posted September 19, 2007 11:10 PM         

But I think that there are a lot of cases where it's just a matter of hygiene...and many of the ladies will probably agree with me on this, that men aren't always known to be the most meticulous w/ personal hygiene.

posted September 19, 2007 11:11 PM         

quote:

---

No. Everyone has a right to their own body, and no one has a right to surgically alter them without their consent. Good god, how are there people who need this explained to them? Did you read the article by the Jewish MD I linked you? Obviously not; you're full of yourself, and full of sh*t.

---

You are quick to jump to the negitives of Circumsition yet you haven't even considered the positives at all.

quote:

---

- Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

- Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

- Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

- Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

- A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

- Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

- Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

- Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

---

posted September 19, 2007 11:14 PM         

yeh, go ahead and give your newborn pain, that will be good for your karma,

NOT!

posted September 19, 2007 11:16 PM         

quote:

---

Abraham and sacrifice, come on?
this is all of the false God...

---

And Lotus... Being a senior member of this forum, you should be ashamed of yourself for making such remarks. How are your actions any different from the wack job that we so prfoundly refer to as Sweet Stars?

posted September 19, 2007 11:25 PM         

quote:

---

But I think that there are a lot of cases where it's just a matter of hygiene..

---

They say the exact same thing in parts of Africa about FGM, you know. Just what sort of hygiene problems are you talking about? If you study the history of this, you find the claims about 'hygiene' came out at the time that masturbation was considered 'unclean,' and things went from there. Every claim has been debunked.

quote:

---

and many of the ladies will probably agree with me on this, that men aren't always known to be the most meticulous w/ personal hygiene.

---

Women have rather more folds than intact men do, do they not? No one (except advocates of FGM) is saying it's hygienic to cut out the labia to prevent smegma or what have you, are they?

If the male foreskin was a source of filth, mammals would not be were we are today. It's pure sense.

Xodian:

quote:

---

Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse.

---

That claim has been debunked for years now. Read the APA reports.

quote:

---

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus.

---

I find the claim dubious, and there is a large debate about the subject. Nevertheless, condoms are much better at preventing AIDS, by all accounts.

quote:

---

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising.

---

America (where most boys are cut) has an enormously higher rate of AIDS while Europe, where circumcision is basically unheard of (and illegal in Switzerland and several other countries) has a low rate of AIDS. Same with Japan. How do you figure this is possible, if cutting off a guy's foreskin is so great at stopping AIDS?

And again, much better, cheaper methods at preventing AIDS than surgery are available.

quote:

---

Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision

---

Simply wrong to perform cosmetic surgery on an infant without his informed consent, which he cannot give.

quote:

---

Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic

---

We don't cut off girls' breasts to prevent breast cancer, do we? And breast cancer is far more common than penile cancer.

quote:

---

Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

---

Urinary tract infections are dozens of times more common in girls. This is why we have antibiotics. Surgery is unnecessary.

posted September 19, 2007 11:40 PM         

quote:

---

Geez, this discussion started off so great. For once people were actually sticking to objectivity. What the hell happened?

---

What happened was that anyone who gets their children circumcised or doesn't disagree with circumcision is a sexual predator...that's what happened. So I guess that means alot of people should be registered...including my parents.

And btw, I never meant to skip over any information its just that the "predator" accusation pretty much overshadowed anything else I was willing to discuss at the time. I did look at the first article though and I already gave my view on it, what more does one want?

And even with this article right here http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/lost.html , they only seem to be highlighting the extreme cases where there are mishaps as if this is something that normally happens.

And Debilitiating? All my male family members are obviously circumcised and I can't recall any of them complaining. Like I said and Isis said, its a matter of personal choice and what the parents choose to do whether out of custom or belief...as long as its within law. Female circumcision is not even something that can be compared unless were talking about chopping off the entire head. Its also something outlawed in Africa, contrary to popular belief we're not all going around chopping off clitoris'.

quote:

---

LOL ...well I'll just be thankful that you aren't in charge of meting out karma Lotus

---

posted September 19, 2007 11:43 PM         

Define insecurity.

From what I can gather you ahve demonstrated pefectly that. Tthere has been no legitimate backing of sources on your posts or any shread of objectivity presenting your arguments. All it is is rediric just overly hyped with with drama. Totally unwarrented for IMO.

And that is all I will say on this.

Johnny:

The foreskin doesn't provides a major funtion for the penis. Its just excess skin and yes... IMO it should be voluntary but I do see the benifits of it quite clear. In the end, the surgical removal of foreskin could very well be inline with removal of a past evolutionary relic. Most scientest theorize that the foreskin was there to prevent infection from spreading to the urinary tract during our evolutonary period. However, we don't exaclty forge for berries around naked anymore do we? Lol!

posted September 19, 2007 11:47 PM         

What do you know?

you have to insult me, to make yourself feel better, typical!

posted September 19, 2007 11:52 PM         

quote:

---

What happened was that anyone who gets their children circumcised or doesn't disagree with circumcision is a sexual predator...that's what happened.

---

Not what I said. Please re-read my post; I said that those who think that individuals should not be in control of how much of their sexual anatomy they are allowed to keep have the mindset of predators. Taken rationally, I think this statement is pretty self-evident.

I don't blame parents who circumcise out of misguided good-intent or plain ignorance. I find such cases very regrettable, but I don't vilify the parents. It's those who know what they're doing and do it anyway that I take issue with.

quote:

---

And Debilitiating? All my male family members are obviously circumcised and I can't recall any of them complaining.

---

Tell me if this makes sense to you: A guy who had the most sensitive part of his penis removed before he had any experience with it is not going to know what he's missing, so he obviously won't complain. Just like a person who is born blind will never miss sight, if he never finds out it exists.

For years, I thought the huge, dark scar around my penis and the constant cold, numbness were natural. Go figure.

Xodian:

quote:

---

The foreskin doesn't provides a major funtion for the penis. Its just excess skin

---

Please read that list Dulce Luna just linked. Your statement is completely false, and I hope you have enough courage to look into it enough to discover that. I know it's not easy to look at, but no, the foreskin is not "just a flap of skin."

It's odd that a religious man would think that God added superfluous pieces to his creation. Or that nature would mess up in such a huge way in the all-important sex-organs.

quote:

---

In all of biology, the nonengineered individual is the strongest. All
of his parts are there for an excellent purpose.

- Ronald Poland, MD (American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force
Committee on Circumcision)

We ... cannot allow females or any group of patients to be
mutilated. I'm afraid that this is even more basic than religion.

- John C. Nelson, MD, AMA Trustee
(in American Medical News, Vol 39,
no. 40, October, 1996)

Whatever is done to stop the terrible practice of
circumcision will be of tremendous importance. There
is no rational medical reason to support it. It is high time
that such a barbaric practice comes to an end.

-Frederick Leboyer, M.D., author, "Birth
Without Violence"

---

posted September 19, 2007 11:55 PM         

quote:

---

If we believe absurdities,
we shall commit atrocities.

There is nothing so venerable
as an ancient abuse.

---

-Voltaire

posted September 19, 2007 11:57 PM         

Hello!

Really, what are you people thinking!
You are born, and no one should take a surgical knife to you, unless it is to save your life!

LOve and Reverence to ALL. ...

posted September 20, 2007 12:03 AM         

Circumcision may offer Africa AIDS hope: Procedure linked to much lower rate of new HIV infections

French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.

According to the newspaper account, the study under way in Orange Farm township, South Africa, was stopped because the results were so favorable. It was deemed unethical to continue the trial after an early peek at data showed that the uncircumcised men were so much more likely to become infected.

All of the men in the study had been followed for a year, and half the men had been followed for the full 21 months called for in the original study design, according to the Wall Street Journal, which obtained a draft copy of the study.

Begun in August 2002, the experiment is one of three closely watched clinical trials in Africa to determine whether there is scientific merit to nearly three dozen less rigorously controlled studies showing that circumcised men were much less likely to become HIV-positive.

The hope is that, lacking a vaccine, the nearly 5 million new HIV infections occurring each year could be slowed by circumcision, the surgical removal of the foreskin -- a simple, low-cost and permanent medical intervention that is a common but controversial cultural practice in much of the world. In Africa, about 70 percent of men are circumcised at birth or during rite-of-passage ceremonies in early puberty.

Medical anthropologists began noticing as early as 1989 that the highest rates of HIV infection in Africa were occurring in regions of the continent where the predominant tribal or religious cultures did not practice circumcision. Adult HIV infection rates above 30 percent are found in Zimbabwe, Botswana, Swaziland and eastern South Africa, where circumcision is not practiced; yet HIV infection rates remain below 5 percent in West Africa and other parts of the continent where circumcision is commonplace.

Laboratory studies have found that the foreskin is rich in white blood cells, which are favored targets of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. So the theory is that men who are uncircumcised are much more likely to contract the virus during sex with an infected woman, and that the epidemic spreads when these newly infected men have sex with other women within their network of sexual partners.

The lead investigators of the study, Dr. Bertran Auvert of the University of Paris and Adrian Puren of South Africa's National Institute for Communicable Diseases, are not talking. The results were expected to be discussed at an AIDS conference in Rio de Janeiro in three weeks. But word about the findings has been circulating among researchers searching for ways to slow the epidemic.

"I would be thrilled if it works, but we will also need the results of other trials,'' said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Ronald Gray, who is conducting, in Uganda, one of two other controlled clinical trials of male circumcision.

Gray's trial, which has completed enrollment of 5,000 men in the Rakai district of Uganda, is not scheduled to end until 2007.

A third trial, under way in Kisumu, Kenya, is still enrolling its quota of 2,700 volunteers and is also expected to be completed in 2007, according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is sponsoring it.

All three trials were designed to compare the HIV infection rates of two groups of HIV-negative men, one-half of whom would agree to be circumcised, the other to be offered only counseling on AIDS prevention. The studies were designed to show whether or not circumcision provided a statistically significant protective effect of at least 50 percent.

The South African study -- if the results are confirmed -- suggests that the level of protection afforded is even higher.

Although the apparent protective effect of circumcision has been noted for more than 20 years, doubts linger as to whether circumcision itself is protective, or whether the lower risk may be the result of cultural practices among those who circumcise. HIV rates are low in Muslim communities, for example, which practice male circumcision but also engage in ritual washing before sex and frown on promiscuity.

posted September 20, 2007 12:04 AM         

You have not wasted your time, what you present is good and meaningful!

posted September 20, 2007 12:05 AM         

All I hear is: "I am RIGHT and those who disagree are WRONG WRONG WRONG you don't know how WRONG you are...you have the mindset of a sexual predator" (which is pretty much tantamount to saying that you are a sexual predator sans the molesting/predation part...)

I'd argue that you have the mindset of a fanatic. Of course, I'm not saying you ARE a fanatic mind you, I'm just pointing out that the things you are saying "clearly" demonstrates the mindset of a fanatic...