ASU2003

Because I paid $700 in taxes to that government program last year, one that I can't get any benefits from. (It's tax season and I don't like taxes)

If my state not covering this surgery would save me from paying ~$5 each year, I will take my money back.

ASU2003

What happens if it is 50%/50% cut/uncut? They wouldn't feel different or out of place. Would you feel ashamed if as a cut person went into a group shower and everyone else was intact?

This almost never happens anymore when you are a teen. I do remember taking a shower with my swimsuit on in swim class. I don't know the circumcision status of any of my friends or old classmates. We never discussed it. I'm sure older guys in the shower at gyms wouldn't even look.

I still don't think circumcising based on the fear of future potential awkward situations is right. Nor should it be used to prevent a few non-serious medical problems that don't happen in most of the boys left intact. Yes, uncircumcised boys might be tens times more likely to get an UTI, but the statistic is 1 in 1,000 circumcised boys get one versus 10 in 1,000 uncircumcised. So 990 uncircumcised boys never got an UTI in their study. Even if they did get one, cranberry juice and antibiotics work well enough for girls, who get them more often than any guy. For phimosis in the early teen years, this page has the answer.

http://www.healthboards.com/boards/s...d.php?t=210347

xepherys

If you are in the anti-circ crowd, and are an American, it's actually quite the opposite. If you want things to change in favor of your point of view, YOU need to make a good argument against it, becuase it's already a social norm here. I believe that it does NOT effect the child in any negative way, and does POSSIBLY effect him in a positive way... permanently. Can you link an article that I can not counter? So far, I've done an ample job of tearing apart the ones I've seen. For it to be a useful argument it must:

* Show fact without emotion
* Not try to make definitive statements. Studies are theory, not fact.
* Have actual numbers that appear even remotely logical
* Draw conclusions about statistics that are causal, not correlational
* Not be 2-3 pages long with 67 references. This is not a paper, this is a twist of other people's words.

Can you do this papermachesatan? Others, so far, have failed to product this type of evidence.

Charlatan

There is only one argument to be made... it is an uneccessary procedure. If there are no reliable stats one way or the other, why do it at all?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

xepherys

There is only one argument to be made... it is a potentially beneficial procedure. If there are no reliable stats one way or the other, why not do it?

SecretMethod70

Funny, that's pretty much what every single medical organization says too...yet that is somehow not enough.
xepherys, I find it interesting that you haven't responded to a single one of my posts. Being a social norm is not a valid argument for *any* permanent surgery. Female circumcision (let's speak specifically here and take this to mean the removal of the prepuce, or clitoral hood (NOT the clitoris in any way), which is essentially the equivalent of male circumcision) is quite common in some cultures, yet there is still outrage against it. In fact, just as recently as the 1950s, it was advocated by doctors in the US in papers published in medical journals.

Even setting that aside, when dealing with surgery, the case is such that a convincing argument must be made FOR it. The only exception seems to be male circumcision, and even then it is only really so in America. Why? The FDA doesn't approve drugs that have no clear evidence that they help or hurt, why then is a permanent removal of a body part different? Like I have said, I agree that some things posted here have been extreme. I *DON'T* think it is even relatively common for a circumcised male to suffer physchological problems due to the circumcision, and, no, complications are not all that common. But, I *will* make the assertion that it removes a significant source of sensitivity. The foreskin contains nearly the same concentration of nerve endings as the glans penis (this is exactly how sensitivity is measured in medicine, so don't bother to tell me that it doesn't prove anything). It also accounts for about 50% of the skin of the penis (British Journal of Urology). And, frankly, the idea that circumcision means the male can last longer is both a ridiculous and immature argument. It is also the same justification used for removal of the female prepuce, since it "gets in the way" of clitoral stimulation (and, in fact, back when that type of female circumcision was relatively common in the US, many women testified to this fact).

But, again, I will set aside the issue of sensitivity because, really, it doesn't matter. It all falls back on the fact that every other seriousmedical procedure must be JUSTIFIED, not disproven. Medicine is not unlike our justice system: you must prove the foreskin is "guilty" if you're going to cut it off, not the other way around. And, for a permanent operation on a person unable to provide consent, the standards of evidence have not been met. And medical organizations outside the US have been keen to point this out, as I have already shown. Even in the US, they are unwilling to recommend non-therapeutic, neonatal circumcision, despite not being willing to take the harsher stance other medical communities have taken.

You have also not countered my post regarding the sordid history of male circumcision: why it began as a "medical" procedure, the changing justifications for it when the old ones were no longer viable but after it had become a common part of society, and the extreme similarities in its early history among Western countries between its justification and that used for female circumcision. You have not countered my pointing out that numerous medical organizations at the very least do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision and others outright recommend against it with any similarly recent statement from a respected medical organization that not only says it doesn't hurt, but recommends FOR it. Again, we go back to the standards of evidence. When dealing with a medical procedure - most especially one that is permanent - the case must be made FOR it, not against it. The idea that circumcision may "POSSIBLY effect him in a positive way... permanently" is irrelevant when circumcision is held to the same standards that other medical procedures are held.

I have, for the most part, kept emotion of of this. I am circumcised and I have nothing against my parents for doing so. I don't think other parents who have had their children circumcised are vile people. Nor do I think that parents in cultures where female circumcision is popular who have that procedure done are vile people. In both cases, it is not the parents, but the repugnant social norm that must be criticized.

Keeping the issue of sensitivity set aside, circumcision, at the very best, amounts to plastic surgery. No one has yet had the courage to admit that they would be opposed to me having my child's earlobes removed, and, likewise, I think (for god's sake, I hope) most/all people here would be opposed to me giving my baby child some other form of plastic surgery.

The issue with Medicaid is an important one too, because it shows that more and more states are listening to the doctors and recognizing that, at the very least, the surgery is totally unnecessary. Again, if it WERE necessary I can only imagine the problems they'd have in most other Western countries where the circumcision rate is as low as 10%.

So, no, those opposed to circumcision do NOT need to make a convincing argument against it (although I will admit that the position is hurt when attempts are made to make circumcision sound like it's something that *terribly* harms those who get it). Just like any other serious medical procedure (and the permanent removal of something, even if it *is* "just skin" (remember, I'm setting the sensitivity issue aside for the sake of argument) is a serious medical procedure), a convincing argument must be made FOR it.

And, as a final note, while I have absolutely no ill-will towards the fact that I'm circumcised - unlike now, where circumcision rates are slowly approaching 50/50 in the US, the situation was far different when I was born - I can't help but wonder what it is like for the entire shaft of the erect penis to rival the sensitivity of the glans penis (and no, UsTwo, this is not something I wonder about a lot - in fact, I only wonder about it when responding to this thread). I know at least one person who was adamantly FOR circumcision before reading this thread has now turned against it. I don't think the opposite can be said.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Suave

1. It costs money.
2. It is irreversible (aside from things like painful skin grafts, which don't work properly anyway).
3. There is no consent of the patient.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

Ustwo

You can wonder all you want, but you would most likely be disapointed based on the research into the subject. I'll note everyone ignored the data on adult circumcision.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

xepherys

1. So do immunizations. They also do not effectively prevent all illness. They also can have negative side effects in some children.

2. Why is this particular argument so important to some people? So are appendectomies and tonsilectomies. If people decided to start performing them both on young children, without their consetn, I wouldn't be 100% opposed to it. There may be valid reasons for such things.

3. There is no consent, legally, for ANYTHING done to a human, in the USA, under the age of 18 (17 in some states, and as low as 16 with proper emancipation papers, I believe). They don't "consent" to their families religion. And though some people allow their children to choose religious beliefs, many do not. That also has, in a variety of cases, been shown to cause emotional issues where guilt, misunderstandings and other potentially traumatic things can occur with children. They are kids... their consent does not MATTER. If a child of say... 6 years of age "consents" to having sexual relations with an adult... does that make it okay? Of course not. Children have no "right to consent" as they don't have an understanding of things. That's why parents are there. *boggle* This argument makes NO sense to me whatsoever.

xepherys

Secret-

As I said above, an argument against is what needs to be made if things are going to change in the USA anytime soon. A GOOD argument. Not a fanatical argument against. Not an "it's not neccesary" argument against. A good, real argument against it. Until that happens, it doesn't matter how it "should be"... it is the way it is.

