Correct me if I am wrong -

[_karl61]

does anyone believe circumcision equals or is worse than what this crazy teacher did - does anyone else see it the same. If I recall correctly paul said that gentiles do not have to be circumcised. The romans (who use to play a game: what were the craziest positions to crucify people in) thought circumcision was barbarism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_ ... cher_bible

[_Boaz & Lidia]

does anyone believe circumcision equals or is worse than what this crazy teacher did - does anyone else see it the same. If I recall correctly paul said that gentiles do not have to be circumcised. The romans (who use to play a game: what were the craziest positions to crucify people in) thought circumcision was barbarism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_ ... cher_bible

And what does this have to do with bashing Mormons?

[_Jersey Girl]

does anyone believe circumcision equals or is worse than what this crazy teacher did - does anyone else see it the same. If I recall correctly paul said that gentiles do not have to be circumcised. The romans (who use to play a game: what were the craziest positions to crucify people in) thought circumcision was barbarism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_ ... cher_bible

karl,

I'm not exactly sure which you'd like to discuss. I'll try a bit of everything and see what shakes loose topically. :-)

The teacher's actions are child abuse.

There are sound health benefits to circumcision.

Paul wrote about circumcision of the heart.

The Romans were sadistic nutjobs.

[_karl61]

does anyone believe circumcision equals or is worse than what this crazy teacher did - does anyone else see it the same. If I recall correctly paul said that gentiles do not have to be circumcised. The romans (who use to play a game: what were the craziest positions to crucify people in) thought circumcision was barbarism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_ ... cher_bible

And what does this have to do with bashing Mormons?

courts of love for parents that allow ritualistic abuse of their male children.

[_karl61]

does anyone believe circumcision equals or is worse than what this crazy teacher did - does anyone else see it the same. If I recall correctly paul said that gentiles do not have to be circumcised. The romans (who use to play a game: what were the craziest positions to crucify people in) thought circumcision was barbarism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_ ... cher_bible

karl,

I'm not exactly sure which you'd like to discuss. I'll try a bit of everything and see what shakes loose topically. :-)

The teacher's actions are child abuse.

There are sound health benefits to circumcision.

Paul wrote about circumcision of the heart.

The Romans were sadistic nutjobs.

the only way that this could occur was because of the hebrew Bible and most people don't know anything about it yet allow it. I think modern medial advice advises against it. see dr. dean regarding circumcision.

[_Jersey Girl]

does anyone believe circumcision equals or is worse than what this crazy teacher did - does anyone else see it the same. If I recall correctly paul said that gentiles do not have to be circumcised. The romans (who use to play a game: what were the craziest positions to crucify people in) thought circumcision was barbarism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_ ... cher_bible

karl,

I'm not exactly sure which you'd like to discuss. I'll try a bit of everything and see what shakes loose topically. :-)

The teacher's actions are child abuse.

There are sound health benefits to circumcision.

Paul wrote about circumcision of the heart.

The Romans were sadistic nutjobs.

the only way that this could occur was because of the hebrew Bible and most people don't know anything about it yet allow it. I think modern medial advice advises against it. see dr. dean regarding circumcision.

Advises against circumcision for what reasons?

[_karl61]

dr deans thoughts:

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/9985.html

[_Jersey Girl]

Refute this if you wish, karl.

AMA 1999: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

Risk-Benefit Analysis of Circumcision

Debate on the wisdom of routine circumcision centers on the possible benefits offered by circumcision, and whether they medically justify the risks associated with the procedure. Properly performed circumcision protects against the development of phimosis, paraphimosis in elderly men requiring intermittent or chronic bladder catheterization, and balanitis.5 The only longitudinal study to address the former found a 4% incidence of phimosis in uncircumcised boys.15 The medical benefits suggested to accrue from circumcision are reduced incidence of urinary tract infection in infant males, decreased incidence of penile cancer in adult males, and possibly decreased susceptibility to certain sexually transmissible diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

Urinary Tract Infection: There is little doubt that the uncircumcised infant is at higher risk for urinary tract infection (UTI), although the magnitude of this risk is debatable. A meta-analysis of 9 studies published between 1984 and 1992 revealed a 12-fold increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised males.4 Most of the studies analyzed were case-control designs that analyzed the rate of UTI in the first year of life. A more recent population-based cohort found a relative risk of 3.7 for hospitalization for UTI in the first year of life in uncircumcised boys.16 A similar relative risk (4.8) was detected in another case-control study.17The reliability of many studies examining circumcision status and UTI in infant males is weakened by lack of controls for potential confounders such as prematurity, extent of breastfeeding, and the method of urine collection used to identify bacteriuria.

