http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15593753/

Circumcision cuts STD risk, major study shows
25-year study finds substantial benefit to controversial procedure


Updated: 1:56 p.m. PT Nov 6, 2006
Circumcised males are less likely than their uncircumcised peers to acquire a sexually transmitted infection, the findings of a 25-year study suggest.

According to the report in the November issue of Pediatrics, circumcision may reduce the risk of acquiring and spreading such infections by up to 50 percent, which suggests "substantial benefits" for routine neonatal circumcision.

The current study is just one of many that have looked at this controversial topic. While most research has found that circumcision reduces the rates of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), syphilis and genital ulcers, the results are more mixed for other STDs.


The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the evidence "complex and conflicting," and therefore concludes that, at present, the evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision.

In the current study, the researchers analyzed data collected for the Christchurch Health and Development Study, which included a large birth cohort of children from New Zealand. Males were divided into two groups based on circumcision status before 15 years of age. The presence of a sexually transmitted infection between 18 and 25 years of age was determined by questionnaire.

The 356 uncircumcised boys had a 2.66-fold increased risk of sexually transmitted infection compared with the 154 circumcised boys, lead author Dr. David M. Fergusson and colleagues, from the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences report.

Moreover, this elevated risk was largely unchanged after accounting for potential confounders, such as number of sexual partners and unprotected sex.

The authors estimate that had routine neonatal circumcision been in place, the rate of sexually transmitted infections in the current cohort would have been reduced by roughly 48 percent.

This analysis shows that the benefits of circumcision for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infection "may be substantial," the authors conclude. "The public health issues raised by these findings clearly involve weighing the longer-term benefits of routine neonatal circumcision in terms of reducing risks of infection within the population, against the perceived costs of the procedure," they add.

(c) Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Interesting the way the article is titled to automatically make the reader assume that circumcision is necessary...yet if you actually read the article, they clearly stated that the evidence is conflicting and doesn't warrant an argument for regular neonatal circumcision.

Confusing, and interesting, to say the least.

Interesting the way the article is titled to automatically make the reader assume that circumcision is necessary...yet if you actually read the article, they clearly stated that the evidence is conflicting and doesn't warrant an argument for regular neonatal circumcision.

Confusing, and interesting, to say the least.

I thought the same thing. But it is interesting that on this large scale of a study that they found up 48% of the cases "could have" been prevented. I know this issue is always a hot topic around here, so i debated on even posting it. :suspect

Nah - debates are healthy...even if they do resemble beating a dead horse :rofl

It says in the article that they got the info as to who'd had STDs and who hadn't based on a questionairre. That right there would lead one to question the validity of the numbers.

Nah - debates are healthy...even if they do resemble beating a dead horse :rofl

It says in the article that they got the info as to who'd had STDs and who hadn't based on a questionairre. That right there would lead one to question the validity of the numbers.

yea, but most of these surveys are anonymous. so what would really be the point in lying? no one is going to know. i see what you mean though.

Oh - I didn't know they were anonymous. But now that I think about it...duh.

:heehee

I think there are some major flaws in the methodology used in this study. Circumcision may prevent STDs, but I've yet to see any substantial and credible evidence to support the theory.

instead of connecting intact penis to STD's maybe we should link STD's to unprotected or irresponsible sex.:dunno

Well, they need to be linked to whatever the cause - which is why they do research - but your point is absolutely valid in that ALL STD's can be avoided by engaging in safe and responsible sex.

instead of connecting intact penis to STD's maybe we should link STD's to unprotected or irresponsible sex.:dunno

ooooooh that's an idea! :D

instead of connecting intact penis to STD's maybe we should link STD's to unprotected or irresponsible sex.:dunno

:agree

instead of connecting intact penis to STD's maybe we should link STD's to unprotected or irresponsible sex.:dunno

I am very pro-circumcision, but I definitely agree with you on that!!! :thumbsup

it can also be looked at the the other way..... those that are high risk for STD's are "less likely" to be infected.

it can also be looked at the the other way..... those that are high risk for STD's are "less likely" to be infected.

I'm not following you....

I'm not following you....


i am just going based on what the article said. i really dont feel like debating this one again:deadhorse

:shrug

I'm not debating anything - I'm not pro or anti-circumcision! I was just asking a question - I don't understand what you're saying. :dunno

Its an interesting article and I would be interested to see further studies. I dont think I would just believe the one. I do believe in Circ but for various reasons. I also believe in not circing. I am one who believes the parents make their choice based on the best interest of their child. There is no right or wrong really to me when it comes down to it.

As far as STD's being for just unprotected sex etc you can still get them from protecting yourself. Condoms do break :shrug But thats a whole nother debate :giggle

It makes no sense to me that someone can base the fact that because someone is circumsized it helps cut the risk of STDs. There really isn't a way to prove that theory based on surveys alone. It's interesting to read how they attempt to prove their theories though..

Nah - debates are healthy...even if they do resemble beating a dead horse :rofl

It says in the article that they got the info as to who'd had STDs and who hadn't based on a questionairre. That right there would lead one to question the validity of the numbers.

So very true! These studies are a very sad and pathetic attempt for doctors to make more $$.

As far as STD's being for just unprotected sex etc you can still get them from protecting yourself. Condoms do break :shrug But thats a whole nother debate :giggle

HPV is "caught" through skin to skin contact. Condoms arent going to stop that STD. :tears

i saw this awhile back in our newspaper here in houston. i dunno how i feel about the topic but its interesting debate

Condoms arent going to stop that STD. :tears

then be careful of your partners. dont cut off yours sons skins. (when saying "you" not meaning a certain person)

HPV is "caught" through skin to skin contact. Condoms arent going to stop that STD. :tears

i can attest to that!!! my ex gave me HPV

wrap it up dirty boys

i can attest to that!!! my ex gave me HPV

I have HPV too :(

Interesting the way the article is titled to automatically make the reader assume that circumcision is necessary...yet if you actually read the article, they clearly stated that the evidence is conflicting and doesn't warrant an argument for regular neonatal circumcision.

Confusing, and interesting, to say the least.

Yep...and we still WON'T circumsize our son if we have one.

It makes no sense to me that someone can base the fact that because someone is circumsized it helps cut the risk of STDs. There really isn't a way to prove that theory based on surveys alone.

:yes

Yep...and we still WON'T circumsize our son if we have one.

:pinkie :yeehaw

The argument seems to be relatively simple. The more skin there is, the more chance there is for a crack in the skin or other problem that would allow contact of bodily fluid. There's also more of a chance of fluid nestled in the folds of the foreskin, making for a higher chance of contracting an STD. While I can't see the percentage being so high (48%), I understand the logic. All I DO know is that I am circumsized and have never had an STD of ANY type.

And just the same, my husband ISN'T circumsized and has never had an STD. He also only has slept w/ about 5 women.

So STD"s should be linked to sex, not the foreskin.

If you don't clean yourself & your not circumsized, of course you have a high chance of getting infections! Common sense- you wash yourself and you'll be fine.

The argument seems to be relatively simple. The more skin there is, the more chance there is for a crack in the skin or other problem that would allow contact of bodily fluid. There's also more of a chance of fluid nestled in the folds of the foreskin, making for a higher chance of contracting an STD. While I can't see the percentage being so high (48%), I understand the logic. All I DO know is that I am circumsized and have never had an STD of ANY type.

But we women have "extra" skin as well. Why is it exactly that we aren't circumcised and why haven't there been studies about our parts and STD's? Oh yes, for some reason females are protected from circumcision under law until 18 years of age. :no

Ok, let's re-evaluate.

The "extra" skin on women is there with the distinct purpose of protecting the vagina. Without this "extra" skin, all manner of things could find their way into the womans reproductive tract, causing infections and quite probably death. By removing this extra skin, the woman would be forced to scour herself, inside and out, on a regular basis to prevent against infection, just as we would with an open wound. This extra skin is obviously extremely important to the womans LIFE and ability to procreate.

The "extra" skin on the penis does not protect the head of the penis to any discernable degree. The urethral opening is the only passage into the man's body, and after a circumcision, does expose this passage to the environment. Since there are very few airborn or waterborn viruses that can infect a human, reports of men obtaining an infection or disease through the opening are very rare, though they do occur. In the event of a waterborn virus, the foreskin would offer little, if any, protection versus a circumcised male.

There are also some diseases, such as diabetes, that can lead to foreskin-specific ailments, outlined here (http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9339/10540.html) for example. And if you're worried about some of the problems that can arise involving the foreskin and daily life, read some of these questions and answers. (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/BHCV2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Foreskin_problems_Q&A?OpenDocument) A vast majority of these devastating stories would be prevented if the male was circumcised. That's not my personal opinion, it's a calculated: 6 of the 8 questions asked on that page would have not have been asked had the subject been circumsized. That's FACT.

Again, I merely stated that the LOGIC behind the argument makes sense. More skin means more places for something to go wrong. While we all understand the importance of cleanliness, we also need to understand human nature. The more we do something, the more we get complacent. We don't devote as much care and attention to a task if we're complacent with it.

But, my mom butchered me when I was an infant. I've never had an STD, never had any penile infections, never had anything worse than a bile build up. In my case, the butchering apparently did some good.

ETA: Rach, of COURSE STD's are linked to sex... They're Sexually Transmitted Diseases. I think you meant they should be linked to hygeine, which is also inaccurate. There is no STD out there that can be eradicated through mere hygeine alone.

Ok, let's re-evaluate.

The "extra" skin on women is there with the distinct purpose of protecting the vagina. Without this "extra" skin, all manner of things could find their way into the womans reproductive tract, causing infections and quite probably death. By removing this extra skin, the woman would be forced to scour herself, inside and out, on a regular basis to prevent against infection, just as we would with an open wound. This extra skin is obviously extremely important to the womans LIFE and ability to procreate.

The "extra" skin on the penis does not protect the head of the penis to any discernable degree. The urethral opening is the only passage into the man's body, and after a circumcision, does expose this passage to the environment. Since there are very few airborn or waterborn viruses that can infect a human, reports of men obtaining an infection or disease through the opening are very rare, though they do occur. In the event of a waterborn virus, the foreskin would offer little, if any, protection versus a circumcised male.

There are also some diseases, such as diabetes, that can lead to foreskin-specific ailments, outlined here (http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9339/10540.html) for example. And if you're worried about some of the problems that can arise involving the foreskin and daily life, read some of these questions and answers. (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/BHCV2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Foreskin_problems_Q&A?OpenDocument) A vast majority of these devastating stories would be prevented if the male was circumcised. That's not my personal opinion, it's a calculated: 6 of the 8 questions asked on that page would have not have been asked had the subject been circumsized. That's FACT.

Again, I merely stated that the LOGIC behind the argument makes sense. More skin means more places for something to go wrong. While we all understand the importance of cleanliness, we also need to understand human nature. The more we do something, the more we get complacent. We don't devote as much care and attention to a task if we're complacent with it.

But, my mom butchered me when I was an infant. I've never had an STD, never had any penile infections, never had anything worse than a bile build up. In my case, the butchering apparently did some good.


I don't know where you got your information but the foreskin is created for a purpose, why else would every boy be born with one? Many purposes. In infancy and young childhood it protects against feces, urine and abrasions from diapers and later in life against abrasions from underwear and clothing. The foreskin keeps the glans soft, naturally moist and protects it from trauma or injury. If you have ever actually come across an intact penis you would realize compared to a circumcised penis they are very different and what I have said is true. A circumcised penis is dry, can become calloused and always desensitized from exposure and chafing. The nerves in the foreskin help to aid erection. Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence. Specialized nerve endings in the foreskin enhance sexual pleasure. These are just a few. If I sat here and thought I could go quite sometime listing what a penis loses when it is mutilated and even the man himself. Not to mention, problems among circumcised boys are very very common, especially adhesions and all too often, children have to go back in to be "re-circumcised".

I looked up what you said about diabetes and saw that it was a "theory" again, nothing proven, just what someone assumes. You know what a person does when they assume right? ;) If a person becomes a vegetarian they are likely to get rid of diabetes. If one becomes a vegan, they will almost 99% of the time get rid of their diabetes permanently so long as they stay away from meats and dairy which isn't healthy anyways. Why should one mutilate a child when IF that does happen to the child at a later date...BIG IF...there are other ways to "fix" the problem? That sounds lazy to me.

How can you say that being circumcised did you any good? You wouldn't know what would've been had you been left intact. Sex would probably be better, much less of a chance to end up on viagra, probably better chance in helping to concieve a child, etc, etc. The great thing about leaving a child intact is that if there are problemsm then they can be circumcised but if a circumcised boy has problems, there really isn't much they can do, their parents already took that chance away.

In infancy and young childhood it protects against feces, urine and abrasions from diapers and later in life against abrasions from underwear and clothing.

Please explain to me how the foreskin protects the penis from urine, when urine comes from inside the foreskin? Feces, on the other hand, I can see. That makes sense and has probably been documented. I'll refer to my statement, where I pointed out that I have NEVER had an infection. And, just for the sake of thoroughness, I've never seen an "abrasive" diaper or pair of underwear, regardless of foreskin or no. Unless Pampers has a new "Sandpaper Pull-Ups" I don't know about.

The foreskin keeps the glans soft, naturally moist and protects it from trauma or injury.

What type of "trauma or injury" are we talking about? Either of those words, when used in the same sentence as "penis", will have absolutely no bearing on foreskin. Both of those words mean something devastating has happened, and a quarter inch of skin isn't going to deflect a two-by-four shot to the penis. The soft and moist part is kind of odd, and completely irrelevant to the penis' primary task of procreating.

If you have ever actually come across an intact penis you would realize compared to a circumcised penis they are very different and what I have said is true.

Being a guy who played a lot of sports growing up, I can tell ya I've seen quite a few, and they do look different. Then again, so does a two headed bullfrog. I don't see the point. And what you've said isn't true, it's conjecture.

A circumcised penis is dry, can become calloused and always desensitized from exposure and chafing. The nerves in the foreskin help to aid erection.

If the owner of the foreskin did his proper hygeine, it wouldn't be moist at all. The "moist" you keep talking about is sweat, which when left unchecked, is a primary factor in the creation of smegma, which is really bad. The nerves in the foreskin may provide more stimulation, but genetics are the ultimate be all end all to achieving erections.. even guys with foreskins use viagra.

Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence. Specialized nerve endings in the foreskin enhance sexual pleasure.

Sexual pleasure and the ability to procreate aren't the same thing. The only cases I've found where impotence coincided with circumcision were in males over the age of FOUR, which is old enough to associate something near his penis and pain. If you have more resources on this, please share.

Not to mention, problems among circumcised boys are very very common, especially adhesions and all too often, children have to go back in to be "re-circumcised".

"To prevent the occurrence of penile adhesions, nurses and parents must be shown the proper technique of caring for the penis following a circumcision." (http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/gracely1/) That's from one of those medical journals. Improper care appears to be the leading cause of adhesion. NOT circumcision.

I looked up what you said about diabetes and saw that it was a "theory" again, nothing proven, just what someone assumes. You know what a person does when they assume right? ;)

Absolutely. Now show me where it says "theory" on that page, or should we "assume" it's there?

Why should one mutilate a child when IF that does happen to the child at a later date...BIG IF...there are other ways to "fix" the problem? That sounds lazy to me.

Good argument. Of course, why vaccinate or plan for disasters? Oh yeah.. just in case.

How can you say that being circumcised did you any good? You wouldn't know what would've been had you been left intact. Sex would probably be better, much less of a chance to end up on viagra, probably better chance in helping to concieve a child, etc, etc.

Well, have 1.5 kids. Conceiving wasn't a problem on my side. I never knew that "better" sex was defined by how much physical pleasure I got out of it, versus who it was with, and again, people with foreskins go on Viagra, too. I can't speak for myself WITH a foreskin, but I can WITHOUT one. I've never had problems, but I know of those who have. They have foreskins.

ETA: Oh yeah.. in the first sentence, you stated that the foreskin is there for a purpose, why else would we have it? We're also born with an appendix that we don't use. Just because it's there at birth doesn't mean it's necessary and could possibly kill us one day.

If the owner of the foreskin did his proper hygeine, it wouldn't be moist at all. The "moist" you keep talking about is sweat, which when left unchecked, is a primary factor in the creation of smegma, which is really bad.

My husband's isn't "moist", but then again, his doesn't look so much like a uncircumsized one, at least from the other 2 I've seen.

All I wanted to do was add my 2cents, but I'm not debating this topic. Its something that really aggrivates me, but just wanted to add that last part (above).

My husband's isn't "moist", but then again, his doesn't look so much like a uncircumsized one, at least from the other 2 I've seen.

All I wanted to do was add my 2cents, but I'm not debating this topic. Its something that really aggrivates me, but just wanted to add that last part (above).

I believe what she's saying is that it's softer to the touch, which is quite probably accurate. I took her saying as literal, for no other reason that it was funny to me :)

Hmmm...I dont know

Please explain to me how the foreskin protects the penis from urine, when urine comes from inside the foreskin? Feces, on the other hand, I can see. That makes sense and has probably been documented. I'll refer to my statement, where I pointed out that I have NEVER had an infection. And, just for the sake of thoroughness, I've never seen an "abrasive" diaper or pair of underwear, regardless of foreskin or no. Unless Pampers has a new "Sandpaper Pull-Ups" I don't know about.



What type of "trauma or injury" are we talking about? Either of those words, when used in the same sentence as "penis", will have absolutely no bearing on foreskin. Both of those words mean something devastating has happened, and a quarter inch of skin isn't going to deflect a two-by-four shot to the penis. The soft and moist part is kind of odd, and completely irrelevant to the penis' primary task of procreating.



Being a guy who played a lot of sports growing up, I can tell ya I've seen quite a few, and they do look different. Then again, so does a two headed bullfrog. I don't see the point. And what you've said isn't true, it's conjecture.



If the owner of the foreskin did his proper hygeine, it wouldn't be moist at all. The "moist" you keep talking about is sweat, which when left unchecked, is a primary factor in the creation of smegma, which is really bad. The nerves in the foreskin may provide more stimulation, but genetics are the ultimate be all end all to achieving erections.. even guys with foreskins use viagra.



Sexual pleasure and the ability to procreate aren't the same thing. The only cases I've found where impotence coincided with circumcision were in males over the age of FOUR, which is old enough to associate something near his penis and pain. If you have more resources on this, please share.



"To prevent the occurrence of penile adhesions, nurses and parents must be shown the proper technique of caring for the penis following a circumcision." (http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/gracely1/) That's from one of those medical journals. Improper care appears to be the leading cause of adhesion. NOT circumcision.



Absolutely. Now show me where it says "theory" on that page, or should we "assume" it's there?



Good argument. Of course, why vaccinate or plan for disasters? Oh yeah.. just in case.



Well, have 1.5 kids. Conceiving wasn't a problem on my side. I never knew that "better" sex was defined by how much physical pleasure I got out of it, versus who it was with, and again, people with foreskins go on Viagra, too. I can't speak for myself WITH a foreskin, but I can WITHOUT one. I've never had problems, but I know of those who have. They have foreskins.


The foreskin is suctioned around the head...nothing gets between the head and the foreskin. The only "opening" is where the urine comes out of. Another misconception which causes most problems for intact boys, the foreskin is not to be retracted until the child pulls it back himself or it loses suction naturally around 5 years of age. THEN you start washing underneath the foreskin. A quarter inch of skin? Actually it is 15 square inches of skin! lol The soft and moist part is important, the foreskin naturally lubricates the penis. Don't you find it important to use bottled lubricant at least every once in awhile? I'm sure your wife would think so.

Yes, they do look different indeed. Since when was "natural" so disgusting? Then again, this is the American population we are talking about. We love anything and everything fake. So, no surprise at how materialistic we tend to be. Unfortunately, our children have to suffer for it.

Smegma is very misunderstood. It isn't dirty. Smegma actually has antibacterial and antiviral properties that help keep the penis clean and healthy. Even females produce smegma...every living mammal does. No it isn't healthy to not clean yourself! LOL That has nothing to do with smegma. Natural quantities are healthy and normal.

I know sexual pleasure and procreating are different things. I talked about each. Circumcision does affect sexual pleasure and may affect procreation.

I believe what she's saying is that it's softer to the touch, which is quite probably accurate. I took her saying as literal, for no other reason that it was funny to me :)

Yes it is softer to the touch which makes it more pleasurable for both man and woman. :)

Oh and about "Of course, why vaccinate or plan for disasters? Oh yeah.. just in case."

The chance of something happening to a child due to a shot is very uncommon and you can stop vaxxing at any time. The child as he/she gets older can choose to no longer get shots. I was vaxx'd and now I don't get any shots by choice. Planning for a natural disaster doesn't harm anyone or change a person's body for life. Those aren't good examples buddy!

The chance of something happening to a child due to a shot is very uncommon and you can stop vaxxing at any time. The child as he/she gets older can choose to no longer get shots. I was vaxx'd and now I don't get any shots by choice.


Then you may want to check recent news for an outbreak of the Black Plague. Not far from here, an unvax'd child died from it. The Vax is required by every school district in the US. Woops.

Planning for a natural disaster doesn't harm anyone or change a person's body for life. Those aren't good examples buddy!

I'm quite certain the people who have been forced to move from nearby volcanoes, flood delta regions and avalanche areas will disagree that it doesn't change or harm them. Perhaps not phyically, but being ordered to leave the families home or a dream house can certainly do some mental damage.

Then you may want to check recent news for an outbreak of the Black Plague. Not far from here, an unvax'd child died from it. The Vax is required by every school district in the US. Woops.



I'm quite certain the people who have been forced to move from nearby volcanoes, flood delta regions and avalanche areas will disagree that it doesn't change or harm them. Perhaps not phyically, but being ordered to leave the families home or a dream house can certainly do some mental damage.

Hmmm I doubt it is "required" I know several parents who do not vax their children whatsoever. One is a family with 4 children who are all in school and have zero problems. People even use religion as an excuse not to vax which schools have to abide by.

Your natural disaster excuse still isn't a good one. People don't have to leave their homes until there is a threat. People circumcise before there is a problem. They circumcise right after the child is born. In your case, no one should live in Florida or any region that has natural disasters which honestly, leaves very few places to live for the US population. lol They shouldn't live in "tornado alley", any places where there "might" be an earthquake, hurricane, etc "just in case". See what I mean? Bad example.

We didn't circ our son. I honestly just don't feel right removing what nature intended to be there. It makes no sense to me.

like i have said many times before. i am glad that we chose to circ our boys. had we not, Gabe would have had to endure that as well, on top of cancer treatment.

Hmmm I doubt it is "required" I know several parents who do not vax their children whatsoever. One is a family with 4 children who are all in school and have zero problems. People even use religion as an excuse not to vax which schools have to abide by.

Your natural disaster excuse still isn't a good one. People don't have to leave their homes until there is a threat. People circumcise before there is a problem. They circumcise right after the child is born. In your case, no one should live in Florida or any region that has natural disasters which honestly, leaves very few places to live for the US population. lol They shouldn't live in "tornado alley", any places where there "might" be an earthquake, hurricane, etc "just in case". See what I mean? Bad example.



well said!!!! :thumbsup

ETA: Oh yeah.. in the first sentence, you stated that the foreskin is there for a purpose, why else would we have it? We're also born with an appendix that we don't use. Just because it's there at birth doesn't mean it's necessary and could possibly kill us one day.


I dont recall any doctors removing the appendix at birth just because it has no known purpose. We keep it in our body until it causese problems. Everything should be left alone and ONLY IF there are problems, then address them.

Yes it is softer to the touch which makes it more pleasurable for both man and woman. :)

This statement is hilarious to me. You say my husband cannot possibly know about what its like to be uncirced yet you will toot that sex is better for the man if they are uncirc'd. Are you a man? Did you once have a foreskin, have sex and then have it rermoved so you could tell the difference? If not then there is no basis for this portion of the arguement. Its hearsay. You could find me 100 websites AGAINST circumsizing and I could find you 100 for it. Maybe you know a man who was uncirced and then got circed. But thats 1 man. You said don't assume right? And even if you have been with both, you cannot claim to know what those men actually felt....

I've said it before and I will say it again. This type of debate actually makes me roll my eyes. Because the ones who DO circumsize believe it ok to circumsize or not circumsize. They believe the parents did what they feel is right. And those who do NOT circumsize cry out we mutilated our children, we're wrong, we're disgusting, we're bad parents. (maybe not ALL but I would say a majority and I even saw the word mutilation used in this thread....) And that makes me laugh. 2 totally different sides. 1 who is so darn gung ho about it will use words like mutilate. You took away perfection. (Sorry..My son IS perfect and I DARE someone to tell me otherwise....) You harmed your child. And the other side who says you do what you feel is right. Its not my business..

As far as the article goes. As I said earlier. I don't believe from this 1 article to be accurate. its interesting and I would be curious to see ALOT more data on it. But I cannot believe just 1 article on it.

I wouldn't take one article too seriously. We don't know how many partners these uncirc'd men had. That could've just been the reason for more STDs.

Hmmm I doubt it is "required" I know several parents who do not vax their children whatsoever. One is a family with 4 children who are all in school and have zero problems. People even use religion as an excuse not to vax which schools have to abide by.

Your natural disaster excuse still isn't a good one. People don't have to leave their homes until there is a threat. People circumcise before there is a problem. They circumcise right after the child is born. In your case, no one should live in Florida or any region that has natural disasters which honestly, leaves very few places to live for the US population. lol They shouldn't live in "tornado alley", any places where there "might" be an earthquake, hurricane, etc "just in case". See what I mean? Bad example.

And we can go toe to toe all day and all night long, volleying for position through semantics and phrases if we so desire. There ARE some people who don't move to Florida, Tornado Alley and the western states just for that very reason.

Please show me in which relegious text that states we should allow our children to be exposed to diseases KNOWN to kill them. I have never encountered such a text, and I've done my fair share of reading. You know, nevermind. It's completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

The final score for this debate will simply equate to a name-calling free for all. Some of us are butchers who mutilate our young for the simple sake of tradition. Some of us are just petrified of the medical community using people as lab rats. Some of us say to leave nature alone, others say nature is flawed. The final score is preference, regardless of how much research we do. I mean, I KNOW I'm right, but others disagree.

I dont recall any doctors removing the appendix at birth just because it has no known purpose. We keep it in our body until it causese problems. Everything should be left alone and ONLY IF there are problems, then address them.

It's not removed at birth because it's an invasive surgery that requires slashing the stomach muscle and exposing the stomach cavity. This is proportionately bad because of the ease of infection most newborns have. If the appendix were located on the inner thigh, it would probably be removed at birth. And your argument for "leave it alone until it breaks" is absolutely perfect. I think a reversion to living in caves and hunter/gatherer lifestyles is long overdue.

Because the ones who DO circumsize believe it ok to circumsize or not circumsize. They believe the parents did what they feel is right. And those who do NOT circumsize cry out we mutilated our children, we're wrong, we're disgusting, we're bad parents.

Well said!!! :thumbsup

I've said it before and I will say it again. This type of debate actually makes me roll my eyes. Because the ones who DO circumsize believe it ok to circumsize or not circumsize. They believe the parents did what they feel is right. And those who do NOT circumsize cry out we mutilated our children, we're wrong, we're disgusting, we're bad parents. (maybe not ALL but I would say a majority and I even saw the word mutilation used in this thread....) And that makes me laugh. 2 totally different sides. 1 who is so darn gung ho about it will use words like mutilate. You took away perfection. (Sorry..My son IS perfect and I DARE someone to tell me otherwise....) You harmed your child. And the other side who says you do what you feel is right. Its not my business..


That's why i don't care to debate. I have my feelings and others have theirs. And I get tired of reading about how uncircumsized is "weird" or my kid could get STD'S or whatever other bullshit just cuz he'd be uncirc. And I'm sure the same goes for those that do circ, that their tired of reading how their mutilators and what not.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the evidence "complex and conflicting," and therefore concludes that, at present, the evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision.

It still came back to the same conclusion. There is no studies that prove its better to circumsize or not. Its all about what the parents feel is right. I know an uncir. penis can be and is just as clean as a cir. one. I have my feelings on it and did accordingly with my son.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the evidence "complex and conflicting," and therefore concludes that, at present, the evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision.

It still came back to the same conclusion. There is no studies that prove its better to circumsize or not. Its all about what the parents feel is right. I know an uncir. penis can be and is just as clean as a cir. one. I have my feelings on it and did accordingly with my son.

:yes There is no conclusive scientific evidence for or against circumcision so there is no right or wrong on this subject - it purely comes down to personal preference.

I don't think that people who chose to circ' mutilated there kids or arn't good parents?!? I just don't understand why but it's not my business why someone does something in there own house. My business is why and how I do things in my own house.

I don't think that people who chose to circ' mutilated there kids or arn't good parents?!? I just don't understand why but it's not my business why someone does something in there own house. My business is why and how I do things in my own house.

I agree it is the parents discretion. However I stand by my statement that "most" who are against circumsion do use the terms mutilation and such. (I am not saying you did by any means) In fact it was even used in this thread. :yes And thats fine. Because I know I didnt mutilate my son. Hes perfect in every single way (L)

I will say this my dh is circ as are my boys and we obviously NEVER had a problem concieving considering we have 3 kids born in 98,99, and 2000 so I don't see how that is factual.
As for better sex he hasn't complained once :D
and how would someone "intact" Know obviously he hasn't had sex after having been BUTCHERED as yall put it
Sorry i was going to stay away but I just couldn't:teehee I don't know where you got your information but the foreskin is created for a purpose, why else would every boy be born with one? Many purposes. In infancy and young childhood it protects against feces, urine and abrasions from diapers and later in life against abrasions from underwear and clothing. The foreskin keeps the glans soft, naturally moist and protects it from trauma or injury. If you have ever actually come across an intact penis you would realize compared to a circumcised penis they are very different and what I have said is true. A circumcised penis is dry, can become calloused and always desensitized from exposure and chafing. The nerves in the foreskin help to aid erection. Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence. Specialized nerve endings in the foreskin enhance sexual pleasure. These are just a few. If I sat here and thought I could go quite sometime listing what a penis loses when it is mutilated and even the man himself. Not to mention, problems among circumcised boys are very very common, especially adhesions and all too often, children have to go back in to be "re-circumcised".

I looked up what you said about diabetes and saw that it was a "theory" again, nothing proven, just what someone assumes. You know what a person does when they assume right? ;) If a person becomes a vegetarian they are likely to get rid of diabetes. If one becomes a vegan, they will almost 99% of the time get rid of their diabetes permanently so long as they stay away from meats and dairy which isn't healthy anyways. Why should one mutilate a child when IF that does happen to the child at a later date...BIG IF...there are other ways to "fix" the problem? That sounds lazy to me.

How can you say that being circumcised did you any good? You wouldn't know what would've been had you been left intact. Sex would probably be better, much less of a chance to end up on viagra, probably better chance in helping to concieve a child, etc, etc. The great thing about leaving a child intact is that if there are problemsm then they can be circumcised but if a circumcised boy has problems, there really isn't much they can do, their parents already took that chance away.

But, my mom butchered me when I was an infant. I've never had an STD, never had any penile infections, never had anything worse than a bile build up. In my case, the butchering apparently did some good.



I think this is the only time anyone mention butchering.

I think this is the only time anyone mention butchering.

Actually it isn't ;)

. Why should one mutilate a child when IF that does happen to the child at a later date...BIG IF...there are other ways to "fix" the problem? That sounds lazy to me.



The term mutilation was used above

I think this is the only time anyone mention butchering.

Nope butchering and mutilating was mentioned several times :mrgreen

This statement is hilarious to me. You say my husband cannot possibly know about what its like to be uncirced yet you will toot that sex is better for the man if they are uncirc'd. Are you a man? Did you once have a foreskin, have sex and then have it rermoved so you could tell the difference? If not then there is no basis for this portion of the arguement. Its hearsay. You could find me 100 websites AGAINST circumsizing and I could find you 100 for it. Maybe you know a man who was uncirced and then got circed. But thats 1 man. You said don't assume right? And even if you have been with both, you cannot claim to know what those men actually felt....

I've said it before and I will say it again. This type of debate actually makes me roll my eyes. Because the ones who DO circumsize believe it ok to circumsize or not circumsize. They believe the parents did what they feel is right. And those who do NOT circumsize cry out we mutilated our children, we're wrong, we're disgusting, we're bad parents. (maybe not ALL but I would say a majority and I even saw the word mutilation used in this thread....) And that makes me laugh. 2 totally different sides. 1 who is so darn gung ho about it will use words like mutilate. You took away perfection. (Sorry..My son IS perfect and I DARE someone to tell me otherwise....) You harmed your child. And the other side who says you do what you feel is right. Its not my business..

As far as the article goes. As I said earlier. I don't believe from this 1 article to be accurate. its interesting and I would be curious to see ALOT more data on it. But I cannot believe just 1 article on it.

Yes, it is proven that sexual pleasure is better for the uncircumcised man. Do you know how many nerves are in the foreskin? I guess not. It isn't just some useless and tiny flap of skin. They have done tests on those who were circumcised later in life. The difference between 100 sites for and 100 against are that the sites for circumcision are mostly based on theory, not facts. The AAP recommends against it saying that there is no medical reasoning. The original reason circumcision started was to prevent masterbation and pleasure during sex. Obviously that isn't completely true and now people do it "just because".

It shouldn't be a parents decision to mutilate a child, especially when the AAP doesn't recommend it. I believe in children's rights! Parents are selfish.

Circumcision IS mutilation. When someone cuts themselves it is called self mutilation.

Mutilation
Main Entry: mu·ti·late
Pronunciation: 'myü-t&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin mutilatus, past participle of mutilare, from mutilus truncated, maimed
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of

You can deny the term all you want but no matter how you slice it, it is still mutilation. Not to be an asshole but if people thought thier children were perfect, they would leave them alone instead of creating their children into what they want them to look like. Why else do women get breast implants? They aren't happy with themselves.

Yes, it is proven that sexual pleasure is better for the uncircumcised man. Do you know how many nerves are in the foreskin? I guess not. It isn't just some useless and tiny flap of skin. They have done tests on those who were circumcised later in life. The difference between 100 sites for and 100 against are that the sites for circumcision are mostly based on theory, not facts. The AAP recommends against it saying that there is no medical reasoning. The original reason circumcision started was to prevent masterbation and pleasure during sex. Obviously that isn't completely true and now people do it "just because".

It shouldn't be a parents decision to mutilate a child, especially when the AAP doesn't recommend it. I believe in children's rights! Parents are selfish.

Circumcision IS mutilation. When someone cuts themselves it is called self mutilation.

Mutilation
Main Entry: mu·ti·late
Pronunciation: 'myü-t&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin mutilatus, past participle of mutilare, from mutilus truncated, maimed
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of

You can deny the term all you want but no matter how you slice it, it is still mutilation. Not to be an asshole but if people thought thier children were perfect, they would leave them alone instead of creating their children into what they want them to look like. Why else do women get breast implants? They aren't happy with themselves.

I can find just as much info on circumsizing your child as you can on not. So your "proof" means squat to me. In fact you kinda threw yourself out of this debate in my eyes. ANYONE who can sit here and say I mutilated my child isn't worth my time in a debate ;) You are obviously so closed minded it isnt even funny. Never mind I have stated REPEADLY if you circ fine, if you dont then fine. Its your decision. Whatever

I can find just as much info on circumsizing your child as you can on not. So your "proof" means squat to me. In fact you kinda threw yourself out of this debate in my eyes. ANYONE who can sit here and say I mutilated my child isn't worth my time in a debate ;) You are obviously so closed minded it isnt even funny. Never mind I have stated REPEADLY if you circ fine, if you dont then fine. Its your decision. Whatever

:lol You are funny! As I stated, I know you can find a lot of info for circ'ing but most is simply theory...just someone assuming. Obviously I have offended you and I'm sorry if I did so but this is a debate board afterall. I have friends who circ'd their boys, I don't even mention it, they did it...whatever! I don't agree but I don't tell them that unless they ask my view. I do think it should be illegal until 18 years of age, just like it is for females. You think I'm close minded and I could just as easily say that you are materialistic or shallow! But I wouldn't go that low.

:lol You are funny! As I stated, I know you can find a lot of info for circ'ing but most is simply theory...just someone assuming. Obviously I have offended you and I'm sorry if I did so but this is a debate board afterall. I have friends who circ'd their boys, I don't even mention it, they did it...whatever! I don't agree but I don't tell them that unless they ask my view. I do think it should be illegal until 18 years of age, just like it is for females. You think I'm close minded and I could just as easily say that you are materialistic or shallow! But I wouldn't go that low.

Open minded people don't tell other debater's that they have mutilated their child.

Double post - I'm too impatient.

The final score for this debate will simply equate to a name-calling free for all. Some of us are butchers who mutilate our young for the simple sake of tradition.

You think that saying circumcision is mutilation is name calling? :nutts What if I was talking about "so and so" and how she self mutilates? Would you say that I was calling her a name? That is just silly!

Open minded people don't tell other debater's that they have mutilated their child.

It is a simple term and did you see the definition? It is a harsher word than "circumcision" but it is what it is.

You think that saying circumcision is mutilation is name calling? :nutts What if I was talking about "so and so" and how she self mutilates? Would you say that I was calling her a name? That is just silly!

Yep, you are name calling. Since the circumcision occurs after a decision is made by the parents, the parents are then the mutilators.

Yep, you are name calling. Since the circumcision occurs after a decision is made by the parents, the parents are then the mutilators.

So you see circumcisers as being better than mutilators? It's all the same thing.

Call me an intactivist. I don't care. :lol

:lol You are funny! As I stated, I know you can find a lot of info for circ'ing but most is simply theory...just someone assuming. Obviously I have offended you and I'm sorry if I did so but this is a debate board afterall. I have friends who circ'd their boys, I don't even mention it, they did it...whatever! I don't agree but I don't tell them that unless they ask my view. I do think it should be illegal until 18 years of age, just like it is for females. You think I'm close minded and I could just as easily say that you are materialistic or shallow! But I wouldn't go that low.

The info against circ is also theory - we have yet to discover any indisputable scientific evidence that argues either side of this debate. The WHO - the world's governing medical body - does not find fault with circumcision, nor does it advise it.

It shouldn't be a parents decision to mutilate a child, especially when the AAP doesn't recommend it. I believe in children's rights! Parents are selfish.

You may say that mutlilation is just a term but to call parents selfish is a direct insult.

The info against circ is also theory - we have yet to discover any indisputable scientific evidence that argues either side of this debate. The WHO - the world's governing medical body - does not find fault with circumcision, nor does it advise it.



You may say that mutlilation is just a term but to call parents selfish is a direct insult.

There is proof to argue one side of this debate. :)

I was talking about children's rights in general...(abortion, circumcision, ear piercing, etc.)

There is proof to argue one side of this debate. :)

I was talking about children's rights in general...(abortion, circumcision, ear piercing, etc.)

There is a way to debate without insulting people though, it's all in the wording ;)

There is 'proof' to argue both sides, which is why I haven't taken a side.

So you see circumcisers as being better than mutilators? It's all the same thing.

Call me an intactivist. I don't care. :lol

Actually, I'd prefer to be referred to as a parent who is circumsized and never had a problem, knows uncircumcized people who HAVE had problems and made a decision based on the health of my child as I saw fit. But you're welcome to embellish your side of the argument as much as you want :) We can play word games all week long. But this won't change the fact that to me, some view me as a butcher while I view them as someone who just chose not to circumcize their child.

this is completely absurd to resort to name calling :no
Oh well I know what I did was right for my boys, and all in all there is NO proof either way, cause you can't get it back (the skin) to prove one way or the other and if you have always had it then you obviously don't know what is on the "other side of the fence"
:rolleyes

There is a way to debate without insulting people though, it's all in the wording ;)

There is 'proof' to argue both sides, which is why I haven't taken a side.

I find that there are many more pro's to leaving a child as is. Up until I was pregnant I had never thought about not having a child circumcised. I thought it was just "normal" until someone asked me. I never realized that I had a choice, I just figured it was usually just done these days. Let's just say there are enough pro's for being intact to sway a pretty pro-circ person (being me). In the end I found out that no one in my family is circumcised and a lot of my guys friends weren't. (who woulda' thunk? lol) This all came out when I told them I wasn't going to have it done. My mom wanted to beat me for ever even thinking that circumcision was normal but when no one tells you...??? DH is circ'd and was pro-circ until we watched a video of the procedure. He didn't even finish watching it and decided with that video and all of the information that he could never do that to his child. So yes, I was open minded enough to research both sides equally and change my pro-circ views because the pro's for leaving a child as is, is a very great amount! It even changed the view of my once pro-circ hubby. I'm proud of him for thinking outside of the box.

