According to American Academy of Pediatrics Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Anonymous]

My son is not circumcised and he's up to date on all of his shots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son is not circumcised and he's up to date on all of his shots.

Same here. We followed the CDC to the day. As did the other parents we knew. Actually, the only friends of ours that did delayed/sective vaxs chose to circumcise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's set Africa aside, since HIV is primarily a heterosexual disease there. (That is not the case in the U.S.)

If the U.S. has higher rates of circumcision and circumcision prevents HIV and other STDs, shouldn't it follow that STD/HIV rates are lower here than in countries with lower circumcision rates? How do our HIV/STD rates among men compare with those of, say, Western European counties?

No that does not make sense. Clearly circumcision rate is not the only difference between the US in Europe. Given that you so easily grasped that not all populations are the same in the Africa case, I'm sure you are aware that it applies to Europe as well.

[Anonymous]

Let's face it: American anti-semitism is behind anti-circ movement.

Jewish doctors with a religious agenda pushing circ.

Now pass me some of that popcorn....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's set Africa aside, since HIV is primarily a heterosexual disease there. (That is not the case in the U.S.)

If the U.S. has higher rates of circumcision and circumcision prevents HIV and other STDs, shouldn't it follow that STD/HIV rates are lower here than in countries with lower circumcision rates? How do our HIV/STD rates among men compare with those of, say, Western European counties?

No that does not make sense. Clearly circumcision rate is not the only difference between the US in Europe. Given that you so easily grasped that not all populations are the same in the Africa case, I'm sure you are aware that it applies to Europe as well.

That's kind of my point, though you don't seem to get it.

[Anonymous]

let me break it down.

Uncircumcised penis has foreskin which acts like a pocket that can trap foreign bodies, sweat, dirt, dead skin, bacteria, virus etc... anything that can slip in there especially during friction of rubbing in sexual contact.

During sexual contact there is a high chance of the skin tearing and exposing an open wound inside of this pocket.

Think about it logically of course uncirced can trap diseases more easily and contract them with tearing.

Furthermore it is very difficult to clean out this pocket especially when the child is under the age of 9 and even up to 15 when the skin is not fully able to retract.

UTIs can also occur more often because of trapped urine in the pockets. etc...

[Anonymous]

Well, the UTI risk is only studied for the first year of life - just to clarify.

T look at it from a different point of view, no matter what side you are on, do you think the insurance industry had anything to do with the decision? I did hear that Medicaid isn't covering circumcision in a lot of states and this was to try to get them to. Actually, they basically said it in the AAP release. That would make me suspicious no matter which side I'm on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, the UTI risk is only studied for the first year of life - just to clarify.

T look at it from a different point of view, no matter what side you are on, do you think the insurance industry had anything to do with the decision? I did hear that Medicaid isn't covering circumcision in a lot of states and this was to try to get them to. Actually, they basically said it in the AAP release. That would make me suspicious no matter which side I'm on.

Do you know how studies are performed? The other data will follow---I'm sure of it. It is a timeline thing.

I work in the medical field and I have never doubted the benefits of circumcision reading all of the medical studies I have over the years (even as it fell out of fashion in the more natural, yuppy movements of late)...and the fact I actually work in bacteriology and immunology....see a lot of the infections in UTI. The data is very real. People's responses are understandably emotional. A parent's job is to try to take the emotional aspect out of the health equation. If you honestly weigh the material presented. As a JHU alumnus--they aren't Kaiser--their studies are the real deal and not politically motivated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:let me break it down.

Uncircumcised penis has foreskin which acts like a pocket that can trap foreign bodies, sweat, dirt, dead skin, bacteria, virus etc... anything that can slip in there especially during friction of rubbing in sexual contact.

During sexual contact there is a high chance of the skin tearing and exposing an open wound inside of this pocket.

Think about it logically of course uncirced can trap diseases more easily and contract them with tearing.

Furthermore it is very difficult to clean out this pocket especially when the child is under the age of 9 and even up to 15 when the skin is not fully able to retract.

UTIs can also occur more often because of trapped urine in the pockets. etc...

You are also describing the labia on women. Should those be removed as well?

Also, the foreskin does not retract until puberty. Until then, there is no need to retract and there is no build-up of sweat, bacteria, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the UTI risk is only studied for the first year of life - just to clarify.

T look at it from a different point of view, no matter what side you are on, do you think the insurance industry had anything to do with the decision? I did hear that Medicaid isn't covering circumcision in a lot of states and this was to try to get them to. Actually, they basically said it in the AAP release. That would make me suspicious no matter which side I'm on.

Do you know how studies are performed? The other data will follow---I'm sure of it. It is a timeline thing.

I work in the medical field and I have never doubted the benefits of circumcision reading all of the medical studies I have over the years (even as it fell out of fashion in the more natural, yuppy movements of late)...and the fact I actually work in bacteriology and immunology....see a lot of the infections in UTI. The data is very real. People's responses are understandably emotional. A parent's job is to try to take the emotional aspect out of the health equation. If you honestly weigh the material presented. As a JHU alumnus--they aren't Kaiser--their studies are the real deal and not politically motivated.

I would rather circumcise my son ONCE he suffers from multiple UTIs rather than at his birth. So far, at age 10, he's fine.

[Anonymous]

In places where men are circumcised, we see higher incidences of STD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the UTI risk is only studied for the first year of life - just to clarify.

T look at it from a different point of view, no matter what side you are on, do you think the insurance industry had anything to do with the decision? I did hear that Medicaid isn't covering circumcision in a lot of states and this was to try to get them to. Actually, they basically said it in the AAP release. That would make me suspicious no matter which side I'm on.

Do you know how studies are performed? The other data will follow---I'm sure of it. It is a timeline thing.

I work in the medical field and I have never doubted the benefits of circumcision reading all of the medical studies I have over the years (even as it fell out of fashion in the more natural, yuppy movements of late)...and the fact I actually work in bacteriology and immunology....see a lot of the infections in UTI. The data is very real. People's responses are understandably emotional. A parent's job is to try to take the emotional aspect out of the health equation. If you honestly weigh the material presented. As a JHU alumnus--they aren't Kaiser--their studies are the real deal and not politically motivated.

Isn't the Hopkins study dealing primarily with the economic aspects?

[Anonymous]

The AAP is saying that the foreskin is a mistake in nature!
Wow!
Are they also considering the little three year olds who come back to the OR and are exposed to a general anesthetic with risk to remove a normal piece of skin? Those are the premies who did not have it done at birth. They often have some developmental problem then you subject them to a general anesthetic. BRAVO!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, the UTI risk is only studied for the first year of life - just to clarify.

T look at it from a different point of view, no matter what side you are on, do you think the insurance industry had anything to do with the decision? I did hear that Medicaid isn't covering circumcision in a lot of states and this was to try to get them to. Actually, they basically said it in the AAP release. That would make me suspicious no matter which side I'm on.

I agree that there is a financial angle. There is also a cultural angle, possibly, given recent attacks on circumcision in Germany and San Francisco. For the average middle-class American family, circumcision has been, historically, a cultural and religious decision.

It's worth noting that the AAP said only that the benefits outweigh the risks (which one would hope is true, given the. Umber of boys who are circumcised, right?) The AAP does not recommend routine circumcision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:let me break it down.

Uncircumcised penis has foreskin which acts like a pocket that can trap foreign bodies, sweat, dirt, dead skin, bacteria, virus etc... anything that can slip in there especially during friction of rubbing in sexual contact.

During sexual contact there is a high chance of the skin tearing and exposing an open wound inside of this pocket.

Think about it logically of course uncirced can trap diseases more easily and contract them with tearing.

Furthermore it is very difficult to clean out this pocket especially when the child is under the age of 9 and even up to 15 when the skin is not fully able to retract.

UTIs can also occur more often because of trapped urine in the pockets. etc...

You are also describing the labia on women. Should those be removed as well?

Also, the foreskin does not retract until puberty. Until then, there is no need to retract and there is no build-up of sweat, bacteria, etc.

male circumcision only affects the foreskin, while female circumcision affects the entire clitoris. The equivalent of female circumcision would be cutting off the entire penis head.