POLL: is circumcision a genital mutilation?

[Gaard]

PlatinumGold - <<what health risks are you talking about?? is it something that is killing the 82% of the male population that isn't circumcised?? enlighten me here.>>

Of course it's not killing anyone who hasn't been 'cut'...you're just being an ass. :disgust:

You aren't aware of any health risks? You've never heard that getting circumsized reduces the risk of health problems?

Try here.

 

[tcsenter]

Your argument is irrational because FORESKIN IS NOT A DEFECT. You are not correcting anything by removing it. There is nothing irrational about not wanting to put a child through something that causes more suffering than it cures. Removing the foreskin to prevent health complications is akin to staying inside on a sunny day to keep from getting struck by lightening.

Not quite. The risk of being struck by lightening on a sunny day is essentially zero.

The number of complications during both childhood and adulthood resulting from failure to circumcise is not insignificant. I have personally seen as many complications resulting from lack of circumcision as I have seen circumcision performed. But I agree that the health benefits of circumcision are not exactly compelling. They are minor in nature, it isn't as though we're talking about preventing one's heart from failing.

There are other considerations, such as the fickle but strong emotional attachment that males will develop to the way their penis looks. They also develop an almost irrational sensitivity to the idea of anyone being within a few feet of their penis with a scalpel. You might as well be telling a 40 year-old man that you want to amputate his arm at the shoulder than to tell him you want to cut off a little 2cm x 4cm piece of unnecessary, infection prone, and disease harboring skin from his penis. His reaction will be almost as guarded. Is that rational? Not in the least.

This little emotional factor has caused many untold numbers of men to reject the advise of their physicians to have circumcisions, until they have such a problem with infection and adhesions that they no longer have any choice, it becomes a medical necessity.

So if it should ever become a necessity, it is best that it be done as an infant, because its a little late at 40, when the procedure is far more emotionally traumatic and painful, and yes I will be the final arbitor of what is or is not good for my child. That's what parents do.

The nerve endings heal exceptionally well when damaged during infancy. The capacity of nerve healing is drastically diminished by adulthood. The only evidence of diminished sensation that anticircumcision zealots can point is based on the testimony of those who have had circumcisions as ADULTS. Well of course the "before and after" is going to be very different when you ask a 40 year old man who just had a circumcision 3 months ago, and one contributor to that perceived difference will be due on some level to a type of 'placebo affect' from seeing his penis look differently than he has every day for the last 40 years.

There are many legitimate reasons for circumcision, the best that anticircumcision zealots can come up with amounts to little more than "because I'm not religious", which is really a mischaracterization of the history of the practice. Circumcision didn't become an accepted practice because it was "religious", but because health, cleanliness, and personal hygeine were concerns espoused by their religious doctrines.

We're not bush and branch dwelling apes anymore, we don't need a 'sheath' to protect our urinary meatus from getting whacked around when we're swinging through trees or laying around in decomposing matter. It has become more of a liability than an asset.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Again, there is evidence that there is a benefit, but every major medical doctor association I know about have concluded that the benefits are not to the point where they view it to be medically necessary.

exactly.

couldn't you say that about a lot of other things as well?? if cutting of earlobes were proven to reduce a small percentage of ear infections in some kids, would you want that done also??

I'd like to add my 'exactly' also.

But to say that it provides no benifits just because it isn't a necessity isn't true.

 

[Eli]

LOL! I must say, this thread is quite hilarious.

There is no benefit to being circumsized. Even the health issue is moot, it's not like we don't have showers and soap.

Nobody gets penile infections anymore.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Eli
LOL! I must say, this thread is quite hilarious.

There is no benefit to being circumsized. Even the health issue is moot, it's not like we don't have showers and soap.

Nobody gets penile infections anymore.

Wow, talk about a post full of untruths. You do the anticircumcision people a great service by offering your opinion on the matter.

 

[PlatinumGold]

PlatinumGold - <<what health risks are you talking about?? is it something that is killing the 82% of the male population that isn't circumcised?? enlighten me here.>>

Of course it's not killing anyone who hasn't been 'cut'...you're just being an ass.

You aren't aware of any health risks? You've never heard that getting circumsized reduces the risk of health problems?

You're obviously taking this a lot more personally than you should.

My doctors, 2 separate doctors from 2 different states, were willing to risk medical malpractice to allow me the choice to circumcise or not. I would say that they are a much more trustworthy source than you or the link you posted.

that's what it comes down too. how can you argue against that?

 

[DiamondJ]

Originally posted by: Eli
LOL! I must say, this thread is quite hilarious.

There is no benefit to being circumsized. Even the health issue is moot, it's not like we don't have showers and soap.

Nobody gets penile infections anymore.

What do you mean...no one gets penile infections anymore? Thats obsurd, all kinds of people get all kinds of infections. Anyone who is uncircumcised and uncareful could get a penile infection. Even a circumcised individual could get an infection. It all depends on what your doing (or not doing) to your freakin' penis.

 

[tcsenter]

There is no benefit to being circumsized. Even the health issue is moot, it's not like we don't have showers and soap. Nobody gets penile infections anymore.

And your experience in the medical field is...? Thought so.

It would go a long way towards fruitful and civil discourse if people would really at least TRY to avoid speaking on matters they haven't the slightest clue about.

 

[DiamondJ]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

There is no benefit to being circumsized. Even the health issue is moot, it's not like we don't have showers and soap. Nobody gets penile infections anymore.

And your experience in the medical field is...? Thought so.

It would go a long way towards fruitful and civil discourse if people would really at least TRY to avoid speaking on matters they haven't the slightest clue about.

Dido

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

PlatinumGold - <<what health risks are you talking about?? is it something that is killing the 82% of the male population that isn't circumcised?? enlighten me here.>>

Of course it's not killing anyone who hasn't been 'cut'...you're just being an ass.

You aren't aware of any health risks? You've never heard that getting circumsized reduces the risk of health problems?

You're obviously taking this a lot more personally than you should.

My doctors, 2 separate doctors from 2 different states, were willing to risk medical malpractice to allow me the choice to circumcise or not. I would say that they are a much more trustworthy source than you or the link you posted.

that's what it comes down too. how can you argue against that?

I'm just saying that no matter how great or little the benefits are...they're still benefits. You may call it a strictly cosmetic procedure, but if it reduces the risk of infection, cancer, etc...no matter how small that reduction is...it isn't just a cosmetic procedure.

The fact that your doctors gave you the choice tells me one thing...that circumcision isn't a necessity. And I already knew that.


Edit: And what's this thing about earlobes got to do with anything?

 

[Valvoline6]

Being in the medical field and directly working with sexually transmitted diseases I can say that there is no doubt being uncircumcized CAN make you more susceptible to an infection or disease. That doesn't mean you ARE. You can be diligent about keeping clean / dry and in a monogamous relationship. Of course that applies to anyone. Having the extra skin provides a warm, dark, and more often than cut, moist environment. People who aren't so diligent with hygiene would definately be more suseptable to disease uncircumcized. The skin can keep bacteria and viruses shielded and in close contact to the body longer than uncut. For the most part you can eliminate your risk with good hygiene.

I just don't get the people who get hysterical about it one way or another. I would prefer to leave it up to the parents and keep my nose out of it. I am circumsized and I guess I'm glad I am. I don't remember it, it did not scar me, it doesn't hurt now. If I wasn't circumsized I suppose I'd be just as happy.. You can go around in circles on this issue.

Female cirumcision is a totally different issue. In the African cases the clitoris is removed. This is not circumcision. If the skin around the clitoris was removed, but the clitoris was left intact, I suppose that would be synonomous to male circumcision. I would call what the media incorrectly calls female circumcision, "amputation" and that would synonomous with removing the head of the penis.. :Q

EDIT: BTW being uncircumcised could increase your risk of penile cancer. To what extent I can not say. A virus "HPV" is responsible for most all cervical cancer and causes penile cancer as well. This virus is sexually transmitted. For the same reasons listed above being uncut could give the virus, through longer exposure, a better chance to infect. Of course that would be through unprotected sex and not practicing good hygiene. Of course if you fall asleep after the deed.... lol

 

[Michael]

Why can't people use Google and search.

