• 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!

Should male circumcision be banned?

Should male circumcision be banned?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 21.2%

  • No

    Votes: 41 78.8%

  • Yes, but allow a clause for religious beliefs.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    52
Goshin said:
Like hell it isn't. So there. :lol:
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you definition of nanny state is if you think that protecting people from an act that is guaranteed to cause bodily harm is a nanny state action. Why don't you explain it so we can move on.


I'm glad we've kept to the high road here, and maintained a lofty intellectual tone to the debate. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I'm not one to give effort when none is given. If you want this to be a one sided intellectual debate where your opponent offers all signs of intelligence have it with someone else.
 
Henrin said:
I have no idea what you definition of nanny state is if you think that protecting people from an act that is guaranteed to cause bodily harm is a nanny state action. Why don't you explain it so we can move on.
Click to expand...
Male circumcision elicits no harmful effects. Not a word from you however on things that really are potentially harmful to the body such as repetitive cosmetic surgery, liposuction gone bad, tanning beds, etc.
 
Tashah said:
Male circumcision elicits no harmful effects.
Click to expand...

It desensitizes the glans of the penis and interferes with its ability to produce adequate lubrication.

Tashah said:
Not a word from you however on things that really are potentially harmful to the body such as repetitive cosmetic surgery, liposuction gone bad, tanning beds, etc.
Click to expand...

If adults want to do that to themselves, then by all means they should be allowed to, but they shouldn't be allowed to impose those things upon their children.
 
Tashah said:
Male circumcision elicits no harmful effects. Not a word from you however on things that really are potentially harmful to the body such as repetitive cosmetic surgery, liposuction gone bad, tanning beds, etc.
Click to expand...

Why is only one side in this thread actually attempting to have a discussion and the other side just wants to deflect everything?
 
It's genital mutilation, and what's worse: people blindly believe studies telling them that this procedure protects them from STDs.

I don't think it should be banned. But it shouldn't be encouraged, either.
 
DashingAmerican said:
I didn't insert an insult, I just agreed with it.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry for my mistake. Agreeing with an insult makes you a follower in this case. And, your correct, it's not as bad a being a leader. Sorry again for the equate.
 
OscarB63 said:
I've been trying to tell Tucker the same damn thing in another thread. apparently he thinks "scientific studies" are infallible.
Click to expand...

That's nothing at all like you were telling me.

In fact, a review of the methodology was exactly the reason I gave for judging a study. You wish to claim they are wrong simply because you disagree with tehm. Big difference.

So please stop lying about our discussions when I'm not around. It's petty and childish.

P.S. Now I am calling you a liar because I can prove that it is true.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
These "studies" have been highly criticized and discredited because of their methodological problems. For example, they did not complete their study. They just stopped as soon as they got the data they were looking for.

And even if it was true its still insignificant protection. Condoms and other prophylactics provide real, measurable, protection whereas circumcision does not.
Click to expand...

Somebody could try to refute this statement. That would be interesting.
 
From the CDC. Let me note that again........From the CDC.

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4].

As I said early on, if you are even vaguely aware with the nuts and bolts you can understand why this would be.

A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [5]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

It would appear that these studies were concluded and pretty thorough.

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS
 
I am still pretty astonished at how emotional and downright vicious some people get over this issue. Particularly baffling is that many of the most irate don't have a penis! :doh:


WTH is the big deal? Let those who want to do it, do it; those who don't, don't.

I mean WTF? My parents had me circumcised at birth; I don't give a ****. My son was circumcised at birth; he's never had any problems. Times when I've had to use communal showers or common changing rooms, something like 95% of the men appeared to be circumcised as far as I noticed, and I've yet to meet a single man who's told me it caused him problems or he wished he hadn't been.

If you don't like it, don't do it. Dayum.
 
scourge99 said:
Have you even bothered to look into the matter?
Circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
I have. I am a Doctor/Doctora licensed in the United States/Israel. The application of local anesthesia profoundly minimizes procedural pain. Medical complications post-circumcision are typically confined to blood loss and infection. The incidence of such complications in Western populations is below that of other minor surgical procedures such as body-piercings. The inclusion of statistics from third-world populations heightens/skewers the global complications-curve due to the high probabilities of local practitioners (not licensed) and unsanitary conditions.

I have never encountered sexual complaints from a male due to circumcision. Although three out of every four men in the Middle East have been circumcised, erectile functionality and fertility are not compromised. Birthrates throughout the region remain very high.
 
Goshin said:
I am still pretty astonished at how emotional and downright vicious some people get over this issue. Particularly baffling is that many of the most irate don't have a penis! :doh:


WTH is the big deal? Let those who want to do it, do it; those who don't, don't.

