"Forced Genital Cutting," and Jewish circumcision

[graalbaum]

It seems that between the wars it was fashionable for upper class families in the UK to have their boys circumcised. Though the practise has alway been rare in other class groups.
After WW2 with the advent of the health service the practise virtually ceased. It could still be done privately but it was not recommended or performed by the service except for medical necessity.

To day that position has changed only slightly, in that some local health services that have high numbers of Muslims will fund circumcisions. This is to prevent the need for corrective surgery and the permanent injury caused by inexperienced unlicensed practitioners.

It seems the health providers in the USA find circumcision significantly lucrative. with corrections to botched jobs even more so. In that light they are unlikely to recommend its cessation.

The level of circumcision in the USA has reached the point where the pressure to conform now seems irresistible.

The greater unemployment amongst white collar and industrial workers may have a growing economic influence in the other direction, as the corresponding health benefits are so controversial.

its no secret thst American medicine is THE most expensive on the planet, but by far the most effective..... no shick then that there is profit in penis cutting

 

[dawny0826]

It seems that between the wars it was fashionable for upper class families in the UK to have their boys circumcised. Though the practise has alway been rare in other class groups.
After WW2 with the advent of the health service the practise virtually ceased. It could still be done privately but it was not recommended or performed by the service except for medical necessity.

To day that position has changed only slightly, in that some local health services that have high numbers of Muslims will fund circumcisions. This is to prevent the need for corrective surgery and the permanent injury caused by inexperienced unlicensed practitioners.

It seems the health providers in the USA find circumcision significantly lucrative. with corrections to botched jobs even more so. In that light they are unlikely to recommend its cessation.

The level of circumcision in the USA has reached the point where the pressure to conform now seems irresistible.

The greater unemployment amongst white collar and industrial workers may have a growing economic influence in the other direction, as the corresponding health benefits are so controversial.

As an American citizen who has given birth in an American hospital and has been provided the opportunity twice to work with American obstretricians, I beg to differ. The contempletation of choice is part of the pregnancy and childbirth experience. American parents are encouraged to make educated decisions. Much emphasis is placed on childbirth plans and what this entails. We're encouraged to select our own pediatricians prior to birth and to establish relationships with them. Whether we know the sex of our baby prior to birth or not, we can discuss topics such as circumcision, breastfeeding and immunizations before birth.

And if we do not opt to select a pediatrician prior to childbirth, hospitals usually provide their own pediatricians who can answer questions. Parents must OPT IN to any surgical procedure or immunization and the hospital and attending physician is responsible for educating. Parents provide release and consent. Circumcision is not routine procedure - it is presented as choice.

As circumcision is elective, it's a cost that I'm sure parents are willing to absorb, if insurance doesn't cover it. Statistics do not support the degree of "botches" and failures that you and others claim. As with any surgical procedure, there are risks involved, but the majority of infants heal from the procedure without complication within 7-10 days. This is fact. Perhaps unlike you and others, I've experienced or have known enough men who can attest to this fact.

The AAP and CDC, which are reputable sources for those within the medical community in the US, do not advocate the procedure at all. They recommend balanced decision making.

Whatever pressure to conform you speak of, isn't anything that I've seen as an American. It isn't anything that my family has seen, as professionals working in American hospitals.

Circumcision is presented as choice and statistically, people are choosing the procedure, less, which is fine.

No one is pushing the procedure on anyone. What people are doing is defending the right to have the procedure done from an educated, perspective.

 

[graalbaum]

As an American citizen who has given birth in an American hospital and has been provided the opportunity twice to work with American obstretricians, I beg to differ. The contempletation of choice is part of the pregnancy and childbirth experience. American parents are encouraged to make educated decisions. Much emphasis is placed on childbirth plans and what this entails. We're encouraged to select our own pediatricians prior to birth and to establish relationships with them. Whether we know the sex of our baby prior to birth or not, we can discuss topics such as circumcision, breastfeeding and immunizations before birth.

And if we do not opt to select a pediatrician prior to childbirth, hospitals usually provide their own pediatricians who can answer questions. Parents must OPT IN to any surgical procedure or immunization and the hospital and attending physician is responsible for educating. Parents provide release and consent. Circumcision is not routine procedure - it is presented as choice.

