Male infant circumcision is safe and benificial

Post Reply New Topic

It's irrelevant to this topic, even if some anti-circ individuals express anti-semetic views. The outspoken few don't speak for the entirety of the groups they're a part of.

Excuse me , but what medical literature? Even ruveyn's link which I guess according to him is an article that should mean we are supposed to cut our kid's penises actually says that if there is a benefit it is not observable enough to recommend widespread circumcision.

Edit: All right, sorry I started posting this before realizing that I don't have to. As Ragtime and then Inuyasha haver already godwinned the thread and my side has therefore won.

I don't know though, the difference you'd have as an adult is a good jar of perkasets or oxycontins. No party favors for the infants unfortunately.

The only health benefit a child would really receive would be less possible infections as far as I know. I don't see why any of the other supposed benefits(statistically reducing an already extremely rare form of cancer and the dubious STD studies) would differ on when it is done.

i asked a pediatrician once if an EMLA ["Eutectic Mixture Local Anaesthetic"] poultice could be used for infant circs, and he told me that some parents insist on it, even though in his opinion it was "more trouble than it was worth." i wonder why it is not used for all infant circs?

Where are the Laws that were touted as making the Equal Rights Amendment Unnecessary???

Alice Walker brought much of the World's attention to the barbaric practice of circumcision, and while her works focused mainly on female circumcision, with many Laws making it illegal with criminal consequences, where is the same protection for males under the Laws?

With the news coverage of sex-change operations, when is the knowledge finally going to be gained of identical neurological functioning of anatomy? foreskin = prepuce

The "extent" of circumcision is more addressed for female circumcision than for male circumcision, with greater legal restrictions on the female circumcision of the same neurological anatomy. The "extent" is more concisely noted in the book "Alice Walker: A Critical Companion" by Gerri Bates (2005), page 118. Male circumcision should be illegal as is the equivalent sunna female circumcision, at least under equal protection clauses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

Tadzio

Pass a law like that and there will be another Hasmonian War. Or Jews will take a short boat ride with their 8 day old suns out beyond the judicial limit to the S.S. Mohel and have the procedure done there. One outside of U.S. jurisdiction the procedure can be done quickly, quietly, safely AND legally.

When will people learn? Don't f**k with the Jews.

ruveyn

It's important to note that infection is not merely an event that occurs, gets treated and then disappears leaving everything back to normal. Many, many infections leave scars, fissures or other tissue damage that is essentially permanent. My view (and I'll note that my area is internal medicine, not urology) is that the most likely link between neonatal circumcision and lower adult rates of certain disorders lies in precisely these fewer childhood infections. This serves to reduce the number and severity of urinary tract disorders during childhood and adolescence (albeit by a small amount), and that it is the consequences of these events that provide vectors for infection during unprotected intercourse later in life. Adult circumcision will not provide prophylaxis because it will not reverse any developmental differences that have already occurred.

It is worthy of note that the studies I have read suggest that neonatal circumcision will provide some, marginal protection from HIV transmission, but not from HPV transmission. When we look at the transmission vectors of these two viruses, there is an intuitive connection--HPV readily infects the skin (it is a leading cause of genital warts), and the skin of the shaft of the penis will provide any number of viable vectors for entry. HIV, on the other hand, is a much more fragile virus, and will not generally survive transmission unless it has a relatively easy path into the bloodstream. The fragile tissue in the lining of the urethra is much more susceptible to infection, and thus any fissures or scarring inside the urethra will provide a much easier vector for seroconversion.

But all of this being said I will repeat what I said before: "Even though there are measurable benefits to neonatal circumcision, I don't believe that they are significant enough to stand alone as a justification for neonatal circumcision."

And that leaves neonatal circumcision where it is now. Optional, not required (by human law), not forbidden (by human law).

ruveyn

There is always the possibility of the S.S. Mohel rocking in the waves during the procedure, which may cause a slip of the knife, and... ulp!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

a hospital ship with stabilizing gear is just fine in none stormy waters.

ruveyn

I was circumcised as a child after I was born I am thankful that I do not have a turtle neck I would rather be circumcised then to have a ugly wick to look at and of course to have a turtle neck

And enforced by outdated cultural traditions on unwilling infants.


Your willingness to advocate infant mutilation to satisfy your culturally-charged aestethic prefference is abhorrent.
Now what about circumcised men who feel the opposite, who dislike how their circumcised penis looks? They can't go back, yet if neonatal circumcision wasn't practiced you and everyone else who'd preffer to be circumcised could still go through the procedure.

I have no idea what gentiles who have been circumcised as infants feel about it years later, but I have yet to meet a Jew who regretted what his parents did for him.

Jews have been doing this for over 3000 years and there is little or no sign of it being given up by Jews.

In times past, Jews have taken up arms when their practice has been interfered with by tyrants.

I don't know of adult males who would opt for circumcision without having a pressing medical reason for undergoing the procedure. For an adult it is very uncomfortable. Partly because of the residual pain when the operation is healing are partly for psychological reasons. Adult men are very skittish about anything happening to their Prize Possession.

ruveyn

Your willingness to advocate infant mutilation to satisfy your culturally-charged aestethic prefference is abhorrent.
Now what about circumcised men who feel the opposite, who dislike how their circumcised penis looks? They can't go back, yet if neonatal circumcision wasn't practiced you and everyone else who'd preffer to be circumcised could still go through the procedure.[/quote]

I advocate it as a religious practice it is apart of my culture and religion the only reason most christian's are circumcised is because Jesus was.

You are for abortion but against circumision both are infant mutilation but you can survive being circumcised.

Oh no, don't bring abortion into this. We're not talking about something as ambiguous or debated as whether fetuses are children, neonatal circumcision is mutilation. You don't get a "mutilate your children" free card just because you bring up religion and culture, it didn't work for female circumcision and doesn't work for male circumcision.

What would you say to those men who have a severe sense of loss because they were circumcised as infants?