Mothering Forum banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,137 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
so a co-worker mentioned that she would circ (she is single and has no kids yet but has already made up her mind) and said she gets her info from WebMD. found this link there....<br><br><a href="http://my.webmd.com/content/article/21/1728_54036.htm" target="_blank">Weighing In on Newborn Circumcision</a><br><br>
the article does state that it is not necessary, and the AAP doesn't support it and yet it still concludes with:<br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">So why perform circumcisions at all? Barrows says even if circumcision is not immediately medically beneficial for newborns due to illness or bleeding risk, the long-term medical benefits of the procedure do support its use in most cases. "Most medical people agree that circumcision is worthwhile. ... When you go back to the original data, the risk of cancer [and infection] ... is clearly lower in circumcised men," he says. "[The] long-term benefits are more clear," he adds. "We do a lot of things for our children. Childhood vaccinations is an example; fluoride in water is another. So is circumcision."</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br>
guess i need to find another way to change her mind before she has kids.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,137 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
and it gets worse....<br><br><br><a href="http://my.webmd.com/content/article/64/72304.htm" target="_blank">Circumcision Does Not Affect Sensitivity</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,928 Posts
I just hate press releases because the almost always reflect the bias of the writer and don't link to the actual research. Notice how none of the research is linked in the first?<br><br>
Then, about the second, the Bleustein Study. I remember when this first came out. The pro-circers proudly paraded it around saying "See, I told you so!" Well, NOT!!!!!!! The most glaring thing to me was that Bleustein's study showed a huge difference in male impotency. It was much larger than that found by Laumann 3 years earlier. Also, note that he pulled the foreskin back to test the glans. Yes, he pulled that nerve laden, highly vascularized, super sensitive foreskin back to get it out of his way to make sure it didn't affect his results! You also have to realize that during foreplay, the sensitivity of a man's glans builds slowly with ever increasing sensitivity until it can become so sensitive that even the slightest touch is ecstacy. Think Bleustein got them there first? I doubt it! At that state of sensitivity, if men had it all of the time, they would all be walking with wet spots on the front of their pants!<br><br><br><br><br>
Frank
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top