Slashdot Mirror
US Doctors Back Circumcision
ananyo writes "On 27 August, a report by the American Academy of Pediatrics concludes for the first time that, overall, boys will be healthier if circumcised. The report says that although the choice is ultimately up to parents, medical insurance should pay for the procedure. The recommendation, coming from such an influential body, could boost U.S. circumcision rates, which, at 55%, are already higher than much of the developed world. The researchers estimate that each circumcision that is not performed costs the U.S. health-care system $313."
Lies and nonsense designed to prop up the > $240,000,000 per year industry that has been gradually waning.
The US has a health care system? This is news to me.
We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.
Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?
Leave all minors alone. Let them decide when they turn 18.
We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone. -management
;)
Is that over the price of doing the surgery?
Because from what I could find, it's in the 2-3k range; so if you have to pay $2000 to save $313, that might not be the best idea.
$313 is a small price to pay to not have one's privates butchered.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
Circumcision ensures that males won't become slaves to their women.
Uncircumcised men suffer an overwhelming psychological adjustment in response to their first orgasm, which is basically a move from basically no stimulation to overwhelming stimulation in one shot. It creates a deep-seated psychological addiction to femininity, which drives them to spend the rest of their lives sacrificing whatever their women demand in order to get their fix.
Cricumcised men, however, have mild but constant stimulation basically all the time (since they wear clothing that rubs against the sensitive bit as they walk and so on), so their first orgasm isn't nearly as overwhelming, and so the addiction is not nearly so strong, and so the men retain a much greater portion of their independent will after the experience.
No, I don't have a citation. Because I just made all this up. Ha ha, you read it!
Just practice good hygiene. How about we don't mutilate anyone's private parts against their will?
...is that they harp on the issues of UTIs and STDs/STIs. Those are things that are easily avoidable, and not at all the fault of having a foreskin. If baby gets a UTI, mommy and daddy need to do a better job cleaning baby up and cleaning baby sooner. If, as a man, the person has issues with STDs/STIs, well gee stop being a moron having unprotected/risky sex Einstein.
Trying to lump the added medical costs is the same. The costs brought on are not due to the foreskin, they are due to the creators of the baby, and/or the owner of the penis.
US women greatly prefer circumcised penises over non circumcised penises. That's reason enough for me!
I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know? As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.
It becomes mandatory. Hey while you're under the knife, let's get rid of our tonsils and appendix. Can you live without a spleen? OUT! That extra kidney... Mine! Let's see, you really don't need ALL of your intestines, or your stomach.. We can cut down obesity that way. Let's cure colon cancer by taking out everybody's colon and leave them with a colostomy bag. All prostates to be removed when you turn 40..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Removing the penis completely will provide significant savings in:
- UTI/STD related treatments
- Contraceptive costs
- Pregnancy related expenses
The problem is sex education in this country. How about leaving the foreskin and teaching boys how to take care of themselves and what to avoid?
Teach how to wash it, or have some doctor chop it.
Yeah, I see how genital mutilation is a much easier solution.
"Perhaps the most powerful evidence in favour of circumcision comes from randomized controlled trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda."
Nope...I don't see "USA" in there. I'll pass.
Let's calm down and get a grip.
I'll give all of you a good tip:
It's a boy? Then rejoice
but leave it his choice.
Avoid giving your son the snip.
Skeptical Limericks
As a man that suffers from sever penile insensitivity, presumably from my circumcision (which became infected due to poor practices at the hospital), I believe it is a useless, barbaric practice, almost akin to clitordectomies. Clitordectomies, by the way, are also known as female circumcisions. Coincidence?
If you want some of the truth about what a circumcision actually does I suggest reading the following:
http://www.norm.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration
Silence is a state of mime.
Shouldn't the creationists be against altering something that was clearly part of God's Great Design(TM)?
Oh right, most of them actually *support* circumcision. Bunch of hypocrites.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Nice to see that doctors take into account the fact that people lose sensitivity, suffer more from painful intercourse/ED, and not just the healthcare cost. Oh wait...
I'm forfeiting a mod point for this, sorry to whoever I modded up... The actual abstract of the actual paper backing up this claim (BOLD IS MINE):
IOW, no, we're not recommending anything, we're simply saying there are POTENTIAL medical benefits. Well there are potential medical benefits to getting my appendix removed, or my tonsils cut out, it doesn't mean I should be forced to make that decision.
Stupid journalists, we need to seriously trim the fat in that industry and start with these jackasses who misrepresent science for political gain.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
"And if you want to become an Islamic radical and are ready to be circumcised, I invite you to Moscow. We are a multi-faith country and we have experts who can do it. And I would advise them to carry out that operation in such a way that nothing would grow in that place again."
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
Chopping off a piece of your body is an excellent way to prevent health problems. Now, why limit this to health problems? How about we prevent people from committing crimes by chopping off their hands at birth. I bet we'd have a lot less shoplifters. Worried about accidently pregnancy? A penectomy for all should do it! Worried about peeping toms? I think enucleation is at something to look, if I have the right word.
Seriously, how about waiting until the child is a bit older to see if the boy wants to "look like daddy"? Unless someone has a religious belief, I don't think it's a good idea to be doing this on babies. So what if it's "slighty healthier"? So what if it "reduces the chances of getting HIV"? It's part of someone's body, a part that doesn't grow back.
but when I have an erection the foreskin is stretched tight. I don't see how it can possibly cause any pumping action to remove sperm.
The biased studies that were performed on guys in Africa who couldn't have sex for a while while they were healing, but the control group was still banging away. Then they stop the study when they get the result they want, but the trend was that the two groups were getting very close to each other. If they would have gone for a year, it might have been a lot smaller percent, but it wouldn't have been a good headline. They should also do medical studies in the US/Europe, which doesn't show the same pattern I bet.
Yes, even the doctors are biased because they are making millions for doing this procedure. I want lower healthcare premiums, and don't want to pay for parents to do this. If it is the modern day religious belief that it should be done, then they or the church should foot the bill. Even though it is hypocritical that religion can't cut even a tiny bit of a girl for non-medical reasons, but guys don't have the same equal protection.
And who knows what medical advances will happen in the next 10 years that will cure these diseases? Circumcision is irreversible for the most part. HIV could be cured or controlled in the next decade. HPV has a shot now. These people should be doing better medical research of curing the diseases or promoting condoms which would do a lot more than circumcision ever would.
"each circumcision that is not performed costs the U.S. health-care system $313.".
At least they're telling you what's the most you should be willing to pay for this. I don't think that the medical "industry" will see a profit from this.
US doctors, within the for profit medical services area may back circumcision.
No other doctors in the public medical system backs it though..... Get rid of your stupid for profit medical system and ridiculous statements like this will soon stop.
Gert van Dijk, an ethicist at the Royal Dutch Medical Association in Utrecht, the Netherlands, thinks that the AAP has underestimated the potential harm of circumcision.
Gert van Dijk....Yes, that could be the name of my next indie band exploring the tenets of post-modernist sexuality.
Most Doctors are jews. A way to hide if "holocaust" happens again. This is the ONLY reason circumcision was SO widely done in the USA. Think about it. You can criticize Christian religions, Islamic ones, and others, but not judaism. Why is that? Because jews have money and money controls politicians who pass laws. They are deathly afraid of what happened in Europe happening here. AntiSemitism? No. It's knowing that nobody wants them around especially Europeans (Spain, Poland, and others) and why Israel was stolen from Palestinians. That's why you have that type of "laws" being passed. Why do people shun the jew in europe? Ok, take a read:
THE JEW WORLD ORDER UNMASKED
source http://republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=news.article&articleID=3990
Posted On: August 2nd, 2012
Source: http://zioncrimefactory.com/
CLICK HERE to send this article to a friend!
Share This!
THE RULE OF the Talmudic Jew in modern times is nearly one of an absolute monarch of a country. The Jews, through their complete domination of world finance and banking â" through their malignant monopoly of the mass media of America, Britain, France, Canada and other Western powers â" through their influential and vast network of subversive âoelobby groupsâ â" through their dominion over the courts and law profession in general â" not to mention their pernicious presence inside the highest levels of government of the most powerful countries â" have thus taken full control of the entire planet, as was foretold in ancient Jewish religious texts.
As the former Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamed, explained: âoeThe Jews rule this world by proxy, they get others to fight and die for them⦠They have now gained control of the most powerful countries ⦠This tiny community have become a world power.â Dr. Mahathir spoke the truth, and the reality of his words couldnâ(TM)t be more clear; all one has to do is look around you and observe the terrible power of the treacherous Jews. The Jewish-Zionist terrorist leader Zeâ(TM)ev Jabotinsky (founder of the Jewish terror group Irgun Zevai Leumi) proudly proclaimed: âoeThere is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it.â (Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935) The fact that the vicious crimes of this disgusting criminalâ(TM)s insidious terrorist organization â" such as the King David Hotel bombing and Deir Yassin Massacre â" are not mentioned in Western history texts or at all covered in High School and University history classes, is a testament to the veracity of his exultant statement.
Jewish power is supremely epitomized by the fact that criticism of Christianity, Islam, or any other major religion is fully permissible in our societies, but criticism of Jews and Judaism, on the other hand, is taboo, off-limits and socially and politically dangerous. As the saying goes, if you want to know where the power lies ask whom you cannot criticize.
Itâ(TM)s quite interesting to note that the researchers of the âoeNew World Orderâ who endeavor to deflect attention away from the Jews â" such as Alex Jones, Jim Marrs, Alan Watt, Mark Dice, etc â" are not silenced or suppressed, but in fact promoted by the Jewish controlled press. These purported critics of the New World Order and Illuminati who employ vague terms like âoeelitesâ/âglobalistsâ/âthe establishmentâ/âthe military industrial complexâ, and who regularly invoke a confusing deluge of elusive entities and kosher poltergeists (everything from Satanists, Occultists, Freemasons, Jesuits, Nazis, Fascists, Knights
Hmm,
As one of the folks who has not been graced with this particular mutilation, I feel that $313 is a small price to pay to keep everything down there intact.
What if we turn it around and propose the following to parents of new boys:
"Oy. My friend Guido is planning to pay a visit to your darling new boy. For the mere fee of $313, I'll take his scalpel away. We wouldn't want anything... unfortunate to happen to the cute little guys 21st digit, now would we?"
