Non Jews and Circumcision - Question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why some excuse the practice if it's for religious reasons. If you think it's child abuse (many do), it's child abuse!
We wouldn't allow ritual cutting of torsos and faces in this country. Why do we allow it of penises?

Oh FFS.

Strong rebuttal.

.

I mean, what else can possibly be said in response to such histrionics?

That's pretty much the same as FFS, but with a few more words. You sound smart. You sure do write well.

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The science seems to support circumcision, though not strongly enough for it to override some people's concerns. See, e.g.: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2814%2900036-6/abstract.

I'm curious to see if the anti-circumcision people have legit, peer-reviewed studies backing up their claims regarding the risks they fear.

Some facts here. Scroll down a bit. http://www.mothering.com/forum/44-case-against-circumcision/1146643-botched-circ-statistics.html#/topics/1146643?page=1

1-3% of circumcisions require immediate surgical follow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The science seems to support circumcision, though not strongly enough for it to override some people's concerns. See, e.g.: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2814%2900036-6/abstract.

I'm curious to see if the anti-circumcision people have legit, peer-reviewed studies backing up their claims regarding the risks they fear.

Some facts here. Scroll down a bit. http://www.mothering.com/forum/44-case-against-circumcision/1146643-botched-circ-statistics.html#/topics/1146643?page=1

1-3% of circumcisions require immediate surgical follow up.

Your reference is an online forum? If its on the internet, it must be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:do you know any grown men who have had it done? it's horrendous for them. babies get over it quickly and you dont know any grown men who have felt traumatized by being circumcised as an infant.

There are many who regret it. Many don't talk about it much because they get shamed for it.

This is part of why I think a lot of pro-circ people aren't as confident in their beliefs as they present. They shout down and shame any man who expresses regrets (you can see it on DCUM if you look) and they won't let their sons make their own choices.

[Anonymous]

Also there are plenty of circumcised men who elect not to circumcize their own sons. Anecdotal but according to a pediatrician friend, the opposite is rarely true.

[Anonymous]

UMC white people here, did not circ our now 2 year old. H is, I put in my 2 cents and let him make the final call.

FWIW, of the two friends I have who are non-Jewish and have sons with whom this has been a topic, neither circumcised their sons. One of those is a physician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why some excuse the practice if it's for religious reasons. If you think it's child abuse (many do), it's child abuse!
We wouldn't allow ritual cutting of torsos and faces in this country. Why do we allow it of penises?

Oh FFS.

Strong rebuttal.

.

I mean, what else can possibly be said in response to such histrionics?

That's pretty much the same as FFS, but with a few more words. You sound smart. You sure do write well.

Thank you!

Neither of you answered the question, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The science seems to support circumcision, though not strongly enough for it to override some people's concerns. See, e.g.: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2814%2900036-6/abstract.

I'm curious to see if the anti-circumcision people have legit, peer-reviewed studies backing up their claims regarding the risks they fear.

But looking for the science to support circumcision is, in and of itself, a biased endeavor, because it assumes a) there is no harm to removing the foreskin, either short-term or long-term, and that therefore b), it's legitimate to do scientific research to determine the potential benefits.

Much ado has been made, for example, of the putative preventive benefits of circumcision with respect to preventing or minimizing the odds of contracting STDs, up to and including HIV. Setting aside the methodological flaws of the studies in sub-Saharan Africa of the studies purporting to show that male circumcision reduces the transmission of HIV (and the studies have been thoroughly critiqued, which I will not get into here) -- what about the potential benefits of *female* circumcision in preventing or minimizing the odds of contracting HIV? Most Westerners would throw a fit at even asking the question, because of cultural bias against female circumcision (i.e., it's always harmful, and there is never any justification for it whatsoever) and for male circumcision (i.e., because of the belief that at worst it is not harmful, there are potential justifications for doing it).

But: research in some African countries, such as Tanzania, has demonstrated an inverse relationship between female circumcision and HIV+ status. In other words, the more women circumcised in a region, the lower the rates of HIV+ status. Which, by the way, is the exact opposite of what researchers were expecting to find.

Here's a PowerPoint that summarizes some research findings from Tanzania and has citations of the studies:

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf

A similar study out of Kenya: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/iph_theses/98/

Now, granted, these are not randomized controlled studies, only observational -- because no IRB in the world would accept randomizing women to the female circumcision arm of a trial. Why? Again, because (in the accepted, majority view in the West) -- there can never be any justification for female circumcision. It is 100% a human rights violation, 100% of the time -- even if it's performed for religious reasons.

The point is not to advocate for female circumcision, obviously -- it's to point out the underlying cultural bias in scientific research on the benefits of male circumcision. That bias runs so deep that people don't question it. It's simply assumed that male circumcision is harmless and that the foreskin has no function but is simply extra skin. There has been far, far more effort put into scientific research justifying male circumcision for putative health reasons than there ever has been into understanding the structure and function of the foreskin. Doctors who circumcise know how to cut a foreskin off -- but they don't have the first foggy clue what it does.

[Anonymous]

Well said PP!

It is remarkable to me how so many people claiming health benefits as a reason would not rely on African health norms in any other context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well said PP!

It is remarkable to me how so many people claiming health benefits as a reason would not rely on African health norms in any other context.

To be fair, this happens across the board to justify all sorts of things, including vaccines. Poor nutrition and poor hygiene have a lot more of an impact than most people are willing to accept.

But you're right, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The science seems to support circumcision, though not strongly enough for it to override some people's concerns. See, e.g.: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2814%2900036-6/abstract.

I'm curious to see if the anti-circumcision people have legit, peer-reviewed studies backing up their claims regarding the risks they fear.

But looking for the science to support circumcision is, in and of itself, a biased endeavor, because it assumes a) there is no harm to removing the foreskin, either short-term or long-term, and that therefore b), it's legitimate to do scientific research to determine the potential benefits.

Much ado has been made, for example, of the putative preventive benefits of circumcision with respect to preventing or minimizing the odds of contracting STDs, up to and including HIV. Setting aside the methodological flaws of the studies in sub-Saharan Africa of the studies purporting to show that male circumcision reduces the transmission of HIV (and the studies have been thoroughly critiqued, which I will not get into here) -- what about the potential benefits of *female* circumcision in preventing or minimizing the odds of contracting HIV? Most Westerners would throw a fit at even asking the question, because of cultural bias against female circumcision (i.e., it's always harmful, and there is never any justification for it whatsoever) and for male circumcision (i.e., because of the belief that at worst it is not harmful, there are potential justifications for doing it).

But: research in some African countries, such as Tanzania, has demonstrated an inverse relationship between female circumcision and HIV+ status. In other words, the more women circumcised in a region, the lower the rates of HIV+ status. Which, by the way, is the exact opposite of what researchers were expecting to find.

Here's a PowerPoint that summarizes some research findings from Tanzania and has citations of the studies:

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf

A similar study out of Kenya: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/iph_theses/98/

Now, granted, these are not randomized controlled studies, only observational -- because no IRB in the world would accept randomizing women to the female circumcision arm of a trial. Why? Again, because (in the accepted, majority view in the West) -- there can never be any justification for female circumcision. It is 100% a human rights violation, 100% of the time -- even if it's performed for religious reasons.

The point is not to advocate for female circumcision, obviously -- it's to point out the underlying cultural bias in scientific research on the benefits of male circumcision. That bias runs so deep that people don't question it. It's simply assumed that male circumcision is harmless and that the foreskin has no function but is simply extra skin. There has been far, far more effort put into scientific research justifying male circumcision for putative health reasons than there ever has been into understanding the structure and function of the foreskin. Doctors who circumcise know how to cut a foreskin off -- but they don't have the first foggy clue what it does.

+1 Well said.

[Anonymous]

A short video of Egyptian women defending female circumcision and some men in Fargo, North Dakota defending circumcision.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wcJNAtn-c6I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but we’re Muslim and have the same religious requirement.

What is the reasoning?

To follow Prophet Abraham’s/Ibrahim’s example.

[Anonymous]

We are non-White, non Jews and we circumcised.

DH is also circumcised.

My BIL is not and he actually enthusiastically promoted that we circumcise our son. He circumcised his because he had issues with his non-circed penis later in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said PP!

It is remarkable to me how so many people claiming health benefits as a reason would not rely on African health norms in any other context.

To be fair, this happens across the board to justify all sorts of things, including vaccines. Poor nutrition and poor hygiene have a lot more of an impact than most people are willing to accept.

But you're right, of course.

I was on your side right up until this.