I mean WTF? My parents had me circumcised at birth; I don't give a ****. My son was circumcised at birth; he's never had any problems. Times when I've had to use communal showers or common changing rooms, something like 95% of the men appeared to be circumcised as far as I noticed, and I've yet to meet a single man who's told me it caused him problems or he wished he hadn't been.

If you don't like it, don't do it. Dayum.
Click to expand...

I avoided this thread for 200 posts because wtf do I care, and you posted exactly what I was thinking. LOL!
 
A lot of what you say I have no disagreement with and instead focus on the matters I had brought up previously that have been ignored by circumcisions advocates.

Shayah said:
I have. I am a Doctor/Doctora licensed in the United States/Israel.
Click to expand...
Your specialty being?

Do you currently or have you previously performed circumcisions? If not, at what date and from where did you obtain your information on this matter?

Shayah said:
The application of local anesthesia profoundly minimizes procedural pain.
Click to expand...
Yes, it reduces the pain for an entirely unnecessary procedure. I'm sure if we wanted to remove the toenails of babies we could also do so pain-free with local anesthetics. The point is that there is no MEDICALLY NECESSARY reason to do it except in extremely rare cases.

Shayah said:
Medical complications post-circumcision are typically confined to blood loss and infection.
Click to expand...
Yes, the most TYPICAL complications are. As in, the complications that most commonly occur. There are far more complications that occur, some quite devastating to the sexual life of the individual all because of an MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY surgery.

Keeping with the toenail analogy, I'm sure we could become quite proficient in toenail removal with minimal complications. But its would still be an UNNECESSARY EVASIVE medical procedure.

Shayah said:
The incidence of such complications in Western populations is below that of other minor surgical procedures such as body-piercings.
Click to expand...
Can you back that up? Are these body piercings performed by medical professionals? If not, isn't that comparing apples to oranges because medical professionals are subject to much more stringent standards of sanitation and oversight than places that perform body-piercings?

That is, if circumcisions were allowed in the same places as body piercings were with staff with similar minimal training, do you honestly think that the rate of complications from circumcisions would remain the same?

Shayah said:
The inclusion of statistics from third-world populations heightens/skewers the global complications-curve due to the high probabilities of local practitioners (not licensed) and unsanitary conditions.
Click to expand...
Even more reason why this MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY surgery should NOT be performed.

Shayah said:
I have never encountered sexual complaints from a male due to circumcision.
Click to expand...
Which tells us what exactly? It appears you are attempting to pass off your anecdotal experiences as legitimate research and study. Is this same thought process how you come to conclusions on other medical matters as a doctor?

Shayah said:
Although three out of every four men in the Middle East have been circumcised, erectile functionality and fertility are not compromised. Birthrates throughout the region remain very high.
Click to expand...

http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/csai-99.pdf
page 17; Neonatal Circumcision
Conclusions. Although potential medical benefits are associated with newborn male
circumcision, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine performance of this procedure
on medical grounds. However, in the United States, parental decision-making appears to be
based on social and cultural rather than medical concerns. When the decision is made to proceed
with circumcision, local anesthesia should be provided for the procedure.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following statements, recommended by the Council on Scientific Affairs, were adopted by the
AMA House of Delegates as AMA policy at the 1999 AMA Interim Meeting.
1. The AMA encourages training programs for pediatricians, obstetricians, and family
physicians to incorporate information on the use of local pain control techniques for
neonatal circumcision.
2. The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of
the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence
demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these
data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in
which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the
child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the
child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate
and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a
decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.
3. The AMA urges that as part of the informed consent discussion, the risks and benefits of
pain control techniques for circumcision be thoroughly discussed to aid parents in making
their decisions.
Click to expand...


Neonatal Circumcision Revisited
Conclusions

We undertook this literature review to consider whether the CPS should change its position on routine neonatal circumcision from that stated in 1982. The review led us to conclude the following.

There is evidence that circumcision results in an approximately 12-fold reduction in the incidence of UTI during infancy. The overall incidence of UTI in male infants appears to be 1% to 2%.
The incidence rate of the complications of circumcision reported in published articles varies, but it is generally in the order of 0.2% to 2%. Most complications are minor, but occasionally serious complications occur. There is a need for good epidemiological data on the incidence of the surgical complications of circumcision, of the later complications of circumcision and of problems associated with lack of circumcision.
Evaluation of alternative methods of preventing UTI in infancy is required.
More information on the effect of simple hygienic interventions is needed.
Information is required on the incidence of circumcision that is truly needed in later childhood.
There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission. However, there is inadequate information to recommend circumcision as a public health measure to prevent these diseases.
When circumcision is performed, appropriate attention needs to be paid to pain relief.
The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed.
When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and harms. Their decision may ultimately be based on personal, religious or cultural factors.
Click to expand...
 
scourge99 said:
A lot of what you say I have no disagreement with and instead focus on the matters I had brought up previously that have been ignored by circumcisions advocates.


