The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

When I was little, I was a bit of a fractious baby and not good at sleeping much. My parents in their desperation provided me with a dummy to keep me quiet. It worked and I was a remarkably contented baby from then on. Until visiting my Gran who threw it out with the bathwater so to speak and refused me access to it.

I wasn't fractious by its loss but am told I did have trouble dropping off to sleep, and ever since that day even now when tired my thumb automatically heads for my mouth and gets a good suck. This also happens if I am under stress in some way and upset. And even now most mornings when I waken up my thumb is in my mouth. I am almost oblivious of the thumb heading for my mouth in my waking hours but do try to control it when I realise what I am doing but try as I may I have never entirely managed to stop it. When asleep there is nothing I can do about it.

It may not seem much to do with circumcision but this is how I feel about it; if the loss of my dummy when young created these little psychological habits in me at a time when I was too young to remember what psychological damage does the loss of a small fleshy body part do to an infant boy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sammie19

It may not seem much to do with circumcision but this is how I feel about it; if the loss of my dummy when young created these little psychological habits in me at a time when I was too young to remember what psychological damage does the loss of a small fleshy body part do to an infant boy?

---

Well, I guess if a newborn could fit his penis in his mouth, you might have a point, but since he can't, your point is unvalid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebiyou

No. Mikey, it's a gross oversimplification (and clear manipulation on your part) to state that circumcision is just "the appearance". I could rip apart just "the appearance" if that were your true motivation; but it's not, it's just an argumentative/distractive ploy on your part.

No Mikey, I believe you're trying to belittle, in every manipulative way *sigh*


Forgive me Mikey, I disliked you before, but I quickly get over it. I'd much rather be friends with you, Pasa, Duck, Twyla, ...
My opposition to you is entirely because you're maintaining a stance where harsh language required here.

Bullshit 101

How can deliberate destruction of 1/4 to 1/3 (complete destruction by complete removal of nerve paths and nerve endings) and incidental destruction of 1/4 shaft feeling (formerly transmitted via electrical signals through nerves now simply gone), desensitization due to direct glans continuous exposure and kerotinatization of penis glans.
And all of this destruction does NOT reduce feeling of penis? ... Really Mikey? Are you going to tell us "day is night" next?
I expect no less of neurosis.

Everyone would have to be a willful idiot... to wish this (circumcision) destruction into non destruction.


Fertile ground for bias.
Isn't homosexualty illeagal in Uganda (death penalty), and isn't the USA pathetically (via cultural tradition) pro-circumcision? (violation of medical standards)
Why is HIV mentioned here, if this is an unbiased article?
These people set out to prove circumcision is okay for HIV prevention... they unashamedly announce it for God's sake!
Double blind medical standards gone (in addition to ethical abandonment)??????????

Yeah, "problematic" inasfar as not solidly supporting circumcision...


HELLO! openly declared medical bias!Red flag!!!

Wait... WHAT?!?!?!?!?

Please note the careful selection and wording of the statistics. This isn't a legitimate medical study with anything to do with the thesis or conclusions (for anyone familiar with the medical ethical standards).

Nice vague reference and generalization.

Reannouncement of bias.

Uganda... Right... The sexually unbiased capital of the world with no other agenda.


Mikey, I wish I didn't have to rag you; anger/rebuke takes so much energy from me...
But your position, even your proof is very full of holes, bias, and manipulation, all towards sustaining an evil.

Please do not harm any more children than you already have.
I beg you.
This insanity (of harming children) must be resisted and countered by all morally cognizant human beings.
If you simply uttered doubts to your children, they might pick up the torch from there and end family 'tradition/logic' in harming little ones. It might not have to be inflicted on the next generation. It might be stopped.
This is the entire point of personal growth affecting social progression; to stop the stupid crap, the harm, to allow children to grow up and exceed the parents.

I steadily maintain that since circumcision has not, cannot grab medical or ethical high ground in any logical argument that it is doomed by it's very discussion... I am ecstatic San Francisco has taken the initiative. Even if they lose, the question is brought publicly up... and thus will eventually die by logic, reason, and ethics.

To quote the last 20 year stand by the American Pediatric (Association?)...
There is no medical indication for routine circumcision of newborns.

---

LOL!!! Un-fucking believable. And yuou have the nerve to say that I manipulate? Are you on crack? Please read your posts before you hit the send button. You and your psudo-intellectual rebuttals are a joke. Never mind the topic, you attack the messenger. Man, you are no accademic at all. NOt even close. You chose to try and discredit the presenter of opposing information to push your own personal agenda. Everyone sees right through your bull shit.

So bottom line. There is lots of scientific proof for circumcision. Show me one valid medical study that indicates circumcision is harmful. And please try to not let your fetish for foreskins show. I want scientific proof, not your subjective preferences. But I don't demand it. Frankly I can't care less about your personal feelings on the subject. You have your opinions, I have mine and everyone else has theirs. Vive la difference!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikey3000

Well, I guess if a newborn could fit his penis in his mouth, you might have a point, but since he can't, your point is unvalid.

---

Invalid?

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi...ext=greg_boyle

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=greg_boyle&se i-redir=1#search="pyschological+effects+of+infant+ci rcumcision"

Maybe but not quite I think.

An regarding your claim that there is no evidence that male circumcision is harmful, the very act of circumcision is harm inflicted upon a human being. We need no medical studies to tell us that. It can be argued this harm is for the greater long term good of the individual, but removing a small or large piece of healthy tissue and its incumbent nerves must by any literal difinition be regarded as harm. Or do Canadian dictionaries differ in some way from the Oxford English Dictionary. I suppose surgical castration was not considered harmful by those who turned healthy young boys and men into eunuchs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sammie19

Invalid?

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi...ext=greg_boyle


Maybe but not quite I think.

An regarding your claim that there is no evidence that male circumcision is harmful, the very act of circumcision is harm inflicted upon a human being. We need no medical studies to tell us that. It can be argued this harm is for the greater long term good of the individual, but removing a small or large piece of healthy tissue and its incumbent nerves must by any literal difinition be regarded as harm. Or do Canadian dictionaries differ in some way from the Oxford English Dictionary. I suppose surgical castration was not considered harmful by those who turned healthy young boys and men into eunuchs.

---

then by defination, any medical procedure is inflicting harm upon a person, even when done by a medical expert, if it involves surgical procedures...... and therefore, surgeons are misleading people when they fail to tell the person that the surgeon is medically trained to harm people.....

also by defination, the inflicting of cruel and unusual pain and suffering upon a civilian, is covered under many human rights laws, which would, in effect, make a surgeon, a civilian quilty of forms of torture ... so when are we banning surgeries, chemotherapy and other forms of medical treatment that are methods of harming a person, but concealed as surgical / medical procedures.....

yet we go to the doctors and surgeons for the betterment of our health and well being..... and we are happy to allow pain and suffering in the form of tattoos, piercings etc......

when it comes down to using definations, its never a good idea, cos if you want to apply definations to a issue, people like me can use the blanket effect to show how and where it applies to many other aspects as well.....

what makes the difference between a surgeon doing a circumcision and a surgeon removing a breast... is our own viewpoint, but both are removing healthy tissue from the human body and that is inflicting cruel and unusual pain and suffering....

so sammie I would suggest you avoid getting sick ever again, or you may have to go see those people that are inflicting such pain and suffering on the masses.... the people we see to make us better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

then by defination, any medical procedure is inflicting harm upon a person, even when done by a medical expert, if it involves surgical procedures...... and therefore, surgeons are misleading people when they fail to tell the person that the surgeon is medically trained to harm people.....

also by defination, the inflicting of cruel and unusual pain and suffering upon a civilian, is covered under many human rights laws, which would, in effect, make a surgeon, a civilian quilty of forms of torture ... so when are we banning surgeries, chemotherapy and other forms of medical treatment that are methods of harming a person, but concealed as surgical / medical procedures.....

yet we go to the doctors and surgeons for the betterment of our health and well being..... and we are happy to allow pain and suffering in the form of tattoos, piercings etc......

when it comes down to using definations, its never a good idea, cos if you want to apply definations to a issue, people like me can use the blanket effect to show how and where it applies to many other aspects as well.....

what makes the difference between a surgeon doing a circumcision and a surgeon removing a breast... is our own viewpoint, but both are removing healthy tissue from the human body and that is inflicting cruel and unusual pain and suffering....

so sammie I would suggest you avoid getting sick ever again, or you may have to go see those people that are inflicting such pain and suffering on the masses.... the people we see to make us better

---

Like you, I am no intellectual but I try at least to use my head and think things through. I see a great deal of difference from surgically removing a healthy body part for dubious religious and cultural reasons and using surgery for sound medical reasons especially the body part of an infant who cannot make the decision for himself.

Occasionally human beings do have to suffer in the interests of their long term health because they have a medical complaint. They may elect to have a surgery when they have no medical complaint, and that is the crux of the argument. Infants are unable to elect, they have it inflicted upon them. I call that harm, I don't know what you call it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sammie19

Like you, I am no intellectual but I try at least to use my head and think things through. I see a great deal of difference from surgically removing a healthy body part for dubious religious and cultural reasons and using surgery for sound medical reasons especially the body part of an infant who cannot make the decision for himself.

Occasionally human beings do have to suffer in the interests of their long term health because they have a medical complaint. They may elect to have a surgery when they have no medical complaint, and that is the crux of the argument. Infants are unable to elect, they have it inflicted upon them. I call that harm, I don't know what you call it.

---

so i would ask, ( i know you are not a parent and have not had kids )... in the event that your children needed surgery... would you stand by your statements, or change them according to the reasoning.....

most parents will change their stance and then argue that they are right for changing their stance according to different aspects, using the argument that they deem one to be wrong and one to be right

they are actually both wrong, as surgery is the inflicting of harm upon a child without their right of choice or consent, based on your defination, yet one is right and the other is wrong.....and they are both surgeries.....

and again, thats why I walk the middle ground / grey area, as I do not see a reason for children to be circumcised, but I accept that there are times that it needs to be done for medical reasons.....

that means that the surgeon is acting in the role of a surgeon, and performing a medical procedure, that I may or may not agree with, but it doesn't make them a asshole for doing a unneeded circumcision and a hero for doing a needed one...... cos the same surgeon could be the one that cuts away a foreskin on a child and on another child, removes a cancerous growth on the penis of a child...... and he is simply a human person performing a operation

yet, we would run the surgeon down for one act, praise him for another.... and ignore the fact that we are changing our opinion of him based around him doing what we want or not.... yet all too often, we are the ones being the hypocrites cos we are not sticking to our own stances that we dictate to others

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

so i would ask, ( i know you are not a parent and have not had kids )... in the event that your children needed surgery... would you stand by your statements, or change them according to the reasoning.....

most parents will change their stance and then argue that they are right for changing their stance according to different aspects, using the argument that they deem one to be wrong and one to be right

they are actually both wrong, as surgery is the inflicting of harm upon a child without their right of choice or consent, based on your defination, yet one is right and the other is wrong.....and they are both surgeries.....

and again, thats why I walk the middle ground / grey area, as I do not see a reason for children to be circumcised, but I accept that there are times that it needs to be done for medical reasons.....

that means that the surgeon is acting in the role of a surgeon, and performing a medical procedure, that I may or may not agree with, but it doesn't make them a asshole for doing a unneeded circumcision and a hero for doing a needed one...... cos the same surgeon could be the one that cuts away a foreskin on a child and on another child, removes a cancerous growth on the penis of a child...... and he is simply a human person performing a operation

yet, we would run the surgeon down for one act, praise him for another.... and ignore the fact that we are changing our opinion of him based around him doing what we want or not.... yet all too often, we are the ones being the hypocrites cos we are not sticking to our own stances that we dictate to others

---

Your post is stupid. I am able to rationalise that a surgery to deal with a medical complaint which someone has or has had is not the same as a surgery to deal with a complaint that someone does not and may or may not ever have at some distant point in their future.

The first causes pain, discomfort and suffering to deal with an immediate problem or the recurrence of a problem they may already have had, the second causes pain, discomfort and suffering to deal with nothing. To deal with such problems by necessity other healthy tissue is often "harmed", certainly damaged, but that is not in itself causing harm. It is quite the contrary.

The second I argue is harm if it is done without the knowledgable consent of the person to whom the the the surgery is inflicted, or self harm if it is a procedure they have been old enough to be able to opt for themelves in the interests of possibly preventing some disease or other thtat may or may not happen. If someone wants to have themselves self harmed because of fear of some ailment they may never have that is their choice and their right. I have no objection to that at all. I do have objection to others deciding for those who are too young to decide for themselves.

Having a surgery performed to deal with an existing problem or the recurrence of a past problem such as breast cancer is not a hypocrisy as you infer but often sensible practice in the interests of keeping a patient hale and hearty. You do keep harping back to the same point and turning yourself inside out for no reason and increasingly make yourself sound and look foolish and it might be a good idea to find another pet subject to harp on about before you begin to look and sound idiotic.

I have thought for a long time that most of the people in that state were Jackasses now I am sure of it. This in goverment at its ver worst. Whats next?
These people are part of the Anti Christ movement. Glad I live in the South!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floridaguy4u

I have thought for a long time that most of the people in that state were Jackasses now I am sure of it. This in goverment at its ver worst. Whats next?
These people are part of the Anti Christ movement. Glad I live in the South!

---

Why? Because they are anti circumcision? Better not tell my mum or grans' they are in the anti christ movement or they will have the rest of you fried for breakfast and batter you senseless with their copies of the Holy Bible and they have some nice friends who will do just the same with theirs.

You do have many weird ideas across there as to what constitutes Christianity. Really you do. No wonder so many people in this and other western countries think you have more than your fair share of nuts and cooks when it comes to religion.

Btw. My dad's mother, one of the Gran's I was talking about? She has her dad's family bible which records family births, deaths and marriages going back to 1774. Its old and its HUGE and weighs a ton. She hits you with that you won't know anything about the fry up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikey3000

LOL!!! Un-fucking believable. And yuou have the nerve to say that I manipulate? Are you on crack? Please read your posts before you hit the send button. You and your psudo-intellectual rebuttals are a joke. Never mind the topic, you attack the messenger. Man, you are no accademic at all. NOt even close. You chose to try and discredit the presenter of opposing information to push your own personal agenda. Everyone sees right through your bull shit.

So bottom line. There is lots of scientific proof for circumcision. Show me one valid medical study that indicates circumcision is harmful. And please try to not let your fetish for foreskins show. I want scientific proof, not your subjective preferences. But I don't demand it. Frankly I can't care less about your personal feelings on the subject. You have your opinions, I have mine and everyone else has theirs. Vive la difference!!!!!

---

Uh, sorry Mikey.
But thank you. Between you and LDD's clearly irrational support of circumcision in the last several posts (if either one of you made a single valid point I missed it), you have ended up supporting the anti circumcision side of the argument.
In your most resent post I see nothing but 'back atcha!'.
In medical terms, circumcision is an accepted cure in a desperate search of a disease; you'd have to be a magnitude-10 liar to understand history (perhaps the last 130 years or so) and say otherwise.

The American Medical Association (1999) noted that medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada did not recommend routine circumcision of newborns. It supported the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics(...there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision...)

Reference: "Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99):Neonatal Circumcision". 1999 AMA Interim Meeting: Summaries and Recommendations of Council on Scientific Affairs Reports. American Medical Association. December 1999. pp. 17.

Thank you San Francisco!
Once the arguing begins, it becomes quickly obvious that circumcision is a custom (that many hold tightly to) of harming baby boys and nothing more.
Circumcision in other parts of the world is also a custom (that many hold tightly to) of harming girls typically at the transition age of adolescence.
Go San Francisco! Raise the banner!

Circumcision protects against 2 common sexually transmitted diseases: studies

Last Updated: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 | 5:47 PM ET CBC News Back to accessibility links
Supporting Story ContentStory Sharing ToolsShare with Add This Print this story E-mail this story
Related
Internal Links
Circumcision helps prevent HIV infection, studies confirm
YOUR VIEW: This study makes a case for circumcision. What do you think?
Video
Ron Charles reports: Circumcision protects against 2 common sexually transmitted diseases: studies (Runs: 2:04)
Play: QuickTime »
Play: Real Media »
External Links
Abstract of circumcision study, New England Journal of Medicine
Editorial extract, NEJM
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external sites - links will open in new window)

End of Supporting Story ContentBack to accessibility links Beginning of Story ContentDr. Anthony Fauci, of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, says there is compelling evidence of the health benefits of circumcision. (Dennis Cook/Associated Press)Circumcision helps protect heterosexual men against genital herpes and a virus that causes genital warts and cancer but has no effect on the bacteria that causes syphilis, two trials in Uganda show.

The study in Wednesday's New England Journal of Medicine builds on earlier research that found circumcision reduces a man's risk of HIV infection by more than 50 per cent.

"Medically supervised adult male circumcision is a scientifically proven method for reducing a man's risk of acquiring HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, which funded the study.

"This new research provides compelling evidence that circumcision can provide some protection against genital herpes and human papillomavirus infections as well."

The latest data showed a 25 per cent reduction in herpes and a 34 per cent reduction in the prevalence of HPV among participants.

The 3,393 men were aged 15 to 49 and initially tested negative for both HIV and herpes simplex virus type 2, which causes genital herpes.

A control group of 1,709 men received medical circumcision after a delay of 24 months. All participants were followed for herpes and syphilis infection for two years.

In an editorial that accompanied the study, Dr. Matthew Golden of the University of Washington called for circumcision to be made widely available in North America.

"For most parents, the default should be circumcision," said Golden. "Obviously, these are complex decisions, and parents have to do what they think is right for their children, but there are significant health benefits."

Canadian pediatricians weigh evidence
Circumcision rates have been plummeting in Canada since the 1970s, when the Canadian Pediatric Society recommended against routinely performing the procedure.

The society has been reviewing that recommendation, and officials said the new study will be included in the review.

"This certainly provides new information that would tip the scale to say there may be quite relevant medical information that would demonstrate that there was a benefit that previously wasn't appreciated," said Dr. Robert Bortolussi of the Canadian Pediatric Society in Halifax.

If circumcision does become a recommended procedure, it could take time before it becomes widely available — partly because many doctors were never taught how to do it, Bortolussi said.

The human papillomavirus, or HPV, is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world. It causes cervical cancer, which kills 300,000 women globally every year, and anal and penile cancers.

The World Health Organization and the United Nations' program on HIV/AIDS have promoted circumcision since 2007 for reducing the risk of AIDS in areas where heterosexual transmission is high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sammie19

Your post is stupid. I am able to rationalise that a surgery to deal with a medical complaint which someone has or has had is not the same as a surgery to deal with a complaint that someone does not and may or may not ever have at some distant point in their future.

The first causes pain, discomfort and suffering to deal with an immediate problem or the recurrence of a problem they may already have had, the second causes pain, discomfort and suffering to deal with nothing. To deal with such problems by necessity other healthy tissue is often "harmed", certainly damaged, but that is not in itself causing harm. It is quite the contrary.

The second I argue is harm if it is done without the knowledgable consent of the person to whom the the the surgery is inflicted, or self harm if it is a procedure they have been old enough to be able to opt for themelves in the interests of possibly preventing some disease or other thtat may or may not happen. If someone wants to have themselves self harmed because of fear of some ailment they may never have that is their choice and their right. I have no objection to that at all. I do have objection to others deciding for those who are too young to decide for themselves.

Having a surgery performed to deal with an existing problem or the recurrence of a past problem such as breast cancer is not a hypocrisy as you infer but often sensible practice in the interests of keeping a patient hale and hearty. You do keep harping back to the same point and turning yourself inside out for no reason and increasingly make yourself sound and look foolish and it might be a good idea to find another pet subject to harp on about before you begin to look and sound idiotic.

---

reasoning and rationalising...... snorts... they are what people use to justify their contradictions in stances, statements and opinions..... and how they cover their ass when they are doing what they tell others not to do....

take two twins...

one is having a elective circumcision
one is having a medical circumcision

the parents sign the consents for both.....

both children will suffer discomfort

you will have differing opinions on the actions of the parents....

take the same twins, put them both in for tonsilectomies....

both children will suffer discomfort

yet there will be a overwhelming silence as it will be deemed that the parents acted in the best interests of the children and therefore it is ok for the parents to let the children suffer discomfort.......

it is reasoning and rationalising that allows people like you to say that circumcision is wrong cos its the cutting of healthy flesh from the body... but that the removal of infected tonsils is ok even tho its the removal of flesh from the body.....

either way, its still the removal of flesh from the body..... and a cause of discomfit...... and it doesn't make a difference if its a adult or a child....

the only difference that exists, is in your own mind when you want to justify your actions, when you sign consent forms for a person to have surgery....
its what allows you to say circumcision is wrong, while saying removing the tonsils is acceptable....

in simple terms, many parents say they would never hurt their children, then sign surgical consent forms..... its a contradiction in statements.... and that is why i say that yes, I would allow a person to suffer... cos there are times that I have no choice in the matter.. but I would rather be honest and truthful... than have a stance of I would never hurt then give consent for them to hurt cos of medical reasons.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebiyou

Uh, sorry Mikey.
But thank you. Between you and LDD's clearly irrational support of circumcision in the last several posts (if either one of you made a single valid point I missed it), you have ended up supporting the anti circumcision side of the argument.

---

you clearly missed me saying a number of times I am not for or against circumcision and that I view it as a medical procedure that is sometimes needed for issues such as non retractable foreskins, in children and adults..... and that I view circumcision as a grey area cos of that fact......

it would be like me driving down the middle of the road and you saying I am driving on the footpath...... I am clearly not the one that is irrational

New England Journal of Medicine on Circumcision

Medicine? ---no

Science? ----no

Politics?------yes

Did the New England Journal of Medicine Circumcise Medical Information?

To the Editor:

The New England Journal of Medicine(NEJM) printed a strongly pro-circumcision (anti-normal anatomy) editorial by Dr. Thomas Wiswell,1 but did not print the pro-normal anatomy alternative opinion (see Abstracts & Analysis). When misinformation in Wiswell's editorial was brought to the attention of the editor, there was no attempt to correct Wiswell's exaggerated benefit claims. Strangely enough, the NEJM printed a Sounding Board discussion of circumcision in 1990 examining the purported advantages and disadvantages of circumcision2,3.

What has happened in the last seven years to make circumcision less controversial? Why does the NEJM only present the purported benefits of circumcision? Why did the NEJM fail to print any letters critical of this pro-circumcision agenda? Let's recap some of the research that they overlooked.

Circumcision is losing popularity in the United States and has been discredited by the Canadian Pediatric Society4 and the Australasian Pediatric Surgeons5 in 1996 position papers. Taylor described the unique innervation of the preputial mucosa in 1996, and its loss to circumcision6. Taddio et al. showed that circumcision with and without local anesthesia (EMLA) resulted in negative behavioral changes in a child's' response to pain7. Laumann has shown that circumcision causes sexual behavior changes and an apparent increased risk of many venereal diseases in adult men8. Price has questioned whether parents can ethically change their child's genitalia9. The editorial staff at NEJM could not have missed these advances. So why did they not present another Sounding Board article, and instead choose to present only a pro-circumcision editorial by Wiswell?

In a previous article in the NEJM, Royce et al. insinuated that the prepuce may be a risk factor for HIV infections.10 This factually inaccurate article was referenced in a letter to the editor as proof that circumcision protects an individual from HIV infections.11 Fortunately, Laumann pointed out the fallacy of this logic. "The lack of rigorous, systematic controls for co-factors relevant to the particularities of the African context, the prophylactic status of the presence or absence of the foreskin remains an open question12." But the fact that the NEJM failed to print our letter of criticism (see Abstracts & Analysis), suggests that the NEJM only prints material that supports neonatal circumcision.

Beyond Wiswell's proclamation of the benefits of circumcision, the research presented by Taddio et al.13 was proclaimed as a major advance. When the limitations of this form of local anesthesia was brought to the attention of the editors, they failed to print the criticism (see Abstracts & Analysis). They failed to point out that this form of local anesthesia (EMLA) did not prevent the long term negative behavioral response to pain previously reported in the Lancet7!

Interestingly, the lack of effects of EMLA on long term negative behavioral changes caused by circumcision was printed in a British medical journal. Presumably, Taddio is smart enough to submit negative studies to European medical journals7,14 and luke-warm studies to American medical journals13.

Certainly, over the last seven years, the NEJM has shifted from a balanced approach, to a one-sided, pro-circumcision stance, even though the lion's share of the medical literature would encourage a shift in the opposite direction. It is hoped that in the near future, the NEJM will have the courage to confront the ethical problems and medical complications associated with circumcision. Maybe then, it will be acceptable for a physician to tell the parents of a newborn child, "Your baby has normal anatomy, so there is no need to charge you money to surgically alter this child's genital anatomy. If your son or daughter wants to change their genital anatomy, they are free to do so after age 18, when they can make an informed decision." Physicians will then be able to teach parents not to fear normal anatomy.

Normal anatomy is not as dirty and dangerous as once thought. Even if a part of the body is malformed, diseased, or carries some risk, an individual must retain the right to refuse surgery. Prophylactic removal of normal anatomy to please parents, or to produce income for the physician is unethical. I hope the NEJM can temper its pro-circumcision agenda. Circumcision of medical knowledge and information is more dangerous than amputating part of the penis from a restrained, non-consenting baby.

Christopher J. Cold, MD
Department of Pathology
Marshfield Clinic

References

Wiswell TE. Circumcision circumspection. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:1244-5.
Schoen EJ. The status of circumcision of newborns. N Engl J Med 1990; 322:1308-12.
Poland RL. The question of routine neonatal circumcision. N Engl J Med. 1990; 322:1312-5.
Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal circumcision revisited. Can Med Assoc J 1996; 154:769-80.
Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons. Guidelines for circumcision. April 1996.
Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996; 77:291-95.
Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet 1997; 349:599-603.
Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practices, and sexual practice. JAMA 1997; 277:1052-7.
Price (Bull. Medical Ethics).
Royce RA, Sena A, Cates W Jr, Cohen MS. Sexual transmission of HIV. N Engl J M ed 1997; 336:1072-1078.
JAMA 1997; 278(3):201
Laumann EO. JAMA 1997; 278(3):203
Taddio A, Stevens B, Craig K, Rastogi P, Ben-David S, Shennan A, Mulligan P, Koren G. Efficacy and safety of lidocaine-prilocaine cream for pain during circumcision. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:1197-1201.
Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ipp M, Stevens B, Koren G Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys. Lancet 1995; 345:291-2.
Information quoted on this site is with the written permission of the authors.

Return to Table of Contents

You'd have to be completely crazy to think that any sort of genital mutilation or removal of healthy tissue from the genitals rich with nerve endings somehow prevents HIV, HPV (genital warts), and herpes so effectively to the point that it works better than using condoms correctly and having safer sex work at preventing such STDs. :rolleyes: There's even a vaccination for HPV now and I'm sure Mikey will claim that circumcision works better than the vaccination for HPV.

More concerns raised about the HIV/Circumcision research

You may remember before Christmas there was a lot of media attention to new research from Africa that suggested men who had been circumcised had lower HIV rates than men who had not undergone this procedure. I had a few questions about the research - particularly why it was a halted trial that went straight to media rather than being published anywhere.

Other colleagues working in the area of HIV have raised more specific concerns about the HIV/Circumcision research and the issues it raises. In particular there are worries that a population that’s not particularly health literate may interpret the study as circumcision gives immunity from HIV, and also that this research doesn’t include the health of women.

One such colleague, David Gisselquist*, has provided some thoughtful analysis of this latest research. He has kindly allowed me to reproduce his views on the HIV/Circumcision trial here:

“Three prospective studies report that circumcision protects African men from sexual acquisition of HIV. What is going on is not so clear. If circumcision is so protective, then why do CIRCUMCISED men in 6 of 10 African countries have HIGHER HIV prevalence than uncircumcised men in Demographic and Health Surveys (see attached table)? If circumcision protects men from sexual acquistion of HIV (and that may be so), then data on HIV prevalence suggests that most HIV in men in Africa is coming from something else.

Table showing HIV prevalence and circumcision
http://circumstitions.com/Images/hiv-10-africa.gif

High HIV incidence and prevalence in women, especially young women, almost defines Africa’s HIV epidemic. So let’s look at HIV in women vs. male circumcision (see table above). If we consider countries in Southern Africa in a group, and all other countries in Africa as another group, we find:
(a) Southern Africa: Women in Lesotho have more HIV than women in Malawi, even though a much higher percentage of men are circumcised in Lesotho.
(b) Rest of Africa: The percentage of men circumcised ranges from 9% to 95%, while HIV prevalence in women ranges from 1.9% to 8.7%. The 3 countries with the highest HIV prevalence in women are (in order) Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania with, respectively, 83%, 25%, and 69% of men circumcised.

The African AIDS literature is awash in fantasies about sugar daddies, and no doubt there are some. But what about risks during gynecological and antenatal care? If researchers in Europe had not looked at blood risks for groups of European women with 20%-50% HIV prevalence, but just winked and implied that the women were promiscuous (and lied about it), the researchers would be recognized as incompetent and probably anti-female. But AIDS experts get away with that sort of behavior in Africa.

Some specific questions that have been avoided for decades: Are multidose vials of tetanus contaminated? What happens to women when specula are reused without sterilization? Is equipment used to draw venous blood during antenatal care sterile? What about conditions during delivery?

When is safe health care for women in Africa going to be a priority in AIDS prevention? Circumcising men will not make women’s health care safe”.

*David is an anthropologist and economist and co-runs a listserve called RELASH (REporters and LAwyers for Safe Healthcare). RELASH is looking for reporters, lawyers, and others interested to share ideas about how to respond to unexplained HIV infections - to promote investigations, compensation and change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

reasoning and rationalising...... snorts... they are what people use to justify their contradictions in stances, statements and opinions..... and how they cover their ass when they are doing what they tell others not to do....

take two twins...

one is having a elective circumcision
one is having a medical circumcision

the parents sign the consents for both.....

both children will suffer discomfort

you will have differing opinions on the actions of the parents....

take the same twins, put them both in for tonsilectomies....

both children will suffer discomfort

yet there will be a overwhelming silence as it will be deemed that the parents acted in the best interests of the children and therefore it is ok for the parents to let the children suffer discomfort.......

it is reasoning and rationalising that allows people like you to say that circumcision is wrong cos its the cutting of healthy flesh from the body... but that the removal of infected tonsils is ok even tho its the removal of flesh from the body.....

either way, its still the removal of flesh from the body..... and a cause of discomfit...... and it doesn't make a difference if its a adult or a child....

the only difference that exists, is in your own mind when you want to justify your actions, when you sign consent forms for a person to have surgery....
its what allows you to say circumcision is wrong, while saying removing the tonsils is acceptable....

in simple terms, many parents say they would never hurt their children, then sign surgical consent forms..... its a contradiction in statements.... and that is why i say that yes, I would allow a person to suffer... cos there are times that I have no choice in the matter.. but I would rather be honest and truthful... than have a stance of I would never hurt then give consent for them to hurt cos of medical reasons.....

---

Now you have degenerated into idiocy. I need say no more.

http://www.circumcision.org/ethics.htm

I have been unable to cut and paste this, so I've included the link.

Long Duck there actually was something that happened with genital mutilation and two twins, that had devastating results.

The other twin who was not circumcised at all after his parents saw with horror what happened to his brother developed into a fine adult man and never needed any genital mutilation at all.

(text sampled from another site)

Once upon a time, in a decade called the Sixties, a little boy named Bruce was born. He had a twin brother, and at first, life was fine for the children. They had a mommy and daddy who loved them and wanted to do the right thing for them. In fact, they started out life just the way most of us do in the US and Canada. Canada being the country where this story takes place.

Then one day it was time to go down to the hospital to get circumcised. They did this delicate operation with an electrocautery gizmo, one of several methods that had been developed for doing the usually-unnecessary and painful procedure.

Can you tell that our idyllic story of two sweet twins is about to take a turn for the worse?

Little Bruce’s baby brother was circumcised, wailed, eventually healed; well, his circumcision did not go awry, anyhow. I know there are anti-circumcision activists all around me who would deny that “healing” is possible after circumcision: after all, part of your body is then by definition missing. I agree with you guys, OK? So don’t email me those awful pictures of circumcised babies you keep on your websites. Don’t snail mail me your pamphlets, either, unless you have published something new recently, in which case go ahead and I will put all literature in the Center for Sex & Culture archives.

But I digress from my story. Back to little Bruce.

Little Bruce’s circumcision did not go so well. His penis was lost. Yes, lost, dear reader: This is not an allegory, this is a story about a damned circumcision that went so far south that, when it was over, a little boy’s dick was gone.

Don’t be bashing Canada over this, now. The same thing happens here.

Because it was the Sixties, a brave new decade when it seemed that anything was possible and the future was close enough to touch, Bruce’s distraught parents and doctor called upon an Expert. The Expert they called upon was a pretty famous guy who was about to become, thanks to Bruce’s sad accident, a lot more famous indeed. His name was John Money, and he studied gender, among other things, and was convinced that the difference between the sexes was primarily one of genital plumbing and social construction. That is, babies were born, put into pink or blue blankets, and treated immediately in pink and blue ways by parents and everyone else. The little creatures were, in fact, infinitely malleable, but since grown-ups were not, rigid gender expectations began to be imposed on the tiniest kids, and the kids learned what the parents expected of them and turned into Boys and Girls and later Men and Women.

In the case of Bruce, one of these pesky problems of gender differentiation was no longer an issue: his genital plumbing was pretty much toast, and docs in that decade had yet to learn how to reconstruct an infant penis. No one thought they would have a good shot if they tried. So Dr. Money recommended they do something else. He suggested they do some basic reconstructive surgery to make Bruce’s damaged genitals look female, and to put the kid in a dress, call her Brenda, and turn her into a girl.

Now, there are many adult transgendered women who hated being the little boys they were raised to be and always wished someone would come along and get them a nice little yellow dress. This, however, was not Bruce’s situation. He did not yearn to be a girl, but he was also too young when this accident happened to have a clearly developed sense of himself as a boy. That’s what everybody thought, anyway. And Dr. Money was certain that he could not only help Bruce, a.k.a. Brenda, recover from this horrible damage, but also prove a huge point about gender to all of society. Especially good: Brenda had a twin! It was a built-in control group, a perfect experiment.

If you went to college in the 1970s or 1980s and took any Psych, Soc, or similar classes, you heard about Bruce/Brenda, except s/he was called John/Joan in Money’s influential book *Man and Woman, Boy and Girl*. Money made absolute hay over the twins, announcing their existence to the world, writing them up in scientific journals, showing up at their house every so often to monitor their progress or having them travel to his lab at Johns Hopkins. Money’s fame and influence was a done deal now, thanks largely to his role in the lives of the twins.

Brenda got dresses and dollies. She went to school and did everything else in her life dressed and in all other ways identified as a girl. She wasn’t happy... but for years and years she didn’t know why.

The world outside didn’t get the word that the twins study wasn’t a perfect example of social gender construction, that the happy little home into which the twins were born was fraught with tension over Brenda’s distress, that no one (including the great Money, whom people kept trusting until it was way too late) seemed to be able to help.

Finally a suicidal, troubled teen Brenda was told why “she’d” always felt so different.

She put her boy’s clothes back on and never took them off again. It’s a good thing this happened when it did, because she (and her family) had been putting off a big surgery she needed: vaginoplasty. How could she become a normal woman if she didn’t have a vagina?

Brenda did not take back the name Bruce. Instead, this young man took a new name, strove to construct a new identity that would allow him (and his hormones, and his chromosomes) to move on into adult maleness. His new name was David Reimer.

Reimer struggled to be a man without having had the back-up of male learning and conditioning. John Money was half right, you see: that part *is* critically important to the types of men and women we can become. It’s just not the only part of the equation. Reimer did his best: He married, raised his wife’s kids, tried to make himself and them a normal life after anything-but-normal beginnings. He consented, at first reluctantly, to let the story of his life be told. His biographer, John Colapinto, produced a fabulous, thought-provoking book called *As Nature Made Him*. It made John Money look like a royal jerk, making one think that perhaps gender problems weren’t the only obstacle young David had to overcome.
Then, about a month ago, David Reimer died: suicide.

DAVID REIMER, REST IN PEACE

It may be the first peace since before the circumcision. It is certainly a painful time for his friends and family, and is also a utterly painful moment for gendernauts of all kinds. Any of us who is gender-dysphoric, transgendered, intersex, or a fellow traveler who wants to see gender become a less-binding social construction (that’s where I come in) has suffered a little with David Reimer when we found out about his strange and distressing life. For Reimer’s example proves that it’s still hard for most to accept anything but Either/Or when it comes to gender. He couldn’t be a man, the Experts reasoned, because he doesn’t have a penis, so what does that leave? An artificial woman, not driven, as male-to-female transsexuals are, by her own sense of inner female identity, but rather by the directive of a supposedly-expert adult.

The fact is, no one is yet truly expert in matters like this. Yes, we’re getting a handle on gender dysphoria, and of course transpeople are experts on their own lives. But that’s not really what this case is. David Reimer was an unwitting and then unwilling gender explorer, a person thrust into some of the biggest existential questions of all because one doctor had an accident and another doctor had a theory.

I send blessings to Reimer’s spirit, the part that could be said to be free of gender, as many of us would like to be. I wish him peace, a man who just wanted to be an ordinary guy, thrust into a most extraordinary life.

POSTSCRIPT

Money’s pretty much been demoted. I hope he had a pang when the news of Reimer’s death came his way; he wasn’t exactly open to acknowledging he might have fucked up while the object of his experimentation was still alive. Certainly most of us in and near the gender studies field do not idolize Money they way he came, in the ‘60s and ‘70s, to expect. He was a rock star of sexology then; now, he’s inextricably linked to an experiment that ended badly, in fact tragically.

The community of people most touched by the ramifications of this case and Money’s theories are probably our intersex friends and neighbors. Even more than transpeople, intersex folk, who are often born with “ambiguous” genitals (that is, the doc can’t easily tell if the newborn is female or male), are put as infants into a gender role that may or may not match their own sense of themselves. Sex roles aren’t all; often surgeries are performed to make these kids’ teeny genitals match some doctor’s template of “normal” dicks and clits. And of course David Reimer’s life and struggles should be of passing interest to anyone who thinks about getting their little boy circumcised. In both cases – intersex and circumcision – doctors use sharp knives to shape the body, trimming off nerve-endowed tissue in the process. It’s even possible Reimer decided to check out because he couldn’t have a damned orgasm.

Speaking of “normal,” a word I don’t like much: That’s where David Reimer’s life touches every one of ours. Who hasn’t had someone try to keep us in line by questioning whether or not we were “normal”? Too often we keep *ourselves* in line this way. “Am I normal? Is this normal? Do I look/sound/seem normal?” Tiny Bruce got put in a pinafore because his young parents were terrified that their child would live a life that was not normal; sadly, that’s exactly what happened, but in a way completely different than they expected. And each of us is put into boxes marked “normal” and either learn to live within them, or escape, sometimes sustaining damage in the attempt.

That’s the genesis of pink and blue, two and only two genders. It’s what makes people afraid to be their individual sexual selves, too, whether that’s queer, kinky, or just enthusiastic. People, “normal” kills. It killed David Reimer, I’m sure.

In fact, circumcision kills, too. You may know I wrote about this ten years ago; the essay is part of my collection *Real Live Nude Girl: Chronicles of Sex-Positive Culture*. People circumcise their little boys mostly to make them look “normal,” when the irony is, a truly normal penis is uncircumcised. That’s how they come from the factory, right? Full of nice nerve endings which you’ll want to play with your entire life, given the opportunity. Once in a while, though, the doc slips. These things happen. And in fact a scary website exists to tell you about all the hazards of this common and almost always medically unnecessary procedure. Check it out, especially if you plan to have any kids: http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html.

If David Reimer’s fight for his own life is to have larger meaning, maybe it will be that we all use his example to examine attitudes about sex, gender, and professional expertise that do not serve us. I know that I will keep his memory alive in that way: his is a stunning example of expectations (and medical authority) gone awry, and I want change, in his name.

Science and Circumcision

Basic tenets of science: These can be used as a litmus test for claimed benefits.

Conclusions based solely on known flawed data cannot be considered valid.
All studies have known flaws - flaws of commission and/or flaws of Omission.
Flaws = not scientifically compelling
The worth of a theory is determined by its ability to make accurate predictions.

No predicted reduction or elimination is found in the real world.
Failure to fulfill prediction = not scientifically credible.
The rates of these are HIGHER in many circumcising countries than in many intact countries, hence the alleged predictions are contradicted by empirical evidence. Unlike "medical science," SCIENCE demands that prediction be fulfilled EVERYTIME to be credible.

Elaborating on both the flaws and failure of predication, here is a critical analysis of recent "studies" purporting that circumcision reduces the incidence of HIV.

Randomized Controlled Trials

In SCIENCE, a (R)andomized (C)ontrolled (T)rial is a trial where all of the factors are CONTROLLED with one, and only one factor (chosen at random) altered, and the results are examined.

For the Circumcision/HIV studies, we have the following:

None of the factors are CONTROLLED. These factors are examined, only based on self-reporting (notoriously unreliable) and then examined STATISTICALLY.

The only things that might have been random were those chosen to be circumcised.

Not CONTROLLED were:

The time needed for healing for those circumcised BEFORE the trial was initiated - less exposure time.
Rates of exposure for each group
Dry sex:
Concern voiced over "dry sex" practices in South Africa
The practice and prevalence of dry sex among men and women in South Africa: a risk factor for sexually transmitted infections?
'Dry sex' and HIV infection among women attending a sexually transmitted diseases clinic in Lusaka, Zambia.
Dry and tight: sexual practices and potential AIDS risk in Zaire
Dry sex in Zimbabwe and implications for condom use
Traditional vaginal agents: use and association with HIV infection in Malawian women
The use of herbal and other agents to enhance sexual experience
"Dry sex" worsens AIDS numbers in southern Africa: Sub-Saharans' disdain for vaginal wetness accelerates the plague.
Anal sex
Homosexual sex
Genital warts reoccurrence: how they were treated, and the final efficacy of that particular treatment. (Excision or chemical)
Thwart Genital Warts
Clinical Presentation of Genital Warts Among Circumcised and Uncircumcised Heterosexual Men Attending an Urban STD Clinic
Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?: A literature review
The importance of ethnicity as a risk factor for STDs and sexual behaviour among heterosexuals
The accuracy of the tests to determine seroconversion--rates of false or negative determinations
Is the African AIDS pandemic a bluff?
AIDS IN AFRICA?
The time needed to manifest all seroconversions
Any chance of a follow-up as the test was stopped early and ALL subjects were circumcised.
Equal amount of "safe-sex counseling" for both groups:
Postoperative follow-up visits were scheduled at 24–48 hours, 5–9 days, and 4–6 weeks.
All participants in both groups were followed up at 4–6 weeks, and at 6, 12, and 24 months post-enrolment
Control is control, "playing with the numbers" is merely an accounting scheme.

And all of this involved nothing but statistical analysis.

Author bias is a common problem with many studies (and all authors have long been circumcision advocates):

Latest news in NAM
Another shortcoming of the studies is the small sample size.

Small sample size: With few subjects, the law of small numbers applies with a vengeance.

(Roughly, when you're dealing with small numbers, random variations assume disproportionate importance. IE, there might be 3 murders in a small community one year and 14 the next, but it's stupid to say "The murder rate has more than quadrupled!" and blame the difference on policing, penalties, or anything else. Next year there might be 7 or 1.)

Finally, enough men dropped out of the studies before completion to completely nullify any claimed result.

Speculation

And in an attempt to lend credence to these studies, there are SPECULATIVE mechanisms given for this claimed reduction. None of these mechanisms have any scientific and logical support--most have already been refuted by the facts and evidence.

"The protective effect of circumcision against HIV infection is thought to derive in part from postsurgical development of a layer of keratinised squamous epithelial cells that limit viral entry to underlying HIV target cells. How long it takes the residual tissue to fully heal and become keratinised has not been studied.
Keratinization is a long term phenomena and could not have any effect on conversion is the short time period of the studies.
Some circumcisers claim that keratinization (and the loss of subsequent sensation) does not occur: How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?
"There is controversy about whether the epithelium of the glans in uncircumcised men is keratinised; some authors claim that it is not,15 but we have examined the glans of seven circumcised and six uncircumcised men, and found the epithelia to be equally keratinised."
In a correspondence to Short, Szabo claims to have done a study, but this study was never published. He claims the epithelia of the exposed glans is not keratinized, but infers (without any evidence) that the remaining foreskin of the circumcised penis is and that of the intact foreskin is not.
The inner preputial mucosa is unkeratinised, making it vulnerable to HIV infection."
The CDC has shown that undamaged epithelia do not transmit the HIV virus: Mechanisms of HIV Transmission through Epithelial Cell Barriers
Ironically, since keratinization logically causes a further loss of sensation and sensitivity, an ardent circumcises claims to have done a study (never published , and not seen by anyone) proving that keratinization (and the loss of subsequent sensation) does not occur: How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?
That circumcision reduces the risk of male HIV infection is biologically plausible. The foreskin is rich in HIV target cells (Langerhans' and dendritic cells, CD4+ T cells, and macrophages).
Erroneous speculation on many levels.
The langerhan cells produce langerhin, which kills the HIV virus
Scientists Discover 'Natural Barrier' to HIV
Macrophages digest the HIV virus
Immunological functions of the human prepuce
The foreskin produces lysozyme which also kill the HIV virus
Lysozyme and RNases as anti-HIV components in beta-corepreparations of human chorionic gonadotropin.
Summary of evidence that the foreskin and lysozyme may protect against HIV infection
Immunological functions of the human prepuce
Summation:Mechanisms of HIV Transmission through Epithelial Cell Barriers
The foreskin is retracted over the shaft during intercourse, which exposes the inner mucosa to vaginal and cervical fluids.
Mechanisms of HIV Transmission through Epithelial Cell Barriers
Also, breaches in the mucosa can occur due to microtears during intercourse, especially at the frenulum,

False, in fact the opposite is the truth, a tight circumcision results in more abrasive and friction laden sex which would lead to more breaches in the tissue.

The case against circumcision

[also see p.61, May issue, Men's Health] The work of Laumann et. al JAMA 1997, 277: 1052-57, Taylor & Lockwood, BJU, 1996, 77:291- 5, and Halata & Munger, Brain Research, 1986, 371: 205-30 explains:

The mutilated man with his keratinized, desensitized glans, and absent the fine-touch receptors and erogenous mobility of the foreskin, ultimately requires inordinate stimulation of his residual penile nerve endings to achieve pleasure and orgasm. When this becomes plunger sex resulting in dryness, abrasion, pain and bleeding, female orgasmic potential shrivels. This requires we take a closer look at the notion of vaginal dryness as a ‘female’ problem.
Uncircumcised men are more susceptible to genital ulcer disease, which could increase HIV entry.
Actually the opposite is true
Clinical Presentation of Genital Warts Among Circumcised and Uncircumcised Heterosexual Men Attending an Urban STD Clinic
Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?: A literature review
The importance of ethnicity as a risk factor for STDs and sexual behaviour among heterosexuals
STD's
CIRCUMCISION IN THE UNITED STATES: Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice
Syphilis down, gonorrhea up in U.S., study finds
Country Circumcision Rate HIV Rate
USA 80.00% 0.60%
Ethiopia 100.00% 4.40%
Japan <1%
0.10%

Europe <2% average <0.2%
Failure of prediction-In science, it only takes ONE exception to invalidate a hypothesis or theory.
Circumcision rates:

Japan <1%
USA 80.00%
Ethiopia 100.00% Circumcision and HIV: A lie will be halfway around the world before the truth has got its pants on.
HIV rates:

Japan 0.10%
USA 0.60%
Ethiopia 4.40%
Protective factor: 1/0.5 =2X
US vs. Japan

USA (80% X 2) + (20 X 1) = (160) + 20) = 180
Japan (1 X 2) + (99 X 1) = (2) + (99) = 101
Protected ratio: 180/101 =1.8 LOWER in the USA.
Reality rates: 6X HIGHER in the USA
Discrepancy: 6.0 X 1.8 = 11X = 1100% error
Ethiopia vs. Japan

Circumcision rate:

Ethiopia 100.00%
Japan 0.40%
HIV rate:

Ethiopia 4.40%
Japan 0.10%
Ethiopia (100 X 2) = 200
Japan (1 X 2) + (99 X 1) = (2) + (99) = 101
Protected ratio: 200/101 = 2X LOWER in Ethiopia
Reality rates: 44X HIGHER in the Ethiopia
Discrepancy: 2 X 44 = 88 X = 8800% error
The largest acceptable error in science is 1 sigma = 5%

Those advocating circumcision to reduce the incidence of HIV either ignore this empirical and contradicting evidence, or try to dismiss it with various excuses, like: Intravenous drug usage or homosexual activities.

