It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Efforts to Defund or Ban Infant Male Circumcision Are Unfounded and Potentially Harmful, Experts Arg

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:53 AM

Efforts to Defund or Ban Infant Male Circumcision Are Unfounded and Potentially Harmful, Experts Argue

Johns Hopkins infectious disease experts say the medical benefits for male circumcision are clear and that efforts in an increasing number of states (currently 18) to not provide Medicaid insurance coverage for male circumcision, as well as an attempted ballot initiative in San Francisco earlier this year to ban male circumcision in newborns and young boys, are unwarranted. Moreover, they say these actions ignore the last decade of medical evidence that the procedure can substantially protect men and their female partners from certain sexually transmitted infections.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related Discussion Threads:
Circumcision ban will go to vote in San Francisco

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:53 AM
I am still trying to work my way through this debate.

I understand both arguments, I believe, for and against.

But I have to say that when figures like these are published, I find it difficult to ascribe some bad agenda, or misdirected fear to a practice that many cultures have embraced for millenia. If what the medical community is contending here is correct, it may even account - to some degree - for their communities overall health. Or is that a ludicrous thing to ponder?

... Among the research cited by Tobian and Gray, a professor at the University's Bloomberg School of Public Health, are multiple studies conducted within the last five years showing that in heterosexuals, circumcision reduced HIV infection risk by 60 percent, genital herpes by 30 percent and cancer-causing human papillomavirus (HPV) by 35 percent in men. Females benefit from a 40 percent or greater reduced risk of bacterial vaginosis or parasitic trichomonas spread during sex, as well as HPV infection, which causes cervical cancer....

Seems fairly substantial reason to strongly consider circumcision.... Why at an early age?

In an editorial to be published in the Journal of the American Medical Association online Oct. 5, Johns Hopkins health epidemiologist and pathologist Aaron Tobian, M.D., Ph.D., and health epidemiologist Ronald Gray, M.D., highlight the most recent medical research showing the considerable life-long health benefits of circumcision performed during infancy and the potential disadvantages associated with waiting until adulthood before undergoing the procedure. The experts point out that there are medical benefits during childhood, as many young men are already sexually active before age 18, and at greater risk of infection from sexually transmitted infections. Circumcision at older ages is also associated with more complications and cost than having the minimal surgery in infancy.

But then they also say this:

"Our goal is to encourage all parents to make fully informed decisions on whether to circumcise their infant boys based on medical evidence and not conjecture or misinformation put out by anti-circumcision advocates," says Tobian, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Misinformation? That's odd... that's what they say about you.

Now whom should we believe? And should it be covered by healthcare insurance? Or is this much ado about nothing?
(visit the link for the full news article)

+35 more 
posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:00 PM
Its genital mutilation....simple

You wouldnt agree with having a clitoris removed from a female child so why should you be able to mutilate a boys genitals???

It should ONLY be done if it is medically necessary.

These kids dont have a choice, it is forced upon them by their parents...normally from religious backgrounds.

+14 more 
posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:00 PM
Circumcision, in my opinion, is not necessary. Any of the benefits the establishment claims are easily achieved by an uncircumcised male through good hygiene and safe sexual practices.

There are numerous incidents where circumcision goes wrong. Some estimates put the figure at 22% of all circumcisions performed have direct complications during the procedure. There are incidents where the penis is completely burned off.

My wife's parents were horrified to learn that our son is not circumcised. I think they uh..realized the implications when they found out. They're mormons.

It is definitely safer when performed on an adolescent, and not to sound gross here but it's due to the size. It's harder to perform a precision cut on a smaller uh..yeah.

You ever think how bad it is for a person to have an open wound that they are constantly defecating and urinating onto? Yeah, circumcision is gross! If someone decides at a later age that they would like to be circumcised then I am all for it, but I think having all newborns circumcised is a violation of their rights.
edit on 5-10-2011 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

+21 more 
posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:02 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Look, IMO it's child abuse, pure and simple.

There's no need to run around and cut up people's junk. I know if a doctor came near my newborn with a scaple he'd be eating it.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 10/5/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:03 PM
Ahhh geez , you know you just opened the Pandora's Box of parent debates, right? You are a brave soul!! I have experienced mothers of both sides of this debate. All have incredibly good arguments for their side and I believe it is truly a personal choice of the mother and father.

I wish I would have made a different decision with my son. I chose to circ.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:03 PM
dont agree with circumcision but why at the early age?

faster regeneration and healing of said body parts i think and if they are railing on about hygiene its not like they dont make soap as well as sexual activities the benefits out weight the "health concerns"

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:04 PM

penn and teller on circumcision and why not to get it

edit on 5-10-2011 by dankety because: ats to extreme!!!!!!

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:05 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:07 PM

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
Its genital mutilation....simple

You wouldnt agree with having a clitoris removed from a female child so why should you be able to mutilate a boys genitals???

It should ONLY be done if it is medically necessary.

These kids dont have a choice, it is forced upon them by their parents...normally from religious backgrounds.

THIS IS IT! Subject closed!

Anyone who disagrees is evil and doesn't respect a humans right to decide for him/herself.

There's really no discussion here and in a few millennial people will be astounded for the abuse that people put on their children.

If health benefits are really a just reason than you can start removing a LOT more from the human body at birth so don't even go there.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:09 PM
I think these advocacy groups just need to mind their own damn business.

Lets deal with the facts only. I do not see any "fact" citing real dangers, are there?

I think this is a personal choice and no one elses.
I am circumcised and have never ever had a single problem because of it. Everything works just fine.

I do not really see any difference in this and getting tattoos and body piercings.

+1 more 
posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:15 PM
Keep in mind there's lots of nerves on this extra skin which when taken away takes away part of a male's stimulation for their orgasms.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:18 PM
My post was deleted for T&C - part of it was good information. I hope it's ok to repost the non-disgusting part.

Skewed, there absolutely are risks to circumcision. Huge risks. Please see the link I posted above and you'll see documentation of what can happen during and after circumcision.

Neonatal circmcision is totally unnecessary, and there is no current role for preventative or prophylactic neonatal circumcision. Unfortunately, 70-80% of neonatal circumcisions are performed by obstetricians, who can neither manage their complications (2-5% incidence) nor obtain proper informed consent (defined as outlining risks and benefits of a procedure, as well as alternatives-including nothing) for neonatal circumcision. Currently, the American College of OB-GYN (ACOG) have no paramenters for training (learning and performing neonatal circumcision, managing complications)of residents, who then go out and continue this practice. In my practice, as a pediatric urologist, I manage the complications of neonatal circumcision. For example, in a two year period, I was referred 275 newborns and toddlers with complications of neonatal circumcision. None of these were 'revisions' because of appearance, which I do not do. 45% required corrective surgery (minor as well as major, especially for amputative injury), whereupon some could be treated locally without surgery. Complications of this unnecessary procedure are often not reported, but of 300 pediatric urologists in this country who have practices similar to mine...well, one can do the math, to understand the scope of this problem...let alone, to understand the adverse cost-benefit aspect of complications (>$750,000) in this unfortunate group of infants and young children. Fortunately, neonatal circumcision is on the decline as parents become educated...but the complications still continue. Until the time that the USA falls in step with the rest of the planet who does not submit newborns to neonatal circumcision, ACOG should assure that the training of obstetricians to perform this procedure is adequate, particularly in avoiding and managing complications of a procedure that is unnecessary, and that obstetricians learn to obtain proper informed consent from parents who have no idea of the problems that can ensue. M.David Gibbons, MD Associate Professor, Pediatric Urology, Georgetown University School of Medicine and George Washington School of Medicine. Attending Pediatric Urologist, Childrens National Medical Center, Washington, DC. Director, Pediatric Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC. Head, Pediatric Urology, Inova Fairfax Hospital For Children, Falls Church, Virginia. Posted at Men's Health Magazine on The Debate Over Circumcision: Should All Males Be Circumcised? in the comments section (

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:20 PM
I agree with the other posts, it's mutilation. All my brothers were circumcised, but my parents decided to just leave my fiddlestick alone and I'm grateful.
Imagine if women had a protective layer of skin over their clitoris that was removed at birth. So it becomes constantly exposed to clothing and you could lose sensitivity...could become chaffed perhaps.. Could lead to infections too, right?
It's probably more important to practice proper hygiene uncircumcised, opposed to circumcised.

I believe having foreskin is what nature intended, should just leave it be.
From a personal perspective, I think being uncut makes sex more natural and it feels more pleasurable, for both sides. (or so I'm told )

I believe I've stated more than intended... oh well

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by Skewed

Personal Choice? A baby?

How old were you when you had this circumcision?

Urine in the raw wound of the genital area, = unbearably painful.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:23 PM
reply to post by Anttyk47

The arguments seem to fall down to:

It can lower the liklihood of some diseases. (Though they can mostly be avoided by safe sex and using protection anyway.)

Religious reasons.

Problems can arise. (Though rare)

Often performed on young children who don't have a choice. (Though so are many thiings we do)

Reduced feelings during intercourse.

Now obviously the only one that sticks out to me is the fact that it is often done on people who are too young to make a choice (and the reduced sensation
). Sure if you CHOOSE to be circumsised that's fine, but we have no reson to circumcise a child to protect them from and STD they shouldn't be getting yet anyway. By the time they start gaving sex they are probably old enough to decide for themselves anyway.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:25 PM
I suspected (nah, I knew) that it wasn't as simple as the Medical community made it sound.

And yet, the information everyone is citing is what the doctors are calling "misinformation."

I have to wonder about the passions evoked here.

And frankly, not to offend, but comparing this to female circumcision is not exactly apples to apples. The female version seems terribly purposeful in a way that it is not with males. I'm not referring to medical necessity here... whether we agree or not, there are definitely medical circumstances which call for the procedure.

But the ritualistic kind... that needs to be thought about.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:27 PM
My son was circ'd at 3 weeks old its less traumatic at a young age vs. a full grown man to have his foreskin cut. It was an option in 2007 when he was born you weren't obligated and medicaid (i was on it then) only paid half of the cost I paid the other. its more of a convience than anything.

We found balanitis was twice as frequent among the uncircumcised as the circumcised children, but the difference was not statistically significant.

so we opted for a circ, like i said its strictly an option. and the forskin is completely different from a clitoris, the clitoris would be the eqv. of cutting the ENTIRE top of a penis off. not the case they are only removing about a cm of skin....if they were to do it on a grown would be a 1in or 2.
edit on 5-10-2011 by MissCoyote because: misspelled something

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:28 PM
Present the boy with all the arguments for and against at 18 years of age.

Then let him decide.

Meantime, no public funding for such a procedure unless it's medically unavoidable.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:28 PM
i was circumsised at a young age for medical reasons, yes it was quite painful

but im glad it was done, my junk looks nicer than most mens and tbh it wasnt really that bad of an ordeal

although to get somebody circumsised for cosmetic or religious reasons is wrong in my opinion (id still prefer to be circumsised given the choice) but it is not up to parents to make that choice for thier children unless it needs to be done

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in