The AAP will be the laughing stock among the international community; this new statement is way out of line with statements from other modern nations with advanced medical systems. The AAP should withdraw this statement immediately.
The foreskin is an important part of male anatomy, and circumcision has serious negative consequences for not only the man, but his female partner as well. Men who were circumcised at birth have never known what a foreskin is like and don't know what they are missing.
The foreskin is erogenous tissue, containing thousands of erogenous fine-touch nerve endings. The most sensitive and pleasurable parts of the penis are removed by circumcision. These color-coded diagrams show the areas of sensitivity for both circumcised and intact anatomy:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells
The boy is the one who should be able to choose what happens to his body once he is an adult. Bodily integrity is a fundamental human right. Clearly the AAP doesn't understand that.
This is an excellent video narrated by Dr. Dean Edell, a pediatrician:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_bEBAdhjGg
> Paid for by the "Protect the Appendix" campaign.
Educate yourself: the appendix serves as a haven for useful bacteria when illness flushes those bacteria from the rest of the intestines, and thereby helps maintain normal intestinal flora.
Auto mechanics back the 1000 mile oil change. Conoco Phillips is in favor of an ethanol ban. Coal miners give nuclear power a big ole thumbs down.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The report says that although the choice is ultimately up to parents, medical insurance should pay for the procedure.
Ultimately the choice should be up to the person who is going to be ritualistically mutilated for life. If you still want to have a part of your genitals cut off when you are old enough to give informed consent, that's fine. If they are worried that fewer men will agree to a circumcision later in life then it only strengthens the argument that it should not be performed on babies.
Parents are not owners, they are guardians. The body belongs to the child. Their job is to ensure that it is delivered intact when the child finally becomes independent and responsible for his own well-being.
Furthermore, savings of $313 does not justify irreversibly removing part of someone's body. The boy can come back when he's 18 and pay the difference of whatever medical costs were incurred before then due to the continued attachment of his foreskin.
(Speaking as a man with a foreskin, who can't quite imagine what it would be like not to have one... uncomfortable?)
I occasionally see reports about circumcision affecting cancer outcomes, AIDS transmission, things like that.
What completely mystifies me, is the mechanics of these effects. Perhaps a foreskin can lead to increased transmission of AIDS. How? By what mechanism?
Jesus would have been circumcised 8 days after his birth.
I decided STDs weren't likely to be a significant threat to my infant son. If he wants to have part of himself chopped off when he turns sixteen, I'll give him all the info and support his choice. I think I can predict how it'll turn out, but I'm not kidding--I'll drive him to the hospital myself.
(And before anyone starts, the entire rest of the pro-circumcision argument revolves around an additional 9-per-thousand UTI infection rate. Yawn.)
Just a thought, but how about we hear from the people who will be spending a lot of time face-to-face with the member in question? (pun intended).
Let's hear from the women and the gay men, what do they prefer to put in their mouth?
This outrageous policy statement from the AAP is flawed and biased. In multiple instances, it exaggerates the supposed benefits and minimizes or dismisses the risks. It completely omits the functions and value of the foreskin, and even fails to describe the basic structure of the foreskin ( http://coloradonocirc.org/anatomy ). The statement also cherry-picks the studies it references, and for the studies it does cite, it often misrepresents the findings and conclusions of the studies. It makes unsupported conclusions regarding benefit vs. risk as well as inappropriate extrapolations of the African HIV studies to the United States. And finally, the statement makes no mention whatsoever of the consideration of the child's choice or his right to determine what happens to his own body.
Remember the joke;
What to do with all that leftover skin?
Use them for fag chewing gum
My parents left my hard drive alone when I was little, so I'm able to contain much more data on my disk than my peers who had their hard drive case snipped when they were just out of the factory.
From various trade magazines, and from discussions (when you're just learning, experimenting and all sorts of plug and playing with the female computers that were interested in what sort of data is on my hard disk), I learnt that snipping reduces the density per disk by around 1 inch (plus/minus various densities).
I never suffered from Small Disk Syndrome.
Give your next-gen peripherals a chance - leave their hard drive cases alone.
See this classic Blackadder scene for usage of the word winkle.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dnc-announces-2-hour-islamic-jumah-prayers-after-rejecting-cardinals-blessing-and-you-wont-believe-whos-invited/#
US healthcare will pay for religious mutilation, but not for planned parenthood.
I think we've identified the core of what is wrong here.
1) The AAP omitted the fact that the foreskin is an important part of male anatomy with specific sexual, sensory, and protective functions. How can the AAP possibly recommend removing part of the body when they won't even discuss its functions? (Google functions of the foreskin)
2) The AAP failed to address the ethical problems with amputating healthy tissue from a child without that child's consent. Doing so without absolute medical necessity is a violation of the child's basic human right to an intact body and the right to choose for himself when he is an adult.
3) HIV prevention is not a valid reason for circumcising an infant who is not sexually active. HIV is easily prevented in other, less invasive ways. Other modern nations are not endorsing circumcision as an HIV prevention method. To learn more see this handout from Intact America. Also, a recent study from Puerto Rico shows that circumcised men in that area have higher rates of HIV and other STDs than intact men.
4) The AAP cannot credibly say the benefits outweigh the risks since they don't have good data on what the risks are. Few good studies have been done on the risks of circumcision, and no state or national system exists for collecting adverse event reports. Further, very little data is available on long-term complications. Without solid data on the risks and long-term complications of circumcision, any conclusion which weighs benefits vs. risks, or benefits vs. cost, is fundamentally flawed.
5) The AAP is out of step with the statements from other countries. Other nations are moving away from newborn circumcision, even to the point of considering bans on newborn circumcision in some areas, but the AAP is moving in the opposite direction. This shows just now biased the AAP has become and that they are really just trying to justify an outdated practice rather than view the situation objectively. I hope that the AAP comes under international pressure to retract this new statement, as occurred with their ill-conceived female genital cutting statement a few years ago.
Apparently none of them have been circumcised; I, on the other hand had part of my dick chopped off at birth and I've been pretty pissed off about it ever since!
Has anyone looked into the medical benefits of female genital mutilation?
From http://www.nature.com/news/doctors-back-circumcision-1.11296
Gert van Dijk, an ethicist at the Royal Dutch Medical Association in Utrecht, the Netherlands, thinks that the AAP has underestimated the potential harm of circumcision. He says that it should only be performed when men are old enough to give consent, and disagrees with the AAP that circumcisions are simplest and safest when performed on infants. The very idea of asking whether circumcisions are beneficial is strange to Europeans, van Dijk says. “The integrity of the body is an important thing. We would never amputate a healthy part of a child.”
Van Dijk notes that the benefits cited in the African studies do not apply to the Netherlands, where HIV transmission is rare and occurs mainly through sex between men and through needle-sharing among drug users.
Rowena Hitchcock, president of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists, says that she is disappointed with the AAP policy because it recommends an “irreversible, mutilating surgery”. She says that her organization is considering a review of its current policy, which recommends circumcision for infants who are at severe risk of urinary tract infections, because the evidence of medical benefit is not definitive.
Study shows women can lower their chance of breast cancer
...
when their breasts are hacked off, but is that really the solution for things?
Both our adult boys have thanked us for keeping them intact. Got a nasty comment from the mother-in-law 24 years ago - like it was her business?!
My girlfriend saw a picture of an uncut guy and said "that is gross".
'nuff said.
Another cardinal proof of the Zionist World Conspiracy was the incredible foresight displayed by Zionist leader Simon Maximilian Südfeld (alias Max Nordau), Theodore Herzlâ(TM)s close confidant who convinced him to organize the first Zionist conference in Basel, Switzerland in 1897. At the sixth Zionist Congress in 1903 â" eleven years before World War I commenced and forty-five years before Israel was established â" Nordau spoke of a coming âoeWorld Warâ resulting in the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, which England would help to procure for them:
âoeLet me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, the Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where, with the help of England, a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.â (quoted in Rosenthal, Litman. âoeA Prophet Speaksâ, American Jewish News, New York, Vol. 4, No. 2, September 19, 1919. p. 464; also quoted in Stevens, Richard P. Zionism and Palestine Before the Mandate. Institute for Palestine Studies, 1972, p. 153)
Strange and incredible â" is it not? â" that a leading Zionist Jew was able to predict the course of events of the next several decades. It appears Max Nordau was not the only Jew with an uncanny gift of foresight. Leading communist ideologue and co-author of âoeThe Communist Manifestoâ, crypto-Jew Friedrich Engels, made it clear that he and his fellow communist comrades were comfortable with human sacrifices amounting to the loss of tens of millions of lives, in order to pave the way for revolution and a global communist imperium. In 1887, Engels somehow knew a âoeWorld Warâ was on the horizon and would soon arrive on the shores of Europe, laying waste to Europeâ(TM)s empires and thus leaving the continent vulnerable to communist revolution, upheaval and subversion:
âoeNo other war is now possible for Prussia-Germany than a world war, and indeed a world war of hitherto unimagined sweep and violence. Eight to ten millions soldiers will mutually kill each other off and in the process devour Europe barer than any swarm of locusts ever did. The desolation of the Thirty Years War compressed in three or four years and spread over the entire continent: famine, plague, general savagery, taking possession both of the armies and of the masses of the people, as a result of universal want; hopeless demoralization of our complex institutions of trade industry and credit, ending in universal bankruptcy; collapse of the old states and their traditional statecraft, so that crowns will roll over the pavements by the dozens and no one to be found to pick them up; absolute impossibility of foreseeing where this will end, or who will emerge victor from the general struggle. Only one result is absolutely sure: general exhaustion and the creation of the conditions for the final victory of the working class.â (quoted in Wolfe, David Bertram. Marxism, One Hundred Years In The Life of a Doctrine. Dial Press, (1965), p. 67)
Another who predicted the impending doom of a grand European conflict was Jan Gotlib Bloch, a Polish crypto-Jew, banker/financier, Zionist activist, âoecampaigner against Russian antisemitismâoe, and acquaintance of Theodore Herzl. In 1899, Bloch published a book about military warfare titled, âoeIs War Now Possible?â, within which he envisioned a âoelong warâ, a âoegreat war of entrenchmentsâ, which would involve some ten million men. Bloch asserted that economic factors would be âoethe dominant and decisive element in the matterâ and that the future of war was not fighting but famine, resulting in the bankruptcy of nations and the break-up of social organization of societies. (Ferguson, Niall. âoeThe Pity of Warâ, p. 9)
It is clear that International Jews foresaw the First World War. Did they do nothing but foresee it? The facts do not stop at
teach them how to wash their dicks.
Tough call!
American boys are in deed healthier if circumcised, because they are not allowed to touch their penises to wash properly due to religious/puritanist reasons. It may sound ridiculous to someone outside of the US, but I know parents who do not allow their boys to rub-wash their penises from fear of discovering masturbation. That's why an exposed penis head is important for "touchless" hygiene.
Here is a good rebuttal article: http://www.intactamerica.org/aap2012_response
...I can keep my foreskin?
Sold.
US doctors "back circumcision" because you can't bill for not circumcising.
Heck, how do you expect them to pay for their school loans and make the monthly note on that new Audi A8?
Until they can afford to become partners in that lab so they can get a piece of all the tests they refer, they've got to find some way to scrape by, you know?
The US health care system started going into a tailspin about the time doctors decided that it wasn't enough to be upper middle class any more. It wasn't enough to have the nicest house in the nicest part of town, they had to have a boat and a jet and a house in Santa Lucia or it just wasn't worth it.
When you see the levels of Medicare fraud perpetrated by doctors (higher than the level of pedophilia among priests) it's easy to lose respect for this once highly-respected profession. Nowadays, I'm actually relieved when I learn my doctor is South Asian or African or South American, because American doctors all seem like they'd rather be derivatives traders. Of course, the cockamamie system of third-party health insurance contributes to the sleazification of doctors, but a big part of the blame lays with the type of person who believes a medical degree is a license to print money and nothing more.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ultimately it should be up to the person who's penis it is.
It's mine and I'll wash it as fast as I like
The dataset comes from Africans living in Africa. How do you adjust the sample population for America from 3rd-world conditions?
The title should be "Circumcision CORRELATES with better health in AFRICAN men living in AFRICA"
As of yet, they have no explanations as to WHY they are healthier.
Be afraid. Be suspicious.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
One of the arguments for pro circumcision camp, male with circumcised penis are less likely to contact AIDS
Well ...
I am a male, and, thanks to my parents, I get to keep my foreskin
I do not f*ck around - and when I did, I made sure I took all the precautions, like using condom, like wash my private part clean after sex (when possible) and, most importantly, not having any same-sex intercourse
Till now, and knock on wood, I haven't been infected by HIV
Seriously, I think the "less AIDS" argument does not hold much water, scientifically
If one practices hygienic lifestyle - that is, takes the effort to keep private part, including the inside of the foreskin, clean after sexual intercourse
One the other hand, a male who no longer has any foreskin due to circumcision, if he engages in unsafe sex, the man would probably ending up contacting AIDS, even without his foreskin
I find it very ludicrous for a medical association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, to issue such claim
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Like when the Romans became rulers of the Eastern Mediterranean would an epispasm be covered by Obama Care? The whole circumcision debate seems more of a cultural issue than a scientifically proven medical debate.
First off in areas of the world where there is no affordable birth control unhealthy sexual practices happen much more frequently. In fact the female of the species has learned to put up with it in the wrong place so that pregnancy will not ensue. Though they will never admit it. So the prevalence of STDs should be studied more on the basis of sexual practices first. However, you do not see any real data because by and large the sexual practice I refer to is highly frowned upon and admitting to undertaking in the practice is at best a social tabu and in some countries a criminal offense called sodomy. The Romans seemed to excel at it and considered it a method of social dominance the same way some apes do.
Whether or not world health has been improved by the application of circumcision of males is highly debatable. I suspect western agriculture and diet is the real reason for our current dominance not the fact that we have a higher rate of circumcised males.
Don't forget that once upon a time we did not wear clothes and the foreskin was an important protection for willy. Now that willy is hidden by default all us poor uncircumcised bananas need to pay much more attention to the state of cleanliness than our cave dwelling ancestors did. So to keep it short, nutrition and cleanliness is a much more important factor in combating diseases.
Butchers who perpetrate general mutilation, whether male or female, specially on children, should have their genitals fed through a paper shredder and dipped in capsaicin in front of their victims.
Now, female circumcision, which we call genital mutilation but it's also called by that term (yes, I know it's much worst than male circumcision, I'm not stupid) it's barbaric because it's the others (some Islamic fundamentalists) that do it.
I hope you do realise that in some centuries, everyone will look back at us and state that this is a barbaric act of religious zealotry, just like we do about so many things in mankind's history.
The "less AIDS argument" actually holds up in third world countries where there is no access to health care, less hygienic practices, and less education.
It doesn't hold up here in America. There may be like 1-5 cases of the extra foreskin actually causing HIV to be contracted when without it the virus didn't contract - there may be none at all. In all seriousness, the studies cited were not done in the developed world.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
At the risk of conclusive proof of the real life identity behind this UID. It's a bit lengthly. tl;dr: The AAP did this before in 1986. Nobody cares about all the years the AAP has recommended against it. The AAP will likely reverse its position in a few years. There is no new evidence, not any more than there was in 1983 when they recommended against, not any more than in 1986 when they recommended for, not any more in 1992 (iirc, didn't look that one up) through 2005 when.they recommended against, not any more in 2012 when they recommended for.
More tl;dr (it really probably is tl if this is stil tl;dr): Once removed, the foreskin can never be restored. I've been permanently harmed and since slashdot knows I'm already trans, my doctor and I screwed up in thinking that the pain I was feeling was because I was trans. No other trans person I've spoken to has reported the same pain, but I didn't know I was circumcised when I started HRT, so I figured it was related to my gender issue, not a genital mutilation that had been forced on me.
And also even bring up the subject of female genital mutilation when everybody's ready to lop off foreskins for a 0.005 change (1.7% to 1.2% or something like that) in the rate of UTI and watch everybody lose their minds. A comment I made on NPR.org about a position the AAP took in 2010 regarding proposing a protocol for female circumcision was removed for violating their community rules.
So here goes!
And yes, I was in actual physical pain, and I throught that was completely natural and just part of getting wood, and yes, I really did not know I was circumcised until my early twenties. Oh, and before you go diagnosing my aches and pains, note that my doctor didn't even consider it. Either that means that the first person to diagnose me with something is an idiot, or the fact that my doctor didn't even know about it speaks volumes about our ignorance of male genital mutilation and the side-effects.
To whom it may concern,
I'm writing in response to your reporting of the American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP) recent flip-flop of their opinion of what body parts men do or don't have the right to keep. I'm calling it a flip-flop, because that's what it is. Typically, the AAP releases reports recommending that male infants should not be circumcised. However, every now and then, they dig up evidence to justify reversing their opinion. I would not be surprised if within a few years, they go back to their usual position of opposing the practice of routine infant genital mutilation for both males and females.
There are two things that discussions of circumcision evoke: jerking knees and giggles. When it's female genitals we're talking about, it's always jerking knees. In 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics came under fire for attempting to put a protocol in place for satisfying certain parents' desires to have their infant daughter's clitoris poked with a pin. I referenced this in a post to the comments on the article on your webpage along with their reasoning for attempting to create a framework for this otherwise barbaric act, and my comment was promptly removed. Perhaps the moderator thought in some hysterical misreading of my comment that I was in support of female genital mutilation.
Then there are the giggles and the kink when we're talking about penises. The word \emph{penis} is a favorite of immature internet humor. Let's get this out of the way right here, because I am very serious.
Too much of the debate centers on sexual pleasure. Fortunately, because of a fluke that happened when I was circumcised, I won't need to worry about knowing even the pleasures of a healthy circumcised man, because all I know is pain.
Additionally, this is about more than sexual pleasure or giggles at the word \emph{penis}. This is about my human right to have an intact body. We seem to be overly sensitive to concerns of female welfare, even purely psychological concerns, but we are ever so dismi
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
The "American Academy of Pediatrics" does not speak for all US doctors and this title is highly misleading.
Yeah, but a savings of $313 US Health care Dollars is only about $15 USD of health care anywhere else in the western world.
If they didn't they can't make $$$$.
If I got Penile Cancer, or HIV or Herpes etc. and I found that my parents decided to save a couple of bucks by not circumcising me while I was a baby, I would be mad as hell at them. I don't know how much cancer, HIV or herpes meds cost, but I imagine it's a helluva lot more than the $$ to get a circumcision. That doesn't include the emotional physical pain and suffering from chronic and often fatal diseases that could be avoided with a little snip.
In general, I find the whole anti-circumcision argument to be unsympathetic, unscientific and frankly reminiscent of the whole anti-vaccination movement. It seems no amount of evidence is sufficient nor any study is valid enough to prove the benefits of circumcision. If some parents don't want to circumcise their sons, they should have the right to do so, and if some parents do want to circumcise their son they should do so also. The anti-snip folks make the 'freedom of schlong' argument, but interestingly I've looked at some of the literature of the hard-core anti-circumcision activists and it seems like their main goal is to ban the practice entirely for everyone - in other words remove the option for everyone because they don't agree with it, despite any health benefits.
If I were a parent I would sure as hell want to know from my pediatrician if a little snipping is good for my son, and I don't see any reason why health insurance shouldn't cover it if it has proven medical benefits and cost savings to the insurer (and for my son and myself) down the road as well.
I couldn't be happier with this!
The humans have no respect for the rights of the male infants! We can continue to do whatever we think best to their bodies without awaiting maturation of their minds... The doctors have played right into our hands! It's Perfect!
Humans lose plasticity as they grow into adults, so the younger the mind is when we implant the Cerebro-Cybernetics, the more easily they'll adapt! It's for their own good! Bwa ha Ha HAA!
It holds water from a policy setting standpoint. While sensible individuals would not benefit from the procedure, you do not set policy around sensible individuals, as they don't generally drag the rest of us down. I assume this organization is expecting their findings will be copied by the 3rd world, and are thus setting policies at the lowest level.
So far the only argument against the practice that doesn't sound like magical thinking is that perhaps the consequences were underplayed in the study. I'd like to have heard more about that, and less about the bizarre mysticism that Europeans apparently subscribe to around the sanctity of the human body. I was hoping doctors would stick to the facts.
I am a parent. Holding my newborn daughter in the hospital room, singing to her some of the songs we had played for her when she was in my wife's belly, trying unsuccessfully to choke back the tears of joy and amazement as I gazed into her eyes -- it was without a doubt the most amazing experience of my life. The idea of subjecting that beautiful, fragile, and innocent baby to the kind of trauma and pain that circumcision entails is something I could never dream of doing. Honestly, I'd rather walk into traffic or jump off a building.
And that's not even touching the logical arguments against circumcision, which are pretty much airtight.
The three WHO Africa studies did not survive review:
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9
Not application:
http://www.theafricareport.com/index.php/20120711501815186/southern-africa/zimbabwe-concern-over-high-hiv-rates-among-circumcised-males-501815186.html
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf (botton of p135)
Also, infection of men by heterosexual sex is the least important transmission vector in the West, nor does circumcision apparently influence the infection of women by men:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60998-3/abstract
Besides, how rational is it to tell men that they must be circumcised to prevent HIV, but afterwards they still need condoms to be protected from STDs?
There already have been two longer replies to the AAP's statement:
http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf
Their most important points:
1. The AAP chose to overblow purported benefits by cherry-picking studies and advertising their results past their proportionality, misleading the public with doublespeak of "pro" while admitting circumcision still does not qualify as routine amputation.
2. The AAP omitted both contradicting studies and objections to those it used, such as to the three WHO HIV studies.
3. The AAP omitted any discussion of the foreskin's functionality and notice of possible complications after circumcision (incl. death, an estimated 117 boys in the US per year).
One could think they felt the heat as one national agency resp. adviser after another rejected or even condemned infant circumcision.
Nowadays vaccinations for both genders are available against most of its strains, and circumcision won't replace the importance of proper sexual hygiene, either. You might as well argue that a false sense of protection leads men to more risky behavior.
"[W]ith regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. [] How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? [] The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."
http://books.google.com/books?id=SF6fbjNe0yYC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=%22decrease+in+sexual+intercourse+and+a+weakening+of+the+organ+in+question%22
A study by US doctors who have probaly all been genertically mutilated (that's what cutting parts off of a non-consenting child's genitalia can be called as well) claims that "it's good for you."
Soldiers that have their legs blown off are significantly less likely to suffer from Athletes foot...
Europe is largely unircumcised (apart from Jewish men), so why don't we compare the incidence data there with the US? I know those pinko socialists actually get to see a doctor when they're sick, but let's assume the situation is roughly comparable.
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/penile.htm
The rate of HPV assisted Penile Cancer in the US among the various demographics of men ranges from .4 per 100,000 for Asian / Pacific Islander to .8 per 100,000 white males, up to 1.3 per 100,000 for Hispanic males. If that's your justification for circumcision (and it's totally fine if it is) you're taking some strong proactive steps against a fairly slight risk.
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-key-statistics
Per year, 1570 *cases* are diagnosed, and roughly 310 men die of penile cancer. You quite literally have a 99.9999% chance of never being diagnosed with penile cancer.
So, aside from the cancer part, the overall message re: Penis isn't much different from owning a gun "Take care of it, keep it clean, and use it safely." (also, don't point it at your eye, it might go off.) It hurts me a bit to see people running around like Thomas Dolby with Echolalia yelling "SCIENCE!" in every instance of X > Y. You're right, the numbers certainly side with science. But the data provided also says that, in the Western world where things like soap and running water aren't privileges, you're pretty much (as in 99%+) OK either way, at least until the boy hits an age where a responsible parent can instill care and handling procedures to prevent later issues like STD's.
(as an aside, there is at least the smallest shred of financial incentive for Doctors to perform circumcisions in the US, but that isn't part of a grand "strip 'em and clip 'em" conspiracy, it's a fundamental flaw in the system. Somewhere along the line it was determined that insurance will pay for it, ergo it gets done. My 84 year old grandmother with cmphysema and congestive heart failure was put on Lipitor the last time she was admitted. Her cholesterol wasn't the problem, Smoking for 70+ years was. As the Doctor bluntly put it, the main reason was "Medicare will pay for it." There was was slight medical benefit. But, for the most part, it was a money move. If you try and break that cycle, though, people start screaming about "Death Panels." Sigh....)
This isn't in the same ballpark as say, not getting your kids a whooping cough vaccine. So help me if I find those fuckers at daycare who sent their little outbreak monkeys in....
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Video with an attempted ranking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ
The stark Type III (infibulation) makes up about 15% of worldwide FGM.
Less invasive forms of FGM that are comparable to male circumcision — the so called "Mild Sunnah", for instance — are banned regardless, and rightly so.
Denmark study: Circumcision cuts sexual satisfaction in men and partners
http://www.circinfo.org/controversy.html#frisch1
CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.
I wouldn't dare to get someone circumcised for one simple reason (in addition to being against it): No matter who actually messes it up, the fault always lies with the one that requested it in the first place, because if it wasn't done, nothing would've happened. Let those who want it get it done themselves when they're of age to do so rather than his parents deciding it.
Ask, and you shall receive!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
So basically, you're jealous that our dicks look better than yours?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Plenty of things we no longer need but still have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The source has been completely destroyed by the scientific community http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf
Knocking out all teeth and replacing them with dentures has been found to reduce incidents of tooth decay.
Down with teeth!
Drill baby drill - on Mars
We can't discuss circumcision without first discussing the anatomy and functions of the tissue it removes:
http://coloradonocirc.org/anatomy
You get dick blisters.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
When you pry it from my cold, dead, uh ... wait, that doesn't sound right at all.
Why do I get the feeling that the people rabidly coveting foreskins are also anti-vaccination? I'm waiting for all the complaints about big dentistry "carving out" wisdom teeth for the money.
namely, decreasing sexual satisfaction in women. It's well known that the foreskin plays a significant role in vaginal stimulation.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
that's what I came here to say.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
in the bud.
Biology nerd here. No. It's important. Why are there so many patent law stories?
When conservatives make similar claims about AGW, they are called "anti-science".
I call both sides to start trusting science, even when it is inconvenient.
I find it interesting how vocal the anti-circumcision folks are getting over this. Anytime someone suggests that circumcision might be okay (not forcing it on anybody, god forbid) they fly into this blind rage about how we are mutilating babies.
I find it interesting to note that Germany is trying to outlaw circumcision and France trying to outlaw Kosher meat. It's interesting that they are bending over backwards trying to appease Muslim sensitivities yet going out of their way to ban their Jewish ones. If you're going to piss off religious groups, why not piss everyone off equally?
My 2 cents: let people do whatever they wish so long as it does not cause major harm to society. Male circumcision might harm your personal sensitivities, but if a parent decides to circumcise their boy then it's none of your business for two reasons:
1. It's not your child.
2. There is no proof that most circumcised males suffer major harm from the ritual/operation.
Why do people think it's okay to release studies saying circumcision is harmful and should be banned but as soon as a counter-study comes out they cry foul? This study clearly states that "the choice is ultimately up to parents". What's the harm in that? Everyone should choose for their own children.
As for letting the child decide: that's bullshit. Do you ask your child whether he'd like to stay in diapers for the rest of his life? Do you ask him if he'd like to go to school? You're supposed to act like parents. Grow a pair and make some decisions! :)
don't you mean these traits were selected for?
There's a criminal case going on here in Ohio involving some Amish people who forcibly cut off the beards of some other Amish men. The prosecutors are trying for a hate crimes conviction by proving that the victims suffered willfully inflicted bodily injury. "There is no question that the forcible removal of a person's hair is, in and of itself, disfiguring..." argued the prosecutor.
If the forcible removal of facial hair, a renewable resource, is a disfiguring assault, then why is routine infant circumcision still legal?
People have been prosecuted and convicted of assault for doing far less permanent damage to another human being. By any reasonable standard, infant circumcision should be illegal. It's not a medical procedure. It's a barbaric religious ritual now done for reasons of pointless conformity.
Not evil, but the little monster has no choice on whayt is being done to him. Some religious nut just decides to perform an archaic ritual based on the ridiculous misconception that an alleged diety finds it favourable.
People say a foreskin gets smelly.
Your armpits get smelly. Should we cut off your arms?
The American Academy of Pediatrics needs to step forward into the 20th century, where we've developed something called regular bathing.
Not to be cynical or anything, but the studies were done by a group with a vested interested in promoting this lucrative surgical procedure.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Here's one youtube video on why circumcision is biased: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruJ62wHpHuw There was another one by a Jewish doctor who DOES NOT advocate circumcision. I cannot seem to find it, now. From what I have read, it appears that even today many doctors still do not know just precisely what the foreskin's function is (more precisely, the literature on this subject is quite lacking). On top of that, there seems to be a lack in education on how to care for the foreskin -- in part because the current situation is such that most men are likely circumcised, so any literature on skin care would be useless for a large number of men. I am also curious how many doctors today also follow religious or cultural practices of circumcision, further adding bias to the debate.
Expect the price of calamari to drop significantly
If you object to circumcision and you're straight, sometimes people will try to insult you by suggesting that only gay people are so concerned with their penises.
There's nothing either gay or straight about wanting bodily integrity for yourself, for wishing that a useful and sensitive part of your body hadn't been mangled in the name of religion, pseudoscience, and social conformity.
I am fucking sick of guys who mock you, call you gay, and don't take this issue seriously.
So are the pediatricians scientists or not? When conservatives doubt scientists, they are called anti-science.
Oh please. Not remotely comparable.
Straw man. No one said that the STD prevention strategy should consist solely of circumcision.
You can advocate that through your free speech, but please don't try to make it a law. The first Amendment protects free exercise of religion; so there would need to be a compelling interest to justify restricting it; and since pediatricians say that t is actually beneficial, the rights of the Jews shall be respected.
Of course they do. Similarly, I back the the forcible removal of the penis and testes or other genitals they might have, (sans anesthetic, of course) of any doctor who backs circumcision.
As a victim of this barbaric, ignorant practice, I think what's good for the goose, is good for the gander, as they say. If doctors can presume to pretend that there's ANY scientific evidence that actually supports the claim that circumcision is BENEFICIAL, for me or for the billions of other babies who were and are (every day) mutilated by having a body part removed for no good reason whatsoever, then I think we should be able, forcibly to hack off parts of THEIR bodies! I wish there existed a list of all the doctors who support this, so we'll have a base upon which to form our weenie-wacking list.
I'm still pissed off about this, four decades on.
Not remotely comparable. The breasts perform a major bodily function (feeding babies). They are also psychologically important - some women who get their breasts removed feel much less "woman".
Circumcision is not even similar to that.
What is this backwards bullshit? The WHO is in on this too. Such idiocy.
And men prefer women with big breasts. None give a thought on how they became so.
n/t
A lot of us depend on tips to get by.
don't circumcise your male children. then, upon adulthood, if they want to cut off their foreskin, let them make their own decision
oh wait, religion. WHARRGARBBBL applies
nevermind, there's no easy solution here, because we have the assholes who say it is written in a dusty old book, so it must be (blank out all thought and reason)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
US doctor's public health priorities totally askew.
This is not so much about health. It is about getting money back from insurance. If it is medically imperative then doctors can make the case that they should be payed for this procedure by insurance companies. The previous wording they used wasn't definite enough. It was vague
Now they have made a bold pronouncement and it should be clear enough to make sure the cash is flowing for this "procedure".
So you were mutilated as a baby. No wonder you're such a crazed mess of contradictions and psychological issues.
There are several reasons that so much of Israel is so messed up, weirdly anxious and sociopathic, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that ritual torture of babies has something to do with it. Hurt 'em young so that they know on the deepest psychological levels that they have no power and should fear authority.
The source of your endless crazy bullshit makes a bit more sense now.
Abortion, to me, has to do with the right of the mother to get rid of the baby in her body (not necessarily kill it, but that can be allowed if it's the only option). In this case, the baby is already born, and yet they want to force it to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure. Now that it's out of her body, there is no reason for abortion, so it's not really the same.
You may as well argue that all pro-choice advocates shouldn't mind child abuse.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The Nature article makes it clear:
Next time, please read before posting!
A write up of why these studies are crap and why your belief that circumcision reduces the chance of penile cancer and STDs are unfounded.
The problem is, there will be no retraction in the news papers about this. Circumcision is completely unnecessary and is nothing but mutilation.
This is starting to sound like pulling out all your teeth to save on toothpaste bills.
What a ridculous notition that mutilating children is a cost saving measure. If adults want to mutilate themselves they have that right. Children should never have the right to all their bodily parts taken away from them at birth. Whether for imaginary cost saving or as an offering to an imaginary friend. I'm not sure which reason is the more deplorable. As for the AIDS argument, what a load of non-sense. The AIDS epidemic in the US was predominately amongst circumcised men. At the time that happened about 90% was the circumcision rate. It saved no one, don't kid yourself that foreskins have anything to do with this. Studies find what the researchers intend.
Well there may be psychological impacts on those who are circumsized verses those who are not. Can any of you guess which ones are more comfortable and secure, better leaders, less dosile?
The head of the penis is meant to be very sensitive, without protection would you suppose it becomes more or less sensitive?
I know of one child who died from having a circumcision.
Is it really the parent's decison? I know of one parent who's son was almost circumcised when the parent was never asked. If a parent wishes to keep the child's penis in tact might do well to be prepared to guard their children from the default of circumsizing.
Has anyone ever heard of underwater births at home in a swiming pool? Can birthing can be orgasmic and not painful? Should vaccines be administered to infants? I think these are all questions which need to be explored because I find that many reverse their opinions after looking at the evidence.
This 2012, we have a vaccine for HPV. There no way this should reasonably be a part of the debate at this point.
damaged foreskin can be used as evidence in a rape trial, regardless of gender
adult male sexually abusing a female child or a male child
adult female, sexually abusing male child, (yes that happens a lot)
and even
adult male sexually abusing adult male
or adult female sexually abusing adult male (yes that happens a lot, even thought UK, AU or Canadian law does not cover it well)
yes I am a lawyer.
Straw man. I never said that free exercise of religion means "do whatever you want". I specifically said that freedom of religion is balanced by other rights and interests. See, for example, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC
But then again, you are likely just trolling.
It's funny that the AAP is pushing their agenda in the name of science and buffering it with "parental choice" and cultural issues. I don't think science should be the root of this discussion. This is more a question of ethics and morals.
Routine surgical intervention across a huge segment of a healthy population that is immature and unable to understand or consent is absurd... Almost as absurd as telling the hundreds of thousands of dead circumcised American guys in the 70's and 80's that current experiments in Africa have discovered that their lack of foreskin protected them from getting AIDS, but nobody is suggesting we do that. Why? Because it's nonsense. They got HIV/AIDS (and other treatable and less sensational STDs) because they weren't using condoms often enough, not because of their circumcision status one way or the other.
Nobody would go, or recommend going, sexing up diseased partners under false protection of circumcision. Condoms do a really good job at preventing STD transmission. Having uncommitted sex? Use barrier protection. Simple as that. They're available for free, all over the world.
Would anyone advocate surgery on girls to lessen the chance of them acquiring a UTI (even though their tiny little urethras and proximity to diaper-poop-mash greatly increases the frequency of infections), or to make washing themselves easier? Of course not... though I challenge you to find a guy who really hates spending any time washing his genitals, circed or not.
Remove the silly "science" from the discussion and you're simply left with parental familiarity, tradition (going back only 2, 3, sometimes a whopping 4 generations!), an odd case of so-and-so-supposedly-needed-it-so-you're-getting-it-too, and the shady dark horse of religion.
I won't get too into whether people should have the right to exercise their own religion onto someone else's body. That seems like a no-brainer to me. Jews and Muslims feel they have to (though ignore other "you gottas" of their religions), and only Coptic Christians and some American Christians (mistakenly) practice circumcision as somehow related to their religion. To my knowledge, it's not a sacrament or part of any Christian church. The New Testament and various decrees did away with circumcision for Christians thousands of years ago. My guess is that Americans assume it's part of their flavor of Christianity because the Old Testament is a more entertaining read, few of them or their pastors get past reading Genesis, and since they themselves are circumcised and many around them are too, they assume it must be the right thing to do. News flash... it's not.
What's left? Parental familiarity. Funny thing, though... Nobody in their right mind leaves their sons intact until they're older, explains to them "your father was circumcised when he was a baby, as were some boyfriends, most of your uncles, one of your grandpas, and maybe one of your great grandpas or men before him, so we think your natural penis looks weird to us. To make ourselves comfortable, we're going to cut some of your penis off so that it looks better to us, plus we think your sex partners might not like you if your penis isn't what he or she is expecting to find in your pants." If people did that, we wouldn't be talking about this at all. The practice would drop from our culture very quickly.
Instead, people do it to their baby boys, when they're tiny, when they can't fight back, when it's cheaper, when it's quicker, when it's convenient for the doctor, when it's less embarrassing for the parents, when the boys have no memories of what it's like to be whole so they don't have the opportunity to say "Mom and dad, why did you do that to me? I liked it better before!"
My conclusion... I am only his guardian and custodian until he is of sound mind and body. His body, his choice. Other parents choose differently. I don't resent them for making whatever choices they made, or their justifications. Once it's done, it's done, and no amount of wishing can retroactively chang
Circumcision is unnatural thus can't be good.
Post-hoc rationalization.
A few points:
- I would rather have the penis I was born with, which would now include not a 'small ribbon' but an area of skin with the approximate surface area of an index card
- There are far less invasive treatments for penile cancer than the removal of the entire penis
But... becoming a girl because you have cancer and lose your penis? Are you for real? It's funny you mention that though, because there's a notable case where circumcision itself did destroy the penis of an infant, and in attempt to fix things they performed gender reassignment surgery (though doomed sexually for life), put the kid on hormones and raised him as a girl. Problem was, he never identified as a girl, and some decades after learning the truth about what happened to him, killed himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
But yep, the science behind the procedure is bulletproof. Except when it isn't.
And to your assertion of cognitive dissonance, I have not experienced this. To the contrary I have found that people will go to any length to convince themselves that they have not been harmed when it's very obvious they have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
My adopted nephew wasn't circumcized, got him when he was 18 months old. A few years later things.. nearly entirely grew shut. I don't recall the medical term but I'd rather have a circumcision on a baby when you don't remember it to a 5 year old who will.
Some naysayers mention that the kids on the other side of the fence did get some disease one day, even though they are nail nail-circumcised. That's because their parents let them play everywhere. They should practice playground-abstinence like my kids, and put on their preservahand gloves when they go to school.
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
Of course they're going to back circumcision, most US doctors are of Jewish faith.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
Seriously, I think the "less AIDS" argument does not hold much water, scientifically
Does the same-sex intercourse argument hold anything?
...USrael!!! Seriously, circumcision? In EU the circumcision rates are amazingly low, and yet I do not see such huge problems. Circumcision is a religious practice, and as such has no room in scientific discussion. Much like Creationism in schools! Oh wait...
My book: Friendly F#, fun with game development and XNA; my game: Galaxy Wars by VSTeam; my gamedev language: Casanova.
In our country, almost every man are circumsiced.
The "less AIDS argument" actually holds up in third world countries where there is no access to health care, less hygienic practices, and less education.
There's a bit of Darwin here... the Darwin Award kind of thing... If people are stupid enough to have unprotected sex, contract HIV/AIDS and die from it, they get removed from the gene pool, thus improving the human race overall.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
From Nicework there above who did some nice work in bringing some other info to this discussion:
------------------
There already have been two longer replies to the AAP's statement:
http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm [circumcision.org]
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf [doctorsopp...cision.org]
Their most important points:
1. The AAP chose to overblow purported benefits by cherry-picking studies and advertising their results past their proportionality, misleading the public with doublespeak of "pro" while admitting circumcision still does not qualify as routine amputation.
2. The AAP omitted both contradicting studies and objections to those it used, such as to the three WHO HIV studies.
3. The AAP omitted any discussion of the foreskin's functionality and notice of possible complications after circumcision (incl. death, an estimated 117 boys in the US per year).
