CDC Considers Promoting 'Universal Circumcision' For All Males Born in US

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Dear U.S. Government,

Please stay the fuck away from my dick.

Sincerely,
Joe Citizen

Since the "Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS." do not have your sons circumcised.

No one is forcing you to do this.

I know the difference between promoting and mandating; however, AFAIC, this is one area where the Federal Government has no business going. It's not that far-fetched to see such a treatment mandated under future healthcare plans.

But, maybe you're right. Maybe this will never go beyond the "Surgeon General Warning" type of policies. I just don't feel as comfortable as you apparently do with the Federal Government treading in these waters.

Are there any examples in the last 40 years of the Federal government mandating a specific treatment? I can think of forced isolation of someone with an infectious disease like TB or the plague.

I rather know any information that can help me and my loved ones stay healthy.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Dear U.S. Government,

Please stay the fuck away from my dick.

Sincerely,
Joe Citizen

Since the "Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS." do not have your sons circumcised.

No one is forcing you to do this.

I know the difference between promoting and mandating; however, AFAIC, this is one area where the Federal Government has no business going. It's not that far-fetched to see such a treatment mandated under future healthcare plans.

But, maybe you're right. Maybe this will never go beyond the "Surgeon General Warning" type of policies. I just don't feel as comfortable as you apparently do with the Federal Government treading in these waters.

Are there any examples in the last 40 years of the Federal government mandating a specific treatment? I can think of forced isolation of someone with an infectious disease like TB or the plague.

I rather know any information that can help me and my loved ones stay healthy.

Mental health is one, but thats not infectious. Our mental health laws are so archaic. But, thats another thread.

I disagree with the slippery slope argument here about first its considering promoting then its mandating. Thats like saying we allow police officers to use physical force with perps, therefore we may soon allow them to use physical force with anyone. The line between consent and mandate is pretty clear IMHO, and the CDC is not anywhere near that line.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: blackangst1No one is talking about it being mandated Well, except the idiots who cant read

Since infants have no choice, it's mandated to them. The CDC now wants to increase how often it's mandated.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: blackangst1No one is talking about it being mandated Well, except the idiots who cant read

Since infants have no choice, it's mandated to them. The CDC now wants to increase how often it's mandated.

Unless you forgot...until AOC they really dont have a choice in much of ANYTHING. Did you forget?

And you said "The CDC now wants to increase how often it's mandated."...seeing how its not mandated now, the CDC wants to increase...nothing?

Fail.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: OCguy
"Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08...cumcision.html?_r=2&hp


It will be interesting as to what the first official draft at the end of the year says. Personally I dont mind being circumsized, but I really think it should be up to the parents.

I don't know what they're hoping to accomplish, aside from causing more unnecessary circumcisions to be performed.

In the 1980s, when HIV was discovered, the vast majority of American males were circumcised. Didn't make a difference then. The vast majority of adult American males are circumcised now and it isn't making a difference. Western Europe has very few circumcised men and has less HIV and STDs to boot.

I think this is a fine example of for-profit medicine. Circumcision makes a lot of money for hospitals, doctors, medical equipment makers, and everyone else. More circumcisions = more money. If the CDC has more brains than wallet, they'll be determining what the Western Europeans are doing and push to emulate them. Its probably the twin evils - comprehensive sex ed and condoms, that real Americans despise so much.

In any case, circumcision should be decided by the guy who the penis is attached to, not his parents. Somehow, if circumcision became an adults only cosmetic surgery, I don't think many would do it.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: OCguy
"Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08...cumcision.html?_r=2&hp
It will be interesting as to what the first official draft at the end of the year says. Personally I dont mind being circumsized, but I really think it should be up to the parents.

Promoting, not mandating.

Reducing the odds of acquiring HIV is not the only benefit; IIRC, circumcised men have a significantly lower risk of penile cancer as well...

Do you know what the actual risk of getting penile cancer is?

Hint: You're more likely to get breast cancer as a male than penile cancer.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
is this the new attack on uhc? The government wants to cut your penis off!!

The government is actually considering cutting off part of baby's penises. That is exactly what the NY Times article is saying.

