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