I'm not against leaving your kids uncut. I'm "pro-choice" in the matter, so-to-speak. I understand that nerve endings are how sensitivity is measured, but again, many of those nerves will simply grow out into different routes. The human body has an amazing way of recooperating, even when you are older. As a newborn, your body will adapt and recover from things like this much more readily. Logic would dictate that a great deal of those nerves regrow... and when they do, they certainly can't regrow into the non-existant foreskin... so they must grow into the shaft and head of the penis. YOu know that nerves can regrow and reattach, right? It happens when something like a hand is reattached... it tkaes time, but it happens even in adults. It would happen more quickly, and with likely better results in a new born. Again, this is a difficult argument to truly PROVE one way or the other, but logic is not on your side. Sorry.

I would be opposed to the earlobes being removed. If you could somehoe legitimately argue that earlobes can potentially cause cancer, loss of hearing or some other permanent and/or debilitating event, then perhaps an argument could be made for it. Currently, no such argument exists. With circumcision, data has been found to support such claims. It may not be 100% agreeable, but it's not 100% refutable either.

ASU2003

The few adults that need to have this procedure done get to make the decision themselves. They understand what it is, and what will happen. I don't think that guys in Europe are rushing to get this done for cosmetic reasons.

And the pictures at that AAFP site showed that the guy lost his inner skin and frenulum. The feeling would be different if you didn't have any sensation on the shaft. Yes, you might last longer, but would you trade some of your pleasure to last 1 more minute?

I have never had a problem with my tonsils or appendix. Yes, my sister had her tonsils taken out, and my cousin had his appendix removed. But, why would you preemptively remove something when you might not need to? 99% of kids grow up without a problem with either organ. There is no valid medical reason to remove my tonsils or appendix since they have not caused me any problems. I had a healthy foreskin when I was born, but it was removed for some reason. There might be a small chance that I would have enough of a problem with it in the future, but I could understand why it was done then.

Charlatan

With spin like that you have a career waiting for you in politics.


It is the fact that it is an uneccessary procedure combined with all of the potential negatives that are associated with circumcision (not to mention the fact that the vast majority of men around the world have not been cut) that will eventually turn the tide against circumcision in the US.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that the numbers getting cut are in decline. It's already the case that kids are not cut automatically as they were when I was a kid.

It's really just a matter of time.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

SecretMethod70

They once DID remove normal tonsils and appendices for "preventative" purposes. They've stopped. I'll give you three guesses as to why

Taken your guesses?

Yup, the exact same reasons I'm opposed to the removal of foreskin: it's not necessary, and the likelihood of it making a difference in any given person is small.

You're right, in order to change the popular opinion in America (and I'll note that it seems to be slowly changing anyway), the argument needs to be made against it. Why is that? Not because there is a good argument for it, but because it is ingrained into society - the same reason it's difficult to stop female circumcision in other societies. However, this thread isn't about how to change public opinion. It started out with the question of abuse, and while semantics may lead one to question the wording, the underlying meaning was eventually brought out: "is circumcision of a boy an unnecessary and invasive medical procedure that should not be done?" The answer to that seems to be yes. As to how to get public opinion to reflect this, you've got me. But as Americans - who are decidedly, and happily I might add, ignorant of other cultures, even among their Western counterparts - come into closer contact with these other cultures, it seems that it is becoming more understood that circumcision is not necessary and not as "normal" as many Americans have come to believe. Add that to the steady flow of, at best, uncommittal statements by medical organizations, and opinion is slowly changing. I'm content to leave the issue of overall public opinion at that. One hundred years from now, I would be very surprised if circumcisions were still performed here for non-religious reasons (and I'm not even sure that they'll still be performed for religious reasons), and if they are, it will likely be a small fraction of people, just like it already is in most of the Western world.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

JustJess

Just saw an interesting bit in a medical journal article:
Link

Change anyone's mind? Didn't think so!

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

ASU2003

So, out of 2 groups of 1000 boys, 9 more uncircumcised boys will have a UTI and have to take antibiotics. It seems like a simple treatment instead of performing 1000 circumcisions to prevent those 9 UTIs.

Xazy

To me it is a health thing. G-d commanded it, and it is good for the soul.

Sexual abuse is definitely not the right word, but if you are talking about abuse. To me I believe in it automatically as a religious belief, and therefore never really researched any other aspect of it.

billege

You do realize that at this point you are literally making things up to support your stance, right?

The statement I quoted above is literally made up "logic" that you're pretending means somthing when it does not. The idea that "logically" nerves that were located in a cut off section of flesh will decide to regrow in another part of the body is laughable. In fact, it makes clear that you're not even trying to discuss this in a reasonable manner, or perhaps you just can't see how foolish you're making yourself sound.

You either know nothing about human biology, or are hoping we don't. Or, you're so willing to think your wild assumptions can be labeled "facts" and then be treated as such, that you spill things like this in an attempt to keep your "discussion" going. Either way, I think you've made clear that you can not support your position rationally.

The idea that you've just magically decided, based on whatever little you know of biology, that nerves will just regrow elsewhere on the body...and that it'll happen faster to this magic nerve relocating baby...is foolish and absurd.

That you've attempted to label it "logic" and use it to "tear apart" (as you put it) opposing arguements is clear evidence you're unable to discuss this with any manner of sense.

__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

billege

I think you might be the 2nd person, possibley the 1st, in this entire discussion that brought the pro-cut camp what appears to be a well researched fact in support of that discussion.

Bravo.

__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

Ustwo

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Hektore

Not to be rude here, but you did exactly what you criticized xepherys for doing. In your entire post you didn't reference anything or point to any location with some reading about the topic of nerve regrowth. It was simply a lengthy nuh-uh. You're relying on your personal credentials to make the point, just as much as xepherys was in the original statement.

Now in terms of neural growth, It has been shown that peripheral neurons(sensory and motor neurons) can grow. They are perfectly capable of growth toward reattachment when severed, thus it is possible to reattach limbs and regain both feeling and control of that limb as long as the two severed ends of nerve are close enough together to facilitate regrowth. If they are too far apart the nerve will permanently lose function and the entire limb will probably die off. I have seen nothing in my searches to indicate this process to be better achieved by the members of any given age group.

So, in terms of comparing a hand loss to foreskin loss - there are tons of sensory nerves in your hands/fingers, if you lose your hand the nerves aren't going to grow out into the stump that is left and give a comparable sensitivity to what your fingers had. But if the hand is reattached something comparable to original function can be reached. Now applying this to the foreskin it would seem(to me at least) that there is no reason to believe that the nerve endings removed by circumcision are going to regrow into the glans to increase sensitivity. However(for the sake of completing the comparison) if the foreskin were reattached shortly after removal partial function/sensitivity could be restored to it.

In case you were wondering:

Makwana, Milan; Ravich, Gennadij. “Molecular Mechanisms in Successful Peripheral Regneration” The FEBS Journal. Vol 272. Issue 11. Pg 2628-2638. 2005.

Terenghi, Giorgio. “Peripheral Nerve Regeneration and Neurotrophic Factors”. Journal of Anatomy. Vol 194. Iss 1. Pg 1-14. 1999.

I would offer a link, but I accessed these through a subscription my college has, so unless you yourself have the same subscription or access to a uni that does a link won't do you any good.

__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

CandleInTheDark

I don't think one year is justification for a permanent (read: life long) surgery.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

billege

Hektore--

There's a difference.

I didn't speak to nerve growth on re-attached body parts.

I'm saying the application of made up logic about nerves magically relocating to another portion of the body is absurd.

If that's not obvious enough without research, then heck, I guess I'm screwed.

PS. Someone remind me *why* I poked my head in this thread again? Was it sheer stupidity or was I hit on the head?

__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

spindles

Are you seriously arguing that immunizations are a bad thing? Given that immunisation has almost eradicated some diseases.

link

I'm really not sure what immunisation has to do with circumcision, so this line of argument was probably flawed to begin with.

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

highthief

What is being argued, I believe, is that not all immunizations are as effective at stopping disease. Smallpox vaccine works great; flu vaccines are less effective.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.