routine infant circumcision

[Dak]

True, but not everything is done for medical reasons. And as I said before, it is - at least in israel - proven to be healthier in terms of preventing cancer and other conditions.

 

I assume your reffering to this:

 

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

 

It is worth noting, however, that circumcised males have a lower risk of certain cancers, and the sexual partners of circumcised males also have a lower risk of certain cancers.

 

Considering that the uncited benifit is also extended to the partners of those who are circumsized, i would imagine it was attributable to something other than the actual circumsision, such as hygine.

 

Anyway, without knowing exact details, it is not possible to determine wether the surgery -- which is always risky, wether neccesary or not -- is justified.

 

Even if this is not definitive, it is surely ethical for me to do this for my son if I believe this is something that will benefit him.

 

Well, the ethicalness applies to more than just the parents -- also to the performing sugeon, medical organisations, and society at large for permissing it or not.

 

I acknowledge that it is completely ethical to do what you believe is in the best interests of your child.

 

 

I seriously fail to see a problem here. We're not hurting children

 

Umm...

 

 

it's HARMLESS at worst, and BENEFITIAL at best. Where's the problem?

 

Not neccesarily. Psycological and sensual negative side-effects are both possibilities that have not been conclusively eliminated.

 

Something strikes me as extremely odd. You are the second one in this threat to tell us that you almost (or did) performed circumcision for MEDICAL REASONS... and yet people claim it to be harmful.. Is it possible that the Jewish Nation is right on this one, and this is not only NOT BAD for the child, but actually is good in preventing medical problems that may require it being performed at a later age?

 

No. i nearly had it amputated in responce to a medical condition, not in a pre-emptive act against the possibility that a medical condition might, at some point in the future, arise.

 

FYI it was a too-tight foreskin, which

 

1/ it would not have been possible to predict would happen, and

2/ i managed to fix without resorting to circumsision.

 

Have you ever heard of someone saying "I had a circumcision, but almost had a skin implant for health reasons?" I actually looked it up online (or, "googled it", now that its a verb), and found none. Maybe I'm bad at googling though, try and see if you find anything, I'd love to see it

 

No, but if you google for 'foreskin restoration', you'll find that lots of people do get their foreskin restored for variouse reasons.

 

 

Oh wait, it deals with the phallic symbol, and you men have this ISSUE with that who here is sane enough to admit cutting his weewee off is healthy, right? ;-)

 

circumsisial ad hominem

 

I have my penis pierced, and have already mentioned that i considered having a circumsision for medical grounds, so i have absolutely no qualms with mutulating the penis if for a good enough reason.

 

If its for a valid reason, it's fine; i'm just not entirely convinced that 'because their parent is religious/because it's the norm' is a valid reason.

[lurscher]

Yup' date=' pretty much, when your proof are not proof (since it's not really proven) and when you ignore my proof to the other side, I do.

 

You said yourself that your facts are not 100% proven, and that the issue of health in circumcision is controversial. Do you want me to accept your controversial proofs just because you insist on posting them? I can give you many proofs against what you are saying, actually stating that circumcision lowers the chances for Cancer. I am trying to be fair in the argument, and not argue on something that cannot be decided within the scientific community (so obviously won't be decided here).

[/quote']

 

scientific facts never get proven, only falsified. In the case of statistical correlations statements is even harder to establish hard facts. These could be correlated to things like idiosincratic distribution of dorsal nerve branches. NO current circumcision procedure does a study to find these idiosincratic distributions of nerve branches. They just cut out the fat from the steak, so to speak.

 

Stop using "undeniable"' date=' of course it's deniable, or it would be proven, and as we already established, it isn't. You are stating your opinion, which is fine, but don't state this as proof. it's not. Other than that, It's not what I said. Read my post again.

[/quote']

 

read mine again please. I said "unbindable", not undeniable. Unbindable as in not correlatable scientifically. Probably it was not the best term to use.

 

Oh wait' date=' it deals with the phallic symbol, and you men have this ISSUE with that who here is sane enough to admit cutting his weewee off is healthy, right? ;-)

[/quote']

 

I think the roots of the "cut the fat out of the steak" methodology traces back to the religious origins of the procedure. Both in the jewish culture and in occident, circumcision was done to improve "moral hygiene", which was a fancy term for masturbation. Today this moral hygiene term would be deemed unacceptable and is translated to more politically-correct reformulations.

[ecoli]

I have my penis pierced' date=' and have already mentioned that i considered having a circumsision for medical grounds, so i have absolutely no qualms with mutulating the penis [b']if for a good enough reason[/b].

 

ouch, dude.

[bascule]

Why not to perform a circumcision with a Gomco clamp and electrocautery:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

[mooeypoo]

I assume your reffering to this:

 

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

Not solely. But yes' date=' above the religious ideas, it is also a social act now. I am not religious, but this is part of my heritage, and since I strongly believe that not only it does not HURT a baby, but it actually benefits him, I will probably perform this on my child. This is what I meant by my words; People don't do it because the doctor perscribes this. They do it because of social standards and the fact that they believe it benefits their babies, either religiously or hygienically.

 

I've seen your question marks as to my "we're not hurting children" comment, and allow me to explain this: If I view this procedure as BENEFIT to my child's HEALTH, I am not hurting my child, I am doing a goog thing to my child.

 

If I would've cut off my child's arm for religious reasons, this debate would look completely different, since the cutting of one's arm is dangerous, utterly proven to be HARMFUL, and is hurting the child's growth and motor skills.

 

But we are talking about a procedure that MAY ASWELL BE HELPFUL. It's not the same thing, which is why I said we are not hurting children.

 

Also, take a look at these sites:

[b']American Task Force on Circumcision, AAP, stating the procedure has "potential benefits":[/b]

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/#a1989

Discovery Channel Writer's Personal View:

http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/circumcision2.html

CBS News Article: Circumcision may prevent HIV

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/11/health/webmd/main1794135.shtml

The ANRS 1265 Trial

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298

 

I accept the correction on the RESPONSE vs. PRE-EMPTIVE procedure though. Point Taken.

 

No, but if you google for 'foreskin restoration', you'll find that lots of people do get their foreskin restored for variouse reasons.

Not medical ones.

 

And I am sorry if my last note about the phallic symbol sounded bad, I was joking.. no harm intended, and it wasn't meant for you, it was meant to all men around the world that hear the word "circumcision" and get a muscle spasm

 

 

~moo

[ecoli]

Why not to perform a circumcision with a Gomco clamp and electrocautery:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

 

Giving birth is also dangerous... should we ban that as well?

 

David Reimer's situation is one of the 'case-by-case' things, that should not be used to judge circumcision as a whole. A scientist should know that.

[lurscher]

Giving birth is also dangerous... should we ban that as well?

 

that is a random comparison that doesn't make any sense.

while you were at it, why you didn't compare it with eating, since it seems to be dangerous too (you can always choke right?), or breathing since always a poisonous gas can be around?

 

If you aren't putting any thought behind what you are going to post, why to waste your time doing it?

[ecoli]

that is a random comparison that doesn't make any sense.

while you were at it' date=' why you didn't compare it with eating, since it seems to be dangerous too (you can always choke right?), or breathing since always a poisonous gas can be around? [/quote']

 

That exactly my point, though. This guy is one random anomoly. We don't stop breathing just because there might be poisonous gas around. Just because there are individual examples of circumcisions gone wrong (often due to surgical mistakes that can EASILY be avoided) doesn't mean all circumcisions are harmful.

 

 

If you aren't putting any thought behind what you are going to post, why to waste your time doing it?

 

If you aren't putting any thought behing what I post, why waste your time responding?

[walrusman]

A parent's job is to make these kinds of decisions and it doesn't really matter why they make them. Parents are responsible, in theory anyway, for raising their child into an adult - the way in which they do that is FAR more crucial than lobs of skin and body parts.

 

Besides, most of the women I know are disgusted by foreskin and I'm way more interested in what THEY think...

[Pangloss]

Interesting article about the promotion of circumcision to fight AIDS:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10395765

 

Thought I'd toss it out there for discussion. My personal opinion has always been that circumcision for religious reasons is a bad thing, but I try to keep an open mind about it since science has always seemed, to some degree, inclusive.

[ecoli]

Thought I'd add this new finding to the debate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm

[Dak]

Dr Kevin De Cock, director of the HIV/Aids department of the World Health Organization [speaking about circumsision]

 

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha :snort: mwa ha ha hee he he he he he he he he he he he he, haha hee :snicker: tee hee, sorry

[Dak]

hehe, lol...

 

anyway, i still dont think this justifies routine infant circumsizion... shouldn't they be allowed to grow up and make the descision for themselves as to wether they want to augment their protection with circumsison, or rely soley on condoms?

 

foreskins are groovy, so it is a sacrafice of a body-part for safety, and not one i think the parents should choose to make, espescially as the kid wont be exposed to the risks untill he's old enough to make his own desision.