• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Call for higher circumcision rate

Position Statements of Medical Societies in English-Speaking Countries

Position Statements of Medical Societies
in English-Speaking Countries




2003 British Medical Association

“The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view. . . . Parental preference must be weighed in terms of the child's interests. . . . The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. . . . Some doctors may wish to not perform circumcisions for reasons of conscience. Doctors are under no obligation to comply with a request to circumcise a child.”

2002 Royal Australasian College of Physicians

“After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision. The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. . . . Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure.”

2002 Canadian Paediatric Society (reaffirmed 1996 position)

“Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”

2000 American Medical Association

“The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.”

1999 American Academy of Pediatrics

“Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”

1996 Australian College of Paediatrics

“The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons has informed the College that ‘neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce [foreskin].’ ”

1996 Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons

“We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce [foreskin]....The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that ‘State parties should take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.’ ”


Circumcision and HIV

National medical organizations unanimously find no proven medical benefit for circumcision and do not recommend it

Anything more recent than half a decade old or more? The Bulletin by the WHO was from 2008 and the 25 year study listed earlier was from the same year.

I'd like to keep this discussion about current events and not ancient history as the science community times things. :2wave:
 
Finland

The Central Union for Child Welfare considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person.
 
You know what they do with the foreskins after they cut them off?


They plant them to Chicago to grow giant pricks like me.
 
Finland

The Central Union for Child Welfare considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person.

Also, what I am seeing is that this isn't about whether or not circumcision has a benefit; it's about consent issues; an entirely different set of issues.
 
Human Foreskins are Big Business for Cosmetics

In the business of vanity almost anything goes. Creams, lotions, and cosmetics are reported to be made out many things that most people would be repulsed by. Fish scales in lipsticks, cow placenta in anti-aging products, crushed female cochineal insects in shampoo, and human foreskin in
face cream.

Foreskin fibroblasts are used to grow and cultivate new cells that are then used for a variety of purposes. From the fibroblasts new skin for burn victims can be grown, skin to cover diabetic ulcers, and controversially it is also used to make cosmetic creams and collagens. One foreskin can be used for decades to grow $100,000 worth of fibroblasts.

Debate is growing over the ethics of using human foreskins for cosmetic purposes. One such cosmetic company, SkinMedica is raising a stir over their use of the growth hormone left over from growing artificial skin from foreskin fibroblasts. Dr. Fitzpatrick, who invented SkinMedica, works with a supplier that uses foreskin fibroblast to make injectable collagen. The foreskins that he receives the growth hormone for are used especially for cosmetics rather than for growing new skin for medical patients

Human Foreskins are Big Business for Cosmetics - Associated Content
 
You know what they do with the foreskins after they cut them off?


They plant them to Chicago to grow giant pricks like me.

I thought they made wallets out of them that when rubbed, become duffel bags.
 
Can we all agree on 1 thing:

The foreskin is there for a reason, whatever that reason may be, God or whatever put it there for a reason.

Whether it has been chopped off or not, just pledge this oath:

I will use my penis to the best of my ability. I will use it morally and ethically. I will cuddle with it. I will snuggle with it. I will hold it at varying lenghts of time in public places and in private, that will make some feel uncomfortable. I will name him like a pet. I will see to it that he is well covered in any athletic sporting event. I will tell him size doesnt matter. I will tell him on good days how long he is and on bad days how I wished it was a good day again. I will scratch his brothers on a daily basis, hourly if possible. This I pledge, that this is my penis and my penis is part of me and I a part of it. Amen.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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:
Please observe the fair use policy. Only copy one or two paragraphs.
 
try explain why the U.S.A has a high STD rate? where most men are cut from birth?

Don't need to. A higher STD infection in America does not negate circumcision decreasing STD infection in studies. It doesn't even make a correlation, let alone a causation.

So, again, you fail.
 
Don't need to. A higher STD infection in America does not negate circumcision decreasing STD infection in studies. It doesn't even make a correlation, let alone a causation.

So, again, you fail.

translation i am so obsessed with cutting off the foreskin that i am unable to say why circumcising U.S.A has a high rate of STDs whuile intact Japan and Europe have lower rates
 
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.



study on circumcising U.S.A
 
translation i am so obsessed with cutting off the foreskin that i am unable to say why circumcising U.S.A has a high rate of STDs whuile intact Japan and Europe have lower rates

Your translation skills are greatly lacking.

You are unable to make the argument that STD transmission in the US is directly related to circumcision rates, except that studies have proven STD rates are lower in circumcised men.

So perhaps, it's other factors. DERRRRR. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom