I think there was a phase decades ago where surgery seemed like a good idea and they’s sort of use it preventively: foreskin: out, tonsils: out, appendix: out, etc. Doctors would favor surgical solutions. Today there is a tendency to restrain the use of surgery and doctors recognise many cesareans, breast amputations, etc, were really not needed and were done just because they could be done and it seemed like a simpler solution. I think circumcision falls clearly in this area and its practice will decrease as time goes by.
I notice, xanakis, that you COMPLETELY failed to provide even one iota of scientific evidence for your position. Not that I’m surprised, of course. There is almost no evidence for your position! What we find when we visit the anti-circumcision zealots’ web sites are little more than propaganda, very little of which shows up in respected medical journals. Anti-Circ zealots are highly irrational.
The bias you demonstrated in the phrasing of your opening question made me fairly certain that reason, logic, and medical evidence wouldn’t persuade you of anything. But I had to try.
Carefully. If what you wanted was a vociferous argument, you phrased your question perfectly, for that’s inevitable now.
By advancing this “argument”, you come across as a knee-jerk zealot, do you realize that? But I’ll gladly give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re no such thing, and answer your “objection” as if it were made by a fair-minded person…
Breasts are extremely important organs, whereas a tiny slip of useless flesh is clearly not! Routine neonatal circumcision has been a part of a great many human cultures for millennia upon millennia (it is extremely stupid to think only the Jews did this before modern times!), and yet there is virtually NO evidence of harm resulting from this practice (unlike female circumcision, which is horribly cruel). In these scientific times, we now know that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows that the real harm is, in fact, almost exclusively associated with the lack of circumcision (now that our average life expectancy is so high as to make cancer much more probable per lifetime, and our population density so high that STDs are more common).
Comparing the trimming of a bit of superfluous flesh with the nightmare of breast removal is like comparing a parking ticket to the Holocaust. It makes your “argument” look extraordinarily ridiculous.
HUH??? I can’t think of a better argument!
If removing a small bit of superfluous flesh from say, between your newborn child’s toes would protect them from say, dengue hemorrhagic fever (let’s not be geocentric) for the rest of their life, it would be DESPICABLE of a parent not to do so! Every parent who loved and cared for their children would demand that this procedure be performed! Even though the risk of contracting dengue hemorrhagic fever is much smaller than contracting AIDS.
What kind of sick morality argues for the insouciant acceptance of easily-avoided risk to kids? For that’s just what you’re arguing for: indifference to your children’s future risks of horrible diseases! Not having your infant son circumcised is like refusing to have him immunized.
Just like you’d apparently rather force your kids to wear mosquito netting and cover themselves with Off every time they go outside for the rest of your lives to avoid West Nile instead of trimming a bit of useless flesh from between their toes. Your kind of thinking shifts all the burden to your kids, even though you COULD have done something about it! But no, apparently you would irresponsibly refuse to help them.
Spoken like a true weasel. First, we’re NOT talking about you (as an adult, you can swim in sulfuric acid for all I care), WE’RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR SONS! What kind of a father deliberately exposes their kids to unnecessary risks, even high risks like AIDS? Certainly not a father I’d want!
Furthermore, your rubbish about remaining “whole” is ridiculous. It’s empty emotional propaganda. Have you never had a haircut? Never trimmed your fingernails? Never had a tatoo or piercing? How about having your appendix removed? People have their bodies modified every day.
That’s the lamest “argument” I’ve ever heard! It is to laugh.
Most men don’t get colon cancer either. Does that mean that if there were a near-perfect, cheap, easy, and safe minor surgical procedure that would keep you from contracting it you wouldn’t do it? HA! What you are saying, in the end, is that you’d gladly sacrifice your son’s safety for no good valid reason at all. Nice.
As for the morally and intellectually bankrupt suggestion of yours that a parent should wait and let their son decide for himself at adolescence or adulthood whether or not to undergo circumcision, it is abundantly clear you didn’t read my post and follow the links.
Allow me to quote from one of those references:
“It is argued by opponents of circumcision that the male himself should be allowed to make the decision about whether he does or does not want to be circumcised. However, there are problems with this argument, not the least of which is the fact that the greatest benefits accrue the earlier in life the procedure is performed. If left till later ages the individual has already been exposed to the risk of urinary tract infections, the physical problems and carries a residual risk of penile cancer. Moreover, it would take a very street-wise, outgoing, adolescent male to make this decision and undertake the process of ensuring that is was done. Most males in the late teens and 20s, not to mention many men of any age, are reticent to confront such issues, even if they hold private convictions and preferences about their penis. Moreover, despite having problems with this part of their anatomy, many will suffer in silence rather than seek medical advice or treatment. Really though parental responsibility must over-ride arguments based on ‘the rights of the child’. Think what would happen if we allowed children to reach the age of legal consent in relation to, for example, immunization, whether they should or should not be educated, etc, etc. A period of great benefit would have been lost, to the potential detriment of the person concerned.”
