Circumcision is common in the US, North Africa, the Middle East, South Korea, and the Philippines. It's uncommon in Europe and China. While not as prevalent as the Middle East, there are likely more circumcisions in India compared to Europe and China because of its Muslim population. Jews, Muslims, and Eastern Orthodox Christians require circumcision. Circumcision became popular in the US during the revivalist movements in the 19th century as a cure to masturbation. But does tradition make it right? The arguments from the anti-circumcision crowd (at least online) are more passionate than even anti-abortion arguments. These include autonomy, preservation of a 'superior' sexual experience, and it being the natural state. But then they take it a step further saying people who were circumcised were brutally mutilated and their sexual pleasure is inferior. The arguments from the circumcision crowd are much quieter, but they range from tradition and perceived medical benefits. These include elimination of phimosis, reduced HIV/HPV/HSV transmission, and decreased urinary tract infections. But HIV/HPV/HSV reduction should be through condom use more than circumcision and UTIs in males without an anatomic reason is already rare. Recently, the Danish Medical Association has come out and announced that it may support a ban on circumcision until 18 (until the male can give consent). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...umcision-for-children-under-18s-a7459291.html The American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians Gynecologists wrote in 2012 that the benefits outweigh the risks in terms of risk reduction, but not enough to recommend universal circumcision. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585 It's fair to debate the pros and cons of circumcision, but I had not realized how contentious it is. Nor how vitriolic 'intactivists' can be. I assume most of us here are circumcised, but will the majority of the next generation be circumcised? Pro-Circumcision Articles http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...turned_the_internet_against_circumcision.html http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/12/opinion/la-oe-allen-anti-circumcision-activists-20120812 Anti-Circumsion Group http://www.intactamerica.org So what do you think? Is circumcision an acceptable practice with sound medical benefit, or is it a barbaric outdated procedure?
I think it should be left to the parent(s) to decide when a child is an infant. When a child is older, common sense would suggest that only medical reasons, should any crop up, govern whether or not to become circumcised. Passing a law requiring an individual to wait until his or her 18th birthday before the procedure could occur, if it is wanted, seems ridiculous. While we aren't religious (my partner is a non-practicing Catholic, and I wouldn't belong to a religion that would have me as a member and religion, sadly, plays a large role in the pros and cons of circumcision), we decided not have our sons circumcised. They can do what they like, when they like, being adults now. They never complained about being "different" from many of their contemporaries in this regard as they were growing up. From our perspective, who cares? Why should anyone care, either way? A parent(s) currently has a reasonable window to get the procedure done to their son(s) while they are an infant. Why muck around, needlessly, in my opinion, with the "system" (such as it is) common today? The AMA can suggest medical guidelines if there is a consensus among a majority of the members to limit, or promote, circumcision. If that were to happen, it should still be a family decision very early on, and an individual decision later. In my opinion
I think the antis are just looking to be part of a movement, but one that isn't too crowded or doesn't deal too directly with poverty, war or human rights.
This is what I think. I have a 14 year old son, who is uncircumcised. I recently had "the talk" with him and let him know that I would pay for the cut if he wanted it. My whole thought process was that it is his dick and thus his call.
The benefits do outweighs the "risks", which is just un-needed pain in the eye of the anti crowd. If you don't think a substantial decrease in your risk for penile cancer is a benefit, then sure.
I read up on this briefly when I found out the wife was prego and we didn't yet know the gender. IIRC it was initially done by many for religious / non-scientific / barbaric reasons and was continued just cuz it was the norm. Eventually it was realized that there are real health benefits. Ultimately though, I think we'd all be well enough to leave this to the parent's discretion for now.
Risk of procedure. The benefits aren't so great vs the risks that it's a recommended procedure. It isn't non-existent that it's a non-recommended procedure. It's an elective procedure with some immediate risks, some benefit in the first year and in the long term. Up to parent to decide. No need to change anything here.
Not sure about that , it's proven to minimize STD, conclusive evidences to reduce risk of Testicular cancer. Most patients with Bladder cancer would do it to reduce pain/UTI. most of elderly wish they had done it when bathroom trip becomes a challenge
there is a risk with any procedure, even an excision of a mole. Local anasthesia and plasti-belt ---very fast and easy. Did one or two as a medstudent. It's proven within the literature that your chances of having penile cancer go down significantly with circs
I don't question the benefits. But it's not just pain avoidance. There are risks associated with the procedure. I read that there are about 110 deaths per year for this procedure. As a comparison, there are about 300 deaths per year due to penile cancer.
It's because of your scintillating personality, Buck. Complaining isn't the "rocking the boat" that they had in mind.
Yea I'm gonna need context and link to that. If you miss a hypospad (which everybody checks for) than maybe slightly more bleeding and call in Urology, but if you die from it chances are you probably died from something the else.