My wife is a Registered Nurse who works primarily with 60 years+ patients. Many of the patients have brain diseases from strokes/other accidents as well as brain degeneration from ageing and genetic diseases (such as dementia). Others have obesity problems (often due to disabilities/injuries/diseases preventing them from exercising). The problem is that most of these people can't clean their own penis properly due to these limitations and dirt tends to get trapped under the foreskin when they are uncircumcised. This leads to painful infections and bacterial growth. The nurses try to clean them, but they are constantly understaffed and the hospital is not the cleanest place with so many germs everywhere from various patients, so there is a huge noticeable difference in cleaning uncircumcised penises verses circ. Sometimes the foreskin is accidentally left pulled back from the head, leading to an increase in pressure that can cause painful blisters or inflammation. Many uncircumcised elderly individuals have these problems (even at home as they age), and for this reason alone I would encourage everyone to circumcised their children! By no means do I think it should be mandatory.
He's probably a Jew too.
AFAIR it regenerate intestinal flora and paly a role against harmful bacteria. Just because sometimes it fails does not mean we should remove it *systematically*. By that call we should remove all teeth from everybody and replace by a metal or porcelane fake teeth , imagine all the cost spared ! No the bottom line is that when the illness is affecting so few people (they mention less than 1 kid out of 200) then you do not systematically practice an operation to the 200.
Circumcision started in the US only 200 years ago about as a way to stop masturbation in males. Since then out of cultural stutborness people have tried to FIND way to justify it. "it is my religious freedom to mutilate babies", "it may in some case spare a illness to a very low percentage of male". The bottom line is that mutilation of a kid which has no way to say NO. If you found out that putting vertical scare on the face of a baby spare him a 0.5% chance of getting ill later (99.5% chance of NOT getting ill anyway without scare) would you still scarify your baby for that 0.5% chance ? For fuck's sake I hope not.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
There was a puritan movement back 200 years ago in the US, and the goal was to prevent masturbation in young boy by circumcising them. Laughable, hu ? Imagine the same movement to circumcise women to prevent them feeling pleasure and thus making more likely to stay fidel. Well it is on the similar stupid level that it started. Nowaday it is more a cultural reason: mother/father did it, so son/daugher do it. Although it tend to decline , in the last few years it was only at about a 50% rate maybe 55%.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The "study" mostly uses datas relative to 3rd world countries with bad access to clean water, it even explicitely says that large part of the study do not apply to netherland, so unless your part of the US has water quality closer to sub saharan africa than to the netherlands the study loses a large part of it's value.
But obviously the issue is not if it serves any purpose but to make sure that the poorer of the poor slobs would "want" it do not risk to reconsider because of lack of insurance coverage.
I'm sure that the next step is a study that demonstrate that big books are a necessary psychological help for young sorority girls and therefore boob jobs should also be covered by the insurance.
Child Circumcision: An Elephant in the Hospital
IMHO it's bad, I wonder how the pain from it stores in the unconscious / subconscious mind and later affects the personality.
Study of US women habitued to see circumcised male find it more pelasant. news at eleven.
If you scroll down you find this gem : "Frisch et al. (2011) studied participants in a Danish national health survey, and found that male circumcision was associated "with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment"
That alone warrant making a step back and thinking a bit more.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I'm circumcised and I FUCKING HATE IT. It was done when I was aged two and I remember the pain after the operation. I have so little sensitivity that sex with a condom is a total waste of time for me. If anyone suggested that females have their clitoral hood removed and their clitoris exposed there would be an outrage. LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE and let them choose when they are 18.
There isn't a standard of competence regarding circumcision: After all its cutting-off a loose bit of skin. And at puberty, that bit of skin becomes quite large.
The Kiwi psychologist in charge of the gender therapy lied about his success in gender re-assignment. Unfortunately, his lies (boys are identical to girls) became fodder for feminist activists. Such denial of the facts damaged the patient mentally.
and why would a circumcized boy be more healthier? and how would it save $313 per person? the circumcision isn't free..
As someone who was mutilated by a surgeon when I was about a day or two old, who is now an adult, I can whole-heartedly say that I DO NOT approve of the procedure. I have problems with getting stimulated, staying stimulated, and reaching orgasm, due to the relatively small number of nerve-endings left to me on my penis. If I put a condom on for "safer-sex" purposes, that's the end of it. Not nearly enough stimulation gets through the condom for me to feel pretty much anything, so I am incapable of having "safer sex".. it's logistically impossible without something like Viagra. Perchance the companies that make Viagra, Cialias and Levitra are the ones behind this study that came to conclusions that contradict common sense? It is *NEVER* OK to mutilate a child. It is mutilation, plain and simple, and it interferes with the sex lives of those of us who have been mutilated for a lifetime.
are we really in the 21st century or suddenly back in some barbaric middle age?
Your whole post about HIV/AIDS is pretty retarded. The #1 way to keep yourself from getting AIDS through sex is to not have sex with those infected with AIDS. It has nothing to do with hygiene, or your homophobia. The only thing that matters with AIDS through sex is not fucking someone with AIDS. Yes, a condom may help, but having a partner who isn't diseased, and making sure of that with current blood tests, is the only way to make sure you aren't getting AIDS - or any other STD.
On that note, male genital mutilation is repulsive. There's a reason that the Americans are the only ones in the world (outside of a few American loving countries) who have such a high rate of circumcision. Go to Europe and it's nearly non-existent. Also, any person who chooses to have his child mutilated is a piece of shit.
Peace out.
a) The chances of your circumcision being botched leaving serious, permanent dysfunction are higher than the reduction in AIDS risk.
b) Your risk of AIDS is highly lifestyle dependent. The western world isn't Uganda, most people simply aren't at risk. Why can't people who chose risky lifestyles also choose to be circumcised, as adults? Why do we presume all babies are guilty...?
c) All the medical studies in favor of circumcision are written by people who make money from it. The only study you need is the observation that Europe isn't some aids infested den of rotting, cancerous dicks.
d) Masturbation with/without foreskin? Foreskin is best, no contest. Modern circumcision was actually started by the anti-masturbation movements in the 1900s to remove the pleasure from wanking (headed by Doctor Kellogg no less - the guy who invented cornflakes). Think about that before chopping.
No sig today...
Why not remove infant girls breast buds? Seriously. You'd save thousands of dollars in breast cancer costs among other things. By this same logic you could well support removing a great many body parts. Imagine the savings if I could be rendered completely hairless?
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
The report also mentions that circumcision helps stem the spread of HPV. While that's undoubtedly true, here in the UK teenage girls are (nowadays) routinely immunized against HPV. The NHS may suck as a healthcare system, but it's very good at cost-benefit-analysis (specifically because it's a nationwide, mandatory, tax-paid healthcare system), and in this case immunization seems to win.
If it's that easy for a layperson to poke a little hole in the arguments for circumcision, imagine how controversial the conclusion must be within the global medical community.
Soulskill, You and Timothy are what has gone wrong with Slashdot.
That's the the US 'health' system. The only 'health' cared about is the health of their bank balances.
The arggument does not hold up anywhere. The errors in the African studies were so glaring as to make it impossible to attribute them to incompetence. There was clear manipulation of results. The fact that the only studies showing an aids correlation are completely bogus is revealing.
"each circumcision that is not performed costs the U.S. health-care system $313"
NO. It costs the US health care system's customers $313. I think that $313 is a small price to pay for my child getting to grow up with unmutilated genitals.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Unless it's the parents getting circumsized, it's got FUCK ALL to do with them. It's the kid getting circumsized it's up to.
FFS.
The trouble is that the science behind the procedure is far from solid.
Just so you know, we look at your obsession with slicing up little boys' penises, shake our heads sadly, and lump you in with equally "developed" nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
You do it because Abraham did it. Don't dress it up in science, you're just embarrassing us all with the pretence.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I don't think anyone in the world is pro-abortion. It's just that there are situations where abortion has to be an option, because the alternative may be even worse for the people involved. Abortion is not something that should be treated lightly, and it certainly isn't fun for anyone.
Now tell me what real problems circumcision solves.
Few points in favor of circumcision:
-This has been a very ancient surical operation mastered to excellence at least from the times of the ancient Egypt. It has been delivered uninterruptedly to these days in the Middle East in all religious groups - hebrew, christian and muslim with very few exceptions (I remember a talmudic prescription not to circumcise hemophylic males and the formulation reveals a good understanding of genetics). These societies had the best medicine of the time.
-Circumcision was invented independently at least once by Australian aborigenes. In fact they didn't use metal instruments until modern times.
It seems that the practise of male circumcision could be promoted for cultural preservance (without boys' consent). The same doesn't apply for female genital mutilation for obvious consensus in all of the developed world.
In my country circumcision serves to distinguish cristians vs. muslims (rarely hebrews). I would never adopt the practice of the other faith. In fact it was St Peter who allowed cristians to be not circumcised.
In US, I think circumcision distinguishes catholics, asians and recent newcomers from Europe from the rest - a rather funny separation.
Last thing to add: We cannot be totally logical on matters of morality and freedom of choice. I like the arguments given above but most of them are absurd - not for being less supported by reason than state supported male circumcision, but for its inacceptability by the american society today. Whatever reasons you give, only slashdotters will debate on things like preventive teeth, tonsils or apendicitis exptraction. Most other people will just never consider similar possibilities. We live in a world where very little changes can be done. In US circumcision is widespread so it can be debated and laws changed, in Europe this would be very short discussion without any change.
You mean, by urologists?
Every specialist in the field benefits from publications that advances that field. Circumcision is very light surgery, it's not a brain surgery. I doubt it contributes much to the income of urologists.
Nowadays there is an alarming trend of doing everything under general anesthesia, which of course makes it more expensive.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Genital modification/mutilation of infants is a serious human rights violation. This is so fucking obvious that if you don't get it already I doubt there is anything more anyone can say to convince you.
a) The chances of your circumcision being botched leaving serious, permanent dysfunction are higher than the reduction in AIDS risk.
b) Your risk of AIDS is highly lifestyle dependent. The western world isn't Uganda, most people simply aren't at risk. Why can't people who chose risky lifestyles also choose to be circumcised, as adults? Why do we presume all babies are guilty...?
c) All the medical studies in favor of circumcision are written by people who make money from it. The only study you need is the observation that Europe isn't some aids infested den of rotting, cancerous dicks.
d) Masturbation with/without foreskin? Foreskin is best, no contest. Modern circumcision was actually started by the anti-masturbation movements in the 1900s to remove the pleasure from wanking (headed by Doctor Kellogg no less - the guy who invented cornflakes). Think about that before chopping.
