-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Male Circumcision
- Thread starter Tigress
- Start date
universal_brother
Member
CIRCUMCISION - a patient's guide
Dr Gerald Young - Family Doctor
Introduction Circumcision is a subject that is somewhat like religion or politics to discuss. People tend to have strong views on the subject from a predetermined position and no amount of evidence will change their positions. I have found that the best that I can do is to provide information and make people aware of some of the main facts about circumcision.
Reasons for circumcision: 1. Hygiene
Many parents believe that it is more hygienic or at least it is easier to care for a boy's penis if it is circumcised.
Infection or inflammation of the foreskin affects 10% - 14% of uncircumcised boys. Inflammation of the glans (balanitis) is twice as frequent in an uncircumcised child than a circumcised child, and it is greater than five fold in adults. Urinary tract infections occur in about 1 in 100 uncircumcised boys in the first year of life, and 1 in 1,000 in circumcised boys.
There is an increased risk of inflammation and infections of the foreskin and glans in uncircumcised males. However it will come down to personal opinion whether the increased risks are significant enough to warrant circumcision.
2. Other infections
Uncircumcised adults have an additional increase in the risk of foreskin infection, such as candida (thrush) if they also have diabetes.
There have been studies that have showed that some sexually transmitted infections (STIs), particularly gonorrhea and syphilis, are less frequent in circumcised men. Other STIs such as herpes, NSU and genital warts have similar rates in both groups.
Studies from Africa have shown that circumcised men are at less risk of becoming HIV infected than uncircumcised men however this is not reproduced in USA studies. The suggestion has been put forward that the reason for this is that there is a different HIV subtype in Africa than in developed countries, which may account for the difference.
3. Religious Reasons
Circumcisions for religious reasons date back to Biblical times and the story of Abraham circumcising himself and his sons as a sign of his devotion to God. Jews and Muslims continue this custom to this day and firmly believe that circumcision is an integral part of their religion.
Other religious groups also continue the practice of circumcision to a greater or lesser degree.
4. Cultural Reasons
Some cultures strongly believe in circumcision, and circumcision is an integral part of their culture. Notably the Pacific Islanders in New Zealand have an almost 100% circumcision rate. The Pacific Islanders traditionally choose to have circumcision performed in late childhood or early puberty as a rite of passage to manhood.
5. Medical Reasons
Some males will need to have circumcision for medical reasons because of recurrent inflammation and infection to the foreskin and glans. This can produce tightening of the foreskin (phimosis) that makes it difficult or impossible to retract the foreskin, which leads to poor hygiene and further infections.
Circumcision or dorsal slit (which is dividing the foreskin on the upper side of the penis to make the foreskin easier to retract) are the only solutions in this circumstance. In 2-10% of boys phimosis can occur without a significant history of infection of the foreskin, however the treatment is the same.
6. Social/Sexual
Some men seek to have circumcision because they or their partners prefer to have a circumcised penis. Some of the reasons found for this request are that the foreskin is very tight with an erect penis but may not be a problem when the penis is not erect. In some cases the foreskin can tear with an erection.
Some couples complain of the smell of the smegma especially with oral sex (fellatio) before circumcision. Others state that they just prefer the appearance of a circumcised penis to a non-circumcised penis.
There is no evidence to suggest that sexual performance is different between circumcised versus non-circumcised men.
7. Cancer Risk
There is a 1 in 400-900 risk of getting cancer of the penis in uncircumcised men. This is not a high risk and I have not had anyone have a circumcision to prevent cancer as a reason.
Dr Gerald Young - Family Doctor
Introduction Circumcision is a subject that is somewhat like religion or politics to discuss. People tend to have strong views on the subject from a predetermined position and no amount of evidence will change their positions. I have found that the best that I can do is to provide information and make people aware of some of the main facts about circumcision.
Reasons for circumcision: 1. Hygiene
Many parents believe that it is more hygienic or at least it is easier to care for a boy's penis if it is circumcised.
Infection or inflammation of the foreskin affects 10% - 14% of uncircumcised boys. Inflammation of the glans (balanitis) is twice as frequent in an uncircumcised child than a circumcised child, and it is greater than five fold in adults. Urinary tract infections occur in about 1 in 100 uncircumcised boys in the first year of life, and 1 in 1,000 in circumcised boys.
There is an increased risk of inflammation and infections of the foreskin and glans in uncircumcised males. However it will come down to personal opinion whether the increased risks are significant enough to warrant circumcision.
2. Other infections
Uncircumcised adults have an additional increase in the risk of foreskin infection, such as candida (thrush) if they also have diabetes.
There have been studies that have showed that some sexually transmitted infections (STIs), particularly gonorrhea and syphilis, are less frequent in circumcised men. Other STIs such as herpes, NSU and genital warts have similar rates in both groups.
Studies from Africa have shown that circumcised men are at less risk of becoming HIV infected than uncircumcised men however this is not reproduced in USA studies. The suggestion has been put forward that the reason for this is that there is a different HIV subtype in Africa than in developed countries, which may account for the difference.
3. Religious Reasons
Circumcisions for religious reasons date back to Biblical times and the story of Abraham circumcising himself and his sons as a sign of his devotion to God. Jews and Muslims continue this custom to this day and firmly believe that circumcision is an integral part of their religion.
Other religious groups also continue the practice of circumcision to a greater or lesser degree.
4. Cultural Reasons
Some cultures strongly believe in circumcision, and circumcision is an integral part of their culture. Notably the Pacific Islanders in New Zealand have an almost 100% circumcision rate. The Pacific Islanders traditionally choose to have circumcision performed in late childhood or early puberty as a rite of passage to manhood.
5. Medical Reasons
Some males will need to have circumcision for medical reasons because of recurrent inflammation and infection to the foreskin and glans. This can produce tightening of the foreskin (phimosis) that makes it difficult or impossible to retract the foreskin, which leads to poor hygiene and further infections.
Circumcision or dorsal slit (which is dividing the foreskin on the upper side of the penis to make the foreskin easier to retract) are the only solutions in this circumstance. In 2-10% of boys phimosis can occur without a significant history of infection of the foreskin, however the treatment is the same.
6. Social/Sexual
Some men seek to have circumcision because they or their partners prefer to have a circumcised penis. Some of the reasons found for this request are that the foreskin is very tight with an erect penis but may not be a problem when the penis is not erect. In some cases the foreskin can tear with an erection.
Some couples complain of the smell of the smegma especially with oral sex (fellatio) before circumcision. Others state that they just prefer the appearance of a circumcised penis to a non-circumcised penis.
There is no evidence to suggest that sexual performance is different between circumcised versus non-circumcised men.
7. Cancer Risk
There is a 1 in 400-900 risk of getting cancer of the penis in uncircumcised men. This is not a high risk and I have not had anyone have a circumcision to prevent cancer as a reason.
Tigress
Working-Class W*nch.
'Voluntarily' being the key word.--Infants cannot volunteer themselves for circumcision, so what justifies the decision to have it done? Is it ethical to volunteer someone for an operation that's completely unnecessary? Should it even be legal?michel said:
The article presented here by universal_brother mentions that the study centered on men in South Africa, which begs the question: Does location play a hand in the effects of having, or not having been circumcised?--The data, the article says, shows male circumcision prevented about 7 of 10 infections. Under what circumstances were these men living, and in turn, was cleanliness a factor?
According to Wikipedia, thedirect medical benefits of neonatal circumcision are still under debate. ... In the words of the BMA, "There is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research."[32] Biases notwithstanding, some studies decided that circumcision has a net benefit,[37] some decided that it has a net decrement,[38] and others decided that the benefits and risks balance each other out and that other factors must be taken into consideration. [39],[40] See Medical Aspects of Cirumcision.
Despite possible differences in severity, and percentage of removal, any comparision lies in the fact that both are, as far as we are aware at this point in time, unnecessary, as well as involuntary, and both carry great risks.nutshell said:
Ãanisty
Well-Known Member
No, both carry risks, but the risks for male circumcision are not great. Necessity is really going to depend on opinion. I'm sure Jews feel it is necessary. As far as involuntary goes, we do a lot of things without asking our children what they think. Parents get to judge what's best for their children.
nutshell
Well-Known Member
The idea that a child needs to consent is a bit ridiculous to me. They are infants. That means the grown ups make the decisions. If your child doesn't consent to eating his broccoli or going to bed are you going to let them have their way? What if they don't consent to curfew?
I'm sorry, but the anti-circumcision folks need to come up with a better argument.
I'm sorry, but the anti-circumcision folks need to come up with a better argument.
darkpenguin
Charismatic Enigma
nutshell said:
i'm sorry but mutilation of a child should not be consented by anyone, unless its for medical reasons and there is a genuine reason for it being done it is wrong! would you get your child tattooed? i think not! i'd even go as far as saying ear peircing is wrong until the child is old enough to make an educated decision.
spacemonkey
Pneumatic Spiritualist
Tigress said:
Innoculation isn't necessary but it sure helps.
Ãanisty
Well-Known Member
Funny you should say that. When I think of tattoos on children, the only thing that really comes into question is the fact that as they grow, the tattoo may become distorted and that kinda sucks. However, if a culture wants to tattoo their children anyway, I don't mind. Oh, and I don't consider it mutilation...not even close. As long as people who are anti-circumcision keep referring to it as mutilation, you can be certain that a good portion of your intended audience is going to write your argument off as nonsense.darkpenguin said:
darkpenguin
Charismatic Enigma
spacemonkey said:
it's medically sound though and is required whereas circumcision is not!
darkpenguin
Charismatic Enigma
Ðanisty said:
how can cutting off a peice of childs skin for no medical reason not be considered mutilation? i'm pretty sure cutting off a part of an adults skin and peircings tattoos etc are considered mutilation too. the only difference being, as an adult you are of sound mind to make the decisions to have things done. it's wrong to force it upon a child, it's as bad as abuse!:yes:
Simon Gnosis
Active Member
Ðanisty said:
Nope.
Society decides what is best for children, affirmed by the authority of the state.
Simon Gnosis
Active Member
Ðanisty said:
Thankfully here.
Tattooing children is considered assault and tantamount to child cruelty, punishable by imprisonment, regardless of your culture or religion.
It demonstrates the parent's complete disregard for health and safety priorites by exposing infants to contagious diseases by tattooing them with potentially infected needles.
Soon we will move to outlaw male circumcision too for similar reasons and other health concerns.
Mutilation Dansity..is deformation or removal of bodily tissue...tattooing and circumcision are both methods of mutilation.
Children should have the right to say NO to any mutilation..even ear rings (ear peircing is also strictly speaking mutilation)
I dislike your overall stance Dansity...I will be honest with you.
Still I dont have to like it...I can learn from you..and learn what I need to do.
Parents do not have absolute rights over their children. For instance, the courts have been pretty consistent in ruling that parents do not have a right to abuse their children. So, is mutilating a child's genitals abuse?
Perhaps the thing that makes it sound strange to some of us to call genital mutilation abuse is merely the fact the notion is new to some of us.
The strongest argument for circumcision is not health, but almost certainly mere tradition. That is not a logical argument, but it is probably the argument that most sways people on the issue. People are simply comfortable with what they have learned to accept. People tend to think that what exists and is done widely is for those very reasons right. That's just human nature. We're essentially a conservative animal.
Perhaps the thing that makes it sound strange to some of us to call genital mutilation abuse is merely the fact the notion is new to some of us.
The strongest argument for circumcision is not health, but almost certainly mere tradition. That is not a logical argument, but it is probably the argument that most sways people on the issue. People are simply comfortable with what they have learned to accept. People tend to think that what exists and is done widely is for those very reasons right. That's just human nature. We're essentially a conservative animal.
Revasser
Terrible Dancer
I think cutting a perfectly healthy and functional piece of anatomy from an infant because it might possibly prevent a potential infection some time in the nebulous future is plain bad medicine. We don't go willy-nilly hacking off other healthy bits of children's bodies for such paper thin reasons, so I don't see why this should be any different.
It is simply an extremely dodgy practice.
I'm not sympathetic to doing it for reasons of religious tradition either. A child may or may not end up wanting anything to do with their parents' religion, so forcing this kind of irreversible procedure on them for religious reasons strikes me as even more dodgy than the bogus "medical" reasons often cited.
I am of the opinion that, barring any real, immediate and compelling medical reasons for performing it, circumcision should not be performed at all until the child is old often to legally consent to the procedure himself.
It is simply an extremely dodgy practice.
I'm not sympathetic to doing it for reasons of religious tradition either. A child may or may not end up wanting anything to do with their parents' religion, so forcing this kind of irreversible procedure on them for religious reasons strikes me as even more dodgy than the bogus "medical" reasons often cited.
I am of the opinion that, barring any real, immediate and compelling medical reasons for performing it, circumcision should not be performed at all until the child is old often to legally consent to the procedure himself.
Smoke
Done here.
I was circumcised in the hospital before my folks took me home, when I was two or three days old, so I don't remember having a foreskin, and I can't say I'm at all sorry to have been circumcised. My uncle was circumcised as an adult, in the army, and also expressed satisfaction with the result. There are a number of advantages to being circumcised. I vividly recall a young man who came into the emergency room because his foreskin burst during intercourse, and there's a surprisingly large number of men for whom the foreskin causes problems with intercourse.
I don't blame parents at all for having it done, and my brother felt it was important to have his sons circumcised because he thought it would be healthier -- psychologically -- for them to have genitals like their father's.
Still, from what I understand, my parents and grandparents found my circumcision and the healing process fairly traumatic. And we are talking about elective surgery, however minor or routine. My own feeling is that it might be better not to routinely circumcise infants. How's that for wishy-washy?
I don't blame parents at all for having it done, and my brother felt it was important to have his sons circumcised because he thought it would be healthier -- psychologically -- for them to have genitals like their father's.
Still, from what I understand, my parents and grandparents found my circumcision and the healing process fairly traumatic. And we are talking about elective surgery, however minor or routine. My own feeling is that it might be better not to routinely circumcise infants. How's that for wishy-washy?