As circumcision is elective, it's a cost that I'm sure parents are willing to absorb, if insurance doesn't cover it. Statistics do not support the degree of "botches" and failures that you and others claim. As with any surgical procedure, there are risks involved, but the majority of infants heal from the procedure without complication within 7-10 days. This is fact. Perhaps unlike you and others, I've experienced or have known enough men who can attest to this fact.

The AAP and CDC, which are reputable sources for those within the medical community in the US, do not advocate the procedure at all. They recommend balanced decision making.

Whatever pressure to conform you speak of, isn't anything that I've seen as an American. It isn't anything that my family has seen, as professionals working in American hospitals.

Circumcision is presented as choice and statistically, people are choosing the procedure, less, which is fine.

No one is pushing the procedure on anyone. What people are doing is defending the right to have the procedure done from an educated, perspective.

denying that American healthcare is predominantly about profit first, people second... is like denying that the earth is not flat. Outside of USA, medicine does not appear on billboards and tv.

ps I am American citizen

 

[Koldo]

Out of curiosity,

Isn't the right of a person to its own body the main reason as to why abortion is currently legal on USA?

How exactly circumcision fits in with this when it is clearly a violation of this right?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

All medicine is rationed in some way.
In the USA it seems to be rationed to those who can pay in some way.
In Europe it is rationed to those that are sick in some way.
In the third world it is rationed to the fortunate.

 

[Say Amen]

Male circumcision eliminates a small covering of the head of the penis, leaving the penis fully functional. The part removed is not needed. Millions of years ago, it served to protect the head of the penis, when primitive man evolved out of equatorial Africa where clothing was not used, leaving the highly sensitive head of the penis exposed to wind, sun, and high brush. Today, men's clothing protects better than the foreskin. This is like our toenails, which are also an evolutionary remnant from our earlier ancestors that needed toe claws to climb trees.

Female circumcision removes the entire clitoris, which is still needed today, just as it was needed millions of years ago. Removal deprives the female of a significant part of the pleasure of sexual intercourse. The clitoris is still needed to help propagate our species. Removing the clitoris is not like removing the male foreskin. It is like removing the entire head of the penis.

Medical research has proved that the foreskin is unhealthy. This is because the foreskin allows bacteria and viruses to grow under the foreskin, unless it is frequently washed by pulling it back and cleaning underneath it.

Several valid and large studies have proved that circumcised men are significantly less likely to have penile cancer and their mates are significantly less likely to have vaginal or uterine cancer. Adult male circumcision in Africa has caused a huge reduction in the transmission of the HIV virus that leads to AIDS. The results of independent studies were so dramatic that the researchers were required by medical ethics to advise the control groups of the results before the full proposed length of the research had elapsed, so the control groups would be permitted to elect circumcision.

 

[Koldo]

Medical research has proved that the foreskin is unhealthy.

You didn't really mean it. Right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Several valid and large studies have proved that circumcised men are significantly less likely to have penile cancer and their mates are significantly less likely to have vaginal or uterine cancer.

As I mentioned earlier, the best evidence is that 3 in a million uncircumcised men get penile cancer every year and 1 in a million circumcised men get penile cancer every year.

IOW, circumcision will increase the likelihood that you'll get through a year without contracting penile cancer from 99.9997% to 99.9999%

What's the risk of having a serious systemic toxic reaction to the local anaesthetic used for circumcision? It's most likely low, but it's definitely not zero. Does the decreased risk of penile cancer outweigh the increased risk of serious side effects from anaesthetic?

Adult male circumcision in Africa has caused a huge reduction in the transmission of the HIV virus that leads to AIDS. The results of independent studies were so dramatic that the researchers were required by medical ethics to advise the control groups of the results before the full proposed length of the research had elapsed, so the control groups would be permitted to elect circumcision.

That story sounds extremely fishy. But do you know what reduces the transmission of HIV even better than circumcision, and in fact makes circumcision irrelevant to disease transmission? CONDOMS.

 

[Aquitaine]

Medical research has proved that the foreskin is unhealthy. This is because the foreskin allows bacteria and viruses to grow under the foreskin, unless it is frequently washed by pulling it back and cleaning underneath it.

Here's an idea then, try washing your dick. Simple.

I wonder:

1) If it could be shown that removing part of the Clitoral Hood in females would reduce the chances of viruses/bacteria, and...

2) If it was shown to be true, would the same people who support male circumcision on infants, for those reasons, also support it being done on females (clitoral hood, not clitoris)?

 

[graalbaum]

Male circumcision eliminates a small covering of the head of the penis, leaving the penis fully functional. The part removed is not needed. Millions of years ago, it served to protect the head of the penis, when primitive man evolved out of equatorial Africa where clothing was not used, leaving the highly sensitive head of the penis exposed to wind, sun, and high brush. Today, men's clothing protects better than the foreskin. This is like our toenails, which are also an evolutionary remnant from our earlier ancestors that needed toe claws to climb trees.

Female circumcision removes the entire clitoris, which is still needed today, just as it was needed millions of years ago. Removal deprives the female of a significant part of the pleasure of sexual intercourse. The clitoris is still needed to help propagate our species. Removing the clitoris is not like removing the male foreskin. It is like removing the entire head of the penis.

Medical research has proved that the foreskin is unhealthy. This is because the foreskin allows bacteria and viruses to grow under the foreskin, unless it is frequently washed by pulling it back and cleaning underneath it.

Several valid and large studies have proved that circumcised men are significantly less likely to have penile cancer and their mates are significantly less likely to have vaginal or uterine cancer. Adult male circumcision in Africa has caused a huge reduction in the transmission of the HIV virus that leads to AIDS. The results of independent studies were so dramatic that the researchers were required by medical ethics to advise the control groups of the results before the full proposed length of the research had elapsed, so the control groups would be permitted to elect circumcision.

yawn propoganda....

 

[graalbaum]

As I mentioned earlier, the best evidence is that 3 in a million uncircumcised men get penile cancer every year and 1 in a million circumcised men get penile cancer every year.

IOW, circumcision will increase the likelihood that you'll get through a year without contracting penile cancer from 99.9997% to 99.9999%

What's the risk of having a serious systemic toxic reaction to the local anaesthetic used for circumcision? It's most likely low, but it's definitely not zero. Does the decreased risk of penile cancer outweigh the increased risk of serious side effects from anaesthetic?


That story sounds extremely fishy. But do you know what reduces the transmission of HIV even better than circumcision, and in fact makes circumcision irrelevant to disease transmission? CONDOMS.

well americans (the moral msjority)have huge moral problems/ineptitude with contraception, plus an inability for basic hygene it appears.... glad I aint touching their unclean members


id never even heard of foreskins and penis cancer till I talked to americans....true dat

 

[Me Myself]

Again, you know what causes more damage than circumsicion to peole of all sexes and have no good reason for why parents and society allow it and give it to children?

Sugar. Plain old refined sugar. Its completely useless and it giving us a #%^liad of problems, yet I havent heard anyone saying we should outlaw sugar for kids.

Its useless, the only reason a parent would give sugar to their kids is so they "enjoy" it and bcause they are having it too. Which is of course an extremely fishy reason for something so useless that causes so many problems, SO MANY MORE problems than circumsicion.

So if you truly want such a nonsense "evil" as circumsicion be outlawed, start with the real problems at least, and then come to the almost completely irrelevant concerns.

 

[Aquitaine]

Again, you know what causes more damage than circumsicion to peole of all sexes and have no good reason for why parents and society allow it and give it to children?

Sugar. Plain old refined sugar. Its completely useless and it giving us a #%^liad of problems, yet I havent heard anyone saying we should outlaw sugar for kids.

Its useless, the only reason a parent would give sugar to their kids is so they "enjoy" it and bcause they are having it too. Which is of course an extremely fishy reason for something so useless that causes so many problems, SO MANY MORE problems than circumsicion.

So if you truly want such a nonsense "evil" as circumsicion be outlawed, start with the real problems at least, and then come to the almost completely irrelevant concerns.

I don't think anybody here is suggesting raising a child off junk food. Whilst I understand your point, I'm not quite sure they are directly comparable in the sense that the moment you give your kid, say,1 chocolate bar - a perfectly healthy and functioning erogenous zone of his body isn't being permanently altered with and removed.

I do get the gist of what you're saying though, but again I'm not sure they're directly comparable.

