Male circumcision

Post Reply New Topic

Preventing cancer of the glans penis is not unnecessary.

ruveyn

It doesn't prevent cancer of the glans, it slightly decreases the chance of an already rare kind of cancer to develop. Still unnecessary, we can skip to lack of consent if you want.

It is a benefit, to some degree.

Listen. If you have a son, let him be intact. That would be the best thing for you. However what other people do is none of your business. If the child of someone who is a stranger to you is trimmed it has nothing to do with you and does not harm you in the least so you have no standing in the matter and you have no say.

Each parent has to make decisions for their infant children. So be it.

ruveyn

So, babies have low enough pain awareness that they don't feel their penis being cut, yet they cry from gas? My BS detector is going off full blare...

Here's what's actually happening: the baby's going into shock. Like the same kind of shock you'd go into if you hacked your arm off with a chainsaw, or got half your head blown off by a grenade, or had some other truly horrific injury. This has been medically tested, and it is known that babies go into shock from circumcisions without anesthesia. That's why most of them eventually quiet down during the procedure, and certainly not because they fall asleep.

When those decisions involve mutilation and are done without the child having any say then I care, sue me. Children are not puppets for parents to do with as they please.

There is no evidence that I am aware of that infants given a circumcision by a doctor of a licensed mohale go into shock. I have never heard of such a thing happening. Do you have any scientific statistics to back up your supposition. If so please provide a reference preferably to a reputable medical journal.

Actually it is a very simple procedure and no worse than piecing the ears of a child. Do you object to drilling a hole in the earlobe of a child. To be consistent, you should

Meanwhile, have a look at this:
http://www.disabled-world.com/health/ma ... cision.php

ruveyn

I thought that some of you might derive a giggle out of this one.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlIMh_W5Lt4[/youtube]

If you cut your right arm, you will reduce the chances of getting an arm tumor by 50%.

Which is precisely why folks like me intend to resort to lobbying and legal action to get circumcision banned!

but your point, to which i replied, was equally unscientific.

Ok sounds about right, but that procedure is illegal in the west no? Also:



One of the big reasons for male circumcision was brought in was to prevent masturbation, to prevent the man finding "release" with anyone other than women, which back then would have been his wife alone. Not only that, we're pretty sure male circumcision does make sex less pleasurable (although admittedly over a longer time frame). To me it looks like two sides of the same coin.
The supposed health benefits were never thoroughly investigated until a great deal of time after the procedure became standard in America and someone said "Wait a minute, we're doing WHAT to infants!?".




No, parents do not always do what's best for their child, be it through ignorance or malice. I don't care how mega-Jewish your family is, you should not have the right to circumcise your kids. The circumcising religious communities will adapt to the new laws.

I'm gonna find some more links about circumcision later, but I thought you might like this little factoid I ran across: The death rate from botched circumcisions (it's pretty rare) is roughly equivalent, perhaps greater than the number of deaths due to penile cancer. Penile cancer, if you are unlucky enough to get it, is pretty easy to surgically cure. I'm willing to bet that the number of botched circumcisions leading to penile deformity far beats out any deformity caused by penile cancer surgery.

When the Greek king Antiochus outlawed circumcision for the Jews, he tripped off the Hasmonian Revolt which the Jews won, by the way. The circumcising communities will fight the law anyway they can.

In the U.S. we have the first amendment so it is unlikely the circumcision will be outlawed here. About 35 percent of American males are circumcised as infants so a lot more than Jews and Muslims have the procedure. Neo-natal circumcision is generally safe and beneficial. No one is forcing any parent to have their male child circumcised and no one is forbidding it either. Those parent who wish to leave their male children intact can and will do so.

ruveyn

it has never been proven beneficial,
it has been proven it removes nerves, dunno what actual effect this has.
i dont think its unsafe,

i think the children should be allowed their own choice but then again where do we set the limit.

Not true. It cuts down the HIV rate and the rate of cancer of the glans penus. I posted several scholarly references addressing this very point. Neo natal circumcision is generally safe and it has medical benefits.

I notice no one is screaming about having the ear lobes of little girls pierced with a pointed instrument so they can wear ear-rings. Wow! What a benefit that is! Fortunately if it is done in a clean way, infections are relatively rare and even when they occur they can be effectively treated. Why do people get worked up by one and not the other: Because the genitals are involved.

ruveyn

That is different because that isn't mutilation. Poking a little hole is different than cutting parts off.

I don't have my ears pierced and never got a little kid's ears pierced.

The reduced HIV correlation of circumcised men is heavily debated as is every single claimed medical benefit of circumcision.


I have similar issues with this practice, on a personal note girls in my immediate family are always given a choice in the matter.