It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by EvillerBob
I guess it's proof that evolution is a failure. Why spend all those generations evolving something that is actually less beneficial to our survival than if we didn't have it?
you apparently subscribe to the erroneous notion that there is an ascending movement to evolution, i'm afraid you are mistaken, evolution merely being an old greek word for CHANGE,isn't going anywhere in particular, it's just one thing piled on top of another most of the so called "junk DNA" are actually bits of virii that became attached to the genome.
Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
as for god, well he did order circumcision, as a distinguishing mark [im told to distinguish us from animals] of the covenant, so it is not a case of human presumptuousness at all.
Originally posted by XRaDiiX
I find it absurd that they call this a form of mutilation. In fact it offers more pleasure to the male in inter-course whats wrong with that? They just want to be special and different maybe is all but i find this to be a step back-wards on their part. I think it should be the parents choice IMO especially if there is a way to un-circumsize as the OP stated.
In 1971 the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) Committee for the Newborn came out with a statement that said there are "no valid medical indications for circumcision" [Committee., 1971], although this statement had only a slight effect on the rate of newborn circumcision in the USA.
In 1975 the statement was modified to "no absolute valid ..." [Thompson et al., 1975], which remained in the 1983 statement, but in 1989 it changed significantly to "New evidence has suggested possible medical benefits" [American, 1989]. In his 2008 book, the Chair of the 1989 committee, Dr Edgar Schoen, recounts his experiences on this committee [Schoen, 2008]. He describes the 1975 Statement as “safe, but misleading and a misrepresentation of the facts”, saying “The 1975 Task Force Chair, Dr. Thompson was upset by this sleight-of-hand word change [of substituting the word “absolute” (in the 1975 statement) for the word “valid” (in the 1971 Statement)] by the neonatology group and in 1983 when the 1975 “no absolute medical indiction” statement was reiterated by both the AAP and the ACOG, he expressed his frustration in an editorial in the American Journal of Diseases of Childhood, but there was not much he could do by then”.
However, in its 1999 Statement [Lannon et al., 1999] the AAP went backwards. Although the literature review it conducted was academically weak, it did, nevertheless, mention the vast array of benefits. The major flaw of this document was that it fell short of stating the obvious, if it had used a more balanced literature survey, in recommending circumcision. This may have been quite understandable, given medico-legal worries in the face of very hostile, politically active anti-circumcision groups.
In a joint response the Chair of the 1989 AAP Taskforce on Circumcision, Edgar Schoen, and others more expert than those on the 1999 Taskforce, rebutted the 1999 statement [Schoen et al., 2000c; Schoen et al., 2001]. Others also leveled valid criticisms [Bailis, 2000; Kunin, 2000].
Surprisingly, in 2005 the AAP reaffirmed its 1999 policy [American, 2005b], in effect suppressing all of the very strong affirmative evidence published since its 1999 statement. Schoen strongly condemned the AAP for ignoring the 7 years of extensive research findings since 1998 [Schoen, 2006a]. Further to this, in 2007, when challenged by Schoen [Schoen, 2007b], a Section Editor of the top journal in the field, Pediatrics, called for the AAP to reassess its position in the light of new data [Elder, 2007a].
The various statements by such real experts highlight the information that follows in the present much more comprehensive and better-balanced internet review.
It is clear that providing a scientifically accurate Statement by a pediatric body is difficult in the face of minority lobby groups whose agenda tends to be a political one rather than medical or scientific. This is not to detract from the clear scientific weaknesses in the 1999 AAP Statement and their pamphlet [Bailis, 2000; Schoen et al., 2000c].
Dr Edgar Schoen stated that the benefits of routine circumcision of newborns as a preventative health measure far exceed the risks of the procedure [Schoen, 1993]. He has continued to this day to campaign for public education of the benefits of circumcision, publishing a very worthy book on the topic in 2005 [Schoen, 2005b] and another in 2009 [Schoen, 2008].
During the period 1985-92 there was an increase in the frequency of post-newborn circumcision (to over 80% in one study [Wiswell & Hachey, 1993]) and during that same time Schoen points out that the association of lack of circumcision and urinary tract infection (UTI) has moved from "suggestive" to "conclusive" [Schoen, 1993]. Moreover, this period heralded the finding of associations with other infectious agents, including HIV. In fact he goes on to say that "Current newborn circumcision may be considered a preventative health measure analogous to immunization in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime" [Schoen, 1993].
Through the 1990s and into the new millenium the rate of circumcision has continued to rise. In the light of an increasing volume of medical scientific evidence pointing to the benefits of neonatal circumcision, the pediatric professional bodies of various countries have been forced to review the evidence and formulate more up-to-date policy statements. These documents MUST be read in their ENTIRETY to be fully comprehended. (Isolated quotes have been taken from these by anti-circumcision groups to fuel their propaganda.)
For some doctors, however, recent studies showing that circumcised heterosexual African men are around half as likely as their uncircumcised counterparts to contract HIV simply back up what they have claimed all along: that circumcision is not only harmless but also beneficial. Edgar Schoen, a pediatric endocrinologist who was the chair of the 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics’ Task Force on Circumcision, claims that there at least 10 known medical benefits provided by circumcision. For example, there is some evidence that circumcision decreases the risk of infant kidney infection early in life and helps prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
At the end of the day, every couple has to make its own decision, said Rabbi Donni Aaron, head of program designed to train Reform mohels. But, she added, most of the parents she has encountered eventually choose to circumcise their sons, and that trend is unlikely to change any time soon. “If for thousands of years it was clear that the practice was harmful,” she said, “it would have gone away a while ago.”
Taken together, the clinical benefits to a child during childhood do not merit making the circumcision decision a parental choice. Leave him to decide once he becomes responsible for his own healthcare choices.
The principal responsibility of parenthood is to act at all times in the child’s best interests. Amongst many other things, that creates an obligation to take medical decisions that the child, by virtue of age, cannot comprehend.
Some benefits of circumcision are lost if elective circumcision is deferred until adulthood. These are:
Greater expense in consequence of the greater complexity of the procedure post-puberty
Requirement for initiative and determination to arrange a circumcision
Slower to heal
Implications of time off work or school
Probability of a less satisfactory cosmetic outcome
No benefit in terms of protection against infant urinary tract infections and the attendant risk of kidney damage
No benefit in terms of protection against cancer of the penis later in life
Risk of greater exposure to sexually transmitted diseases if onset of sexual activity precedes circumcision
(There may, in addition, be good cause to circumcise a child for therapeutic medical reasons, but that’s a different issue.)
Aside from any suspicions that the argument in favour of deferral is actually a covert argument against circumcising at all, CIRCLIST suggests that the existence of these additional benefits of neonatal circumcision do justify the matter being decided by parents. Note that the above list identifies additional benefits; neonatal circumcision also conveys all the same benefits as adult circumcision.
We don’t circumcise animals, so why circumcise humans?.
Foreskins are unique to humans; other mammals have something properly termed a ‘penis sheath’. Our evolutionary divergence may well date from the time when our ancestors first walked upright, a posture less likely to expose the penis to mechanical damage. Our unique anatomy has, unfortunately, produced a unique set of problems. But human ingenuity has also produced a solution - circumcision.
There seems to be schism here in figuring out who should get the freedom to decide: the parents, or the child who will have to live with an alteration to his body that he never approved of.
I can just picture the disastrous results when, in the heat of the moment, someone decides that they can skip the condom because they're circumcised! Sheesh! It sounds more like an excuse in my opinion...
"Sure I let some guy cut into my kid's most personal body part... but hey...maybe there is some health benefit or something, so I shouldn't feel too bad about it."
Originally posted by Aim64C
The foreskin is a rather minor part that serves no purpose other than to trap oils and bacteria. Any sensitivity issue is pretty much moot - people circumcised later in life have reported little real difference. Many did report that their female partners tended to prefer them post-circumcision, however.
Originally posted by Aim64C
I was given vaccinations as a child that I did not approve of. I was placed in an incubator for weeks - a procedure I did not approve of. I was, basically, dead before I was born. I did not approve being brought back to life and into this mess.
For that matter - I didn't even give my parents consent to conceive me.
I was given vaccinations as a child that I did not approve of.
Women having sexual experience with both circumcised and anatomically complete partners were recruited through classified advertisements in magazines and an announcement in an anti-circumcision newletter. Respondents to the advertisements were mailed a survey to complete and return, the comments then compiled and the responses analysed statistically. The survey is continuing and this article reports the preliminary results.
I'm not sure those are really comparable to removing a part of someones body without their permission. I can't imagine that you don't see the difference there. Putting someone in an incubator to keep them alive, versus chopping off part of their most intimate body part is just not the same level of interference.
I think a big problem in this whole issue is that when a man is circumcised, it is difficult to say that he thinks that is a bad thing because it suggests he is lacking something in an area that most men men take lots of pride in...
These do not leave any permanent marks on your body,
so I dont think it is comparable to cutting off a natural part of the body permanently,
especially on such a private and important area as sexual organs.
Not to mention that vaccinations benefits are clearly proven, while circumcision benefits are small, if any.
It's more interference. I was -dead- - unable to survive outside the womb.
But I had something placed inside of me - monkeying with the cellular mechanics of my body - without my permission.
Further - recent medical studies have shown circumcision to have causal benefits in preventing a range of troublesome issues for males. Again - if you can't read some of the other posts and links in this page - that's not my problem. I'm simply tired of posting dozens of links to back things up and to be completely ignored because it is obvious I have a clue what I'm talking about.
And you were saved, werent you? The benefit was great, and again, what permanent marks are there? Other than being alive? Analogy fail.
Still too insignificant to be comparable, and the benefit is great, smallpox is a dangerous disease.
With no permanent mark or lifetime significant consequences, and it was done for a good reason.
The benefits are small, and I dont think it is worth it at all.
But there are many other situations where circumcision helps prevent future disease or discomfort. We should seek to prevent problems arising, rather than deal with the problems once they occur. Let us look at some of these, in no particular order.
1 Where the foreskin cannot comfortably be pulled back over the glans (knob) of the penis. Now, up until the age of five or six, many boys cannot retract their foreskins - mums and dads beware - if you try too early you may do some damage. Above the age of six or seven, it is important that boys be taught how to clean under the foreskin, making sure the skin is pulled right back. If your son cannot do that he may need circumcising. Boys frequently forget or deliberately avoid this routine and run into difficulties.
2 If the foreskin cannot easily be moved when the penis becomes hard, or if that causes pain - this is not only a childhood problem. At puberty, as the penis grows and masturbation begins, problems may emerge. Some men have pain on intercourse, which they then try to avoid for that reason. If so, you (and your partner) will benefit from your circumcision just as many boys do. Some men are afraid to admit to this problem, but it is curable by circumcision.
3 Where you and your partner keep getting 'thrush' infections.Some call this 'sexual ping-pong'. One keeps passing it back to the other. Of course, you may first try creams or tablets from your doctor or chemist, but if it keeps coming back, circumcision will cure it. It did for me. The foreskin is a warm and moist incubator under which infections can easily develop.
1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!
2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.
3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?
4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)
A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.
5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.
6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.
7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.
8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.
To be sure, there are some risks to circumcision. About 1 in 100 infants suffer brief bleeding or infections, but these are easy to fix. Serious mistakes, like cutting the shaft of the penis, occur rarely; death occurs about once in 500,000 circumcisions, making it the safest of surgeries.
Still, circumcision opponents are easy to find on innocuous sounding web sites like circumcision.org. Their arguments, which carried more weight before the benefits of circumcision came into focus, “range from psychological to religious to emotional,” says Schoen. He’s been threatened with death by anti-circumcision groups and his talks on the subject are often picketed.
About 7% of males who aren’t circumcised as newborns end up needing to have the procedure done later because of infections or painful adhesions of the foreskin to the head of the penis.
I am not against circumcision itself, but I think it is unethical to circumcise children. Wait until the boy can participate in medical decisions, too. If it is such a good thing, he will agree, wont he? Why the rush?
I am an enigma. When I say I fall into the 90+ percentile in almost everything I do - that's also the case with my own bringing into this world. For every Premie at my level of function - there are hundreds that have debilitating problems. The statistical risks far outweighed the benefits. I would not have taken that same risk - to be blunt.
So is HPV, HIV, and the effects of "thrush" infections between couples.
No permanent mark? What are you - stupid? I forever have the antibodies of those vaccines in my body.
For starters - it's not developed as an effective 'sheath' - as in animals - it does not serve to protect any part of the penis and, in fact, functions almost exclusively as an incubator for a wide range of pathogens - regardless of how diligent one is about hygiene.
When you're a baby - it's snip-snip and done. When you're older - there is a considerably higher risk of complications, scarring, and recovery time is much longer. There's nothing here to warrant a law banning the circumcision of newborns.
Also if a woman can abort a child at will, why take away rights from parents to choose how they want their kids genitals to look or whatever religious reasons to do it.