Should I circumcize my son?

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
The opinion of someone else is irrelevent, the matter should be debated rationally, not be done by a process of namedropping..

[Tom31]

The opinion of someone else is irrelevent, the matter should be debated rationally, not be done by a process of namedropping..

In a court of law the opinion of recognized experts is NOT irrelevant. If the consensus of opinion in the medical profession is that male circumcision is not medically justified, then that is the standard that is applied--not that of the parents or Aunt Bessie.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Asher

Modern studies show the opposite trend, actually. Here are some links to get your started:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

http://www.nocirc.org/statements/hiv_statement2001.html

http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/english/6read/6issues/6network/v18-3/nt1832a.html

In short, all of the studies showing uncut men are more succeptable tend to come from Africa, where there also tend to be inherent educational/social issues between who is circumcised and uncircumcised, depending on tribes, etc. As soon as you look at data in the western world, like the US, the situation reverses itself:

From the last article I cited:

In the United States, on the other hand, data from the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey, a nationally representative sample of 1,511 men and 1,921 women between the ages of 18 and 59, showed that there was no evidence of a prophylactic role for circumcision in regard to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). In fact, circumcised men were slightly more likely to have had both a bacterial and a viral STD in their lifetime.2

Likewise, it has been observed that circumcision of men had no significant effect on the incidence of common STDs (genital herpes, genital warts and non-gonococcal urethritis) in Australia.

#

whoooo - a thousand links what happened with the simple one of mine where they lab tested the foreskin... ah whatever happen, happens... the point is to use condoms anyway. If you get aids with the foreskin or without you might be lucky an live as long and prosperous as Magic Johnson .

[SuperSneak]

1500 samples is not even close to being grounds for "definitive" proof when the total group is in the billions.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Tom31


In a court of law the opinion of recognized experts is NOT irrelevant. If the consensus of opinion in the medical profession is that male circumcision is not medically justified, then that is the standard that is applied--not that of the parents or Aunt Bessie.

This is a thread on Apolyton where we are trying to discuss and debate a point. It certainly isn't a court of law. If you make a statement, you have to back it up...and in this particular instance, it happens to be more a matter of opinion on the nature of circumcision...

[SuperSneak]

The problem here, Sneak, is you're boiling down the issue to a simple "I have a kid and you don't, so I suddenly have a better opinion on the matter". Incase you didn't read the first post, you'll see she asked for *MEN* to post about how they feel about being cut/uncut, not about what it's like for a parent to agonize over the decision.

No, she also asked women. And the header was "Should I circumsize my son", which, as a person who JUST WENT THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS, I feel I am a bit closer to the topic. But sorry for not fitting into your anally restrictive view of who she wanted and why.

Since we've decided (along with almost every pediatric society in the western world) that there is more harm than good in circumcision, and since you're not doing the circumcision for religious purposes, you're doing it for some other reason that you yourself don't even want to tell us. Was it so he'd look more like daddy, Sneak, or do you have some deep logic behind it?

I love this "we" ****. Who is we? You and your imaginary committee of know it alls? I saw a lot of varying opinions in this thread, but it just illustrates the point that your answer is the only answer, always, so "some" magically becomes "we".
I told you why I did it...there are two schools of thinking on the topic, and I agreed with the one you didn't. Just because yours has a slight numeric edge as far as Google is concerned, doesn't mean it is the right one. There have been countless studies on countless topics that are still swinging back and forth. I went with my gut and agreed that the foreskin could be a capture point for viral infection. My secondary basis was my religious and cultural background, which your own source points out as valid.
Very simple...nothing strange or hidden in my motives at all.

[Tom31]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm sorry but critisizing one on spelling errors is the sign of a crap debater. But then, I already knew that about you.

I wouldn't criticize anybody for making an ordinary typo. But you were consistently misspelling a technical legal term that you claimed to understand.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Tom31
... then that is the standard that is applied...

Yeah, I have to agree with PH. We're not "applying standards," we're discussing and deciding amongst ourselves. If we weren't we could just post polls without discussion and the more education/specialization in a certain subject you have, the more votes you get.

[Tom31]

Originally posted by SuperSneak
...there are two schools of thinking on the topic.

Actually, Sneak, there AREN'T two schools of thinking. Medical organizations throughout the world agree that infant male circumcision is not medically justified. And without medical justification, there are serious ethical and legal problems with this procedure.

[Q Classic]

oh, god, why don't you all just cut off your jimmys and be done with it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SuperSneak
1500 samples is not even close to being grounds for "definitive" proof when the total group is in the billions.

Hey, no kidding. Which is why when the sample group swells to the hundreds of thousands, when all 28 known studies on the matter are combined, the result is still the same with circumcized men having a higher infection rate.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by SuperSneak
No, she also asked women. And the header was "Should I circumsize my son", which, as a person who JUST WENT THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS, I feel I am a bit closer to the topic. But sorry for not fitting into your anally restrictive view of who she wanted and why.

Well, I don't what women you are referring to, unless you are talking about my comment that there are only 3 female posters that I have ever seen post (including myself).

I did really want to know what it's like to be a man, which is not to say you I didn't want to draw in other experiences, so to speak, but that was one of my main goals. And I would hope, if experience was a part of your opinion, that you could also bring some logic and reasoning, which I felt was lacking in your case. That means more than your experience, as far as I am concerned.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SuperSneak
No, she also asked women.

What thread have you been reading?

And the header was "Should I circumsize my son", which, as a person who JUST WENT THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS, I feel I am a bit closer to the topic. But sorry for not fitting into your anally restrictive view of who she wanted and why.

I don't think you should be giving ANY advice, Sneak, it's clear you didn't do any research into the matter other than asking your wife's OB/GYN (wtf?) and got it done without thinking. It's "tradition", as you said, so perhaps you're not as qualified as you think you are.

I love this "we" ****. Who is we? You and your imaginary committee of know it alls?

Well...all of those pediatric societies are hardly imaginary, and I believe they'd probably be the most informed to make the judgement on whether children should be circumcised. After all, that's kind of their field, huh? But perhaps your wife's OB/GYN knows everything about boys' penises, moreso than the pediatric association.

Find me one pediatric association which recommends the practice of circumcision, Sneak. Just one is all I need.

I told you why I did it...

What? "tradition"? "culture"? That's bull****, Sneak, and you probably know it. Your religion doesn't call for it, your son didn't need it medically, you did it because of tradition. That's not thinking, Sneak.

[SuperSneak]

Originally posted by Tom31


Actually, Sneak, there AREN'T two schools of thinking. Medical organizations throughout the world agree that infant male circumcision is not medically justified. And without medical justification, there are serious ethical and legal problems with this procedure.

Hey, genius, if there wasn't still room for debate, how come it is still legal? Like many things, it is a matter of choice.
Again, your own source leaves it to the parents, so it must not feel nearly as strongly as you do about it. I might also point out that your own source's latest opinion is a reversal of its previous opinion...what do you want to be that it may reverse again?
A slight statistical majority, even over 28 studies means nothing...the majority of studies were in response to the supposition that circumcision was good...now there will be a backlash against the con studies and someone else will gain a statistical edge in the near future. Wait and see.
As my son did not suffer any side effects from his circumcision, the majority of arguments against it are now moot. What remains to be seen is if, ultimately, he is more or less statistically likely to get an STD.
Personally, I doubt it.
Ultimately, it is probably negligible either way.

[Tom31]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor

We're not "applying standards," we're discussing and deciding amongst ourselves.

Yes, you're right. What I was trying to say was that in the event of a legal action, the court doesn't just take the parents' or the doctor's word for an operation being medically necessary. Medical necessity is measured by the standards of the medical profession as a whole.