Thank you! The existence of Europe (and possibly South America and Asia--not sure what their policies are) alone trivializes TFA. But a country full of fat people arguing for mandatory circumcision to save a few bucks on health care (while ensuring an extra $500 or so in medical costs for 1/2 of all births) is like pushing your car to work to save on gas. If you want to save money on healthcare, put a $5 flat tax on all fast food items like many states have done with cigarettes. This circumcision nonsense is the male mirror of the HPV vaccine/cervical cancer debate from a few years ago. Shockingly, the manufacturer of the vaccine thought it was absolutely crucial to vaccinate all girls... because it (might) lower their chances of getting cervical cancer... and save money or whatever... think of the children!
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
Releasing a study reflecting its own cultural bias, from which it stands to profit handsomely, laced with insinuated fears lacking any kind of meaningful statistics. _This_ is the state of medicine. It's about the money.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
It's really easy to find circumcised doctors who are against circumcision, but surprisingly difficult to find male doctors in favor who weren't circumcised themselves as children.
The AAP are way out of line with other national medical organizations, and it's very disappointing that they say this:
"Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision"
but they provide information that is both biased and highly selective. They simply don't seem to consider that the foreskin might actually be valuable.
How strange that all the health benefits the AAP claim don't seem to exist in Europe, where almost no-one circumcises unless they're Jewish or Muslim.
The AAP is the same organization that changed its policy on female cutting in 2010 btw saying "It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual [clitoral] nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm."
They were forced to retract this about six weeks later.
Dr Diekema, the chair of the committee said "We're talking about something far less extensive than the removal of foreskin in a male".
I suppose it's a good thing they didn't look at operating on girls to prevent breast cancer. 11% of women get breast cancer, and 3% die of it, so the health benefits to the girls would massively outweigh the risks.
Meanwhile, other national health organizations including the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Dutch Medical Association continue to recommend *against* circumcising newborns.
As a physician, I've evaluated medical evidence from primary sources.. A good evaluation of medical evidence is not easy. In my opinion, it cannot be done from armchair health experts on a website like slashdot. For my evaluation of the benefits and harms of circumcision, I rely on the opinion of medical experts. As a consequence, all 3 of my male children have been circumcised.
One issue inadequately addressed by the discussions here is the ease with which circumcision is performed on a newborn, requiring only numbing medication injected at the base of the penis (penile block) for good analgesia, and the difficulty of circumcision as a child ages and becomes stronger and more coordinated, often requiring the services of an anesthesiologist (and thus an operating room).The true cost of a newborn circumcision is probably $200, whereas the cost of an operating room circumcision in an older child probably is more on the order of $3000 (this is just a guess).
A certain number of male children will develop phimosis, or scarring between the glans penis and foreskin. This can result in pain on urination or erection, urinary retention, urinary tract infections, and other problems. The development of phimosis is not simply a matter of poor hygeine. Circumcision does provide definitive prevention and treatment of phimosis.
There are a lot of emotional arguments in this discussion, a lot of straw men being set up and knocked down. Many posters are comparing circumcision to child abuse. I would say to them, if you want to prevent child abuse, don't let your child watch TV, play video games, or have unrestricted access to sweets. Brush their teeth regularly and don't buy juices. Give them a good education so they are not mentally handicapped for the rest of their lives by their poor reading or math skills. Keep current on immunizations.
So you guys state we shouldn't cut it because the child should chose but you are completely okay with someone choosing wither they live or not ie abortion.
pretty sure a child would choose to live.
Every operation has risks, 117 deaths out of 2065332 male births and lets just say only 37% get circumsions = 117 over 764172 = Death rate is 0.000153%
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm
The less AIDS argument does not hold up. Full fucking stop.
All over the world, there are campaigns against the practice of female genital mutilation, yet here in the United States we advocate for male genital mutilation and perform it regularly in our hospitals. We elected not to circumcise our son, if he thinks it will be better for his health then he can have it done when he's an adult. (Although somehow I doubt he will.)
There's an old joke about Moses where he says to God, "We're your chosen people and you want us to cut the tip off our what?"
"Politicians always tell the truth, when they're calling each other liars."
See this video with an attempted ranking.
About its purpose in Judaism, here's what Maimonides wrote:
The words of Kellogg, the man behind much of its popularization in the US:
Please recalibrate your sarcasmeter; stephanruby was engaging in deadpan satire, not frank honesty. I'll refer you to my preferred benchmark, Swift's A Modest Proposal .
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
most importantly, not having any same-sex intercourse
I smell a troll.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I've got three boys, all circumcised. None of them were done by a urologist (they were done by the pediatrician), and none of them were done under general anesthesia.
Nowdays, I guess the common method isn't really even considered surgery. They clamp some sort of device on there, and the foreskin falls off after some time. Never seen that method done, but I'm told that all the cool doctors are doing it that way now.
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
Circumcision have always been in look for a reason. It have always been heralded as the 'cure' for whatever was the big malady of the times. Since it's beginnings in the western world back in Victorian ages it was a means to prevent male masturbation. Then during the first and second wars it was the cure for venereal diseases. Now is the cure for AIDS, etc. And penile cancer is one of the most rare forms of cancer, and we don't perform mastectomies on baby girls which have a much higher cancer incidence, right? The fact is that it have never been the cure for anything and it have more complications and dangers than any of the claimed benefits. Whether circumcision is good or bad is not really the issue. The bottom line is that it's really NOT the parent's choice, they only have an OBLIGATION to keep and maintain the boys body integrity until the time he is old enough to make an informed decision whether circumcision is for him or not! When my two sons were born I made the decision not to inflict the pain an torture of circumcision. So I fought hard against relatives and the hospital staff to make sure those boys would leave the hospital with all their parts intact. There was never an issue, never an infection, no nothing. Just the way nature intended with a fully functional anatomy. And as they become adults, they can make THEIR OWN decision of what is best for them. What is a baby is born from parents who are into tattoos, piercings and other forms of body modifications. Does that also gives them the right to 'choose' to perform these modifications on their children? Circumcision is a form of body modification, it's cruel, barbaric, butchery, mutilation and a form of child abuse. What we need is a better medical system where money and big profits are not the deciding factor in medical decisions. For more information about the truth about circumcision and it's complications please visit http://www.intactamerica.org/
I really hope all those saying infants shouldn't be circumcised due to "My body, my choice" are also pro-life. Else how do they justify no circumcision but actual death.
Is the exact cost of a doctor having to stand in a room and explain to you that one needs to pull the skin back and clean underneath it or it will bein to look like you have a STD. Which you don't just a dirty dick.
If you're depending on a condom, you have a 3% chance in any given sexual encounter of it breaking and you getting all the diseases of your sexual partner. Condoms simply don't work for protecting against AIDS.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The recommendations are retarded. 1 in 1,000,000 vs. 3 in 1,000,000 chance of cancer.
Sorry but without statistical and systematic errors those numbers are meaningless and, for all the information presented, could be the same within errors. Even if those were included the incredible rarity and complexity of accounting for all non-circumcision related effects probably mean that there is no meaningful way to determine whether there is a significant difference. For example the US has a far higher circumcision rate than Europe but a lower rate of penile cancer there might be due to any one of a number of as-yet-uninvestigated causes given the differences in lifestyle and diet.
This is part of the problem: the science so far is contradictory and inconclusive. The fact that different medical associations come up with opinions in line with their cultural beliefs is clear evidence of this. However, in general if there is no clear, obvious evidence of a medical benefit to a procedure you would not have it done. If this procedure was not being pushed by two major world religions and the culture of a large first world country there would be no controversy and nobody would be arguing that it should be carried out.
The foreskin is pretty damn useful. It helps the penis slide in and out. It's mechanical (as opposed to chemical) lubrication. If you remove it, you put most of the lubrication burden on the female. While I can understand why Johnson & Johnson thinks this is a great idea, nobody else should! Do you not think it's a big deal if it hurts the girl a bit sometimes? Hey, here's a great idea, let's remove boys' foreskins to make sex a little less fun for the girls!
If you were circumcised when you were two, there must have been some serious medical problems going on.
Cheap storage VM.
The "less AIDS' argument does not hold up for one simple reason:
INFANTS DON'T HAVE SEX!!!
Are you planning for your infant to be sexually active? No? Then WHY NOT WAIT SO HE CAN MAKE THE DECISION FOR HIMSELF?
The pro-mutilation lobby always makes the issue seem like circumcision can ONLY happen right after birth when it can happen ANY time. Why not let your child grow up, and at puberty, explain about STDs to them and say "Some doctors think you have a slightly lower chance of getting an infection if you have part of your penis cut off. Would you like to do that?"
There's just ZERO reason for parents to ever make the decision to mutilate their boys this way when the person being mutilated has PLENTY of time to make the decision for themselves. That's what's left out of every discussion, the fact that a decision does NOT have to be made at birth. .You better believe that if this were a case of people wanting mutilate girls at borth, there would be a constitutional amendment banning it by now.
the American medical establishment is corrupt, incompetent, dogmatic, and does not have our best interests or long term health in mind ?
Rather like premeditated murder and murder are both murder, but one is treated wose than the other.
Or is cutting the clitoral hood not genital mutilation on women?
If you can.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
The U.S. is already well on its way to becoming a non-cutting culture. The AAP's most recent statement is a last ditch effort to keep baby-cutting going for profit. It's certainly not about the health and well-being of the child. Those that continue to justify and defend this violation of human rights either have a psychological/emotional stake (understandable) or financial stake (unethical) in it. I would guess that the members of the AAP have both.
As the mother of 1 circumcised and 2 intact boys - I can say without a doubt the bodies we left alone were much easier to care for as babies. I didn't have to do anything! I never pulled back the foreskin to clean because it's fused to the glans the same way fingernails are. No UTIs. Both boys retracted on their own before age 4 and thought it was pretty neat "trick" once they realized what they could do. Some boys don't retract until puberty. My circumcised baby on the other hand was a nightmare - he came back to me with stitches in his penis, screamed bloody murder every time I changed his diaper, after the stitches came out, I had to pull the remaining skin back so it wouldn't reattach to the glans, more screaming, not to mention trying to clean runny baby poop off the raw, exposed glans. Ugh. What a nightmare - not the best start to mommy/child relationship. And obviously part of the reason I didn't let my next to boys be cut. If only I had known how simple it was to not cut ... but as an American woman, the foreskin was completely foreign to me.
