |
| femrap | Aug 2012 | #126 | |
| Codeine | Aug 2012 | #150 | |
| jberryhill | Aug 2012 | #2 | |
| hlthe2b | Aug 2012 | #3 | |
| Lasher | Aug 2012 | #12 | |
| hlthe2b | Aug 2012 | #14 | |
| pnwmom | Aug 2012 | #4 | |
| WooWooWoo | Aug 2012 | #6 | |
| MADem | Aug 2012 | #20 | |
| Panasonic | Aug 2012 | #39 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #72 | |
| dkhbrit | Aug 2012 | #116 | |
| Xithras | Aug 2012 | #139 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #145 | |
| GaYellowDawg | Aug 2012 | #169 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #170 | |
| GaYellowDawg | Aug 2012 | #174 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #180 | |
| GaYellowDawg | Aug 2012 | #182 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #184 | |
| Warren DeMontague | Aug 2012 | #148 | |
| kenfrequed | Aug 2012 | #105 | |
| MADem | Aug 2012 | #110 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #147 | |
| MADem | Aug 2012 | #159 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #160 | |
| MADem | Aug 2012 | #161 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #162 | |
| MADem | Aug 2012 | #178 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #181 | |
| MADem | Aug 2012 | #187 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #190 | |
| Green_Lantern | Aug 2012 | #194 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #195 | |
| Green_Lantern | Aug 2012 | #197 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #198 | |
| Green_Lantern | Aug 2012 | #200 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #203 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #206 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #211 | |
| Green_Lantern | Aug 2012 | #207 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #205 | |
| Green_Lantern | Aug 2012 | #209 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #212 | |
| Green_Lantern | Aug 2012 | #219 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #221 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #196 | |
| Green_Lantern | Aug 2012 | #199 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #201 | |
| Green_Lantern | Aug 2012 | #204 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #210 | |
| Green_Lantern | Aug 2012 | #213 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #222 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #228 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #227 | |
| pipoman | Aug 2012 | #28 | |
| xtraxritical | Aug 2012 | #66 | |
| Warpy | Aug 2012 | #30 | |
| WooWooWoo | Aug 2012 | #35 | |
| pnwmom | Aug 2012 | #43 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #83 | |
| kenfrequed | Aug 2012 | #133 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #166 | |
| Warpy | Aug 2012 | #48 | |
| WooWooWoo | Aug 2012 | #92 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #97 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #167 | |
| Warpy | Aug 2012 | #136 | |
| Warren DeMontague | Aug 2012 | #149 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #229 | |
| Nine | Aug 2012 | #98 | |
| JackRiddler | Aug 2012 | #120 | |
| GaYellowDawg | Aug 2012 | #172 | |
| ilikeitthatway | Aug 2012 | #237 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #146 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #171 | |
| riderinthestorm | Aug 2012 | #179 | |
| ilikeitthatway | Aug 2012 | #236 | |
| lumberjack_jeff | Aug 2012 | #250 | |
| calsawals | Aug 2012 | #111 | |
| Enrique | Aug 2012 | #7 | |
| 2on2u | Aug 2012 | #13 | |
| wordpix | Aug 2012 | #51 | |
| AngryAmish | Aug 2012 | #99 | |
| AlbertCat | Aug 2012 | #19 | |
| Psephos | Aug 2012 | #32 | |
| calsawals | Aug 2012 | #112 | |
| jberryhill | Aug 2012 | #86 | |
| hifiguy | Aug 2012 | #8 | |
| antigone382 | Aug 2012 | #9 | |
| pnwmom | Aug 2012 | #17 | |
| My Pet Goat | Aug 2012 | #59 | |
| pnwmom | Aug 2012 | #63 | |
| Scootaloo | Aug 2012 | #80 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #242 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #73 | |
| idwiyo | Aug 2012 | #87 | |
| unc70 | Aug 2012 | #88 | |
| idwiyo | Aug 2012 | #191 | |
| 2on2u | Aug 2012 | #10 | |
| LeftofObama | Aug 2012 | #11 | |
| sulphurdunn | Aug 2012 | #15 | |
| Grassy Knoll | Aug 2012 | #16 | |
| Mass | Aug 2012 | #18 | |
| RufusTFirefly | Aug 2012 | #21 | |
| Hydra | Aug 2012 | #24 | |
| joeglow3 | Aug 2012 | #183 | |
| Hydra | Aug 2012 | #186 | |
| Art_from_Ark | Aug 2012 | #31 | |
| Mass | Aug 2012 | #36 | |
| Hassin Bin Sober | Aug 2012 | #41 | |
| Art_from_Ark | Aug 2012 | #47 | |
| Hassin Bin Sober | Aug 2012 | #50 | |
| Art_from_Ark | Aug 2012 | #56 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #75 | |
| wordpix | Aug 2012 | #52 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #74 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #158 | |
| iamthebandfanman | Aug 2012 | #23 | |
| Major Nikon | Aug 2012 | #27 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #230 | |
| aquart | Aug 2012 | #26 | |
| xchrom | Aug 2012 | #33 | |
| wordpix | Aug 2012 | #53 | |
| Warren Stupidity | Aug 2012 | #58 | |
| Codeine | Aug 2012 | #64 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #76 | |
| Fuddnik | Aug 2012 | #34 | |
| Hassin Bin Sober | Aug 2012 | #40 | |
| JackRiddler | Aug 2012 | #37 | |
| madrchsod | Aug 2012 | #42 | |
| flying_wahini | Aug 2012 | #44 | |
| Sgent | Aug 2012 | #46 | |
| jberryhill | Aug 2012 | #54 | |
| HankyDub | Aug 2012 | #65 | |
| Manifestor_of_Light | Aug 2012 | #252 | |
| wordpix | Aug 2012 | #55 | |
| My Pet Goat | Aug 2012 | #60 | |
| Emillereid | Aug 2012 | #67 | |
| Sgent | Aug 2012 | #78 | |
| Emillereid | Aug 2012 | #82 | |
| SoapBox | Aug 2012 | #68 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #85 | |
| AlphaCentauri | Aug 2012 | #69 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #90 | |
| AlphaCentauri | Aug 2012 | #157 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #71 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #77 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #79 | |
| idwiyo | Aug 2012 | #84 | |
| unc70 | Aug 2012 | #94 | |
| Ian David | Aug 2012 | #102 | |
| Brainstormy | Aug 2012 | #106 | |
| Brainstormy | Aug 2012 | #107 | |
| cpwm17 | Aug 2012 | #129 | |
| Nikia | Aug 2012 | #144 | |
| GaYellowDawg | Aug 2012 | #173 | |
| cpwm17 | Aug 2012 | #189 | |
| Union Scribe | Aug 2012 | #241 | |
| Remmah2 | Aug 2012 | #109 | |
| JackRiddler | Aug 2012 | #118 | |
| ElboRuum | Aug 2012 | #122 | |
| ElboRuum | Aug 2012 | #124 | |
| Alduin | Aug 2012 | #132 | |
| Comrade Grumpy | Aug 2012 | #137 | |
| xchrom | Aug 2012 | #151 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #164 | |
| Comrade Grumpy | Aug 2012 | #185 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #188 | |
| Comrade Grumpy | Aug 2012 | #192 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #193 | |
| Comrade Grumpy | Aug 2012 | #220 | |
| apocalypsehow | Aug 2012 | #244 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #245 | |
| apocalypsehow | Aug 2012 | #247 | |
| pansypoo53219 | Aug 2012 | #138 | |
| Hell Hath No Fury | Aug 2012 | #155 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #156 | |
| Green_Lantern | Aug 2012 | #202 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #208 | |
| Green_Lantern | Aug 2012 | #214 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #215 | |
| Green_Lantern | Aug 2012 | #217 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #218 | |
| Green_Lantern | Aug 2012 | #224 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #225 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #226 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #163 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #216 | |
| closeupready | Aug 2012 | #223 | |
| ZombieHorde | Aug 2012 | #168 | |
| Butterbean | Aug 2012 | #175 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #231 | |
| Butterbean | Aug 2012 | #243 | |
| gollygee | Aug 2012 | #176 | |
| EllkayRN | Aug 2012 | #232 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #233 | |
| annabanana | Aug 2012 | #234 | |
| ilikeitthatway | Aug 2012 | #235 | |
| ilikeitthatway | Aug 2012 | #238 | |
| Crunchy Frog | Aug 2012 | #239 | |
| Manifestor_of_Light | Aug 2012 | #240 | |
| kwassa | Aug 2012 | #248 | |
| Manifestor_of_Light | Aug 2012 | #249 | |
| kwassa | Aug 2012 | #251 | |
| Manifestor_of_Light | Aug 2012 | #253 | |
| kwassa | Aug 2012 | #256 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #254 | |
| kwassa | Aug 2012 | #257 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Aug 2012 | #258 | |
| cabot | Aug 2012 | #246 | |
| Nine | Aug 2012 | #255 | |
| E_A_ | Aug 2012 | #259 | |
| Nine | Aug 2012 | #260 | |
| E_A_ | Aug 2012 | #261 |
Response to KG (Reply #1)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:22 PM
valerief (35,681 posts)
5. I can see the ad campaign. "Don't get sick. Trim your dick." nt
Response to valerief (Reply #5)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:19 PM
Dash87 (1,582 posts)
22. Don't be silly, slice that willy!
Response to Dash87 (Reply #22)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:32 PM
spooky3 (15,226 posts)
25. Am I wrong to laugh??? :-)
Response to Dash87 (Reply #22)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:47 PM
villager (18,987 posts)
29. Don't be a cod, trim that rod!
|
We could go one, I reckon...
|
Response to villager (Reply #29)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:34 AM
Arugula Latte (40,209 posts)
81. Don't be a fool, clip that tool!
|
Yes, I did go on ...
|
Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #81)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 04:58 AM
UnrepentantLiberal (11,700 posts)
91. It isn't wrong to snip that schlong.
|
Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 03:03 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #91)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:08 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
165. Someone! Quick! There's a Hackensack joke just waiting
|
to be made!
|
Response to KG (Reply #1)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:20 PM
femrap (13,418 posts)
38. O
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:38 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2) |
Response to femrap (Reply #38)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:59 PM
Nine (926 posts)
45. It doesn't make any sense to me and I doubt it's true.
|
And it does seem like it's getting into promoting some ethnic stereotypes.
