To Cut or Not to Cut

I think the important thing to remember when arguing about this study of AIDS transmission is that these results apply to men in Africa, which is completely different from how men are raised and live here in the states, for the most part. American men have the luxery of protecting themselves from STIs and becoming educated in many ways that individuals from other 3rd world countries aren't.

How about our men protect themselves by having safe sex (condoms) or just abstaining from sex with an infected partner/get tested? Why must we cut skin from their penis?

Just seems so barbaric for 2010.

I believe the second paper was done in the US.

But I fail to see what's barbaric about it? a little snip of skin taken off, doint' see how its barbaric. would getting a shot for a baby be considered barbaric? That's probably as much pain as a circumcision.
 
I think the important thing to remember when arguing about this study of AIDS transmission is that these results apply to men in Africa, which is completely different from how men are raised and live here in the states, for the most part. American men have the luxery of protecting themselves from STIs and becoming educated in many ways that individuals from other 3rd world countries aren't.

How about our men protect themselves by having safe sex (condoms) or just abstaining from sex with an infected partner/get tested? Why must we cut skin from their penis?

Just seems so barbaric for 2010.

Well, that's the first rational argument I've heard.

In answer, I'd say that teenagers don't always think with their big heads.

And, again, if I want to circumcise my son, that's my business. There is no proof of any long term harm that comes from circumcision. If there was, then that would be a different story.


Your last sentences are a really big point about this entire thread, and frankly all that should matter. it's up to the parents, nobody is being forced to have their kid circumcised.
 
I think the important thing to remember when arguing about this study of AIDS transmission is that these results apply to men in Africa, which is completely different from how men are raised and live here in the states, for the most part. American men have the luxery of protecting themselves from STIs and becoming educated in many ways that individuals from other 3rd world countries aren't.

How about our men protect themselves by having safe sex (condoms) or just abstaining from sex with an infected partner/get tested? Why must we cut skin from their penis?

Just seems so barbaric for 2010.

I believe the second paper was done in the US.

But I fail to see what's barbaric about it? a little snip of skin taken off, doint' see how its barbaric. would getting a shot for a baby be considered barbaric? That's probably as much pain as a circumcision.

I consider it barbaric for the simple fact that, quite frankily, it doesn't need to be done. So far the main arguement has been worry about AIDS transmission, which does not effect infant boys and their penis' nor should it with adult men if they are taught how to take care of their penis' and practice safe sex. Therefore, if we have other solutions besides cutting an infant's skin, then why not use those (which, I think, would be more educational for our boys and create more communication about health in general)?

Now, while I can't speak to how painful a circumcision is I would have to ask you: which would you rather have, some skin from your penis cut off or a shot?
 
I consider it barbaric for the simple fact that, quite frankily, it doesn't need to be done. So far the main arguement has been worry about AIDS transmission, which does not effect infant boys and their penis' nor should it with adult men if they are taught how to take care of their penis' and practice safe sex. Therefore, if we have other solutions besides cutting an infant's skin, then why not use those (which, I think, would be more educational for our boys and create more communication about health in general)?

Now, while I can't speak to how painful a circumcision is I would have to ask you: which would you rather have, some skin from your penis cut off or a shot?

Well, while I respect your opinion, we'll have to agree to disagree on the point.

I see it as a harmless procedure which has a good chance of preventing a rather horrible condition later in life.

But I think we both agree that mandating whether the procedure should or should not be done via government is the wrong way to go.
 
☭proletarian☭;2091111 said:
Both the public and the medical community must guard against being overwhelmed by the hyperbolic promotion of male circumcision and must receive these new studies with extreme caution. There is contradictory evidence that male circumcision is not as effective as proponents claim. One study found that male circumcision had no protective effect for women51 and another study found that male circumcision increased risk for women.52 Grosskurth found more HIV infection in circumcised men.53 Barongo et al. found no evidence that lack of circumcision is a risk factor for HIV infection.54 A study from India found little difference between circumcised and non-circumcised men in the conjugal relationship.55 A study carried out in South Africa found that male circumcision offered only a slight protective effect.56 A study carried out among American naval personnel found no difference in the incidence of HIV infection between non-circumcised and circumcised men.57
(again, the same medical source gregg refuses to read)

.
 
☭proletarian☭;2091105 said:
These RCTs, which studied HIV transmission among adults in Africa, cannot be used to support the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision of children. Infant boys do not engage in sexual intercourse so they are not subject to sexually-transmitted HIV infection. They, however, are subject to various complications of circumcision, including infection through an open circumcision wound with various pathogens, such as deadly CA-MRSA.38,39 Other risks include hemorrhage, exsanguination, and death;40 and various surgical accidents, including urethral fistula,41 penile denudation,42 and traumatic amputation of the glans penis.43 By the time today’s newborn boys became sexually active, HIV vaccine is likely to be available so circumcision today, in an attempt to prevent HIV infection in the distant future, is contraindicated.
The high infant mortality rate in the African countries hardest hit by the HIV epidemic means many children will die before they become sexually active, further vitiating any protective effect of infant circumcision. The time, effort and money would be better spent on community health measures that would preserve their lives and those of their parents.
Because of their minority, children cannot grant consent, so any non-therapeutic circumcision of a child is a human rights violation44 and ethically inappropriate.45
.
 
Bottom line:

It's almost never medically necessary and it's not a reliable means of preventing HIV infection in individuals or populations- the sole 'justification' put forth for it.

If your infant needs to worry about catching an STD there's a whole other problem to be addressed. Grown men can decide whether to have their genitals disfigured in according to an ancient jewish practice (complete with a rabbi sucking on the wound, if they so desire)
 
☭proletarian☭;2062594 said:
So you're throwing a hissyfit because they won't let you mutilate your child's genitals?
I'm betting the MAniac against that parents choice (to circumcise the babe) also is cool with partial birth abortions (murder prior to birth).


You're retarded, aren't you?
 
Actually, darlin', your [redacted] quote was not my personal quote, but me quoting the old goat who wants all children to be left with all their body parts. Personally, I think circumcision is the healthy thing to do and most likely the reason behind the religious beliefs of Jewish people. The same principle applies to Jewish dietary laws - some food is healthy for ya and some ain't. I will admit I think the Orthodox Jews may take it a step too far, but they're not bothering me because I don't eat at their table and don't have to wash their dishes, so who am I to judge them?

It's likely that I'm not a fan of The Uncut ... my son got clipped 36 years ago and we've never had a discussion about it. Besides that, if I were confronted with the "experience" of an Uncut I believe it wouldn't happen ... I'd be way too concerned about what might be lurking in all that extraneous flap that might be passed on to me.
I'm betting that Sam knows all about smegma. F&L

It comes as no surprise that neither of you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

"The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma." Thomas J. Ritter, MD

Smegma

HOW SMEGMA SERVES THE PENIS by Joyce Wright, M. D.
www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright1

Wasn't smega the little monster from Lord of the Rings?
 
I'm sorry, but reading this thread I don't see "mostly right-leaning types" supporting this at all. It looks to me like most of them are against it.

Rick

Perhaps you're letting the names confuse you...

For instance:

"Rightwinger" is actually a left-winger.

"Proletariat" is a right-winger.

"Vast LWC" is not vast...he's actually rather slender.
 
☭proletarian☭;2091006 said:
Holy cow some of you are nuts claiming this is "mutilation".

It is mutilation/disfigurement by definition.
Let's see, how many circumcised people here had a traumatic snipping experience? Who even remembers it?

Who remembers being raped when they're given roofies?

Rape is cool, then, right? So long as I giver you a drug that makes sure you don't remember anything?

And they only give babies a local, because they do it usually with in the first week or two of life when they don't feel as much.
 
I'm sorry, but reading this thread I don't see "mostly right-leaning types" supporting this at all. It looks to me like most of them are against it.

Rick

Perhaps you're letting the names confuse you...

For instance:

"Rightwinger" is actually a left-winger.

"Proletariat" is a right-winger.

"Vast LWC" is not vast...he's actually rather slender.

How do you know he's circumcised?:eek:
 
☭proletarian☭;2091006 said:
Holy cow some of you are nuts claiming this is "mutilation".

It is mutilation/disfigurement by definition.
Let's see, how many circumcised people here had a traumatic snipping experience? Who even remembers it?
Who remembers being raped when they're given roofies?

Rape is cool, then, right? So long as I giver you a drug that makes sure you don't remember anything?

And they only give babies a local, because they do it usually with in the first week or two of life when they don't feel as much.


:cuckoo:
Over a dozen studies confirm the extreme pain of circumcision. It has been described as “among the most painful [procedures] performed in neonatal medicine.”( 2) In one study, researchers concluded that the pain was “severe and persistent.”( 3) Increases in heart rate of 55 beats per minute have been recorded, about a 50 percent increase over the baseline.( 4) After circumcision, the level of blood cortisol increased by a factor of three to four times the level prior to circumcision
Infant Responses During and Following Circumcision

Before the late nineteenth century, medical doctors understood that infants feel pain.1 Then, in 1872, Paul Emil Flechsig advanced the idea that infants could not feel pain because "their nerves are not completely myelinated."1 Incredibly, this idea caught on, and all sorts of operations---including open heart surgery---were carried out on infants without anesthesia for many years.1
The scientific study of neonatal pain, appearing in the literature from circa 1970, began to say that newborns experienced "stress" from neonatal circumcision.2,3,4,5 Until then, however, the medical orthodoxy (amazingly) seemingly still did not believe that newborns could actually feel pain.
Talbert et al demonstrated a rise in serum cortisol during circumcision surgery in 1976.6 This was confirmed by Gunnar et al. in 1981.8 Cortisol is a stress hormone. It is an accepted marker for pain. This was clear proof that infants feel the pain of circumcision....



The definitive study of the human neonatal pain sensory mechanism was published by Anand and Hickey in the New England Journal of Medicine in November 1987.17 They wrote:
"Numerous lines of evidence suggest that even in the human fetus, pain pathways as well as cortical and subcortical centers necessary for pain perception are well developed late in gestation, and the neurochemical systems now known to be associated with pain transmission are intact and functional....Other responses in newborn infants are suggestive of integrated emotional and behavioral responses to pain and are retained in memory long enough to modify subsequent behavior patterns....n decisions about the use of these techniques, current knowledge suggests that humane considerations should apply as forcefully to the care of neonates and young nonverbal infants as they do to children and adults in similar painful and stressful situations."
The evidence that neonates feel pain and suffer as much or more than do older children and adults is conclusive and generally accepted today.17


Pain of circumcision, pain control



 

Forum List

Back
Top