Circumcision....discuss?

[Guest]

Re: Cancer?

oh brother...its a matter of taste...i dont believe for one moment that parents have a sons forskin cut away to reduce cancer....after all, ANYTHING you cut out of the body will be assured to never become cancerous...but i never see people getting carried away..we are talking about societiel norms and cosmetic preferences here--period

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[TumbledLove]

I agree too.

We shouldn't be preforming cosmetic surgery on infants.

 

[Weevil]

Re: Re: Cancer?

I couldn't agree with you more.

Okay, I realize not everybody is married to a oncologist but we're talking about cancer of the penis, not cancer of the foreskin. When someone gets penile cancer it isn't localized in the foreskin. The only way your "There's less of a chance of cancer if there's less penis" not only doesn't make medical sense but it doesn't even make mathematical sense unless most of the johnson is being cut off.

 

[TumbledLove]

but if it's true - that removing the foreskin reduces cancer - then, it seems the foreskin is the culprit. I don't really believe that though.

 

[Weevil]

but if it's true - that removing the foreskin reduces cancer - then, it seems the foreskin is the culprit. I don't really believe that though.

Again, the evidence that removing the foreskin reduces the risk of cancer is based on nothing other than the incredibly large disparity of cases of penile cancer in those who've had the procedure and those who haven't.

And no offense, but between you and the AMA, who gives a flying fuck what you believe?

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Cancer?

Okay, I realize not everybody is married to a oncologist but we're talking about cancer of the penis, not cancer of the foreskin. When someone gets penile cancer it isn't localized in the foreskin. The only way your "There's less of a chance of cancer if there's less penis" not only doesn't make medical sense but it doesn't even make mathematical sense unless most of the johnson is being cut off.

My point was that it's easy for people to claim there's less chance of getting cancer if you have X thing removed. It doesn't matter what X thing happens to be. I don't believe that removal of the foreskin has much to do with penile cancer. Someone else (zipman) does (according to what he said in his post). I was refuting what he said.

I agree with you--that removal of the foreskin doesn't change what can or cannot happen to the actual penis, just as removal of one's _______[<--insert any body part here ] doesn't change the risk of cancer for the rest of one's body.

 

[zipman]

You do realize that for every medically reliable article that can be found in favor of your position, there is one for the opposite that is just as medically reliable.

We all but proved that last time this was debated - not to mention that the benefits and risks of each choice pretty much balanced each other to the point that it all just has to come down to what the parents prefer - and which risks/benefits they feel are most important to them.

I do realize that. The reality is that there are more benefits than detriments to doing it. However, because there are sometimes minor complications with circumcision and it is a preventative procedure the AMA refuses to make it a routine surgerical procedure for newborns.

The problem is that there people would rather come on here and spout their ignorance by saying that circumcision does not minimize the risk of getting Penile cancer which it has been shown to do.

That's in addition to the risk of urinary tract infections and other problems. While there are risks to circumcision, they are relatively minor (IMO) to the risks of not doing it.

However, I think the same thing as the AMA, that it is for each child's parents to make that decision for them.

 

[zipman]

Re: cleanliness is a matter of choice

uncut cocks are only unpleasant if children arent taught proper hygiene..remember, this was a custom instituted by the jewish nation to set them apart from gentiles...to my knowledge even Jehovah said nothing about hygiene. In europe and other countries it is much more common for men to have their forskin intact anyway...americans seem to obsess on it more..

Actually, it had absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish nation trying to set itself apart from gentiles but why post something factual when you can just come up with whatever sounds good to you?

 

[zipman]

You still don't get it. I'm NOT minimizing the horror of female circumcision whatsoever. I am, in fact, stating that I am just as horrified about male circumcision. Just because you don't find male circumcision to be horrifying doesn't mean that I don't find it horrifying.

Ask any physical anthropologist (they study human anatomy) and they will tell you that the little toe no longer serves a function in modern humans. It is, in fact, a vestige. That is why it is smaller than the other toes. And as we no longer need it it will continue to become smaller in successive generations.

Hey, you don't really need hair on your head, so why don't we remove all of it? I mean, it's more hygienic that way, 'cause you can get lice if you have hair. Clearly there are strong medical reasons for inhibiting your hair follicles.

I understand that you find them equally horrifying. That is what I found so totally ludicrous.

Sorry, but I think I will stick to actual medical specialists over physical anthropologists when it comes to whether or not I actually need my little toe or not. But your support and preferene of Physical Anthropology as the determining factor in matters of human health is duly noted.

Btw, I shave my head!

 

[Weevil]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Cancer?

My point was that it's easy for people to claim there's less chance of getting cancer if you have X thing removed. It doesn't matter what X thing happens to be.

Sure it does. While it might be easy to say you won't get lung cancer if you don't have any lungs it's also incredibly stupid. Saying that there's less of a chance of having penile cancer if you have been circumsized is endorsed by the American Association of Pediatrics and the AMA. You just don't believe them.

I don't believe that removal of the foreskin has much to do with penile cancer. Someone else (zipman) does (according to what he said in his post). I was refuting what he said.

No, you were simply saying that you thought he was wrong. Refuting what he raised would be citing a differing opinion from medical scientists. Like I said above you're disagreeing with the AMA and America's leading authority on pediatric medicine because it doesn't jive with what you believe. That's fine and dandy but it isn't a compelling argument.

I agree with you--that removal of the foreskin doesn't change what can or cannot happen to the actual penis, just as removal of one's _______[<--insert any body part here ] doesn't change the risk of cancer for the rest of one's body.

That isn't what I said and it's pretty cheap for you to imply that I did. It's a generally scientifically accepted fact that removing the foreskin reduces the risk of penile cancer.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cancer?

Sure it does. While it might be easy to say you won't get lung cancer if you don't have any lungs it's also incredibly stupid. Saying that there's less of a chance of having penile cancer if you have been circumsized is endorsed by the American Association of Pediatrics and the AMA. You just don't believe them.



No, you were simply saying that you thought he was wrong. Refuting what he raised would be citing a differing opinion from medical scientists. Like I said above you're disagreeing with the AMA and America's leading authority on pediatric medicine because it doesn't jive with what you believe. That's fine and dandy but it isn't a compelling argument.



That isn't what I said and it's pretty cheap for you to imply that I did. It's a generally scientifically accepted fact that removing the foreskin reduces the risk of penile cancer.

Lookin' for an argument, huh?

As I mentioned before in this thread, what the American Medican Association believes is not always true. For example, as I mentioned before, the American medical establishment used to think that tonsils had no function and would remove kids' tonsils whether they had problems with throat infections or not. That happened to my parents and their friends when they were children. The doctors just decided it was best to have childrens' tonsils removed. It wasn't until much later that the medical establishment realized that tonsils actually have a function, and so they stopped doing that unless a person had serious and recurring throat infection problems. There was also a time when some American doctors wanted to remove the appendix, even if children didn't have appendicitis, just to get rid of the risk of developing appenditicis later. They don't do that any more, either. Who's to say that the American medical establishment's craze for circumcision is any different? The AMA is not above the influence of cultural belief. Just check many European countries, in which doctors are equally certain that retaining one's foreskin is more medically sound than having it removed in order to see that a lot of this circumcision craze is CULTURAL and not so much medical.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cancer?

Lookin' for an argument, huh?

As I mentioned before in this thread, what the American Medican Association believes is not always true. For example, as I mentioned before, the medical establishment used to think that tonsils had no function and would remove kids' tonsils whether they had problems with throat infections or not. That happened to my parents and their friends when they were children. The doctors just decided it was best to have childrens' tonsils removed. It wasn't until much later that the medical establishment realized that tonsils actually have a function, and so they stopped doing that unless a person had serious and recurring throat infection problems. There was also a time when some American doctors wanted to remove the appendix, even if children didn't have appendicitis, just to get rid of the risk of developing appenditicis later. They don't do that any more, either. Who's to say that the American medical establishment's craze for circumcision is any different? The AMA is not above the influence of cultural belief. Just check many European countries, in which doctors are equally certain that retaining one's foreskin is more medically sound than having it removed in order to see that a lot of this circumcision craze is CULTURAL and not so much medical.

Doctors don't actually suggest to parents anymore that the kid be circumsized do they? I think the whole thing is more to do with the parents' views not the doc.

 

[Weevil]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cancer?

Lookin' for an argument, huh?

No, and I don't have a strong opinion on the subject one way or another on the subject. I'm just a firm believer in Asimov's saying "It's not that I have a great deal of faith that scientists are right but that I have absolute faith that the nonscientists are wrong"

As I mentioned before in this thread, what the American Medican Association believes is not always true. For example, as I mentioned before, the medical establishment used to think that tonsils had no function and would remove kids' tonsils whether they had problems with throat infections or not. That happened to my parents and their friends when they were children. The doctors just decided it was best to have childrens' tonsils removed. It wasn't until much later that the medical establishment realized that tonsils actually have a function, and so they stopped doing that unless a person had serious and recurring throat infection problems. There was also a time when some American doctors wanted to remove the appendix, even if children didn't have appendicitis, just to get rid of the risk of developing appenditicis later. They don't do that any more, either. Who's to say that the American medical establishment's craze for circumcision is any different? The AMA is not above the influence of cultural belief. Just check many European countries, in which doctors are equally certain that retaining one's foreskin is more medically sound than having it removed in order to see that a lot of this circumcision craze is CULTURAL and not so much medical.

Again, saying that they might be wrong is not a decent answer. The AMA and similar bodies do their best to find out what's right, the fact that they've been wrong in the past doesn't make them wrong in this regard. Unless you have a specific point about them being wrong then all you're doing is saying they're wrong because they disagree with you and your cultural beliefs on the subject.

 

[Angel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cancer?

Doctors don't actually suggest to parents anymore that the kid be circumsized do they? I think the whole thing is more to do with the parents' views not the doc.

No clue.

According to my mom, (and keeping in mind that my brother will be 16 in April) Her doctor spoke to her as if he just assumed that he would be circumcised, and she went along with it. (Well, I mean she wanted it done, she was just rather disconcerted that it was pretty much assumed).

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cancer?

No, and I don't have a strong opinion on the subject one way or another on the subject. I'm just a firm believer in Asimov's saying "It's not that I have a great deal of faith that scientists are right but that I have absolute faith that the nonscientists are wrong"




Again, saying that they might be wrong is not a decent answer. The AMA and similar bodies do their best to find out what's right, the fact that they've been wrong in the past doesn't make them wrong in this regard. Unless you have a specific point about them being wrong then all you're doing is saying they're wrong because they disagree with you and your cultural beliefs on the subject.

As someone else pointed out on this thread, there are just as many medical research articles stating that circumcision is not beneficial and some that even state it is detrimental as there are articles stating that it is beneficial. This is especially true if you check articles from other countries' medical journals. But I suppose that you don't care to examine this issue cross-culturally, so whatever American doctors say seems more important to you than what the rest of the world's doctors say.

And by the way, social scientists are SCIENTISTS, too. And yes, while my personal reaction to the idea of male circumcision is to feel horrified, the point of my posts in this thread has been and continues to be that Americans seem to view male circumcision as being hygienic, and have it performed on their children out of that belief, even though it's been proven that one's bathing habits have much more to do with hygiene in that region than the lack or presence of foreskin. Yet, lack of foreskin continues to be touted by the medical community as more hygienic than having a foreskin. If one asks the question "Why?", one will look towards cultural beliefs to provide an answer, as the medical explanation (hygiene) has already been proven false.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cancer?

No clue.

According to my mom, (and keeping in mind that my brother will be 16 in April) Her doctor spoke to her as if he just assumed that he would be circumcised, and she went along with it. (Well, I mean she wanted it done, she was just rather disconcerted that it was pretty much assumed).

I bet the doc was too

 

[zipman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cancer?

As someone else pointed out on this thread, there are just as many medical research articles stating that circumcision is not beneficial and some that even state it is detrimental as there are articles stating that it is beneficial. This is especially true if you check articles from other countries' medical journals. But I suppose that you don't care to examine this issue cross-culturally, so whatever American doctors say seems more important to you than what the rest of the world's doctors say.

And by the way, social scientists are SCIENTISTS, too. And yes, while my personal reaction to the idea of male circumcision is to feel horrified, the point of my posts in this thread has been and continues to be that Americans seem to view male circumcision as being hygienic, and have it performed on their children out of that belief, even though it's been proven that one's bathing habits have much more to do with hygiene in that region than the lack or presence of foreskin. Yet, lack of foreskin continues to be touted by the medical community as more hygienic than having a foreskin. If one asks the question "Why?", one will look towards cultural beliefs to provide an answer, as the medical explanation (hygiene) has already been proven false.

There are articles that describe potential risks or complications, but finding one that disavows the benefits of circumcision are more rare.

Yes, the web is great in finding cross-cultural information. For instance, Israel has one of the lowest rates of penile cancer due to the highly circumcised population both Jewish and Muslim.

And bathing can remove some of the risk as is seen in studies in Finland which still had 5-10 times a higher rate. Undeveloped countries where washing and bathing are less common tend to have much higher rates.

And considering the extremely poor habits of people in general washing their hands after going to the bathroom, I find discussion that washing will cure all these problems humorous to say the least.

As a supposed scientist, you seem cling to your theories and discount anything scientific that counters it. That's hardly scientific, now is it?

 

[Weevil]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cancer?

As someone else pointed out on this thread, there are just as many medical research articles stating that circumcision is not beneficial and some that even state it is detrimental as there are articles stating that it is beneficial. This is especially true if you check articles from other countries' medical journals. But I suppose that you don't care to examine this issue cross-culturally, so whatever American doctors say seems more important to you than what the rest of the world's doctors say.

Well, it might help if you cited some of these articles rather than just assume they exist because someone said that they do.

There are scientific articles saying global warming isn't influenced by our decisions because they're based on bad science. If you want to specifically mention the science you're basing your opinion on we can began to debate the merits of it. Simply saying there's an opposing scientific view and then not trying to establish what it is shows that you're coming from a position of ignorance and personal bias.

Yet, lack of foreskin continues to be touted by the medical community as more hygienic than having a foreskin. If one asks the question "Why?", one will look towards cultural beliefs to provide an answer, as the medical explanation (hygiene) has already been proven false.

Cancer is rarely thought to be an issue of hygiene.

 

[Angel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cancer?

Well, it might help if you cited some of these articles rather than just assume they exist because someone said that they do.

The other circumcision thread was linked somewhere in here, complete with links from both sides, and plenty in the middle.

 

[reddcutie]

oh zipman......

so much angry clamor...too..people would take you more seriously if you didnt vent your spleen at every opprotunity...perhaps social skills arent your strong suite, but i find many times people will be more open to ideas if you arent always insinuating at your supposed intellectual superiority...

 

[Marathonman]

OK

I want to thank everyone for their opinions. I now have all that I need.

thanks again.

 

[Guest]

Re: oh zipman......

so much angry clamor...too..people would take you more seriously if you didnt vent your spleen at every opprotunity...perhaps social skills arent your strong suite, but i find many times people will be more open to ideas if you arent always insinuating at your supposed intellectual superiority...

You want to fuck him don't you? It's kinda obvious.

 

[zipman]

Re: oh zipman......

so much angry clamor...too..people would take you more seriously if you didnt vent your spleen at every opprotunity...perhaps social skills arent your strong suite, but i find many times people will be more open to ideas if you arent always insinuating at your supposed intellectual superiority...

LOL, I didn't realize that my spleen was in such danger from venting. Actually, my social skils are quite well developed, I just use them accordingly. When someone pops into a thread to make a totally factually incorrect comment I hardly see the need for social pleasantries. What can I say, stupidity and ignorance are pet peeves of mine.

However, if you felt insulted or intellectually marginalized by being corrected then please accept my humble apologies.

 

[reddcutie]

why yes.........

obnoxious people make my clit hard....

 

[nitengale]

OK

I want to thank everyone for their opinions. I now have all that I need.

thanks again.

He's so damn cute. I just want to snuggle him, and hard.