However I have a lot of skepticism about the current "benefits" study as well. |
Response to Nine (Reply #45)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:03 AM
femrap (13,418 posts)
70. go
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:28 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to femrap (Reply #70)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:41 AM
Codeine (12,684 posts)
93. There is no "hormonal link" between a bit of foreskin and the brain.
|
None. It beggars belief that a thinking person could actually buy into such tripe. Hormones are NOT generated in the foreskin.
|
Response to Codeine (Reply #93)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 11:40 AM
femrap (13,418 posts)
113. b
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:53 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to femrap (Reply #113)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 03:46 PM
Warren DeMontague (46,401 posts)
140. It's certainly as well documented as the effect on menstrual cycles that the moon bombing had.
|
Remember that?
|
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #140)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 09:28 AM
yellowcanine (24,444 posts)
154. Moon bombing? When did that happen? I do remember people blaming excessive rain on moon landings
|
back in the early 70's. Don't remember the menstrual cycle connection.
|
Response to yellowcanine (Reply #154)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 09:39 PM
Codeine (12,684 posts)
177. An epic thread.
Response to Nine (Reply #45)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:00 PM
femrap (13,418 posts)
127. Fl
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:43 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to femrap (Reply #38)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:36 PM
Confusious (8,312 posts)
57. I think it's crap
|
Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:37 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) The Romans didn't do circumsion and they were the most war like in history.
Pretty much no one but the Jews did circumsion up until MAYBE 150 years ago. Had plenty of wars up to, and past, that point also. you were fed a line of bull. |
Response to Confusious (Reply #57)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:10 PM
femrap (13,418 posts)
131. v
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:45 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to femrap (Reply #38)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:27 PM
roguevalley (32,811 posts)
61. losing a foreskin makes a man less able to bond with a woman? then its true. a man's
|
brain is in their dick.
|
Response to roguevalley (Reply #61)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:57 AM
yellowcanine (24,444 posts)
104. Not to mention that the man will mourn the loss of the foreskin for the rest of his life.....
|
No wonder men are so screwed up!
|
Response to femrap (Reply #38)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:28 PM
Codeine (12,684 posts)
62. Utter codswallop.
|
Cutting skin breaks a hormonal link? That's perhaps the goofiest notion I've seen advanced on this site since the infamous Moon Bombing Threads. It is beyond ludicrous.
And as far as the boring thing goes -- after 42 years on this earth I've yet to find myself bored during sex. Men do not spend most of their waking moments thinking about something that we find boring or irritating. |
Response to Codeine (Reply #62)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 02:34 AM
unc70 (2,322 posts)
89. Intercourse is different, not sure about bonding
|
Thid involves more than just a piece of "skin".
|
Response to Codeine (Reply #62)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:07 PM
femrap (13,418 posts)
130. U
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:44 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to femrap (Reply #38)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:45 AM
MadrasT (5,705 posts)
95. This sounds like industrial strength woo to me.
|
Removing skin from such a tender and sexual area breaks a hormonal connection leaving males less capable of bonding with women. This is done so to keep a very strict Patriarchy in force.
Like, Creative-Speculation-grade woo. I stopped reading right there. I mean, it's interesting to know people are sitting around coming up with these"theories" but that sounds like pure insanity to me. Wow. Just wow. |
Response to MadrasT (Reply #95)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:44 AM
hifiguy (13,029 posts)
100. +1 Epic woo. Crazy talk. nt
Response to MadrasT (Reply #95)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:05 PM
femrap (13,418 posts)
121. So
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:36 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to femrap (Reply #38)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:55 AM
Thor_MN (4,607 posts)
96. With all due respect, opinions on penises from nonmedical women
|
are worth the same value as opinions on vaginas from male politicians.
Beyond that, it sounds like over-reaching woo. Are you saying that you "wear out" faster than cut guys? If not, you haven't proved your "theory", you can't perform one half of a comparison and then draw a conclusion. I'm pretty sure if any study had ever found that the foreskin produces hormones, all circumsions performed by doctors would have stopped the next day. |
Response to Thor_MN (Reply #96)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:03 PM
femrap (13,418 posts)
119. po
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:54 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to femrap (Reply #119)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 05:50 PM
NickB79 (9,415 posts)
141. Why is it a sin to eat lobster and pork?
|
Why can't we wear cloth with two materials in it?
Why is it a sin to plant two crops in the same field? Religions come up with a lot of stupid rules that have little reason or evidence behind them. To say that the Judeo-Christian requirement for circumcision somehow leads to a partriachal, war-like society has absolutely no evidence to back it up. Posting a link to a single website that parrots the same woo-woo, with no science behind it, does not support your case. And answer me this: if circumcision was linked to patriarchial societies, why are many societies also largely partiarchal and warlike with no history of circumcision? Was Ghengis Khan circumcised? Were the Japanese soldiers that committed war crimes in China and Korea circumcized? Or maybe circumcision has absolutely NOTHING to do with male behavior? |
Response to NickB79 (Reply #141)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:22 PM
femrap (13,418 posts)
143. e
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:00 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to femrap (Reply #38)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:45 AM
kiva (2,764 posts)
101. Critical thinking is important.
|
Not snarky here, but saying that something makes sense to you is not critical thinking. Looking up credible evidence is important, comparing sources is important, using your gut feeling to decide whether or not something seems true is neither credible or compelling.
There are many legitimate arguments, pro and con, about circumcision - we'll probably see most of them in this thread - but this is not one of them. |
Response to kiva (Reply #101)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 11:59 AM
femrap (13,418 posts)
117. A
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:35 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2) |
Response to femrap (Reply #117)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 11:00 PM
Codeine (12,684 posts)
152. Your source isn't an endocrinologist either, he's a fucking loon
|
who thinks he can predict the future.
|
Response to Codeine (Reply #152)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 09:25 AM
yellowcanine (24,444 posts)
153. I wondered about that and the poster probably knows that.
|
This poster is not big on what constitutes a valid citation.
|
Response to femrap (Reply #38)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:55 AM
yellowcanine (24,444 posts)
103. "Internet lecture"........"the gentleman cited studies but I didn't write them down."
|
|
Response to yellowcanine (Reply #103)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 11:52 AM
femrap (13,418 posts)
115. G
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:40 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2) |
Response to femrap (Reply #115)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:43 PM
yellowcanine (24,444 posts)
125. If you have sources cite them. Close-minded is making assertions without attribution.
|
There is a lot of medical literature on circumcision so why not cite that instead of using your "common sense" reasoning? Natural selection is not perfect. Sometimes certain characters can cause problems. Some "customs and traditions" which predate modern medicine have sound health issues behind them. The custom of Jews and Muslims not eating pork, for example. We know today that improperly cooked pork can be a source of illness. This is true of all meats but more so with pork. Primitive people likely noticed that they got sick sometimes when they ate pork. Also they may have noticed that pigs were not very selective in what they ate and thus may have been thought to be less clean and unhealthy. Kosher slaughter of livestock likely had similar roots. Again today we know that slaughter practices can make a big difference in the quality of meat in terms of contamination. The practice of circumcision could have resulted from a similar process starting with observation. We will likely never know but the fact that circumcision was practiced by many unrelated groups around the world would be consistent with such a process. http://www.cirp.org/library/history/dunsmuir1/
|
Response to yellowcanine (Reply #125)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:22 PM
femrap (13,418 posts)
134. d
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:47 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to femrap (Reply #38)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:12 AM
cali (80,314 posts)
108. you should get slammed for that shit.
|
utter crap. unscientific, bigoted, idiotic, slimy shit.
Disgusting. |
Response to cali (Reply #108)
femrap This message was hidden by Jury decision.
Response to cali (Reply #108)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:05 PM
femrap (13,418 posts)
128. F
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:49 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to femrap (Reply #128)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:42 PM
yellowcanine (24,444 posts)
135. Ya know - calling people who disagree "close-minded" is kind of rude.
|
You made a rather extraordinary claim. It is natural for people to ask to see some kind of citation. That is not being close minded. It is how discussion and debate works. Provide some good documentation when you make a claim and maybe you won't "get slammed." By the way, linking to a video is not good documentation. Ferreting out the actual sources in the video might be - assuming they are good sources.
|
Response to yellowcanine (Reply #135)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:09 PM
femrap (13,418 posts)
142. click
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:56 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to femrap (Reply #38)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:17 PM
ElboRuum (4,385 posts)
123. No ban...
|
...but expect flames aplenty.
"Truthiness" is never a big winner around here. |
Response to ElboRuum (Reply #123)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:59 PM
femrap (13,418 posts)
126. pi
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:42 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to femrap (Reply #126)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:36 PM
Codeine (12,684 posts)
150. Halfpasthuman.com?
|
I say again; |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:20 PM
jberryhill (29,903 posts)
2. Does it make it any easier to shave?
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:20 PM
hlthe2b (47,287 posts)
3. Oh, Lordy.. If only I had a pitbull to hide behind at the Olive Garden while breast feeding openly.
|
Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:21 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Stepping waaaay out of the coming fray.
On the serious side, I can't say I am surprised by these public health findings. Beyond that, I'll offer no opinion. |
Response to hlthe2b (Reply #3)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:37 PM
Lasher (20,480 posts)
12. Chicken thread! Chicken thread!
|
Bring it on! Neener.
|
Response to Lasher (Reply #12)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:42 PM
hlthe2b (47,287 posts)
14. You leave your corn flakes out of it!
|
Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:42 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:21 PM
pnwmom (43,200 posts)
4. And UTI's can occur without symptoms and cause permanent kidney damage.
|
They're not necessarily a trivial thing.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:24 PM
WooWooWoo (401 posts)
6. eh
|
I can go either way with this. Its not like I miss my foreskin because it was snipped before I was old enough to know i had it, however it probably would have been nice to wait until I was old enough to decide whether or not I wanted it taken.
I think men deserve that option. However, it would decimate the mohel industry. ![]() |
Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #6)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:07 PM
MADem (86,171 posts)
20. I have a good friend who converted to Islam and married a Muslim young woman.
|
He had it done as an adult (if you get married in the mosque, they will check in many cultures). It was agonizing, according to him. Recovery was not a simple matter, either--he wished his mother had made the decision for him when he was young.
|
Response to MADem (Reply #20)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:28 PM
Panasonic (2,921 posts)
39. That's because up until around 10 days old or so
|
the foreskin has no nerve endings and could not feel pain.
Jewish baby boy cry - why? The instrument is very cold to them (it's made out of metal) with no effort to warm it up. It shocks the baby, actually, and that's why the mohel often gives them wine to keep them sleeping (that's your evidence of a drunk baby!), not because of the pain. When my son was circumsized, Rabbi Jay Feder - the longtime Denver area mohel, explained the whole process to us, and suggested we use Neosporin around his circumsized penis for three days - and the foreskin healed right up very quickly, with very little blood, and he didn't even cry one bit. |
Response to Panasonic (Reply #39)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:09 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
72. A reliable link to back up that statement about no nerve endings?
|
And no, a mohel is not a reliable source.
|
Response to Panasonic (Reply #39)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 11:56 AM
dkhbrit (49 posts)
116. Nonsense
|
If there are no nerve endings he won't feel the cold blade either.
|
Response to Panasonic (Reply #39)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 03:02 PM
Xithras (13,503 posts)
139. That's been debunked
|
My boys are circumcised, but they also both had nerve blocks. Yes, babies do feel pain, but that pain can be removed just like any other medical procedure.
|
Response to Panasonic (Reply #39)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:32 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
145. If there's no nerve endings how do they feel that it is cold?
When my son was circumsized, Rabbi Jay Feder - the longtime Denver area mohel Ah. There's your medical source. A religious figure. Ask the right one and they'll tell you women don't really mind having their clitori removed either. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #145)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 07:13 PM
GaYellowDawg (2,797 posts)
169. Could be possible.
|
Signals for pain are generated by free nerve ending nociceptors, while heat/cold are perceived by thermoreceptors. It would be possible, if improbable, for an area of skin to have one type of receptor and not another. In fairness, I doubt it's the case here, but it's possible, and you should realize that touch is a gestalt sense that combines a number of different types of receptors. With respect to expertise/sources, I teach human anatomy and physiology at the collegiate level, and I can refer you to very reputable textbooks by Marieb, Tortora, or Saladin published by Pearson and McGraw/Hill that can back up what I've said.
|
Response to GaYellowDawg (Reply #169)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 07:15 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
170. You can provide sources that prove babies don't feel pain?
|
Please do.
|
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #170)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 07:36 PM
GaYellowDawg (2,797 posts)
174. Oh, wonderful, a poster who puts straw men in their subject line.
|
I didn't say I had a source to prove that babies don't feel pain. I said I had a source that proves that there are different receptors for temperature than pain. I'm sure you're passionate about this topic, but does that mean you have to argue in a completely dishonest fashion?
|
Response to GaYellowDawg (Reply #174)
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 10:43 AM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
180. The question was on whether or not it hurts the child
|
if you can provide evidence that babies only feel hot/cold in their genitals and not pain that would be relevant.
But just saying that the receptors for temperature are different than those for pain doesn't really address the initial point. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #180)
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 11:17 AM
GaYellowDawg (2,797 posts)
182. That does not justify the straw man in the reply title.
|
That intentional misrepresentation is much more of an attempt at discrediting than it is a legitimate reply. It is dishonest and extremely ill-mannered. My reply to you did not justify that kind of response.
Because the two sensations are perceived by different types of receptors, there is a possibility, albeit improbable, that a tissue could contain one type of receptor and not the other. It very likely is not the case here, and I was careful to say that. You were implying rather strongly that the two sensations are perceived in the same fashion, when they are not. When you're constructing arguments, I would think that you'd want to be as close to accurate as possible. |
Response to GaYellowDawg (Reply #182)
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 11:26 AM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
184. I was trying to stay on topic
|
you were trying to muddy it by going in to irrelevant details.
Because the two sensations are perceived by different types of receptors, there is a possibility, albeit improbable, that a tissue could contain one type of receptor and not the other. It very likely is not the case here, and I was careful to say that. You were implying rather strongly that the two sensations are perceived in the same fashion, when they are not. When you're constructing arguments, I would think that you'd want to be as close to accurate as possible. I was aware that temperature/pain were different pathways. HOWEVER, I am not aware of skin tissue that has only one receptor and not the other. Hence if it has the ability to feel cold it also feels pain. |
Response to Panasonic (Reply #39)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:22 PM
Warren DeMontague (46,401 posts)
148. Bull.
|
Sorry, but that sounds like the kind of thing someone tells parents to make them feel better about doing it to their baby.
|
Response to MADem (Reply #20)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:00 AM
kenfrequed (5,277 posts)
105. Eh...
|
He didn't have to convert to a religion that required them. He chose to. Was his mother supposed to know that he was going to join such a religion?
I think it is better not to do it at all. Additionally the research seems kind of foggy to me. Are they straight up comparing rates of infection between the US and European nations? Might actually doing the necessary sex ed and what not be a better panacea for preventing the spread of STI's? |
Response to kenfrequed (Reply #105)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:20 AM
MADem (86,171 posts)
110. He did if he wanted to marry his bride.
|
You can call that a "choice" but it wasn't one. She was not going to marry outside of Iran, and he skeedaddled to Europe to have the procedure done because he wasn't going to have it done in the mosque with the pearl handled curved knives.
He was the "one off" in his family. The rest of his brothers got the snip at birth. The mother was a free spirit when he was born (pre-hippie days) but when she settled down she became more conventional. I can't speak to the study, just this wee anecdote from my past that came to memory as a consequence of this discussion. |
Response to MADem (Reply #110)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:37 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
147. It was a choice he made as an adult
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:38 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) in no way comparable to a choice made for an infant.
If as an adult he wanted to chop the whole thing off I would cringe at the idea but it would be his choice. If a parent wanted to cut off the penis of an infant I would say they should be prevented from doing so because the infant cannot make this choice and no one should be able to make that decision for someone else. When did consent become a four letter word around here? |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #147)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 01:13 PM
MADem (86,171 posts)
159. Well no--it wasn't a choice because he would have had to abandon his bride.
|
He had no choice but to get the surgery, if he wanted to live happily ever after, and I am simply telling you what he reported to all of us--that he wished his mother had done it when he was young.
This has nothing to do with "consent"---I am relating to you an anecdote of which I have direct and personal knowledge, and nothing more. The guy with the Muslim bride would have preferred the snip had happened as an infant. |
Response to MADem (Reply #159)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 01:26 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
160. Unless someone put a gun to his head he had a choice to marry or not marry that woman
|
sorry but that is still a choice.
A baby cannot give consent. Surely we can agree to that? An adult can choose not to marry someone. This has nothing to do with "consent"---I am relating to you an anecdote of which I have direct and personal knowledge, and nothing more. The guy with the Muslim bride would have preferred the snip had happened as an infant. If on a FGM thread someone pointed out a woman that couldn't get married to a particular man without getting her clitoris removed and she said it would have been less painful to have it done as a child what would your interpretation of that anecdote be? For or against FGM? /just because they're boys doesn't mean they lose the right to control what happens with their own bodies. Boys are in fact humans too and worthy of rights. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #160)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 01:36 PM
MADem (86,171 posts)
161. Well, you might be one of the rare few people who thinks getting married is like buying a loaf of
|
bread, but I think most people with an iota of humanity will not agree with you.
We aren't talking about chopping off women's clitorises, either, and for you to equate the two procedures tells me that your knowledge of anatomy and your sense of equivalence are just lacking. You have an agenda and damn, you're going to prosecute it. We're done here. Have the last word, I'm supposing you'll need it. |
Response to MADem (Reply #161)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 01:41 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
162. You feel marriage is not a choice?
|
Where do you live that it is forced on you against your will?
We aren't talking about chopping off women's clitorises, either, and for you to equate the two procedures tells me that your knowledge of anatomy and your sense of equivalence are just lacking. You have an agenda and damn, you're going to prosecute it. Of course not. Mutilating a person's genitals without their consent is wrong. Of course boys must not be considered "people" for this axiom to hold true. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #162)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 09:55 PM
MADem (86,171 posts)
178. The suggestion was that being forced to NOT marry was acceptable.
|
That's the opposite of a choice. Oh, just dump the fiancee...whatever.
Read. Try to understand the written word. It's not all that difficult. I told you what the guy said, and what the guy did. He made the "choice" you are whining about, and he said, if it were up to him, he would have preferred that his MOTHER made the "choice" when he was an infant, as she did with his brothers. Do with that what you will. |
Response to MADem (Reply #178)
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 10:53 AM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
181. You say it wasn't a choice
|
then you say it was.
Make up your mind. Also as a woman I don't think you should comment on the mutilation of body parts you don't have. I wouldn't tell women what they should do with their genitals. Don't you feel that's appropriate? |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #181)
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 01:06 PM
MADem (86,171 posts)
187. If you think "choosing" to marry or not, once a person is engaged, is an actual choice, I feel sorry
|
for you.
You have one of those great days, now. |
Response to MADem (Reply #187)
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 04:57 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
190. This is surreal
|
marriage is not a choice.
Bizarre. And you use this to justify mutilating children. Even more bizarre. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #190)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 02:35 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
194. male circumcision is no more mutilation than any surgery....
|
Doctors perform circumcisions in most cases.
|
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #194)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 02:39 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
195. If a doctor performed FGM would it not be mutilation?
|
mu·ti·late Show IPA
verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing. 1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting. 2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part. And if it is so wonderful why must it be done to someone before they are able to consent? |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #195)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 02:57 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
197. we do a lot of things without their consent for health reasons...
|
There is no medical reason to do fgm. The 2 procedures are nothing alike.
|
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #197)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:02 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
198. The health reasons for circumcision are largely being found to be bunk
|
Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:03 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) bad science formulated by putting the conclusion first then seeking data to support it.
More and more they've had to fall back on "culture" or "religion" to justify it. What major public health horror are you saving us from by denying young boys the right to choose? |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #198)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:11 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
200. hygiene purposes...
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #200)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:21 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
203. Soap/water - heard of it?
|
nt
|
Response to closeupready (Reply #203)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:30 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
206. In the US, in 2012? Where could anyone possibly access such things
|
even if they could expecting people to take care their own personal hygiene (like scrubbing behind their ears) is ludicrous.
Literally no human male is capable of washing himself. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #206)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:43 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
211. Duh, of course. Excuse my stupidity -
|
maybe I need my weekend more than I thought.
|
Response to closeupready (Reply #203)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:31 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
207. soap and water don't prevent all infections...
|
For instance yeast infections from a baby's wet diapers.
Having foreskin creates more places for moisture to sit. |
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #200)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:29 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
205. From your link:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene." Oops. But what do they know? I don't take medical advice from doctors. I take it from religious figures practicing a tradition they picked up as stone age desert wanderers. Circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) however the magnitude of this benefit is likely to outweigh the risk only in those at high risk of UTIs. And now for the complications: Williams & Kapila state: "the literature abounds with reports of morbidity and even death as a result of circumcision." Complications may be immediate or delayed, and complications from bleeding, infection and poorly carried out circumcisions can be catastrophic. The immediate complications may be classified as surgical mishap, hemorrhage, infection and anesthetic risk. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #205)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:39 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
209. all you are proving is that there is not a medical consensus on the issue...
|
And there is no compelling reason to remove this decision from the parents.
|
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #209)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:45 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
212. So if there is a pretty strong consensus that there aren't any real benefits
|
Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:47 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) we should just keep removing body parts just in case?
And we remove decisions from parents all the time. The department of Child Protective Services says you don't have the right to neglect your child. Or abuse them. Or hack off body parts for religious reasons (with one exception currently). You hold the parents right to mutilate to be sacrosanct. Does the child not have a right to bodily integrity? Why is letting the individual affected do the choosing such an offensive notion to some? Is it because they are emotionally invested in keeping this tradition for whatever reason and they fear if left to their own choices many young men would not choose to mutilate themselves in this way? Really what's your argument for denying young boys the right to choose how their bodies are permanently altered? Labiaplasty can reduce hygiene issues for some women as well. Would you support the parents right to choose this surgery for their neonatal daughters? |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #212)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:16 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
219. let parents and doctors decide
|
That is my position.
|
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #219)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:18 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
221. And for my other example . . .
|
labioplasty has been shown to have hygiene benefits for some women.
Should that be left up to the parents and doctors? |
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #194)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 02:52 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
196. It damn well is if, after reflection, I say it is.
|
Unlike you and I, an infant is incapable of considering the pros and cons.
|
Response to closeupready (Reply #196)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:02 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
199. so you oppose all procedures done on infants?
|
They can't weigh pros and cons.
So it is up to the parents to decide. |
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #199)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:20 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
201. If not medically necessary, I sure do. 'My body, my choice'
|
That logic applies to EVERYONE.
|
Response to closeupready (Reply #201)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:25 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
204. there are plenty of doctors who think it is medically necessary..
|
For hygiene purposes.
|
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #204)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:41 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
210. Most doctors take my position.
|
Fact.
|
Response to closeupready (Reply #210)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:46 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
213. then why does almost every ob doctor do circumcisions?
|
nt
|
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #213)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:20 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
222. If you tell your doctor you don't want your kids vaccinated they will comply
|
does that prove doctors oppose vaccinations?
|
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #213)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 03:56 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
228. Why do they? I thought they were supposed to be specialists
|
in the sexual anatomy of adult women, and not infant boys.
I expect it has more to do with money than anything else. That's how medicine mostly works in this country. |
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #204)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 03:52 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
227. There are doctors in Egypt who believe the same thing about female genital cutting.
|
They are doctors, and the patients are children who can't consent on their own behalf, so that makes it okay, right? Especially since it's being done in hygeinic medical facilities under anesthesia.
|
Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #6)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:43 PM
pipoman (10,401 posts)
28. I read once about
|
a mohel who made a wallet that when rubbed became a briefcase..
|
Response to pipoman (Reply #28)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:01 AM
xtraxritical (3,014 posts)
66. Get a grip!
Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #6)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:51 PM
Warpy (69,210 posts)
30. What is a minor procedure in infants
|
becomes quite a drastic one when males get older.
Again, it's the parents' decision. Just let 'em know the facts and butt out. |
Response to Warpy (Reply #30)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:59 PM
WooWooWoo (401 posts)
35. i think the question is, should it be the parents decision
|
or the childs?
What if, for instance, you have really ultra conservative parents who think sex is only for procreation and they want to do a female circumcision, should that be allowed? |
Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #35)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:48 PM
pnwmom (43,200 posts)
43. There are no medical benefits to female circumcision, so this isn't comparable. n/t
Response to pnwmom (Reply #43)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 02:10 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
83. Maybe they just need to look harder.
Response to Crunchy Frog (Reply #83)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:13 PM
kenfrequed (5,277 posts)
133. While inflammatory
|
I do see the point. There are few operations that are performed that provide so little actual medical benefit and have been scrutinized so thoroughly to justify a medical benefit as male circumcision.
It is almost literally a surgery in search of a problem. |
Response to kenfrequed (Reply #133)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:20 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
166. "Circumcision - a surgery in search of a problem"
|
There we go. +1,000,000
|
Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #35)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:14 PM
Warpy (69,210 posts)
48. What part of simple procedure in infancy, serious procedure later
|
did you not understand?
Infancy is pretty much when it needs to be done. Healing is very rapid, in about a week. Older kids and adults can take a month or more. Infants can't decide anything. Their parents are the adults who are entitled to make those decisions for them. It's your job (and mine) to butt out of that decision. |
Response to Warpy (Reply #48)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 05:36 AM
WooWooWoo (401 posts)
92. so "my body, my decision"
|
only applies in adulthood then, huh?
|
Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #92)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:27 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
97. It only applies to females, not males.
Response to Crunchy Frog (Reply #97)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:20 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
167. Yup. On this board, at least.
|
nt
|
Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #92)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:45 PM
Warpy (69,210 posts)
136. Check out age of consent in your state
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:46 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) You don't get to decide squat until you're an adult.
|
Response to Warpy (Reply #136)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:29 PM
Warren DeMontague (46,401 posts)
149. "age of consent"? Really?
|
You are talking about an unnecessary- as per the AMA - cosmetic medical procedure performed- on a baby.
To argue that "fuck em, too bad, it's not their call" is a horribly blase stance to take when you are considering modifying the body of another without their consent. |
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #149)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 04:28 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
229. Since they're not at age of consent, does that mean it's okay to have sex with them?
|
Well, we do know that in this country it is currently legal to perform fellatio on them.
|
Response to Warpy (Reply #48)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:33 AM
Nine (926 posts)
98. I don't think possibly painful = serious or drastic
|
It's a low-risk procedure even in adulthood from what I understand. My son is not circumcised because I felt it should be his choice as an adult. I did factor in the likelihood that it might be more painful and take longer to heal as an adult but for me it did not outweigh the importance of making it his choice. Besides, I reasoned no one could know what an adult circumcision would be like 18 years later. There might be medical advancements in the procedure itself or in the drugs and treatments used during the healing period that make it relatively painless. There also may be more science about the pros and cons of circumcision to guide his decision. Anyway, lots of things are painful - getting wisdom teeth out for example. People deal.
|
Response to Warpy (Reply #30)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:04 PM
JackRiddler (19,342 posts)
120. It's not a minor procedure.
|
You only think so because the infant has no voice to say what he thinks of this damage by removal of half the penile skin.
And "let'em know the facts" is a big joke given the scientific frauds perpetrated by the mutilation advocates, and the willingness of the media to repeat these as though they were news. How come they don't cover it when a study comes out refuting and completely rendering moot the pro-"circumcision" studies? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021171713 |
Response to JackRiddler (Reply #120)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 07:20 PM
GaYellowDawg (2,797 posts)
172. In infants, yes it is.
|
The foreskin is not half of anyone's penile skin, unless he's pretty seriously lacking in that department. If you want to make a point about this, you're going to be a lot more credible without the hysteria/exaggeration. And infants don't "think" about anything. They can perceive sensation, but do not yet have the capacity to think about it or remember it. Informed consent is impossible for infants. In the absence of that consent, parents have the right and the obligation to seek medical advice and follow it.
|
Response to GaYellowDawg (Reply #172)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 08:00 PM
ilikeitthatway (131 posts)
237. Hysteria? The foreskin has more nerve endings than the clitoris
|
and infants cannot be be put under for the procedure. It's barbaric! It's religious hocus pocus.
|
Response to Warpy (Reply #30)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:33 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
146. Having your clitoris removed is more painful as an adult than as a child
|
sure there's no real reason to do it. But maybe your culture values that sort of thing.
Either way it's best left to the parent. |
Response to Warpy (Reply #30)
4th law of robotics This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Warpy (Reply #30)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 10:26 PM
riderinthestorm (13,178 posts)
179. Most adult circumcisions are done because of a medical complication
|
So yes, in that sense when you are treating a medical complication (with circumcision) its going to be tougher because the surgery is addressing a medical issue as well.
But in general, the normal circumcision procedure for infants and adults is the same (except for the pubic shave - heh, shout out to the pubic thread!) Recovery looks to be about the same as well - a week for a normal procedure. It appears that both infants and adults also have to abstain from sex and masturbation for 6 - 8 weeks. The list of potential complications also looks extremely similar for both infants and adults. I firmly disagree that parents should have the right to genitally mutilate a child. If the child wants to have that kind of tribal ritual performed, they can do it when they are old enough to make the decision themselves. |
Response to Warpy (Reply #30)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 07:59 PM
ilikeitthatway (131 posts)
236. Minor? Um, no.
|
n/t
|
Response to Warpy (Reply #30)
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 11:20 AM
lumberjack_jeff (24,557 posts)
250. I watched it done to my son. It obviously hurt like a son of a bitch.
|
Wish I could have a do-over on that decision.
|
Response to WooWooWoo (Reply #6)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:50 AM
calsawals (2 posts)
111. Mohel's new profession:
|
Nail technician?
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:32 PM
Enrique (22,652 posts)
7. we have foreskin for a reason
|
|
Response to Enrique (Reply #7)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:41 PM
2on2u (1,843 posts)
13. We have an appendix for a reason as well, contrary to what we were told once upon a
|
time.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-10-10/scientists-discover-true-function-of-appendix-organ/693946 It has long been regarded as a potentially troublesome, redundant organ, but American researchers say they have discovered the true function of the appendix. The researchers say it acts as a safe house for good bacteria, which can be used to effectively reboot the gut following a bout of dysentery or cholera. The conventional wisdom is that the small pouch protruding from the first part of the large intestine is redundant and many people have their appendix removed and appear none the worse for it. Scientists from the Duke University Medical Centre in North Carolina say following a severe bout of cholera or dysentery, which can purge the gut of bacteria essential for digestion, the reserve good bacteria emerge from the appendix to take up the role. |
Response to 2on2u (Reply #13)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:22 PM
wordpix (12,478 posts)
51. how about tonsils?
|
Mine were taken out when I was 7 and I'll never forget the pain or thirst following the operation. Supposedly this was to prevent me from getting bad sore throats but afterward, I got sore throats from time to time, anyway. So it didn't work.
|
Response to wordpix (Reply #51)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:35 AM
AngryAmish (19,625 posts)
99. Nowadays tonsils mostly stay in unless they interfere with breathing
|
Something to do with the immune system or somesuch. I'm not a doctor.
|
Response to Enrique (Reply #7)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:01 PM
AlbertCat (10,450 posts)
19. we have foreskin for a reason
|
Obviously so it can be removed....
Whales have back leg bones for a reason too. |
Response to Enrique (Reply #7)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:55 PM
Psephos (6,856 posts)
32. However, that reason may be less valid since the advent of wearing clothes.
|
You could throw living in cities into that pot, too.
I'm speculating, nothing more. |
Response to Psephos (Reply #32)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:54 AM
calsawals (2 posts)
112. foreskin is purposeful
|
One of those purposes during infancy and childhood is that there is an actual SPHINCTER on the end that keeps it closed up tight when not peeing. It's pretty amazing. And that's how it keeps poop and other germies out. However, when it is removed, the raw and tender glans is then completely exposed and SITTING in crap in a diaper. That's disgusting ...and it's even worse that it's done for the sake of cleanliness. Completely oxymoronic.
As for adulthood.. I would venture a guess to say that 20k plus sexual, erogenous nerve endings are very purposeful and useful in their own way. And I sure wouldn't want part of MY body removed that contained so much potential. I can't even imagine what circumcised men are missing. It's pretty sad actually. |
Response to Enrique (Reply #7)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 02:29 AM
jberryhill (29,903 posts)
86. I have that tattooed on my shaved private area
|
I mean, shaving, right? Did that thread ever get down to a survey of what manner of tats, brands, piercings and fully immersive art installations people have going on down there these days? Or are we really going to pretend that shaving and circumcision are on DU's top ten list of genital body modification? |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:32 PM
hifiguy (13,029 posts)
8. The science seems quite sound.
|
Johns Hopkins is one of the finest medical schools on the planet. That's my only observation.
|
Response to hifiguy (Reply #8)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:34 PM
antigone382 (3,366 posts)
9. Yes, although from the article, it seems they are basing this analysis off a few studies in Uganda.
|
That certainly doesn't render it totally invalid, but I do wonder what mitigating effect the profound differences in culture, resources, and education might have on circumcision's risks in the United States.
|
Response to antigone382 (Reply #9)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:50 PM
pnwmom (43,200 posts)
17. These were large-scale WHO studies conducted in different countries in Africa
|
that controlled for condom use, education, and other factors.
|
Response to pnwmom (Reply #17)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:18 PM
My Pet Goat (353 posts)
59. These studies had scientific problems...
|
Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:24 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Impossibility of placebo, additional counseling about safe sex, and time-out effects to recover from surgery.
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/ |
Response to My Pet Goat (Reply #59)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:29 PM
pnwmom (43,200 posts)
63. All study participants had the same counseling about safe sex
|
Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:37 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) and the same access to condoms. They purposely designed the studies to account for those variables.
It is true that they couldn't compare a placebo vs. circumcision, but the diagnosis of HIV isn't something that would be influenced by a participant's or his doctor's expectations. It's done with blood tests. And the 60% difference in HIV cases is over a 2 year period. It could hardly have been accounted for by several weeks of abstinence after the surgery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV The NIAID, part of the NIH, supported two further trials, conducted in Kenya and in Uganda. The primary objectives of these studies were to determine whether adult male circumcision can be administered safely, and whether it would reduce the risk of acquiring HIV infection through heterosexual contact. After an initial HIV screening and a medical exam, eligible men were randomly assigned either to receive circumcision immediately or to wait two years before circumcision. All participants were closely followed for two years to collect information about their health, sexual activity, and their and their partners’ attitudes about circumcision; to counsel participants in HIV prevention and safe sex practices; and to check the HIV status of the volunteer. Participants in the Kenyan study were scheduled for six visits over the two-year follow-up, compared with four visits for the Ugandan trial participants. In addition to the study visits, men enrolled in the Kenyan trial were encouraged to receive all of their outpatient health care at the study clinics, which enabled researchers to collect information on the safety of the procedure and the number of other sexually transmitted diseases the men had during follow-up. |
Response to My Pet Goat (Reply #59)
Scootaloo This message was hidden by Jury decision.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #17)
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 04:20 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
242. The French National Council on AIDS (2007) has stated
|
“The same measures are not applicable to the Northern countries. The recommendations of the WHO state that this strategy is aimed at countries with high prevalence, and not at countries with low prevalence or in countries where it relates specifically to one part of the population such as in France or the United States.”
|
Response to hifiguy (Reply #8)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:11 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
73. Why is the medical consensus in the rest of the developed world not buying it?
Response to hifiguy (Reply #8)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 02:30 AM
idwiyo (2,110 posts)
87. No, it isn't. Not even close. Please see the link below for explanation.
|
When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/ |
Response to hifiguy (Reply #8)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 02:32 AM
unc70 (2,322 posts)
88. Science not that sound
|
The science associated with this topic is really poor. It is in there with really poor diet and nutrition research, and almost as bad as most economics.
Almost everyone all for circumcision having such great benefits and no downside are unaware of what is missing. This not about just a piece of "skin". It changes the characteristics of the sheath as it "unwraps" during intercourse. The sensations are different for the man and also for the woman. I will critique the research itself in a longer post in a day or so. I want to have my post reviewed by a colleague or two first. |
Response to unc70 (Reply #88)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 01:58 AM
idwiyo (2,110 posts)
191. Please PM me with the link to your post. I would love to read it and don't want to miss it.
|
Thank you in advance.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:35 PM
2on2u (1,843 posts)
10. Not to mention the bland fondue....
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:36 PM
LeftofObama (2,451 posts)
11. I'm gonna have to keep an eye on this thread! Time for a snack...
|
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:44 PM
sulphurdunn (3,505 posts)
15. Circumsized men
|
have bigger wangers and hundreds more sexual encounters than those who aren't. It's just fact. I thought everyone knew it.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:50 PM
Grassy Knoll (4,278 posts)
16. Doctors Charge $300 and hour + Tips. n/t
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 07:52 PM
Mass (24,636 posts)
18. I'd like to see comparisons with European countries, not Uganda, to see medical benefits.
|
Otherwise, it is purely a question of choice and I am for choice.
|
Response to Mass (Reply #18)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:18 PM
RufusTFirefly (4,928 posts)
21. The majority of European men -- indeed, the majority of ALL men, are uncircumcised
|
Circumcision is most prevalent in the Muslim world (near-universal), parts of Southeast Asia and of Africa, the United States, the Philippines, Israel, and South Korea. It is relatively rare in Europe, parts of Southern Africa, and most of Asia and Oceania. In Latin America, prevalence is universally low. The WHO states that "there is generally little non-religious circumcision in Asia, with the exceptions of the Republic of Korea and the Philippines".
Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom have generally seen a decline in male circumcision while there are indications of increasing demand in Southern Africa. The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in 2011 that rates decreased in the United States in the period 1999 to 2010. Citing three different data sources, most recent rates were 56.9% in 2008 (NHDS) 56.3% in 2008 (NIS), and 54.7% in 2010 (CDM). Prevalence of circumcision |
Response to Mass (Reply #18)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:25 PM
Hydra (9,441 posts)
24. No no no!
|
You're not doing this right! Scientists cherry pick evidence, call it firm, and you're supposed put out the money to do it. This "choice" thing is irrelevant in the face of insurmountable evidence!
Oh, and BOOGA! |
Response to Hydra (Reply #24)
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 11:23 AM
joeglow3 (3,256 posts)
183. You sound like my neighbor discussing global warming
|
He claims the same scientific theory there as well.
|
Response to joeglow3 (Reply #183)
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 01:02 PM
Hydra (9,441 posts)
186. That's the problem with lazy science
|
And in fact, while I totally support climate change theory, the fact that their climate models are not keeping up with the actual warming and are having to be continually revised based on ice color as it melts, snow levels and other things they somehow "forgot" to compute suggests that they either thought putting the whole truth out there would make them sound like chicken littles, or in fact the proper data was not collected and added to the models before this.
Half science is like a half truth- it's useless for figuring the real truth out and it makes the person who spouted it look bad. In this case, if circumcision is such is clear cut issue, why not use neutral evidence? After all, we can just be like Akin and say that science tells us that women NEVER conceive from rape because some of them don't. |
Response to Mass (Reply #18)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:54 PM
Art_from_Ark (16,927 posts)
31. I'd like to see comparisons of countries with a high degree of personal hygiene
|
like Japan, where daily bathing is a ritual, circumcision is almost non-existent, and the people have the highest life expectancy rate on the planet.
|
Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #31)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:07 PM
Mass (24,636 posts)
36. That too....
Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #31)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:33 PM
Hassin Bin Sober (8,622 posts)
41. But their wee wees fall off at age 62.
|
True story.
|
Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #41)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:11 PM
Art_from_Ark (16,927 posts)
47. If you actually believe that,
|
then I've got a bridge in El Aziziyah, Libya to sell you
![]() |
Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #47)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:21 PM
Hassin Bin Sober (8,622 posts)
50. Is it a nice bridge? Will you take a check?
Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #50)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:34 PM
Art_from_Ark (16,927 posts)
56. Oh, I think it's quite obvious from the picture
|
that it's a VERY nice bridge. And I will take a check, as long as it's not drawn on a Nigerian bank
|
Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #41)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:15 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
75. That's why their nursing home workers don't complain about it.
|
No wee wee makes for super easy cleaning.
|
Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #31)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:24 PM
wordpix (12,478 posts)
52. ding ding, me too.
|
If you are desert nomads like the Hebrews were, and you don't have ready access to water, circumcision is the thing to do. But if you're living in the modern world with regular baths and showers, I'd like to see those comparisons.
|
Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #31)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:14 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
74. Yes, but the men are so pale and wan and...
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 02:08 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) effete.
Couldn't we just send a team out there from John's Hopkins to liberate them from their foreskins and turn them into real men? |
Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #31)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 11:07 AM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
158. Statistical outlier
|
Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 11:45 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) doesn't support the conclusion so it must be excluded.
Just like most of Europe. And really anywhere that reality is giving the wrong answer. |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:24 PM
iamthebandfanman (6,744 posts)
23. holy hell not this again
|
Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:26 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) can we please drop this stupid stuff?
all this does is start arguments, and then for some reason half of us have to defend the way our penis looks. its disgusting, and if it was a WOMANS body part i doubt it would be so openly talked about and ridiculed by so many people on this forum. i cant change the way i am, stop telling me im deformed (which has happened in previous threads about this topic)!! |
Response to iamthebandfanman (Reply #23)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:41 PM
Major Nikon (9,726 posts)
27. Nothing like a good penis thread to liven things up
|
Just sayin'
|
Response to iamthebandfanman (Reply #23)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 04:37 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
230. Oh, this is going to be going on for awhile.
|
In case you haven't noticed, there is a massive circumcision PR blitz going on, with articles similar to the above in running in all sorts of corporate news outlets. And it's going to get worse, because the new AAP statement is due out in a few days.
And yes, I agree with you that it's disgusting that we live in a society in which it's considered acceptable to discuss male bodies as if they were pieces of meat; even on allegedly progressive message boards where it is anathema to talk about women in that fashion. |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:34 PM
aquart (67,538 posts)
26. Nothing is more important than preservation of the teeny tiny turtleneck.
|
It's a gift God gave.
You know, like the hymen. |
Response to aquart (Reply #26)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:26 PM
wordpix (12,478 posts)
53. or as we prefer to call it, "the elephant trunk"
Response to aquart (Reply #26)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:56 PM
Warren Stupidity (31,953 posts)
58. And again if that sort of bullshit statement were made about fgm you would be out of here.
Response to aquart (Reply #26)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:30 PM
Codeine (12,684 posts)
64. Teeny tiny?!
|
You're mean!
|
Response to aquart (Reply #26)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:18 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
76. Except for the itty bitty clitties.
|
BTW, I find the degrading and derogatory way you talk about other people's sexual anatomy to be really kind of cute.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:56 PM
Fuddnik (4,454 posts)
34. Let's ask Anthony Weiner.
|
He's an expert on these things.
|
Response to Fuddnik (Reply #34)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:32 PM
Hassin Bin Sober (8,622 posts)
40. And we are all experts on HIS thing.
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:13 PM
JackRiddler (19,342 posts)
37. How come they cherrypicked the comparison.
|
The studies are in Africa, but then they use that (totally reliable! controlled!) data to make a claim about what would happen if US rates dropped to European levels. In circumcised Europe, the rates of HIV infection are much lower than in the United States. (Too lazy to look up the other data.)
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:45 PM
madrchsod (55,748 posts)
42. dam posts like this makes me miss the lounge.....
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 09:57 PM
flying_wahini (1,010 posts)
44. Many years ago when I was a nurse in OB delivery
|
the topic of circumcision came up a lot. The medical opinion was that circumcision was preferred and necessary because sexual partners of uncircumcised men had a MUCH higher rate of cervical cancer (not mentioned above). plus all of the other reasons already listed. I am always kind of tickled about how squeamish men are about discussing it... It's a pretty minor event, people have been doing it for thousands of years. The foreskin, IMHO, was designed to desensitize the shaft to prolong the woman's pleasure. |
Response to flying_wahini (Reply #44)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:08 PM
Sgent (3,775 posts)
46. It is mentioned above
|
albeit in a round-a-bout manner.
Since most cervical cancer is related to HPV infection, the 18% increase in the rate of HPV infection for partners is an issue. |
Response to flying_wahini (Reply #44)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:27 PM
jberryhill (29,903 posts)
54. "designed to"
|
And women were "designed to" have a birth canal smack dab at the base of the bone that brings the legs and spine together, just to make sure it is as unpleasurable as possible?
Human reproduction is among the most ridiculous and farcically ill-designed arrangements on the planet. A lot of compromises were involved in getting large brains and walking upright, and ease of reproduction was one area that took a hit. |
Response to jberryhill (Reply #54)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:48 PM
HankyDub (246 posts)
65. you forgot to mention
|
that in humans the genitalia are located in the waste disposal area, which is more evidence of "intelligent design."
|
Response to jberryhill (Reply #54)
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 02:35 PM
Manifestor_of_Light (16,313 posts)
252. Women dying in childbirth is not part of "intelligent design".
|
A lot of women have to have a c-section b/c the baby's head is too big to go thru the hole in the woman's pelvis. And yes, I assume that vaginal childbirth is extremely painful. When I was in labor before my c-section, and then it stopped because the baby was not going anywhere, it was very painful.
I had to have a c-section when I had my only child back in 1985, or both of us would have died. No question about it. Which is why I get really annoyed with natural childbirth nuts, that insist that ALL babies can be delivered vaginally. WRONG. They scream about how "childbirth is a natural function!". Yes, but in the old days before c-sections and antibiotics, and nowadays in undeveloped countries, ONE-THIRD of women died in childbirth from lack of a c-section, or shortly thereafter from childbed fever, due to a massive infection caused by doctors or midwives inserting their germ-laden hands in the vagina. Oh and don't forget the blood vessels in FRONT of the retina. Blood vessel leaks--ya got blindness. |
Response to flying_wahini (Reply #44)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 10:29 PM
wordpix (12,478 posts)
55. having had some experience with old elephant trunk,
|
it does NOT prolong a woman's pleasure ---it feels just like a circumcized one in every way.
Other things can prolong but not this! |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:23 PM
My Pet Goat (353 posts)
60. From the report...
|
"Each skipped male circumcision would end up costing $313 in direct medical bills...."
? Not persausive. |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:17 AM
Emillereid (3,326 posts)
67. I think this study would have more relevance to practices in the US
|
Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:22 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) and Europe if it had been conducted in those countries. And as far as I can tell a lot of the fears haven't materialized in Europe or other places where men are largely un-circumcized.
Other points of view: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2231534/ http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/Supplement_2/246.full.html http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/children/circumcision.html |
Response to Emillereid (Reply #67)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:27 AM
Sgent (3,775 posts)
78. The AAP
|
is changing their stance based on the USA Today article, and I would assume AAFP and NIH will change it fairly rapidly as well.
The WHO's stance is already pro circumcision as part of HIV prevention: from http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/ There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use. |
Response to Sgent (Reply #78)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:35 AM
Emillereid (3,326 posts)
82. Need to pay attention to the number needed treat to have even a small effect.
|
Also does not seem to be very relevant to countries that have goog hygeine.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
SoapBox This message was hidden by Jury decision.
Response to SoapBox (Reply #68)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 02:28 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
85. I wonder how quickly that post would get hidden
|
if it were someone talking about female sexual anatomy?
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:23 AM
AlphaCentauri (6,455 posts)
69. Wonder how many people get papillomavirus (HPV) via oral n/t
Response to AlphaCentauri (Reply #69)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 02:38 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
90. They should have their mouths cut out at birth for their own protection.
Response to Crunchy Frog (Reply #90)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 11:06 AM
AlphaCentauri (6,455 posts)
157. At least they wouldn't blame uncircumcised men n/t
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:06 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
71. They can have my sons' foreskins when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.
|
Kind of interesting that the rest of the developed world, enlightened as they are with universal health coverage, would still rather suffer the scourges of intact genitalia than fork out the money for routine baby penis cutting. And we all know how unhealthy the poor Europeans are compared with their American counterparts. Even though the rates of those diseases are generally lower there than here.
I dunno, maybe they've discovered some strange new health technologies...like indoor plumbing, or condoms, or something. |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:27 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
77. Doctors' Circumcision Recommendations Influenced By Personal Factors, Study Finds
|
http://www.jmhjournal.org/article/S1875-6867(10)00050-3/abstract
Conclusions I wonder what the circumcision status is of the medical experts in question. It apparently represents a rather powerful source of potential bias, and hence would be legitimate question to ask. |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:32 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
79. More than Foreskin: Circumcision Status, History of HIV/STI, and Sexual Risk in a Clinic-Based
|
Sample of Men in Puerto Rico (abstract). The Journal of Sexual Medicine
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02871.x/abstract According to this study, among Puerto Rican men, circumcision is correlated with higher rates of STD's and HIV. I wonder when the American medical establishment is going to figure out that the entire world is not Sub-Saharan Africa. |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 02:24 AM
idwiyo (2,110 posts)
84. "When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS" by Brian D. Earp
|
I strongly recommend everyone reads this article: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/ |
Response to idwiyo (Reply #84)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 06:54 AM
unc70 (2,322 posts)
94. Than you for this link
|
I have posted here and elsewhere about the horrible quality of the underlying. "research" behind the so-called justification for circumcision.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:46 AM
Ian David (68,450 posts)
102. One more reason for me to know that *my* penis is AWESOME! n/t
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:02 AM
Brainstormy (241 posts)
106. Christopher Hitchens on circumcision
|
If religion and its arrogance were not involved, no healthy society would permit this primitive amputation, or allow any surgery to be practiced on the genitalia without the full and informed consent of the person concerned. |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:08 AM
Brainstormy (241 posts)
107. Neonatal nurse writing on circumcision
|
Karen Nurse (08:46:11) :
I am looking for someone to do an expose’ on a custom. I am a nurse in newborn nursery. The pain that sweet tiny baby boys go through during a circumcision horrifies me. It is surgery without anesthesia. It is 10 minutes of pure hell. The pain is so horrendous that many babies go into shock immediately. They just stare and make gurgly noises. They are the lucky ones. The others remain perfectly aware of the pain that goes on and on. Their piercing screams haunt me. In history, the earliest surgery was done without anesthesia. Just tie them down and do it quick. Some people were willing to have surgery once. But I’ve read that people refused to endure surgery a second time – even if it meant death. They knew how severe the pain was, and decided they would rather die than endure that pain a second time. How can intelligent, educated people not realize that a scalpel causes a horrendous, sharp, excruciating pain that no human being should ever have to endure. Tell me how a custom can be so strong that it overpowers intelligence and common sense. For example, the Chinese custom of “binding” young girls’ feet. The toes were forced down under the foot and tightly bound forever. So the feet couldn’t grow. Forever small. Big feet were considered UGLY. No one would marry a girl with big feet. Can you imagine the pain? Americans are not under the influence of Chinese customs and from a distance, we are apalled! But in China, even after a law was passed against foot-binding, some parents would still do it – knowing that they were going to prison. That is how strong a custom can be. It can cloud judgement. The pain of circumcision wouldn’t be quite as bad if the foreskin was fully developed at birth. But it is still adhered to the glans and does not separate naturally for several years. Mother Nature may be slow, but it produces an exquisitely sensitive sexual organ. The first step of a circumcision is to rip the adhered foreskin off the glans using a metal probe. But the two skins are still fused as one. And patches of skin are ripped off the glans in the process. I see the glans of these tiny penises with skin missing and the tissue exposed every day. The pain is supposed to be comparable to having a metal probe forced under your fingernail and ripping it back and forth until the fingernail comes off. Imagine the pain! It is now recommended that a pain block be used. But it is not a law. So only a few babies get it. So why do we do it? Because it is what we are used to. A custom. Explain that to a baby that is enduring a pain that no human being should ever have to endure! There are many other reasons not to circumcise. It is removing the best skin of the penis. The foreskin contains approx. 20,000 specialized nerves that enhance sexual pleasure. The skin remaining is crude and has only a fraction of the sensation. The foreskin is NOT extra skin. It is there so that the penis can get longer during an erection. It is designed to unfold and stretch out, allowing the penis to grow. In the process, the foreskin is pulled off the glans. The glans is then uncovered and now the intact penis looks the same as a circumcised penis. They end up looking the same during an erection. But the intact penis is larger and has more sensation. Over the years, doctors have invented excuses for circumcision and the public latches onto them. These excuses are false and misleading. There is no reason good enough to inflict such sharp, excruciating pain on someone you love. To forever decrease his sexual pleasure. To amputate the best, most sensitive part of his penis. To violate his human rights. As I watch parents hug and kiss their new babies. Then insist that their babies endure a pain that is comparable to a fingernail being ripped off with a metal probe. And then a scalpel cuts – with no anesthesia. I want to scream, “Do you love your baby, or hate him?” |
Response to Brainstormy (Reply #107)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:06 PM
cpwm17 (1,252 posts)
129. I don't see how anyone can support this
|
This is child abuse of the worst kind - it's torture.
