If you're unsure of circumcision for your sons, consider this

Men who are circumcised before their first sexual intercourse have a significantly lower risk for prostate cancer than do uncircumcised men or those who are circumcised after their first sexual encounter, according to an analysis of data on 3,399 men.

The finding of a 15% reduction in relative risk points to sexually transmitted infections and inflammation as possible risk factors for prostate cancer, the authors suggested in a study published online in the journal Cancer. [emphasis mine]

Circumcision May Lower Prostate Cancer Risk

Views: 879

Replies to This Discussion

Yes cut parts of your body off to reduce the risk of cancer- hear that women, time to get rid of those troublesome breasts, and ovaries! :D

We can now ensure everyone is 100% cancer free! The innovative procedure is called amputation! Cremation is a good alternative for Hindus and those who like it toasty.


Cancer is most-likely to show up in the organs that secrete something- also if you have an acidic body PH the risk of cancer is increased.

"I am talking to you not as a doctor but as a Naturopath and an ecclesiastic speaker!"

He had to say this as a legal disclaimer. He would have had to do this as well if he was anti-vaccination or anti-circumcision. A doctor is a member of a fraternity that happens to be somewhat cult-like... they have accepted beliefs and rejected ones- a doctor who misrepresents the fraternity is penalized. Also the beliefs of the MD fraternity are not reached solely though the pure scientific process but via lobbying (large sums of $$$), usually originating from 'Big-Pharma.'

This one time, in the colonoscopy room...

I suppose I shouldn't really care about other people promoting circumcision... after-all it's already 21 years too late for me.

Perhaps not, but I appreciate the "pre-emptive strike" comparison to cutting off a woman's breasts to prevent breast cancer.  The idea of cutting off a part of the body in order to prevent a medical problem that may or may not happen at all is ludicrous, especially when the problem may or may not happen even AFTER the "offending" bit has been removed.

Even if we assumes that circumcison has a health benefit, such as reducing the risk of prostate cancer or risk of STDs, then it still does not justify the violation of the child.

A person can do what he or she likes to his or her own body, but you have no right to mutilate the body of a child, your child,  even if you think it is for his or her best.

How are you to know what is best for a boy's body other than your own body?

What right do you have to cut away the part of your child's penis with most nerveendings or any other part of his penis or body?

What right do you have to choose for your child if he prefers reduced risk of prostate cancer and reduced penile sensitivity and maybe reduced joy in sex or non-reduced risk of prostate cancer and non-reduced penile sensitivity and possible non-reduced joy in sex?

What right do you have to choose avoiding old age prostate cancer over possible affects on his sex life?

What makes you think you can make that decision for him?

Circumcision may or may not have medical benefits and it may be cultural rooted in some countries like the US or the Philippines, but we should never forget that both female and male genital mutilation have their origine in bronze age religious and tribal needs for controlling sexuality and tribal insignia to know who  will saved by god (our tribe with the genital insignia) and who will be annihilated. Or as in 1930s those with the mutilated genitals was mark for annilation.


Genital mutilation has been part of the abrahamic religions/cultures attempt to control people by reducing sexual pleasure.

Your child is in your custody and care. Your child is not your serf.

But have a foreskin is not a medical condition and genital mutilation rarely meet any medical justification.


Well the problem in determining if circumsion affects a persons sex life on anecdotal evidence is that most men only experienced it with or without the foreskin and if circumcision is done before the sexual debut, then you will never be able to know how it would have been with a foreskin.


Same for woman. A woman may have sampled experinece with have sex with a number of men with and without foreskin and may have found that it is better with or without.

But those men were not the same, the situation was different and the experience may have affected by a 1000 other things than the foreskin issue etc.


You and me saying that sex is great, which it is, with the penis that we have is not good evidence for anything.

