I clicked on the “see all images” link, and most of the pictures were of assorted birth defects.
Not birth defects but it was the wrong link, sorry if I don’t go searching for that again but yes I must have copied and pasted the wrong NIH link.
Ya it’s easy to attack circumcision if your aren’t one of the men who has died due to penile cancer (a medical condition circumcision reduces the incidence of) or has had urinary tract infections as an infant (ditto).
The point is that these deaths wouldn’t have happened if the men were circumcised as infants, but I guess dead men tell no tales, right?
While the benefits of circumcision are statistically small they are very real; fanatical opposition (not observed in rat avatar’s post) is primarily backed by those not evaluating the evidence. Indeed while the American Academy of Pediatrics opposed the practice in 1971, they reversed their decision in 1989. And in 2012, they came out in favor… sort of. They said benefits were greater than risks, but by too small a margin to recommend universal newborn circumcision. After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs. Error | AAP
Cecil’s take: flip a coin. Also: 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. Begone foreskin! Thou hast set me on the rack. I swear ’tis better to be much abused than but to know ’t a little.
I never doubted that PIV intercourse was possible using the technique you described. I never doubted that enjoyable sex wasn’t possible that way. I said in no way does it sound like any sort of accurate comparison to regular ol sex for circumsized men.
For one reason: circumsized men don’t have to hold their penises in their hands in order to have sex. Adding that requirement to the mix for any group, not just circumsized men, would ultimately result in a net decrease in overall pleasure reported.
Really? Because estimates I’ve seen suggest about 100 deaths from circumcision-related complications annually in the US.
More general studies:
Factors Associated With Early Deaths Following Neonatal Male Circumcision in the United States, 2001 to 2010
Rates of Adverse Events Associated With Male Circumcision in US Medical Settings, 2001 to 2010
As for penile cancer, I don’t think anybody’s denying that circumcision almost entirely eliminates the risk of it. But the risk is apparently by far the highest in men with other medical conditions for which circumcision is indicated anyway, such as phimosis and balanitis.
Yes, but substantial numbers of circumcising Christians do NOT do it because of their religion but rather because a bunch of guys like Dr. Kellogg in the latter half of the 19th Century had a hysterical fear of masturbation and obsession with cleanliness and bodily hygiene. Likewise, as you note, the South Koreans copied it from the Americans (more specifically than “from the West”) and again it is more tied to a perception of cleanliness/hygiene than religion
Since adherents of Abrahamic religions make up half the world population in a lot of things they do they’re going to be the vast majority, but that doesn’t mean everything they do is religion-based.
No, my friend, it was Jasmine who you accused you of that, not me. I accuse you of being incorrect in some of your facts.
I was not aware that Christians in Europe “debated” about circumcision. I thought that was a feature of Americans (who are predominantly Christian) rather than Christianity as a whole.
Except that outside of Judaism and Islam in the US it is NOT tied to religion at all, nor is there any ritual involved and indeed the practice is declining. It never caught on among European Christians, and it’s not a thing in Latin America, either. It’s really Anglosphere Christians who adopted the practice, and not even all of them, as the UK never took up the practice.
I only looked at you first two links but so far those numbers track. actually your stats look better. There are 2mil male babies born in the US on average annually…
The AAP is out of synch with world opinion on this issue. Read this rebuttal, published in the international journal Pediatrics: Cultural Bias In The AAP’s 2012 Technical Report And Policy Statement On Circumcision.
Speaking of blood sacrifices to Yahweh, there is the rather peculiar practice by some Haredi Jews of Metzitzah b’Peh, where immediately after the circumcision the mohel sucks on the bleeding penis of the baby boy to draw blood away from the wound. Some boys have gotten Herpes from this essential expression of religious freedom. Cite (PDF file)
Speaking of blood sacrifices, a friend who was studying for her PHD got a very reliable supply of human stem cells from (parental consenting) little boy’s foreskins for her research.
As for my own opinion, I am circumcised; I blame religion for that. My son is not. He can choose.
Christians ‘debated’ it certainly, but it was resolved at the Council of Jerusalem ca. 50 AD firmly on the side of ‘not necessary.’ We’re now nearly at the point of 2000 years of not circumcising, I think you can leave Christendom out of it. From 30-50 AD, I guess you might have a point that it was a contentious issue, but from 50AD to today, it isn’t. The only religiously circumcising Christians as I have said before are Ethiopian Orthodox and they are completely out of the realm of mainstream Christianity. They believe that they have the Ark of the Covenant stashed on an island somewhere and that they are descended from Jews and they don’t even have the same Bible. Nice people, I know some, but they are a little bit wacky and not representative of Christianity as a whole. Copts also circumcise culturally, but it’s more a reflection of Egyptian culture than a religious mandate. If you convert to Coptic Christianity, they don’t make you get circumcised and if you choose not to circumcise your kid, it’s not a big deal. They like every other Christian outside of Ethiopia and Eritrea affirm the covenant with God via Baptism and not circumcision.
Saying that Christians circumcise is like saying that Christians drive on the right hand side of the road. I guess it’s true that a huge number of people that drive on the right hand side of the road are Christian, but it has nothing to do with their religion and there are plenty of Christians that drive on the left. In the context of this discussion, if circumcision were banned tomorrow, Christians might be upset that religious liberties were infringed on, but it isn’t their religious liberties. It would be like a hijab ban. We might oppose it because it’s government interfering in religious expression, but we’re not wearing hijabs except culturally in the Middle East, so it doesn’t bug us on an individual level. So banning circumcisions doesn’t hurt Christians in the least; it hurts Jews and Muslims, which is why people say this issue is tinged with anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim undertones.
Except for rat avatar who is somehow convinced that religion is why so many US Christians circumcise their baby boys. :rolleyes:
In other words, I’m not sure if you think I’m in that camp (I’m not) or if you meant to direct that towards rat avatar and the OP and were unclear about that.
I think it was just a general comment out to the world that fed off of what you were saying. Not really a rebuttal. I’m pretty stream of consciousness at times and meander around in my conversations. Just felt like saying something and your comment gave me a good jumping off point. I assumed that rat avatar’s next comment was about the debate in Christianity and I wanted to cut that off before it began. There is no debate about circumcision in Christianity and hasn’t been since at least the 3rd century other than with Copts and Ethiopians and even Copts aren’t crazy about it. Ethiopians are a bit nuts about it, but they’re a bit nuts about everything, so what can you say? They also follow Jewish dietary laws (sort of, they mix them with pre-Christian dietary traditions, discard some Jewish ones and do some really weird things culturally like eating meat freshly cut off of still living animals which Jews are obviously not into.) and celebrate Yom Kippur, but they call it something different. They’re a really interesting church, but they are also really, really outside of the mainstream. They’re weird even by Oriental Orthodox standards which are already pretty strange to Western Christendom. They’re also one of the exclusivist groups (and I think the only one in Orthodox Christianity) in that they think that only they are the ‘One True Church’ and the rest of Christendom are pagans doomed to a fiery Hell. Ah well, such is the way of things. Regardless, Ethiopians are a very tiny minority of Christianity and certainly not representative of the other 2 billion of us in the world. It should also be interesting to note that their main creed actually says, ‘Let us not be circumcised like the Jews. He who fulfilled the law has already come.’ This is in their creed despite the fact that they do circumcise. It’s confusing and likely, the creed developed from other Orthodox sects and they justify their practice of circumcision by saying, ‘We’re not circumcised like the Jews who do it legalistically. We’re circumcised like Christians who do it symbolically.’ Regardless, it’s a little related quirk of their belief system.
For Christian parents, circumcision of newborn boys is not a religious issue, it is not was a sign of the covenant, which you’re set apart from God. That said lots of Christians do use that older text to self justify it as acceptable.
It doesn’t matter one hill of beans if it is required it is acceptable and normal for many Christians. If you can’t see why that may have an impact I can’t help you but please quit making strawmen.
Here’s what Maimonides, one of the most influential and well respected scholars of Jewish law and philosophy had to say about circumcision in his work THE GUIDE OF THE PERPLEXED:
Um, no, less than half of the professed Christians in the US are Roman Catholic. Evangelical Protestant denominations are the majority, and Protestants in general outnumber Catholics by more than 2:1.
edited to add: sorry, I missed the “healthcare” part. ignore me.
Sure, but it’s also normal and acceptable for many atheists in the United States as well. You don’t paint that as ‘blood sacrifice to the demon God of ‘nothingness.’’ Their faith or lack thereof has zilch to do with why Americans circumcise, so it’s irrelevant to the discussion.
Also, who knows why Americans self-justify it? I question your reasoning that the older text is why Americans justify circumcision. Do you have a cite? My parents circumcised me because my Dad was circumcised. They didn’t circumcise my brother because by that point, they had thought about it more and decided not to. Their faith didn’t enter into the conversation. Most of the papers I have read on the subject seem to say that the decision is largely based on what the father looked like and not on some sort of return to Old Testament rabbinical law.
Great. I never had cause at all to think of Willie’s willy, but now I always will. Like a song stuck in your head you can’t get rid of, every time I see the royal family, I’ll think of your post.
To help clarify IMHO In the modern “christian” world the main effect of the scriptural acceptance of the practice is that the procedure is not held to the same standard for other medically unnecessary operations that remove healthy tissue.
There is a cultural bias that is justified through the stories of the Old Testament which allows for this completely medically unnecessary operation to be considered as an advantageous cure vs. an unnecessary risk.
The true impact of complications is very difficult to ascertain due to limitations of record keeping and without the social-bias produced by the enthusiastic embarrassing of that biblical accounts does directly relate to how common the practice is.
The fact that it was often justified to prevent masturbation, which is directly connected to some christian interpretations also relates it to religion.
To claim that it is not is special pleading especially when the common claim is that it is a Muslim or Jewish religious practice when that is only true for the latter. The discussion on if this is required as a part of the covenant does not need to apply for this side effect.
If someone is going to argue that my point that having a god that celebrates circumcision and actually required it as a tribute in an earlier revision doesn’t have these impacts I would be willing to debate that part but it is not dependent on it still being required to be partially based in religous beliefs.
I have heard it said that circumcision results in desensitizing the “German helmet”. Which results in a longer time frame for the actual boinking, the space between arousal and the uncurling of the toes. I have it on reliable authority that many women prefer this. I think many men would volunteer such an accommodation, as we are generous and thoughtful. Especially if there were an easy way to bring it up in polite conversation.
She was only a banker’s daughter, but there was a substantial penalty for early withdrawal…