I quoted the following in my previous post: “An early survey saw only one death amongst 566,483 baby boys circumcised in New York between 1939 and 1951 (There are no deaths today.)”
To which xanakis foolishly responded:
Good Bob, what a … I will hold back what I truly wanted to write in response to this incredibly stupid response, and merely point out that xanakis isn’t thinking very clearly. Those statistics, xanakis, PROVE that between 1939 and 1951, the fatal complication rate of circumcision was only 0.0000000017 percent! Today, of course, it’s ZERO PERCENT! That was the point of the statistic: to PROVE that circumcision is extraordinarily safe.
The death rate associated with fatal complications resulting from a LACK of circumcision is far, far, FAR higher!! Don’t you know that even urinary tract infection kills a lot of kids every year? And that circumcision DRASTICALLY reduces the chances of contracting UTI? Sheesh!
The LACK of circumcision is CONSIDERABLY more likely to lead to death than circumcisions. When you factor in UTI, penile cancer, STDs and AIDS, and other serious complications arising from the lack of being circumcised, the odds are unambiguously better for those lucky boys who were circumcised as infants.
If you want evidence of these demonstrated facts, re-read my previous post more carefully.
Then, xanakis once again trods out his earlier inanity when he writes:
Is anyone else impressed with that vapid excuse for an “argument”?
Oh, heaven forbid that parents take responsibility for their 3 day old infant! Babies should have jobs and make their own decisions, too, dammit. What freeloaders they are! Why do parents have to do all the work?
Sheesh!
No it’s not! There have been thousands or millions of men who were circumcised as adults. I’ve personally known several of these men, and they all say they can’t tell the difference!
Let me quote from another reference I’ve already provided:
“There is nothing more or less special about [nerve cells] in the foreskin compared with those elsewhere in the body. The glans [head] also contains nerves which don’t usually get fully stimulated when sex is experienced through the foreskin.”
In other words, the foreskin can reduce pleasure!
Let me share with a favorite quotation of mine from Ogden Nash:
Smallpox is natural; the vaccine ain’t
I’ve cited a large number of scientific papers establishing my case beyond reasonable doubt. All you’ve done is dismiss them arbitrarily for no valid scientific reason whatsoever!
You are, of course, free to endanger your sons unnecessarily based on your own personal opinions. Thank you, though, for your honesty in not claiming that science backs up your choice.
Ammusing that the foreskin (Being, IIRC, the least likely to cause problems, and of those, the least severe problems) is the only one popularly removed at birth now. I can see far more reason for removing the apendix than the foreskin. You don’t need either of them. Personally, I think it’d be better to keep them untill it’s either -needed- to go, or the person possesing it decides to get rid of it. I don’t think the possibility of the apendix rupturing sometime in life and injuring the person (Or killing them, if left untreated) is any reason to lop it off at birth.
And I say this as someone who had his vestigial organ blow and try its best to screw them up. Still got the foreskin, though 
I’m sorry, I just couldn’t let this one pass by.
Anyone who has their foreskin obstructing their glans the whole time they’re having sex probably has much more severe problems. I can’t think of any way short of CLAMPS to keep the foreskin over the glans while the penis is erect, and I don’t think anyone would be thinking of anything even slightly erotic in that case (Thoughts would probably range from the “that hurts!” to “Oh my god, TAKE IT OFF!!”)
That, and the skin that is normally covered by the foreskin is a good deal softer because of that protection (Which is the main reason it’s considered more prone to infection, since it’s rather sensitive, and some people don’t maintain proper hygene…). More sensitive.
Personally, I think the fact that circumsision is the only cosmetic alteration allowed without consent of the patient is rather bad. Guess I lucked out by having parents that realized I might actually -want- to have a choice there.
Yes, folks, another intellectual giant advances a variant on the incredibly stupid breast-removal “argument”…
How clever.
I am struck by the total absence of peer-reviewed scientific data from everyone’s posts but mine. But perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised. Most of you folks sound like Creationists who studiously ignore scientific research because it doesn’t agree with their emotional prejudices.
Here’s a direct quote from Medscape: "Mutagens, in the case of penile cancer, may include retained secretions beneath the foreskin, because early circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer to near zero.
From the health viewpoint, it is essential to understand that neonatal circumcision is a PROPHYLACTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE that PREVENTS disease.
Ancient Egyptian, Coptic and Ethiopian cultures, it is being shown, preceded the Hebrews in using circumcision as a health measure because of the prevalence of schistosomiasis infection in their areas. As one medical wit said, “Life insurance companies should class wearers of a prepuce under the head of a hazardous risk”. The litany of penile, sexually transmitted and communicable diseases related to the higher incidence in the uncircumcised justifies the procedure as a viable option in maintaining and promoting quality genital health care for males of all ages.
Let me also point out that in five major series in the USA since 1932, not one man with penile cancer had been circumcised neonatally.
In other words, circumcision is a perfect preventative cure for penile cancer in the U.S.
Let me close with this rebuttal from Unca Cecil himself to the ridiculous “arguments” that most anti-circumcision crackpots make, claiming that circumcision is riskier than not circumcising:
"Complications from circumcision are low, approximately 0.2 to 0.6 percent. A total of three deaths have been ascribed to circumcision since 1954. In contrast, more than 1,000 U.S. men develop penile cancer each year, 225-317 of whom die. Circumcision effectively prevents penile cancer. Of 60,000 cases since 1930, fewer than 10 have involved circumcised men. Circumcision also eliminates foreskin problems such as inflammation, failure to retract, etc. These persist in non-circumcising nations such as the UK despite presumed familiarity with proper foreskin hygiene.**
Face it, you folks alleging that it is wiser not to circumcise infant boys: You don’t know what you’re talking about.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Phoenix Dragon *
Personally, I think the fact that circumsision is the only cosmetic alteration allowed without consent of the patient is rather bad. Guess I lucked out by having parents that realized I might actually -want- to have a choice there.
Personally, I think the fact that parents who should know better are so thoughtless and irrational as to refuse to act responsibly towards their sons and have them circumcised should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
Almost everyone here has merely spouted Politically Correct gibberish in the face of the clear preponderance of scientific evidence. That’s pretty shameful, too.
Since you’re so fond of your specious sources, ambushed, I’ll refer you to some similar ones for the counter-argument, as picked up by a 2-minute websearch:
http://www.cirp.org/
http://www.nocirc.org/
http://infocirc.org/index-e.htm
Most of them take the same “What awful parents to hurt their sons!” perspective, but from the opposite approach, the physical and (later in life) emotional pain that comes from it. They also have similarly questionable medical viewpoints, comprised mostly of opinions and numbers cooking, and also in great quantity such as yours. That is why I consider any “medical evidence” inconclusive…there is absolutely no agreement to be reached, and no authoritative sources have researched the matter, as it is obviously a sensitive topic (no pun intended 
) with hard data being difficult to come by, and experimentive subjects even harder.
And you’re right, I should have used breasts, or perhaps female genitalia, instead of lungs. The latter are also “useless slips of flesh” that can be removed with practically no life-threatening consequences, and do provide some measure of protection from certain afflictions (while, of course, amplifying others) I can’t really see any difference between one operation and the other, except that one is (in this country) commonplace and generally accepted, while the other is (in this country) seen as an intolerable violation of a person’s body.
From your perspective, I will also guess that you are not male, nor have you been intimate with many - you have a decided lack of knowledge about how such things function, and deride very common shared viewpoints (eg- the “remaining whole” aspect) as ‘empty propaganda’. It’s downright dishonest to try to compare trimming of fingernails and hair , which regrow rapidly, to that of permanent body modification, which quite a few people are not fond of. Those with tattoos are in the minority, and while ear piercing is fairly common, and a much more minor modification than circumcision, anything else certainly is not. Furthermore, your comment of “knowing many men circumcised as adults” is questionable, at best. For one, I’m amazed you personally know of any, much less several (it’s quite rare, and not exactly dinner conversation) and second, the thought of anyone claiming “no difference whatsoever” is absolutely laughable, as any male, snipped or not, will full well know that there’d be a rather substantial difference. If you have, in fact, been told that, then you certainly are not getting the full story, or the males in question are sexually clueless to an extent that’s hard to believe in recent times.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ambushed *
**
Good grief… 317? Or 0.13 per one hundred thousand population. .0000013%? So in otherwords, you’re roughly 120 times more likely to die from a vehicle crash than from not being circumsized (According to the CDC and National Vital Statistics System; I did the debate the favor of introducing a unbiased, objective source of information). Better never put your kid in the car, you’d be an irrisponsible parent for doing such a vastly HUGE high-risk action as that. Heck, a child of 4 years age or less is 11 times more likely to die of HEART DISEASE than ALL age groups are to die from your “non circumcision” epic. Heck, Apendicitix, one of the SIMPLEST surgeries and one of the more common ones (And one I mentioned before), causes around 390 deaths per year according to the same source! More than your example causes. Should we start cutting out the apendix at birth, too?? And hell, the average person would probably miss their apendix a whole lot less, too. I can’t notice the difference (Appart from a small scarr), but I’d certainly notice a difference if my foreskin were missing.
The other problems you mentioned are all either easily fixed later in life or entirely preventable by decent hygene (Which seems to be a problem for some…).
Hey… I might not have liked some of the decisions my own parents made at various times, but you should watch for comments that could be seen as an insult like that. And if that WAS what you ment, post it in the Pit, this isn’t the place for it.
ambushed, while your posts are not addressed to me I have to say you are being unnecessarily insulting calling people who disagree with you zealots.
As has been pointed out, the USA is about the only country where circumcision is rountinely done for non-religious reasons. I do not think Europe and the rest of the world can be called zealots.
Also, the American medical community in the last few years have been moving away from recommending it so they are moving in the opposite direction than you are. I would not call them zealots either.
You are free to express your opinions but by insulting other posters you are indirectly disrespecting the rest of us here. So please calm down and state your case objectively.
It appears that the data I read in 1993 was in error. I accept that neonatal circumcision eliminates the risk of penile cancer. I did, however, find a terrifyingly large amount of information on complications, my personal complication being the original impetus of my reluctance to accept routine circumcision of my son. You ignore all complications but death. Even then, your data are in doubt. A study I read of sepsis related to circumcision indicates that many cases of mortality due to sepsis are overlooked because circumcision is so routine as to be overlooked as a contributing factor. A few pictures of deformities resulting from complications were the final straw in my decision to fight for my son’s foreskin eight years ago. Granted that the incidence of gross deformity is relatively low, the gut-wrenching results and psychological impact are more risk than I’d want to face.
I’m sorry, but I hardly feel that circumcision should be considered as a prophylactic measure against STDs. It may reduce risk of transmission, but “Oh, I can’t get AIDS; I’m circumcised.” Just how well does this method stack up against condoms or <gasp> responsible behavior? You’re saying I should have my son circumcised so that I can neglect teaching him how to avoid acquiring AIDS via sexual contact (as if female>male vaginal intercourse is the only vector)?
How about just a little common sense, too? BTW, My personal experiences are a little more than “anecdotal evidence” when it comes to making decisions about removing pieces of my son’s anatomy.
I decided to ignore your posts because you seem to have no real clue what you’re really talking about. Sure, you provide a lot of cites, but you seem to be making an unequivocal condemnation of the foreskin without any consideration of evidence that keeping it might not be universally fatal.
**
I don’t think any reasonable person has much difficulty in distinguishing between trimming hair or nails and excising functional, healthy, living tissue in the context of the phrase “chopping off a part of the body”, particularly in a discussion of circumcision.
What myth? The foreskin serves to protect the glans from desensitization caused by constant friction. It has been rather firmly established the the glans of an uncircumcised penis is considerably more sensitive to stimuli that the glans of a circumcised penis. Men circumcised as adults invariably report markedly reduced sensitivity of the glans some months after surgery.
On the breast argument. You say there is no correlation whatsoever. Bullsh*t. By your reasoning, all women should consider radical mastectomy following a decision not to breastfeed. You say the breast is an important organ. How so? After childrearing, what biological purpose does it serve? How can you possibly state that the foreskin is an utterly worthless bit of skin?