There is no doubt that there are some medical benefits to circumcision:

Another link

What happened was the medical community took a hard look at the benefit and compared it to the cost of the invasive medical procedure. Medical knowledge also advanced. It was commonly thought that newborns did not feel pain. This was studied and proven to be false (one reason for the earlier belief was the use of painkillers for the mother deadened the newborns ability to react to stimuli).

That is why PlatinumGold's doctors left the choice to him. With the backing of the major medical associations in the US, they were highly unlikely to be sued for malpractice. They are willing to do it because there is a benefit and the risks are not considered to be serious.

I can tell you that both my daughters yelled, pushed and complained when they were put on the scale to be weighed. They both complained more about that than having blood drawn to check up on their stats.

I have been told that I am highly unusual in that I can watch myself being cut in minor surgeries without having a strong reaction (fainting, vomiting, etc.). I know from the many MDs that I have talked to that the vast majority of them need time to desensitize themselves so they can perform surgery - it is part of proper medical detachment.

Michael

 

[tcsenter]

It was commonly thought that newborns did not feel pain. This was studied and proven to be false (one reason for the earlier belief was the use of painkillers for the mother deadened the newborns ability to react to stimuli).

Actually, that's not quite an accurate representation of either the former and current belief.

To this day, SUCROSE (a sugar) is used for effective analgesia in newborns during minor surgical procedures. Why sugar? Well, basically, the newborn brain is still quite primative, therefore babies can NOT percieve "pain" in the way that you and I know it. Sugar is a 'pleasurable' stimulus that distracts the baby from, or serves to counter, any 'bad' stimulus going on. They haven't a clue what is going on, nor do they particularly care, and they certainly don't remember it.

Pain is entirely a cultural thing and our 'awareness' of pain as a 'bad' thing is learned. In a baby it is simply an inate reaction of pain avoidance, almost like a reflex, not much different from a sea cucumber or some other lower animal.

They're not thinking 'Hey...OUCH! For love of humanity! Get me outta here!'

 

[ProviaFan]

Circumcision may make it safer for you if you are very promiscuous and don't have good cleaning habits. I'm not debating that. But, although the organ retains its basic functionality after circumcision, the proceedure removes much additional functionality (I'm reposting this link again since nobody seemed to notice it before) that the foreskin provides. So, unless you are a filthy person who can't bother to learn how to take care of your own friggin body, then you are better off being left uncircumcised.

 

[Valvoline6]

jliechty I don't have time to tell you how many of those "lost benefits" are false. OK I do but don't feel like explaining them all.
Langerhans Cells, Sebaceous Glands, Lymphatic Vessels, Immunological System are a few which are rediculous to even list.

Again I do not care if parents want to leave their babies uncircumcised, or want to circumcise. But organizations who exaggerate or lie for either side turn me off. Leave it up to the parents and move on....

 

[LordMaul]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Again, there is evidence that there is a benefit, but every major medical doctor association I know about have concluded that the benefits are not to the point where they view it to be medically necessary.

exactly.couldn't you say that about a lot of other things as well?? if cutting of earlobes were proven to reduce a small percentage of ear infections in some kids, would you want that done also??

That would negatively affect your personal appearance. Do you walk around with your dick hanging out the front of your pants? Bad comparison.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I'm tired of arguing, but some of you are completely ingnoring the potential risks from being circumsized. Just go to google and search 'circumcision complications' and then tell me if the risk is worth it. And if babies don't feel pain like I do they sure as Hell fake it well. Like I said, the baby I saw screamed, started shaking, went rigid and then completely limp. Or maybe he was just really, really happy from the sugar.

 

[BMdoobieW]

Originally posted by: dparker
No, and I'm glad I am.

 

[tcsenter]

Like I said, the baby I saw screamed, started shaking, went rigid and then completely limp. Or maybe he was just really, really happy from the sugar.

They do the same thing when they are cold, or when they have a bowel movement. Babies scream and shake and go rigid then limp pretty much at the drop of a hat.

 

[Aceshigh]

Originally posted by: BMdoobieW

Originally posted by: dparker
No, and I'm glad I am.

 

[Ornery]

Is circumcision a genital mutilation?

The Rite of Female Circumcision

• "Twenty percent of the world's males are circumcised -- the prospect appalls many of the rest. There are no medical reasons for male circumcision, and although removing an infant's foreskin is much less radical than infibulation, critics decry a loss of sexual sensitivity and the risks of infection, mutilation of the penis and even death. They also are concerned about an early association of pain with sexuality. But we in the U.S. tend to associate male circumcision with normality, sexual presentability and cleanliness -- exactly the reasons offered by some defenders of female circumcision.
  
  How can we cast aspersions on their cultural rituals without questioning our own bloody rites? An old adage about stones and glass houses comes to mind."

If female circumcision is "mutilation", then so is male circumcision.

"The only organized religion that I am aware of off the top of my head that has circumcision is the Jewish faith. Ornery's comments about organized religion are part of his typical hate speech against religion..."

It sure seems like a religious rite to me:

• Main Entry: cir·cum·ci·sion
  Pronunciation: "s&r-k&m-'si-zh&n, 's&r-k&m-"
  Function: noun
  Date: 12th century
  1 a : the act of circumcising; especially : a Jewish rite performed on male infants as a sign of inclusion in the Jewish religious community b : the condition of being circumcised
  2 capitalized : January 1 observed as a church festival in commemoration of the circumcision of Jesus

Originally posted by: Riprorin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Riprorin

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know what it is about organized religion that is so contemptible to me? It's the insidious way it's extreme rituals become socially acceptable. Everybody recoils in horror at the female genital mutilations performed elsewhere in the world, yet think NOTHING of male circumcision! What's the difference? Hah! The difference is the way you've been coerced into accepting it as normal by your parent's religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, I guess organized religion isn't right for you. For some people it is.

Ever hear of TOLERANCE?

I think that you need to grow up.

And after all, it's just a bit of skin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOLERANCE? You bet, Fred!

How tolerant are you of certain religions brain washing people in Iraq right now? We've got laws in this country to protect kids from the stupidity of their parents. Some of the rituals and brain washing imposed on our children in the name of religion ought to be regulated in some way, too. Tolerance? Tolerate this!

I'm afraid I've missed your point. Where did I suggest tolerance for illegality?[/quote]In the name of Religion, girls are mutilated on one side of the world, and boys are here. In the name of religion, kids and even parents, are shamed and brainwashed into the most bizarre behavior, and many think nothing of it because it's so widespread. Herd mentality? In the name of religion, people like Jim Jones can legally gather followers who end up performing even more bizarre rites.

Children's minds are like clay, that can be molded by all sorts of twisted doctrine. There ought to be laws against exposing children to this type of brain washing, till they're old enough to think for themselves. I don't have any tolerance for twisting children's minds, like organized religion does.

Anyone who doesn't think circumcision is barbaric, should have to sit and explain to a foreigner (who is unaware of circumcision) exactly what this ritual entails. That ought to take about 5 minutes. Then they should have to convince them this is NOT barbaric! That will probably take the better part of an afternoon!

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Michael
A link to health benefits of circumcision

From another site (same study as the news story I linked to):

Circumcision does make it easier to keep the penis clean, though washing the area under the foreskin thoroughly achieves the same result. In a 1989 study by the AAP, uncircumcised boys were found to be more likely to develop urinary tract infections, sometimes serious ones (although the risk of a UTI for any male, circumcised or no, is at most 1 percent). Other arguments in favor of circumcision include concerns that an uncircumcised child will be seen as different from his friends or will feel different from his father who may be circumcised. Arguments against circumcision include the fact that the procedure is not medically necessary. Some parents believe circumcision is a form of mutilation that's painful and emotionally harmful to a child.


