not to mention when the drug deals go sour the faux good-will preachers turn to gang related teen prostitution.. what?
New research answers question about benefits to risks of circumcision.
In an important new study, authors have shown that the benefits of infant male circumcision to health exceed the risks by over 100 to 1. Over their lifetime half of uncircumcised males will contract an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin, the researchers suggest.
In infancy the strongest immediate benefit is protection against urinary tract infections (UTIs) that can damage the kidney in half of babies who get a UTI. Morris and co-investigator Tom Wiswell, MD, Center for Neonatal Care, Orlando, showed last year that over the lifetime UTIs affect 1 in 3 uncircumcised males.
In a landmark systematic review, Morris, with John Krieger, MD, Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, showed that there is no adverse effect of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure. This helped dispel one myth perpetuated by opponents of the procedure.
Professor Morris stated, "The new findings now show that infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination and that as such it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy. ... [emphasis mine]
That is just a big hot pile of manure. Canadian and European babies DO NOT have higher rates of UTIs or VD or any of the excuses of pro-mutilation lobbies. Furthermore, for anyone to say that there is no loss of sexual function is completely ridiculous. It was the main purpose of circumcision in the first place and as a female who's had sex with many of circumcised condition and intact males, I can say beyond the shadow of a doubt that I never again want to have circumcised sex. But of course most religious and circumcised males will swear up and down and under oath that their lacking of a body part does not impede their sexual performance. They are deluded.
Hello. Thanks for your comment. May I ask where you come from and if you have any sons?
That report is not only absurdly biased, it's grossly inaccurate.
77% of the present prevalence of circumcision among adults. The present infant circumcision rate is 55%.
Most of the world does not circumcise. Non-cutting countries have demonstrably better health outcomes that the US. The US HIV incidence is three times that seen in Europe, where circumcision is rare.
this is getting me started again. I have written a lot on this--but this time I'll be quick.
Who writes these reports?
Circumcision has been so widespread in the USA, and for so long, that when a new report comes out its writers are just another lot of medical doctors who had had the chop when young when they could not complain.
Homo has been around for millions of years--forever advancing.
Homo sapiens has been on Earth for some 200,000 years. Nature led to a perfect penis that we boys get born with.
These god-fearing doctors think they can improve on Nature--or improve on what their mythical god provided. If boys are taught cleanliness--or learn it for themselves--they don't get any 'adverse medical condition'.
Try asking the writers of this report what their religion is.
Try asking them, were they cut when young?
Try funding a report by atheist doctors who were never circumcised. The result will be different.
I rest my case.
I AM! DAMN GLAD I AM!
AND ANY KID OF MINE WOULD BE!
END OF STORY!
I guess you like to circumcise your periods too.
Me thinks the laddy doth protest too much...
THAT THE BEST YOU HAVE CHILD?
AND LIKE I CARE WHAT YOU THINK!
Why? How do you come to that conclusion?
Let us, for a moment, consider a hypothetical situation whereas circumcision was never declared a religiously necessary practice as it was thousands of years ago. Fast forward to the 21st century. When male infants get a urinary tract infection, or teenagers contract a sexually transmitted disease, would the practitioners of modern medicine advocate cutting off the foreskin as a sensible remedy? I really doubt it.
In our current era where the highest level of personal hygiene is not only routine but is available to the most people ever, circumcision is not a rational option as preventative medical care.
This is such an emotional issue. It touches a nerve in many people. There is a lot of passion about it.
I'm not going back to reread the entire thread.
Here are some breast cancer statistics from the centers for disease control:
Not counting some kinds of skin cancer, breast cancer in the United States is—
For more information, visit Cancer Among Women.
In 2010 (the most recent year numbers are available)—
Breast cancer is a horrible disease. It affects 100 out of 100,000 women.
If we did a preventive mastectomy on all young women, the rate would be cut drastically. Probably not zero, but much lower. Extreme.... but so is breast cancer.
I would not advocate that. The risk is too high, the cost to individual body autonomy is too much, the cost to personal self esteem is to high, it's too much to ask.
To me, the circumcision issue is like that too. For each parent, it depends on how much they value the personal body integrity of their baby boy. If they don't value their baby's body integrity, then it's not a big deal. If they do, then it is. Circumcision of an infant may not be nearly as extreme as prophylactic mastectomy, but it is a permanent change in a boy's anatomy.
Terry, I don't know if the being around for millions of years argument works. You can say the same about wisdom teeth and appendix. For some aspects of human anatomy, nature is not perfect. Even so, I don't consider circumcision as perfecting the infant boy, or the man.
This link only works about half the time, if that much, but if you can get it to play, I think they do make a valid point. I tried to find another link but could not.