Dustdevil Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 (edited) The African study was dubious and has very little credibility or relevance to American society. It certainly hasn't changed the mind of the AAP, who continue to maintain that there is NO medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision. If it were even remotely accurate, why is it that we have a male STD rate twice that of Europe, where circumcision is not routine? ACOG won't ever come out against circs because each one is an easy $3 thousand dollars in their pockets. Edited March 28, 2009 by Dustdevil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Male circumcision has been shown to reduce risks for certain cancers. It's also a cultural practice that does not hinder a man's sexual pleasure or performance in any way, making it much less of an issue than say, female circumcision. I'd put male circumcision along the lines of infantile ear-piercing; causes minor temporary pain and is at the discretion of the parents. When a child gets their ears pierced on the whim of the parent, if the child decides that they don't want their ears pierced, they just let the holes close up, leaving a small tell-tale scar that will eventually fade. What if the male decides that he didn't want to be circumsised? Will they be able to revert back to their preoperative condition? Of course not! I've noticed that the biggest proponents of male circumsision are FEMALE! Look, this country is more than willing to fork over tons of food, medical care, etc without getting a dime in reimbursement, but yet they can't pass out condoms? Give me a break! Good hygine habits and safe sex will also cut down the transmission of STD's, including those listed in the article! Disfiguring a males genitals isn't the ONLY answer! The reason people react strongly to this particular procedure is because it's something that most men are highly innately protective of... their penises. However, the penis itself is not being removed, nor is its functionality or sensitivity being damaged. If it were, this would be another discussion entirely. Of course we're 'protective' of our penises! It's no different that women being protective of parts of their bodies! Roe V Wade gave women absolute control over their bodies, and the decisions that they make in regards to what happens to them. Are men not accorded the same 'protections' and 'rights'? To summarilly dismiss forcing males (even in this country alone), to conform to some 'cookie cutter mentality' of what is 'proper' and what isn't, is more than just 'bovine excrement'. The removal of tonsils and appendix was done prophylactically, because they were determined to be of little or no value. Today's doctor's hesitate to simply remove them as a matter of 'standard procedure', because they've come to the realization that removal of healthy tissue is against moral and ethical standards. The same should apply to an infants foreskin as well! Yes, there have been studies done to determine sensitivity issues between circumcised and uncircumcised males. Those studies have determined that there IS a 'loss of sensitivity' in the circumcised males. Not to mention that there ARE reports of 'botched circumcisions' that result in forced gender reassignment. In a study released by the Canadian Paediatric Society (Revised 02/2008), it clearly states that with religious and personal values were not included in the assessment, the panel concluded that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm Validation: This recommendation is in keeping with previous statements on neonatal circumcision by the Canadian Paediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The statement was reviewed by the Infectious Disease Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society. The Board of Directors of the Canadian Paediatric Society has reviewed its content and approved it for publication. In 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period. Ultimately, the conclusion of the report is this: "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 I've noticed that the biggest proponents of male circumsision are FEMALE! I've noticed that too. Kind of ironic considering how much they whine about wanting control of THEIR bodies. They want to control ours too. WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celticcare Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Eyedawn take a damn chill pill. You should know me I have humour, develop a sense of one and use it! Personally am only for circumcision if it is medically necessary. If it became necessary for you to have the hood of your clitoris removed for same reasons, then would you want to? A heap of guys I know who had to be circumsized in their teens hated it because they lost sensation and sensitivity. People go on about female circumcision in the aspect that women had their clitorisis mutilated to not enjoy sexual intercourse, and yet you think its ok for a guy to be and lose or risk losing that potential too. And there are many botched up ones, some horrific messes doctors have made. It was not a personal attack at Mr eyedawn, it was a JOKE!!!! Follow safe sex procedures and ECP is emergency Contreceptive Pill. I thought maybe an educated woman who has been educated about contraception would know about that. and the would you want fries with that, relates to portion and proporton (a dig a supersize me where America seems to always want to upsize and gives fries with that) Jeeez it was a joke and trying to lighten the mood, give me a break! End rant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eydawn Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Dude, I couldn't make head or tail of what you were trying to say. Sorry if it came off a little hostile, Scotty, it just didn't make sense is all. And I may have been slightly tweaked by you mis-spelling my net-name. There's ONE E in it. It's important to me. There's a good reason to use plain English instead of acronyms, by the way... ECP means about three different things to me and it's much easier to say "morning after pill" or "emergency contraception" and have your meaning be clear. And having rarely eaten at McDonald's or similar, the fries with that and supersize me connection was not real clear at all. Sorry! I do have a sense of humor, when I understand what's going on... And I never said I was absolutely for male circumcision, fellas, nor that I wanted to control men's bodies for any reason; what I did say was that it is a contextual argument and arguing over whether it should get snipped or not has completely different ramifications in countries where condoms are not readily available or preferred for use for whatever cultural reason. I said if the risk of transmission is decreased significantly to the point where it will make a difference in the overall quality of life of people in impoverished areas, then it definitely shows benefit and is something to be considered. We're talking about a stopgap to buy some time here, since education (surprise!) is the real weapon against AIDS... if it buys more time and slows transmission, that's a good thing. Lone, yes, we supposedly hand out all these tons of food and HIV medications and all that... we also do