Why do you care what I decide to do to my son's penis when he is born?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The US doctors' view isn't really even that different. Neither recommends routine infant cirumcision.

Actually, the European doctors have their knickers in a twist because the U.S. doctors latest report goes from neutral on circ to more positive, largely because Medicaid started not paying for the procedure in some states, and there was a desire to combat this trend which leaves poorer families less likely to circ -- and to suffer the health problems that are more likely to come about. These are families that have less ability to get even the simple antibiotics that can sure UTIs.

[Anonymous]

If you think I am a child abuser if my boy is circumcised, please call child services on me. Let's see how this shakes out and what the fallout is on you legally. If you don't call, you are a complacent bystander who is equally to blame for the "abuse" as you stand by and ignore it and clearly do not have the courage to standby your convictions. The what's done is done argument is bull because how can you be certain, I won't mutilate my child again? Just as if I hit my child, what is done is done. But I may or may not hit them again.

[Anonymous]

Me and my DH are reading this and thinking...why is this even a topic of discussion.

He certainly doesn't and didn't look at men in the bathroom and think wow your parents were crazy for not cutting or were horrible parents for cutting why are you?

It's the parents choice, and for all of you who feel so badly for the children (circ or uncircim), understand you can do nothing about it; sure you can form your own opinion or past judgement if that makes you feel better about life, and I'm sure there are other things you do as a parent that other parents judge you for, you really cannot win either way...so just let it go!

[Anonymous]

So you agree that when the AAP changed their guidelines (which still fall short of actually recommending circumcision) it was simply commentary and opinion? You can't have it both ways.

And they changed those guidelines suspiciously after insurance companies and then Medicaid stop covering the procedure. I find it suspicious. It's pretty easy money for hospitals. But of course, if fewer insurance companies cover it and certainly if Medicaid stops covering, fewer people will get it done, and the hospitals lose another source of revenue.

And for the argument of one poster that the poor will "suffer" more because they won't circumcise their boys, there are lots of people all over the world who don't circumcise their children. As long as they boys are taught to clean the area, it isn't an issue. (Of course, in areas of the world where lack of clean water affects hygiene in general, then yeah, it might increase infection.)

I find it disingenuous to argue that an increase in HIV transmission is due to fewer circumcisions. The medical community should focus on safe sex, condom usage, et cetera, as the strategy for reducing the transmission of HIV. It is misleading to suggest to parents that circumcision give protection against HIV, as that gives a false sense of security.

[Anonymous]

Thought you might want to think on this:
What price is America willing to put on a foreskin? $4.4 billion, a team of disease experts and health economists at Johns Hopkins report today in the journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. That’s the extra health care costs they predict will surface if U.S. circumcision rates continue drop over the next decade.

Currently about 55 percent of males born in the U.S. each year are circumcised. That’s down from 79 percent in the seventies and eighties. That decline has already cost the U.S. $2 billion, the experts estimate.

Male circumcision rates in Europe are currently around ten percent. If U.S. rates dropped that low in the next ten years, the authors predict:
•a 12 percent increase in men infected with HIV
•29 percent more men infected with human papillomavirus (HPV)
•a 19 percent increase in men infected with herpes simplex virus
•a 211 percent jump in the number of infant male urinary tract infections

This decrease in male circumcision would also increase risks for female sex partners. The researchers predict 50 percent more cases of both bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis. Infections of the kind of HPV linked to cervical cancer in women would increase by 18 percent.

Johns Hopkins explains the study methods in a press release:


In the study, researchers constructed a novel economic model to predict the cost implications of not circumcising a male newborn. Included in their forecasting was information from multiple studies and databases that closely tracked the number of overall infections for each sexually transmitted disease, as well as the numbers of new people infected. Costs were conservatively limited to direct costs for drug treatment, physician visits and hospital care, and did not include indirect costs from work absences and medical travel expenses.

Circumcision opponents call the practice cruel. This summer, a German court went as far as to outlaw the procedure for young boys. The New York Daily news reports:


In the United States, a vocal movement of “intactivists,” or people who oppose male circumcision, is engaged in a fierce debate with doctors over the practice of clipping baby boys’ foreskins.

Actor Russell Crowe may be the most famous of them. Earlier this year he declared on Twitter: “Circumcision is barbaric and stupid,” before swiftly tweeting sorry to anyone who thought he was “mocking the rituals and traditions of others.”

yeah, that sounds like a great trend to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Increasingly Jews aren't circumcising. There was a thread on that here a couple of months ago. I suggest you look at it before trying to make this an anti-semetic issue which it IS NOT.

and good for them, but there still are many (most) that do (and there are many more mixed couples, especially around here). I think there is a large undercurrent of anti-semitism in this whole discussion on DCUM. I personally don't care what you do, and I wish the same respect would be given to everyone else.

Well, other than the US, the countries with the highest rates of circumcision are Muslim. Do you also think that people who are against cutting boys are prejudice against Muslims? I have to say that you are bat-shit crazy if you think that anyone here is saying anything against your religion. We are talking about a practice that is outdated and irrelevant in the modern day. Religions evolve and adapt - or they should. Many people use religion to justify being against same sex marriage. Do you think that saying they are wrong is prejudice against their religion?

Also, I should add, if you are going to justify doing this, I find it much more reasonable when people do it for religious reasons than for faux health benefits. At least they are up front about their reasons. And it's much more palatable to hear that than "I wanted my kid to look like his dad". Sigh.

+1. I can respect if someone does it for religious reasons, even though I'm not religious. I wish they'd be more enlightened and rational, but I can respect their religious tradition, even while thinking what they are doing is not in their child's best interest. But what I find absolutely pathetic is when people get deluded into the idea of "health benefits" (which are not non-existant, but pretty slim and irrelevant in developed countries) in order to justify cultural habit. And the fact that the American medical establishment is largely complicit in this just shows how pervasive the cultural bias is. If you look at this from an international perspective, there isn't much support outside of religion. And this is the big difference from vaccines, which are supported by all international medical organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not let someone as judgmental and clearly in need of therapy change my son's diapers. Just would not do it. We don't have a lot of judgmental psychos in our boys diapers. Just sayin'

Yes, this. It's astonishing this poster has any friends at all. Certainly, the second Judge Judy mentioned that was too bad that the other mother "mutilated" her son would be the end of the friendship -- and every parent in a several mile radius would know to avoid her like the plague.

You continue to try to cast people opposing circumcision as a crazy minority. They are not, trust me. Not everyone is as passionate about it as some posters here, but the numbers of people who think what you are doing is wrong (and will judge you for it on some level) are growing.

[Anonymous]

Oh for the love of god. Everybody just shut-up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thought you might want to think on this:
What price is America willing to put on a foreskin? $4.4 billion, a team of disease experts and health economists at Johns Hopkins report today in the journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. That’s the extra health care costs they predict will surface if U.S. circumcision rates continue drop over the next decade.

Currently about 55 percent of males born in the U.S. each year are circumcised. That’s down from 79 percent in the seventies and eighties. That decline has already cost the U.S. $2 billion, the experts estimate.

Male circumcision rates in Europe are currently around ten percent. If U.S. rates dropped that low in the next ten years, the authors predict:
•a 12 percent increase in men infected with HIV
•29 percent more men infected with human papillomavirus (HPV)
•a 19 percent increase in men infected with herpes simplex virus
•a 211 percent jump in the number of infant male urinary tract infections

This decrease in male circumcision would also increase risks for female sex partners. The researchers predict 50 percent more cases of both bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis. Infections of the kind of HPV linked to cervical cancer in women would increase by 18 percent.

Johns Hopkins explains the study methods in a press release:


In the study, researchers constructed a novel economic model to predict the cost implications of not circumcising a male newborn. Included in their forecasting was information from multiple studies and databases that closely tracked the number of overall infections for each sexually transmitted disease, as well as the numbers of new people infected. Costs were conservatively limited to direct costs for drug treatment, physician visits and hospital care, and did not include indirect costs from work absences and medical travel expenses.

Circumcision opponents call the practice cruel. This summer, a German court went as far as to outlaw the procedure for young boys. The New York Daily news reports:


In the United States, a vocal movement of “intactivists,” or people who oppose male circumcision, is engaged in a fierce debate with doctors over the practice of clipping baby boys’ foreskins.

Actor Russell Crowe may be the most famous of them. Earlier this year he declared on Twitter: “Circumcision is barbaric and stupid,” before swiftly tweeting sorry to anyone who thought he was “mocking the rituals and traditions of others.”

yeah, that sounds like a great trend to me.

What's the source for this? It sounds like the Onion. Of course if what you were saying were true, European countries (and many others around the world) would have higher rates of HIV than the US. Is this true? No. They would have higher rates of HPV. Also not true. They would have higher rates of UTIs, again not true. And they would have higher rates of Herpes. Again, not true. Where on earth do those statements come from and how can anyone keep a straight face while trying to defend them? Utterly laughable.

[Anonymous]

URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS
According to the literature reviewed,
?1% of boys will develop a UTI within
the first years of life.2 There are no
randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
linking UTIs to circumcision status.
The evidence for clinically significant
protection is weak, and with easy
access to health care, deaths or longterm
negative medical consequences
of UTIs are rare. UTI incidence does
not seem to be lower in the United
States, with high circumcision rates
compared with Europe with low circumcision
rates, and the AAP report
suggests it will take ?100 circumcisions
to prevent 1 case of UTI. Using
reasonable European estimates cited
in the AAP report for the frequency of
surgical and postoperative complications
(?2%), for every 100 circumcisions,
1 case of UTI may be
prevented at the cost of 2 cases of
hemorrhage, infection, or, in rare
instances, more severe outcomes or
even death.
Circumcision fails to meet the criteria
to serve as a preventive measure for
UTI, even though this is the only 1 of
the AAP report’s 4 most favored arguments
that has any relevance before
the boy gets old enough to decide for
himself.

[Anonymous]

Penile cancer is 1 of the rarest forms
of cancer in the Western world (?1
case in 100 000 men per year), almost
always occurring at a later age. When
diagnosed early, the disease generally
has a good survival rate. According
to the AAP report,2 between
909 and 322 000 circumcisions are
needed to prevent 1 case of penile
cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection
with human papillomaviruses,5
which can be prevented without
tissue loss through condom use
and prophylactic vaccination. It is
remarkable that incidence rates of penile
cancer in the United States, where
?75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim
male population is circumcised,1 are
similar to rates in northern Europe,
where #10% of the male population
is circumcised.6
As a preventive measure for penile
cancer, circumcision also fails to meet
the criteria for preventive medicine: the
evidence is not strong; the disease is
rare and has a good survival rate; there
are less intrusive ways of preventing
the disease; and there is no compelling
reason to deny boys their legitimate
right to make their own informed decision
when they are old enough to
do so.
TRADITIONAL STDs
According to the AAP report,2 there is
evidence that circumcision provides
protection against 2 common viral
STDs: genital herpes and genital warts.
However, the evidence in favor of this
claim is based primarily on findings in
RCTs conducted among adult men in
sub-Saharan Africa. For other STDs,
such as syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia,
circumcision offers no convincing
protection. The authors of the
AAP report forget to stress that responsible
use of condoms, regardless
of circumcision status, will provide
close to 100% reduction in risk for
any STD. In addition, STDs occur only
after sexual debut, which implies that
the decision of whether to circumcise
can be postponed to an age when
boys are old enough to decide for
themselves.

[Anonymous]

How about this, from the U.K.? Shows plenty of medical reasons one might choose to circ.
Very balanced, and hardly the you-are-mutilating-your-child article:

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/circumcision

Indications for circumcision

The most common reason given for circumcision is to fulfil ritual/religious requirements although it is being increasingly performed to prevent the acquisition of HIV in areas where that disease is rife, such as East and Southern Africa.[1] Strict medical reasons for circumcision include:[7]

Phimosis: when the distal prepuce cannot be retracted over the glans penis, it is known as phimosis. In preschool children it is not unusual for there to be thin adhesions to the glans. This physiological phimosis is quite normal. At age 3 years about 10% of boys are unable to retract the foreskin but, by adolescence, 99% of boys achieve retraction. Severe phimosis is quite rare in young children and can be demonstrated by bulging of the foreskin during micturition. It should be remembered that circumcision is not the only option and preputioplasty can also be performed (this preserves the prepuce). Acquired phimosis occurs because of:
Poor hygiene
Chronic balanitis
Repetitive forceful retraction of foreskin
Phimosis does not obstruct the flow of urine but it can lead to infections, paraphimosis and interference with normal sexual activity.
Paraphimosis: this is the inability to pull the foreskin from the retracted state back over the foreskin. It is a urological emergency which can lead to ischaemia of the glans if left untreated. This can arise, for example, after retraction of the foreskin for catheterisation. If it cannot be reduced, a dorsal incision may be required, followed by circumcision electively.
Recurrent balanitis: balanitis is infection of the glans (posthitis is infection of the foreskin). Balanitis and posthitis respond to antibiotics and warm baths. Both may be caused by poor hygiene.
Balanitis xerotica obliterans.

Circumcision has other suggested benefits and indications:

Recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI). An American meta-analysis reported that uncircumcised males were 23.3% more likely to develop a UTI in their lifetime compared to circumcised males.[8] However, a Cochrane review recommended further research before routine circumcision could be recommended for the prevention of UTIs in all males.[9] Even in children who have complex renal problems, such as uretero-vesicular reflux, the situation is far from clear and decisions have to be taken based on the risks and benefits for individual patients.[10]
Prevention of penile cancer. A UK meta-analysis reported a strong link between childhood circumcision and a reduction in the subsequent development of invasive penile cancer. This was thought to be more marked where there was a history of phimosis. There was some evidence that circumcision in adulthood was associated with an increased risk of invasive penile cancer. There was no effect on the development of intra-epithelial penile cancer when circumcision was performed at any age.[11]
Reduction in the risk of sexually transmitted infection (STI). The evidence-base.supporting circumcision for the prevention of syphilis is equivocal.[12][13] Trials report that circumcision reduces HIV acquision by 53-60%, herpes simplex virus type 2 acquisition by 28-34% and human papillomavirus prevalence by 32-35% in men. Bacterial vaginosis was reduced by 40% and Trichomonas vaginalis infection was reduced by 48% in the female partners of circumcised men.[14]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thought you might want to think on this:
What price is America willing to put on a foreskin? $4.4 billion, a team of disease experts and health economists at Johns Hopkins report today in the journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. That’s the extra health care costs they predict will surface if U.S. circumcision rates continue drop over the next decade.

Currently about 55 percent of males born in the U.S. each year are circumcised. That’s down from 79 percent in the seventies and eighties. That decline has already cost the U.S. $2 billion, the experts estimate.

Male circumcision rates in Europe are currently around ten percent. If U.S. rates dropped that low in the next ten years, the authors predict:
•a 12 percent increase in men infected with HIV
•29 percent more men infected with human papillomavirus (HPV)
•a 19 percent increase in men infected with herpes simplex virus
•a 211 percent jump in the number of infant male urinary tract infections

This decrease in male circumcision would also increase risks for female sex partners. The researchers predict 50 percent more cases of both bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis. Infections of the kind of HPV linked to cervical cancer in women would increase by 18 percent.

Johns Hopkins explains the study methods in a press release:


In the study, researchers constructed a novel economic model to predict the cost implications of not circumcising a male newborn. Included in their forecasting was information from multiple studies and databases that closely tracked the number of overall infections for each sexually transmitted disease, as well as the numbers of new people infected. Costs were conservatively limited to direct costs for drug treatment, physician visits and hospital care, and did not include indirect costs from work absences and medical travel expenses.

Circumcision opponents call the practice cruel. This summer, a German court went as far as to outlaw the procedure for young boys. The New York Daily news reports:


In the United States, a vocal movement of “intactivists,” or people who oppose male circumcision, is engaged in a fierce debate with doctors over the practice of clipping baby boys’ foreskins.

Actor Russell Crowe may be the most famous of them. Earlier this year he declared on Twitter: “Circumcision is barbaric and stupid,” before swiftly tweeting sorry to anyone who thought he was “mocking the rituals and traditions of others.”

yeah, that sounds like a great trend to me.

What's the source for this? It sounds like the Onion. Of course if what you were saying were true, European countries (and many others around the world) would have higher rates of HIV than the US. Is this true? No. They would have higher rates of HPV. Also not true. They would have higher rates of UTIs, again not true. And they would have higher rates of Herpes. Again, not true. Where on earth do those statements come from and how can anyone keep a straight face while trying to defend them? Utterly laughable.

www.cbsnews.com/.../declining-circumcision-rates-may-add-$4-billion-i

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Male circumcision rates in Europe are currently around ten percent. If U.S. rates dropped that low in the next ten years, the authors predict:
•a 12 percent increase in men infected with HIV
•29 percent more men infected with human papillomavirus (HPV)
•a 19 percent increase in men infected with herpes simplex virus
•a 211 percent jump in the number of infant male urinary tract infections

Is this for real or a marketing scheme?
I enough about statistic to question this, and wonder you do not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Male circumcision rates in Europe are currently around ten percent. If U.S. rates dropped that low in the next ten years, the authors predict:
•a 12 percent increase in men infected with HIV
•29 percent more men infected with human papillomavirus (HPV)
•a 19 percent increase in men infected with herpes simplex virus
•a 211 percent jump in the number of infant male urinary tract infections

Is this for real or a marketing scheme?
I enough about statistic to question this, and wonder you do not

Priceless. Thank you.