Oh and for the record, had this thread have been titled "Why it's okay to raise my kid off of junk food" then I too would be arguing against the idea.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't think anybody here is suggesting raising a child off junk food. Whilst I understand your point, I'm not quite sure they are directly comparable in the sense that the moment you give your kid, say,1 chocolate bar - a perfectly healthy and functioning erogenous zone of his body isn't being permanently altered with and removed.

I do get the gist of what you're saying though, but again I'm not sure they're directly comparable.

Oh and for the record, had this thread have been titled "Why it's okay to raise my kid off of junk food" then I too would be arguing against the idea.

If you didnt get the comparison by all means tell me where you get lost.

Giving sugar to kids is useless and there are FAR GREATER PROBLEMS caused by it than just cutting some foreskin. Almost no one gets any problem for it and almost no one cares.

I can bet my nuts there are far more people hating their parents for the eating habits they were taught than because they circumsized them, so I am just saying parents make WAY MORE IMPORTANT choices for their kids than this.

 

[Aquitaine]

If you didnt get the comparison by all means tell me where you get lost.

Giving sugar to kids is useless and there are FAR GREATER PROBLEMS caused by it than just cutting some foreskin. Almost no one gets any problem for it and almost no one cares.

I can bet my nuts there are far more people hating their parents for the eating habits they were taught than because they circumsized them, so I am just saying parents make WAY MORE IMPORTANT choices for their kids than this.

Oh I see. I thought you meant that, say, if a parent gave their child just one sugary snack , it would be worse than circumcision. Perhaps I was being a bit too over-the-top before.

The act of a parent raising their kids on junk does get a lot of criticism globally, I think the reason why we don't "hear" it as much is because it's not even a debate - people already know it's stupid. You don't get people trying to defend it for religious/cultural/aesthetic/zero-sum medical reasons.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh I see. I thought you meant that, say, if a parent gave their child just one sugary snack , it would be worse than circumcision. Perhaps I was being a bit too over-the-top before.

The act of a parent raising their kids on junk does get a lot of criticism globally, I think the reason why we don't "hear" it as much is because it's not even a debate - people already know it's stupid. You don't get people trying to defend it for religious/cultural/aesthetic/zero-sum medical reasons.

Nah, one is not that bad.

Well, what I am saying is that circumsicion is very close to the bottom of the list of things that damage kids, so who cares?

There are so much bigger fish to fry on that, that it really is irrelevant.

 

[Aquitaine]

Nah, one is not that bad.

Well, what I am saying is that circumsicion is very close to the bottom of the list of things that damage kids, so who cares?

There are so much bigger fish to fry on that, that it really is irrelevant.

Hmmm.
Y' see we'd have to disagree right there. But hey, at least you admitted that it's a negative "fish" which needs to be "fried", and that it's damaging. :highfive:

 

[Me Myself]

Hmmm.
Y' see we'd have to disagree right there. But hey, at least you admitted that it's a negative "fish" which needs to be "fried", and that it's damaging. :highfive:

I said its on the bottom of the list which it means at itay very well be neutral

I dont know if it causes any bad, its very subjective anyways. You are just changing something of the body, that's it.

 

[Aquitaine]

I said its on the bottom of the list which it means at itay very well be neutral

I dont know if it causes any bad, its very subjective anyways. You are just changing something of the body, that's it.

Right - it's essentially zero-sum with a permanent after-effect.
So the question should be "why bother?" rather than "why not?" - right?

For the record, I'm not talking about it being done on consenting adults, I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

[graalbaum]

Again, you know what causes more damage than circumsicion to peole of all sexes and have no good reason for why parents and society allow it and give it to children?

Sugar. Plain old refined sugar. Its completely useless and it giving us a #%^liad of problems, yet I havent heard anyone saying we should outlaw sugar for kids.

Its useless, the only reason a parent would give sugar to their kids is so they "enjoy" it and bcause they are having it too. Which is of course an extremely fishy reason for something so useless that causes so many problems, SO MANY MORE problems than circumsicion.

So if you truly want such a nonsense "evil" as circumsicion be outlawed, start with the real problems at least, and then come to the almost completely irrelevant concerns.

strawman....

swallowing hydrochloric acid is more harmful than sugar

so what?