Move to make circumcision illegal

OY, bijoununya is on a tear, so to speak. Done at the right age, by a good doctor, no problem. Better yet, a mohel or whoever does the Muslim circumcisions (can't recall the name). Circumsion done at OLDER ages can be problematic, but greedy docs always want a little more $$$ so they may promote these things when they shouldn't. Blame the docs, not the practice itself.

How so? How is it any different? I wouldn't say that I'm on a tear, I just love a good circumcision debate.

Going to the Mikvah does not have to be expensive!!!
I suggest you contact Chabad, and ask them to let you know where to go.
You go to www.chabad.org, and look for their Centers... There you'll get contact info.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that if a person wanted to use the Mikvah but said that he or she can't really afford to pay whatever fee might be there, special considerations might take place very easily.

Circumcision cuts AIDS risk

LONDON - Uncircumcised men were nearly seven times more likely to get the AIDS virus, a new study said."It is now about the ninth study which followed men who are HIV-negative over a period of months or years. It is the ninth study in a row which has found that the effect [of circumcision] is significant," said Robert Bailey, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who was not part of the study."The fact that they found no behavioral differences between the two groups is all the more compelling, and indicates that there is a biological factor," Bailey said.The study by Robert Bollinger and colleagues from Johns Hopkins University in India was published yesterday in the medical journal Lancet.The Associated Press

ARE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO POPST FACTUAL INFORMATION HERE..
or is this merely an OPINION forum?

I am asking as I have seen nothing factual here..just a lot of empty opinions.

thanx

keviesmum,

What you just posted was an opinion.

Welcome to A2K!

I was asking as I wanted an answer--

Of course people are allowed to post facts here, and they are also allowed to post opinions (something you've already done).

Welcome again.

One should never accept sensational articles in newspapers, especially without checking to see if the story is true--unfortunately this one is not..

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/cochrane2003/

One should also compare CLAIMS made in a newspaper article with REALITY..

1A. Any study, conclusion, or opinion predicated on flawed or invalid data is inherently flawed and invalid.

1B. Any conclusion or opinion predicated on any number of flawed studies with invalid data is inherently flawed and invalid..

2. Any data, study, conclusion , or opinion contradicted by reality is inherently flawed and invalid.

4. HIV
Flawed:
"Fewer than half of one percent of North Americans and Europeans are HIV positive. However, in parts of southern Africa, such as Botswana, as many as 35 percent of the population is said by London's Daily Telegraph (Jul. 10) to be HIV positive. (Reuters, however, places the figure at 29%, while the July 7 Science, using official figures from the South African government, offers 23%). But what has not received media attention is a troubling realization. Based on standard medical practice, we actually have no idea how widespread the disease is in Africa.

There are two related problems -- the reliability of HIV prevalence estimates, often nationwide extrapolations from selected sites, and the accuracy of a full-blown AIDS diagnosis. Not only are public health figures in several African regions dubious in general (as are nearly all government data in these areas), practically every commentator speaking out on the African holocaust neglects to mention what may well be the heart of the matter: The criteria for declaring an AIDS case in Africa do not include an actual blood test to determine whether or not the patient is HIV positive.

According to what is known as the Bangui definition, named for the city in the Central African Republic where it was adopted in 1985, a diagnosis of AIDS could be given in the presence of features such as prolonged fevers (for a month or more), weight loss of 10 percent or greater, and prolonged diarrhea. But no blood test is required. That is, deaths that heretofore were attributed to malaria, dysentery, or tuberculosis, for instance, may now be classified and accounted as AIDS deaths. (In fact, the June 23 Science reports that one study found TB in 40% of HIV-infected people upon autopsy).

As a November, 1986 article in Science (AIDS in Africa: An Epidemiologic Paradigm) observed, while pediatric HIV disease in Africa resembles HIV infections in children in the United States, it is difficult to distinguish HIV-associated disease in Africa on clinical grounds, where failure to thrive, malnutrition, and pulmonary disease are common pediatric problems.

