According to American Academy of Pediatrics Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Anonymous]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html?_r=2&hp

"The American Academy of Pediatrics has shifted its stance on infant male circumcision, announcing on Monday that new research, including studies in Africa suggesting that the procedure may protect heterosexual men against H.I.V., indicated that the health benefits outweighed the risks."

So are anti-circumcision people are gonna change their mind ? I hope so.

[Anonymous]

Are we living in Africa?

Does this study make you feel better about mutilating your son? Do you honestly need an organization to tell you it's okay to ease your guilt?

[Anonymous]

nope. not gonna change my mind.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are we living in Africa?

Does this study make you feel better about mutilating your son? Do you honestly need an organization to tell you it's okay to ease your guilt?

You think that because we don't live in Africa that we're free from danger? We happily circumcised our boys. Just like daddy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html?_r=2&hp

"The American Academy of Pediatrics has shifted its stance on infant male circumcision, announcing on Monday that new research, including studies in Africa suggesting that the procedure may protect heterosexual men against H.I.V., indicated that the health benefits outweighed the risks."

So are anti-circumcision people are gonna change their mind ? I hope so.

Hey, didn't you miss part of the story?

YES "Scientific evidence shows that the health benefits of circumcising baby boys outweigh the risks, America's top pediatrics group said Monday."

BUT... "But the "benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision," the American Academy of Pediatrics said in a policy statement, and the decision to circumcise should be up to the parents in consultation with the child's doctor."

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we living in Africa?

Does this study make you feel better about mutilating your son? Do you honestly need an organization to tell you it's okay to ease your guilt?

You think that because we don't live in Africa that we're free from danger? We happily circumcised our boys. Just like daddy!

Didn't say that, but OP used that in her OP, so I responded. Glad you are comfortable with your choice; so are we.

Family of circumcised Dad and non-circumcised boy (who is more than happy to make this choice when he reaches puberty).

[Anonymous]

Nice selective editing of what they really said. Glad you found a way to justify your decision.

[Anonymous]

Great. hopefully the rate of circs go back to historical norms of 80% so that women are subjected to sock like dog penises that are smelly and may contains diseases.

[Anonymous]

We are having a girl this time, but would not have circ'd, as we didn't with our son. I see this statement as supporting parent's right to continue to choose, and we just don't see that the benefits outweigh the risks for our family (and yes, there are benefits to having a foreskin - they're relatively minor, just as the risks of circumcision are relatively minor and the benefits are relatively minor). We just didn't see a good reason to do it (and I really didn't want to cut my newborn son again after the shots and the heel prick), so we didn't. Life goes on.

Other families can make other decisions. I think this statement makes exactly that point - that families should decide what's best for them based on their own values, religion and cultural preferences and then do that. The pros and cons on every side on this argument have just been blown way out of proportion.

[Anonymous]

Get over the whole abuse, mutilation etc.. this is a personal decision for each family. The fact that it's being pushed for insurance coverage to reduce future medical costs gives equal or more justification for have a circ done. There isn't some crazy organization mandating everyone get circed and there shouldn't be one mandating the opposite.

[Anonymous]

I have one circ'ed boy and one uncirc'ed. I strongly feel that it's a personal decision... however I strongly lean toward not circumcising. A few issues that I have with the AAPs stance are quoted from the article:

Two studies have found that circumcision actually increases the risk of H.I.V. infection among sexually active men and women, the academy noted.

Although newborn male circumcision is generally believed to be relatively safe, deaths are not unheard of, and the review noted that “the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.”

Significant complications are believed to occur in approximately one in 500 procedures. Botched operations can result in damage or even amputation of parts of the penis, and by one estimate about 117 boys die each year.

1 in 500 sounds pretty high to me... and their penises are so small and delicate, why risk botching their penis over the very slight risk that they may get AIDS from unprotected sex 18 years in the future? Why risk a botched circumcision just so the boys' penis can look like daddy's? I have some, but no major regrets circumcising my first boy... but I have zero regrets with not circumcising my other boy. Looking like daddy or each other is irrelevant... not quite sure why or when they would compare their penises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great. hopefully the rate of circs go back to historical norms of 80% so that women are subjected to sock like dog penises that are smelly and may contains diseases.

I'm personally more interested in size than the presence of foreskin. Give me 8" of natural over 5" of circ any day of the week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great. hopefully the rate of circs go back to historical norms of 80% so that women are subjected to sock like dog penises that are smelly and may contains diseases.

I actually can't tell which side you're (incoherently) arguing for. So, good job?