However, they never provide any hard numbers of these factors for various countries or a model that should include them to explain this discrepancy.

For these excuses to be credible, one would need to assume:

That the US has 11X as many homosexuals than Japan; and Ethiopia has 88X as many as Japan—when it is widely accepted that the rate of homosexuality is 5 –>10 % in all cultures...

OR

That even though people in Ethiopia can barely afford food and shelter, they can afford 88X the recreational drugs than Japan and 8X that of the USA.

For a critique of epidemiological studies in general, here is one:
Epidemiology critique

Information quoted on this site is with the written permission of the authors.

Return to Table of Contents

http://mysite.verizon.net/dortfay/science.html

For some reason the above site is not amenable to cutting and pasting, but it contains a very interesting rebuttal of the claims Mikey laid out, in his post from the New England Journal of Medicine.



I noticed two things in the Ugandan study put forward by Mikey. It refers to adult male circumcision of heterosexual males with one partner.

The other that it mentioned transmission of the HIV virus, and not immunity from the HIV virus.

If the subjects only had one partner and only engaged in heterosexual/vaginal, sex with that partner, that in itself would reduce the transmission of the HIV in many cases.

It should be noted that condoms would perform the same function without any operation being necessary, and without the attendant risk of post-operative infection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regard to LDD's remarks, it is the procedure of circumcision we are discussing in this thread, and whether or not it is medically necessary. Also whether or not it should be routinely performed on infants. NOT the doctors themselves.

To say a doctor might perform an operation of medical necessity one day and a routine, elected operation the next, is neither here nor there. It is a mere distraction from the point of this thread and is not germane to the debate.

To give two examples, Adolf Hitler was the architect of the Third Reich, during his early years as Leader, he was responsible for building autobahns, controlling prices, reducing unemployment in Germany. He also loved animals, children, was a vegetarian, non-smoker, tee-totaler and was a reasonably good painter, as well as being responsible with Speer for many beautiful buildings.

If that was all he was, we would be lauding him from the roof-tops. However he was also responsible for mass-murder and the deaths of millions. Same person, different behaviour, both happening in Germany.

Just as I don't have any problem distinguishing the ethics of his behaviour, I don't have any problem distinguishing between an elective surgery on an infant, and one that is conducted on an infant of medical necessity to save his life.

Both involve pain and suffering, both involve risk. In one the benefit greatly outweighs the risk and in the other it puts the child at risk for no benefit.

It is the reason for performing the surgery that is important, not the surgeon.

Similarly, one Dr. Mengele no doubt in his earlier medical career, may have saved lives and alleviated sickness, but I have no problem in distinguishing that from his later carrying out horrific experiments on twins in the Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany. Same person, different ethical reason.

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

I would also say that in regard to adult male circumcision, that the adult, provided he is in full possession of his faculties, can rationalise that his wound will heal and that the pain will dissipate and eventually cease.

An infant child cannot rationalise in this manner. He only knows that he is being held down and subjected to great pain. The person who would normally comfort and soothe him and remove the source of his pain, being notable by their absence and or indifference to his cries.

Argument: Circumcision increases sexual stamina and satisfaction
From Debatepedia
Jump to: navigation, search
[Edit]Parent debate
Debate: Infant male circumcision
[Edit]Supporting quotations
Edgar J. Schoen, MD. "Sexual Activity". Opposing Views - Clinical Professor of PediatricsIt has been claimed that the foreskin is important for normal, pleasurable sexual activity, and until recently this myth has not been tested. Since 2000 a number of studies from around the world have compared measurements of sexual pleasure before and after adult male circumcision. Published results have shown no significant differences whether or not the foreskin is present. Indeed, circumcised men have some advantages. Circumcised men have been found to engage in more varied sexual activity. Women, by a margin of about 3 to 1, prefer the circumcised penis, mainly because of cleanliness which is of particular importance in oral sex. There is a minimal difference in the sexual act itself – circumcised men take slightly longer to reach orgasm after vaginal insertion, an effect considered to be advantageous. Longer and cleaner sex is better sex.


Lerche Davis. "Adult Circumcision Affects Sexual Performance. Circumcised Men Take Longer to Reach Ejaculation, but That May Be OK". WebMD Health News. 2 Feb. 2004 -- Feb. 2, 2004 -- Adult circumcision affects a guy's sexual performance -- but not in a bad way, according to a new study.

Circumcised men take longer to reach ejaculation, which can be viewed as "an advantage, rather than a complication," writes lead researcher Temucin Senkul, a urologist with GATA Haydarpasa Training Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. His paper appears in the current issue of the journal Adult Urology.

Circumcision -- the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis -- typically occurs immediately after birth or during childhood, in the Muslim and Jewish tradition. In the U.S., 77% of boys are circumcised, according to the researchers.

But what about guys who don't get circumcised as babies, who decide on circumcision when they are adults? Can it give them sexual problems they didn't have before? That's what Sekul sought to determine.

Under the Knife

In this study, Senkul enrolled 42 men -- all about 22 years old -- who had not been circumcised. All but a few wanted circumcision for religious reasons. All were heterosexual and sexually active, and none was using a medication or device to promote erections.

Before the circumcision, doctors evaluated their sexual performance by asking about sex drive, erection, ejaculation, problems, and overall satisfaction.

The men were also asked to note how long they took to reach ejaculation -- during at least three sessions of sexual intercourse.

Twelve weeks after the surgery, the men again answered detailed questions about their sex lives. They reported on how long reaching ejaculation took.

The results: Everything was working smoothly -- except ejaculation, which took "significantly longer" after circumcision.


Temucin Senkul. "Circumcision in Adults: Effect on Sexual Function". Urology Journal. January 2004 - OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of adult circumcision on sexual function in men circumcised only for religious or cosmetic reasons.

METHODS: The study group consisted of 42 male patients with a median age of 22.3 years (range 19 to 28) referred for circumcision from June 2002 to January 2003. Of the 42 men, 39 desired circumcision for religious reasons. Before circumcision, their sexual performance was evaluated using the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BMSFI) and ejaculatory latency time. The BMSFI evaluation and ejaculatory latency time measurements were repeated after a postoperative interval of at least 12 weeks. The scores in the five main sections of the BMSFI and the ejaculatory latency times before and after circumcision were analyzed.

RESULTS: The differences in the mean BMSFI scores were not statistically significant in any of the five sections. However, the mean ejaculatory latency time was significantly longer after circumcision (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication.


Brittany Risher. "Circumcision: Pros and Cons. The Sexual Effects of Circumcision". Men's Health. - If you're circumcised, Ian Kerner, Ph.D., a sex therapist and author of She Comes First, says you may need more friction to reach orgasm. He recommends trying different positions, such as doggy style or missionary, that allow you to maximize stimulation. Or ask your woman to do Kegel exercises and squeeze her pelvic floor muscles, which will put more friction on the head of your penis.


I. Solinis A. Yiannaki. "Does circumcision improve couple's sexual life?". MD Consult Preview. 2007 - Background: The aim of the study was to compare sexual life and enjoyment of men (and their partner) that were circumcised as adults before and after their circumcision.

Methods: The study included 123 sexually active men that were circumcised two years before or more. The mean age was 36 years (22–64). All the men filled a questionnaire about the quality of their sexual life and the sexual enjoyment before and after circumcision. Also, there were questions about partner's sexual life improvement. The results are presented below.

[...]65% reported that the ejaculation latency time increased significantly after circumcision".


"Wrapped In Controversy". 4 Men's Health - "Robert Van Howe of Michigan State University used a similar method to measure sensitivity at 19 points along the penises of 163 men, he found that the five most sensitive points were all in portions of the penis removed by circumcision, especially those in folds exposed as the penis becomes erect."


"Adult Circumcision Stories - Men Circumcised As Adults Tell It As It Is...". No more stench and girls like the look better for medical student in Germany. Circ Info. - "I have also noticed that I can control my ejaculations a lot better since I am circumcised.

During sexual intercourse the foreskin easily moves over the glans and therefore gives excessive stimulations that may lead to premature ejaculations. This is my explanation to Badger's findings on better sex with circumcised men. Yes, it's a shame: here in Germany the circumcision rate of neonates is below one per cent."


"Better sexual performance for another man in USA". Testimonial. Circ Info. - Better sexual performance for another man in USA

"My sexual performance improved after being circumcised because my self-image improved and my confidence was better " there was no loss of sensation, simply a different feeling ... which I happen to find far, far better and more satisfying to my eternal surprise and joy."


"Hygiene, appearance and sexual benefits says man from New Zealand". Testimonial. Circ Info. - Notably as orgasm approached and the glans swelled to its maximum, the foreskin would remain behind the glans and the overwhelming constant sensations on the now very sensitive glans would trigger a sudden rush to orgasm. Today, the control is greater as the glans is stimulated earlier in intercourse and I think the receptors "down-regulate" so that, great as it feels, there seems to be no sudden rush of sensation to unstoppable orgasm. I acknowledge that psychological factors play a part in this on a day to day basis, but overall the effect is a smoother escalation and control of sexual tension.

The wonderful sensations in the frenulum have remained the same. The glans is not as sensitive, as I can tolerate clothes rubbing it, which was absolutely intolerable before, but once the glans is moistened it feels exactly the same as the uncirc'd state. It has been over 8 years since the circ, it was done at age 42, and I have been dying to tell guys that the "cut" state is great and their partners really do benefit.


"Circumcision - Sensitivity, Sensation and Sexual Function". Circumcision - Sensitivity, Sensation and Sexual Function. Circinfo - The foreskin contains sensory nerve receptors as are prevalent over the rest of the penis. There is no scientific evidence that the extra complement of these in uncircumcised men leads to greater sexual pleasure. In fact, some uncircumcised men have been known to complain that their penis is too sensitive, leading to pain, and seek circumcision to relieve this. Diminishing sensitivity is in fact desired by many men and women in order to prolong the sex act by preventing premature ejaculation [86].

Orgasm, the culmination of the sex act, is not related to the foreskin, and involves activity of neurones in the hypothalamus of the brain.

It should also be added that anecdotes cannot be accepted, and any hypothesis they might suggest must be tested by scientific research before receiving serious consideration. Fanciful speculation by anti-circ proponents must be disregarded, as should dubious publications involving biased study groups [404]. So let’s look at the scientific evidence.

Masters & Johnson undertook clinical and neurological testing of the ventral and dorsal surfaces, as well as the glans, and detected no difference in penile sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised men [352]. Sexual pleasure also appears to be about the same.

Two US studies published in 2002 both found similar or greater sexual satisfaction in men after circumcision as adults [123, 182]. The mean age of the men in each study was 37 and 42, respectively. In the smaller survey [123] there was no difference in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, problem assessment or satisfaction compared with what the men recalled sex being like prior to foreskin removal. Penile sensitivity was the same.

The Collins paper stated that their study was prompted by reports by proponents of "foreskin restoration", in particular the "disparity between the mythology and medical reality of circumcision regarding male sexuality" [123].

In the Fink study of 123 men [182], 62% said they were satisfied with having been circumcised (they liked their new look) and 50% reported benefits. There was no change in sexual activity. Penile sensitivity, although not tested directly, was thought by some of the men in this study to be slightly lower (but not statistically so), which may have contributed to their claims of better sex. Although there was no change in sexual activity, some of the men thought erectile function was slightly less (category scores: 12.3 vs 11.1, P = 0.05), which is the opposite of the very much larger National Health and Social Life Survey [327]. Fink and co-workers point out that this would, however, have to be confirmed by duplex Doppler ultrasound before a definitive conclusion could be made. Furthermore, the outcome of this study could have been affected by the fact that 93% of the men had been circumcised for a medical problem. Both the men and their partners preferred the appearance of the penis after it had been circumcised. As in other studies [327] oral sex became more frequent, but there was no change in anal sex or masturbation [182]. Their partners were also more likely to initiate sex with them.

A report in 2004 of men circumcised for non-medical reasons in Turkey showed an increase in ejaculatory latency time, which may or may not reflect decreased sensitivity, but this was considered by the men as an advantage in that they could prolong intercourse [520]. Another study, discussed below, found ejaculatory latency time was significantly lower in Turkish men compared with men in the USA, UK and European countries [598].


"Adult Male Circumcision Not Linked To Sexual Dysfunction". Medical News Today. 19 Nov 2008 - The World Health Organization recommends male circumcision as an important element in HIV prevention programs, and the procedure is promoted in high-risk heterosexual populations. While the benefits of circumcision are well-documented (they also include reduced rates of urinary tract infection, penile cancer, and cervical cancer and chlamydia in female partners), there remains a concern that adult circumcision may impair sexual function.

A new study has found that adult circumcisions do not lead to sexual difficulties among men who were already sexually active. The study appears in the November 2008 issue of The Journal of Sexual Medicine the official journal of the International Society for Sexual Medicine.

The study group consisted of 2,684 men in Kisumu, Kenya between 2002 and 2005. Both groups underwent six detailed evaluations between one month and 24 months after circumcision. "More than 99 percent of the men studied reported that they were satisfied with their circumcision, and the majority of men reported both greater penile sensitivity, and easier use of condoms," said lead author John N. Krieger, M.D., of the University of Washington.

The results also showed no significant difference in the frequency of erectile dysfunction, inability to ejaculate, pain during intercourse or lack of pleasure during intercourse. Circumcised men also had progressively higher rates of sexual satisfaction over time.

"These findings are reassuring in view of current efforts to promote male circumcision to prevent HIV infections in some countries, particularly in eastern and southern Africa," say the authors. They also note that continued evaluation and counseling in HIV and sexually transmitted disease risk reduction remain critical.

"This topic has been highly controversial." says Irwin Goldstein, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Sexual Medicine. "I am pleased to be able to publish irrefutable evidence that circumcision does not have negative side effects regarding sexual health; rather it is quite the opposite."


Emily Bazelon. "Or Not To Snip?Slate's findings on circumcision and sex." Slate. Feb. 13, 2006 - Of the 79 men who'd experienced sex snipped and unsnipped, 43 said sex improved (55 percent) after their circumcisions, 23 said it went downhill (29 percent), and 13 said there was no change or a mix of pros and cons (16 percent). Click here to read women and gay men compare sex with snipped and unsnipped partners.

Daniel got snipped as a college sophomore to combat recurrent genital warts and premature ejaculation. "You can imagine my relief when I found that sex could last much longer."

Two were pleased with the results, and two were ambivalent. One of them, Eric, said that when he lost his inner foreskin, he lost some sensation. (According to the article in Urologia, "many studies have shown the presence of thousands of erogenous nerve endings on the inner layer of the foreskin.") The upside was that sex lasted longer. "Sex became less exciting but more satisfying," he wrote. Other men reported a similar trade-off. ("Is it better to have a glass of excellent wine, or a bottle of very good wine?" mused one.)


"Cutting the competition." Economist. 19 Jun 2008 - the lack of a foreskin could make insertion, ejaculation or both take longer. Perhaps long enough that an illicit quickie will not always reach fruition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sammie19

Now you have degenerated into idiocy. I need say no more.

---

idiocy ??? no... just pointing out a simple fact

if a person wants to use the stance that they will not subject a child to pain, suffering or harm, then that person had better not sign a surgical consent form for a child.... cos the moment they do, they are doing what they said they would not......

if i was to use the stance that I would not subject a child to pain and suffering or harm, then sign on a surgical consent form.... regardless of my reasoning, I have done exactly what I said I would not do...

it is why a lot of second time parents will not say that they will not inflict pain, suffering or harm on a child, as they learnt from the first time, that there are times you have no choice, you will have to put the child thru pain and suffering.....

so if I am degenerating into idiocy, then those parents that realise the truth in my words, must be raving mad lunatics..... and the world must be full of them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkside2009

With regard to LDD's remarks, it is the procedure of circumcision we are discussing in this thread, and whether or not it is medically necessary. Also whether or not it should be routinely performed on infants. NOT the doctors themselves.

To say a doctor might perform an operation of medical necessity one day and a routine, elected operation the next, is neither here nor there. It is a mere distraction from the point of this thread and is not germane to the debate.

---

I will politely disagree.... bluebiyou has said that people who perform circumcisions on children, are child molestors that mutilate children... and other members have refered to children being mutilated at the hands of doctors and parents...... so my statement is valid as I am saying the same doctor can be the one that removes a cancerous growth from a childs penis and prevents future suffering and pain.....and be hailed as a * hero * by parents that would refuse to have their child circumcised by the same * child molestor that mutilates children *

however I will ask a question, and that is, if a child has a growth removal from their penis, does that mean they are mutilated too, or is it only children that have been circumcised, regarded as mutilated....
anyways, back to the circumcision issue

circumcision can be a precursor prevention of non retractable foreskin issues in males.....

the argument is used that there is no valid reason to circumcise a person....

if there is no valid reason, then why are foreskins removed by medical experts cos of non retractable foreskin issues, ... is that not a valid reason to remove the foreskin if there is no other alternative

cos if it is a valid reason to remove a foreskin, that fucks near every anti circumcision argument in the site.... cos for a anti circumcision advocate to say yes, it is a valid reason, they have just fucked their own stance that there is no valid reason

btw, I am not being pro circumcision.... I am questioning the validity of a stance....

drugstore cowboy... it was a scenerio I was using to show the difference in the way that parents will justify one issue yet oppose another... both of which result in pain and suffering in children..

and then defend their 180 degree change in opinions with saying they would not subject a child to pain and suffering, but do it then justify the fact they did it....

its a issue a parent would understand so why you posted the david raimer story I have no bloody idea, I can only conclude you are not a parent and therefore missed what I was saying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

circumcision can be a precursor prevention of non retractable foreskin issues in males.....

the argument is used that there is no valid reason to circumcise a person....

if there is no valid reason, then why are foreskins removed by medical experts cos of non retractable foreskin issues, ... is that not a valid reason to remove the foreskin if there is no other alternative

cos if it is a valid reason to remove a foreskin, that fucks near every anti circumcision argument in the site.... cos for a anti circumcision advocate to say yes, it is a valid reason, they have just fucked their own stance that there is no valid reason

btw, I am not being pro circumcision.... I am questioning the validity of a stance....

---

The issue you're talking about with the non-retractable foreskin is not an issue that means that a man has to get cut if he has an issue with his foreskin where it does not retract.

There are now creams that can be used to prevent the non-retracting foreskin, and stretching techniques that stretch out the foreskin so it can be retracted if there's an issue with retraction and the boy or man does not have to have his foreskin removed at all.

BTW the issue with foreskin retraction that you're claiming happens does not happen at all in nearly 99% of intact boys and adult men with foreskins who are perfectly healthy and able to retract their foreskins without any issues at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy

The issue you're talking about with the non-retractable foreskin is not an issue that means that a man has to get cut if he has an issue with his foreskin where it does not retract.

There are now creams that can be used to prevent the non-retracting foreskin, and stretching techniques that stretch out the foreskin so it can be retracted if there's an issue with retraction and the boy or man does not have to have his foreskin removed at all.

BTW the issue with foreskin retraction that you're claiming happens does not happen at all in nearly 99% of intact boys and adult men with foreskins who are perfectly healthy and able to retract their foreskins without any issues at all.

---

21,000 british schoolboys a year, are operated on for non retractable foreskins that do not respond to other treatments....

up to 77% of young children are born with foreskins that will not retract and it is estimated that up to 28% of them will require treatment at some stage by the time they are 15

so yeah you must be right and the medical experts must be wrong, cos you post in a forum and they do the operations and treatments of children....

I think I will trust the experts if you do not have any objections, as they have facts and fiqures based on actual events

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

I will politely disagree.... bluebiyou has said that people who perform circumcisions on children, are child molestors that mutilate children... and other members have refered to children being mutilated at the hands of doctors and parents...... so my statement is valid as I am saying the same doctor can be the one that removes a cancerous growth from a childs penis and prevents future suffering and pain.....and be hailed as a * hero * by parents that would refuse to have their child circumcised by the same * child molestor that mutilates children *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That might well be HIS opinion, it is not a term I would use, or have used.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
however I will ask a question, and that is, if a child has a growth removal from their penis, does that mean they are mutilated too, or is it only children that have been circumcised, regarded as mutilated....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That is two questions, not one. Answer to the first is no, if a child has an unnatural growth removed from their penis it is not a mutilation, anymore than surgically removing a wart from the end of their nose.

Answer to the second. You would need to ask Blue, but I assume he means mutilated in the sense that an unnecessary operation was performed on HEALTHY tissue, removing it from the rest of the body. He can correct me if I have the sense of his argument wrong.

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


anyways, back to the circumcision issue

circumcision can be a precursor prevention of non retractable foreskin issues in males.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That is true, but it is a very extreme method of prevention. As I mentioned before, we don't amputate a healthy leg on the off-chance it might be injured at some remote point in the future, turn gangrenous and need amputation. We generally wait until until it is a medical necessity, after having considered all the other less extreme options. Then and only then, would we pursue amputation. On the premise that if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the argument is used that there is no valid reason to circumcise a person....

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

(My answer) The only person I have seen to suggest that is you. Everyone else has been stating,(time and time again I might add), if an adult in full possession of his faculties wishes to have HIMSELF circumcised, that is entirely his choice.

What I, and they have stated, repeatedly, is that it is morally wrong to circumcise the HEALTHY penis of an infant, to remove HEALTHY tissue from another human being without their consent, in cases where it is not medically necessary. The decision should be deferred until such time as that child becomes an adult and can make that choice for themselves. Their body, their choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if there is no valid reason, then why are foreskins removed by medical experts cos of non retractable foreskin issues, ... is that not a valid reason to remove the foreskin if there is no other alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) As I understand it, the foreskin in babies is often initially fused to the glans, but separates naturally. If the foreskin is unhealthy and is beyond repair, by any other treatment, then it is removed by circumcision. But such cases form only a tiny percentage of the circumcisions performed in the US each year.

With respect, you know that, I know that, everyone on this thread knows that. LDD. You are trying to defend the indefensible by ignoring the answer you have received, each and every time you have raised this same question.

What the anti-circumcision lobby here object to, is the circumcision of healthy infant penises for purely cultural reasons. Subjecting infants to an unnecessary operation which causes them pain, distress and the risk of post-operative infection on the whim of their parents, however well meaning, is morally wrong.

Every surgical operation carries with it the risk of infection, and going into shock during the operation, and of post operative infection afterwards, during the recovery period. To put an infant at risk of that together with the pain and trauma involved is simply wrong, when there is no medical necessity to do so. That decision should be the child's, when they reach adulthood, and are old enough to make an informed decision for themselves. Not having it forced upon them whether they might want it or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cos if it is a valid reason to remove a foreskin, that fucks near every anti circumcision argument in the site.... cos for a anti circumcision advocate to say yes, it is a valid reason, they have just fucked their own stance that there is no valid reason

btw, I am not being pro circumcision.... I am questioning the validity of a stance....

---

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

(My answer) With respect, we both know that is not what you are doing. You have asked the same question again and again, you have been answered again and again. Merely repeating the question does not bring forth a new answer, it merely serves to make you seem dim-witted, and we both know you are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

I will politely disagree.... bluebiyou has said that people who perform circumcisions on children, are child molestors that mutilate children... and other members have refered to children being mutilated at the hands of doctors and parents...... so my statement is valid as I am saying the same doctor can be the one that removes a cancerous growth from a childs penis and prevents future suffering and pain.....and be hailed as a * hero * by parents that would refuse to have their child circumcised by the same * child molestor that mutilates children *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That might well be HIS opinion, it is not a term I would use, or have used.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
however I will ask a question, and that is, if a child has a growth removal from their penis, does that mean they are mutilated too, or is it only children that have been circumcised, regarded as mutilated....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That is two questions, not one. Answer to the first is no, if a child has an unnatural growth removed from their penis it is not a mutilation, anymore than surgically removing a wart from the end of their nose.

Answer to the second. You would need to ask Blue, but I assume he means mutilated in the sense that an unnecessary operation was performed on HEALTHY tissue, removing it from the rest of the body. He can correct me if I have the sense of his argument wrong.

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


anyways, back to the circumcision issue

circumcision can be a precursor prevention of non retractable foreskin issues in males.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That is true, but it is a very extreme method of prevention. As I mentioned before, we don't amputate a healthy leg on the off-chance it might be injured at some remote point in the future, turn gangrenous and need amputation. We generally wait until until it is a medical necessity, after having considered all the other less extreme options. Then and only then, would we pursue amputation. On the premise that if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the argument is used that there is no valid reason to circumcise a person....

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

(My answer) The only person I have seen to suggest that is you. Everyone else has been stating,(time and time again I might add), if an adult in full possession of his faculties wishes to have HIMSELF circumcised, that is entirely his choice.

What I, and they have stated, repeatedly, is that it is morally wrong to circumcise the HEALTHY penis of an infant, to remove HEALTHY tissue from another human being without their consent, in cases where it is not medically necessary. The decision should be deferred until such time as that child becomes an adult and can make that choice for themselves. Their body, their choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if there is no valid reason, then why are foreskins removed by medical experts cos of non retractable foreskin issues, ... is that not a valid reason to remove the foreskin if there is no other alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) As I understand it, the foreskin in babies is often initially fused to the glans, but separates naturally. If the foreskin is unhealthy and is beyond repair, by any other treatment, then it is removed by circumcision. But such cases form only a tiny percentage of the circumcisions performed in the US each year.

With respect, you know that, I know that, everyone on this thread knows that. LDD. You are trying to defend the indefensible by ignoring the answer you have received, each and every time you have raised this same question.

What the anti-circumcision lobby here object to, is the circumcision of healthy infant penises for purely cultural reasons. Subjecting infants to an unnecessary operation which causes them pain, distress and the risk of post-operative infection on the whim of their parents, however well meaning, is morally wrong.

Every surgical operation carries with it the risk of infection, and going into shock during the operation, and of post operative infection afterwards, during the recovery period. To put an infant at risk of that together with the pain and trauma involved is simply wrong, when there is no medical necessity to do so. That decision should be the child's, when they reach adulthood, and are old enough to make an informed decision for themselves. Not having it forced upon them whether they might want it or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cos if it is a valid reason to remove a foreskin, that fucks near every anti circumcision argument in the site.... cos for a anti circumcision advocate to say yes, it is a valid reason, they have just fucked their own stance that there is no valid reason

btw, I am not being pro circumcision.... I am questioning the validity of a stance....

---

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

(My answer) With respect, we both know that is not what you are doing. You have asked the same question again and again, you have been answered again and again. Merely repeating the question does not bring forth a new answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

idiocy ??? no... just pointing out a simple fact

if a person wants to use the stance that they will not subject a child to pain, suffering or harm, then that person had better not sign a surgical consent form for a child.... cos the moment they do, they are doing what they said they would not......

if i was to use the stance that I would not subject a child to pain and suffering or harm, then sign on a surgical consent form.... regardless of my reasoning, I have done exactly what I said I would not do...

it is why a lot of second time parents will not say that they will not inflict pain, suffering or harm on a child, as they learnt from the first time, that there are times you have no choice, you will have to put the child thru pain and suffering.....

so if I am degenerating into idiocy, then those parents that realise the truth in my words, must be raving mad lunatics..... and the world must be full of them

---

I stand by my use of the word.

Every parent knows, my parents certainly did, that if it is the difference between life and death, good or bad health, sound of body or disablement for their child, and the only way to help that child is to sign a consent form for surgery, while it may cause pain and suffering, it is not causing the child harm.

There are risks involved in any kind of surgery, but the alternative of doing nothing when an invasive treatment such as surgery is the only feasible option, that is causing harm. My parents knew that when they signed the consent form for the removal of my appendix. The alternative to surgery was peritonitis and certain agonising death.

Parents of certain fundamentalist religious groups put their faith in God and refuse to allow surgery or even blood transfusions for their children when they have critical health problems. Occasionally English courts have become involved and overruled parental decision not to operate because of the threat to the life of the child. Now you tell me, who is causing harm? The courts who decide that the child will have a chance of life and good health, or parents who by their belief in scripture, will have condemned their child to death?

I may not be a parent. But I do know the difference between unavoidable pain and suffering to stave of ill health and death, and harm. I also know the difference between having the right of decision over our own bodies and not.