Um, I thought circums..cutting things off down there when you're a kid is better for your health n shit?
Not quite: increases the rate of contracting stds, most penis cancers are found in uncircumsised men, the only place a man can get lichen schlerosis is on their foreskin, then there is sctrictures, infection....
So... what's the answer?
I know there are links that explode all these myths, let me see if I can post a couple:
Dispelling the cancer myth
Circ doesn't prevent STDs Circ doesn't prevent HIV transmission
Think about this one logically....US has highest rate of circed men in developed world.....US has highest rate of HIV infection in developed world. Hmmm...
In fact, the foreskin has important immunological functions and helps prevent disease transmission.
I don't know what "infections" she's talking about but let's not forget to dispel the UTI myth as well as the myth that smegma (which means soap in Greek) is dirty.
Adhesions (what she means by strictures, perhaps?) are generally caused by rips in the foreskin that occur when ill-advised parents and/or doctors try to retract a baby's or child's foreskin. The foreskin is attached to the glans at birth the same way the fingernails are attached to the finger. If the foreskin is pushed back (totally unnecessarily) then you get rips and tears that may heal into adhesions. If the penis is left alone as it should be, and the only person to retract the foreskin is the owner of the penis himself, then voila no problems with adhesions.
Lichen schlerosis (aka BXO) is rare and affects only 6 in 1000, and there are treatments other than circ. See http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/BXO/
In short, there are no compelling medical reasons for universal circ. There is no medical society in the world that recommends routine infant circ for medical reasons.
But MOST IMPORTANT, ask these people what they know about the benefits and functions of the foreskin. It is vital to normal sexual functioning and normal male sexual pleasure. Why cut off a normal part of the human body for no good reason?
And this doesn't even get into the human rights issues involved in cutting off the most sensitive part of someone else's body without their permission - especially when it's inflicted (mostly without anesthesia) on a defenseless newborn baby. The more you learn, the more horrible circumcision turns out to be.
Come visit the NEW QuirkyBaby website -- earn QB Bucks rewards points for purchases, reviews, referrals, and more! Free US shipping on great brands of baby slings and carriers and FREE BabyLegs or babywearing mirror on orders of $100+. Take the QB Quiz for personalized advice!
They have reviewed all of the research on the issue and debated it among the members of the taskforce. All nine of the members are medical professionals and some (maybe most or even all) are supporters of a parent being able to request and receive the procedure.
Their findings are that there are some known and well documented risks but there are no known and proven benefits. therefore, elective circumcisions should not be done.
The problem is after saying that, they go into all of the social junk reasons and religious justifications. In doing that, they over step their bounds. They are not social scientists, anthropologists or lawyers, the kind of professionals who would professionally make these kind of statements.
About that lichen schlerosis thing, you could really use that as a lever to expose their sexist agenda... since WOMEN get lichen schlerosis far more often than men... and we don't go carving up our girls to prevent it from happening to them!
Oh... and you can get it on you anus... now how are you going to cut that off for prevention?