When erect, there is essentially no difference in appearance. So if a chick is shallow enough to like or not like a guy based on the appearance of his wiener when flaccid, well my friend you should probably stay away from her in the first place.
I just have a hard time accepting that the minute a boy is born there is something inherently wrong with is physical form and it needs to be "fixed". Seems odd to me.
43 yrs of ownership and not one complaint from the owner.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
No doubt. Any surgery comes with the risk of complications. I don't understand the mentality of putting a newborn in harm's way for no reason whatsoever. I do believe we'll see it become illegal in our lifetimes, as it should.
People die from cosmetic plastic surgery, do you believe it'll be illegal?
People die from cosmetic plastic surgery, do you believe it'll be illegal?
Not a chance, and it shouldn't be.
You don't see the glaringly obvious difference? People opting for plastic surgery do so willing and with a complete understanding of the risks (they have to sign consent forms). Parents lopping off the tip of a newborn's penis for no reason do so without the child's consent. It's terrible.
You don't see the glaringly obvious difference? People opting for plastic surgery do so willing and with a complete understanding of the risks (they have to sign consent forms). Parents lopping off the tip of a newborn's penis for no reason do so without the child's consent. It's terrible.
Um you're a parent for a reason, you make the choices and that's why they call it parental consent. I don't see the glaring difference. It's a relatively safe procedure. What's the rate of death from a circumcision? Maybe .0000001 percent? Hardly anything to get worked over about.
Um you're a parent for a reason, you make the choices and that's why they call it parental consent. I don't see the glaring difference. It's a relatively safe procedure. What's the rate of death from a circumcision? Maybe .0000001 percent? Hardly anything to get worked over about.
The "your kid, your choice" argument doesn't work in all scenarios, nor is it true. There are a lot of choices that aren't allowed.
What people are arguing is that it is often performed for less than compelling reasons, and that there are potentially ethical aspects of it as well. To simplify it to "parent's make decisions for their kids all the time" does it a disservice. Not all decisions are equal.
It's weird how many practices involve cutting off parts of the body. Like tonsils, or appendixes. You'd think nature and evolution wouldn't give us 'extra' body parts...
I mean, if there is a problem, of course you remove them. But I don't think we'd evolve parts we don't need. Unless it's somehow vestigial? I think they did find out though, that tonsils and the appendix do serve a (albeit small) purpose. They both bolster the immune system and combat certain infections. Perhaps why they get infected themselves.
There are a couple of things going on.
Humans live in artificial environments and in extreme density. We aren't evolved to live like this. We live in cities of millions and are constantly exposed to pathogens. In the wild, we would live in small and relatively isolated groups.
As far as foreskin, your also keeping your bits inside pants all day. The lack of air circulation and added moisture is going to result in more infections.
There's also the STD issue, which is largely a product of our un-natural society too.
So, to say we shouldn't do something, because it's not natural seems a bit odd to me. Penicilin and vaccines aren't natural either, but are a necessity in our world.
Humans live in artificial environments and in extreme density. We aren't evolved to live like this. We live in cities of millions and are constantly exposed to pathogens. In the wild, we would live in small and relatively isolated groups.
As far as foreskin, your also keeping your bits inside pants all day. The lack of air circulation and added moisture is going to result in more infections.
There's also the STD issue, which is largely a product of our un-natural society too.
So, to say we shouldn't do something, because it's not natural seems a bit odd to me. Penicilin and vaccines aren't natural either, but are a necessity in our world.
As a grown adult, is there a single visible part of your body that you would have removed for a slightly reduced risk of STDs, which can easily be attended to by the means of not cutting of this part? A finger? A chunk of your lip? A toe? A nipple? Those things are pretty useless. Would you undergoe an appendectomy just because there is a slight chance at you getting future appendicitis? I'm not sure, but I would suspect that appendicitis is much more common than any difference in STDs for uncircumsized people. Would you even take a monthly pill that may slightly reduce the chance of appendicitis? Or an STD of your choosing?
As a grown adult, is there a single visible part of your body that you would have removed for a slightly reduced risk of STDs, which can easily be attended to by the means of not cutting of this part? A finger? A chunk of your lip? A toe? A nipple? Those things are pretty useless.
Tonsils and adenoids perform a role in the immune system, but parents decide to have their children undergo a procedure more invasive than a circumcision to remove them in order to lessen the frequency of throat and respiratory infections.
As a grown adult, is there a single visible part of your body that you would have removed for a slightly reduced risk of STDs, which can easily be attended to by the means of not cutting of this part? A finger? A chunk of your lip? A toe? A nipple? Those things are pretty useless. Would you undergoe an appendectomy just because there is a slight chance at you getting future appendicitis? I'm not sure, but I would suspect that appendicitis is much more common than any difference in STDs for uncircumsized people. Would you even take a monthly pill that may slightly reduce the chance of appendicitis? Or an STD of your choosing?
Firstly, you're downplaying the reduction in risk. It ranges per STD - I've posted several articles on it - but it's quite significant. The examples you've provided are not very good either. Removal of an appendix requires a very invasive surgery and multi-day hospital stay. A circumcision is done in a few moments and the baby forgets about it quickly.
The biggest argument you have against it is a cultural morality that you shouldn't make a permanent choice for your child. There are plenty of cultural reasons for allowing circumcisions as well.
The biggest argument you have against it is a cultural morality that you shouldn't make a permanent choice for your child. There are plenty of cultural reasons for allowing circumcisions as well.
No, the biggest reason is that it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be and that the official stance of many groups as posted in this thread is not recommending circumcisions for all male children. There is a morality aspect to it, but there are other viewpoints as well.
Just as in one of the articles I linked earlier, one of the biggest gains seen is a reduction in UTI's, but the article also said it was estimated that it took ~80 circumcisions to prevent 1 UTI and when taking into account the cost of the procedure, the chances of complications and the rest that it is not really a large net gain (if one at all). Additionally, most of the STD benefits are seen in countries where HIV is a huge problem and with very high risk populations. I don't think it is necessarily fair to translate that to everywhere else in the world.
I don't really know much on the issue. Is it a vestigial feature like the appendix? If so then it kind of makes sense to do the operation. If not then it doesn't really make sense to do if there are risks.
The only benefit of being circumcised, is it lowers the risk of men being infected with HIV, by as much as 60%. However, you would likely have to fall into a high risk category to make it worthwhile.
Having said that, if you do decide to get cut, make sure a Rabbi performs the operation.
This topic is one of those things that will become controversial no matter what because it deals with:
- Parenting
- Ethics/morals/religion/consent
- The penis
For me, I have also recently had to think about this decision as we are expecting a boy early next year. I also have a background in health policy and work in an evidence based health organization
I will say to the OP that you question is quite timely, as the Canadian Paediatric Society very recently reviewed their position on newborn circumcision.
As of Sept 2015, the Society has maintained that they do not recommend the procedure for every newborn male. The American society has also reviewed their position, and also do not recommend it (citation needed)
Note the study is reviewing the procedure based on medical evidence only, and does not take into account of religious and ethical reasoning behind their decision
While there is some evidence that circumcision may convey some positive benefits, the risk/reward ratio is so balanced, and with availability of other procedures and options that can convey similar benefits (use of contraceptives, HPV vaccines), that it is challenging to make definitive recommendations for the entire male newborn population in Canada.
At the end of the day, it is ultimately the parents decision, and it should be made with all of the facts on the pros and cons of having the procedure done. If you do have the procedure, please ensure that it is done at the hospital by the OB doctor. While the numbers show most of the time everything is done correctly, the stats behind complications due to this procedure is higher than expected.
Lastly from a policy perspective, based on the decision, it is likely the procedure will remain uncovered by universal health care.
