Have you all seen this? - Page 2

[kxsiven]

Just adding 2 cents from Europian point of view.Here circumcision is unknown. The only ones doing it are *some* jews and pretty much all muslims. When I came to USA I learned in my horror that circ was practised routinelly also for non-religious reasons. But I also learned that many of the biggest pro-intact fighters in USA were jewish. And organisations like http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/ are gaining more and more voice and supporters.

But, whenever I meet a person that I know being a jew or a muslim(here in Europe) my first thought is 'does he/she support circumcision' because of their religious background.Does that make me anti-semitic? I guess then I am anti-American too because when I meet an American I wonder what is his/hers opinion about RIC.And yes, I think that it is % more likely that one supports circumcision if you are muslim, jew or American than if you are hindu, Italian or Japanese.

Just like you could expect that if you are Scandinavian you are % more likely to be Sauna-crazy than if you are Spanish.

[Mamm2]

Originally Posted by wendy1221

What is with you people? Is the first thing you do when you read a pro-circ article to try and figure out whether or not the writer is Jewish? I think a non-Jew is just as likely, if not more likely, to write such an article. I am sick and tired of the anti-Semitic attitudes I see in this particular forum! "Oh! The writer's Jewish! That figures! Jews just want everyone circ'd." Yeah. Let me tell you, when my first ds was born, the ped on call came in and said "I see on your chart that you're still undecided about circ (I was dead against it, ds's father was all for it). I do not circ babies. There are no proven medical benefits and I don't think it's ethical to perform elective surgury on an infant. I'm sure you could find someone to do it if you really want to." Guess what? She was Jewish! My parents FREAKED when they found out my ds1 wasn't circ'd. They completely went nuts when my sister didn't circ her 2 sons. And when I found out I it was a boy when I was pg w/ #2, they said and I quote "well, since dh is Jewish, I guess you'll have to circ this one." My mom is Roman Catholic and my dad is Methodist. However, my JEWISH in-laws, when they found out we hadn't circ'd ds2 had completely different reactions. My mil seemed very happy. She said she thought circ was barbaric and hadn't been able to find the cojurage to save her boys from it. Fil said he thought there were medical benefits and after dh explained how there are always new ones when the old ones are disproven, he was fine with it. What is with you people? I don't think religion has ANYTHING to do with this debate. Some people are just close-minded and stubborn, no matter what their religion is!

I just had to respond real quick (it is going to be a busy day). First, you don't know anything about me, so please don't make assumptions. When I read that article, it was so full of misinformation, I had to find out who this lady was. When I read her other articles, I found out her background. That is it, plain and simple.

I don't like getting into debates that have nothing to do with the real important issue at hand, and that is circumcision.

Life is too short to argue with people who have nothing better to do but make comments based on ignorance.

[crayon]

This is so sad, the Zone has a lot of viewers, and they are getting wrong info. I went to the Zone all the time with my first pregnancy and it is so sad to even go back there. A ton of miss information that is given to so many new parents that are so ready to "do the right thing"

Any surgical procedure carries a risk of complications. But circumcision is considered a safe procedure and side effects are uncommon. Although there is some debate about the actual numbers, the rate of complications is generally between 1 in 200 and 1 in 500 cases. Minor bleeding and infection are the most common complications. Less often, either too much or too little skin is removed, requiring additional surgery

The reason they think it is uncommon is because they did not look for botched crics. The number is around 1 out of every 10 circs have a problem and I would think that is higher except many grown men do not talk to their doctors about painful erections or penises that bow to a side, or loss of sensitivity (sp)...

I think the rate they are quoting is the rate of the infant problems right after the cric, but they say nothing of life long problems that circing causes. "Also, they state less ofter either too much or too little skin is removed" As if this is okay?

Some people argue that removing the foreskin can make the penis less sensitive and can reduce a man’s sexual pleasure later in life. Others claim that circumcision actually increases penile sensitivity. But there hasn’t been any real research to prove that the procedure affects sensitivity either way.

Humm, yes it has, ask any man how has had sex intact and then had a circ. Most if not all will tell you sex was moer sensitive when they were intact.