As an RN, I do not advocate circumcision.  Many hospitals no longer perform circumcisions on newborns - parents must take their child to a pediatrician to have this done.  Medical ethics dictate that procedures performed on persons unable to give informed consent should only be those that save life or limb and that the person would most likely consent to if they could.  For instance, no one objects to surgery on a newborn to correct congenital heart defects.  Circumcision does not meet this criteria.  It is a medically unnecessary procedure imposed on a person who cannot give consent.  As one poster said, no one advocates appendectomies for newborns, even though appendicitis is fairly common.

 I have observed and assisted at circumcisions in the past and they are traumatic.  The naked infant is strapped down on a plastic board with his legs spread.  Lidocaine is injected into the dorsal nerve of the penis, which is itself painful.  The injection does not completely eliminate the pain, and the child's screams are muffled with a sugar-water pacifier.  The foreskin is separated from the glans with a blade and a plastic or metal cap is placed over the glans.  The foreskin is cut around the base of the metal or plastic cap.  Possible complications include excessive bleeding, injury to the glans, infection, urinary obstruction due to swelling, and disfigurement if too much is removed.  While the area is healing, the baby experiences pain on urination - you can imagine the stinging on an open wound!  This seems a little excessive just to (maybe) prevent future problems that can just as easily be prevented by teaching the boy proper hygiene and safe sex practices.  Add to that the fact that circumcision is almost always performed solely for frivolous ("I want my son to look like me" is one line a nurse hears often) or religious reasons (the circumcision movement in the U.S. was advocated to prevent the "evil" of masturbation), and I see no place for this procedure in infants.  

People who throw about words like "mutilate" and "violate" and make statements like "your child is not your serf" are doing absolutely nothing for the movement to stop circumcision. Nothing will make a parent shut down quicker and stop listening to what you say than suggesting they are intentionally trying to harm their child. It's rude and inaccurate. Parents make choices based on the information they're given and, in general, have nothing but good intentions when it comes to their children. Most parents really want to do the right thing and it can be very confusing sometimes knowing what that is. Presenting some factual information would get you a whole lot farther than attacking people.

I know many people who feel that immunizations are a violation. They are given to children without the child's consent. They argue that herd immunity does not work and it is an unnecessary procedure. They believe that the possible side effects of immunizations are not worth the risk. They believe parents who have their children immunized are sheep who put the word of the pharmaceutical companies before the well being of their child. They believe anyone who immunizes is poisoning their children and violating their rights.

I have a hard time listening to anything they have to say, too.

During the circumcisions I have been involved in, the parents were not present.  They were informed about the procedure and risks involved, but chose not to watch.  It's my opinion that if they were present, they would have second thoughts about the justification for this procedure, especially inflicting it on their sons just so he can look like Daddy or other boys - the most common reason I've personally heard for parents requesting circumcision.  As I've said, most hospitals no longer offer it, so parents must actively seek it out.  It is quite a bit more invasive and traumatic than vaccinations, and can have serious, disfiguring repercussions for the most intimate, personal part of a man's life.  Parents should be well informed (in depth) and encouraged to think about whether the procedure is medically necessary or whether they are simply imposing their medically uninformed, superstitious, and frivolous beliefs and desires on their son.  To cut a body part off of a newborn unnecessarily is to me the same as saying "I had a nose job and I so want to make sure my kid won't have a big schnozz like I did.  Go ahead and cut that thing."  Or, "Wouldn't it be cute if little Katie and I had matching tattoos?"  Seriously, this is about the level of consideration I've seen in parents that are doing it for non-religious reasons.  They think it's just a cosmetic thing, or a tradition they have to unthinkingly continue or their little boy will feel "different".  The ones who do it for religious reasons are even farther out there.  To them, it's okay to inflict a little pain on their son because it's a small price to pay for their "holy" covenant with God.  This is nothing more than child abuse.

Vaccinations cause thousands of cases of paralysis, blindness, convulsions, brain damage and deaths annually. So, you can't just brush off the comparison.

But I don't think that people who have their children immunized are child abusers either.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service