Quote from: YoungSoulRebel on October 24, 2009, 01:46:53 AM
It is does without anesthetioc because anesthetising infants can be dangerous -- of course, it's very rare, but sometimes the pain from circumcisision can cause shock and that can be fatal in infants.
They can use topical, local anesthetics. But in any case, I agree with you. It's cruel and not worth the risks.
Quote
No, that's not how it works.
Basically, the way that circumcision has proved a somewhat effective preventative measure against the AIDS pandemic in Africa (and against HIV alone, interestingly -- there have been no scientific studies concerning other STIs) is because the way HIV "works" as a virus is by attacking immunity cells. The purpose of the foreskin is to keep the mucus membrane of the glans and a portion of the shaft moist and prevent kertanisation (hardening and dulling) of this membrane; this is an important mucus membrane because when minor infectious cells such as bacteria or lesser vira become folded into it, the foreskin actually keeps loads of immunity cells within it. So basically the forskin, by doing its job, can make men more susceptible to HIV transmission -- but this is not at all an excuse for circumcising infants in the developed world with excellent education on HIV and STI prevention.
You obviously know more about biology than I. I was only going with what I read in a few articles several years ago. The comment about the fragility of the foreskin was actually in an article specifically dealing with the possibility of contracting AIDS from oral sex. At the time the only known cases of men getting AIDS from oral were linked to times when the foreskin tore during particularly vigorous, ah... activity. But this quote from a recent article in the Boston Globe supports that statement in other situations:
"Foreskin is more subject to inflammation than a circumcised penis, making it easier for germs to enter. The sensitive skin also contains certain cells that link easily with the AIDS virus."The same article also mentions findings that circumcised men are also less susceptible to syphilis and chancroid, and other articles have mentioned gonorrhea and chlamydia.
But your point about the availability of education and healthcare in developed nations is a good one. STD prevention in the western world is not a good enough excuse, at least not on its own.
Quote
No, it does not. The reason many intact boys get UTIs is because a paediatrician who has no idea how to care advise parents on foreskin care tells them that the foreskin has to be forced back in infancy -- but the foreskin does not retract naturally until the boy is between three and five years old. Forcing back the foreskin causes tears, making the child more susceptible to infection. Infant boys with UTIs aren't all that common at all in Europe and the UK -- where compulsory infant circumcision has been all but banned in most countries (save Sweden -- where it IS banned) since the 1940s. I grew up part-time in the UK -- trust me, I know this is fact.
Another excerpt from the same article:
Repeated medical studies have demonstrated that circumcised infants have a significantly lower risk of contracting a urinary tract infection, with some reports estimating that uncircumcised boys are 10 times more likely to suffer a urinary tract infection before their first birthday.
``With the foreskin there, there's nothing really to rub the bacteria off, and so they have a nice environment for multiplication," said Dr. George Klauber , chief of pediatric urology at Tufts-New England Medical Center .That being the case, it also goes on to say:
Still, even in uncircumcised infants, the incidence of urinary tract infections is low -- about 1 percent -- and usually they can be treated with antibiotics.Again, clearly not a good enough reason on its own to do it. I agree.
QuoteConsidering that a circumcised penis is basically a form of callus from the scar down, this makes no sense to anybody with rudimentary knowledge of biology.
Perhaps it doesn't make sense, and certainly the results of studies have been mixed. But by far the largest study - consisting of 4456 males age 15-45, none of whom had been circumcised up to that point - found that:
Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men.You can read the entire study here:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119420541/PDFSTARTQuote
This is your opinion -- and my opinion is that cut penises are weird-looking. But then again, erect, cut and intact penises look almost the same. The only difference is that cut men have those horrid ring-around-the-willy scars.
Yes, it is my opinion. Though I actually meant it to be taken tongue-in-cheek, but I forgot to put in the emoticon. Sorry.
In the end, the fact is
I agree with you. Infant circumcision is an unnecessary risk for little reward, unless there are other circumstances to recommend it. It just really puts my back up when people use sensationalism to push their view points. It makes me want to challenge them, even if I more or less agree. It's probably childish of me, but there it is.