Hence, while estimates of the extent of HIV infection have been forthcoming (ideally based on blood analysis), the true scope of the crisis is simply unknown. There could be vastly more cases lurking than have been dreamed of in the current nightmare or there could be substantially less. A medically precise definition of an African AIDS case, though difficult to obtain, is an essential tool in fighting the disease, particularly when it comes to directing resources (According to the April 27 Nature, World Bank President James Wolfensohn promised that there would be 'no limit' to the funds available for combating AIDS in the developing world.). It would compound one assured (but still shadowy in scale) public health tragedy if the world were to mobilize to save Africa -- only to find that it had sent condoms and the AIDS drug AZT, when what was most needed on the docks in Maputo and Luanda were clean water and antibiotics.

Proper reportorial skepticism and careful medical accounting have never been more in need."

Looking at this and the reality below, it is very apparent where those circumcisers in Africa are getting their statistics--they make them up!

Reality:

The US has the 6th highest HIV rates in the world. It is preceded only by Zimbabwe, Congo, Malai, Kenya and Chad, all of which are circumcising countries

HIV cases /100,000 World Health Org (1994)

Circumcising countries:

Zimbabwe........................96.7

Congo..............................58.4

Malawi..............................49.2

Kenya...............................24.8

Chad................................20.2

USA.................................16.0

Non-circumcising countries:

Japan.................................0.2

Finland...............................0.9

Norway..............................1.5

Sweden.............................2.0

Germany...........................2.2


World Heath Organization data from 1995 show the following AIDS rates for that year:

Nation AIDS cases/100,000 Cirk rates/1995* Cirk rates/1975**

USA............….........16.0........................60%.......................85%

Australia...................4.5..................…......8%.......................55%

Canada....................3.8..............….......<17%.......................30%

France.....................3.5...................…....<1%.......................<1%

Netherlands.............3.1.............…..........<1%.......................<1%

UK...........................2.4...............…...........1%.........................1%

Germany...........…...2.2...................….....<1%.......................<1%

Sweden..........….....2.0.....................…....<1%.......................<1%

Norway.........…......1.6....................…......<1%.......................<1%

New Zealand.….....1.2.......................….....5%.............…......10(?)

Finland....…….......0.9..........................<1%..............……......<1%

Japan........…..…... 0.6.....................….... <1%........................<1%
….
* Est various sources--sources avail from CIRP
** Est various sources--sources avail from CIRP --time allotted to reach sexual maturity

So taking the estimated cirk rates of 20 years ago we find an amazing POSITIVE correlation between the cirk rates and the HIV rates

Thanks, I hope my proclivity to stick to proven facts and evidence helps to enliven the debate.

]

Why IS it better to have it done at infancy than as an adult? As an infant, he does NOT get FULL and complete pain relif, has to have his foreskin FORCEFULLY RIPPED from the glans--not so for an adult. And an adult does not sit in a poopy, and urine-soaked diaper.

As for the assertion of cleanliness, no foundation in reality--merely re-writing history.
As for "religious freedom", why is NOT a religious freedom to circumcise your daughters in the USA? Double standard?

Re: Couldn't agree more


Right on!

Most of the British Medical Association policy statement on infant circumcision discusses male circumcision for religious and cultural reasons. To say that male circumcision is only done in Great Britain for valid medical reasons after less invasive methods have been tried and failed is false! Many circumcisions are done in Great Britain for religious and cultural reasons.

There is also credible evidence that British doctors over prescribe circumcision in the same way (although to a lesser extent) that doctors in the USA over prescribe circumcision. For example

"It appears that in the Mersey Region many boys are circumcised for development non-retractability of the prepuce rather than for true phimosis and that in consequence some two-thirds of the operations are unnecessary."

Rickwood AMK, Walker J. Is phimosis overdiagnosed in boys and are too many circumcisions performed in consequence? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1989;71(5):275-7. http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/rickwood2/

"Most of the 30 000 circumcisions performed in the United Kingdom each year are done on boys aged under 15. Controversy exists over whether all these procedures are necessary or justified."

"Of the 464 new patients seen, 69 were referred for a penile problem (median age 4.2 years (range 2 months - 14.3 years)). ... Our findings on examination were that 29 of the children referred had a healthy retractile foreskin and 30 had a healthy non-retractile foreskin."

Note - Of the 69 boys referred for a penile problem 59 (85.5%) had healthy foreskins.

"Fourteen children were listed for circumcision, nine because of phimosis, one because the long redundant foreskin caused urinary dribbling, and two for religious reasons. The other two children had an unscarred non-retractile foreskin but were listed for circumcision because of their ages (10.8 and 14.4 years) the failure of conservative management, and parental pressure."

Note - Two boys were listed for circumcision for *religious* reasons not *medical* reasons. Also please note the phrase "parental pressure".

Williams N, Chell J, Kapila L. Why are children referred for circumcision. BMJ 1993; 306:28.
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/williams/

"Religious considerations apart, the commonest indications for circumcision in current surgical practice are phimosis, preputial adhesions, ballooning of the foreskin and balanitis. Although these indications are widely accepted, consideration of the embryology, development, and pathology of the prepuce suggests that their validity is open to doubt."

"These data suggest that overall between 1% and 2% of boys need circumcision for medical indications. The cumulative national rate of circumcision for boys by the age of 15 is almost 7%. If findings from Liverpool are representative of the rest of Britain then many unnecessary circumcisions are being performed. each year at considerable cost to the health service and morbidity for patients."

"A better understanding of the normal physiology, developmental anatomy, and pathology of the prepuce could prevent the removal of thousands of normal foreskins over the next 20 years."

Gordon A, Collin J. Saving the normal foreskin. BMJ 1993; 306: 1-2. http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gordon/

"How many boys really need medical circumcision? Generously 1% for true phimosis and, perhaps, similarly for recurrent balanoposthitis. Yet, cumulatively some 6% of boys in England and Wales have undergone medical circumcision by their fifteenth birthday indicating that two thirds of current procedures are unnecessary - not a matter for congratulation."

Rickwood AM. The unkindest cut of all? Journal of the Irish Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons 1992; 21(3) (July) 1992:179-181.
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/rickwood/

More on "prevention of pain":

New Recommendations: The American Academy of Pediatrics released its new circumcision policy statement on March 1, 1999. The AAP has withdrawn its previous recommendation for neonatal circumcision but states that, if a circumcision is to be done, analgesia should be used. The AAP says the ring block method is the most effective. Furthermore the AAP states that all methods*** reduce but do not eliminate pain.*** CIRP has more information about the new AAP statement.

"There is a common belief that the effects of circumcision pain are short-lived and clinically insignificant, and, therefore, that the benefits of analgesic treatment do not outweigh the risks of adverse effects from currently available therapies."

EFFECT OF NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION ON PAIN RESPONSE
THE LANCET, Volume 349 Number 9052: Pages 599-603, March 1, 1997.

Meritcare (Internet) states that "Besides anesthesia, securing your child in the padded restraint chair and giving him a sugar-dipped pacifier can help reduce his level of stress (and yours). Used together, these methods can decrease discomfort by more than 50%."

http://www.meritcare.com/kidshealth/PageManager.asp?dn=MeritCare&ps=104&article_set=22652&cat_id=177&lic=19&pg=3

PLENTY, in reality means that you have roughly 39% of the sensitivity of an intact man..

Playing with the numbers:

Taking the Taylor study and the Kimmel study, we can get an approximation of the degree of sexual sensation loss from circumcision.

Taylor: Circumcision removes over 50% of the nerves of the penis...excluding the nerve DAMAGE from the tearing of the foreskin from the penis--let's round it off to 50% for the sake of convenience..

Kimmel: intact men are 30% MORE sensitive than cut men (and only in the areas left to both; ie, excluding the original nerve loss along with the lost foreskin).

Playing with the numbers, we get:

100% - 50%= 50%

50% / 1.3 = 38.5% sensation left

So this mean that cut men have lost 61.5 % sensation.

This is the sensitivity left for cut men compared to intact men..so to even think for a minute that circumcision is NOT sexually damaging is completely irrational and illogical.

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

http://www.cirp.org/news/nocirc12-7-00/

Amputation of the prepuce because it is caught in a zipper?
"HAD to be"? Any competent doctor would have known that if you merely remove the bottom clip, the zipper just peels open without any further damage.

I wonder what this doctor would have done if it was a cut man with the same situation--amputate the whole penis?

I am constantly amazed how much damage is done by doctor incompetence and ignorance--especially when it come to the male prepuce....in fact it happens with such alarming frequency that it makes me wonder IF it IS due merely to incompetence and ignorance; and not due to some other motivation.

