So why do it to newborn baby boys?
decrease in probability of STD infection by 38%-66%
So why do it to newborn baby boys?
decrease in probability of STD infection by 38%-66%
The CDC were quite clear. Using a study from Africa where the transmission of HIV is more common with male/female sexual intercourse and attempting to use it in the US, where it is more commonly transmitted throush anal sex cannot really provide a clear and accurate picture of the its reduction of the disease in the US. With the spread of HIV being much lower in the US as it stands at present, one should consider whether one should even consider circumcision for this specific reason.The study you mention indicates that probability of vaginal intercourse HIV transmission rate is indeed reduced, which means lives saved. And as condom companies warn all, this product is not intended to fully protect the user against STD transmission. As condoms break too, or tear, and etc. Perhaps the measure of circumcision is drastic but it still is beneficial.
Because people in Germany often walk around with their penis hanging out and those with a circumcised penis would just stick out of the crowd of those who are uncircumcised, and thus, would find it difficult to intergrate? Circumcisions in religious ceremonies will still continue, regardless of what the laws state. People will still find a way to remove the foreskin from their baby boys, even though it isn't necessary.Of course my personal views in the Germany case is that such measures arose from political reasons and not because of any health associated reasons. As Horst Seehofer of the Christian Democratic Union Party said, "It is obvious that immigrants from Turkey and Arab countries face more difficulty integrating into German society than other immigrants" and " the conclusion is that we don’t need additional immigrants from 'foreign cultures".
According to the abstract, the study and analysis simply assumed - specifically stated - that all the circumcisions in its data were elective and all babies were equal. They made no attempt, as far as I can see, to separate out the more serious situations and the ones most likely to have complications or risks. That and their suspect rhetoric casts some doubt on their conclusions.bells said:I am not talking about medical problems or birth defects. The study looked at elective circumcisions in the US.
No, it isn't. Your own links substantiate definite claims of protection, and that's just from one disease - vulnerability to several diseases is reduced by circumcision.bells said:Perpetuating the belief that removing the foreskin somehow offers protection is false advertising
I can see where they come from. They are nevertheless bizarrely inflamed and overwrought rhetorical garbage.bells said:It's not pathetic, it's bizarrely inflamed by overheated rhetoric. Removing arms and legs? Mastectomy and FGM? Please.
”
Those comments come from people who see the foreskin as being the part of a person that should not be removed.
No one is talking about removing anyone's penis. As far as I know there is no comparable common operation or standard mutilation of women's genitalia or any other part - maybe high heels in shoes?bells said:It never ceases to amaze me how some do not view the male penis and all of its parts as being somehow as important as say, a woman's breast or clitorus.
No informed and sane person views the standard forms of female genital mutilation as being "the same" as the standard forms of male circumcision. They are radically different in psychological motive and physical effect, risks and consequences, significance and sociological implication.bells said:And yet, people rile at the thought that a woman might circumcise her daughter because she was also circumcised. They don't view it as being the same.
Yes, it does.bells said:An uncircumcised boy's penis requires no extra cleaning or special care.
Starting when they are children. That will help, but not fully protect them from the small but noticeable extra risk of infections, STDs, etc.bells said:What is required when they become adults is that they pull the foreskin back when they wash themselves and clean it with water when they shower.
So why do it to newborn baby boys?
because when they need it as men they'll wish it was done to them as babies.So why do it to newborn baby boys?
it's easier for it to be done when one is a baby, and it's no big deal, mutilation is too strong a word, and there is more scientific/health evidence for it than against it, as a matter of fact, there's nothing against it, just people who don't care about their ten thousand body parts, and care about a small potion of foreskin that serves no purpose except help germs collect. if it does no harm, then it does no good either.If the child wishes to get that done when he/she is an adult, they should go for it. Otherwise, no.
You mean like the studies which state that HIV transmission is greatly reduced if the male is circumcised?According to the abstract, the study and analysis simply assumed - specifically stated - that all the circumcisions in its data were elective and all babies were equal. They made no attempt, as far as I can see, to separate out the more serious situations and the ones most likely to have complications or risks. That and their suspect rhetoric casts some doubt on their conclusions.
Yes. It may offer a minute level of protection to the male. However it offers little protection to the woman. In fact, the opposite to the woman may very well be the case:No, it isn't. Your own links substantiate definite claims of protection, and that's just from one disease - vulnerability to several diseases is reduced by circumcision.
You may find the reduction insufficient to justify the procedure, especially in the case of Western culture with its much smaller risks overall. Others may not.
Possibly because you do not see removing perfectly healthy and non-deformed tissue from a newborn baby for religious or cosmetic reasons as being a form of mutilation?:shrug:I can see where they come from. They are nevertheless bizarrely inflamed and overwrought rhetorical garbage.
Oh, I am sure they do. After all, we have religious practices around actually slicing off skin of the male genatalia as forms of either a religious rite of passage or as a form of reminding one's self of one's God.. Why God would request parents cause their newborn children untold amount of pain is beyond me personally.No one is talking about removing anyone's penis. As far as I know there is no comparable common operation or standard mutilation of women's genitalia or any other part - maybe high heels in shoes?
The people who most favor male circumcision consider the male penis to be quite important, I can guarantee you.
Right...No informed and sane person views the standard forms of female genital mutilation as being "the same" as the standard forms of male circumcision. They are radically different in psychological motive and physical effect, risks and consequences, significance and sociological implication.
Actually, it does not.Yes, it does.
It takes years to be able to fully retract the foreskin fully to explose the head. Therefore, it's something that boys will do when the foreskin is no longer fused to the head of their penis. And when they can retract it, you explain to them why it needs to be washed.Starting when they are children. That will help, but not fully protect them from the small but noticeable extra risk of infections, STDs, etc
Yep.It's a matter of judgment and reason, well handled in Australia apparently. Meanwhile, the law in Germany is clearly aimed at Muslims and Jews.
because when they need it as men they'll wish it was done to them as babies.
You mean like the studies which state that HIV transmission is greatly reduced if the male is circumcised?...
Because people in Germany often walk around with their penis hanging out and those with a circumcised penis would just stick out of the crowd of those who are uncircumcised, and thus, would find it difficult to intergrate?
i don't need proof per se, i don't remember anything about my circumcision, and didn't even know it happened till later on in life when i couldn't know myself otherwise.You have proof that uncircumcised men wish they had been circumcised as babies?
you never heard of medical circumstances requiring circumcision?Why do men need to be circumcised?
Is there a particular reason? You have studies to show why men need to be circumcised?
Two other abnormal conditions requiring circumcision are balanitis and paraphimosis. Balanitis is an infection of the foreskin. Paraphimosis occurs in older boys when the foreskin is pulled back and gets stuck. This causes swelling and pain. If there is obvious swelling, your son may need to be seen immediately.
Some boys are not circumcised as newborns for numerous reasons. Later, parents may want it done for cosmetic reasons. This is a decision you can discuss with the surgeon. Some insurance companies will not pay for a cosmetic circumcision.
Read more: http://www.umm.edu/pediatrics/circumcision.htm#ixzz1zaRT9IbS
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Why-is-it-necessary.aspxConditions that require circumcision
Balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO) is an uncommon skin condition that can only be cured with circumcision.
BXO can cause hardening and inflammation of the penis, usually affecting the foreskin and tip of the penis. It causes symptoms such as:
difficulties passing urine
pain when passing urine
itchiness and soreness of the penis
In cases of BXO that primarily affect the foreskin, circumcision is usually the most effective treatment, and often results in a complete cure.
http://sti.bmj.com/content/74/5/368.shortRESULTS: There is substantial evidence that circumcision protects males from HIV infection, penile carcinoma, urinary tract infections, and ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases. We could find little scientific evidence of adverse effects on sexual, psychological, or emotional health. Surgical risks associated with circumcision, particularly bleeding, penile injury, and local infection, as well as the consequences of the pain experienced with neonatal circumcision, are valid concerns that require appropriate responses.
If it similarly invalidates the already dubious conclusions of the authors, sure. Does it, in that case?bells said:You mean like the studies which state that HIV transmission is greatly reduced if the male is circumcised?
Again with this - when reason fails?bells said:“
It's a matter of judgment and reason, well handled in Australia apparently. Meanwhile, the law in Germany is clearly aimed at Muslims and Jews.
”
Yep.
And anti-FGM laws in the West are aimed solely at Africans and Asians where the practice is entrenched in their culture. Shame on the West for denying people their right to painfully mutilate their children
Or possibly because they are bizarrely inflamed and overwrought rhetorical garbage, from people who should know better.bells said:I can see where they come from. They are nevertheless bizarrely inflamed and overwrought rhetorical garbage.
”
Possibly because you do not see removing perfectly healthy and non-deformed tissue from a newborn baby for religious or cosmetic reasons as being a form of mutilation?
"Minute" being in the eye of the beholder. We look for evidence of sober judgment - a lack of overheated bluster and ridiculous exaggerations, for example. And an absence of guesswork and convenient speculation obscured in Fox News style reference language -bells said:“
No, it isn't. Your own links substantiate definite claims of protection, and that's just from one disease - vulnerability to several diseases is reduced by circumcision.
You may find the reduction insufficient to justify the procedure, especially in the case of Western culture with its much smaller risks overall. Others may not.
”
Yes. It may offer a minute level of protection to the male
Or flat deception:In fact, the opposite to the woman may very well be the case:
There is no evidence that circumcision increases or decreases the risk of HIV transmission by HIV-infected men. However, risk compensation by HIV-infected circumcised men will substantially increase the risk of transmission to their sex partners. This suggests that, in the short term at least, circumcision would reduce the incidence of HIV among men, but increase the incidence among women, translating to increased prevalence among women, which in turn translates to greater risk to men. Epidemiological models of MC should take this dynamic into account.
It also carries with it the risk of complacency and the mistaken belief that circumcision will now allow STD's and HIV/AIDS to spread.
Removal of the hood of the clitoris only is not a common cultural practice, and I've never heard of it being discussed or treated with repulsion. Do you in fact know of any such culture? Even one, let alone "many"?As for female genital mutilation. What of it? Many cultures deem it important to remove the hood of the woman's clitoris. And yet, we find that repulsive and see nothing about removing the hood of the male penis?
Which leaves what - thirty or forty other diseases and disorders to consider?asguard said:As I have pointed out 3 times already in this thread there is NO EVIDENCE THAT GENITAL MUTILATION PROVIDES PROTECTION FROM THE US STRAIN OF HIV.
Which leaves what - thirty or forty other diseases and disorders to consider?