'Intactivists' to San Francisco: Ban circumcision

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Thor

Its odd how if you ask people who are for male circumcisions what they think about the same being done for girls they are usually loudly against that.

I think female circumcision is a little different because don't they remove the clitoris? I've read in some cultures post circumcision they also sew the vagina shut save a small opening to urinate.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

I think female circumcision is a little different because don't they remove the clitoris? I've read in some cultures post circumcision they also sew the vagina shut save a small opening to urinate.

Someone needs an anatomy lesson.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Someone needs an anatomy lesson.

ok there Dr. Gyno, the labia minora. I think like most guys who aren't Anatomy majors - that whole area is the Vag.

[simmonjam1]

If it wasn't for circumcision, I would be blind today.

I was born without eyelids. My foreskin was used as 'transplanted' eyelids at birth. So in a sense you can say I'm cockeyed.

As for the desensitization during sex...ppffft...I can go a good 5 mins, instead of 2 mins. like the uncut guys.

[Table 5]

You pee into the vagina, not out of it!

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by simmonjam1

If it wasn't for circumcision, I would be blind today.

I was born without eyelids. My foreskin was used as 'transplanted' eyelids at birth. So in a sense you can say I'm cockeyed.

As for the desensitization during sex...ppffft...I can go a good 5 mins, instead of 2 mins. like the uncut guys.

This is the greatest post I have ever read. LEGEND.

[Finny61]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/201...mentary-100816

Perhaps read this article recently done by CTV in place of CP knowledge. Overall it is certainly debatable, a good read.

[GGG]

What is the current rate of adult circumcision?



its almost zero of course. So if men aren't choosing to cut themselves to gain all of these benefits then why should we do it to babies.

No adult would ever choose to cut his forskin off for ceremonial reasons. We shouldn't push it on kids either. At least Health canada doesn't pay for it.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by fotze

My brother in law had to get one as an adult. Kept getting infections.

UTIs? Or under the hood?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by fotze

My brother in law had to get one as an adult. Kept getting infections.

Exactly he did for a sound medical reason after it was infected.

He didn't do it for some vague notion of preventative medicine or tradition. If circumcisions were limited to immediate medical need no one would have an issue.

[HOOT]

Circumcised guys do it better...

[habernac]

Originally Posted by fotze

My brother in law had to get one as an adult. Kept getting infections.

tell him that's what soap is for.

[Calgaryborn]

I really think that the negative studies of circumcision are a product of Jew bashing. Circumcision is a historical jewish religious practice that has been going on since the time of Abraham. It was the sign of the covenant between Abraham and God. It signified that God had made them an unique people unto himself; above all the other poeple of the earth.

As a christian I was under no religious compulsion to have my boys circumcised but, I chose to for two reasons. Firstly, I was circumcised back in the day and I wanted my boys to look the same. That was by far my main reason. The second was that my brother wasn't circumcised as an infant and later had to be done because of an infection that made it painful for him to pee. He went through a lot at age 9 or 10.

I had to pay to get my boys cut as it wasn't covered by B.C. medical. I was with them in the room when each of them were done. They cried but, not any longer or louder than if their soother had been taken away. It took under a week to fully heal and neither boy showed any discomfort at that time. It probably helped that they were too young to have discoverd the location of their penis.

The notion that my boys would regret my choice for them is laughable. This whole moral outrage thing is contrived. It really is much ado about nothing.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by habernac

I'm amazed at how many people still do it. Of the people we still talk to from our pre-natal class, I believe our son is the only one who didn't have it done.

Our son is going to have it done.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by habernac

tell him that's what soap is for.

I know of someone who is going to have to get it done as an adult. The skin doesnt strech enough when he gets an erection and it creates severe pain and occasionally splits.

[Stranger]

Our son had it done. The decision was made because I have it done. I went in the room with the doctor and he cried when they put him in the brace to hold him still. Once he was in there he slept through the whole procedure.

I think it's totally up to the parents and shouldn't be made into law either way.

[SportsJunky]

I chose not to have my son circumsized. He may be the only boy in the family who isn't. After holding him in my arms I just couldn't imagine allowing pain to be inflicted upon him. For what? So he looks the same as his old man or his friends? No thanks.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Hanni

You can make assumptions before seeing it all you want, what I referring to was the video in it of actual circumcisions with a baby crying harder than I have ever seen.

http://www.cps.ca/english/statements...TED%20DISEASES

Canadian Pediatric Society (hope this is enough doctors for you)

-Urinary tract infection is 4% higher in uncircumcised infants.
-Some studies show a correlation between std's and circumcision and some don't, I'll even give you this one that it will slightly help prevent HIV infection, however there is no way you can argue that condom use should be taught as the only real preventative measure.
-Complications are are however "amputation of the glans,84-86 acute renal failure,87 life-threatening sepsis and, rarely, death." Seems like unnecessary risk for a procedure that has little medical benefit.
-During infancy, the circumcised children had a statistically significantly higher risk of problems than the uncircumcised boys, but among the older children the uncircumcised boys had a significantly higher rate of penile problems, which included penile inflammation and phimosis. (draw I guess)
-Newborn infants exhibit physiological, autonomic and behavioural responses to noxious stimuli. These responses suggest that they experience pain, and there is evidence that preventing pain in newborns can be important.100 Newborns who undergo circumcision without an anesthetic have greater increases in heart rate, cry longer and have greater decreases in transcutaneous oxygen tension than those who undergo the procedure after administration of a dorsal penile nerve block with lidocaine.101 Behavioural differences have also been reported. Infants circumcised without an anesthetic were reported to show decreases in responsiveness and in optimal motor performance in comparison with those who received a dorsal penile nerve block.102 These differences were still evident a day after the procedure. Furthermore, a recent report has described significantly longer crying bouts and pain scores among circumcised boys than among uncircumcised boys during routine vaccination at 4 to 6 months of age. (some are done without anesthetic which is truly barbaric)


The CPS recommends that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely (i.e.,in the absence of medical indication) performed." Since there are no medical indications for circumcision in the newborn period, in effect, the CPS is saying that newborn circumcisions should not be performed.

Not sure if you read the whole thing, but here's the conclusion:

The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed

I.e. the conclusion of the study wasn't that circumcision should not be performed, but that doctors shouldn't be recommending it as a routine procedure -- it should be left to parents to weigh the costs and benefits.

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I really think that the negative studies of circumcision are a product of Jew bashing.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, you can't seriously be claiming that every study has some secret Jew hating bias, this isn't 1930's Germany.

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Not sure if you read the whole thing, but here's the conclusion:

Quote:
The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed

So if doctors don't recommend it then it is an unnecessary procedure, so if you have no religious motivation you're doing it for vain reasons.