Well, in all fairness, this cant be construed as an Obama / UHC thing. At all. Its simply as it says - a recommendation from CDC, not the WH

True. I doubt the CDC would be behaving differently if the Republicans were in control.

Question: IF they show the incidence in certain cancers and HIV is reduced due to circumcision, what is the problem in recommending it?

Because the risk of penile cancer is so low that it is laughable and because HIV/STDs can be better prevented in other ways. There's also conflicting evidence on whether or not circumcision decreases sexual sensitivity. (Cue the people screaming that their dick works fine...)

Men should make the decision about their own junk and decide if these minuscule "benefits" are worth it.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Nik
How in the fucking world does circumcision prevent the spread of STDs and other diseases?

Microbes and virii flourish in smegma.

Ever hear of soap and water? If a man can't wash his dick properly in the United States of America, he has bigger problems.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
When my son was born in 2002 neither myself nor my wife was even asked if we wanted our son circumsized. It was just done with a little plastic clip. The foreskin fell off a few days later. Not sure why everyone is making such a big deal about this being "promoted". Personally I know of no one who is not circumsized, maybe this is common with the nortwest.

They didn't even ask??? Wow, they're supposed to otherwise they're open for malpractice suits.

They asked us once. We said no way in hell and they left us alone about it. And we're in the Midwest.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Men, do we need a rallying cry for men's rights on this issue? How about, "You can take my foreskin from my cold, dead penis!" Yeah, I know, it isn't very catchy. For amusement purposes, can anyone think of something catchier?

The NoCirc folks like "His Body, His Choice." Works for me.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

It's amazing that people are shocked at female genital mutilation, but routine male genital mutilation is readily accepted. Why? Because males have little value to Americans as human beings and perhaps to people around the world in general. Or, as men's movement writer Warren Farrell seems to have described the situation, men are the disposable sex. If anything, what we need is a law forbidding involuntary circumcision, allowing men to make their own decisions starting at the official age of adulthood, age 18.

There is a big difference between male circumcision and female circumcision. With males it is done primarily as a means to prevent certain diseases. It does affect the sensitivity of the nerves in the penis but ask any circumcised man if that is an issue and they will likely say no. Female circumcision is done for a completely difference reason and actually can be defined as mutilating the female sex organs. These are performed more for cultural reasons thinking that it can cure psychological issues.

That may be true, but how does that justify genital mutilation of males and why shouldn't men be allowed to make their own choices as to what happens to their bodies? Why are we so afraid of allowing men to reach age 18 and to then make their own decisions on this matter?

I guess the same could be said of vaccinations too eh? I mean, parents really shouldnt have any rights as to the say so of their kids, when it comes their health or their bodies.

Vaccinations have proven health benefits and have wiped out many serious illnesses in countries around the world. Circumcision has "potential benefits" that haven't been seen anywhere in the real world.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dsity

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

It's amazing that people are shocked at female genital mutilation, but routine male genital mutilation is readily accepted. Why? Because males have little value to Americans as human beings and perhaps to people around the world in general. Or, as men's movement writer Warren Farrell seems to have described the situation, men are the disposable sex. If anything, what we need is a law forbidding involuntary circumcision, allowing men to make their own decisions starting at the official age of adulthood, age 18.

There is a big difference between male circumcision and female circumcision. With males it is done primarily as a means to prevent certain diseases. It does affect the sensitivity of the nerves in the penis but ask any circumcised man if that is an issue and they will likely say no. Female circumcision is done for a completely difference reason and actually can be defined as mutilating the female sex organs. These are performed more for cultural reasons thinking that it can cure psychological issues.

That may be true, but how does that justify genital mutilation of males and why shouldn't men be allowed to make their own choices as to what happens to their bodies? Why are we so afraid of allowing men to reach age 18 and to then make their own decisions on this matter?

I guess the same could be said of vaccinations too eh? I mean, parents really shouldnt have any rights as to the say so of their kids, when it comes their health or their bodies.

maybe. however vaccinations do not involve in the removal of flesh and with vaccinations your survival may depend on them. I'm also fairly positive being circumsized will only help if you are sexually active (11 years or older?). how about making that decision then . I'm almost certain very few people will volunteer.

and Im fairly positive being vaccinated against polio will only help if you ever encounter polio. whats your point? Its a ridiculous argument. Im fairly certain the number of people who dies a virgin is >.5%.