Your specialty being?

Do you currently or have you previously performed circumcisions? If not, at what date and from where did you obtain your information on this matter?


Yes, it reduces the pain for an entirely unnecessary procedure. I'm sure if we wanted to remove the toenails of babies we could also do so pain-free with local anesthetics. The point is that there is no MEDICALLY NECESSARY reason to do it except in extremely rare cases.


Yes, the most TYPICAL complications are. As in, the complications that most commonly occur. There are far more complications that occur, some quite devastating to the sexual life of the individual all because of an MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY surgery.

Keeping with the toenail analogy, I'm sure we could become quite proficient in toenail removal with minimal complications. But its would still be an UNNECESSARY EVASIVE medical procedure.


Can you back that up? Are these body piercings performed by medical professionals? If not, isn't that comparing apples to oranges because medical professionals are subject to much more stringent standards of sanitation and oversight than places that perform body-piercings?

That is, if circumcisions were allowed in the same places as body piercings were with staff with similar minimal training, do you honestly think that the rate of complications from circumcisions would remain the same?


Even more reason why this MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY surgery should NOT be performed.


Which tells us what exactly? It appears you are attempting to pass off your anecdotal experiences as legitimate research and study. Is this same thought process how you come to conclusions on other medical matters as a doctor?



http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/csai-99.pdf
page 17; Neonatal Circumcision



Neonatal Circumcision Revisited
Click to expand...

Ok, so by that logic, no more boob jobs or liposuction, etc because they are medically unnecessary.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Ok, so by that logic, no more boob jobs or liposuction, etc because they are medically unnecessary.
Click to expand...

I would certainly hope that people wouldn't do that to newborn children unless its medically necessary.
 
Last edited:
BAsically what that all boiled down to was the AMA stating that while there are benefits, in the U.S. they are not recommending that doctors routinely ush the procedure. I don't disagree with that. It should be the parents decision in most cases.

Of course, based upon the CDC article I posted, they may want to rethink that if they are talking about what's the best avenue to take in certan other countries with very high incidents of sexually transmitted diseases.
 
Henrin said:
Understanding how the penis functions is more important than what you remember.
Click to expand...

Granted I'm only on page 5 of 22 (at time of post) but you have yet to show any evidence as to your assertion that circumcision causes loss of sensation over time. The study would have to show a comparison of circumcised and uncircumcised men across at least the country if not across the world to counter the possibility of simply age being the cause and regional "pollutants" (for lack of a better term) being the cause.

As for my personal opinion at this time, I can understand a law that bans the practice on any non-adult. You are basically forcing a permanent religious decision (in most cases) on someone before they can make an informed decision about it. Even forced attendances at a religious institution can be reversed. Circumcision cannot. However, the practice should not be banned in and of itself. For that matter, if an adult female wants to get a circumcision as well, then by all means, go for it.
 
scourge99 said:
I would certainly hope that people wouldn't do that to newborn children unless its medically necessary.
Click to expand...

when is a boob job or liposucition EVER a medical necessity?
 
While most people think boob jobs are for enlargement only, I know a couple of women who had to have reduction surgery and one who had an enlargement job because one breast was larger than the other (the larger one was increased slightly and the smaller one made to match otherwise shape would have been off).
 
SPC said:
The main issue seems to be the pain, but it has also been discovered that women with husbands who are not circumcised have a greater chance of getting vaginal and kidney infections, particularly by the males who don't clean underneath the foreskin.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be better then to focus education to improve the hygiene of men than performing an unnecessary operation simply because some fathers are too lazy to teach their sons how to wield a bar of soap.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Ok, so by that logic, no more boob jobs or liposuction, etc because they are medically unnecessary.
Click to expand...

boob jobs and lipo are elective surgeries undertaken by adults who make a choice to have them.

A baby boy can't elect to anything like that so your analogy falls flat.
 
Baltim said:
A baby boy can't elect to anything like that so your analogy falls flat.
Click to expand...

dead horse time: an unborn child can't elect to be aborted either, but many of the same people pissing themselves over circumcision have no problems with abortion. :shrug:
 
maquiscat said:
While most people think boob jobs are for enlargement only, I know a couple of women who had to have reduction surgery and one who had an enlargement job because one breast was larger than the other (the larger one was increased slightly and the smaller one made to match otherwise shape would have been off).
Click to expand...

One being larger than the other one wouldn't bother me. If you're not getting enough of one, the go to the other and if you're getting too much of that one then go to the smaller one. No problem there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom