Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: msnbc.com
A male child does not consent to circumcision, do his parents really have the right to make a lifetime choice for another person based on controversial data or religious provision?
It is time to make it a legal issue, instead of a medical or religious one? San Francisco is about to go into uncharted territory, by putting it to a vote, which may then, turn the issue into a national debate.
Ok guys, you have one or had one, what to you want your boy to look like?
#1 - Wed Feb 1, 2012 8:19 PM ESTSince you can easily reduce your chances of getting HIV by wearing a condom, I don't see why it's necessary to perform an excruciatingly painful procedure on infants for this benefit. If you've ever seen video of a circumcision, the baby's screams are blood-curdling.
#2 - Wed Feb 1, 2012 9:37 PM ESTI think I saw the same video on You Tube, the baby got to a point when it couldn't even breathe, yea, got to be bigtime.
Chasing: I agree that it's a whole different matter when adult men decide to have themselves circumcised. Not only are men old enough to make an informed decision for themselves, but from what I've heard, it's somewhat less painless once you're past infancy. Apparently, for a few weeks after birth, there's a layer of tissue similar to a nail bed between the penis head and foreskin, and severing this tissue from the foreskin creates even more pain.
I had one, and if I were to have a son, of course he would be circumcised. It's not just that he would have a piece of extraneous skin (one of many unnecessary evolutionary holdovers) removed, but along with the health benefits, it is also a cultural imperative in the USA.
As for the surgical procedure, it is normally performed with anesthetics, and normally infants never feel that "unbearable pain." In extremely rare instances, there are problems, but the rarity is such that, from a purely statistical point of view, it doesn't happen.
#3 - Thu Feb 2, 2012 2:37 AM ESTIt's more a cultural imperative in South Korea than in the US, these days; it may well be that the practice will live on there (we introduced it to them) long after it dies out here.
Actually, HIV prevention is the only health benefit of circumcision that has been confirmed in a study that didn't have methodological flaws, and you can get the same benefit from consistently wearing a condom during intercourse.
Also, there's nothing extraneous about the foreskin. It enhances the pleasure of both men and women during intercourse, and female orgasm increases the chances of conception.
And, yes, it looks like they're finally looking into the use of anesthetics during infant circumcision, which is a good thing. Interestingly, though, this article I found while looking into the anesthetic question, demonstrates the iffiness of the purported health benefits of circumcision:
Some medical benefits of circumcision have been found—lower rates of urinary tract infection (which is rare, one in 100 uncircumcised boys, and easily treated), lower rates of penile cancer (which is extremely rare, one in 100,000 men) and possibly slightly lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases. But there are also risks to circumcision, as there are for any surgical procedure. Although circumcision is generally a safe procedure, approximately one in 200 to 500 boys have complications such as bleeding, infection or improper healing. In all, since there are risks to circumcision and the benefits are rare, it does not appear necessary to routinely circumcise all baby boys.
it is also a cultural imperative in the USA.
Not really. About 52% circumcised to 48% not. Health benefits? Not so much either. The best plan? Wash your penis. I would assume both groups do that. It usually boils down to if dad did the boys do and vice-versa. I'm a single mom and I did not have it done to my son.
#4 - Thu Feb 2, 2012 9:22 AM EST48% Not? Interesting. I suspect there are regional and age statistics on that that are somewhat different. As a for instance, from my own personal observations, I'd say that the percentage of "not" is closer to 10%, and most of those are from other countries. Admittedly my pool of observation is only a few score, and ranging in age from 25 to 50, but still.
I suppose, with the current mindset, the percentage of people sticking with traditional standards will be decreasing even further. Too bad, especially when you consider the fact that HIV is likely to be with us for decades, and having a foreskin encourages HIV transmission (according to studies in the article this seed is based on)...and not everyone (especially those who are young) either chooses or remembers to use a condom.
#5 - Thu Feb 2, 2012 3:41 PM ESTThere are actually articles that show numbers lower than that. These are figures from the last 15 years. Circumcision rates were at their highest in the 60's, when my brothers were born. Right now it seems to be a decision of cultural, religious or personal preference.
Ah. I was born in the 60's myself. All of my friends were circumcised, and an exchange student in highschool felt really out of place, when it was noticed he was uncircumcised. Most of us had no idea (at the time) that there was an option.
My personal preference would be to have a boy circumcised, and yours, I know, was not to have it done for your son. I think it all comes down to just that; personal preference. To tell you the truth, all cultural, traditional, and health reasons aside, I just think an uncircumcised penis looks disgusting. Petty, I'm sure, but that's the way I feel.
A nurse friend of mine came up with another reason for a recent spike in decisions not to do circumcision. Simply put, people are watching their money, and many have been deciding that the cost of culture, tradition, or whatever, is just too high.
My son says that there is no...reaction one way or another. Some are, some aren't. When I was pregnant I tried to find an answer and asked my guy friends for their thoughts, no joy there, the ones that were said do it, the ones that weren't said don't. Thanks for nothing. I talked with one guy who had it done as an adult and said it was a huge mistake. Soooo...I didn't. We had interesting times in the tub teaching him how to clean himself. Somehow that wasn't a problem. :)
#6 - Thu Feb 2, 2012 5:48 PM ESTTimes have changed.
I've been curious about the subject, and some guys I've asked who were, said they wanted not to be, and other guys who weren't said they wanted to be; it's a strange and confusing world out there.
One fellow had to be circumcised as an adult, for medical reasons. He said he preferred it the new way, as he had more, um, endurance. Another guy, who'd had it done for the same reasons, said he didn't care for it, and had less endurance.
I like my penis the way it is, and others like theirs "uncut." It's all too subjective, I think, to make a case for or against. It's a matter of what works for you.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