I posted this in the last circumcision thread, but since this one is still going, I figure I post it here as well.
Just some addition information to answer some of the questions I've seen in this thread:
I attached the CPS benefit and risk table. This can help illustrate what the numbers show from their review:
TABLE 1: Potential risks and benefits of neonatal circumcision
Outcome/Effect size (reference)
Potential risks
Minor bleeding/ 1.5% (combined)
Local infection (minor)/ NNH = 67 [39]
Severe infection/ Extremely rare
Death from unrecognized bleeding/ Extremely rare
Meatal stenosis/ NNH 10–50 (<1% when petroleum
jelly is used)
Potential benefits
Prevention of phimosis/ NNT = 67 [7]
Decrease in early UTI/ NNT = 111 – 125 [16]
Decrease in UTI in males with
risk factors (anomaly or
recurrent infection)/ NNT = 4 – 6 [15]
Decreased acquisition of HIV/ NNT = 298 (65 – 1231 depending
on population) [28]
Decreased acquisition of HSV/ NNT = 16 [32]
Decreased acquisition of HPV/ NNT = 5 [32][35]
Decreased penile cancer risk/ NNT = 900 – 322,000 [36][37]
Decreased cervical cancer risk
in female partners/ NNT = 90 – 140 [35]
HPV Human papillomavirus; HSV Herpes simplex virus; NNH Number needed to harm; NNT Number needed to treat; UTI Urinary tract infection
Also I checked the latest American Pediatric Society recommendation. I was wrong in my post above as they do recommend for parents that choose it, as they also describe a benefit to having it done.
Quote:
"Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it." http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ent/130/3/e756
I think it's interesting that the Canadian society actually says not recommended for all boys, but the Americans just leave it as recommended if parents choose it. Similar findings, but the message is slightly different.
Also something interesting between Canadians and Americans is the rate of circumcision. Canada is about 30%, and Americans are closer to 60%. I don't have the figures internationally, but I would expect a higher rate in middle east countries, and lower for Europe, Australia, and Asia.
Lastly, the thing I most stress is to have the procedure done by trained professionals in a health care sitting:
Quote:
"It is imperative that those providing circumcision are adequately trained and that both sterile techniques and effective pain management are used. Significant acute complications are rare. In general, untrained providers who perform circumcisions have more complications than well-trained providers who perform the procedure, regardless of whether the former are physicians, nurses, or traditional religious providers." (AAP)
Although this didn't help in the original post
Anyways, debate away as both the US and Canada regulatory body leaves the decision ultimately to the parents
LChoy
__________________
Last edited by LChoy; 11-02-2015 at 10:23 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to LChoy For This Useful Post:
The research shows that there is zero difference in sexual satisfaction.
10/10 men report pleasure during sex regardless of circumcision, sexual partner, sexual orientation, which hole it was put in, if that hole is human, if that hole is in an inanimate object, if that hole is created using the curvature of their right and/or left hand.
__________________
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
IMHO the medical benefits/risks are really not the issue. It's all about the ethics, and I implore anyone reading this thread who consider themselves open minded to take 10 mins and give this article a read:
As the social anthropologist Sara Johnsdotter has pointed out, there is no one-to-one relationship between the amount of genital tissue removed (in males, females, or indeed in intersex people), and either subjective satisfaction while having sex, or a feeling of having been personally harmed because one’s ‘private parts’ were altered before one could effectively resist. Medically unnecessary genital surgeries – of whatever degree of severity – will affect different people differently. This is because each individual’s relationship to their own body is unique, including what they find aesthetically appealing, what degree of risk they feel comfortable taking on when it comes to elective surgeries on their reproductive organs, and even what degree of sexual sensitivity they prefer (for personal or cultural reasons). That’s why ethicists are beginning to argue that individuals should be left to decide what to do with their own genitals when it comes to irreversible surgery, whatever their sex or gender.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to karl262 For This Useful Post:
By the way the rest of his videos are hilarious.