Pfft...less sensitivity means going longer, and I have no problem with that, and neither do most women. I do however, have problems with silly rants like this. I thought this thread had died completely. What bothers me more than circumcision are people who are obsessed with circumcision to the point of mental illness. I can live without a foreskin, but not without sanity.

"PLENTY, in reality means that you have roughly 39% of the sensitivity of an intact man.."

I wouldn't know, so I don't really care, I have better things to waste my time on.

"Playing with the numbers, we get:

100% - 50%= 50%

50% / 1.3 = 38.5% sensation left

So this mean that cut men have lost 61.5 % sensation. "

Actually, all these figures mean is that there is no consensus among the studies. Is it 39% or 61.5%? Hmm, I don't know...I guess it depends on how you spin the wildly inept work done on the subject.

"Amputation of the prepuce because it is caught in a zipper?
"HAD to be"? Any competent doctor would have known that if you merely remove the bottom clip, the zipper just peels open without any further damage.

I wonder what this doctor would have done if it was a cut man with the same situation--amputate the whole penis?

I am constantly amazed how much damage is done by doctor incompetence and ignorance--especially when it come to the male prepuce....in fact it happens with such alarming frequency that it makes me wonder IF it IS due merely to incompetence and ignorance; and not due to some other motivation."

Pure speculation, bordering on conspiracy theory. You don't know the man, the damage done, or the doctor involved. Not even worth responding to.

Not true, not longer, but more prone to Premarure ejaculation:

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/vissing1/

SCANDANAVIAN JOURNAL OF SEXOLOGY, Volume 2, Number 4: Page 103.
PREMATURE EJACULATION AND CIRCUMCISION

BIOGENIC OR A CULTURAL FACTOR

VISSING M

Premature ejaculation ( PE ) seems to be the most common male sexual dysfunction world-wide. Reports from the Middle East, India and Asia show a much higher incidence of PE than in the western world. In these areas the vast majority of men have had a ritual circumcision. In our clinic we also found a significantly higher incidence of PE in men from these parts of the world.

Is it a biogenic factor due to circumcision or a psychogenic disorder due to cultural differences?
We investigated penile sensitivity with TSA 2001 Thermal Analyzer ( cold / warm and tactile sensation ) in normal men and and with PE who had a ritual circumcision and in non-circumcised men. The literature will be discussed and the results presented.

Correspondence

Institute of clinical sexology
Rigshospitalet
Copenhagen Denmark

(http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/yedaiah1/)

Rabbi Isaac ben Yedaiah of Southern France, late 13th century

"A man uncircumcised in the flesh desires to lie with a beautiful-looking woman who speaks seductively to attract him. He vexes his mind to be with her day after day, growing weary in his attempt to fulfill
his desire through lovemaking with her.

"She too will court the man who is uncircumcised in the flesh and lie against his breast with great passion, for he thrusts inside her a long time because of his foreskin, which is a barrier against ejaculation in intercourse. Thus she feels pleasure and reaches an orgasm first. When an
uncircumcised man sleeps with her, and then resolves to return to his home, she brazenly grabs him, holding on to his genitals and says to him, "Come back, make love to me." This is because of the pleasure that she finds in intercourse with him, from the sinews of his testicles--sinew of iron--and
from his ejac ulation--that of a horse which he shoots like an arrow into her womb. They are united without separating, and he makes love twice and three times in one night, yet the appetite is not filled.

"And so he acts with her night after night. The sexual activity emaciates him of his bodily fat, and afflicts his flesh, and he devotes his brain entirely to women, an evil thing. His heart dies within him; between
her legs he sinks and falls. He is unable to see the light of the King's face, because the eyes of the intellect are plastered over by women so that they cannot now see light.

"But when a circumcised man desires the beauty of a woman, and cleaves to his wife, or to another woman comely in appearance, he will find himself performing his task quickly, emitting his seed as soon as he inserts his crown. If he lies with her once, he sleeps satisfied, and will not know her again for another seven days. This is the way a circumcised man acts time after time with the woman he loves. He has an orgasm first; he does not hold back his strength. As soon as he begins intercourse, he immediately comes to a climax.

"She has no pleasure from him when she lies down on when she arises, and it would be better for her if he had not known her and not drawn near to her, for he arouses her passsion to no avail, and she remains in a state of desire for her husband, ashamed and confounded, while the seed is
still in her "reservoir." She does not have an orgasm once a year except on rare occasions, because of the great heat and the fire burning within her. Thus he who says "I am the Lord's" will not empty his brain because of his wife or the wife of his friend. He will find grace and good favor; his heart will be str ong to seek out God. he will not fear to behold that which is beyond, and when He speaks to him, he will not turn away."

Isaac ben Yediah was a disciple of Maimonides:

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/

from Moses Maimonides, "The Guide of the Perplexed", Part III, ch. 33:

To the totality of purposes of the perfect Law there belong the abandonment, depreciation, and restraint of desires in so far as possible. You know already that most of the lusts and licentiousness of the multitude consist in an appetite for eating, drinking and sexual intercourse.

To the totality of intentions of the Law there belong gentleness and docility; man should not be hard and rough, but responsive, obedient, acquiescent, and docile. You know already His commandment... "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. Be silent, and hearken, O Israel. If ye be willing and obedient."

from Part III, ch. 49:

With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.

It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscience and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.

The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. Who first began to perform this act, if not Abraham who was celebrated for his chastity---as has been mentioned by the Sages, may their memory be blessed, with reference to his dictum: "Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon."

Rationales for circumcision on the eighth day

from Maimonides, Part III, ch. 49:

The perfection and perpetuation of this Law can only be achieved if circumcision is performed in childhood. For this there are three wise reasons.

The first is that if the child were let alone until he grew up, he would sometimes not perform it.

The second is that a child does not suffer as much pain as a grown-up man because his membrane is still soft and his imagination weak; for a grown-up man would regard the thing, which he would imagine before it occurred, as terrible and hard.

The third is that the parents of a child that is just born take lightly matters concerning it, for up to that time the imaginative form that compels the parents to love it is not yet consolidated. For this imaginative form increases through habitual contact and grows with the growth of the child. Then it begins to decrease and to disappear, I refer to this imaginative form. For the love of the father and of the mother for the child when it has just been born is not like their love for it when it is one year old, and their love for it when it is one year old is not like their love when it is six years old. Consequently if it were left uncircumcised for two or three years, this would necessitate the abandonment of circumcision because of the father's love and affection for it. At the time of its birth, on the other hand, this imaginative form is very weak, especially as far as concerns the father upon whom this commandment is imposed.




LOL, and this is supposed to be a studied response--to dismiss whatever you disagree with.. and I was hoping for an informed discussion.. but it seems egos are more important than facts and evidence.

If you stop posting completely specious sources as supposed "evidence", perhaps we can all have an informed discussion. Given that none of the medical research you posted can come to an exact conclusion regarding the effects of circumsion, I can only assume that a. it is bad science or b. the original theory is flawed. As for posting "evidence" by dead Jewish biblical scholars, you might as well post apocryphal evidence from the mouths of witch doctors. I would not argue that circumcision is necessary, just that it's not that big a deal, despite what it's loud army of detractors say. You attack this debate with the zeal of a prosletyzer. What exactly is YOUR motivation?

Interesting that you have the idea that what you BELIEVE contrary to facts and evidence somehow has merit..might I suggest you actually do some research instead of merely swallowing every myth that comes down the pike..and defending something of which it seems you have little knowledge...then you MIGHT be able to engage in a logical and rational discussion of the subject. Polemics and vitriol hardly is a cogent rebuttal.

Frankly, your posts bring to mind an old adage:

"ignorance is bliss, denial is divine, and CHOSEN ignorance is a religious experience..

Sorry, but the Earth REALLY is NOT flat--there are facts and evidence on this subject out there--whether or not you are willing to acknowledge them is up to you.

MY motivation? Education! And what is YOUR motivation?

MY motivation is to read the evidence on both sides of the argument, which I have done, including what you posted here, and after analyzing it all, the only sound conclusion I can arrive at is that the jury is still out on the circumcision debate. IF there were any studies that proved beyond a shadow of doubt that circumcision was EITHER good or harmful, there wouldn't still be a debate about it now would there? So, contrary to how you might want to characterize me, I am hardly ignorant on this issue. Incidentally, please note that I never stooped to calling you ignorant. I just questioned your argument, and it seems you don't feel the need to even consider that you might be making a mountain out of a molehill, so you resort to name-calling. Now that is truly an informed discussion.