Circumcision destroys much of the ability to enjoy sex. The poor kid has much of his future sex life taken away - permanently. |
Response to Brainstormy (Reply #107)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:04 PM
Nikia (11,348 posts)
144. My sons were alright during the procedure
|
My first son cried when he was unwrapped for the procedure but quited down when it was done. My other son slept through it. Maybe you think that they were in shock. Their vitals weren't crashing like mine did when I was in shock during my first miscarriage with heavy bleeding though. A couple of hours later, they seemed perfectly fine.
They were both given local anethesia. This is in a small rural hospital where they only had demerol for child birth pain, aside from epidural too. I don't think that it is an especially progressive place. |
Response to Brainstormy (Reply #107)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 07:34 PM
GaYellowDawg (2,797 posts)
173. I actually laughed at one part of this
|
The part claiming that a foreskin makes the penis longer/larger. It has nothing to do with that. The remaining skin has plenty of sensation, thanks -having nearly blacked out from the sensation of the occasional extraordinary blowjob - and it's ludicrous for a woman to talk about relative crudeness of a sensation that she can never actually gauge. It'd be like men commenting on the pain of childbirth. Ridiculous.
|
Response to GaYellowDawg (Reply #173)
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:53 PM
cpwm17 (1,252 posts)
189. Well it's a good thing you're circumcised
|
You may not survive sex otherwise.
Some circumcised men complain that their organisms are underwhelming. Perhaps some scientist could research how much circumcisions reduce orgasms. |
Response to GaYellowDawg (Reply #173)
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:55 AM
Union Scribe (4,729 posts)
241. Agreed. Fully. nt
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:15 AM
Remmah2 (3,291 posts)
109. "<cut> "
|
Now that's funny.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:01 PM
JackRiddler (19,342 posts)
118. When will people stop treating this propaganda as though it were "news"?
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:13 PM
ElboRuum (4,385 posts)
122. Cranking up the popcorn maker...
|
And yes, I take mine with the movie-buttergrease. |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:22 PM
ElboRuum (4,385 posts)
124. We haven't had a Chuggo thread in a while...
|
...you mind starting one of those too?
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:12 PM
Alduin (501 posts)
132. So condoms don't stop those things?
|
Um, yeah they do. There is never any need to slice off part of a man's dick. Condoms can prevent most of those issues.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 02:07 PM
Comrade Grumpy (3,418 posts)
137. I can only go on my on experience...
|
...and based on that, I'm quite happy to have been circumsized. I don't feel in the least mutilated or like I'm missing something. And I don't seem to have any trauma based on the act itself.
I find this whole argument kind of bizarre. And not my highest priority. That's my final word on it. |
Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #137)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:40 PM
xchrom (90,676 posts)
151. +1 not to mention -i like being cut.
|
not to say if you have drapes -- i won't pull them.
|
Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #137)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:06 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
164. Weird thought, but not everything is about you.
|
nt
|
Response to closeupready (Reply #164)
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 12:40 PM
Comrade Grumpy (3,418 posts)
185. Gee, sorry for sharing.
|
When it comes to my penis, it is all about me. But thanks for your weird thought.
|
Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #185)
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 01:07 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
188. The topic of this thread is not your penis.
|
It is about the practice of circumcising infant males unilaterally.
You can post whatever you want, as far as I'm concerned. But that tired talking point "well I've been circumcised, and I still get erections" has never had anything to do with arguments made in favor of making the practice illegal without the consent of the boy. |
Response to closeupready (Reply #188)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 12:23 PM
Comrade Grumpy (3,418 posts)
192. Yeah, and I get tired of anti-circumcision fanatics.
|
I disagree with your position on circumcision. There, are you happy now?
|
Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #192)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 01:24 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
193. Favoring a form of penis with which boys are born is not
|
fanaticism. At least, not in my universe.
Which universe are you talking about? A religious one? Yes? I thought so. |
Response to closeupready (Reply #193)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:16 PM
Comrade Grumpy (3,418 posts)
220. Going on and on about a topic that excites a mere handful of people smacks of fanatacism.
|
Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:24 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Get back to me when there is a mass movement of aggrieved circumsized men.
If you think I base my support of circumcision on religious beliefs, you thought wrong. A bit presumptuous of you, no? |
Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #220)
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:57 PM
apocalypsehow (12,751 posts)
244. On this issue, it's the tiny minority of fanatics who spew 99% of the venom.
|
For complicated reasons, often deeply psychological, there is a tiny movement that insists that they know better than parents and Doctors what is best for a male infant, just like the fanatics who insist it's a "child's choice" whether he or she wants to be vaccinated or not.
This obsession with other people's foreskin is creepy, and that's exactly what the anti-circumcision crowd has: an obsession with other people's foreskin. |
Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #244)
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 11:29 AM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
245. Take your religious sideshow and hocus-pocus elsewhere.
|
nt
|
Response to closeupready (Reply #245)
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 08:14 PM
apocalypsehow (12,751 posts)
247. I'll take the voice of reason right where I please, thank you very much.
|
And while I'm at it: thanks for confirming precisely what I posted above with your witless personal attack.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 02:09 PM
pansypoo53219 (9,320 posts)
138. just when gonorrhea is becoming incurable.
|
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 10:04 AM
Hell Hath No Fury (14,276 posts)
155. If the science is sound, then young men -
|
should be able to make the decision for themselves when they reach an appropriate age. His body, his choice.
|
Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #155)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 10:32 AM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
156. Removing the penis entirely would eliminate STDs and unwanted pregnancies entirely
|
Semen could still be extracted surgically from the testicles for breeding purposes.
And if it must be done it'll be less painful if done to a child than an adult. /just carrying this non-consensual genital mutilation for public health to its logical conclusion. Why half-ass it? |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #156)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:21 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
202. that doesn't even make sense...
|
Removing the whole penis would have an adverse effect on a man's reproductive function.
There is no compelling reason to stop male circumcision. |
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #202)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:35 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
208. No it wouldn't
|
as I said it is entirely possible to remove semen from the testicles medically without a penis. And then once you have extracted semen you can use it to impregnate women.
It would reduce STDs to virtually nothing within a generation. It would make teen pregnancy, rape, and sexual assault a thing of the past. There is no compelling reason to stop male circumcision. True, unless we count all the compelling reasons to stop male circumcision: Australasia But what do all them sciency types really know? I get my facts from religious figures going by handmedown hallucinations from thousands of years ago. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #208)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:54 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
214. notice all of that says to give parents the information and let them decide...
|
This issue matters very little to me.
I'm glad my parents got me circumcized...it is far more convenient and looks better. |
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #214)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:57 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
215. It actually says that circumcision is not advisable
|
to prevent all the problems people have claimed it solves.
But those are just ignorant doctors. Like with vaccines. Who are you going to trust? Stupid doctors and their silly degrees and years of experience backed by empirical evidence. Or a mothers intuition? /all I'm asking is that we respect a boy's right to choose what to do with their bodies the same as we on here respect a girls right to choose. That seems fair. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #215)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:11 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
217. I personly don't care...leave it up to parents and their doctor....
|
You want to second guess the child's own doctor?
|
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #217)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:15 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
218. I would second guess anyone making permanent medical decisions
|
based on superstition (and directly contradicted by fact).
Also don't think I didn't notice the subtle shift. It went from "leave it up to the parents" to "you want to second guess the child's own doctor?" I can't think of any hospital that routinely practices circumcision on boys against the wishes of their parents. |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #218)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:21 PM
Green_Lantern (2,423 posts)
224. I made my position clear and you parse my words..
|
The final decision is up to parents based on consulting their doctor.
|
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #224)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:23 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
225. Or more often based on consulting their religious figure of choice
|
Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:26 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) or no one.
Doctors in general don't support this. I doubt you'll answer but I have posed this question before: labiaplasty prevents hygiene issues for some women. Would you support parents choosing to have a doctor perform this on their 1 day old daughter? /religious rights trump the right to choose to do as you please with your body. Huh. I've heard that before somewhere. |
Response to Green_Lantern (Reply #214)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:25 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
226. "looks better" - well, there's a first for everything, I suppose.
|
I'll take your word for it, even if it doesn't conform with my experience.
|
Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #155)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:05 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
163. "His body, his choice."
|
There we go. +1,000,000.
|
Response to closeupready (Reply #163)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:58 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
216. Q: how do you get a progressive to argue for religion trumping personal choice?
|
Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:58 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) A: . . . obvious isn't it?
|
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #216)
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:20 PM
closeupready (19,488 posts)
223. Yeah, funny how that works.
|
+1000.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:38 PM
ZombieHorde (23,873 posts)
168. Except for medical emergencies, intentional amputation should always be
|
the potential amputee's decision, in my opinion.
I am also against piercings and tattoos for infants. |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 08:23 PM
Butterbean (469 posts)
175. 16 states' Medicaid programs don't pay for elective infant circumcision.
|
NC (where I practice nursing) is one of them. Just a random trivia fact I thought I'd toss out there.
I have 2 boys. One is cut, the other is intact. I left the second one intact because I regretted circumcising the first one about 2 seconds after it was done. Can't take it back, though. |
Response to Butterbean (Reply #175)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 04:50 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
231. 18 states.
|
This new piece of "research" by John's Hopkins appears to boil down to a desire to reverse this trend and to force Medicaid and other insurance to guarantee payment for all newborn circumcisions. "So that parents will be free to choose without financial constraint". Very altruistic of them.
Essentially the same article/press release as that in the OP has now been published in about a gazillion different corporate media outlets, and the bottom line in all of them basically boils down to "Give us money for cutting baby genitals!" |
Response to Crunchy Frog (Reply #231)
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:22 PM
Butterbean (469 posts)
243. I suspected as much. It read that way. Thank you. n/t
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 08:30 PM
gollygee (12,355 posts)
176. I had daughters so in the end I didn't have to worry about this
|
However, I had decided to NOT have a baby boy circumcised if I'd had one. For a few reasons. I don't believe some of the negatives from the anti-circ crowd, because some seem silly, however, there are still plenty of good reasons IMO to skip the procedure.
1. It's painful and babies have been through enough. My instinct after birth has always been to hold onto the baby and try to avoid any thin that will create more pain unless it is absolutely needed. 2. I question how great the benefits are when Europe has a very very low circumcision rate and men seem to do OK there. 3. It isn't a flap of skin - it's a fold - and it seems like you wouldn't know how much of that fold would be needed until the kid reached sexual maturity. There is a potential for problems and the problems wouldn't necessarily be seen until sexual maturity, when it might be too late to do much if anything. 4. It seems like he should be allowed to decide and he can't do so at that age. |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 11:10 AM
EllkayRN (1 post)
232. Anti-circ RN
|
I am a NICU nurse and my clinical experiences in this specialty have made me very anti-routine infant circumcision. I have seen some horrific complications from this procedure, the most common of which is the nicked frenular artery. Several months ago, a baby at our facility suffered a partial amputation.
Though these complications may not be the norm, they happen often enough that I question how any potential health benefits could be worth putting your days old son at risk for bleeding, infection (open wound in a diaper, yum) and possible disfigurement. It's a really important part of a guy you're messing with! You have to teach your child hygeineband to practice safe sex regardless of ICRC status. It is those things that will keep your son healthy, not surgical removal of healthy tissue. There is absolutely no reason why we can't let our sons decide for themselves. |
Response to EllkayRN (Reply #232)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 01:40 PM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
233. Thank you for sharing your perspectives and experiences on this thread.
|
And welcome to DU. I know that it's not easy to make that first post, but this one was very informative, and I hope that we will be hearing more from you.
|
Response to EllkayRN (Reply #232)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 03:03 PM
annabanana (45,588 posts)
234. Excellent points from an informed source. Thank you and
|
Welcome to DU
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 07:57 PM
ilikeitthatway (131 posts)
235. Baloney! All debunked, and licences ought to be stripped.
|
Next.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 08:02 PM
ilikeitthatway (131 posts)
238. Routine circumcision came to America thanks to a Christian fundamentalist
|
who convinced parents that by cutting off the foreskin, little boys would keep their hands off their no-no areas.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:19 AM
Crunchy Frog (16,878 posts)
239. "Plain Facts for Old and Young" by John Harvey Kellog. The scientific thinking
|
Last edited Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:20 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) behind the original push for medicalized circumcision in this country.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Plain_facts_for_old_and_young.html?id=pubVzCbD_DMC
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 01:44 AM
Manifestor_of_Light (16,313 posts)
240. Barbaric mutiliation with no good reason to do it. Only religious insanity.
|
The foreskin has a purpose and circumcision is not giving the child a choice. I think it's horrible.
I don't plan to speak to my step daughter in law in the future. I gave her a speech about WHY circumcision is unnecessary and harmful. It also cost her $300 that she and her hubby (my stepson who is 30) could ill afford (He works at walmart). I found out later that they circumcised the kid even though I told her not to, and told her WHY not to. If she is not going to listen to anything I tell her, I just won't talk to her any more. |
Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #240)
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 11:26 PM
kwassa (15,668 posts)
248. Whatever.
|
It is their child, not your. They are the parents, they make the choices they think are best for them.
She may have listened to you, and then made up her own mind. |
Response to kwassa (Reply #248)
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 03:06 AM
Manifestor_of_Light (16,313 posts)
249. She obviously thinks mutiliating her son is good, then.
Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #249)
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 10:26 PM
kwassa (15,668 posts)
251. She obviously doesn't think it is mutilation.
|
Or she wouldn't do it, would she?
|
Response to kwassa (Reply #251)
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 02:41 PM
Manifestor_of_Light (16,313 posts)
253. It IS mutilation no matter what she thinks.
|
The reality and what she thinks are not the same.
Foreskins are there for a purpose. She later said she needed $150 to buy her hubby a pennywhistle. I did not respond to her request for money, since she already spent $300 to mutilate her child after I TOLD her NOT to, and told her WHY it was unnecessary. |
Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #253)
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 06:00 PM
kwassa (15,668 posts)
256. I don't think it is mutilation either.
|
So I guess I should stop listening to you, too.
|
Response to kwassa (Reply #248)
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 03:33 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
254. The same could be said for any kind of mutilation
|
Last edited Wed Aug 29, 2012, 03:35 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2) FGM: their child, not yours.
Ritualistic castration: their child, not yours. In civilized countries parents actually don't have total autonomy do with their children what they please. For instance they are still required by law to feed the kid. And provide some education. And not beat or otherwise abuse the child. /it's amazing that spanking a child for discipline purposes (and leaving no permanent disfigurements) will elicit cries of outrage on here even if you cite religion or culture or history as a reason. But permanently mutilating the genitals of a child (males only) will elicit "meh, it's their religion or culture or history or whatever". |
Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #254)
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 06:03 PM
kwassa (15,668 posts)
257. Civilized countries allow circumcision.
|
Civilized countries don't see it as mutilation.
Nor do I. |
Response to kwassa (Reply #257)
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 06:13 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
258. And in this case they're wrong
|
Is it permanent?
Does it involve the removal of healthy tissue for non-medical reasons? Does it depend on the informed consent of those involved? |
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:12 PM
cabot (274 posts)
246. I've been silent on this issue long enough - and I know you are all dying to hear my opinion :)
|
I am against male circumcision. As a woman, I don't have the right to tell a man to lop off the tip of his penis. Nor do I have the right to make that decision for my son, unless there are serious medical reasons. The reasons mentioned in the story are easily remedied through proper hygiene and the cunning use of condoms.
|
Response to Sgent (Original post)
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 05:09 PM
Nine (926 posts)
255. People circumcise because it seems normal to them.
|
No one's mind is going to be changed on circumcision by mocking their religion. Nor by referring to their fathers, brothers, husbands, or already-born sons as "mutilated." I think circumcision is wrong and my husband and I chose to leave my son intact, but if he were born 5 or 10 years sooner I might have made a different choice. Parents don't choose circumcision because they're bad people, and it's neither easy nor natural to decide to have your son look different from your husband (or yourself if you're the father). What made the choice easier for me was knowing that circumcision was not common in countries like the UK, that it was not common in America until recently, and that it's becoming less and less common every year. And I had to remind myself that I couldn't be making the wrong choice because I actually wasn't choosing at all - I was leaving it up to my son when he became an adult.
|
Response to Nine (Reply #255)
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 07:17 PM
E_A_ (6 posts)
259. The origins of circumsism.....
|
Are not about health, they are the same as female genital mutilation, part of religious practice and an abusive harmful thing to do to a baby.
I sometimes wonder if some of male violence has at it's root the experience of having a part of you which involves your very sense of being taken off. They don't use anesthesia or anything, do they? They used to think that little babies are too young to be effected by traumas, or to be effected by pain, and so wouldn't give anesthesia,but now we know better. I shuttered when I saw a Seinfeld episode where everyone joined together, a party atmosphere, and then this poor little defenseless baby has part of his body chopped off, no anesthesia or anything. Isn't this cute???? How wonderful... And the little baby lays there, traumatized, crying....oh what a great party we are having...... I thought it was appalling....not that anyone there was trying to be cruel...I knew that, to them, it was a religious occasion.......but look at it from the baby's point of view and long term effects.... I doubt this info about preventing disease is reliable......wonder how I'd feel if I found out that part of my female anatomy had been cut off, so I would never be able to experience some things others could feel. I wonder if I wouldn't feel like a complete woman, and if I wouldn't be feeling an underlying rage and sadness, which might be acted out in aggression....such as...oh, I don't know, wars, crime etc......maybe the world would be a little less violent without genital mutilation..... |
Response to E_A_ (Reply #259)
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 08:44 PM
Nine (926 posts)
260. It's not always about religion.
|
Most male Americans my age are circumcised even though the majority were not required to for religious reasons. As posted upthread, circumcision of non-Jews and non-Muslims in this country started as an attempt to curb masturbation. I don't think anyone believes in that anymore, but circumcision continues because it's just what people are used to. And because of bad medical advice.
That ceremony you referred to is called a Bris, by the way, and that's also the name of the Seinfeld episode. I don't believe there is any evidence that circumcision leads to long term psychological effects but anything is possible, I suppose. I think a stronger argument against infant circumcision is that there is simply no compelling reason for parents to perform a cosmetic procedure on their child before he can express an opinion about it. |
Response to E_A_ (Reply #259)
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 08:50 PM
E_A_ (6 posts)
261. Info
|
Last edited Wed Aug 29, 2012, 08:52 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Yes you're right. It was to stop masturbation.
The claims of it being for the sake of health are ridiculous.....you might get an infection so chop off part of your body? They used to say that a woman who had sex with a non circumcised man was more likely to get cervical cancer, turned out that was not true either. Also just read that performing C. is INCREDIBLY painful for the baby (or anyone), and especially a dangerous thing to do to a newborn, who isn't really very strong at all...also it's damaging neurological, emotionally, may involve PTSD, and the imputous to continue the practice often comes from circumcised doctors or fathers, who may well be recreating the trauma.....the Dad may, unknowingly, also not want to be reminded of what he has lost, by his child being intact... There is evidence for all these things....just do a google search... |