I have to laugh when I hear people (men, natch) comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation. It's such a spurious comparison I'm surprised it can made without irony. The facts are these:
1) Men who are circumcised, by and large, are not unhappy about it.
2) It's a minor operation, more akin to getting your ears pierced than getting an appendectomy.
3) Women prefer (for a number of reasons) circumcised men. http://www.mg.co.za/article/2007-06-18-circumcision-a-womans-view
I can only think that men who have hissies about their "mutilation" are working out some other issues. I mean, seriously, if you think that a lack of a bit of foreskin is what's keeping you from being happy, perhaps you should look into therapy.
Two topics will set people off faster than anything: 1) circumcision and 2) when someone says they're an atheist.
As far as it goes this BS about circumcision being traumatic for like an 8 day old kid is crazy. It's no more or less traumatic than being forcibly expelled from their warm amniotic sack and then having the only source for food and oxygen cut off. I mean kids don't come out laughing. As far as the lack of anesthesia, I think I heard a doctor say that whole procedure takes less than 5 minutes. The risk of putting a kid under or using a chemical they might have an allergy to is probably higher than the kid might actually remember it.
The other thing about circumcision is that there are always studies that say, "oh well, circumcised men don't enjoy sex as much as uncircumcised men." So what? They take a guy tell him to have sex, then put his foreskin back and tell him to have sex again? Sex is sex. If it sucks for you I'd wager there are far more likely reasons for that than a missing foreskin.
Always kills me too when women weigh in on this issue, but get their knicker all in a fucking bunch when men talk about abortion and female reproductive rights. There's an easy test if you should weigh in on the issue of circumcision: Do you have a penis? Yes: please state your business. No: STFU.
It is not ANYTHING like FGM which is DESIGNED to make sex completely UNENJOYABLE for the girl. It is really done as a means of torture and teaching girls that they are owned by men (imho).
We (Americans) love to sit around and debate stupid issues. Abortion rights, gay marriage, circumcision, the teaching of evolution vs. creationism, etc. Meanwhile the country is going to shit. Meanwhile the middle class being killed off.
And be honest with yourselves you (American) guys with sons: if someone told you, if we don't circumcise your newborn son, chances are he'll never get a blowjob or the chances of some woman laughing at him while he's naked are very high. Would you not do it? Come on.
PS: Slashdot = "News for Nerds" when did we become Reddit? This isn't even a little bit nerdy.
Our moyles, a husband and wife team of urologists, did it with lidocaine ointment. We donated to their temple as payment.
...and am glad it was done then. While in some Muslim societies men get circumcised later on in life, I'm glad it was done when I could have no recollection of it.
Also, female circumcision (FGM), the way it is practiced today in some middle-eastern societies (by both Muslims and non-Muslims) existed long before Islam and is completely forbidden in Islam. Islam actually encourages sexual pleasure for men and women in marriage. Many Islamic scholars worldwide have condemned FGM; however, their voices are not heard by the mainstream news media.
Actually, most people blindly accept whatever they hear about Islam from the media, without taking into account the veracity of their source of information. In fact verifying the source of one's information as scientifically as possible is the basis for the science of hadith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies
If the boy grows up wishing he was never circumcised, then the wrong decision was made. Simple as that. And no, it's not the same as vaccination.
I don't think anesthetic is typically used in infant circumcision. Infants can't talk, but their screaming indicates it probably hurts a lot. And the terror is probably worse than the pain.
Good point, but remember that this is for a largely cosmetic procedure performed normally on infants who are not capable of consenting to the risks. And how does this decision compare to the outlawing of drop side cribs which killed a dozen or so kids over the course of a decade?
According to this slightly sketchy source the existence of foreskin is better for a multitude of reasons.
You don't know any teenagers do you? I think abortion should be legal until the 75th trimester. Ether parent makes a call to the school counselor and the kid just doesn't come home. Ends child support too.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
1) Child abuse
2) Genital mutilation
3) Child molestation.
Any doctor performing this in a hospital absent of a protected religious right should be put in jail, labelled a sex offender and charged with 1-3 above. There is no proof it actually does any good any more than cutting the same amount of skin off of a girl - which can be done by the way. It's about 15 square inches of highly sensitive erotic skin. We wonder why we have homosexuals. They aren't being stimulated enough in my humble opinion. Do this to a girl and it's lambasted as a cardinal sin to which you should be executed. It's like saying because girls can't keep clean we should do this. What sexist hogwash. Most males in the world are not circumsized and they do just fine thank you.
BTW, if this has been done to you and you are not 21 yet, get a lawyer and sue the crap out of the doctor and hospital. Lawsuits will make it stop. It's way to late for me. I was sold this BS when my Son was born. That was in the 1980s before stuff was available on the Internet, though I did have internet access back then. So I had him done and I'm beside myself because of it. Don't you do it too!
"Because it's part of our ancient supertition" was never a good excuse for genital mutilation, either.
I am not sure why any of this actually matters. If a male has good hygiene habits there shouldn't be any issues.
Ah, but hatred of Jews is a good excuse for being an ass? For thousands of years, my ancestors have been circumcised. For thousands of years, my descendants will be. Oh, and my penis works and feels great, if you're wondering.
It has nothing to do with "hatred of Jews". It has to do with hatred for ignorance, superstition, and mutilation. I disagree with anyone guilty of those things, no matter what religion. Nice try at the automatic "anti-semite" smear, though. Of course anyone who disagrees with what Jews do must automatically be a Jew-hater. How's that eternal persecution complex doing?
For thousands of years your ancestors were ignorant, superstitious savages. Nice job keeping up their ignorant, superstitious, savage traditions. And, yes, there are plenty of other, NON-Jewish people I feel the same way about. Lots of non-jews also maintain ignorant, superstitious, and savage traditions. So don't get your panties in a bunch: you just aren't that special.
Your definition of ignorance, superstition, and mutilation is open to question. Too bad you're so infected with it that your hatred gets misplaced.
When I saw the large number of the usual bogus arguments - http://www.circinfo.net/anti_circumcision_lobby_groups.html - being trotted out for this post, I wondered if I had accidentally stumbled on one about anthropogenic global warming.
Personally, I think even a small reduction of the risk of HIV or penis cancer is worth a minor surgery I can't even recall.
Generally they think they're neater/cleaner. Gez I know more than 1 or 2 that will only go down on circumcised dicks.
> This whole thing is transparent as fuck if you ask me. Doctors get money
Who needs to do science when you can make unsupported claims like that?
Are you an anti-vaxxer, too? Or are you only against scientific results that make you uncomfortable?
not acceping the things one cannot change = loser
what a load a crap
Tell you a secret, if a woman's dry it means she's not aroused (well except those with medical issues)
the little monster has no choice on whayt is being done to him
So... How is that different from abortion?
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Wait, abortion without killing the fetus? Please explain. I'm curious as to what you mean.
And whether or not this is child abuse is really a matter of opinion. Some religions require or prefer it and it happens at such a young age that most kids, I assume, don't even know what happened if anything. I didn't know until I read about it myself.
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Oh trust me, I know lots of people who think abortion should be allowed in many, many circumstances. People use it as a form of birth control all the time, as evidenced by the rather high (and grotesque IMO) rates of abortion relative to the number of cases where those people would consider it a "legitimate option". Also, circumcision isn't meant to solve a problem I think. All I know is that it's a long-standing religious practice and that it has little-to-no difference in the child's life anyway. As long as we have freedom of religion we have to allow this practice, especially since it's not very harmful at all.
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Wait, abortion without killing the fetus? Please explain. I'm curious as to what you mean.
Right now, killing the fetus is required. However, if a way to remove the fetus without killing it was somehow developed, I'd have no problem with it. That's all I meant.
And whether or not this is child abuse is really a matter of opinion.
That's not what I meant. He argued that pro-choice people should have no problems with this since abortion kills babies, but in that case, he may as well argue that pro-choice people should have no problems with anything done to a child.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
As long as we have freedom of religion
"Freedom of religion" doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want to other people. You can believe whatever you want, but just because you deem something to be "not very harmful," that doesn't mean you should be able to do it to other people. Punching someone in the face probably doesn't have long-lasting consequences in most cases, but that doesn't mean you should be able to do it to others (even if your religion commands it in some cases). I would label forcing a child to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure thing brings negligible benefits as harmful. You want to be circumcised? Go get circumcised, but don't force your kids to do it.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Why are we bothering to discuss this? As soon as our healthcare system is fully in government hands this will be a budget decision, not ours. That's right around a half billion dollar savings (roughly 1.5E6 males in the US * $313). You need to stop whining and except what ever benevolent choice our government makes for you and your children. They are way smarter than us and only have our best interests at heart, right??? I never, ever, thought before the current administration that the farcical sci-fi action flick Demolition Man could ever become reality. Now I have my doubts. "I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener". " - Edgar Friendly in Demolition Man
...if you need a haircut.
I call this bullshit, most likely biased "researchers" that are religious and want to force their religion on others.
Fore-skin is there for a reason (for protection of the glans while no erection)
Males have always been bad at cleaning themselves, especially there, so there is no surprise they get infections because of uncleanliness.
Females will get the same issue if not cleaned good.
Funny though, you can use the existence of foreskin to determine the intelligence of the person and their parents. If it is there than they are more intelligent than others.
So since this is very popular in america, it proves americans really are that stupid and naive.
If i would write a paper saying that castration increases your health i bet, unfortunately after they have had children, that they would do it.
Bloody morons. Dumb enough to do this but just smart enough to manage to survive and make offspring. That really irks me greatly.
Why can't the morons and religious hypocrites die off already !
You don't seem to understand the difference between a human being and a foetus. Read a book
Is that when you get your piles removed?
There is way more going on in that David Reimer article than circumcision.
As I recall, the "less AIDS" argument was the result of numbers taken from a survey done in Africa which was highly problematic for several reasons including that circumcised group were given increased behavioral monitoring and education on STDs whilst the uncircumcised group were more or less encouraged to maintain their sexual behavior.