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: 886

Replies to This Discussion

Anthony, thank you for your reply...I totally agree with you that exposing the glans is absurd.  Even more absurd is to say that it will toughen the glans and prevent disease.  But the most absurd of all is to insist that it is OK to take a knife and cut off the foreskin of a defenseless, trusting child.  For those parents who are so inclined to make an intact child look like a circumcised parent, simply wait until the child has become sexually developed enough and retract and hold the skin by nonsurgical means.  It is equally silly to think that the child is going to look like the parent before they reach puberty.  The FACTS are simple.  DO NOT CUT ANY SKIN OFF ANY CHILD.  PERIOD.  Call it what you like, it is "being skinned alive".

My response to anyone who insists that their child be cut is that cutting is totally unnecessary and there are other means to the same end.  Why would an intelligent, informed, loving mother or father want to allow anyone to traumatize their innocent baby boy? 

True vaccination have risks, but most also huge benefits that far outweighs the risks.


There has been an anti-vaccination movement. They have been feeding on and feeding urban myths.


The start of the growth of this anti-vaccination movement is with the harmfull and fraudulent paper of Wakefield on a possible connection between MMR vaccines andautism and bowel desease. You can read about the fraud here.



The harm this fraud has done by lowering the number of vaccinated childeren is huge.

True vaccination have risks, but most also huge benefits that far outweighs the risks.

I can't help but point out the irony here. People who are anti-vaccination strongly disagree that the benefits outweigh the risks. They believe that the medical industry is controlled by big pharma and, as a result, any information you will find from the medical industry suggesting that vaccines are successful are obviously skewed in their favor.

Just as you believe that anything I could post listing benefits of circumcision either aren't reliable or aren't convincing enough to support circumcision, they feel precisely the same about vaccination.

You all have access to the same information and simply come to two different conclusions. Decisions you believe are best for your family are then made based on those conclusions. People are going to disagree with you and accuse you of harming your child no matter WHAT decision you make. I do not agree that your opinion is anymore valid that anyone else's.

Vaccination is a controversial subject. There are people who are anti-vaccination but pro-circumcision, and there are people who are pro-vaccination but anti-circumcision. There are people who advocate for both and there are people who advocate against both.

My proposed resolution is quite simple. Regarding circumcision, even if there is some sort of net health benefit to being circumcised (which I don't believe is the case), it should still be a decision that is left to the owner of the genitals. This should be the case whether the person is male or female.

Regarding vaccination, if there is some net benefit to it (I don't know) then the following stipulations should be considered. (1) You don't vaccinate neonates. (2) You don't give children (or anyone) multiple vaccinations simultaneously. (3) You don't give vaccinations that contain toxic preservatives. (4) You don't give routine vaccinations because some people will have adverse reactions, hence everyone should be tested before they are vaccinated. (5) You don't give vaccinations to people who are already sick or have their immune systems compromised. (6) You don't give vaccinations unless or until there has been thorough and independent testing of the vaccines in question. (7) You also educate people about proper nutrition, diet, exercise, lifestyle habits, etc.

"Decisions you believe are best for your family" is a stupid comment. Circumcision and vaccination are medical issues, so unless the parents in question are doctors then they have no place in determining which surgeries and medical interventions are right for their children. Furthermore, if you are not educated about intact male genitalia and the functions of the foreskin then you are in no position to determine whether it should be removed. Even if all the spurious medical claims about circumcision (made by circumcising cultures) were true, that still doesn't mean we should be cutting off foreskins. The foreskin has functions and is there for a reason. Non-circumcising cultures know this.

The day that you are willing to excise your daughter's prepuce is the day that I'll listen to your reasons for excising your son's. Until then it's a load of bologna that you and your circumcising culture have made up in your heads to justify your twisted practice of infant genital mutilation.

I respectfully disagree... with many of the recent statements posted here on this months-old topic. It would be nice if others could also respectfully agree to disagree.

You attack someone's parenting and question the love someone has for their child (in reference to various different comments in this topic) and that person will listen to nothing you have to say. The anti-circ community needs to learn better, less inflammatory ways to express their opinions.

Most parents do not knowingly or willing abuse their children. But most parents do make mistakes, sometimes big ones. Circumcision is such a mistake. It can be hard for us to admit our mistakes, but until we do we will never learn. Many mothers who had their sons circumcised have come to realise the error of their ways. Some of them now advocate against RIC. When we know better, we do better.

I have heard a lot of crazy excuses to whack off foreskins but let's think of this logically.  A man with a foreskin has a more sensitive glans that can more easily be stimulated to release the contents of the prostate.  Because of this, it is much quicker and easier to rid the prostate of semen and thereby flush it out and keep it from atrophy.  Do you get my drift?  Men who are more able to ejaculate without all the bother of needing someone else to stimulate them, are both happier and healthier.  Capice.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service