Of course mutilating a baby's penis is wrong. If an adult wants the operation for personal or health reasons go for it but in no way is it right for a baby to have a very enjoyable part of their body removed against their will.
The parents doing it for health or smell reasons really bugs me as it seems like a lazy way to avoid teaching your son proper hygiene. I also don't buy argument a son needs to "look" like his father. I'm sorry your parents were ignorant and mutilated your penis but it doesn't give you the right to do the same to your son. At least the Jews are honest in saying they only perform circumcision because it is mandated by God.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
Back in 2008, I tried to look objectively at the scientific evidence for and against circumcision. I got a lot of flak from commenters who focused on the ethical issues rather than the scientific evidence. I concluded that the evidence showed small benefits and small risks, and I didn’t advocate either for or against the procedure.
On August 27, 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a revised Circumcision Policy Statement saying that the benefits outweigh the risks.
The revised policy is based on the findings of a multidisciplinary task force that did a systematic evaluation of the peer-reviewed literature from 1995 through 2010.
They report the scientific data. The decision to circumcise or not to circumcise is based on those data along with non-scientific considerations like religion, ethics, and cultural practices. It seems that most people are unable to discuss the risk/benefit data without getting all riled up about those other issues.
The AAP policy is based on a fair evaluation of the scientific evidence for and against circumcision. Ethical, religious, legal, and cultural issues are outside the sphere of science, and the AAP rightfully leaves those issues for parents and society to decide.
And follow the debate in the comments under the article.
And follow the debate in the comments under the article.
Actually, the AAP's review of literature stopped at 2010, leaving out the most important scientific piece of work ever conducted on the sexual impact of circumcision (indeed, one of the only ones ever conducted) -- a study of 5,000 couples by Frisch et al, published in late 2011, that found circumcised men and their partners were 3.5X more likely to have frequent orgasm problems, in addition to less sexual satisfaction and increased problems with vaginal pain.
The KNMG, representing 40,000 Dutch doctors, cited this study in a recent symposium on circumcision, following their 2010 report condemning infant circumcision as being risky and without medical benefit.
Moreover, a study was just published by Rodriguez et al that found a sample of men in Puerto Rico were more likely to have HIV if circumcised. This is in line with a 2009 USAID study that found, in 10 of 18 countries with data available, circumcised men were more likely to have HIV. This is important given several flawed studies in AFRICA were the primary basis for the AAP's updated stance more heavily favoring circumcision. No population level data has ever shown an HIV reduction from circumcision.
I encourage you to read the AAP's full "Technical Report" on infant circumcision, where the "Task Force" never even bothers to describe what exactly the foreskin is or the anatomy and physiology of the penis. You won't find the word 'frenulum' anywhere in the report.
Taylor's studies discussing the "Ridged Band" of nerve endings are never mentioned, and Sorrells' findings on penile sensitivity are glossed over. The AAP admits that circumcision has been found to reduce masturbatory pleasure, but omits this from any of their conclusions.
The section on penile cancer is an absolute absurdity -- penile cancer is rarer than male breast cancer. The AAP Task Force found one credible study showed that there would need to be 322,000 infant circumcisions, and 644 circumcision complications, to prevent one case of penile cancer.
Science, my friend, does not support infant circumcision. The AAP supports it because they are biased and defending their members, who are responsible for millions of infant circumcisions over the past 100 years.
Case in point: the head of the Task Force is an STD expert from the CDC. Babies aren't even sexually active. How does this make any sense?
I notice that while criticizing Goldman's 20 point response, you cherry pick your points, much like you accuse him of cherry picking the science. How does the foreskin being 6 square inches or 12 square inches make any difference in whether it should be amputated from a baby?
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
We now have most recently an early warning of that erectile dysfunction is vastly increased with boys who were circumcised, and a newer study suggests sudden infant death syndrome has ties to circumcised boys
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
I wanted to get it done on my boys but the wife after looking at the nice pictures at the hospital was against it. She won but my oldest actually had to get circumcised at 2.5 years because his foreskin was too tight and the opening too small causing infections so now one boy has it and one doesn't.
I wanted to get it done on my boys but the wife after looking at the nice pictures at the hospital was against it. She won but my oldest actually had to get circumcised at 2.5 years because his foreskin was too tight and the opening too small causing infections so now one boy has it and one doesn't.
That is the only reason it should happen, for medical reasons.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
The only reasonable benefit I am aware of is the chuckle one may get from the Weird Al lyric from Pretty Fly for a Rabbi:
“The parents pay the mohel and he gets to keep the tip.”
The Following User Says Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
That is the only reason it should happen, for medical reasons.
Or by choice when one is an adult, as was stated earlier.
It’s really bizarre how accepted it is in North America. Pretty much the only area when circumcision is popular outside of the countries that also regularly engage in female genital mutilation.
Neither situation really bothers me, it’s just a very odd thing for a modern, Western nation to also be totally cool with taking a knife to a baby’s penis for cultural reasons.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Circumcision, why is this a thing...
