Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Well, considering that about 1/3rd of the males in the world have been circumcised... it's clearly not a hugely risky procedure.

And it does make you far less likely to get sexually transmitted diseases and prevents infections of the foreskin (some people have to be circumcised later in life due to this).

[DJ]

I'd really like to see a statistical comparison of the percentage of males that get health problems from lack of circumcision vs the percentage of circumcisions that go wrong.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Keep in mind that there are now no legitimate medical groups that continue to recommend circumcision as a health procedure.

[Leafsnail]

Well, there's plenty of studies here:
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1015820-overview

Apparently the small chance of complications (0.19%, mostly minor) are outweighed pretty early on by the reduced chance of urinary tract infections.

Keep in mind that there are now no legitimate medical groups that continue to recommend circumcision as a health procedure.

...Source?

EDIT: Even better, can you explain why you do not regard the WHO as a "legitimate medical group"?

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/meetingreport_tmc_apr10/en/index.html

The meeting brought together an array of participants to improve understanding among key stakeholders about traditional male circumcision and identify effective approaches that countries have adopted to develop a systematic way forward for ensuring the traditional male circumcision contributes to increasing access to safe, effective and affordable male circumcision for HIV prevention.

[DJ]

Depends on how you read the statistics. The way I see it, reducing risk of UTI from .5% to .05% is not worth the .19% chance of losing reproductive capability. I mean, castration reduces chances of testicular cancer by 100%, but everybody would still rather take the odds.

[Leafsnail]

Depends on how you read the statistics. The way I see it, reducing risk of UTI from .5% to .05% is not worth the .19% chance of losing reproductive capability.

Well, "complications" =/= losing reproductive capability.  It just means something else had to be done for some reason.

[Megaman]

Did we just go from feminism to circumcision?

[Grakelin]

I shouldn't have interfered when you were all still talking about how awesome your favorite gender is, insteaad of how awesome their views on religion are.

[Urist is dead tome]

Did we just go from feminism to circumcision?

Circumcision does play a large roll in this gender battle of ours.

[ChairmanPoo]

It does not make STDs "far" less likely. According to some studies, which were controverted themselves, it provided a mild protection, but not enough to justify promoting it.

[Leafsnail]

Again, you're up against the WHO on that one.

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html

[Urist is dead tome]

Again, you're up against the WHO on that one.

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html

Check and mate.

[Leafsnail]

I'm not saying it's "checkmate" or that it's conclusive evidence everyone should be circumcized.  Heck, maybe the WHO is wrong in its analysis, I dunno.  But it just seems odd to declare that

According to some studies, which were controverted themselves, it provided a mild protection, but not enough to justify promoting it.

When it's just not true.

[Urist is dead tome]

Okay not check mate. But it provides more than mild protection. And I guess that with modern pain killers it's not that bad.

My conclusion: Circumcision is not that big of a deal.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And how are we to know that the WHO are neutral in this matter? It is entierly possible that they're just try to appease countries that still practice circumcision on a nationally religious level. Hell, the UN appointed frigging Iran to the Woman's Rights Commission, why should I think the WHO is going to be any more sane (I say this because they're both large international organizations that could very well be appeasing anyone who supports circumcision, and that this possiblity makes me doubt them.)?

And, more importantly: It doesn't matter if they're right. Even if everything the WHO has found is spot on, that is no justification for the mutilation of male children, and never will be. I would bet that female genital mutilation makes it more difficult to become infected with certain STD's as well, but you'll see no one promoting that. The practice is barbaric and involunarty. It simply should not be allowed, at least not in frigging infants. If people really want circumcisions to take place, it should only be allowed in adults. Go ahead, see how many people actually would choose such a procedure. The number won't be high, because the madness of it is obvious to anyone who is able to look at it with an adult mind. It's easy to hurt those who are too young to fight back.

And I guess that with modern pain killers it's not that bad.

According to this article, nothing they do makes the pain go away competely, or even halfway.