Should I circumcize my son?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Did anyone mention that people without foreskin are resistant to AIDS?

didn't bother to read the whole thread.

[Imran Siddiqui]

PH: They are almost as bad as Creationists .

Basic principles of ethics, law and human rights prohibit surgery on anyone incapable of giving informed consent, unless those proposing the operation can show it's medically required.

Parents are legal guardians of their children. They can decide to do some surgery which has very minimal effects. Just like they can decide to pierce the ears of their child without her consent.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Did anyone mention that people without foreskin are resistant to AIDS?

didn't bother to read the whole thread.

Which is why there is absolutely no trace of AIDS among the Zulu, Masai and other sub-saharan people who use circumcision?

This is sarcasm, in case a pointer is needed.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Ok, wrong expression

apparently people who are circumcised have much lesser chance/ by an order of magnitude, to get aids trough having sex. That is what i watched on BBC, but there must be some websites, off I go to find some info.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

And to add, that study was done in Africa, on the tribes that did circumsize their children. - that much I still remember.

[Provost Harrison]

All I want is for people to stop being so squeamish about the concept of circumcision and debate rationally, there are pros and cons, just like anything. But I have personally had no problem, just means that for masturbation I need a bit of lubricant, which I don't see as a problem at all.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

quick google search returned this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/aids/434880.stm

Circumcision cuts HIV risk


Aids prevention efforts at a clinic in Uganda

Male circumcision significantly reduces the spread of the HIV virus to men, according to research.
In terms of infectious disease, Aids is the biggest killer in Africa, with HIV frequent in the sexually-active populations of many countries.

But the study, carried out by European and African researchers, found that uncircumcised men were at least three times more likely than circumcised men to contract the virus.

They looked at four cities, from different parts of the continent, and noticed marked differences in the incidence of HIV.

Not just sexual behaviour

This, said researchers, could not be explained away simply by differences in sexual behaviour.

However, in some of the cities, circumcision, in which the skin covering the tip of the penis is removed, was far more common, and these had far lower rates of HIV.

Anne Buve, an epidemiologist at the Insititute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, said: "We did find that circumcision confers certain protection against HIV, in that it seems circumcised men do not get HIV as easily as uncircumcised men."

Although the reason for the extra protection has not been proved, the research team suspects that the skin on the glans of the circumcised penis is tougher than that of the foreskin.

It is therefore less likely to suffer small abrasions which increase the chances of HIV being transmitted.

The study focused on Benin's capital Cotonou and Cameroon's capital Yaounde, where circumcision is a widespread cultural practice.

These towns were compared with Ndola in Zambia, and Kisumu in Kenya, where it is not.

Maina Kahindo, another researcher, urged Kenyan health authorities to act.

He said: "Both at national level and at ethnic leadership level, the issue of circumcision needs to be discussed and encouraged."

[Tom31]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Get your foreskin chopped off and then lecture on the rights and wrongs of it, because until then, you really have no idea.

People don't need to have a finger cut off to "lecture" on the rights and wrongs of cutting off a finger. Cutting off ANYTHING fits the legal definition of "wounding," and wounding a child is prohibited in civilized countries unless the wounding is medically mustified.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And tribes in Africa cut their ear lobes and put plates in them. People in the WEST, 'wound' baby girls by putting holes for earrings. Do you have a point or are you just being hysterical for fun?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

and here is how:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1025314.stm

The kindest cut?



More evidence that circumcision could be protecting men from HIV infection is revealed in the BBC's Horizon programme.
Laboratory experiments appear to demonstrate how the foreskin appear to be especially vulnerable to attack by the virus, which has killed millions in sub-Saharan Africa alone.

While some argue that encouraging circumcision in populations which have no historic tradition of the procedure amounts to mutilation, many scientists are convinced that many lives could be saved this way.

The latest experiments, carried out at the Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, US, took samples of the tissues of the foreskin kept alive in culture and deliberately exposed them to the virus.


HIV is rampant in sub-Saharan Africa

They found that cells in the tissues called Langerhans cells actually reached out to grab the virus, draw it into the tissue, and even transport it to the lymph glands, from where it can begin its assault on the immune system.

The key is the amount of a substance called keratin on the surface of the skin.

On most skin, this forms a solid layer which is impervious to viruses and bacteria - but on the mucosal surfaces such as is found on parts of the foreskin, there is less keratin.

The scientists in Chicago found that when areas of the foreskin which had the keratin layer were exposed to the virus, infection did not take place.

'Dramatic findings'

Dr Bruce Patterson, who led the study, said: "The most dramatic findings are the ease with which the foreskin is infected and the extent to which it is infected.

"If this is a primary tissue involved in transmission of HIV and we are capable of removing it, we should remove it."

There is a growing weight of statistical evidence that uncircumcised men seem to be far more at risk of contracting the Aids virus than circumcised men.

Early studies were contradictory, with some even suggesting that circumcised men were more at risk.

However, more sophisticated reanalysis of these results has reversed the conclusions.

[tandeetaylor]

I think the AIDS issue, while interesting, is moot. For one thing, there are so many ways to counterbalance any supposed higher chance of contracting it, and for another, if one wanted to guide all one's action towards one thing (that probably wouldn't happen) NOT happening, there are other unjustifiable-in-other-ways actions one could take. Unless he IS (or probably is)going to contract AIDS if he isn't circumcised, I don't see how it makes for justification.

[Tom31]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Male circumcision significantly reduces the spread of the HIV virus to men, according to research.

Circumcision can only reduce the spread of the HIV virus if the man is having unsafe sex. Men who wear condoms are not at risk for HIV, regardless of whether they are circumcised or not.

Any man stupid enough to play Russian roulette with unsafe sex can get himself circumcised at the age of 18 or whatever if he thinks it will reduce his chances of getting HIV.

That's assuming circumcision IS effective in reducing the risk of HIV--the definitive study has not yet been done.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oh it certainly provides some protection against HIV. I don't dispute that. However it provides no protection against herpes, syphilis and gonorrhoea, and the lesions caused by those ailments just put out the welcome mat for HIV.

That's why thinking circumcision is protection against AIDS is like thinking a beanie hat is proff against getting shot in the head.

[SuperSneak]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I spend 3 hours taking a train down to Maryland, and I come online to see this thread erupt into our own Great War.

I'm dismayed at this thread, though the last few postings have made it a little better. Such bile...

Since most seem to be kissing and making up, I'm not going to dredge up Sneak's sludge to root through it again. I will just say that it is obvious he's no longer as comfortable with his decision as he claims to be. Too bad he had to lash out with such baseless tripe. This marks the first time my opinion of an Apolytoner has really sunk like a rock in just one thread.

Whatever...I find it very amusing that the people who are sitting in lofty judgement have not and probably will not ever face the topic, so you really have nothing to say as far as I'm concerned.
If you'd read the progression of my "trip" it started off with me just throwing my .02's in and then getting piled on by a mealy-mouthed punk and Captain Genius here.
I am a generally docile person, but when you want to get froggy, I'll jump.

The insinuation that I made some sort of knee-jerk decision about my son, who I love so much it hurts, sent me through the stratosphere. I asked and read and debated until I was nearly in tears over the whole thing. Then, rather than sit in another room when it happened, I stood by his side for the whole process and, at least vicariously, went through it with him.

Before you start clicking your tongue and shaking your head, think about what might have brought me to be defensive about the topic--the fact that you basically **** on my head and my son's in the process did not endear you to me, either. Now, two wrong's don't make a right and I tried to make it up to Tandee slightly in my last post, but a few facts (in my mind) remain.

1) I think it is foolish to seek advice from people with no practical experience in the matter.

2) Especially from people who don't have children and fancy themselves fonts of knowledge on a topic very much up for debate still.

3) You pedantic bull*hit is very annoying to me. Especially Asher's.

4) Tandee's a big girl and can dish it out and take it better than Boris and Asher any day of the week.
Your attempts at screechy hysterical outrage only serve to confirm, in my mind, that you are full of crap.

Later....

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And tribes in Africa cut their ear lobes and put plates in them. People in the WEST, 'wound' baby girls by putting holes for earrings. Do you have a point or are you just being hysterical for fun?

Trying to compare piercing ears to anything that would actually cause pain is what is hysterical. There are no nerves and very little sensation in the lower part of the ear. Put your fingers up to ear, squeeze, and see how easy it is to feel it inside, let alone make it hurt.