You seem to be proclaiming yourself as some kind of expert in this subject without giving any consideration to the other side of the argument. Data refuting your medical arguments is out there. Mekhazzio provided some excellent links to materials that debunk the argument concerning AIDS transmission in Africa. I’m still having a hard time believing that any reasonable and sane person would propose circumcision as prophylaxis against STDs when even condoms have been shown to be less than 100% effective against AIDS.
okely dokely
here’s my take …straight girl in the ring tral la la la la
circumcized penises look nicer when flaccid. when erect, the foreskin is retracted, so both types look much alike.
in ireland circumcision is NOT the norm, and is NEVER performed (even on newborns), without anaesthetic, in hospitals. religious rituals are a diferent matter, however.
personal experience: i could care less.
one ex was circumsized at 15 because of para-thymosis (non-retraction) which made sex painful. and he was not a happy bunny. massive chip on shoulder, so i’m thinking that foreskins are there for a purpose.
another ex, uncircumsized, and found that the glans was too sensitive, so he preferred not to retract his foreskin (apart from sex, when i insisted retracting because we used condoms…which don’t work otherwise).
so, what i’m saying is, no, i don’t really mind, but it’s not going to happen to any son of mine, unless he chooses to do so himself at a later date, or for a medical reason. thakyouverymuch.
good hygiene, and practising safe sex should even the odds up to an acceptable level. and i’d rather leave it up to an adult man, than take the choice out of his hands as an infant.
As a youth, I had all my teeth removed. It was common in my country, and our language has evolved so that we are all fully intelligible–at least to each other–without teeth. after moving to america, some people were confused. I found it easier to say that it was for religious/cultural reasons rather than for health, because they’d inevitably ask, incredulously, Why don’t you just brush your teeth?
But think of all the medical benefits I avoid aside from cavities: I’ve never bitten my cheek, have never bitten my tongue, have never chipped a tooth, have never had to worry about seeing the dentist, never had to worry about braces, never had to worry about tooth decay, and when I’m old I won’t have to worry about embarassment or any other complications hiding my “problem” by wearing false teeth! And think of all the time I save by not having to brush my teeth twice, or even three times, a day!
I remember a boy in grade school–his parents were from England, where evidently they take great pride in their teeth and don’t practice dentectomies–who was always the outcast. Later on, he told me that his parents wanted him to look like his father, so they decided not to remove his teeth.
Let me add, too, the great pleasure I get–if I may be so bold–from rubbing my tongue across my bare gums! It’s a thrill only newborns in your country can experience, and I personally find the notion that parents would want to take away this pleasure from their children–in addition to subjecting them to all the cavities, tongue-biting, and tooth-brushing a life with teeth requires–particularly inhumane and unnatural.
Moreover, my wife, also from my country, prefers the look of men without teeth, and that’s good enough for me.
In case any of you are curious about the medical benefits of a life after dentectomy, you can check out the independent website http://www.noteeth.com.
But I’ve lost track of the subject: I’m uncircumsized, and can’t imagine why anyone would want to say to any newborn boy: welcome to the world, now let’s make you bleed from your penis!
Personally, I find the “he’ll look different in the locker room” argument hillarious. I lived on both sides of the border, and didn’t get circ.ed because they don’t do it nearly as frequently in canada. I didn’t find out that most of my friends were circ.ed in america till I was 25 – because, in the locker room, you don’t look at someones dangly bits – they’ll think you are weird.
(yes, I recognise that I’m somewhat naive. But, no one commented on my dangly bits, so apparently, most grade school students ARE naive)
Me’Corva
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently came out with a statement saying, in part:
Full article can be found here: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap1999/
The article does make mention of the fact that the statement has received heavy criticism. However, the article is convincing enough for me and MrWhatsit. If FetalWhatsit turns out to be a boy, we will not have him circumcised.
And, if I may add, from this thread I have finally received pretty concrete proof that the population and tone of the boards has shifted significantly from what it was only a year or so ago.
This is crying to be used in a sig.
::is just glad JDT isn’t here to latch onto this thread::
Oh man. A circumcision debate, complete with links to CIRP and everything.
The answer is quite simple, IMHO. There are nominal health benefits for circumcision no matter which way you slice it. There is an extra bit of risk associated with the surgery. The cut is so close that whatever side you get on, you can argue the side intelligently.
The American Association of Pediatricians basically said that there is no clear benefit versus the risk. If you maintain hygeine, there is no increased risk of penile cancer. The data which support the foreskin as a specialized sexual organ are shaky at best. It is mostly personal preference, although as a medical professional in training I don’t see the need, especially in America where hygeine is better than most.
There is really no reason to bring this issue to a head again, it is kind of like beating a dead horse around these parts.
emphasis mine
Oh the humanity!! Or equinity, whichever.
I circumcision is such a good idea, why don’t we circumcise our pets and livestock…surely the animals use less soap than we do!
Not really. In the JDT thread many, many people agreed with him that circumcision was a Bad Idea. It was just the idea that it was responsible for the downfall of Western Civilization that everyone objected to.