Circumcision...

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Questatement Nor does a person with a third leg appendage know the freedom of unobstructed bipedaism. Frank Lentini "While his extra leg was several inches shorter than the others, his primary legs were also two different lengths. He was heard to complain that even with three legs, he still didn't have a pair."

talk about irrelevant... I guess if you can't beat an argument you simply ignore it, eh?

[Questatement]

What are you mumbling about?

[Cruella]

Get back on topic, please.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Questatement]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo talk about irrelevant... I guess if you can't beat an argument you simply ignore it, eh?

I would respectfully like to request that you elaborate on this post as it is currently unclear to me exactly what you are trying to say.

Thank you very much.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Praxius Regardless nothing.... most here who are defending circumcisions are not mere apologists, they have been directly circumcised and are speaking from first hand experience.

This does not refute the logical argument. That being that there is no medical benefit for general circumcision that can't be had with less invasion procedures. You don't cut off your nose to prevent a stuffy nose, you take medication, it's less invasive.

Our very opinion on the matter is more valid then those who never had it done in the first place.

I'm afraid that logically, you are wrong. Opinion is irrelevant in the face of facts.

You guys keep going off on these various studies as if none of us ever bothered to look into our own personal conditions before and are totally ignorant.

We are trying to show you that your opinion is not fact. In the presence of fact it is illogical and unreasonable to continue to promote your opinion.

I know these studies, I know all the reports, the claims, the arguments, the sensation crap....

The sensation crap? Why is it crap? You don't seem to have any evidence to dispute the fact but yet you call the facts crap.

it still doesn't make a difference. No matter how much one wants to argue, I and many others are more then perfectly fine as we are, just as those with foreskins are perfectly fine as they are.

The argument isn't whether you think it's perfectly fine because you have a circumcised penis. We are giving you facts and you are ignoring them in favor of your opinion. I think my slave is perfectly happy being my slave. Am I wrong to keep a slave? Besides the fact that it's illegal, I mean, why should it be illegal if my slave is happy and you without a slave are happy?

Each group has their % of people who do have problems, which is why there is no absolute final say in this debate, and I don't feel either side is absolutely right.

That is a poor argument to perform an unnecessary procedure.

Unecessary is subjective and as shown countless times before, there are legit reasons for having the procedure done.

Not in this case. There are no legit reasons to perform generalized circumcision. No one has shown "countless times" that there are legit reasons, there have been illogical and emotional pleas but no legit reasons.

A quick list to recap:

• Tight foreskin that actually cuts off circulation and can cause gangrene

Please provide the study that shows this.

• Reduction in ability to contract infections

Proper cleaning does this and is less invasive

• Reduce sensitivity which prevents premature ejaculation, thus longer sex.

This is true however, what right do you have to determine what's best for your sons adult sex life? Billions of men do not experience the problem you note and millions of circumcised men have a problem with premature ejaculation, disproving your hypothesis.

• Religious reasons

pretty sick huh.

• Reduction in ability to contract various STD's

condoms are MORE effective than circumcision.

• Personal choice to want their penis to not have a foreskin, similar to breast enlargement or reduction.

Except that there is no choice for the child while no surgeon would perform a breat augmentation on an infant... why? Because that is a decision for an adult to make about their fully formed body.

Heck even in breast enlargements, which serve no medical purpose whatsoever, can and do reduce sense of touch in the area. Yet that's totally accepted by most. I sure don't hear anybody crying over that.

So? "tweaking" you child's future sexual pleasure is not really your place. Not to mention that breast augmentation is a choice the patient makes, not someone else.

Ignore these facts and studies all you guys wish, it matters not to me, as each individuals reasons are subjective.

Facts are not subjective and I have positively shown that circumcision is not the least invasive method to accomplish the protections you cite.

"A newborn doesn't get that chance to decide though" ^ Doesn't matter.... a newborn doesn't have a say in anything except when it's hungry.

So I should be able to cut off my childs arms to prevent it from getting Carpel Tunnel Syndrome? I should be able to have my daughter go through a female circumcision performed to right?

^ How many of us personally care?

A lot of us.

I don't. You're trying to defend those who do not even want your defense let alone care about it.

In your obviously uninformed opinion.

Lots of things are done without our consent.... it's not that big a deal.

Not that big a deal? Then why have unnecessary surgery performed?

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Questatement Hot off the press and based on excerpts from "Circumcision, Sex, God and Science”, Edgar J. Schoen, MD, Book Surge, 2009. Circumcision - a Lifetime of Medical Benefits Click on 'further proof' under each brief for summary slides on the detailed studies. 8. Women's Preference, Sexual Activity, Psych Effect: "Sexual function is not adversely affected by newborn circumcision. On the contrary, published evidence shows that circumcised men have a wider variety of sexual activity, and women prefer circumcised men, mainly because of better genital hygiene. Over the past 5 years multiple clinical studies involving men circumcised as adults have shown that it is a myth that the foreskin is important in sexual pleasure and sensitivity. It was found that there was no significant difference in sexual pleasure or sensitivity before or after circumcision. This is not surprising in view of the complicated cascade of neurological, hormonal, metabolic, emotional and vascular factors involved in the sexual act. A survey of U.S. Midwestern women who had sex with both uncircumcised and circumcised men found that they preferred circumcised men by a margin of 3 to 1. The main reason was improved genital hygiene, but the women felt the circumcised penis looked and felt better, and interestingly, most of them felt that it looked 'more natural.' A survey of prostitutes published in the London Times found that 90% preferred the circumcised penis, again for reasons of improved hygiene. Issues of smegma, debris and odor apparently are important to women who deal with many penises." I find it interesting that the anti-circumcision movement didn't start until the 1970's. About the same time we were attempting to eliminate God from every other sector of Western society by what ever means possible - even, in this case, bad medical science.

It is a crime in my mind to have an unnecessary, invasive medical procedure for religious reasons unless you consent. Infants do not consent.

Now, as to your "study". How many opposing studies cancel one of yours? You already posted this guys blog and I've already debunked it. Nice try though, will you just rehash the same sites every few pages?

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Questatement From Schoen again. "The newborn period is the window of opportunity for circumcision. Physiologically the infant is prepared to deal with stress- hormone levels of adrenaline, cortisone and thyroid are very high as are endorphins. The foreskin is thin and healing is rapid. Circumcision performed at an older age is more difficult, riskier, takes longer and about 10 times more expensive." Immediate benefits for the infant include reduced chances of - Urinary Tract Infections Kidney Infections Invasive Penile Cancer Phimosis Balanoposthitis Genital Hygiene Problems Multiple other benefits will also come into play when the circumcised male becomes a sexually active adult.

All of those are solved by proper hygiene. Sorry, your dr. is a religious quack.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Questatement Religious value is what ever value is attached to circumcision by the individual or group so choosing to assign that value. For the ancient Hebrew people, it was a symbolic recognition that they were set apart from the surrounding populations as the foreskin of the penis represented that which formed a barrier between God and man. Namely, a disregard for what God values, since God's value system is based on that which fosters a restored relationship with mankind. I think another symbolic aspect of circumcision is reflected in the fact that it sets the human penis apart from the rest of the animal/mammal kingdom... animals being associated with base desires more or less out of their control whereas man is a free moral agent.

Frankly, this is the worst possible argument you can make. As an anti-religion person I find it ridiculous to think that the removal of the foreskin is the best way set themselves apart. I mean when you think about it, it's really a hilarious notion that THIS is the best way god could come up with to distinguish jew from gentile. Even a tattoo would be better... Your god is a hoot, or an idiot.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Questatement Daily bathing was a bit of a luxury in ancient times unless you lived in a place where a body of water was conveniently waiting in a natural setting. Soap? Sure, but more work to produce or trade for it.

TADA!! The religious lie is exposed to the light of truth. Like other religious things imposed and later excused, like don't eat shellfish or pork. Game OVER.

Most people with access to water didn't bathe daily because there was no concept of hygiene or viruses or bacteria et al.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Questatement WARNING - Highly anecdoctal post. You got me thinking how my wife views the scar of my circumcision. I got her cornered in the bedroom, stripped naked and asked her to list all of my scars. She named my appendix removal scar and the one I put in my arm with the claw of a hammer attempting to remove the spike of one of her high-heeled shoes. When she seemed out of scars, I informed her there was one more and it was actually the largest of the three (not bragging, my others are small). Even with a minor in biology, she was stumped. Her only guess was that, although out of character for me, maybe I had plastic surgery before we met and I was just telling her after twenty-two years. When I informed her it was my circumcision, she thought I was trying to start a game of 'kiss-it-better' (new term to me too). After realizing I was serious, she asked why I quizzed her and I told her that I was simply curious. Her last comment... "Personally, I think an uncircumcised penis looks like a scar that didn't heal right." Like I said, eye of the beholder.

Personally 2 breasts aren't as good looking as one so I should be able to cut off my infant girls left breast. Hey, it's 100% effective in preventing left breast cancer and it's 100% effective in reducing the cheese that can form under an unwashed breast and it prevents men from ogling her and discriminating against her... hell might as well remove both eh? The benefits outweigh the detriments.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Questatement As far as risks, I'll default to Schoen again. 11. Circumcision Methods, Local Anesthesia, and Risks There are 3 acceptable methods for performing newborn circumcision: 1) Plastibell method, 2) Gomco clamp, and 3) Mogen clamp. All 3 methods should be done with local anesthesia. The key to a quick, safe, painless newborn circumcision depends more on the experience of the operator than on the technique used. The methods of local anesthesia include dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB), ring block and anesthetic cream. Having the baby suck on a sucrose (sugar) pacifier also decreases pain. The risks of a properly performed circumcision are rare (0.2-0.6%) and usually minor. Local infection and bleeding are the most common complications, but are generally easily controlled. In over 500,000 circumcisions in New York State there were no deaths or penile amputations. The rare reported deaths have almost all been due to general anesthesia, which in my opinion, should only be used in special circumstances. An experienced operator is the key to a quick and safe circumcision.

Again with this loon? Give it up already sheesh.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Praxius Apparently not, since I don't remember any pain.... give it a try and cut something off, let me know.

How about some medical studies that prove infants feel pain and that anesthesia wasn't always used but is now. I wonder why.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Questatement In other words, you have nothing that has not already been thrown out there and refuted but decided to blow a little smoke anyway.

Really? As far as I can see you haven't refuted anything, you've simply maintained the same arguments even after they have actually been debunked. But please, do quote those arguments that you've refuted.

1% incidence of penile cancer in countries with less than modern hygenic practices is rare? Also, where do you think the members of the ACS make their money... preventing cancer or treating it? Do you really think this is just about the client and their health?

And do Dr.s get paid to perform circumcisions? Thinking helps, you should try it.

[Questatement]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Frankly, this is the worst possible argument you can make. As an anti-religion person I find it ridiculous to think that the removal of the foreskin is the best way set themselves apart. I mean when you think about it, it's really a hilarious notion that THIS is the best way god could come up with to distinguish jew from gentile. Even a tattoo would be better... Your god is a hoot, or an idiot.

Would you also consider the command to bury one's feces in the dirt and away from where you dwell the worst possible reason because God couched it in religious terminology? Also, find me a reference to this best sanitary practice in antiquity that doesn't follow it by thousands of years.

Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. For the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you.

Oh my, it's got the word 'holy' in it... don't do it!

[Questatement]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo And do Dr.s get paid to perform circumcisions? Thinking helps, you should try it.