Circumcision does appear to protect against several diseases, including urinary tract infections (UTIs). “When it comes to urinary tract infections, I think there’s pretty good agreement that circumcision is protective in the first six months of life (which is when most UTIs occur in boys), but the magnitude of that protective effect is in question,” says Dr. George Kaplan, pediatric urologist, chief of surgery at Children’s Hospital in San Diego, and member of the AAP Task Force on Circumcision (1998-1999). Some studies have found that circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs ten-fold; others say the figure is closer to three- or four-fold. Circumcision also appears to protect against cancer of the penis, although the disease is quite rare in general. And, there has been some evidence that circumcision lowers the risk of certain sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS and Human Papillomavirus (HPV—the virus that is believed to cause cervical cancer in women).

Now I think I am going to pass out! The problem is not that it protects against infections, this is becasue most doctors dont no crap about an intact penis and dont treat the problem of the infection and most infant infections are said to be UTI and they are not, and then they are treated wrong. And then perhaps the UTI will come due to the infection that is being treated wrong staying and causing the problem. The facts about cancer are wrong! Now the part about STD's can be true, because the gland is moist and more open to the blood streem, because it in a way is living where as the circed gland is not "living" as in dried up and not as able to transfer STDs to the blood streem. However, STDs will and can be given to both cired and uncired men (and babies).

A circumcised penis may also be easier to keep clean. In uncircumcised males, bacteria can breed under the foreskin and cause infection, though this is not normally a frequent problem. Uncircumcised boys can be taught to wash underneath the foreskin (once it retracts at about age five) to prevent infection.

Humm, so because some people dont want to teach their kids how to clean their penises we should cut them off? I mean I teach my DD to clean herself and belive me she is way more complicated down under than a boy. I have never got this argument. And the penis doesnt have bacteria in a bad way. The penis is self cleaning just like the womans sexual parts. Yes some water is needed, but it is not like you have to break out the wire brush or anything. And to say that retraction happends around age 5 is so scary. It can happen at any age in a growing boy or teen, I sure hope that people that keep their sons intact and read this dont go trying to pull it back to retract it.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by crayon

The reason they think it is uncommon is because they did not look for botched crics. The number is around 1 out of every 10 circs have a problem and I would think that is higher except many grown men do not talk to their doctors about painful erections or penises that bow to a side, or loss of sensitivity (sp)...

These studies only include the immediate post-op period. A single complication, meatal stenosis, accounts for at least 1 in 10 complications. Hair on the penile shaft is present in at least 2 out of 10 circumcisied men. Then start adding all of the other complications in and it quickly becomes apparent somebody has been lying to us.

Also, they state less ofter either too much or too little skin is removed" As if this is okay?

I suspect this never occurs to most people that too much skin removed can cause lifelong sexual problems and pain for the man. Add that to the perception that all of these "bad things" always happens to somebody else and it's easy to see that this is all just passed off. Amazingly, when there are one of these unexpected outcomes, the parents almost never take the blame and put 100% of the blame on the doctor, even suing him/her after he/she has warned about possible complications.

Now the part about STD's can be true, because the gland is moist and more open to the blood streem, because it in a way is living where as the circed gland is not "living" as in dried up and not as able to transfer STDs to the blood streem. However, STDs will and can be given to both cired and uncired men (and babies).

Certainly, the same thing can be said about the eye! Just as certainly, these bacteria can not penetrate unbroken skin. If there is any difference, it is slight and not statistically significant. That's why they have never been able to prove this. If it were significant, the proof would be quite easy!




Frank

[laralou]

I am closing this thread for administrative review. I am pretty sure the speculation on the author's religious preference is out of line and alerts may be issued.

[Cynthia Mosher]

We have asked repeatedly, in threads and in our rules of the board, to refrain from religious discussions in this forum. While it may be important or relevant TO YOU that the author of an article or study is Jewish or Muslim or of whatever other religion, that is not an issue for discussion or speculation in this forum. Such posting may be warned against and or your posting privileges to this forum removed.

As well we ask that if you feel that a post is inappropriate based on our posting rules and guidelines that you report it to the moderator and NOT post to deal with it in the thread yourself. That could warrant a warning for you as well for ignoring our rules in this regard.

Bottom line - leave religion and religious identification out.