Again, there is evidence that there is a benefit, but every major medical doctor association I know about have concluded that the benefits are not to the point where they view it to be medically necessary.

Michael

What makes me laugh big time is that these people smoke, drink alcohol, whatever... still they talk about the healt benifits... what a joke...

Anyone who lives in the real world knows that we shower once a day, the healt benifits are not minimal, they are non-existent...

Go after smoking, drinking, drug-abuse, eating high GI foods or whatever, something more important....

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

It was commonly thought that newborns did not feel pain. This was studied and proven to be false (one reason for the earlier belief was the use of painkillers for the mother deadened the newborns ability to react to stimuli).

Actually, that's not quite an accurate representation of either the former and current belief.

To this day, SUCROSE (a sugar) is used for effective analgesia in newborns during minor surgical procedures. Why sugar? Well, basically, the newborn brain is still quite primative, therefore babies can NOT percieve "pain" in the way that you and I know it. Sugar is a 'pleasurable' stimulus that distracts the baby from, or serves to counter, any 'bad' stimulus going on. They haven't a clue what is going on, nor do they particularly care, and they certainly don't remember it.

Pain is entirely a cultural thing and our 'awareness' of pain as a 'bad' thing is learned. In a baby it is simply an inate reaction of pain avoidance, almost like a reflex, not much different from a sea cucumber or some other lower animal.

They're not thinking 'Hey...OUCH! For love of humanity! Get me outta here!'

Such utter BS, even fetuses can feel pain... get your facts straight...

And why on earth use Sucrose when Dextrose is a more fasteracting-powerful carbohydrate? You don't know? Well of course you don't because you do not know anything about it... You believe what you have been told, and that is about it, no research, no nothing...

ALL living things show a reaction to pain, 0,2year olds are no different from you, if you had any idea what you are talking about you would know that...

 

[Michael]

There is a difference between "feeling" pain and understanding/processing/remembering it.

It still isn't understood exactly how much newborns understand. I don't think there is any doubt that they react to pain. However, they react to tons of things. For example, their startle reflex is very severe.

I know that I don't remember being circumcized and I know of no one that had it done shortly after they were born that remembers it.

Ornery - I can't tell if you're being PC or just trying another angle to attack religion. From what I remember about your normal posting in any thread that goves you an opportunity to throw hate at religion, I'll vote with the attack religion angle.

It is typical dumb PC thinking that would link female circumcision with male circumcision. The results and effects are completely different. Removing the clitoris has a drasically different effect than removing the foreskin does.

I can decry female circumcision while accepting male circumcision (even though I do not think it is needed and have no strong opinions about others making the choice) because of the effect. I can point out the drastic difference in the treatment of women in other cultures even though our culture is not perfect there.

I think that circuscision may be part of Islam as well, but I can't remember off the top of my head and I don't think it is as pushed as it is in the Jewish faith.

As a matter of personal family history, my grandfather avoided being sent to a concentration camp during WW II because he was not circumcised. He was apprenticed to a Jewish tailor and spoke German with a Yiddish accent, but he was able to prove he wasn't Jewish because he wasn't circumcised and got sent to a work camp instead (the Gemrans didn't like Ukranians all that much as well).

Michael

 

[tcsenter]

Twenty percent of the world's males are circumcised -- the prospect appalls many of the rest. There are no medical reasons for male circumcision

Whoop stop right there. When you see any diatribe introduced with a fantistically ignorant statement like "There are no medical reasons for male circumcision..." despite REAMS of evidence and a consensus among pediatricians as well as urologists and family practitioners, little lights and sirens go off indicating "WARNING BULLSH_T ALERT". Its a discussion stopper/precluder like "Abortion is MURDER!".

Such utter BS, even fetuses can feel pain... get your facts straight...

lol! Fetuses can feel pain? What, did you ask one? Or do you remember your father punching your mother in the stomach when you were in there? LMAO!

