Circumcision - Page 15

rivrrat · 04-01-08, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

Why would a female circumcision ever be done? There's a basis for doing male circumcisions in the past. Whether it's no longer medically necessary is arguable.

The same so-called medical reasons for doing a male one. If there is no medical reason for doing a female one, then there is no medical reason for donig a male one.

Sans a medical reason, there is NO VALID reason for chopping off part of a child's body without their consent. "It makes it look prettier to me" is not a valid reason.

Quote:

Is there any evidence that a man has resented having his foreskin removed?

What difference does that make?

How about you just allow the children the CHOICE of whether or not to chop off part of their own bodies and we'll see how many actually choose to do it later in life.

Quote:

Can you tell me why you're so angry over this issue? I'm just curious.

I get angry when I see dogs with their tails and ears docked. The fact that a person would actually chop off part of an animal's body to make it more aethetically appealing to them is abhorrent to me. I'm even more appalled when it's a child's penis.

If it's for religious reasons, then allow them the choice to do it when they're older. If it's for aesthetic reasons, then allow them the choice to do it when they're older. If it's for some miniscule medical reason

, then allow them the choice to do it when they're older.

Why are you so opposed to allowing children the freedom to choose whether or not to mutilate themselves?

jallman · 04-01-08, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

The same so-called medical reasons for doing a male one. If there is no medical reason for doing a female one, then there is no medical reason for donig a male one.

Sans a medical reason, there is NO VALID reason for chopping off part of a child's body without their consent. "It makes it look prettier to me" is not a valid reason.

Really? Then I guess haircuts and trimmed fingernails are out too then, huh?

Quote:

How about you just allow the children the CHOICE of whether or not to chop off part of their own bodies and we'll see how many actually choose to do it later in life.

Hmmmm....well my choice would be to have had my circumcision done when I was young and wouldn't remember or feel it. Thanks, Mom, for adhering to my wishes when I was a baby!!!

WI Crippler · 04-01-08, 02:43 PM

Well for me, if the medical concerns are the same, and the results from the procedure of circumcision don't cause any handicap or or disadvantage to the person undergoing the procedure, I see nothing wrong with people engaging in a cultural practice in this manner. Male or female. I also don't really care what uncirc vs circ looks like. One, I don't concern myself with other mens penises, and two, if I see a vagina the last thing I am thinking about is what the clitoral hood looks like. I'm just not a genital fashion expert.

aps · 04-01-08, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

The same so-called medical reasons for doing a male one. If there is no medical reason for doing a female one, then there is no medical reason for donig a male one.

Sorry, but that is a worthless argument on your part. Up until 1999 (based on my research of this issue), the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended a male circumcision. I couldn't find anything related to female circumcision. Let's not pretend that male and female genitalia are the same.

Quote:

Sans a medical reason, there is NO VALID reason for chopping off part of a child's body without their consent. "It makes it look prettier to me" is not a valid reason.

Okay.

Quote:

What difference does that make?

How about you just allow the children the CHOICE of whether or not to chop off part of their own bodies and we'll see how many actually choose to do it later in life.

I guess I am curious why there is such a huge argument from you about how wrong it is to remove the foreskin from a baby boy's penis. Because it hurts? So do immunizations. Because it forever alters a baby's appearance? So does cutting off the umbilical cord.

It doesn't negatively impact a baby to have the foreskin removed. If it did, I would have unlikely had him circumsized.

Quote:

I get angry when I see dogs with their tails and ears docked. The fact that a person would actually chop off part of an animal's body to make it more aethetically appealing to them is abhorrent to me. I'm even more appalled when it's a child's penis.

I could see how those alterations would bother you, although I don't know why people have dogs tails and ears "docked."

Quote:

If it's for religious reasons, then allow them the choice to do it when they're older. If it's for aesthetic reasons, then allow them the choice to do it when they're older. If it's for some miniscule medical reason

, then allow them the choice to do it when they're older.

Why are you so opposed to allowing children the freedom to choose whether or not to mutilate themselves?

It would be one thing if I were doing something that was deemed as mutilating my child. You can call circumcision mutilation, but I won't concede such characterization. It would be one thing if I were doing something that would negatively impact him. I haven't seen any good evidence of how a circumcision negatively impacts a boy/man. None.

Ethereal · 04-01-08, 10:05 PM

You people are blowing this way out of proportion. Circumcision is a relatively benign procedure which incurs virtually no risk of post-operative complications - pending negligence on the parents' part.

There have been studies done which point to circumcisions being beneficial and if one iota of it is true then why shouldn't a parent be able to opt for the procedure given its benign nature?

Furthermore, even if it was proven that circumcision incurred absolutely no medical benefits why shouldn't a parent be able to do it based on culture and family heritage? It's not a serious procedure. I'm glad I had it done, very glad, and so is everyone else I know.

Lastly, researchers have discovered other benefits of circumcision besides lowering the risk of infection...

Quote:

HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases

The World Health Organization (WHO) stated that studies of three trials, one of which was completed, provide compelling evidence that male circumcision provides a 50-60% reduction in HIV transmission from female to male.[77] In 2007, the WHO and UNAIDS recommended that male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention,[14] but emphasised that it does not provide complete protection against HIV infection.[78] They have stated that scientific findings regarding the role of male circumcision in preventing heterosexual HIV infection are particularly relevant in regions where the incidence of heterosexually acquired HIV infection is high, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, and stressed that the procedure must be carried out safely and under conditions of informed consent.[79][80] Before there were any results from randomized controlled trials, reviews of observational data differed as to whether there was sufficient evidence for an intervention effect of circumcision against HIV.[81][82]

McCoombe et al. stated that a layer of keratin could provide protection from viral entry, and found that the keratin is thinner on the foreskin than the glans penis, and thinnest on the inner surface of the foreskin.[83]

A meta-analysis found that circumcision is associated with lower rates of syphilis, chancroid and possibly genital herpes.[84]

Hygiene, and infectious and chronic conditions

Studies have found that boys with foreskins tend to have higher rates of various infections and inflammations of the penis than those who are circumcised.[85][86][87] The foreskin may harbor bacteria and become infected if it is not cleaned properly,[88] but may become inflamed if it is cleaned too often with soap.[89] Also, the forcible retraction of the foreskin in boys can lead to infections.[70]

Circumcision is one treatment for balanitis. The usual treatment for balanoposthitis is to use topical antibiotics (metronidazole cream) and antifungals (clotrimazole cream) or low-potency steroid creams.[90]

Several studies have shown that uncircumcised men are at greater risk of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection.[91][92] One study found no statistically significant difference in the incidence of HPV infection between circumcised and uncircumcised men, but did note a higher prevalence of urethritis in the uncircumcised.[93] Twelve studies have indicated that neonatal circumcision reduces the rate of Urinary tract infections (UTI's) in male infants by a factor of about 10.[94] Some UTI studies have been criticized for not taking into account a high rate of UTI's among premature infants, who are usually not circumcised because of their fragile health status.[40] The AMA stated that “depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI," and noted one decision analysis model that concluded that circumcision was not justified as a preventative measure against UTI.[36]

Penile cancer

Penile cancer affects from 0.82 per 100,000 in Denmark to 10.5 per 100,000 men per year in parts of India (0.9 to 1 per 100,000 in the United States).[40] Studies have reported a rate of penile cancer from 3 to 22 times higher in uncircumcised than circumcised men.[95][96]

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated that studies suggest that neonatal circumcision confers some protection from penile cancer, but circumcision at a later age does not seem to confer the same level of protection. Further, because penile cancer is a rare disease, the risk of penile cancer developing in an uncircumcised man, although increased compared with a circumcised man, remains low.[40]

The American Cancer Society (2006) stated, "The current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer."[97]

Circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although not definitive I would say there is a definite preponderance of evidence to suggest that circumcision is benificial, and given the relatively benign nature of the procedure I see no reason why a parent shouldn't have the option.

Also, if you think there's a case for prohibiting neo-natal circumcisions I could make an equally valid case for mandatory neo-natal circumcisions, however, being that I'm not a fascist, I would never espouse such a ridiculous notion - why would you?

independent_thinker2002 · 04-01-08, 11:02 PM

Women talking about circumcision makes as much sense as men discussing abortion.

CaptainCourtesy · 04-02-08, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Women talking about circumcision makes as much sense as men discussing abortion.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

aps · 04-02-08, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Women talking about circumcision makes as much sense as men discussing abortion.

Huh? Because I don't have a penis, that means I can't discuss a circumcision? After all, I did have a say in whether my son had one.

Men can discuss abortion all they want. However, when it comes to deciding what I will do with my own body--men have NO SAY.

1069 · 04-02-08, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Women talking about circumcision makes as much sense as men discussing abortion.

Not a very apt comparison. Women have the final say in circumcision (we're the moms of the boys) whereas... women have the final say in abortion as well.
Ha! Ha! Ha! We rock.
It makes no sense for men to be discussing anything, really.

aps · 04-02-08, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Not a very apt comparison. Women have the final say in circumcision (we're the moms of the boys) whereas... women have the final say in abortion as well.
Ha! Ha! Ha! We rock.
It makes no sense for men to be discussing anything, really.

Okay, 1069, I'll bite. Women have the final say in circumcision? So the dad's have no say? Or your husband had no say in the decision to circumsize your sons?