How does circumcision work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eighty percent of white babies get circumcised each year. (Other groups are lower.) I think that the anti-circumcision zealots here are in the minority, thankfully, because the medical evidence re: AIDS and other STDs is overwhelmingly in favor of circumcision.

Feel free to flame away and call me brainless like you called other moms above. Because I think you're a little nutty on this topic.

Actually circumcision rates are down in the entire country to 60/40, I believe. The difference is even more significant in the populated coasts. Personally, I am stunned that peer approval is actually a reason to do it. Many of your child's peers are not/will not be circed. If that was really a concern, I hope you checked circ rates at hospital because it's lower than you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes to circumcision, not to forced circumcision. See the diff?

What are you talking about?

Circumcision is awesome for helping prevent the spread of HIV. Circumcision is a personal choice/preference that men should be allowed to make. Promoting circumcision among adults in HIV-ravaged countries is a good idea. Yay for circumcision! It is the performing of it on babies who have no role in the decision that is the idea in question.

I'm not anti-circumcision. I think we should really question forced circumcision. I don't understand why it's so radical to allow the boy to decide, and I don't see the harm in waiting until he's old enough to do so. If anyone can explain, eloquently, the objection to waiting, in the spirit of constructive discussion, please do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously comparing this to the Civil Rights Movement??? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Care to explain why you think so? Care to make a point or pose an intelligent and rational response? My ears are open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eighty percent of white babies get circumcised each year. (Other groups are lower.) I think that the anti-circumcision zealots here are in the minority, thankfully, because the medical evidence re: AIDS and other STDs is overwhelmingly in favor of circumcision.

Feel free to flame away and call me brainless like you called other moms above. Because I think you're a little nutty on this topic.

What medical evidence?

Oh you mean the study that says circumcised men are 53 percent more likely to have genital warts than uncircumcised men?

http://weswell.blogs.wesleyan.edu/2008/04/04/thwart-genital-warts/

Or how about the fact that medical researchers have already stated that male circumcision has little effect on women's HIV infection:

http://www.nam.co.uk/en/news/863ED8A3-78C8-4C9C-BF22-FA0685E5D140.asp

Or how about the fact that a recent US study found NO protection from HIV transmission for circumcised men:

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN0345545120071204

Or how about the fact that a recent study released in March found that circumcising baby boys had NO impact on STD infections:

"early childhood circumcision does not markedly reduce the risk of the common STIs in the general population in such countries."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280846?dopt=Abstract

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eighty percent of white babies get circumcised each year. (Other groups are lower.) I think that the anti-circumcision zealots here are in the minority, thankfully, because the medical evidence re: AIDS and other STDs is overwhelmingly in favor of circumcision.

Feel free to flame away and call me brainless like you called other moms above. Because I think you're a little nutty on this topic.

Agreed. It really has the feel of zealotry, doesn't it? And I also agree that this level of extremism is the minority, as it is on many other controversial topics. Reasonable people disagree on this subject and respect their different opinions. I have to question the level of intensity with which these moms go on and on about how horrible it is. I mean, get a grip already. I'd love to see the way these mothers approach other aspects of their sons' lives. Honestly, in deciding whether to circ my son the very few women I knew or discussed this with--besides friends from other countries/cultures that don't circ--have made so many other decisions I question or who are such smothering mothers or who, frankly, are just annoying, they didn't do much to convince me. Besides, their nosiness into the subject made me wonder if they were questioning their own choices and were trying to bully me into making the same one to feel better about it. In fact, I'm getting the same feeling here...desperate for validation, ladies?

*yawn*

This is the same old tired line that's trotted out anytime someone has the "gall" to question circumcision and say it's wrong. They're zealots. But the people who are vehemently pro-circumcision and say that a penis that isn't circumcised is filthy and must be cut, are not fascist and zealots. Right.

It seems like you're the one seeking validation from other moms that anyone who disagrees with circumcision is a "zealot." Name calling and labeling is a childish way of shutting down discussions on subjects that you're uncomfortable with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eighty percent of white babies get circumcised each year. (Other groups are lower.) I think that the anti-circumcision zealots here are in the minority, thankfully, because the medical evidence re: AIDS and other STDs is overwhelmingly in favor of circumcision.

Feel free to flame away and call me brainless like you called other moms above. Because I think you're a little nutty on this topic.

Actually circumcision rates are down in the entire country to 60/40, I believe. The difference is even more significant in the populated coasts. Personally, I am stunned that peer approval is actually a reason to do it. Many of your child's peers are not/will not be circed. If that was really a concern, I hope you checked circ rates at hospital because it's lower than you think.

Got the 80 percent stats from NBC news. They're correct.

[Anonymous]

From what I see on this thread, one side is asking questions, and rather than answering, the other side is name calling. I agree that people can disagree and respect others' opinions. It is not respectful to brush people and their views off as zealotry, and it's not respectful to treat all the questions as rhetorical or preachy.

I'm still looking forward to some attempts at answering some of the q's here like: If the perceived benefit does not start until adulthood, why must the procedure be done as a baby? How is male circumcision different from the offensive female circumcision? Would you force this on an adult or teen son? If cosmetic or preferential, why do looks matter enough to remove some important anatomy? Why isn't this a big deal requiring a lot of consideration and thought, rather than just a piece of skin? Why is it ok to take away the child's right to a whole body outside of medical necessity or religious mandate?

[Anonymous]

I'm still looking forward to some attempts at answering some of the q's here like: If the perceived benefit does not start until adulthood, why must the procedure be done as a baby? How is male circumcision different from the offensive female circumcision? Would you force this on an adult or teen son? If cosmetic or preferential, why do looks matter enough to remove some important anatomy? Why isn't this a big deal requiring a lot of consideration and thought, rather than just a piece of skin? Why is it ok to take away the child's right to a whole body outside of medical necessity or religious mandate?

Thanks for bringing this back into the realm of rational discussion.

I would add to your list: can anyone who thinks circumcision is "okay" list five functions of the foreskin? Can you list five short or long-term complications of circumcision? I would be interested to know if the people who say that they have researched it, that it is no big deal and a perfectly reasonable decision, can answer these questions.

I'd like to say something about female vs. male circumcision. There are many types of female circumcision. Some are horrific and involve massive destruction of the female genitalia. Other types, however, are exactly equivalent to male circumcision (where the prepuce is removed). I just wanted to point out that in the western world, we see ALL forms of female circumcision as unacceptable genital mutilation, and in the United States, ALL forms have been made illegal. Also, the reasons that people in countries who circumcise girls give as justification for performing the ritual circumcision, are frighteningly similar to the reason we in the United States give for circumcising baby boys. "It's cleaner", "we prefer the way it looks", "it's healthier", "it keeps them from getting STDs", "they have to look like their moms, aunts, sisters, grandmas, etc."

[Anonymous]

Got the 80 percent stats from NBC news. They're correct.

I'm not sure why you think NBC is the place to look for accurate statistics. If you check out the CDC website, you will find that the reported incidence of circumcision is anywhere between 25% and 79% in the United States. It varies considerably by region; in the West it is the lowest, and in the mid-West it is the highest. The average for the entire US last year was right around 60%.

Eighty percent of white babies get circumcised each year. (Other groups are lower.)

The United States is the only caucasian country in the world that routinely circumcises it's baby boys. Therefore, worldwide, the percent of white babies getting circed is very low. In Canada, for example, it is about 6%. In Britain, it is about 5%. In Denmark, it is less than 1%. The vast majority of babies worldwide getting circumcised are Jewish or Muslim. And, as I mentioned above, it's not 80% in the US.

I think that the anti-circumcision zealots here are in the minority, thankfully, because the medical evidence re: AIDS and other STDs is overwhelmingly in favor of circumcision.

Unfortuately, the medical evidence is NOT overwhelmingly in favor circumcision. Remember, even the AAP does not recommend it. For every study that has "proven" that it can lower the incidence of HIV, there is a counter-study that shows it has little to no impact on it at all. The United States has higher rates of HIV than the three previously mentioned countries (Canada, Britain, Denmark). The US circumcises; those other countries do not. Why do you think their rates are much lower than ours? Probably because they are better about teaching safe sex.

[Anonymous]

am I the only one that doesn't give a crap about what others have done re: this topic? Seriously, why??? we are jewish so we had a bris but have not given it another thought since.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:am I the only one that doesn't give a crap about what others have done re: this topic? Seriously, why??? we are jewish so we had a bris but have not given it another thought since.

Nope, you aren't the only one. We are not Jewish and still chose to have our two sons circ'ed. I am not going to defend my choice to anyone nor feel bad for what is already done.

[Anonymous]

Indeed nobody gives a crap about what others have done. There is no need to interpret the presented facts, opinions, and information as attempts to make some people feel bad about past decisions.

There is a need to raise awareness about this topic among expectant and future parents. There is a need to provide full experience and information to anyone who is still considering the decision, like myself.

No one is judging or condemning what anyone has done, so let's not ignore the points and info both sides have to offer because we're inferring a personal attack that probably wasn't intended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Nope, you aren't the only one. We are not Jewish and still chose to have our two sons circ'ed. I am not going to defend my choice to anyone nor feel bad for what is already done.

I'm not asking anyone to defend what they've done. Saying that change is needed is about moving forward, not getting stuck looking backward.

Please don't let the permanence of your prior decision keep you from ingesting conflicting but perfectly well thought-out and reasonable ideas and facts that might be useful going forward.

If anyone thinks the logic and rationale as to how they made their decision might be helpful, please share. But asking for a defense of an idea is not the same as asking for a defense of an prior action. It's not personal, it's about raising awareness.

[Anonymous]

ei i dnt tink yol hav a life so go get 1 neh

[Anonymous]

I love train wreck threads, but why revive this?