Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › "Parents, You're On Your Own"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Parents, You're On Your Own"

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
Circ makes the media again:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34811764...and_parenting/

It kind of paints the anti-circ movement as consisting of a bunch of nutcases but yields an ambivalent conclusion.
post #2 of 16
<--- Proud nutcase
post #3 of 16
Yes, but look at Canada's largest national newspaper's take on the same issue:

Circumcision Health Benefit Virtually Nil, Study Finds

Little evidence that world's most common surgical procedure can prevent sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections and penile cancer

While it is the most common surgical procedure in the world, there is virtually no demonstrable health benefit derived from circumcision of either newborns or adults, a new study concludes.


It's an outstanding article, but I don't dare post any link here (cowering at the might of the mods)

Americans sometimes paint ourselves into a stubborn, isolationist corner on controversial issues where it seems we'd rather be independent than right, and infant circumcision is right there near the top of the list. The rest of the developed world must be wrong about RIC. Yeah, that's it.

(My father, from Madrid, used to recall with bemused incredulity a headline from when he was studying in England: Channel Underwater Cable Accidentally Severed; All of Europe is Incommunicado. Sort of sums up how the US sees circ: "US Circumcision Remains High; Rest of World at Risk of Living and Dying Horribly Diseased Existence".
post #4 of 16
"(...)with four out of five males in the U.S. circumcised, at some point after his first gym class you may have to take that non-circumcised chip off the old block to a museum to show him some Greek urns so he understands that he is perfectly normal."

Right - or you could just take him on a sea vacation in Europe. You know, there are still a few examples of intact men alive today!
post #5 of 16
The author was clearly reigned in by editors as his barely veiled disdain for those who opposed circumcision dripped off of every word in the article. The end bit, about "convenience and looks" is also his opinion, and one he wanted to nudge and wink at to parents with. At least he was forced to show both sides.
post #6 of 16
The MSNBC article is awful.
post #7 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by brant31 View Post
Yes, but look at Canada's largest national newspaper's take on the same issue:

Circumcision Health Benefit Virtually Nil, Study Finds

Little evidence that world's most common surgical procedure can prevent sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections and penile cancer

While it is the most common surgical procedure in the world, there is virtually no demonstrable health benefit derived from circumcision of either newborns or adults, a new study concludes.


It's an outstanding article, but I don't dare post any link here (cowering at the might of the mods)

Americans sometimes paint ourselves into a stubborn, isolationist corner on controversial issues where it seems we'd rather be independent than right, and infant circumcision is right there near the top of the list. The rest of the developed world must be wrong about RIC. Yeah, that's it.

(My father, from Madrid, used to recall with bemused incredulity a headline from when he was studying in England: Channel Underwater Cable Accidentally Severed; All of Europe is Incommunicado. Sort of sums up how the US sees circ: "US Circumcision Remains High; Rest of World at Risk of Living and Dying Horribly Diseased Existence".

Would you send me a PM with the link (or anyone who has any other links).

I have people really enamored by the US version. I'd like to show them a different spin.
post #8 of 16
Circumcision Health Benefit Virtually Nil, Study Finds

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle1427972/
post #9 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudmomof4 View Post
"(...)with four out of five males in the U.S. circumcised, at some point after his first gym class you may have to take that non-circumcised chip off the old block to a museum to show him some Greek urns so he understands that he is perfectly normal."

Right - or you could just take him on a sea vacation in Europe. You know, there are still a few examples of intact men alive today!
Is that really true? 80% of American males are circumcised? I thought it was closer to 50/50.
post #10 of 16
Actually 80% of the worlds men are intact only 20% are circed. The adult male population in the USA wouldnt surprise me at all if the number is that high since circ rates in the past where as high as 90%

The rate now as in newborns/young boys in the USA the rate is right around 50/50.
post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleplum View Post
Is that really true? 80% of American males are circumcised? I thought it was closer to 50/50.
Yeah, I wondered about those stats myself.
post #12 of 16
Why on earth is he quoting statistics from 1999 in 2010??!!

Very telling.
post #13 of 16
The sad thing is, he is painting the picture that only now that there is recently conflicting advice from medical literature, parents have to make a choice themselves about circumcising or not. The reality is that they should have been making an active choice all along. One more example of Americans not interested in taking responsibility for their actions.
post #14 of 16
Quote:
Deciding to skip a circumcision can be a responsible choice. So can opting for one.
That article is crazy. How is circ a "responsible choice"? Seriously.
post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleplum View Post
Is that really true? 80% of American males are circumcised? I thought it was closer to 50/50.

Keep in mind that in the US circumcision is not just an infant concern. Parents have to continually fight against recommendations to circ all throughout a child's minority. Intact adult men are subjected to pro-circ bias from doctors, girlfriends/wives and the media from age 18 until the nursing home. The issue is often not "if" but "when." So, a 50% rate for infants gradually inches up as boys grow up, and even the 90% infant rate from 30 years ago approached 100% among US-born adult men today. It's the immigrant population that brings the rate "down" to 80%
post #16 of 16
80% refers to adult American males. The infant rate is nearer 50/50. So the author took one set of unrelated figures and applied them to something else in order to strengthen his argument. Pathetic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Case Against Circumcision
Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › "Parents, You're On Your Own"