You can decide to wear a condom and practice safe sex, thus negating any supposed advantage circumcision gives you.

Remember, if you are have a foreskin and want safe sex, you have two choices:
a. get circumcised and wear a condom
b. wear a condom

Why in the hell would anyone pick a?

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Citrix

you are a meninist

im glad i got chopped, a cock with that hood looks stupid

So this is more about ego than disease prevention. Gotcha.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: JKing106
Being circumcised never stopped me from getting a nut. It obviously doesn't seem to stop all those dudes in porno movies either. I don't think it should be mandated, though. It should be the parent's choice.

Why should it be parent's choice? Why should a parent be so interested in the appearance of their son's penis?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Men, do we need a rallying cry for men's rights on this issue? How about, "You can take my foreskin from my cold, dead penis!" Yeah, I know, it isn't very catchy. For amusement purposes, can anyone think of something catchier?

The NoCirc folks like "His Body, His Choice." Works for me.

Sadly, a catchy slogan probably won't make any difference. People go ape-shit anytime you talk about mutilating female infants, but no one gives a crap about men and their happiness and desires for their own lives and bodies. The biggest problem men face in the battle for men's rights is that men themselves are too macho to want to concern themselves about it. They might be upset over false accusations of sexual crimes, wrongful imprisonments, and courts treating them unfairly in divorce and child custody proceedings, but since men have been socialized not to complain, instead of organizing into a boisterous National Organization for Men, they just sit back and keep taking it up the rear.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
I think this is a fine example of for-profit medicine. Circumcision makes a lot of money for hospitals, doctors, medical equipment makers, and everyone else. More circumcisions = more money.

They actually sell foreskins to the cosmetic industry to make high dollar facial creams.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
is this the new attack on uhc? The government wants to cut your penis off!!

The government is actually considering cutting off part of baby's penises. That is exactly what the NY Times article is saying.

Well, in all fairness, this cant be construed as an Obama / UHC thing. At all. Its simply as it says - a recommendation from CDC, not the WH

True. I doubt the CDC would be behaving differently if the Republicans were in control.

Question: IF they show the incidence in certain cancers and HIV is reduced due to circumcision, what is the problem in recommending it?

Because the risk of penile cancer is so low that it is laughable and because HIV/STDs can be better prevented in other ways. There's also conflicting evidence on whether or not circumcision decreases sexual sensitivity. (Cue the people screaming that their dick works fine...)

Men should make the decision about their own junk and decide if these minuscule "benefits" are worth it.

For the most part I agree. But the fact is, if circumsision *is* done, its best done as a baby. Therefore, its the parent's choice. People forget parents make choices for their children all the time (rightfully so), including those that affect their body and their health. I mean really...is there some activist group somewhere with cut men who are outraged and suffer psychological damage because they got circumcised? I mean, really?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: JKing106
Being circumcised never stopped me from getting a nut. It obviously doesn't seem to stop all those dudes in porno movies either. I don't think it should be mandated, though. It should be the parent's choice.

Why should it be parent's choice? Why should a parent be so interested in the appearance of their son's penis?

Same reason parents of a daughter who possibly has accelerated puberty and has an F cup in 8th grtade may consider plastic surgery for her.

But this thread is about the medical benefits of circumcision, of which have already been posted.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
For the most part I agree. But the fact is, if circumsision *is* done, its best done as a baby. Therefore, its the parent's choice.

Would you make the same argument for cutting off clitoral hoods? Would you support selling those for facial cream?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Men, do we need a rallying cry for men's rights on this issue? How about, "You can take my foreskin from my cold, dead penis!" Yeah, I know, it isn't very catchy. For amusement purposes, can anyone think of something catchier?

The NoCirc folks like "His Body, His Choice." Works for me.

Sadly, a catchy slogan probably won't make any difference. People go ape-shit anytime you talk about mutilating female infants, but no one gives a crap about men and their happiness and desires for their own lives and bodies. The biggest problem men face in the battle for men's rights is that men themselves are too macho to want to concern themselves about it. They might be upset over false accusations of sexual crimes, wrongful imprisonments, and courts treating them unfairly in divorce and child custody proceedings, but since men have been socialized not to complain, instead of organizing into a boisterous National Organization for Men, they just sit back and keep taking it up the rear.

Wow. First of all we're talking about children who dont have the rights of choice adults do. Second, can you provide studies that show circumcision causes psychological or physical harm as an adult? The fact you bring female circumsision into this shows your blatent trollishness. Not even the same thing and you know it.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Wow. First of all we're talking about children who dont have the rights of choice adults do. Second, can you provide studies that show circumcision causes psychological or physical harm as an adult?

He didn't make any such claims to the contrary. Perhaps you missed my questions above because I had accidentally quoted Whipper instead of you, but again I ask; would you make the same argument for cutting off clitoral hoods, and you support selling those for facial cream?

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
is this the new attack on uhc? The government wants to cut your penis off!!

The government is actually considering cutting off part of baby's penises. That is exactly what the NY Times article is saying.

Well, in all fairness, this cant be construed as an Obama / UHC thing. At all. Its simply as it says - a recommendation from CDC, not the WH

True. I doubt the CDC would be behaving differently if the Republicans were in control.

Question: IF they show the incidence in certain cancers and HIV is reduced due to circumcision, what is the problem in recommending it?

Because the risk of penile cancer is so low that it is laughable and because HIV/STDs can be better prevented in other ways. There's also conflicting evidence on whether or not circumcision decreases sexual sensitivity. (Cue the people screaming that their dick works fine...)

Men should make the decision about their own junk and decide if these minuscule "benefits" are worth it.

For the most part I agree. But the fact is, if circumsision *is* done, its best done as a baby. Therefore, its the parent's choice. People forget parents make choices for their children all the time (rightfully so), including those that affect their body and their health. I mean really...is there some activist group somewhere with cut men who are outraged and suffer psychological damage because they got circumcised? I mean, really?

Why is it best done as a baby? Why is having a fresh surgical wound sitting in urine and feces better than an adult with bladder/bowel control and the ability to clean himself? What health benefits are gained by doing it as a baby as opposed to doing it as an adult?

Google "anti-circumcision activism" and while you're at it, "circumcision mrsa" and "circumcision amputation".

Also, see:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429531287
http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/4...pe=4&contentId=3833024

Are the "potential benefits" worth even a tiny chance of that?

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: JKing106
Being circumcised never stopped me from getting a nut. It obviously doesn't seem to stop all those dudes in porno movies either. I don't think it should be mandated, though. It should be the parent's choice.

Why should it be parent's choice? Why should a parent be so interested in the appearance of their son's penis?

Same reason parents of a daughter who possibly has accelerated puberty and has an F cup in 8th grtade may consider plastic surgery for her.

But this thread is about the medical benefits of circumcision, of which have already been posted.

F cup in 8th grade = back problems = very real medical condition
circumcision as a newborn = no health problems = perverse cosmetic surgery with minimal "potential benefits"

medical need vs. cosmetic surgery

I don't believe anyone has posted anything about medical benefits for except the circumcision/HIV talking points. Of those people, no one has been able to tell me why doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results isn't insanity. Remember, we had universal circumcision from WWII through the early 1980s. That huge population of cut males didn't prevent or even slow down our HIV epidemic.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: SammyJr
I think this is a fine example of for-profit medicine. Circumcision makes a lot of money for hospitals, doctors, medical equipment makers, and everyone else. More circumcisions = more money.

They actually sell foreskins to the cosmetic industry to make high dollar facial creams.

Yep. Its pretty damned creepy.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Wow. First of all we're talking about children who dont have the rights of choice adults do. Second, can you provide studies that show circumcision causes psychological or physical harm as an adult?

He didn't make any such claims to the contrary. Perhaps you missed my questions above because I had accidentally quoted Whipper instead of you, but again I ask; would you make the same argument for cutting off clitoral hoods, and you support selling those for facial cream?

Nope. The evidence of the effects of cutting off hoods is pretty clear.

And I dont use facial cream.