- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
Your link is from Joe Blows website. He doesn't even cite sources. Does he just pull it out of his ass?
Please cite the source that says
1) "Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection". How does that compare to non-circumsiced?
2) "young adult circumcision gives a large degree of protection"
According to VERIFIABLE research and not Joe Blows website:
Meta-analyses by Van Howe and Bosch et al. of observational studies reached differing conclusions as to whether circumcision reduces infection with human papillomavirus (HPV)
From what I see its UNKNOWN why circumcised men have a lower rate of HIV reception.
Studies evaluating the effect of circumcision on the incidence of other sexually transmitted infections have reached conflicting conclusions. A meta-analysis of observational data from twenty-six studies found that circumcision was associated with lower rates of syphilis, chancroid and possibly genital herpes. A large randomized prospective trial in Uganda found a reduction in HSV-2 infection, but not syphilis infection, in the circumcision arm of the study. In contrast, some studies have failed to find a prophylactic benefit to circumcision. A prospective trial in India found that circumcision offered no protective benefit against herpes simplex virus type 2, syphilis, or gonorrhea. A clinical study of 5,925 women from Uganda, Zimbabwe and Thailand found that the circumcision status of their partner did not significantly affect the incidence of Chlamydia, gonorrhea or trichomoniasis. Laumann et al. examined observational data from the United States and found no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.
6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.
Here is actual data with sources from wiki:
[I]The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: " there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene."
An inflammation of the glans penis and foreskin is called balanoposthitis; that affecting the glans alone is called balanitis. Both conditions are usually treated with topical antibiotics (metronidazole cream) and antifungals (clotrimazole cream) or low-potency steroid creams. Although not as necessary as in the past, circumcision may be considered for recurrent or resistant cases. Escala and Rickwood recommend against a policy of routine infant circumcision to avoid balanitis saying that the condition affects no more than 4% of boys, does not cause pathological phimosis, and in most cases is not serious.
Fergusson studied 500 boys and found that by 8 years, the circumcised children had a rate of 11.1 problems per 100 children, and the uncircumcised children had a rate of 18.8 per 100. During infancy, circumcised children were found to have a significantly higher risk of problems than uncircumcised children, but after infancy the rate of penile problems was significantly higher among the uncircumcised. Fergusson et al. said that the great majority of penile problems were relatively minor (penile inflammation including balanitis, meatitis, and inflammation of the prepuce) and most (64%) were resolved after a single medical consultation. Herzog and Alverez found the overall frequency of complications (including balanitis, irritation, adhesions, phimosis, and paraphimosis) to be higher among the uncircumcised children; again, most of the problems were minor. In a study of 398 randomly selected dermatology students, Fakjian et al. reported: "Balanitis was diagnosed in 2.3% of circumcised men and in 12.5% of uncircumcised men." In a study of 225 men, O'Farrell et al. reported: "Overall, circumcised men were less likely to be diagnosed with a STI/balanitis (51% and 35%, P = 0.021) than those non-circumcised." Van Howe found that circumcised penises required more care in the first 3 months of life, and that circumcised boys are more likely to develop balanitis.
The American Medical Association states that circumcision, properly performed, protects against the development of phimosis. Rickwood and other authors have argued that many infant circumcisions are performed unnecessarily for developmental non-retractability of the prepuce rather than for pathological phimosis. Metcalfe et al. stated that "Gairdner and Oster made a strong case for leaving boys uncircumcised, allowing the natural separation of the foreskin from the glans to take place gradually, and instructing boys in proper hygiene. This obviates the need for 'preventive' circumcision." In a study to determine the most cost-effective treatment for phimosis, Van Howe concluded that using cream was 75% more cost-effective than circumcision at treating pathological phimosis.
A meta-analysis of 12 studies (one randomised controlled trial, four cohort studies and seven case-control studies) representing 402,908 children determined that circumcision was associated with a significantly reduced risk of urinary tract infection (UTI). However, the authors noted that only 1% of boys with normal urinary tract function experience a UTI, and the number-needed-to treat (number of circumcisions necessary) to prevent one urinary tract infection was calculated to be 111. Because haemorrhage and infection are the commonest complications of circumcision, occurring at rate of about 2%, assuming equal utility of benefits and harms, the authors concluded that the net clinical benefit of circumcision is only likely in boys at high risk of urinary tract infection (such as those with high grade vesicoureteral reflux or a history of recurrent UTIs, where the number needed to treat declined to 11 and 4, respectively).
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. 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.
As with any medical procedure, the benefits must be weighed against the risks. So far AngryAmerican has only shown the benefits of circumcision and the risks of non-circumcision while conveniently ignoring or cherry-picking out the risks of circumcision.
Circumcision is a fairly safe procedure if done by a qualified medical professional but there are risks and complications DO occur.
Here are the risks of circumcision:
* Infection, ranging from minor to life threatening.
* Irritation of the exposed tip of the penis (glans) as a result of contact with stool or urine.
* Permanent damage to the opening of the urethra, which leads from the bladder to the tip of the penis (meatal stenosis).
* Scarring of the penis from infection or surgical error. For example: The entire foreskin may not be removed, leaving portions of it attached to the penis (skin bridge). This may cause pain during erection.
* Scar tissue can grow outward toward the tip of the penis from the cut edge of the foreskin. Repeat surgery on the penis may be required to improve appearance or to allow normal passage of urine if the opening from the bladder has been blocked by this scar tissue.
* The outer skin layer (or layers) of the penis may be removed accidentally.
* An opening that is too small for the foreskin to retract over the penis (phimosis) can happen if too little foreskin is removed.
* A complete removal of the skin covering the shaft of the penis, causing the penis to appear to have been completely surgically removed.
* Too much bleeding. Stitches may be needed to stop the bleeding.
* Partial or full removal (amputation) of the tip of the penis. (This is extremely rare.)
* reduced sexual pleasure
Circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Overall, it appears the only rational reasons for circumcision are as follows:
1) A young boy is highly susceptible to UTIs (such as those with high grade vesicoureteral reflux or a history of recurrent UTIs.
2) you live in an area with an HIV epidemic where safe sex is not practiced or access to condoms is not available or limited.
3) Its part of your religion.
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher
Originally, the accusation was that Jewish doctors established the practice as standard procedure in America, to eliminate circumsicion as a means of identifying Jews, in the wake of the Holocaust. I've been told that in anti-Semitic countries, circumsicion isn't SOP.
Last edited by scourge99; 04-28-11 at 06:24 PM.
I would back this 100% if it were for women and girls because that is barbaric, no to mention it's part a Cult ritual.
I support this law, but it won't last a month until it's swatted down in court and everyone who actually believes in circumcision is going to go right out and get it done.
This is a waste of taxpayer time and money.