Page 42 of 61 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 603

Thread: Call for higher circumcision rate

  1. #411
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,467

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    And as Pork Rinds in the straight ones?
    Only when they are dried out.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #412
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    06-29-09 @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    So now we're going to move the goal posts because your absolute was rebutted. OK, but my point stands...we DO remove pieces of the body for hygeine reasons.
    BUZZZ... sorry, we remove hair and nails for aesthetics.

    No, it is not. It is an excision.

    amputation is removal of an entire limb.

    But let's not let facts get in the way of a good emotionally hysterical misdirection, now.
    That's not the only definition.

    am⋅pu⋅tate

    1. to cut off (all or part of a limb or digit of the body), as by surgery.
    2. to prune, lop off, or remove: Because of space limitations the editor amputated the last two paragraphs of the news report.
    3. Obsolete. to prune, as branches of trees.

    To cut off (a projecting body part), especially by surgery.

    Really? Because it seems like the World Health Organization and UNAIDS, two very prominent medical organizations, seem to be promoting cicumcision pretty hard.
    But why? Because they are pushing xianity instead of pushing the use of condoms. Condoms are better at preventing STDs than circumcision.

  3. #413
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 07:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    BUZZZ... sorry, we remove hair and nails for aesthetics.
    And hygeine. Sorry, but you're argumentative demeanor isn't going to score you any points if you don't bring sumpin to back it up. kthanxbai.

    That's not the only definition.

    am⋅pu⋅tate

    1. to cut off (all or part of a limb or digit of the body), as by surgery.
    2. to prune, lop off, or remove: Because of space limitations the editor amputated the last two paragraphs of the news report.
    3. Obsolete. to prune, as branches of trees.

    To cut off (a projecting body part), especially by surgery.
    And what do all those have in common? Complete removal of the limb. BUZZZ...sorry but you fail again.

    But why? Because they are pushing xianity instead of pushing the use of condoms. Condoms are better at preventing STDs than circumcision.
    I think you need to show some citation that the World Health Organization is pushing CHRISTianity. And this isn't a matter of which is better, it is a matter of what are and aren't effective measures. And circumcision is an effective measure. You know...that whole 50% decrease in STD transmission thing. You still haven't refuted the benefits of that.

  4. #414
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,684

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    am⋅pu⋅tate

    1. to cut off (all or part of a limb or digit of the body), as by surgery.
    2. to prune, lop off, or remove: Because of space limitations the editor amputated the last two paragraphs of the news report.
    3. Obsolete. to prune, as branches of trees.
    Because of space limitations in my pants.... I had to cut off my foreskin.

  5. #415
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Last Seen
    06-26-11 @ 04:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    119

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    I think you need to show some citation that the World Health Organization is pushing CHRISTianity. And this isn't a matter of which is better, it is a matter of what are and aren't effective measures. And circumcision is an effective measure. You know...that whole 50% decrease in STD transmission thing. You still haven't refuted the benefits of that.
    and jallman still cannot explain why the circumfetish states of america have one of the highest STD/HIV rates in the world and the highest among the first world nations where intact men are the norm

  6. #416
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 07:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian-bloke View Post
    and jallman still cannot explain why the circumfetish states of america have one of the highest STD/HIV rates in the world and the highest among the first world nations where intact men are the norm
    I'm not spending time answering posts that are full of nothing but hyperbole and hyper emotional rant like "circumfetish states of america".

    Try refuting the world health organization's statistics and data, then get back to me. You've been thoroughly trounced point for point.

  7. #417
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Last Seen
    06-26-11 @ 04:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    119

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    I'm not spending time answering posts that are full of nothing but hyperbole and hyper emotional rant like "circumfetish states of america".

    Try refuting the world health organization's statistics and data, then get back to me. You've been thoroughly trounced point for point.


    try explain why the U.S.A has a high STD rate? where most men are cut from birth?



    istory. In the early part of the Twentieth Century, many doctors formed the opinion that circumcision would reduce the chance of a male contracting sexually transmitted disease (STD). This opinion was based on popular considerations of sexual hygiene. There were no scientific studies or documentary evidence to support this opinion. Regardless, countless males were circumcised by military services of the U.S. and other nations during World Wars I and II in an attempt to reduce the chance that they would contract a STD.

    In a self-published pamphlet, Circumcision: A Parent's Decision for Life, the late circumcisionist Aaron J. Fink made the suggestion that the dried-out, cornified circumcised glans and mucosa would be "tougher," and somehow therefore less prone to infection, than those of intact men. This claim was even published in The New England Journal of Medicine, but, in fact, there is no evidence to support Fink's theory.5,10,13

    Behavior. It is documented that circumcised adult males exhibit a greater tendency to engage in risky sexual behavior. Hooykaas and colleagues reported that circumcised men in the Netherlands engage in more risky sexual behavior and have markedly higher rates of STDs.3 Laumann and colleagues reported more risky sexual behavior amongst circumcised men in the United States and have higher rates of STDs.9 Michael et al. reported more variability in sexual behavior, less condom usage, and more STD amonst the predominantly circumcised population of the United States as compared with the predominantly non-circumcised intact males of the United Kingdom.12

    Immunology. Fleiss et al. have described the many natural immunological protective mechanisms provided by the prepuce against infection.10 The prepuce has many immunological protections against disease.10 These mechanisms may explain why surgically-altered, circumcised men seem to have a greater incidence of many different STDs. Dried-out mucous membranes are more prone to infection than naturally moist ones (which is the reason people tend to get more colds in the wintertime!).

    The foreskin naturally moisturizes the glans penis, keeping it in optimum healthy condition to resist infection. The subpreputial moisture also contains lyzosyme, an enzyme that attacks and destroys the cell walls of bacteria.1,10

    Laumann et al. reviewed data from the National Health and Social Life Survey.9 They found no evidence of a prophylactic role for circumcision. In fact, there was a slight tendency in the opposite direction.9 The absence of the foreskin was significantly associated with bacterial STDs among men who have had many sexual partners in their lifetimes. A rate of 25.4/1000 for chlamydia was found in circumcised men compared with a rate of zero in intact men; herpes was 14.9/1000 in circumcised males compared with 8.1/1000 in intact males.9

    Tanne reported on the epidemic of STD, including herpes, human papillomavirus infection, hepatitis B, and HIV infection in the United States.11 The incidence of STD in the United States is amongst the highest in the industrialized world. This should not be surprising, considering the high incidence of circumcision in the US: According to Laumann et al., data from the National Health and Social Life Survey indicate that, in 1992, of 1511 men surveyed who were between 18 and 59 years of age, 77 percent of U.S. born men were circumcised.9 This high percentage is unique among the industrialized nations.8

    Natural protection. While the entire body of medical literature gives no clear indication one way or the other whether circumcision protects against STD, the more recent studies have shown that the natural intact penis may offer some protection against the contraction of various STDs.2-7, 12, 13 According to Storms:

    Recent studies have demonstrated that circumcised men are at increased risk of contracting gonorrhea, syphilis and genital warts. Men are at equal risk for developing human papillomavirus lesions and herpesvirus infections regardless of circumcision status. At least four studies have shown human immunodeficiency virus infection to occur more commonly in circumcised men.8

    Recent studies have demonstrated that circumcised men are more at risk of contracting urethritis,2 gonorrhea,8 syphilis,9 genital warts4,8 and chlamydia.9 Cook discovered that, when genital warts occur in intact males, they tend to occur near the distal (tip) end of the penis4--the region where the foreskin's protection would be least effective.

    Van Howe's survey of the medical literature is recommended. Van Howe concludes that:

    The only consistent trend is that uncircumcised males may be more susceptible to GUD, while circumcised men are more prone to urethritis. Currently, in developed nations, urethritis is more common than GUD [genital ulcer disease]. In summary, the medical literature does not support the theory that circumcision prevents STDs.13

    Longitudinal studies. The Dunedin study of a cohort of New Zealand children born in 1972. This cohort, who are now adults, have been studied since birth. The males in the group included both non-circumcised and circumcised male. 201 or 40.3 percent were circumcised. The Dickson et al. found no relationship between circumcision status and HPV infection. in that cohort15 In a second study of that cohort through age 32, Dickson et al. found more STDs in circumcised men although the difference was not statistically significant.17 There were 24.4 STD infections per 1000 person-years among the circumcised group and 23.4 STD infections per 1000 person-years among the non-circumcised group. Non-circumcision, therefore, appeared to confer some slight degree of protection in that cohort of New Zealand men.16

    Cross-sectional studies. Cross-sectional studies have been carried out in the United States,9 the United Kingdom,14 and Australia16 to determine the effects of circumcision upon STDs. All studies have found no significant effect of circumcision on the incidence of STD. Laumann et al. reported that circumcised men are slightly more likely to have both a bacterial and a viral STD in their lifetime.9 The British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles reported that circumcised males have slightly more STDs but the difference was not judged to be statistically significant.14 Richters et al. found that non-circumcised men are slightly more likely to have penile candidiasis (yeast).17

    Conclusion. The evidence does not support non-therapeutic circumcision to prevent STD infection. On balance, non-circumcision is to be preferred because of the freedom from complications and other adverse effects.

    Circumcision Status and STD

  8. #418
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Last Seen
    06-26-11 @ 04:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    119

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Circumcision in the United States

    research which shows circ does not reduce STD risks

    CONCLUSION

    While NHSLS results do not lead clear support to either side of the circumcision debate, they make a significant contribution to our knowledge regarding the potential risks and benefits of circumcision. In addition to documenting the prevalence of circumcision across various social groups, we have discovered that circumcision provides no discernible prophylactic benefit and may in fact increase the likelihood of STD contraction; that circumcised men have a slightly lessened risk of experiencing sexual dysfunction, especially among older men; and that circumcised men displayed a greater rates of experience of various sexual practices. While evidence regarding STD experience contributes to ongoing debates, our results concerning sexual dysfunction suggest the need for continued research that should further aid parents in weighing the benefits and risks of circumcising their sons.

  9. #419
    Tart with a Heart
    StandUpChuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    07-29-11 @ 11:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,188

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Nasty females also produce smegma.
    Fixed it for ya.

    I didn't mean to thank you for that, but the remove thanks button is MIA.
    Quote Originally Posted by soccerboy22 View Post
    You guys are weird.

  10. #420
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    67,077

    Re: Call for higher circumcision rate

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian-bloke View Post
    try explain why the U.S.A has a high STD rate? where most men are cut from birth?



    istory. In the early part of the Twentieth Century, many doctors formed the opinion that circumcision would reduce the chance of a male contracting sexually transmitted disease (STD). This opinion was based on popular considerations of sexual hygiene. There were no scientific studies or documentary evidence to support this opinion. Regardless, countless males were circumcised by military services of the U.S. and other nations during World Wars I and II in an attempt to reduce the chance that they would contract a STD.

    In a self-published pamphlet, Circumcision: A Parent's Decision for Life, the late circumcisionist Aaron J. Fink made the suggestion that the dried-out, cornified circumcised glans and mucosa would be "tougher," and somehow therefore less prone to infection, than those of intact men. This claim was even published in The New England Journal of Medicine, but, in fact, there is no evidence to support Fink's theory.5,10,13

    Behavior. It is documented that circumcised adult males exhibit a greater tendency to engage in risky sexual behavior. Hooykaas and colleagues reported that circumcised men in the Netherlands engage in more risky sexual behavior and have markedly higher rates of STDs.3 Laumann and colleagues reported more risky sexual behavior amongst circumcised men in the United States and have higher rates of STDs.9 Michael et al. reported more variability in sexual behavior, less condom usage, and more STD amonst the predominantly circumcised population of the United States as compared with the predominantly non-circumcised intact males of the United Kingdom.12

    Immunology. Fleiss et al. have described the many natural immunological protective mechanisms provided by the prepuce against infection.10 The prepuce has many immunological protections against disease.10 These mechanisms may explain why surgically-altered, circumcised men seem to have a greater incidence of many different STDs. Dried-out mucous membranes are more prone to infection than naturally moist ones (which is the reason people tend to get more colds in the wintertime!).

    The foreskin naturally moisturizes the glans penis, keeping it in optimum healthy condition to resist infection. The subpreputial moisture also contains lyzosyme, an enzyme that attacks and destroys the cell walls of bacteria.1,10

    Laumann et al. reviewed data from the National Health and Social Life Survey.9 They found no evidence of a prophylactic role for circumcision. In fact, there was a slight tendency in the opposite direction.9 The absence of the foreskin was significantly associated with bacterial STDs among men who have had many sexual partners in their lifetimes. A rate of 25.4/1000 for chlamydia was found in circumcised men compared with a rate of zero in intact men; herpes was 14.9/1000 in circumcised males compared with 8.1/1000 in intact males.9

    Tanne reported on the epidemic of STD, including herpes, human papillomavirus infection, hepatitis B, and HIV infection in the United States.11 The incidence of STD in the United States is amongst the highest in the industrialized world. This should not be surprising, considering the high incidence of circumcision in the US: According to Laumann et al., data from the National Health and Social Life Survey indicate that, in 1992, of 1511 men surveyed who were between 18 and 59 years of age, 77 percent of U.S. born men were circumcised.9 This high percentage is unique among the industrialized nations.8

    Natural protection. While the entire body of medical literature gives no clear indication one way or the other whether circumcision protects against STD, the more recent studies have shown that the natural intact penis may offer some protection against the contraction of various STDs.2-7, 12, 13 According to Storms:

    Recent studies have demonstrated that circumcised men are at increased risk of contracting gonorrhea, syphilis and genital warts. Men are at equal risk for developing human papillomavirus lesions and herpesvirus infections regardless of circumcision status. At least four studies have shown human immunodeficiency virus infection to occur more commonly in circumcised men.8

    Recent studies have demonstrated that circumcised men are more at risk of contracting urethritis,2 gonorrhea,8 syphilis,9 genital warts4,8 and chlamydia.9 Cook discovered that, when genital warts occur in intact males, they tend to occur near the distal (tip) end of the penis4--the region where the foreskin's protection would be least effective.

    Van Howe's survey of the medical literature is recommended. Van Howe concludes that:

    The only consistent trend is that uncircumcised males may be more susceptible to GUD, while circumcised men are more prone to urethritis. Currently, in developed nations, urethritis is more common than GUD [genital ulcer disease]. In summary, the medical literature does not support the theory that circumcision prevents STDs.13

    Longitudinal studies. The Dunedin study of a cohort of New Zealand children born in 1972. This cohort, who are now adults, have been studied since birth. The males in the group included both non-circumcised and circumcised male. 201 or 40.3 percent were circumcised. The Dickson et al. found no relationship between circumcision status and HPV infection. in that cohort15 In a second study of that cohort through age 32, Dickson et al. found more STDs in circumcised men although the difference was not statistically significant.17 There were 24.4 STD infections per 1000 person-years among the circumcised group and 23.4 STD infections per 1000 person-years among the non-circumcised group. Non-circumcision, therefore, appeared to confer some slight degree of protection in that cohort of New Zealand men.16

    Cross-sectional studies. Cross-sectional studies have been carried out in the United States,9 the United Kingdom,14 and Australia16 to determine the effects of circumcision upon STDs. All studies have found no significant effect of circumcision on the incidence of STD. Laumann et al. reported that circumcised men are slightly more likely to have both a bacterial and a viral STD in their lifetime.9 The British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles reported that circumcised males have slightly more STDs but the difference was not judged to be statistically significant.14 Richters et al. found that non-circumcised men are slightly more likely to have penile candidiasis (yeast).17

    Conclusion. The evidence does not support non-therapeutic circumcision to prevent STD infection. On balance, non-circumcision is to be preferred because of the freedom from complications and other adverse effects.

    Circumcision Status and STD
    Moderator's Warning:
    Call for higher circumcision ratePlease observe the fair use policy. Only copy one or two paragraphs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The Amish are light-years ahead of the rest of the human race.



Page 42 of 61 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •