Had routine circumcision been in place-48% reduction in STD's

circ boys:
decreases the risk of UTI's
lowers the risk of contracting various STD's /STI's
severely decreases (if not eliminates) the risk of penile cancer, lowers the incidence of other forms of cancer
decreases the incidence of cervical cancer in women who partner circ'd men
decreases the incidence of contracting STD's/STI's for women who a circ'd men
Removal of foreskin eliminates possibility of smegma
Babies who get circumcised will not have to get circumcised as adults - pain will be forgotten, expense will be lower
It is cleaner.
The risk of getting phimosis or paraphimosis is practically non-existant
Balanitis and BXO are exclusive to uncircumcised men
Recovery in the infant is easier and faster than in adults, with much less chances of complications

with all of these preventative measures WHY WOULDNT U. The medical proof surpases your human right perspective..

i have also read this transcrip from doctors who are doing tons of research out in africa, relating to aid/hiv and circ men. There are still alot of unanswered questions, however they are continuing to do more research and we should hear the full results next year.. heres the transcript if you would like to read it....
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/081506-ias circumcision_transcript.pdf

 

and here is the cons of circ.
1. Possible risks. As with any surgery, circumcision has some risks. Complications from circumcision are rare and usually minor. They may include bleeding, infection, cutting the foreskin too short or too long, and improper healing.
2. The belief that the foreskin is necessary to protect the tip of the penis. When removed, the tip of the penis may become irritated and cause the opening of the penis to become too small. This can cause urination problems that may need to be surgically corrected.
3. The belief that circumcision makes the tip of the penis less sensitive, causing a decrease in sexual pleasure later in life.
4. Almost all uncircumcised boys can be taught proper hygiene that can lower their chances of getting infections, cancer of the penis, and sexually transmitted diseases.

 

U as a parent(anyone reading this)has the RIGHT as a MOTHER or FATHER to decide what u belive is beneficial for your child!! Nobody has the RIGHT to tell you otherwise!!

 

Actually
Everyone has the right to express their opinions, ie "TELL YOU OTHERWISE"

I still don't think that taking a knife to a baby's genitals is a good thing, but that's my opinion. I cannot force somebody else to see it as genital mutilation if they don't want to.

 

My parents never signed off on any crazy procedures on me and I still have no STDS... hmmm I wonder why

 

If you want anything to be proven to be true , it has to be backed up by lab or clinical research,which is absent as of right now. So, stop spreading ignorance, the smegma or the foreskin will harbor carcinogenic materials when pigs start flying. You see smoking causes cancer, not foreskin. If you want scientific material regarding this, go talk to some one who has done research regarding this matter.

Uh... again lab and clinical research necessary, hypothesis and stupidity is not admissable.

If you clean yourself in the shower you won't contract anything. Things like balanitis are caused by poor hygiene. Also a whole lot of other things are also caused by poor hygiene.

Sigh, terrible terrible excuse to actually put the infant through such pain don't you think? I mean look at that baby, it has enough to worry about, it does not want to feel the extra pain when there is no reason for it to do so.

What medical proof? There is no scientific evidence backing your explanations up, stop spreading ignorance.

Whatever... I will give you some material to read ok?

Bissada NK, Morcos RR, el-Senoussi M. Post-circumcision carcinoma of the penis. I. Clinical aspects. J Urol 1986 Feb;135(2):283-5.

Bissada NK. Post-circumcision carcinoma of the penis: II. Surgical management. J Surg Oncol 1988;37(2):80-3.

Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler C, et al. Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364(9447):1757-65.

Van Howe RS, Hodges FM. The carcinogenicity of smegma: debunking a myth. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2006;20(9):1046.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You want more information... PM me here or go search the website (click on the article title it will take you there). Its time to end the stupidity.

 

*gasp* wait, you mean there are ways to prevent STDs/STIs other than circumcision? You couldn't possibly be referring to these newfangled things called condoms.

 

Oh my Gosh, you said the c word... How dare you

 

Ive done my research thank you. ! but if you would like to look it up yourself be my guest!!
I dont have the time during the day when i have a baby to do research that you obviously havent done!

Oh btw. .if you would've read my previous post http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/081506-ias circumcision_transcript.pdf
this does take into effect people who do use protection. :d page 8 and page 20.

 

I agree with eyezofanangel, jedi you give very little evidence against any of the seemingly logically explanations he gave in the aforementioned post. The proven Pros outweight the qualitative/morally implicative cons. Also Penile cancer is not caused by smoking, all the real sources of cancer have not even yet to be proven(with the exception of certain materials that increase the mutation rates of cells, i.e. asbestos, nicotine tar, etc.) only suspected, so it is no way logically or reasonable to eliminate the possibility of uncircumcision to allow carcinogeons to manifest and pool themselves on the insides of the foreskin, and even if this wasnt how the foreskin precipitates higher cancer rates, then regardless you cant ignore these increases in rates of penile cancer and STD's.

Also Maggie please clarify exactly how "rare" the tightening of the foreskin occurs?

 

That's absurd.

I would think that a human being's right to say what should and should not be removed, changed, or altered in regards to their own body is far more important than any benefit that the removal, change or alteration would bring about.

When it comes to circumcision: I'm Pro-Choice

If my boys(i have 2) want to cut their dicks, that's up to them to decide, not me.

Despite the propaganda from both sides, i've been told by multiple pediatricians( one within the last month) in regard to both of my sons that circumcision is almost purely cosmetic.

There are far more influential causes for penile cancer, stds and the like than whether a person is circumcised or not, personal behaviour being the #1 decider.


Why do you hate the natural penis?
What has it done to you?

Removing my feet would cut down my chance of getting athletes foot by 100%, but i still wouldn't do it.

 

What smoking are you talking about? I was talking about smoking that does put nicotine in people's bodies, Tar in some one's lungs. If the mutation rates increase buddy, that means there is a higher chance for these cells to proliferate uncontrollably thus leading to tumors and cancers.

Also, you may agree with anyone you like, but I am sticking with scientists who have done some research into this.

 

Hey it is too bad that you don't see the difference between STDs and Penile cancer, you point this article at my face and say "look i am right", well guess what?- you are not, if you don't have time I will tell you a little trick. on the PDF try to hit "Ctrl" and "F" key together and type in "cancer" or "Tumor" or any word related to it. You won't find a thing. WHY?- because they don't have any PROOF that you will get Penile cancer.

Second, they did NOT account for the other STDs in their study other than HIV. So go figure.

Stop spreading your own ignorance.

 

Jedi, you dont post any scientic reserach so I dont understand how you are going to "Stick with the scientists who have done "the magical research"". The only thing you post are some reports of horrendously fucked up circumcisions that appear to be occuring in third world countries over 20 years a go. Secondly I was stating that yes tar is one thing that can CAUSE an increase in mutation, but you state that because "SMOKING CAUSES CANCER" you cant get penile cancer any way other then "smoking".. and thats absurd... Yes nicotine tar(marijuana tar does not contain have the carcinogeons) correlates to an increase in cancer rates, BUT SO DOES not having your penis circumsized. It could be possibly that many many many years ago when we lived without moisture containing pants, and other restricting underwear that would have allowed our foreskins to breathe openly, we may not have had as smelly naturally uncut penises, and maybe back when men first roamed the earth their werent as many known carcinogeons floating around in shampoos, detergents, cleaners, and body products... as well as airborne carcinogeons that can get trapped inside the foreskin(various radiated particles).... then maybe not cutting your penis wouldnt have effected as much... but it seems like having a circumcision is something that needs to be done in order to adapt to the bizarre conditions we have created for ourselves as a society.

I was circumcised under jewish tradition, and I donated my foreskin as a sacramant to the thousands of years of oppression, the people who shared my genetics, tolerated. I would say however, that the maintenance involved in an uncircumsized penis, as well as the correlation in disease and cancer rates, or even risk of tightening of the foreskin, would be more then enough of a reason to have my children circumcised.

 

1) If you look at what I have posted, 2 articles talk about Post circumcision carcinoma. Thus debunking the myth of actually having "less" rates of cancer because you have cut your foreskin.

2) I do not say that with out smoking you can't get cancer, that is absurd. At a molecular level, cancer is thought to be caused by mutations in genes that control signal transduction pathways that involve Ras and other proteins that are somehow involved in cell proliferation. If you mess one of those genes up, you can cause cancer. This can happen with a virus injecting its DNA into or near an protooncogene....etc. However, what I was saying is there is NO evidence that you will get penile cancer if you are "uncut".

If you are going to be circumcised because it is something that your religion demands, then I understand that and thats quite admirable... but to claim this as something that science sugggests one should do , is just wrong. God - maybe, science- no.

 

Indeed. Good hygeine does a lot more than circumcision. If anything I'd say circumcision risks creating a false sense of security, in that people may not feel the need to wash down their if they've been circumcised.

Like most people in the UK, I'm uncircumcised, and I have never had an STD. I've never even heard of "penile cancer", unless you're referring to prostate cancer, which is odd as, if it was caused by failure to circumcise, practically my whole country would be at risk.

 

What we are trying to say that circumcision does prevent stds.. It does not mean that EVERYONE who is uncut will have some sort of std or penile cancer.. IT means 48% of men who get stds could have been prevented by being cut!!!

BTW jedi we are using Science to back up our argument because its a proven fact!! And if there can be one person without some sort of diesese becuase they are circ would'nt u want your children to take all preventive measures !! Myself being a mother i would put my childs well being 1st! Whether it be today or when hes 18. That is exactly why we get our children immunizations to prevent types of diseases that they dont have but could get!!!!!

The immediate risks of neonatal circumcision are small. Any operative procedure, including circumcision, may be accompanied by infection of the wound or excessive bleeding. Wiswell and Geschke2 found a rate of early complications (mostly local infection and bleeding) or 0.19 percent for routine infant circumcision of 136,086 boys.


http://www.cirp.org/library/general/poland/

 

How many more cases of STDs could be prevented by using condoms? Because I'm going to hazard a guess that it's more than 48%. So to be honest, no, I don't think taking all preventative measures is necessary or even particularly helpful, especially if it means physical mutilation. I think you can put your child's needs first a lot more effectively, and without lopping bits of them off, simply by educating them in use of contraception and good personal hygeine, and I don't think any amount of exclamation marks will persuade me that that doesn't do significantly more good.

 

Ok, I am talking just about the study of the origional post. It is a bogus study. I mean that yes it might show statistical signifigance for that area but is that area a good example of what goes on in the world? Not likely. That is one major thing that you have to take into consideration when looking and psychological studies or any study for that matter. A good writer and make anything sound believeable. Comeing from the psychological community I can tell that there are thousands of studies that show results but the resluts mean nothing becasue they can not be transfered outside the setting with which they where first done. So please take that article and these findings with a grain of salt.

 

Let me see if I understand the logic here:

If having sex with only one partner for life reduces STD's by 100%, then we should....?

On the other hand, it's good to mutilate a baby's penis to get a 48% reduction.