need help refuting pro-circ info

[MA mommy]

I'm against circ but I'd like to have all my ducks in a row for the naysayers.

How do you respond to this?

http://www.circinfo.net/

[Frankly Speaking]

This site is owned by Brian Morris, an Austrailian who is famous for his radical views on circumcision.

You can not refute every lie and misrepresentation on the site because there is just too much. The best approach is to choose three or four and show the lies and then give a history of Brian to discredit him. I would start off with:

"This site is owned by Austrailian Brian Morris who is famous for his radical promotion of universal circumcision of all males by law. There are too many misrepresentations of fact and research on the site to address all of them but let me give you an idea by addressing 3 of them. Then you will see that there is nothing on the site that is reliable information. (1) . . ."

I was faced with a similar situation with Dr. Edgar Schoen once and used this approach. Once you show the obvious lies, your reader will then accept that everything on the site is probably a lie and the information is not reliable. The kiss of death is when you thoroughly discredit the writer.

It also helps if you have help at the site from other members.



Frank

[MA mommy]

Thank you! There was so much crap on there I didn't even know where to start! You put things in perspective for me!

[elelvee]

The International Circumcision Information Resource Center -- ICIRC -- is pro-circumcision. The information is written in basic, plain language. The "arguments" are so blatantly wrong that it's like reading a parody.

*If the foreskin is not there, it can not get infected.
>The organ underneath it will!

*If the foreskin is not there, it can not get infected.
>If it IS there, it will likely not get infected.

*"But doesn't the foreskin have a function?" We often get this question....
> Yaada yaada yaada, function, smunction. It don't matter to us.
> Yeah, it's function is to get infected! Its sole purpose in life is to get cut off!

Do you need a link? I got it by meta-search www.dogpile.com . The webpages will be repetetive. ICIRC is not to be confused with anti-circ sites CIRC, CRC, CIRP, and NOCIRC.

[feebeeglee]

Bringing this one to the top because my BIL cited it, specifically, in his reasons to circumcise their 4 month old.

http://www.circinfo.net/#cultures

It's overwhelming to read, really. Like being in an avalanche with an umbrella.

[mattemma04]

I give a link to this site:http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched1.html

People circ,but they never think what the sexuality for these boys will be like when they are grown. I would hate for my son to go from having a normal/functional penis to a cut one that suffers one or more of this common circumcision results. Foreskins are not birth defects needing corrective surgery at birth.

[zaftigmama]

Hi K! How are you? Haven't see you around recently!

I looked at the site, and was disgusted. There is obvious mis-information, but it would be impossible to refute all of it. The links I clicked on didn't seem to hold much weight, but I can see why someone wanting to believe in circ would fall for it.

One citation that got my attention was the fact that rates were higher for uncircumcised boys to see a dr. for penile problems. But, it didn't say if there was a problem, just that boys were seen for a possible one. Even on this message board, it's clear that if you have an intact boy questions may arise - is this an infection? Is it normal? Do I need a culture or antibiotics? Etc.,. So, it makes sense that a parent with an intact son may have questions for the dr. but that doesn't mean there actually is a health problem. It's just crappy data presented in a way to fool peple.

There are countries in which circumcision is unheard of (practically). Are those countries riddled with men that have penis cancer? Women who have cervical cancer as a result of marrying these intact men? Are all of the men suffering constant urinary tract infections? Do they all have HIV? If circ. alone is responsible for the prevention of these problems, Swedish men, British men, etc.,. must have a ton of genital issues.

Also, the references are so questionable. I know when you have an idea that is possibly inflammatory, putting a reference number next to it usually buys you some credibility. But, I looked at the reference list. Certainly I don't know all the authors (although with 329 references there are only a few authors, each one cited multiple times) but so many studies were done in Kenya. A place where there is a huge AIDS/HIV/STD rate. Why is this? Why study circumcision there? Also, Australia was mentioned often. Why not the US? And so many names just seemed to have something in common. I don't want to get the thread closed, but Ross, Moses, Schoen, Rabinowitz and Ponsky just shouted out at me.

The fact is, men are born with foreskins. They are part of male anatomy for a reason. A study written by a man who wants circumcision to be legally enforced for everyone suggesting that foreskins are useless now that men wear clothes is a little ridiculous. But it does give pro-circ. some ammunition, even if it's faulty.

Take care!

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by zaftigmama

One citation that got my attention was the fact that rates were higher for uncircumcised boys to see a dr. for penile problems.

You know Andie, there may be some truth to that. Let me explain.