With both of my sons it was included in the first well-check at no extra charge.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Quest In other words, you have nothing that has not already been thrown out there and refuted but decided to blow a little smoke anyway.

No, in other words, I don't believe it bears any relevance to circumcision. If you think that the Bible containing no scientific inaccuracies would be a sound argument in favour of circumcision, feel free to post said argument. Until then, I don't see how it's relevant.

Quote by: Quest 1% incidence of penile cancer in countries with less than modern hygenic practices is rare?

It is rare in the Western world, which is what we are assumed to be discussing on this site unless stated otherwise.

Quote by: Quest Also, where do you think the members of the ACS make their money... preventing cancer or treating it? Do you really think this is just about the client and their health?

I see no reason to believe that it's not. Do you believe that the Mohels and doctors who perform circumcisions are just in it for the client's health? If we start doubting every source based on some contrived possible ulterior motives, no one is going to be able to prove anything.

[The Sexorcist]

Quote by: Clementine ...what is the point? I see it as barbaric and I would classify it as genital mutilation. I would not subject my infant son to a circumcision. Would you/did you circumcise your son? Why did you chose to or not?

Bigger Longer and Uncut!

[andrewBS]

THE REAL ORIGINS OF CIRCUMCISION IN USA :

Do you know why circumcision was introduced in US ? Because it's healthier ? Unfortunately this isn't the truth...

It was introduced during 1870s to decrease sexual pleasure and prevent masturbation because of English Puritans. Then circumcision was supposed to cure : hysteria and moral laxity(1870), heart disease (1880), tuberculosis and eczema (1890), hernia (1900), excessive sexual passions (1910), syphillis (1920s), penile and cervical cancer (1940s), urinary tract infections (1970s) and now AIDS (2000).

Almost all of these reasons to circumcise have been debunked. Empirical evidence shows circumcision is just a cure searching for a disease. These new medical reasons (hygiene, decreases UTIs etc...) were created by some lobbies to rationalize this mutilation. Some of these reasons have been debunked recently like UTIs :Circumcision causes increase in infant UTI | ICGI - Genital Integrity

There are all sorts of myths in US about considering foreskin as useless piece of skin collecting bacterias.This is just a myth and I'm surprised to see how people can still believe such myths. 80% of men in the world are not circumcised and are perfectly well. US has the highest rate of circumcision among industrialized countries and also has the highest rates of STDs, AIDS and infections. Circumcision doesn't prevent anything. It's just a big business, even foreskins are just gold for cosmetic campagnies (a foreskin costs 250$) : Neonatal Human Foreskin Keratinocytes

Also foreskin is the most erogenous part of penis, it's packed with more than 20,000 nerve ending and plays many roles. I'm not against circumcision if a adult make the decision for himself but parents should think twice before putting their child under the knife.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Questatement I would respectfully like to request that you elaborate on this post as it is currently unclear to me exactly what you are trying to say. Thank you very much.

Sure, what does your post have to do with the topic? Better?

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Questatement Would you also consider the command to bury one's feces in the dirt and away from where you dwell the worst possible reason because God couched it in religious terminology? Also, find me a reference to this best sanitary practice in antiquity that doesn't follow it by thousands of years. Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. For the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you. Oh my, it's got the word 'holy' in it... don't do it!

And yet another fallacious analogy. I can prove that not having a pile of crap in your dwelling is more sanitary than having one. No need to look to religion at all. Circumcision however has been shown NOT to be the best way to accomplish the stated goals of hygiene and STD prevention. Not to mention that those are not the stated reasons in the bible. So if you are Jewish and wish to excise healthy tissue from your infant in the name of your god, go right ahead... other than that there is no reason to be performing it. Religion being the sacred cow... imagine if a sect of Aztec Sun worshippers decided that they need to start sacrificing animals to Tonatiuh... would you say - we have to allow it for religious freedom - ?