Circumcisions

[DwayneEMTP]

Posters here who are against circumcision may get down on us for this decision because it is painful, and barbaric, and yada yada. To that I say.....DUH!

You can somehow use the term 'yada yada' in reference to putting your future children through a painful, barbaric, needless procedure? Shame on you.

With yourself and your wife being paramedics, then I would guess that you wouldn't mind posting the relevant facts from reputable sources that caused you to make such a decision. Please don't simply post a bunch of links to the first pro circumcision sight you come upon. I'd be interested to see the exact data, the pertinent paragraphs, that you used to make your decisions.

God bless your wife, truly, but if what you say is accurate then she surely must be for mutilation of female genitalia as well, as that is what makes for 'beautiful' sexual organs in those countries. Is that your feeling as well?

Hygienically speaking, there is no argument to be made for circumcision. And to say that being circumcised makes you unqualified to teach your sons proper hygiene is ridiculous.

Make all the exscuses you want, but short of showing some evidence to the contrary, at this point all that you're really doing is taking a tiny being that comes to this world helpless, depending on your to protect it, and making one of your first acts as a parent to brutalize him for the purposes of making a pretty dick.

That's just hard for me to wrap my brain around....

Dwayne

[chbare]

Interesting read. Not expecting to convert anybody one way or the other; however, some interesting data. I am currently working with a doctor from Uganda who mentioned the push for circumcision in his country. I wanted to obtain a bit more information, mainly numbers and research based information.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Take care,

chbare.

[letmesleep]

I think we all can accept that this procedure is going to be painful, hence the "DUH" in a previous post. Obviously the anatomy of the penis with the multitude of vasculature and nerves are going to make this painful and even run the risk of complications during the healing process. Do we, as medical professionals, really need to go over this in regards to this discussion? I find it funny that any one feels the need to point fingers and place "shame" on me and/or my FUTURE wife at all, let alone based off of ONE sentence written by me. The "YADA YADA" was directed at......well, I guess you Dwayne. This phrase, if you read the rest of my post in this thread, is being used to reference yours and any one elses argument about NOT circumcising. Could I have gone through this thread and actually listed ALL of your arguments to write my response to the question posed to me? Sure, but I chose not too. As far as posting the links for YOU to show where I got the info to make MY decision, I'll respond the same as I will to anybody else out there. Show me your data that helped you make your decisions, and the same rules apply. It has been some time since we have researched this topic in our house, so showing you the exact links, may not be possible for me to provide you. With that said I can and will also assure you that this is and will be an ongoing discussion in this house until our son is born, and we are faced head on with it, however I'm pretty sure the choice will not change.

This is one of those issues that has no real right or wrong answer. There is going to be two sides of this issue for the rest of all time as we know it. I stated MY opinion here, and also expected there to be those out there to come down on me for those opinions. Thats fine, thats called debate, but just because you or any body who is against this procedure doesn't agree with me doesn't make me an evil person for the decision that I have made with my future wife. I am also a non-practicing catholic and an active member of a UNION so I am probably going to vote Democratic (although I haven't made that choice yet), so are you going to break me down on the "internet" for those choices as well? Once AK corrected me on my initial post, and explained to me what he was actually looking for, I answered. I did open the door to my life for you to see, but how does that give any body the right to judge me and call me out for having that opinion. I have no doubt that we could find tons of issues that we disagree on, but to shame me because I stood up and posted my opinion here is ridiculous. Where does any one of us get off judging each other for having an opinion on an issue.

Shame on me? Shame on you!!!

[DwayneEMTP]

I think we all can accept that this procedure is going to be painful' date=' hence the "DUH" in a previous post. [/quote']

Barbaric was the word you used, right?

