this is getting me started again. I have written a lot on this--but this time I'll be quick.
Who writes these reports?
Circumcision has been so widespread in the USA, and for so long, that when a new report comes out its writers are just another lot of medical doctors who had had the chop when young when they could not complain.
Homo has been around for millions of years--forever advancing.
Homo sapiens has been on Earth for some 200,000 years. Nature led to a perfect penis that we boys get born with.
These god-fearing doctors think they can improve on Nature--or improve on what their mythical god provided. If boys are taught cleanliness--or learn it for themselves--they don't get any 'adverse medical condition'.
Try asking the writers of this report what their religion is.
Try asking them, were they cut when young?
Try funding a report by atheist doctors who were never circumcised. The result will be different.
I rest my case.
I AM! DAMN GLAD I AM!
AND ANY KID OF MINE WOULD BE!
END OF STORY!
I guess you like to circumcise your periods too.
Me thinks the laddy doth protest too much...
THAT THE BEST YOU HAVE CHILD?
AND LIKE I CARE WHAT YOU THINK!
Why? How do you come to that conclusion?
Let us, for a moment, consider a hypothetical situation whereas circumcision was never declared a religiously necessary practice as it was thousands of years ago. Fast forward to the 21st century. When male infants get a urinary tract infection, or teenagers contract a sexually transmitted disease, would the practitioners of modern medicine advocate cutting off the foreskin as a sensible remedy? I really doubt it.
In our current era where the highest level of personal hygiene is not only routine but is available to the most people ever, circumcision is not a rational option as preventative medical care.
This is such an emotional issue. It touches a nerve in many people. There is a lot of passion about it.
I'm not going back to reread the entire thread.
Here are some breast cancer statistics from the centers for disease control:
Not counting some kinds of skin cancer, breast cancer in the United States is—
For more information, visit Cancer Among Women.
In 2010 (the most recent year numbers are available)—
Breast cancer is a horrible disease. It affects 100 out of 100,000 women.
If we did a preventive mastectomy on all young women, the rate would be cut drastically. Probably not zero, but much lower. Extreme.... but so is breast cancer.
I would not advocate that. The risk is too high, the cost to individual body autonomy is too much, the cost to personal self esteem is to high, it's too much to ask.
To me, the circumcision issue is like that too. For each parent, it depends on how much they value the personal body integrity of their baby boy. If they don't value their baby's body integrity, then it's not a big deal. If they do, then it is. Circumcision of an infant may not be nearly as extreme as prophylactic mastectomy, but it is a permanent change in a boy's anatomy.
Terry, I don't know if the being around for millions of years argument works. You can say the same about wisdom teeth and appendix. For some aspects of human anatomy, nature is not perfect. Even so, I don't consider circumcision as perfecting the infant boy, or the man.
This link only works about half the time, if that much, but if you can get it to play, I think they do make a valid point. I tried to find another link but could not.
The fact that the prepuce is common to almost all mammals, male and female, and has been for millions of years does add weight to the notion of its utility. This is especially true considering the male genitals are the instrument of reproduction and hence the evolutionary process. Besides, the functions of the foreskin are obvious to anyone who seriously considers the subject, and they have been written about for thousands of years.
For your information, the appendix has a known immunological function wikipedia and wisdom teeth present no problem in races that have not been subject to poor diet.
I didn't know there was an option when my sons were born 50 years ago. It wasn't even presented as an option. I didn't even ask if there were options or what the justification was for the procedures.
As I understand it now, it was to differentiate god's accepted men, all others were "other". All these years and it is still practiced! and for what reason? I saw a film of a rabbi biting off the foreskin and almost vomited. How could any person, man or woman, bite off a piece of tissue of a newborn? How could any person take such an action unless religion dictated it. Of course Hitchens had a lot to say about it. In this clip, starting at about 3:00 Hitchens has his say
I think my parents didn't know there was an option either, when they allowed a doctor to do it to me 70 years ago, and my brothers as late as 50 years ago. The mormon church has no requirement, but it was generally practiced as a religious thing by members in those days, if I remember correctly.
I think we would be better off without it, and would have preferred it not have been done to me, but have no strong feelings about it.
I AM DAMN GLAD THAT IN 1934, MY SUMMA CUM LAUDE HARVARD GRAD FATHER DID NOT KNOW, OR PERHAPS, CARE IF IT WAS AN OPTION OR NOT!
AND ANY KID OF MINE IS GOING TO GET CUT!
PERIOD! END OF STORY!