Sure, planaria can feel pain stimulus, too. This is a low animal function, like a reflex. What makes "pain" the "bad" thing as we higher cognitive animals know it is purely cultural and learned. Other cultures set fractures and drive sharpened bones through their noses and scrotums without analgesics, it doesn't bother them.

And why on earth use Sucrose when Dextrose is a more fasteracting-powerful carbohydrate? You don't know? Well of course you don't because you do not know anything about it... You believe what you have been told, and that is about it, no research, no nothing...

Would you like me to tell you? Or would you rather sift through this:

Abad F, Diaz NM, Domenech E, Robayna M, Rico J. Oral sweet solution reduces pain-related behavior in preterm infants. Acta Paediatr 1996;85:854-8.

Akman I, et al. ANALGESIA FROM ORAL SUGAR SOLUTIONS IN NEWBORNS. The Journal of Pain 2002;3(3):199-202)

Blass EM, Watt LB. Suckling- and sucrose-induced analgesia in human newborns. Pain 1999;82:1-13.

Bucher H-U, Moser T, von Siebenthal K, Keel M, Wolf M, Duc G. Sucrose reduces pain reaction to heel lancing in preterm infants: A placebo-controlled, randomized and masked study. Pediatr Res 1995;38:332-5.

Carbajal R, Chauvet X, Couderc SD, Olivier-Martin M. Randomised trial of anagesic effects of sucrose, glucose, and pacifiers in term neonates. BMJ 1999;319:1393-1397.

Gibbins SA. Efficacy and safety of sucrose for procedural pain relief in preterm and term neonates[dissertation] 2001.

Gormally S, Barr RG, Wertheim L, Alkawaf R, Calinoiu N, Young SN. Contact and nutrient caregiving effects on newborn infant pain responses. Develop Med Child Neurol 2001;43:28-38.

Haouari N, Wood C, Griffiths G, Levene M. The analgesic effect of sucrose in full term infants: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1995;310:1498-500.

Isik U, Ozek E, Bilgen H, Cebeci D. Comparison of oral glucose and sucrose solutions on pain response in neonates. J Pain 2000;1(4):275-78.

Johnston C, Stremler R, Stevens B, Horton L, Stremler R. Effectiveness of oral sucrose and simulated rocking on pain response in preterm neonates. Pain 1997;72:193-9.

Johnston CC, Stremler R, Horton L, Friedman A. Effect of repeated doses of sucrose during heel stick procedure in preterm neonates. Biol Neonat 1999;75:160-66.

Ors R, Ozek E, Baysoy G, Cebeci D, Bilgen H, Turkuner M, Basaran M. Comparison of sucrose and human milk on pain response in newborns. Eur J Pediatr 1999;158:63-66.

Overgaard C, Knudesen A. Pain-relieving effect of sucrose in newborns during heel prick. Biol Neonate 1999;75:279-284.

Ramenghi LA, Wood CM, Griffith GC, Levene MI. Reduction of pain response in premature infants using intraoral sucrose. Arch Dis Child 1996;74:F126-128.

Ramenghi L, Griffith G, Wood C, Levene M. Effect of non-sucrose sweet tasting solution on neonatal heel prick responses. Arch Dis Child 1996;74:F129-31.

Ramenghi LA, Evans DJ, Levene MI. "Sucrose analgesia": absorptive mechanism or taste perception? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1999;80:F146-F147.

Rushforth JA, Levene MI. Effect of sucrose on crying in response to heel prick. Arch Dis Child 1993;69:388-9.

Stevens B, Johnston C, Franck P, et al. The efficacy of developmentally sensitive interventions and sucrose for relieving pain in very low birth weight infants. Nurs Res 1999;48:35-43.

Johnston CC, Sherrard A, Stevens B, Franck L, Stremler R, Jack A. Do cry features reflect pain intensity in preterm neonates? Biology of the Neonate 1999;76:120-24.