According to American Academy of Pediatrics Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every male in my family is mutilated and none of remember it happening. Surprisingly, we are all fine, fully functioning men (and toddler).

Next subject please.

Many abused victims don't remember their molestations either. Does it excuse the wrong that happened to them? Is it only bad if the person can remember? When did the bar get set so low?

That's one of the dumbest responses I've ever seen on DCUM.

It left you without retort, therefore it's dumb? That's says a lot about your comprehension skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like what my OB recommends-- a boy's penis should look like his father's. This seems to be the best advice.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
At Georgetown the give the newborns 'sugar-water"---no anesthesia when they perform it. My boys didn't even cry. That dose of sugar water is pure genius. Granted---the older the male---the more invasive/larger and the sugar water is no longer as useful.

Do people really believe circumcision doesn't hurt? If you know your baby feels pain from a heel prick/ injection/ vaccine, do you really thing cutting off foreskin and leaving his penis raw for days does not hurt? Here's the procedure done in a doctor's office. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXVFFI76ff0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to bring the vax/circ thing full circle and point out that a vaccine for HIV is expected before boys born now will become sexually active.

What about dick cancer, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, etc? It wasn't just HIV...

What about them? do you see Europeans or other non-circ populations dying or suffering in hoards from these afflictions? Their STD rates are lower than ours.

[Anonymous]

I think it's absolutely necessary for some people to believe that. The physical reality is too much to acknowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like what my OB recommends-- a boy's penis should look like his father's. This seems to be the best advice.

How often do they both pull them out out to compare?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every male in my family is mutilated and none of remember it happening. Surprisingly, we are all fine, fully functioning men (and toddler).

Next subject please.

Many abused victims don't remember their molestations either. Does it excuse the wrong that happened to them? Is it only bad if the person can remember? When did the bar get set so low?

Great analogy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's absolutely necessary for some people to believe that. The physical reality is too much to acknowledge.

So the aap is claiming that the benefits outweigh the risks, but you believe that a reasonable parent who comes to the same conclusion as the aap is just refusing to acknowledge reality?

[Anonymous]

I'm still not sure why we can't all agree that the medical studies do not overwhelmingly favor either side of the issue. I did not circumcise my son. But just as I did not judge those who did circumcise when the AAP statement said that it did not recommend routine circumcision, I would now hope not to be judged for not circumcising after the shift to recommending that the medical benefits outweigh the risks but each parent should make their own decision. I find it confusing that everyone who went against the AAP's former recommendation and circumcised their sons is now insisting that those who don't believe in circumcision follow the AAP.

This is really a minute shift on the AAP's part to try to get insurance to cover circumcision again.

[Anonymous]

Why should we agree that the medical evidence supports neither side when the recommendation states the benefits out weigh the risks. The recommendation says insurance should cover circumcision because of the medical befits and preventive affects. We all know insurance is trying to wiggle out of paying for procedures with the slightest hint of it boeing cosmetic.

[Anonymous]

I have a stupid question. Are condoms more difficult to use if a man is not circumcised?

I've never been with an uncircumcised partner. My question is genuine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in altering my baby. No ear piercings, no circ.

BUT keep in mind ladies, men have told me that a foreskin equals less oral sex for the guy. Some girls are just not into it. These men told me they circ'd for their sons' future with the ladies.

There was even a study on this..and you are correct. Also--sorry males---boys and men often aren't as hygenic as women. There is a well-documented increase in infection because they don't lift up the foreskin and clean that area adequately. The term 'd*ck cheese' is appropriate.

Please link to study showing intact men getting less oral.

Really, parents are so eager to circ a newborn to ensure he gets fellatio later in life?
There are other options once he becomes a teenager, let's see:
- Boy decides he can live without frequent oral; or
- Boy decides to practice proper penile hygiene; or
- Boy decides to get circumcised.

What teenage boy would willing sign up for a circ...yeah right. You can scrap that as an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every male in my family is mutilated and none of remember it happening. Surprisingly, we are all fine, fully functioning men (and toddler).

Next subject please.

Many abused victims don't remember their molestations either. Does it excuse the wrong that happened to them? Is it only bad if the person can remember? When did the bar get set so low?

Great analogy!

Really? Comparing circ to molestation--you anti-circ people really are out of your frickin' minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should we agree that the medical evidence supports neither side when the recommendation states the benefits out weigh the risks. The recommendation says insurance should cover circumcision because of the medical befits and preventive affects. We all know insurance is trying to wiggle out of paying for procedures with the slightest hint of it boeing cosmetic.

Because saying that the benefits outweigh the risk doesn't mean that it is automatically the best practice. It simply means that what benefits that come from circumcision outweigh the small risk that is involved in the procedure. BUT the statement goes on to say that the health benefits are NOT great enough to warrant routine circ.

Those really are two very distinct points. Anyway, I think it is clear that studies show that circ can be very helpful in reducing STD/HIV transmission in certain high risk populations. AAP was likely partly motiviated by wanting medicaid to cover the procedure since the connection between HIV and poverty is well documented.

In the end, AAP still urges parents to make their own decision.

[Anonymous]

For those saying that the procedure doesn't really hurt infants

The AAP ALSO acknowledged the a sugar coated pacify is NOT adequate pain relief for infants undergoing the procedure. They recommend an injection to numb the area.

I really appreciate that they came out with that statement.

I also think people here need to read the actual statement and now poorly worded journalist interpretations.