Reply
Sat 22 Sep, 2012 09:29 pm
Who would you their child go through problems such as phimosis, paraphimosis, urethral discharge, priapasm or scrotal mass instead of cutting it at the age where there is much less risk? You guys would probably go ape-**** if the medical community was recommending a vaccine that reduced HIV risk by 60%, genital herpes risk by 30% and HR-HPV (high-risk human papillomaviruses) risk by 35% too.
Bacterial infection is less common in the circumcised penis because there are not as many places for bacteria to accumulate and grow. Interestingly, it may be easier for uncircumcised males to contract many STD's, including HIV compared with circumcised males. Special attention to hygiene and washing habits are less critical for the circumcised male than for the uncircumcised man. In uncircumcised males, dead skin cells and oil get trapped under the foreskin to form a white or yellow cheesy substance called smegma. Smegma can cause the foreskin to become stuck to the head of the penis. This makes retraction of the foreskin difficult and painful, making erections painful during masturbation and sexual activity.
Current scientific research shows male circumcision could, in fact, be one of most effective tools for combating HIV transmission among countless men and women in sub-Saharan Africa. Circumcising males in many poverty stricken African countries could prevent two million new cases of HIV and easily avoid 300,000 or more deaths within the next 10 years.
Because the foreskin contains a countless number of tiny cells that are easily infected by the HIV virus, removing it from the penis decreases a man's chance of contracting the disease.
Some people may compare female circumcision to male circumcision, but the comparison is not valid. Female circumcision is an incredibly painful process, ranging from removing the clitoral hood, to removing both the clitoral hood and the clitoris, to removing all external female genitalia and stitching together the vaginal opening. These procedures are usually done without anesthetics or hygienic conditions at an age where the girls can remember the pain. Female circumcision greatly decreases pleasure in almost all women. It is viewed as a way to keep women "pure" before their marriage and an important rite of passage.
Some people believe that there are more benefits to having the foreskin removed, while others feel that it is better to leave it intact. But the truth is, most doctors recommend circumcision at an early age to prevent medical problems in the future. Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials. It is possible, but not yet adequately assessed, that male circumcision could reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV, although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission. Male circumcision has also been associated with a number of other health benefits. Although there are risks to male circumcision, serious complications are rare. Accordingly, male circumcision, together with other prevention interventions, could play an important role in HIV prevention in settings similar to those of the clinical trials. You can never say foreskin is cleaner when today’s advanced studies are continuing to prove otherwise. Based on the medical evidence, banning infant male circumcision would deprive parents of the right to act on behalf of their children's health. In the past, medical evidence was insufficient to fully support circumcision's health benefits but today, more advanced research has provided increasing evidence for the health benefits of circumcision, and further in to the future, we’ll have even more successful evidence toward circumcision’s major benefits and advantages. So now, with the rise in information from medical research in recent years, informed parents are learning more and more of the lifelong benefits that circumcision can convey to the health and well-being of their children, and are insisting on this simple procedure.
Unless you have a M.D. or have an education in statistics or public health, you are likely not educated to know what is and isn't good research. I just don't understand why there are experts who have studied in to the subject saying circumcision is more hygienic and beneficial and yet you STILL deny all of the evidence shown. So please, explain to me how you're more informed than these educated professional doctors.
I'm very old and uncircumcised... all my sons are also and so are their sons... My father said to me those many many years ago... when I saw other kids with funny looking dicks "only the bloody Jews cut their dicks up like that" He also was a believer in evolution and questioned why we evolved with the skin over it... You perhaps you should also query, why the Christian God never designed male dicks without skin over the head of it and why he gave males tits before he made a woman. I'm sure if that God had the scientists of today to help him, there would be a lot of things that could of been fixed and saved of us all the yucky things that happen to us on a regular basis.
a) It might be a fear of mass conversions to Islam one day, if a male was already circumcised?
b) Or, it might be a desire to not have a son be mistaken for a Moslem or Jew?
c) Or, it might be part of some radical lesbian's desire to make the male less attractive in his hygienic profile?
The above are just musings. Nothing above is based on any facts.
To possibly answer the question of this thread, one might start with why Europeans historically did not circumcise males? Could that have been so as not to appear Jewish? I have heard of Soviet Jewish males that were not circumcised, so as not to be known as Jews in the Soviet Army, based on the level of anti-Semitism.
The question might also be needed to answer, why in the U.S. did circumcision become so popular, before the health benefits became known? I am only guessing that Protestants somehow adopted the practice, for the infant, in the hospital. Why? Did they think of themselves as "grafted on" Jews? Did assimilated Catholics adopt it, for the infant in the hospital, as a way to appear no different than the majority Protestants?
It all comes down to whether the anti-circumcision movement is based on some benign belief, or some less benign agenda? There are people who know, but might be reticent to speak.
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
The question might also be needed to answer, why in the U.S. did circumcision become so popular, before the health benefits became known?
Some physicians figured out that it could be a big money making procedure.
@InfraBlue,
Nope-- it was because most of em are jews :-)
@tenderfoot,
tenderfoot wrote:
Nope-- it was because most of em are jews :-)
Assuming your assertion is true, what would they care if non-Jews were circumcised or not?
@tenderfoot,
tenderfoot wrote:
Nope-- it was because most of em are jews :-)
You mean most doctors are Jewish? Not true, if that was your point? Perhaps, it seems that way to the average Gentile that sees a Jewish name on a doctor's shingle, and remembers that shingle more than others. However, many supposedly Jewish names are really German Christian names, and most doctors in the U.S. are not Jewish.
But, it is reassuring to know (read: sarcasm) that the old canards of Jews being "money hungry" may still be alive and well amongst the masses. Old stereotypes take generations to change, since the masses have a very long learning curve for learning new beliefs. Let's be candid. It took 1300 years for all of Europe to be Christianized (as late as 1300 there were still pockets of Germany that were then accepting Christianity).
@Foofie,
Um !!! ----- : - ) means I'm joking.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace