Move to make circumcision illegal

Actually it seems more like a pretty feeble attempt at a copout...a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the obvious---that that poster really has no evidence or facts to bring to the table... but a lot of empty verbage.

One thing to remember is that whether or not someone bothers to take on this zeal you demonstrate does not indicate that it's well founded. It says more about their willingness to engage in such exercises.

Returning to the original question of Routine (non-therapeutic) infant circumcision.

Circumcision..

is not recommended by any medical organization in the world

does not cure or prevent any non-pathological condition or disease

has no proven benefit-real or potential

has proven harm and damage

has many proven risks --up to and including penile amputation and death

has many proven complications-immediate and long-term

is bannned in ANY form for ANY reason for US females

is a violation of the human right to bodily integrity

So, can anyone provide a rational reason why this should still be legal?

The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. Tilted Media Group, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.

keviesmum wrote:

Returning to the original question of Routine (non-therapeutic) infant circumcision.

Circumcision..

is not recommended by any medical organization in the world

does not cure or prevent any non-pathological condition or disease

has no proven benefit-real or potential

has proven harm and damage

has many proven risks --up to and including penile amputation and death

has many proven complications-immediate and long-term

is bannned in ANY form for ANY reason for US females

is a violation of the human right to bodily integrity

So, can anyone provide a rational reason why this should still be legal?

This is a very ironic post, in that Kevie's Alleged Mummy has posted, at tedious length, dubiously derived statistics to support this screed. However, if one visits that linked page, and works backward to the home page, in very small print, almost illegible at the bottom of the home page is the following:

CIRP wrote:

The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. Tilted Media Group, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.

(emphasis added)

CIRP's disclaimer is a rather whimsical one, given that they then attempt to "prove" that circumcision is a medically "bad" practice. The "noharm" pages which The Parent of the Unfortunate Kevie links do not provide an "about us" link, which is actually uncommon for an informational site. However, they do praise at length the founder, one Mr. Tim Hammond. Nowhere in that panegyric is there any mention of medical credentials on the part of Mr. Hammond.

I don't mind that someone has an axe to grind--dog knows, axe grinding is an eternally popular activity, and often provides cottage industry opportunities for the ranting types among us. It is rather difficult to accept statements from authority, however, when the statements are so ill-founded.

Oh, and for all of the foreskin worshippers among us, i have a single word . . .

Smegma . . .

ADULT MALE CIRCUMCISION?

Alice,

I'm a guy who's considering being circumcised. What sort of health benefits are there to the procedure? Are there any drawbacks? Also, how much of the foreskin is removed? A little bit? Most of it? All of it, right down to the base of the head? Or what?

?-Considering Clipping



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Considering Clipping,

The smooth, rounded tip of the penis is called the glans penis. It is a sensitive part of the penis and an important source of sexual arousal. It is partially covered by the foreskin or prepuce, a retractable fold of skin that is removed by circumcision in 60 percent of newborn males in the United States. Outside of the U.S., only 15 percent of the world's population practices circumcision. The procedure is usually performed for religious (Jewish and Islamic), cosmetic, and hygienic reasons, although as a medical procedure, it has both advantages and risks.

Critics of circumcision point to its disadvantages, which include pain, the possibility of irritation of the penis itself, and the risk of complications and surgical errors. Proponents of circumcision advocate it most notably for cleanliness ?- although careful attention to cleaning the foreskin in the modern world should alleviate any potential hygienic problems. One of the biggest reasons for circumcision in the U.S. is cosmetic ?- so a boy looks like his father. In terms of health, circumcised males are less likely to develop cancer of the penis, an incredibly rare disease in the U.S. There is some evidence that circumcision may help reduce the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), although not enough research has been done to be conclusive.

Circumcision as an adult is a much more difficult operation than on an infant. Given the fact that the health benefits are negligible and/or unclear, it's highly recommend that you speak with a health care provider before making up your mind about the procedure.


Alice

Reader's Response

Dear Considering Clipping,

I am a male in my late 30s and I was born in a foreign country, but decided to get it done. I decided to get the procedure done about 5 years ago and wish I would have done it sooner. Like Alice said, do talk to a doctor before getting it done. I called ask a nurse and I went to the doctor and got it done. It takes two to three weeks to heal, but once it heals, the sex, to me, is much better than before. Sex is not a chore anymore and you stay a lot cleaner now, too. Good luck and take care.

Concerned


Go ask Alice-Columbia University's Health Question and Answer Internet Service.

This question and answer

I have indulged in no character assassination, although i haven't the least doubt that you'll not be convinced. My point, which i also doubt you'll acknowledge, is to question both the motives and the accuracy of those who have created the sites you list here. As i've already noted, and you have avoided discussing, those sites do not list the sources for raw data, nor describe the methodology used when referencing their sources' interpretation of the putative statistics. When bandying statistics, it is all anectdotal unless and until the primary sources and the methodology are reliably reported. You make an extraordinary claim, and therefore you have the burden of proof. You have proven nothing.

As a starter, why don't you prove the character assassination content of my post?

As a starter, why don't you prove the character assassination content of my post?

Quote:

As a starter, why don't you prove the character assassination content of my post?

"Oh, and for all of the foreskin worshippers among us, i have a single word . . .

"Setanta"]Note that once again, Kevie's Obsessed Parent links a site which has a disclaimer to the effect: "The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner"

Under the circumstances, that disclaimer makes ludicrous a contention to the effect: "Thanks for this OPINION--other than a few misconceptions, this is not bad.. " When CIRP itself cautions that their material is not intended to replace professional advice, you have little basis to accuse Wilso of indulging misconceptions. Another note on the CIRP content: "Evidence concerning the effect of circumcision on sexual function is lacking." That is, of course, a direct contradiction of one of points you've been ranting about. In this case, CIRP reports its statistics, and does mention methodology. But, sadly, they didn't feel it necessary to actually cite the raw data source. Nor do they provide the text of the questionnaire, nor list what percentage of the men identified pariticipated in the putative study.

As a final note, i was hilariously amused to see that you somehow consider mentioning the word smegma constitutes character assassination. That's a hell of a chip you've got on your shoulder. The definition at Hyperdictionary reads: [n] a white secretion of the sebaceous glands of the foreskin. I found an amusing ironic coincidence in that Wiso's subsequent post contained the following comment by a man circumcized as an adult: " Sex is not a chore anymore and you stay a lot cleaner now, too."

Disagreeing with you does not constitute character assassination. Pointing out the disclaimer at CIRP and making a factual statement about the biography of Tim Harrison given at the noharm site do not constitute character assassination. Could you possibly be Mr. Harrison, and hence sensitive to any comments on that heading? Hmmm . . .