So yes, obviously for this country to be decreasing in the circumcision market each year, there are more pro's for one side than the other. ;) A movement for children's rights and about damn time.

Actually, I'd prefer to be referred to as a parent who is circumsized and never had a problem, knows uncircumcized people who HAVE had problems and made a decision based on the health of my child as I saw fit. But you're welcome to embellish your side of the argument as much as you want :) We can play word games all week long. But this won't change the fact that to me, some view me as a butcher while I view them as someone who just chose not to circumcize their child.

You chose what you chose but I hope you researched it first. I find it quite irresponsible to choose such a fate for a child only based on "the people you know".

this is completely absurd to resort to name calling :no
Oh well I know what I did was right for my boys, and all in all there is NO proof either way, cause you can't get it back (the skin) to prove one way or the other and if you have always had it then you obviously don't know what is on the "other side of the fence"
:rolleyes

while you will never get the same nerves and skin back, many guys do restoration. Just something new for people to check out.

http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/restore/

*maybe some explicts pictures*

while you will never get the same nerves and skin back, many guys do restoration. Just something new for people to check out.

http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/restore/

*maybe some explicts pictures*

Yes, restoration takes quite sometime and is very stressful. I am actually apart of a board for anti-circ'ers and a lot of those on there are men and quite a few are trying to restore thier foreskins. It isn't completely impossible but it is a LONG road!

while you will never get the same nerves and skin back, many guys do restoration. Just something new for people to check out.

http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/restore/

*maybe some explicts pictures*

There hasn't been any comparitive research published focusing on patients that have undergone restorative surgery and even if there were, the caveats incurred would be numerous. So, there would still be no conclusive evidence for or against circumcision.

very well said Sonia
and for the record there were Several guys in my high school whos parents didn't have them circed but they did it in High school and I know for a fact that one of them did it for health reasons, now what they were I don't know didn't ask. Wasn't as blunt in my younger years :lmao

very well said Sonia
and for the record there were Several guys in my high school whos parents didn't have them circed but they did it in High school and I know for a fact that one of them did it for health reasons, now what they were I don't know didn't ask. Wasn't as blunt in my younger years :lmao

Arnold Scwarz. (however you spell it)...the Governor of California was intact until he came to the US. He circumcised himself in his 20's so that he could become "more American" and be "accepted". Those words were from his mouth. I think it is sad that people feel they have to change themselves in this country to be accepted.

Arnold Scwarz. (however you spell it)...the Governor of California was intact until he came to the US. He circumcised himself in his 20's so that he could become "more American" and be "accepted". Those words were from his mouth. I think it is sad that people feel they have to change themselves in this country to be accepted.

and how long ago what that???? yes, we did research it, watched the video and still had Gabe and Chris done. for us, the pros FAR out weighed the cons.

OK and I am sure had my husband sat and watched a Vasectomy he wouldn't have gone through with it. And sure as hell wouldn't have done it twice. So just cause you can't sit and watch a procedure being done doesn't mean that is a pro.
I wouldn't have had my 2 breast reductions had I HAD to watch a video before had :rolleyesI find that there are many more pro's to leaving a child as is. Up until I was pregnant I had never thought about not having a child circumcised. I thought it was just "normal" until someone asked me. I never realized that I had a choice, I just figured it was usually just done these days. Let's just say there are enough pro's for being intact to sway a pretty pro-circ person (being me). In the end I found out that no one in my family is circumcised and a lot of my guys friends weren't. (who woulda' thunk? lol) This all came out when I told them I wasn't going to have it done. My mom wanted to beat me for ever even thinking that circumcision was normal but when no one tells you...??? DH is circ'd and was pro-circ until we watched a video of the procedure. He didn't even finish watching it and decided with that video and all of the information that he could never do that to his child. So yes, I was open minded enough to research both sides equally and change my pro-circ views because the pro's for leaving a child as is, is a very great amount! It even changed the view of my once pro-circ hubby. I'm proud of him for thinking outside of the box.

So yes, obviously for this country to be decreasing in the circumcision market each year, there are more pro's for one side than the other. ;) A movement for children's rights and about damn time.

Arnold Scwarz. (however you spell it)...the Governor of California was intact until he came to the US. He circumcised himself in his 20's so that he could become "more American" and be "accepted". Those words were from his mouth. I think it is sad that people feel they have to change themselves in this country to be accepted.

Your point pertains to a completely different debate - I don't see how this is relevant.

and how long ago what that???? yes, we did research it, watched the video and still had Gabe and Chris done. for us, the pros FAR out weighed the cons.

In his 20's...obviously quite sometime ago. Just as Breezy's highschool experience was quite sometime ago as well.

You chose what you chose but I hope you researched it first. I find it quite irresponsible to choose such a fate for a child only based on "the people you know".

So, by being informed, do you mean watching a video and finding out people around you are uncirc'd? This isn't research. You made the decision based on the EXACT same information you just said I shouldn't use, i.e., the "people I know"...

OK and I am sure had my husband sat and watched a Vasectomy he wouldn't have gone through with it. And sure as hell wouldn't have done it twice. So just cause you can't sit and watch a procedure being done doesn't mean that is a pro.
I wouldn't have had my 2 breast reductions had I HAD to watch a video before had :rolleyes

Again the difference here sweetheart is that it was YOUR choice! You made the decision for your own body as did your husband. By circumcising a child, you are taking away the rights of your child. As I said, and having to repeat again :screwy, the information had a lot of pro's...the video for my HUSBAND was just icing on the cake.

In his 20's...obviously quite sometime ago. Just as Breezy's highschool experience was quite sometime ago as well.

That made no sense. Breezy said that there were a couple of guys that had to be circ'd for medical reasons in high school. how is that relavant????

while you will never get the same nerves and skin back, many guys do restoration. Just something new for people to check out.

http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/restore/

*maybe some explicts pictures*

Ok well that isn't the way GOD intended cause that is man made :no so still not the same
cause I am sure that there is loss of nerves from the surgery

Again the difference here sweetheart is that it was YOUR choice! You made the decision for your own body as did your husband. By circumcising a child, you are taking away the rights of your child. As I said, and having to repeat again :screwy, the information had a lot of pro's...the video for my HUSBAND was just icing on the cake.

and guess what??? till my children turn 18, all medical procedures are MY choice!!!

In his 20's...obviously quite sometime ago. Just as Breezy's highschool experience was quite sometime ago as well.

not that long hell I have only been out for 11 years and like I said I KNOW one of them was medical the others didn't talk about it but being a small town people talk :D

Wow! I'm sorry but I am done with this subject you people cannot read or just refuse to pay attention.

Hate - I said I found out that people I knew weren't circ'd after I told them that we weren't going to have it done.

Donna - She said only 1 was circ'd for medical reasons.

If you want to discuss this more, feel free to IM me but I'm sick of repeating what I said or what other's said just because you either can't read or refuse to pay attention. Some of us do have kids to take care of.

Again the difference here sweetheart is that it was YOUR choice! You made the decision for your own body as did your husband. By circumcising a child, you are taking away the rights of your child. As I said, and having to repeat again :screwy, the information had a lot of pro's...the video for my HUSBAND was just icing on the cake.

Actually, just the simple act of HAVING the child violates the child's rights.. maybe he or she didn't want to be born. Perhaps we should make a new movement called "Dead skin rights".. since we're being pro-active and all.

Wow! I'm sorry but I am done with this subject you people cannot read or just refuse to pay attention.

Hate - I said I found out that people I knew weren't circ'd after I told them that we weren't going to have it done.

Donna - She said only 1 was circ'd for medical reasons.

If you want to discuss this more, feel free to IM me but I'm sick of repeating what I said or what other's said just because you either can't read or refuse to pay attention. Some of us do have kids to take care of.

It's not that we can't read or don't understand or refuse to pay attention, we simply don't agree with what you're saying. That's what a debate's about ;)

Again the difference here sweetheart is that it was YOUR choice! You made the decision for your own body as did your husband. By circumcising a child, you are taking away the rights of your child. As I said, and having to repeat again :screwy, the information had a lot of pro's...the video for my HUSBAND was just icing on the cake.

OK if we aren't supposed to make decisions for our kids why don't we all just pop them out and let them live on the street? then they can make their own decisions right?
Obiviously YOU Choose to FEED your child, YOU choose to bathe your child, YOU choose when and if to take your child to the DR. It is the same thing.
SO YOU are saying that as parents we don't have the RIGHT to decide what is best for our child/children WTF ever

and guess what??? till my children turn 18, all medical procedures are MY choice!!!

very well said DOnna

It's not that we can't read or don't understand or refuse to pay attention, we simply don't agree with what you're saying. That's what a debate's about ;)

I'm still trying to figure out where she's been repeating herself... I understand what she's saying perfectly well, and it doesn't jive with me, either.

Wow! I'm sorry but I am done with this subject you people cannot read or just refuse to pay attention.

Hate - I said I found out that people I knew weren't circ'd after I told them that we weren't going to have it done.

Donna - She said only 1 was circ'd for medical reasons.

If you want to discuss this more, feel free to IM me but I'm sick of repeating what I said or what other's said just because you either can't read or refuse to pay attention. Some of us do have kids to take care of.

that was purely BITCHY!
And I said I KNOW that 1 was but the others may have they just didn't talk about it!!!! So don't read into what I wrote.
I read everything you said but apparently you are doing the one thing you are accusing us of doing NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

OK if we aren't supposed to make decisions for our kids why don't we all just pop them out and let them live on the street? then they can make their own decisions right?
Obiviously YOU Choose to FEED your child, YOU choose to bathe your child, YOU choose when and if to take your child to the DR. It is the same thing.
SO YOU are saying that as parents we don't have the RIGHT to decide what is best for our child/children WTF ever

I think that making medical decisions is the parents rights until a certain age. However i do not see circumcision as a "medical" reason. there is nothing wrong or nothing that needs to be fix. it is same with that I wont pierce my daughters ears until she is old enough to make that decision. When Trent becomes of age and wants to be circumcised, then that is his decision. I am not against circumcision.........i am against making that decision for my son. Does that make sense?:hairout

I think that making medical decisions is the parents rights until a certain age. However i do not see circumcision as a "medical" reason. there is nothing wrong or nothing that needs to be fix. it is same with that I wont pierce my daughters ears until she is old enough to make that decision. When Trent becomes of age and wants to be circumcised, then that is his decision. I am not against circumcision.........i am against making that decision for my son. Does that make sense?:hairout

And yet, not 15 lines down, I see a "Say NO to circumcision" blinkie...

There is little to no medical evidence that states keeping a child uncircumcised is healthier than a circumcised child. This is the only FACT in this debate. Anything said outside of this statement is purely heresay and one's own opinion.

"Children's Rights" are a tricky topic. Suppose a child is born with his heart outside of his chest. Would you opt for corrective surgery, even though he stands a 88% chance of a completely normal life as long as extremely special care is provided? Children don't have the ability or capacity to make a decision, and some decisions need to be made BEFORE the child can have a say so. The longer we sit around waiting for the child to tell us what they want, the more traumatic and dangerous the procedure will become. This is why we are appointed as the child's legal gaurdians until they become 18 years old.

I think that making medical decisions is the parents rights until a certain age. However i do not see circumcision as a "medical" reason. there is nothing wrong or nothing that needs to be fix. it is same with that I wont pierce my daughters ears until she is old enough to make that decision. When Trent becomes of age and wants to be circumcised, then that is his decision. I am not against circumcision.........i am against making that decision for my son. Does that make sense?:hairout

I being the point here just cause you don't doesn't mean joe blow doesn't etc... that is YOUR opinion alone
and again that is YOUR CHOICE AS IT IS MINE TO DO IT
GET IT :hairout :hairout :hairout :hairout :rolleyes

I think that making medical decisions is the parents rights until a certain age. However i do not see circumcision as a "medical" reason. there is nothing wrong or nothing that needs to be fix. it is same with that I wont pierce my daughters ears until she is old enough to make that decision. When Trent becomes of age and wants to be circumcised, then that is his decision. I am not against circumcision.........i am against making that decision for my son. Does that make sense?:hairout

I agree with that.

"Children's Rights" are a tricky topic. Suppose a child is born with his heart outside of his chest. Would you opt for corrective surgery, even though he stands a 88% chance of a completely normal life as long as extremely special care is provided? .

Maybe I am dense but I don't get that??! Extremely special care is provided?? Obviously the childs happiness and health would be affected by the heart being outside his chest. Having corrective surgery in that situation is NOT the same. It's corrective. Circ is not corrective it's elective. Two completely diff situations.

Dang....I didn't know that circumcision could cause such a hot debate....

I look at circumsicion as a cosmetic procedure....nothing more, nothing less. It's fine for some people, not fine for other people. Hey, whatever floats your boat.....nobody else's penis has anything to do with me or my life, so who am I to suggest to someone else what to do, whether its based on facts, opinions, or heresay?

Maybe I am dense but I don't get that??! Extremely special care is provided?? Obviously the childs happiness and health would be affected by the heart being outside his chest. Having corrective surgery in that situation is NOT the same. It's corrective. Circ is not corrective it's elective. Two completely diff situations.

OK just like I "elected" to have my DDs ears pierced it is the Parents choice, if she decides she doesn't want them then she can let them grow shut and since we did it at such a young age she doesn't even know that it hurt just like my boys don't remember the circ and hell atleast they get a topical sedative

OK just like I "elected" to have my DDs ears pierced it is the Parents choice, if she decides she doesn't want them then she can let them grow shut and since we did it at such a young age she doesn't even know that it hurt just like my boys don't remember the circ and hell atleast they get a topical sedative

I was just saying that the argument he stated was a completely diff argument. It's like oranges and apples. And I did say that it's not my business what someone else does in there house. I don't care what you do or did. I just said that for me I didn't do it.

Dang....I didn't know that circumcision could cause such a hot debate....

I look at circumsicion as a cosmetic procedure....nothing more, nothing less. It's fine for some people, not fine for other people. Hey, whatever floats your boat.....nobody else's penis has anything to do with me or my life, so who am I to suggest to someone else what to do, whether its based on facts, opinions, or heresay?

very good point!
Like I said we all have our own opinions and no one is more than likely going to change the others mind, so we still have our own opinions :D

But when someone says that you mutilated your child for doing so, that is when people start getting pissed.
None of us who did/do it ever said that those who don't are "ignorant" or Stupid or unfit parents as was said to those of us who do or did circ. See what I am saying

very good point!
Like I said we all have our own opinions and no one is more than likely going to change the others mind, so we still have our own opinions :D

But when someone says that you mutilated your child for doing so, that is when people start getting pissed.
None of us who did/do it ever said that those who don't are "ignorant" or Stupid or unfit parents as was said to those of us who do or did circ. See what I am saying

I def see what you're saying. And I woudln't never say someone mutilated thier child.

But mutilated was used many times in this thread that was my point.
No not by you but it was there several times

I had both of my boys cir'd and did so because it just seemed like the "right thing to do" I didn't have the luxury of the internet for research and basically trusted what my OBGYN told me on the subject........plus I sort of allowed myself to fall in line with the "norm" at that time, so to speak. I was also VERY young when I had my first son. I honestly just thought EVERYBODY did it:rolleyes

I honestly can see this argument from both sides and hope that as the years go by it becomes a MUCH more thought out practice.

Who's to say in 10-15-20 years from now the medical community itself won't ban together and call the once common procedure barbaric or mutilating :dunno

Who's to say if it will even be a common practice in the future:dunno

Change can be a good thing :yes

Maybe I am dense but I don't get that??! Extremely special care is provided?? Obviously the childs happiness and health would be affected by the heart being outside his chest. Having corrective surgery in that situation is NOT the same. It's corrective. Circ is not corrective it's elective. Two completely diff situations.

I recall this being the case some years back. A child was born with his heart outside of his rib cage. His parents decided not to have it corrected (relegious beliefs) and he lived his life, essentially, in a bubble. He was home schooled (kids rough house too much) and was definately barred from sports. I'll have to look up the information on this, since it was probably 20 years ago or so, and my memory isn't what it used to be. Anyway, he was perfectly capable of having a normal life, so long as care was taken in avoiding hitting his heart. That's the "special care" I meant. He was basically forced to live his life in a bubble, but there were no medical issues warranting the surgery.

If they can PROVE that it isn't benefitial then that may happen, but so far nothing has been proven.
And yes sometimes changes and good and sometimes it is not!

I recall this being the case some years back. A child was born with his heart outside of his rib cage. His parents decided not to have it corrected (relegious beliefs) and he lived his life, essentially, in a bubble. He was home schooled (kids rough house too much) and was definately barred from sports. I'll have to look up the information on this, since it was probably 20 years ago or so, and my memory isn't what it used to be. Anyway, he was perfectly capable of having a normal life, so long as care was taken in avoiding hitting his heart. That's the "special care" I meant. He was basically forced to live his life in a bubble, but there were no medical issues warranting the surgery.

That's soo sad!!!!

I recall this being the case some years back. A child was born with his heart outside of his rib cage. His parents decided not to have it corrected (relegious beliefs) and he lived his life, essentially, in a bubble. He was home schooled (kids rough house too much) and was definately barred from sports. I'll have to look up the information on this, since it was probably 20 years ago or so, and my memory isn't what it used to be. Anyway, he was perfectly capable of having a normal life, so long as care was taken in avoiding hitting his heart. That's the "special care" I meant. He was basically forced to live his life in a bubble, but there were no medical issues warranting the surgery.

and so ultimately the child had probably a pretty boring life since he obviously couldnt' play with other kids and such, how sad!

I recall this being the case some years back. A child was born with his heart outside of his rib cage. His parents decided not to have it corrected (relegious beliefs) and he lived his life, essentially, in a bubble. He was home schooled (kids rough house too much) and was definately barred from sports. I'll have to look up the information on this, since it was probably 20 years ago or so, and my memory isn't what it used to be. Anyway, he was perfectly capable of having a normal life, so long as care was taken in avoiding hitting his heart. That's the "special care" I meant. He was basically forced to live his life in a bubble, but there were no medical issues warranting the surgery.

hehe ot the bolded part
okay now to my comment:
anyway i think it should be up to the parents discretion what they want to do with their child(ren)! as long as it is not going to cause long-term defects or "mechanical" problems let parents choose what they want for their kids. its sort of like the gay penguin book debate isn't it?

hehe ot the bolded part
okay now to my comment:
anyway i think it should be up to the parents discretion what they want to do with their child(ren)! as long as it is not going to cause long-term defects or "mechanical" problems let parents choose what they want for their kids. its sort of like the gay penguin book debate isn't it?

I def agree with that. What works in my house WILL NOT work in another..kwim.

very good point!
Like I said we all have our own opinions and no one is more than likely going to change the others mind, so we still have our own opinions :D

But when someone says that you mutilated your child for doing so, that is when people start getting pissed.
None of us who did/do it ever said that those who don't are "ignorant" or Stupid or unfit parents as was said to those of us who do or did circ. See what I am saying

I agree....I just don't understand how someone could criticize someone else's parenting, considering that no one is perfect, and kids don't come with a "How-To Guide"....I hate parents that think their answer is the right answer, and that you're a bad parent if you don't do what they think.
I mean, who wants to be accused of intentionally causing their child harm? I would get pissed to if someone accused me of that.
My mom calls them the PP (Parenting Police). :teehee

OK, now my disclaimer: I'm not saying this to anyone on the boards, or anyone specifically, but just people in general.

very good point!
None of us who did/do it ever said that those who don't are "ignorant" or Stupid or unfit parents as was said to those of us who do or did circ. See what I am saying

I am confused. are you saying that you were called "unfit"? because i dont recall anyone saying that about parents who do circumcise.

I being the point here just cause you don't doesn't mean joe blow doesn't etc... that is YOUR opinion alone
and again that is YOUR CHOICE AS IT IS MINE TO DO IT
GET IT :hairout :hairout :hairout :hairout :rolleyes


as for me doing ":hairout " just meant that I was not sure if i was making sense. In my head always sounds better than on paper.

That's soo sad!!!!

Off topic, but here's a similar story to the one I heard (http://www.health.wvu.edu/childrens/cmn/2003.asp), only this one is a bit more tragic in the beginning. Technology has advanced quite a bit to make this a happy ending.

I am confused. are you saying that you were called "unfit"? because i dont recall anyone saying that about parents who do circumcise.


I don't think she was saying that anyone here specifically said that....I think she was just speaking about people, in general.

I don't think she was saying that anyone here specifically said that....I think she was just speaking about people, in general.

Sorry I had things to do :D stepped away for awhile.
But what i was actually saying was that we didn't call names and such but "we" were called mutilators and such. And if you read between the lines then yeah the brandy chick pretty much said that we weren't fit, but that wasn't my reason for posting what I did.
It was just in the name calling in general

1.I believe it was said(and if I am wrong forgive me)that circumcision was not a common practice and that it was started to stop people from masturbating and such....well, just so you know the simple act of circimcision dates back to BC times...this was VERY common practice. MANY MANY websites out there to tell you this

2. It was said that a parent should not undo what God has done.....did you know that Jesus was circumsized?? Yep, it is true....it's in history and the bible....he was Jewish after all and it was VERY common practice for that to be done back then

3.Yes..there were some of you who did not pass judgement and did not say anything about mutilation and such...and I thank you very much!! But to the ones who have said that the parent who circs is mutliating their child and the parents who do are vain(maybe not your exact word...but they mean the same!)Well...thats just wrong and very judgemental...NO ONE has the right to judge someone elses for what they do. The choices I made to circ my son....and I am very happy that I did...were my choices and my choices alone, it was a thought out decision not a oh yea, lets just do it thing...so don't pass jusgement on me or anyone who chooses to do that

To address the no one is reading or listening thing...I read this WHOLE thing last night...I saw what you had to say and in all honesty it sounded more like you wanted people to agree with you and feel bad for the decisions they made....if that is not how you wanted it to come across...osrry, but remember this is a message board...this is not a person to person debate.

Onto sexual pleasure.....these tests that say and uncirc man has more sexual pleasure than a circ man....big old fat BS to me!! Trust me, had my dh been there for that test then the circ men would have come out on top!! My dh is circ'd and let me tell you the man has more sexual feeling and pleasure more than any other man I have known....

Not sure who said this...but it's been said many times...lets just agree to disagree:D

I am confused. are you saying that you were called "unfit"? because i dont recall anyone saying that about parents who do circumcise.



as .

Well I dunno about you. But someone saying I mutilated my child, took away his rights, I am materialistic and shallow for doing the procedure and uneducated pretty much falls into line with being called unfit. Dontcha think? I mean. I didnt do it soley for cosmetic reasons so how am I materialistic and shallow. I watched the procedure on a video, reasearched the hell out of it so how am I uneducated....People presume to know how or why I did something. Whatever. People wanna think I took away his rights? Believe what you want. And saying I mutilated my kid? Umm yeah I draw the line there. Thats ridiculous. And yes it is name calling. You can say she didnt come out and directly say that but by saying circumsion is mutilation and I had my child circumsized then by all means she is saying I mutilated my child. She did it "between" the lines. And sorry. Name calling in debates is essentially mudslinging. (yes I realize this is the debate forum, debates get heated, differences in opinion get heated. But it doesnt mean you gotta resort to mudslinging....) I never resorted to name calling until I said she was closed minded which was after I had been accused of being a mutilator numerous times. :shrug Sorry. The circumsision debate for me is over. I am comfortable in my decision and I am comfortable in others decisions. Do what you feel is right for your child whether you do it or not. Whatever. But dont sit here and call me names because I did it. Thats a low blow to me. Especially since I have never once mudslinged towards those who do. I never stated it was gross to be uncirc'd, I never stated it was not clean, I never stated non of that. I have maintained ober and ober again its fine either way. So where do I deserve to be called a mutilator. And essentially telling me somethings wrong with my child now? Thats sad. But I am done ;) I'm gonna go play with my little man and hug my perfect guy. Whos happy, healthy, gorgeous, loved and perfect. Just as I am sure yours is too....And most mothers kids are....

Wow :wow I need more coffee to get through this whole thread but I will state that I am a CHILD MUTILATOR!!! :lol Our son is cir'd and both of our dd's have their ears pierced or at least at one time had their ears pierced. :lmao

Well, as you all know, we won't circumsize, but I don't think it makes someone a mutilator. Hell, when it's time, my husband's getting snipped...So whats the difference in that compared to circumsizing?

I always thought I'd circumsize my son, but my thoughts changed b/c of personal reasons.