Circumcision. Do you agree with it?

  • Hugh7 - 13 years ago

    Alex Waddell: your argument has been overthrown by events - with only 55% of babies in the US being circumcised today, he's equally likely to be ridiculed or rejected whichever way he is. Which would you rather have to explain to him - "They're all different from you because they've had part cut off their peepees" or "You're different from them because we had part cut off your peepee (so that you'd be the same as them...)"?

    And it takes longer than two minutes - up to two weeks to heal, lifelong if anything goes wrong.

  • Hugh7 - 13 years ago

    "At least one third of uncircumcised males will develop a condition requiring medical intervention. This means degrees of suffering and possibly death."

    Talk about shroud-waving! This figure was concocted by a professor of biochemistry (who never met a reason for circumcising he didn't like, including "to prevent splashing the toilet seat" and "to prevent zipper injury" - like zippers can't hurt the glans?), by adding together all possible worst-case scenarios. Actually, one in three medical treatments lifelong is about typical for any normal part of the body. The doctors of the rest of the world are not burdened by patients with foreskin-related complaints. On the contrary, in Finland, where circumcision is not customary, the lifetime risk (really necessary circumcisions) is one in 8000. The complication rate from circumcision is much higher than that.

  • Circinfo - 13 years ago

    Circumcision offers a lifetime of health, medical and sexual benefits. At least one third of uncircumcised males will develop a condition requiring medical intervention. This means degrees of suffering and possibly death. In contrast, circumcision can prevent or greatly reduce the risk of these medical conditions. The surgical risk with a modern circumcision is extremely low, while the life-long appearance & functional outcomes are excellent. Male circumcision also offer considerable medical and sexual benefits to a female partner by reducing her risk of suffering, disease, medical treatment and premature death.

  • Fred Rhodes - 13 years ago

    My six brothers and I were circumcised as infants. Mine took off too much shaft skin and caused my erections to become painful after puberty, and led to psychological dysfunctions through out my life. Two of my brothers committed suicide and two others developed severe depressions. I told my sisters and brothers in hopes that they could prevent it from happening to their sons.
    It's not good to allow yourself to need to become circumcised, even if it is made to become necessary by parental neglect and iotragenic missinformation, but it's totally illogical to do it to some one else to prove you know better. It's as senseless as pulling your childs teeth in the hopes that it may prevent deadly tooth decay. Properly cared for prepuces and teeth, look great and smell good and function just right.
    My younger sister said that her intact son was not made fun of through out school. Most likely the people who verbally and sexually abused and coersed Alex were sexually abused and traumatized as infants themselves.
    I think infant circumcision is a curse and a form of eugenics and a form of slavery and causes the human spirit to rebel.

  • alex waddell - 13 years ago

    I am uncircumcised and would never leave my child intact. If one incident whether it be in the locker room or (god forbid) with a girl, that my son were made fun of 2 minutes as a baby would not matter.
    I was made fun of and made to feel inadequate. It was HORRIBLE and never would wish it on anyone even with all of the arguments. Very few people are circumcised, its natural, if you find the right person it won't matter etc (FACE IT IN THE US YOU ARE DIFFERENT!!! PLAIN AND SIMPLE SUGAR COAT IT ALL YOU WANT!)

  • Vincent C - 13 years ago

    "145,000 soldiers ...... were beset with foreskin related ailments"
    Sorry if this is ignorant, but I'm just wondering how many of those soldiers were consorting with prostitutes or other women. Just a thought.

    "Circumcision helps reduce disease."
    Now, I'm not going to bother arguing that those stats are wrong. I'm going to say that they are IRRELEVANT.
    1. All those venereal diseases can be prevented much more effectively by simply using a freakin' condom.
    2. Incidence of penile cancer: 1 in 100,000 in North America.
    Incidence of testicular cancer: 1 in 250.
    Would you chop off your son's balls so he doesn't get testicular cancer?
    Just think about that for a second and see if it makes sense at all.
    3. The cervical cancer stat seems to be the most useful of the bunch, until you actually read the research paper and realize that the researchers do not take into account whether the subject groups use safe sex practices. Bear in mind that some of the countries included in the study do not have proper sex education programs nor availability of condoms. In case you didn't know, cervical cancer is most commonly spread/caused by a virus (HPV). Again, just of think about it and decide for yourself.

  • Alejandro - 13 years ago

    Ryan and Amy are correct on every point, while Jeff presents the same tired rhetoric circumcision advocates dispense every time they state their pathetic case. His remarks show a thorough disdain for the male physique, which has become quite fashionable. If he and other men feel they are too lazy to clean themselves, then they should commence with a life of celibacy. The world will be better for it. And, if some women don't like the look of an uncircumcised penis, that is their problem. The female genitalia isn't exactly museum quality art. Baby boys shouldn't have their bodies mutilated because some future love interests might find it visually displeasing. Women don't like when men tell them what to do with their bodies; why should they reserve the right to do the same to us? Besides, human genitalia was designed for function, not appearance. You don't just look at it; you work with it. It's ludicrous that people like Trexler continually make justifications for male circumcision - not those of us who advocate its abolition. No, Jeff, babies don't have a choice where they're born or how they're raised, but they can change that upon reaching adulthood. Males can't change their penises once they've been modified. The cultural aspects surrounding this debate are even more outrageous. Religious freedom and aesthetic sensibilities are inconsequential when basic human rights are the issue. Male circumcision is an ancient brutal process that serves no purpose in the modern world. If only Christians and Muslims practiced male circumcision, for example, the World Health Organization and other groups would have no problems demanding it be stopped. But, because it is associated primarily with Judaism and because Jews have hoodwinked the world into believing they are the only victims of religious persecution, those organizations remain silent. Some people will use any excuse to play the victim. No amount of genital mutilation will protect either gender from disease; only education, personal responsibility and individual empowerment will. More importantly, absolutely no one has the right to dictate how a child's body should look - not the father, not the mother and certainly not the community in which that child is born and raised.

  • B. Maurene WHite - 13 years ago

    Citing Britt "I see no downside to circumcision": it is very difficult to imagine 20,000 - 40,000 varied nerve endings, or the mechanical mobility of the 5 layer shealth containg these nerves you had a right to but have never been allowed to experience.

    The penis, during years when hormones remain high still appears to have many magical sexual functions, but circumcision causes progressive desensitization and roughness during intercourse causing increasing displeasure and ultimately pain for most women. (Just listen to the women on the Oprah show complain about this - although they don't even know the real reasons for their sexual displeasure).

    This is the reverse of the experience of couples in which the male is intact (has been allowed to keep - as if anyone else has ever had a right to cut anyone else's foreskin! - all his sexual anatomy). Many couples enjoy, and women request sex from therir intact mates well into their eighties.

    All studies , trying to claim positive value of circumcision, including those claiming circumcision prevents HIV contamination have been deconstructed to show they are superstition, myth and fraudulent.

    Circumcision originated millenia before the development of writing, when it was encoded into monotheistic religions (THOUGH NOT IN CHRISTIANITY, WHICH REJECTS IT) and is rooted in ignorance, cruelty and age inequality. It is a shame upon the noble practice of medicine that some doctors choose to perform it on unanaesthetized, unconsenting infants at their parents request, without educating them.

    Performing circumcision is revolting, bullying, cowardice, fraudulent, violent sexual assault with intent to maim, and the shoddiest imagineable way to earn fees for suposed medical service. It is a multi billion $ industry in the USA WHICH IS WHY CIRCUMCISERS KEEP THEIR PATIENTS UNEDUCATED ABOUT IT.

    So I say to Britt, and any others mired in this ignorant attitude of denial, "Get a life, learn what you're missing, and work on regaining what you've lost: RESTORE, RESTORE, RESTORE".

  • Mark Lyndon - 13 years ago

    It looks like I can't post links, but you can find the following medical society quotes at the organizations' official websites:

    Canadian Paediatric Society
    "Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
    "Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
    "After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

    Royal Australasian College of Physicians
    "After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
    (those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

    British Medical Association
    "to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

    National Health Service (UK)
    "Many people have strong views about whether circumcision should be carried out or not. It is not routinely performed in the UK because there is no clear clinical evidence to suggest it has any medical benefit."

    Canadian Children's Rights Council
    "It is the position of the Canadian Children's Rights Council that 'circumcision' of male or female children is genital mutilation of children."

    drops in male circumcision:
    USA: from 90% to 57%
    Canada: from 47% to 14%
    UK: from 35% to about 5% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
    Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
    New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
    South America and Europe: never above 5%

    It's worth remembering that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
    a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
    b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

    Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then google "A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words" to find out what doctors were saying at the time.

    Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.

    The record payout for a botched circumcision is $22.8 million. It was said at the time that the victim "will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require extensive reconstructive surgery and psychological counseling as well as lifelong urological care and treatment by infectious disease specialists."

  • Lynn - 13 years ago

    My three sons are not circumcised (one adult, one teen, one child). Absolutely no reason for it. They are all fine, never had a problem, not even a small one.

  • Britt - 13 years ago

    I am astounded that given merely a look at these two different arguments in which one cited medical article and medical study and article and study, to hear anyone say there is no medical prof or reason!

    I am circumcised. I see no downside to it. Persons who are not circumcised, I am glad you have an opinion, but if you read the medical articles and studies cited above, please don't tell me there is no reason to be circumised.

  • John vG - 13 years ago

    I'm astounded the debate is still being discussed and assumed that doctors all over North America now accept that circumcision is mostly little more than ritualistic mutiliation. I'm equally astounded at the 60% rate in the US! Wow! Since 1975 the Canadian Paediatric Society circumcision policy has been that there is no medical indication for male neonatal circumcision and rates have declined every year since then. In Newfoundland the rate last year was zero. For Canada overall in 2003 the rate was 14% (I'm surprised it was that high). I just don't understand how anyone can take a perfect little baby and chop off a piece of healthy tissue for no therapeutic reason whatsoever. Owiee!

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars

Submit Comment