hand out condoms and provide safer-sex training. So far, it hasn't dented the F*cking problem. The food and meds and other supplies get hijacked by warlords and end up in places you'd never expect, instead of going to the people who so desperately need help (partly due to UN ineptitude and roadblocks like ones thrown up by the Catholic Church- they refuse to teach anything but abstinence and withhold funds that could be used to help) so I don't have a lot of hope for enough, or even MORE condoms getting to where they're supposed to go either. Circumcision, on the other hand, is permanent and not subject to warlord seizure or exploitation. It's also not subject to behavioral compliance with prophylactics, thus giving it the potential to be much more effective (if it can be PROVEN to have the potential that this study indicates) than condoms which may or may not be available, with people who may or may not have stigma against using them or who simply give it up because it's more hassle than it's worth. And don't get me wrong... I am fully aware that circumcisions are botched. One key study was that of twins who were both circumcised, but one's penis was damaged severely due to misuse of an electrocautery device. I swear to God, if I meet the "Psychologist" who forced the parents to turn their damaged son into a "girl" I will shoot him myself. Gender is so complex that to think you can simply "reassign" it in an individual born as a healthy male (or female for that matter) is not only arrogant, but it's foolish. I'm much more for Rabbi doing circumcisions than doctors; they're very practiced at it and know exactly what they're doing. What I'm saying is that people need to check the knee-jerk reaction to this article and seriously consider the implications of circumcision for AIDS stricken areas. Here in America, advocate for the elimination of circumcision if you feel that strongly about it. Refuse to circumcise your children. That's well within your purview and there's nothing wrong with it! Just keep in mind, not everywhere has it as good as you do, and more drastic measures may be necessary than would be here. Wendy CO EMT-B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo_1387 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 And I never said I was absolutely for male circumcision, fellas, nor that I wanted to control men's bodies for any reason; what I did say was that it is a contextual argument and arguing over whether it should get snipped or not has completely different ramifications in countries where condoms are not readily available or preferred for use for whatever cultural reason. I said if the risk of transmission is decreased significantly to the point where it will make a difference in the overall quality of life of people in impoverished areas, then it definitely shows benefit and is something to be considered. We're talking about a stopgap to buy some time here, since education (surprise!) is the real weapon against AIDS... if it buys more time and slows transmission, that's a good thing. It is just as wrong to circumcise an African boy, as it is an American boy. It is still the basic concept of altering the body of a non-consenting infant. The decision should be that of the male when they become an adult. What I'm saying is that people need to check the knee-jerk reaction to this article and seriously consider the implications of circumcision for AIDS stricken areas. Here in America, advocate for the elimination of circumcision if you feel that strongly about it. Refuse to circumcise your children. That's well within your purview and there's nothing wrong with it! I just do not follow the logic where it is ok to alter the penis of one group of males, but not other males, as infants, based on geographical location. Like I have said, I have no problem with circumcision if consented by the adult getting snipped. Personally for me I had both my boys circumcised when they were babies. I made that choice based on things I had read about the pros and cons of circumision and the complications and problems that may occur in later life. Could they have not made that choice when they got older? You took something away that would require lots of work to get back. Even if they do get it back, it would never be quite the same. Just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenac Posted March 29, 2009 Author Share Posted March 29, 2009 It is still the basic concept of altering the body of a non-consenting infant. The decision should be that of the male when they become an adult. Based on that logic a parent could not do anything to their child then as it might not be what the child would want when they are grown. You could not make them go to school because it is their right to decide whether they want to know anything so we should wait till they are adults and let them decide whether to go to school. Heck probably should not feed them either as when they get grown they might not like that kind of food. And don't dare breast feed a male child as they may be gay and you forced him to partake of the female of the species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo_1387 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Based on that logic a parent could not do anything to their child then as it might not be what the child would want when they are grown. You could not make them go to school because it is their right to decide whether they want to know anything so we should wait till they are adults and let them decide whether to go to school. Heck probably should not feed them either as when they get grown they might not like that kind of food. And don't dare breast feed a male child as they may be gay and you forced him to partake of the female of the species. That is outrageous Spenac. I never said someone should not raise and provide for their child. The comment was very specific to altering the penis of a male child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenac Posted March 30, 2009 Author Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) That is outrageous Spenac. I never said someone should not raise and provide for their child. The comment was very specific to altering the penis of a male child. Same principle. What if I as an adult I decide I did not want my brain filled with knowledge. My parents forced this alteration on me. If parents are not allowed to decide on a medical procedure they should not be allowed to decide anything that has any permanent affect. Edited March 30, 2009 by spenac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo_1387 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Same principle. What if I as an adult I decide I did not want my brain filled with knowledge. My parents forced this alteration on me. If parents are not allowed to decide on a medical procedure they should not be allowed to decide anything that has any permanent affect. That is faulty logic Spenac. By your standards, parents should be able to chop of their children's arms if the children steal from the parents. Since the parents can decide, eh? Besides, children are programmed to learn, just as males are born with foreskin. Why not go with the program? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts