It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Circumcision pluses outweigh risks: Pediatricians

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   

SuperFrog
It has been discussed many times before, but new stance of nation’s most influential pediatricians group is that circumcisions outweighs any risks and insurance companies should pay for it.



The nation’s most influential pediatricians group says the health benefits of circumcision in newborn boys outweigh any risks and insurance companies should pay for it.

In its latest policy statement on circumcision, a procedure that has been declining nationwide, the American Academy of Pediatrics moves closer to an endorsement but says the decision should be up to parents.

‘‘It’s not a verdict from on high,’’ said policy co-author Dr. Andrew Freedman. ‘‘There’s not a one-size-fits-all-answer.’’ But from a medical standpoint, circumcision’s benefits in reducing risk of disease outweigh its small risks, said Freedman, a pediatric urologist in Los Angeles.

Recent research bolstering evidence that circumcision reduces chances of infection with HIV and other sexually spread diseases, urinary tract infections and penis cancer influenced the academy to update their 13-year-old policy.



As always, there is large anti-movement mostly based on religious and moral beliefs, but without any question, parents willing to have their kids circumcised, should have been given option to do so.


** link
edit on Mon Aug 27 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS




Just a short time ago, perhaps just about 7 years ago? The movement against circumcision was strong when doctors were telling America, that there really was no health benefit or detriment to having circumcision. It was based solely on the American aesthetic. You wanted your boys to feel comfortable in the locker room.

It is most prevalent here, and in the Muslim world. Of course, the Jewish world as well.
Funny how Europe doesn't report a high prevalence of infection and disease. There is only %20 of the entire European male population that is circumcised. They seem to be doing okay.

The flip flop in the medical world happens from time to time as new research and development take place. But of course, it seems a personal choice, and nothing to get up in arms about like we do with vaccinations. A personal choice.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   


more risk for HIV? .. wtf, who comes up with this nonsense, im not circumcised and my friend was, and last i recall he caught quite a few things with his promiscuous ways while I’ve been clean my whole life.... you don’t just up and get an std, if two people one cut and one not, sticks their genital inside someone that’s infected, i can assure they’ll both pay for it.


It actually makes perfect sense that uncut men are more likely to contract a disease. The inside is a mucous membrane (like the inside of your nose) that allows fluid swapping. It's also prone to tears (that sometimes cause tears). If you haven't gotten a few ouches on your hat during a spirited round of coitus you've been doing it wrong. I will not give you my source on that. I also think by 'high risk' they mean gay dudes, which has a different mechanic and I would think makes the foreskin more prone to tearing. I don't have a source on that one, just assumptions.

I do agree though that it seems like kind of a stupid reason to lop off the tip. Same with the cleanliness aspect. It takes no time at all to give a proper cleaning and stay as fresh as a mountain spring. I guess what I'm trying to say is only circumcise idiots. The kind of idiots that run around having unprotected sex and can't manage soap. Actually I think being uncut may mean a propensity to rip condoms too, but my point still stands (ha! sorry mods).

The only reason I would have my kid snipped would be in the event of an issue, but I would consider it for the locker room embarrassment. If it was more common to be uncircumcised in the US I wouldn't give it a thought. I remember being a bit mortified in my younger years. Never had an issue with women, but it's always a concern the first time. Reactions have ranged from 'who cares?' to greater levels of excitement. Still a mild concern for me though even if it looks the same in the ready condition.

I think most people sort of regard circumcising a baby as harmless, and for the most part I agree. If I could wave a magic wand and it was painless I'm not sure which I would choose. There are some benefits to it, and like anything else there is a tradeoff, namely sensitivity, but all the circumcised dudes seem to be getting along just fine. They just can't do all the same party tricks.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   
It doesn't matter. You shouldn't be able to mutilate a person's body without their permission. This is something forced against their will and it has permanent consequences, and if they get older and didn't want it, it would be too late.

The only fair thing to do is ban it and let them decide for themselves when they get older.
edit on 14-2-2014 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I happen to agree with this, but not with infants. Two of my sons were circumsized, but I was very open to not doing it. Not into "traditions", family or church, more into cleanliness and health reasons. One in our family amongst the cousins had forskin that couldn't accommodate the change when he was a teenager and had to get it done, also boys are not the clean freaks they should be. So it was for family history reasons that the first 2 were done, and in reality the cap slipped on the first one, he hemorraged and had to be redone manually, screaming the entire time, though they lied and said he only cried once. So in other words, THEY LIE. And that means they are torturing children. They can't give pain meds, baby can choke and die.

So, my ex was responsible for insisting my second be done when I was saying, nope, remember our first, nope.

With the other boys it was massive threats from me saying you want to put my baby under a knife without an aethestic you'll find out, because I will defend my baby with my life.

They can always get this done as teenagers with full aenathesia. The down side to this is the 3 I left to be done later, are hard pressed to actually getting done. They didn't want to, thats the problem.

I wish all doctors would actually recommend and set up for kids, this as teenagers, so most wouldn't put it off and then remain uncircumsized. Its way way cleaner.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Alright. WTF mate. My super frog friend, I will use myself as a single example.

I have a "hoodie" and I'm proud of it. My fiance' loves it 2


Did the article touch on the fact that a circumcised member, looses feeling and hardens the head?

The point about contracting a disease is utter hogwash, I have a laundry list of deeds prior to being engaged and not a single time did I ever contract anything of the sort. Why?

Was I properly informed on safe sexual practices? Probably!!!

Did my mother make sure I knew how to properly clean my prostate??? TRUE!

It ultimately comes down to what the parents want. No matter the stance anyone takes. But since nobody gave there personal experience with a circumcised or not prostate, I felt the need to use mine as an "Example", nothing to be ashamed about here bro




I had a daughter, even with that, if I had a boy, I would not do that to him. If at a later time he wanted it, then sure. Just my opinion though. Grandpa, Father and Myself all sport the "hoodie" all clean and disease free.

Just because it was said by a board of respected pediatricians doesn't make it true, actually, I'm more hesitant to believe them and would rather research myself than listening to a bunch of Pediatrician who want to make this "billable" for insurance companies so they get extra money every time a boy is born.

Just my 2 cents.

As always my super duper frogger friend, best regards



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 



Unity_99

I wish all doctors would actually recommend and set up for kids, this as teenagers, so most wouldn't put it off and then remain uncircumsized. Its way way cleaner.


Chopping it off completely is also "cleaner", should guys be recommended to do that to?

It is their body and they will have to live the rest of their entire lives like that. It should be their choice .



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Well even doing so to the skin without anethesia is torture of a baby. So the rest obviously involves free will, something they can do by freezing that area first if its something wished for. What I meant isn't to drag a teenager kicking and screaming as much as to have things set up with a lot of information given so they have the issues brought up and discussed fully, and are more likely to get this done at a later date, because otherwise it rarely gets done.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join