We see a lot of problems here with both circumcised and intact boys. It can be legitimately argued that we see more with boys that are intact but I suspect that's because of the mission of this site and not a lot of mothers whose sons are circumcised would feel comfortable posting a question here about their problems. However, we do have them so I have to assume that there are far, far more than we ever see.

The thing that I keep seeing over and over again is that when a mother says there is a problem with her son's intact penis, most of the time she comes back a couple of days later and magically, the problem has gone away on it's own. In those few cases where they don't self resolve, the most drastic action I have seen any of them take is a little antibiotic ointment for a few days. There has never been a circumcision as far as I know and there has never been any surgery for the problems.

On the other side of the fence, for those boys who are circumcised and are having problems, surgery is often the solution to resolve the problems if they can be resolved at all. There are the cases of the cosmetic end results not being what was expected and these boys have to go through a second circumcision. There is the recent case presented by Ricemomma of meatal stenosis where corrective surgery will most likely be needed and that will only to be sure that he doesn't retain urine causing kidney damage but the stenosis will continue even after the surgery. There has been at least one case of a denuded penis where a skin graft will be necessary and there have been multiple cases of buried penis syndrome that may require later skin graft surgery. As a matter of fact, I can't recall a single case where the solution is a simple antibiotic ointment or something similar.

Yes, prehaps there are more doctor visits by intact boys but it does seem that those doctor visits are mostly for irritation of the foreskin separating from the glans that quickly passes with no outside intervention whatsoever. There are also a few that require a medication ointment. It doesn't seem that any of these boys suffer any significant pain or discomfort and looking at the other side, I do see significant discomfort and pain as well as conditions that endanger the overall health and well being of the child and the risk of surgery. Looking at the balance, it tips heavily toward and in favor of the natural unmodified penis in every case I see. So, big deal if there are more doctor visits when the vast majority of them are insignificant and none require surgery. That beats the other side hands down!





Frank

On

[bravofrenchie]

Oh, this makes me so freakin' mad. Frank, do you have any idea how indespensable you are? You always sound so calm, intelligent and well-educated in the face of stuff like this, when all I can do is sputter and get red in the face.

"It has even been suggested that anti-circumcision groups should really be regarded as a cult devoted to worship of the foreskin... References to support their claims are deceptive and they use statistical games to discredit good peer-reviewed scientific studies... Some of these people mean well and some are intelligent, but lack a broad perspective...
These few people try to make a big noise to be heard over the consensus of medical opinion and common sense... The reader might imagine the psychological state of a person who is so fanatically dedicated to the preservation of a piece of skin at the end of the penis, defending it by all means possible in the face of enormous evidence that is contradictory to their view..."

[zaftigmama]

Frank, I totally agree with what you said. I think that's what I was actually trying to say. It makes perfect sense to me that intact boys may see the dr. more often, because the parents aren't sure if what they are seeing is an infection or not. So there could be a legitimate statistic saying that intact boys present to dr.'s with penile problems more often than circumcised boys do. But nowhere in his stats does the author say if those boys presenting actually have a problem. Just that they saw a dr. in the first place. That's crappy data.

Does that make sense? Having an intact boy, I often wonder about what I'm seeing - is it red, swollen, infected, etc.? I can't see the glans, so I have to guess by the appearance of the foreskin. My son has never had a problem, but I was sure he would, judging by the outrage surrouding my decision. So I was breathlessly awaiting all the infections that would happen, and everytime he cried I thought he may have a UTI. Any redness may have been some horrible infection. It took me awhile to figure it out - and I saw the dr. a few times, for no reason. So, my son could figure into those statistics of having to see a dr. more often. But it was because I was a nervous nellie, not because there was a problem. My sister has 2 circumcised boys, and she never once wondered if they were infected or had a problem. There was nothing much to guess about, and she wasn't expecting problems because she wasn't told how sick her poor boys would be, like I was.

People can cite statistics that are true, but just don't mean anything. They can also be false, or skewed to look a certain way. I wonder about most of the references in that article, but that was just one example I noticed and tried (unsuccessfully) to explain.

Take care!

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by bravofrenchie

Oh, this makes me so freakin' mad. Frank, do you have any idea how indespensable you are? You always sound so calm, intelligent and well-educated in the face of stuff like this, when all I can do is sputter and get red in the face.

Ya' know, I think it's because I've gotten like a lot of doctors who become insensitive to their patient's pain. They see so much of it that it doesn't bother them to hurt their patients any more. I've seen so many foreskin "problems" that I just don't get excited any more. They are never serious problems and just take the right approach to successfully resolve. I've even got it down to a formula. "Wait 24-36 hours and if it's not gone, go to the doctor and get a culture." That handles almost everything as far as intact penises go. Now, problems with circumcised penises are a whole 'nother story.



Frank