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

Forum Index » Expectant and Postpartum Moms

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

I love how the anti circs totally disregard the positive health benefits, even when they are posted. Over and over again.  And try to equate Johns Hopkins with The Onion.

I actually have no problem with those who decide against the procedure for their kid.  But anyone who tries to call me a mutilator better be ready for the reaction. (OF course, as we see from this thread, they know how unpopular they'll be so they keep their mouths shut, except on anonymous message boards.)[/quote]

We are completely aware of the health benefits, but - like all medical organizations in the Western world outside of the US - regard them as not significant enough to support routine infant circumcision. The Johns Hopkins study is culturally biased, and has failed to convince the rest of the world. The available evidence has been reviewed by a large group of international researchers (not just European) who did not find it compelling (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract). There is nothing for you to "love" there. Our stance is well-founded and supported by the majority of secular medical professionals in the world. And yes, posting news articles reporting about the same, biased study "over and over again" is not going to change that.

It's also funny that you think this thread shows how "unpopular" people opposed to circumcision would be. That was not my impression. My impression is that there are a good number of well-articulated, intelligent people with rational arguments against circumcision, and a bunch of defensive morons flinging the same insults over and over again.

And if you really think that the fact that we don't call anyone a mutilator in face-to-face conversation is a matter of cowardice or duplicity rather than normal social behavior and good manners, you really have a problem. But I will assume you actually know that this is just another vain attempt to discredit our position.[/quote]

So, you admit there are health benefits to circumcision. You and members of the foreign medical community are entitled to your opinion that are not significant but that is a far cry for there are no health benefits. If my experiences and research lead me to the conclusion that they are significant enough to justify the procedure, my opinions should be respected.

There is hardly a unanimous worldwide opinion on this topic. The american medical community is clear that there are benefits and it remains a decision to be made by the family.[/quote]

Nobody on this thread every said there are no health benefits. You haven't been reading very closely if you think what I said is a new concession. The point is that the health benefits are minimal, and they only have any relevance in the context of developing countries, where the willingness to use proper STI protection is low, clean water for personal hygiene is scarce, and treatment options for UTIs aren't available like they are here. That is the consensus among medical professionals in developed countries other than the US. And not even AAP recommends it as a routine procedure.[/quote]

+1 on this. The health benefits are minimal and limited. The Johns Hopkins study was farcical and that's why people are saying it seems onion-like. Seriously, billions in increased health costs? None of this has panned out in countries where circumcision is not the norm.

Additionally, you could make the argument that lopping off other body parts would carry prophylactic health benefits. For instance, if we removed EVERY woman's breasts, then we might save money on breast cancer research. LIkewise, take the adenoids and gallbladders and appendices of every human, so we don't have as many instances of those becoming infected. But we dont do that. WE wait until and if there is a problem and then act, right? Because the benefits haven't been proven to make sense for most human beings. And that is the problem with the medical evidence. It's flimsy at best, limited in scope, and 3/4 or more of the benefits would be more fully realized if men were to use condoms 100 percent of the time. [/quote]

+1,000,000.  I wish some of the crazies here would read and think about this post, if nothing else.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics