Doctors Group: AAP conflict of interest hampers honest circumcision policy

And women who get their clitorises plucked out should be proud of their heritage also. Hurrah, hurrah. Give me a break.

And you bring up not remembering...duh. So people who abuse infants can later in court say that the babies will not remember.

Why should religious hallucinations about the foreskin be something to be proud of?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why don't you 'get over' what he is saying?

You are obviously pissed off at him and people like him. You are putting in time and energy arguing against him and insulting him.

Clearly there are things you cannot 'get over' despite knowing that in this world there are billions of opinions you still manage to get annoyed by some and express your disdain.

The whole 'get over it' knee jerk reaction is at least as whiny as it seems to think other reactions are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This anti-circumcision jihad is absurd. I, my three sons, and every guy I've ever happened to see naked are all circumcised. The only time I've ever seen an uncircumcised guy was an exchange student I ran cross country with back in high school. I thought the poor guy had been in some horrible accident when I saw him in the shower.

I've also read reports that circumcision protects you from STD's, especially HIV.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You should read the Genital Integrity Policy Statement. It will explain the functions of intact male anatomy and help provide a different perspective.

 

At what point does a parent not get to decide what is right for their child? Can a parent refuse a vaccine if they don't believe in it?

Have you considered voicing that sentiment to these people?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17822026/

Or these:

 

Oh yeah, totally gross

 

If circumcision really does help prevent HIV then why is it such a big problem in the United States where 80% of the male population is circumcised and not that big of a problem in Japan where virtually no one is circumcised? I think that data has a bit of bias in its testing methods. To be totally honest since it is a cosmetic procedure and has no medical benefit other than removing foreskin related problems, I really think that it should be left up to the actual patient to decide (not a representative party). I feel the same way about ear piercing. If I have a son I don't intend to have him circumcised unless he can make an educated decison about the matter and informs me that he wants the procedure or he can do it himself when he becomes an adult.

 

Circumcision has become popular in Japan now. As to why they have less HIV, it may be to do with their sexual practices.

 

It might be true that it helps prevent HIV transmission, but that's only because people don't use condoms. If you practice safe sex, there's no problem with it. The UN in this case has a myopic concern for health, which is a non-issue if you are safe in the first place.

My parents happened to freak out when I got an ear pierced, how hypocritical is that?

 

I think a 60% decrease in HIV is not a myopic concern. Whats more relevant, avoiding a practice simply because it has religious roots or practising it in a social environment where the possibility of contracting disease is high? Do condoms prevent UTIs? Do men with partners who use birth control also use condoms?

Anyway, an uncircumcised penis looks gross.

 

I researched that study back when I had to write a research paper on circumcision. I was pro-circumcisiom at the time and I still found that medical study sketchy at best. The researchers obviously had an agenda and purposely selected a very poor sample. I think the fact that in places like Europe where HIV transmission through sexual contact is low and Europeans are more likely to aquire it through drug usage and they do not circumcise. It is poor sexual practices that lead to HIV and with HIV being as epidemic as it is I wouldn't advise broadcasting to Americans mostly that circumcision might help prevent HIV maybe.
I actually prefer to look at an uncircumcised penis, but thats probably because I don't find scars attractive.

 

Subjective aesthetics cannot justify non-therapeutic circumcision of infants.

 

Ugh to each his own. I don't see any scars

Which study?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080602214155.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20080506-17434-2.html

http://ecoworldly.com/2008/06/02/fa...c-male-circumcision-fights-hivaids-in-africa/

 

S.A.M.,

The report which is the subject of this thread gives a thorough overview of the evidence regarding HIV.

 

All of the ones done in Africa. There were cultural influences at work there. But unless circumcision is really as effective as an actual vaccine I don't see why I should do it. Circumcision is on the decline in the US though at least it was last year when I did my paper.

 

Yeah "protecting the genital integrity of infants" sounds very scientific.

How goes the rate for HIV, UTI etc in uncircumcised men?

 

Have you read the report? It is an evidence-based policy recommendation.

 

Its higher for circumcised men (percentage wise of course a higher number of circumcised men have HIV because there are more circumcised men), but that is slightly biased because most gay men are circumcised and the way gay men contract HIV is different than how it men get HIV through heterosexual contact. So if I remember correctly if you negate homosexual men who contracted HIV through homosexual contact then I believe its about the same. I don't know about Urinary Tract Infections, beyond infancy. UTIs are certainly higher among uncircumcised infants than they are with circumcised infants though. Most UTI information has to do with women. But I don't know I didn't research UTIs in my paper.

 

What does it say about this evidence?

Or this?

Or this?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/3/620
http://www.circs.org/library/schoen3/index.html

 

The AAP no longer advocates infant circumcision though do they? I believe they chose to remain neutral at the time and says that there is no significant medical benefit to circumcision and encourage parents to make informed decisions, based on their cultural and religious backgrounds.