Circumcison article

[janasmama]

This article is a little bit older but I found it on our local news site. I thought it was neat to see this case in the news.

I liked that they included this information:

"One study in the journal Pediatrics found that 1 out of every 476 newborns experiences some kind of complication related to circumcision. Only 1 out of about 10,000 uncircumcised newborns has a complication related to the fact that he was not circumcised."

If you want to read the whole article:

http://www.turnto23.com/family/10484352/detail.html

[Night_Nurse]

It looks like you can still click on "survey" and vote on if or when circ should/should not be done.

[fruitful womb]

Originally Posted by Night_Nurse

It looks like you can still click on "survey" and vote on if or when circ should/should not be done.

I can't find the "survey". Where is that? Sorry, I'm blind tonight.

ETA: Never-mind I found it. Its below "My Health" within the article. 51% says its wrong to do to any boy with 1626 votes!!! It sux to see 360 people are voting that it should be a matter of routine or 24% being the parents choice.

[janasmama]

Thanks for pointing that out. That's a lot of votes!

Isn't that amazing that next to "it's wrong" people think it should be the "parents choice." I mean I know that they are our babies but shouldn't there maybe then be an option for "it should be the boys choice?" It's not like circumcision is an emergency and can't be handled later by the person who the penis belongs to.

[janasmama]

Originally Posted by fruitful womb

I can't find the "survey". Where is that? Sorry, I'm blind tonight.

It's right underneath the blue heading that says My Health

[fruitful womb]

Originally Posted by janasmama

It's right underneath the blue heading that says My Health

Thanks! I voted its wrong to do to any boy.

[Greg B]

It is an article filled with bias and misinformation. Here are some of the glaring ones:

"When a penis is erect, the foreskin retracts -- at which point an uncircumcised penis looks no different from a circumcised penis."

Many men have a covered penis when erect.

"Other sources warn that surgical errors during circumcision are possible, if rare. One study in the journal Pediatrics found that 1 out of every 476 newborns experiences some kind of complication related to circumcision. Only 1 out of about 10,000 uncircumcised newborns has a complication related to the fact that he was not circumcised."

You have got to be kidding me, too bad the Circ to Prevent AIDS Groupies in Africa don't have a similar view of how inisgnficant a difference like this is.

"...a part of many religious traditions" Define many....

"Bacteria can grow easily there, and boys with uncircumcised penises must be taught to pull back the foreskin and wash thoroughly"

Talk about alarmist propoganda...

"An influential study showed that urinary tract infections are significantly more common among uncircumcised males. There is also evidence that sexually transmitted diseases are easier to catch if a penis is uncircumcised."

Here we go again, take the benefits out of context so they sound very compelling, then add a little more alarmist wording...

Then of course there is no discussion of the sexual benefits to the man and wife of foreskins. I wonder why? Becuase they can then conclude with a statement like this:

"...in the huge majority of cases “the benefits and risks are both small and essentially cancel out, leaving it up to more personal values and beliefs to determine whether or not the foreskin stays or goes."

Thus allowing anyone who wants to circ to RIC, without worrying about whether it is in the best interest of the child.

Sorry, I am not impressed. It is bias hiding behind pseudo objectivity.

Regards

[Microsoap]

"Bacteria" DOESN'T grow there, thank you very UA violation much!

I got an intact penis and I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to let ANYONE say I have bacteria under my foreskin while a vagina has none! lmfao

Reality is this: We're human. We ALL have bacteria on our bodies. This is why we bathe. Once we bathe, we're fine for a while until we need to bathe again. What irritates the HELL out of me is the idiotic mentality that the intact penis (the foreskin) is a ticking timebomb!

[Calyxir]

LOL

Bacteria grow everywhere. We'd be in deep you-know-what if we didn't have them.

Honestly, sometimes these clean freaks make me cringe.

Next they'll be advocating nose removal because a lot of people's noses are colonised with MRSA....which happily sit there and do absolutely nothing, because they're a normal part of human flora, but hey, because it causes a big problem in some places, universal nose removal should solve the problem!!

Who's going to start the campaign?

[Microsoap]

Caly, you're right. If you think about ear wax in the human ear, there's no hysteria about making sure you "clean it" everyday, multiple times a day.

[janasmama]

Originally Posted by Greg B

It is an article filled with bias and misinformation. Here are some of the glaring ones:

"When a penis is erect, the foreskin retracts -- at which point an uncircumcised penis looks no different from a circumcised penis."

Many men have a covered penis when erect.

"Other sources warn that surgical errors during circumcision are possible, if rare. One study in the journal Pediatrics found that 1 out of every 476 newborns experiences some kind of complication related to circumcision. Only 1 out of about 10,000 uncircumcised newborns has a complication related to the fact that he was not circumcised."

You have got to be kidding me, too bad the Circ to Prevent AIDS Groupies in Africa don't have a similar view of how inisgnficant a difference like this is.

"...a part of many religious traditions" Define many....

"Bacteria can grow easily there, and boys with uncircumcised penises must be taught to pull back the foreskin and wash thoroughly"

Talk about alarmist propoganda...

"An influential study showed that urinary tract infections are significantly more common among uncircumcised males. There is also evidence that sexually transmitted diseases are easier to catch if a penis is uncircumcised."

Here we go again, take the benefits out of context so they sound very compelling, then add a little more alarmist wording...

Then of course there is no discussion of the sexual benefits to the man and wife of foreskins. I wonder why? Becuase they can then conclude with a statement like this:

"...in the huge majority of cases “the benefits and risks are both small and essentially cancel out, leaving it up to more personal values and beliefs to determine whether or not the foreskin stays or goes."

Thus allowing anyone who wants to circ to RIC, without worrying about whether it is in the best interest of the child.

Sorry, I am not impressed. It is bias hiding behind pseudo objectivity.

Regards

You're right, I had noticed some of the things you mentioned but I guess I overlooked them for the fact that the article said the benefits of circ'ing were small and are cancelled by the risks.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by janasmama

You're right, I had noticed some of the things you mentioned but I guess I overlooked them for the fact that the article said the benefits of circ'ing were small and are cancelled by the risks.

No worries, it is easy to do. They carefully construct their statements so that it is easy to feel they are being reasonable and fair. Sort of lull you to sleep. They make it difficult to tease out the logical mistakes and bias.

A few years ago I would have had the same impression. But I am getting sensitive to this strategy. I think it is important to show it for what it is, even if unintended.

The benefits are NOT canceled by the risks, it is NOT a "six of one half a dozen of another" decision.

I am hopeful that by catching the fallacies in this type of article, we help save more boys from this amputation who's negatives do very much outweigh the benefits.

Regards

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by Microsoap

"Bacteria" DOESN'T grow there, thank you very UA violation much!

I got an intact penis and I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to let ANYONE say I have bacteria under my foreskin while a vagina has none! lmfao

Reality is this: We're human. We ALL have bacteria on our bodies. This is why we bathe. Once we bathe, we're fine for a while until we need to bathe again. What irritates the HELL out of me is the idiotic mentality that the intact penis (the foreskin) is a ticking timebomb!

The truth is that we all have bacteria on all parts of our body and we' be in deep caca if we didn't. That bacteria "under the foreskin" is essential. Just scrub the preputial space several times with deodorant soap and water and by the end of the day, you're going to have a start on some really offensive odors. By washing normally just like anyother body part, there will be enough of these bacteria remaining that they will quickly re-colonize the space and there will be no odors.

Antibiotics can have the same effect as over zealous cleaning, destroying the beneficial bacteria and the resulting odors. Application of a little bit of yogurt colonized by these bacteria will quickly re-establish the beneficial colonies. This flies in the face of those who claim the foreskin is a breeding ground for bacteria. Just how dangerous could the bacteria in yogurt be? Don't the cultures in yogurt have health benefits they are purported to have or is that just false advertising? LOL!


Frank