Main Entry: bar•bar•ic

Pronunciation: bär-ˈber-ik, -ˈba-rik

Function: adjective

Date: 15th century

1 a: of, relating to, or characteristic of barbarians b: possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization

2 a: marked by a lack of restraint : wild b: having a bizarre, primitive, or unsophisticated quality

3: barbarous 3

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbaric

Your words. Do not get angry at me for showing you the respect of assuming that you used appropriate words to make your point. I will attempt to protect my son, and yes, your unborn children as well, from everything I consider barbaric. Having read the definition are you then going to be happy to read it to your sons and explain that you subjected them to something like that knowing what it entailed?

[chbare]

Dwayne, what do you think of the CDC research? Just curious.

Take care,

chbare.

[DwayneEMTP]

Dwayne, what do you think of the CDC research? Just curious.

Take care,

chbare.

I didn't read the entire thing, but if I got the gist of it, it would seem to be saying that because of the nature of foreskin that those men that retain it are at a somewhat heightened risk for some diseases, such as HIV/AIDS.

Again, not having read it completely, I also believe it to have stated that they had not yet drawn any hard conclusions from the data but that is seemed to point in that direction.

If in fact those two conclusions are near accurate then I would still feel as I do now. And even if they are inaccurate, and the article was stating that those assumptions were fact, aren't we still back to the "remove all breast tissue at birth to avoid the possibility of breast cancer" argument?

If I've missed your point, please let me know and I'll commit some time specifically to read the entire entry I can discuss it more properly.

Thanks for the question...Keep your head down over there, OK?

Dwayne

[Yalp]

Dwayne, what do you think of the CDC research? Just curious.

Take care,

chbare.

In that link, the CDC is clearly displaying a bias and lack of objectivity on the issue of sensitivity. They say:

Effects of Male Circumcision on Penile Sensation and Sexual Function

Well-designed studies of sexual sensation and function in relation to male circumcision are few, and the results present a mixed picture. Taken as a whole, the studies suggest that some decrease in sensitivity of the glans to fine touch can occur following circumcision [18]. However, several studies conducted among men after adult circumcision suggest that few men report their sexual functioning is worse after circumcision; most report either improvement or no change [19–22]. The three African trials found high levels of satisfaction among the men after circumcision [9, 10, 11, 16]; however, cultural differences limit extrapolation of their findings to U.S. men.

They omitted the most important fact, which is the sensitivity of the parts actually removed. This failure to assess the issue properly is plain for anyone to see. A significant portion of the penis is removed by a circumcision, yet they ignore that portion entirely.

The sensitivity of the parts removed by circumcision is documented here: Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

Any consideration of risks and potential benefits of circumcision must consider the significant loss of sensation in the removed tissue. However, that is rarely done by anyone who concludes circumcision is advisable.

[Michael]

Dwayne, would you prohibit a) all non-adult circumcisions, including religiously based ones? If not both a) and , why not? Thanks!

[chbare]

Remove the breasts to prevent cancer, funny. This is in fact a potential option for women who have positive genetic markers. However, I will stay on topic. Here is my point, let's say I decide to circumcise my bouncing baby boy. I look at this article and decide based on this data. Does this change the argument? You are arguing people circumcise based on beliefs that have no realistic medical benefit? This; however, may provide a realistic medical benefit.

I will keep my head down, you do the same. Things seem to he heating up a bit.

Take care,

chbare.

[chbare]

In that link, the CDC is clearly displaying a bias and lack of objectivity on the issue of sensitivity. They say:

They omitted the most important fact, which is the sensitivity of the parts actually removed. This failure to assess the issue properly is plain for anyone to see. A significant portion of the penis is removed by a circumcision, yet they ignore that portion entirely.

The sensitivity of the parts removed by circumcision is documented here: Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

Any consideration of risks and potential benefits of circumcision must consider the significant loss of sensation in the removed tissue. However, that is rarely done by anyone who concludes circumcision is advisable.

I am not sure the CDC really cares about sensitivity. In fact, this is not my point. I am simply providing evidence to counter the argument of; "there is no medical evidence that supports circumcision." Simple as that. In addition, you may want to take a look at some of the flaws in the discussion section of your study.

Take care,

chbare.