Despite the increased relative risk in uncircumcised infants, the absolute incidence of UTI is small in this population (0.4%-1%).18 Depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI.16,19 In this case, a large relative risk reduction translates into a small absolute risk reduction because the baseline prevalence is low. One model of decision analysis concluded that the incidence of UTI would have to be substantially higher in uncircumcised males to justify circumcision as a preventive measure against this condition.20

Penile Cancer: Penile cancer is a rare disease in the United States (0.9 to 1 per 100,000). Among uncircumcised men the incidence is estimated to be 2.2/100,000.21 Six case series published between 1932 and 1986 found that all penile cancers occurred in uncircumcised individuals.11,22 Results of one case control study provide an exception to this general rule, although circumcision status was determined by self-report.23 Nevertheless, this study also found that the absence of neonatal circumcision increased the risk for penile cancer by a factor of 3.2 Other identified risk factors for penile cancer are phimosis (occurring exclusively in uncircumcised males), genital warts, infection with human papilloma virus, large number of sexual partners, and cigarette smoking.23-25 Nevertheless, because this disease is rare and occurs later in life, the use of circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified..

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and Sexually Transmissible Diseases: The data on circumcision status and susceptibility to HIV infection and other sexually transmissible diseases have been recently reviewed.5,26,27 Five of 7 prospective studies involving heterosexual transmission of HIV-1 found a statistically significant association between lack of circumcision and elevated risk for acquisition of HIV (relative risks 2.3-8.1). In the other 2 studies the relative risk exceeded 3 in uncircumcised males, but a low proportion of uncircumcised men and a small percentage of seroconversion limited the statistical power of these studies.

At least 16 studies have examined the relationship between circumcision and sexually transmissible diseases other than HIV.27 In general, circumcised individuals appear to have somewhat lower susceptibility to acquiring chancroid and syphilis, possibly genital herpes, and gonorrhea compared to individuals in whom the foreskin is intact. The available data on nongonococcal urethritis and genital warts are inconclusive

Regardless of these findings, behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as "protecting" against such infections.

[_Jersey Girl]

karl,

I need you to know that I have little or no intention of debating circumcision on this board. The only reason I know anything at all about issues contained in the above report by the AMA is because I was subjected :-) to numerous threads online by a poster promoting the health benefits of the procedure. Otherwise, I really don't have an interest in the topic.

Jersey Girl

[_karl61]

Circumcision: A Closer Look
Posting Date: 03/01/1999

I have had a long and vociferous opposition to the practice of routine male circumcision.

While many parents in the 60's, in their zeal to return to nature, abandonned the practice, it was 15 years ago that the birth of my fourth son prompted my rethinking of the issue. I had met a nurse, who is now the president of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, who enlightened me to the existing medical data.

The United States was the only country in the world that routinely circumcised all its newborn males. It was a uniquely American ritual.

The medical evidence never convinced all the other civilized countries in the world. This did not seem to alter the opinions of medical organizations in the United States. They stubbornly clung to the old myths about circumcision.

Well, after analysis of almost 40 years of available medical research on circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued new recommendations saying that they do not recommend circumcision as a routine procedure. This is too little and too late for the millions of infants who have undergone this unnecessary and inhumane assault.

This is a radical departure for American medicine and, of course, raises many,many issues. With that statement the American Academy of Pediatricians joins major national pediatrics group in England, Australia, Canada, Asia and Europe.

COMMON MYTHS

Let's first talk about the many myths that one hears.

CLEANLINESS

The most common myth is that it's cleaner to be circumcised. It's hard to imagine how this has persisted in an era of soap and water. But certainly it's understandable that people do get upset with moist places in the body.

A woman's reproductive tract is certainly moist and contains lots of bacteria, yet no one would suggest circumcising females to make them cleaner

CERVICAL CANCER

The idea that women who have sex with uncircumcised men will get cervical cancer is a myth that is hard to put to rest.

This is so untrue that the Academy did not even consider this in their new evaluation. Cervical cancer is caused by a sexually transmitted virus and has nothing to do with the circumcision status of the male.

URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS

Some studies have found urinary tract infections to be more common in the intact male baby. Other studies have challenged that.

If one accepts the claims of those who think not circumcising increases the risk, then you would have to do 200 circumcisions to prevent one urinary tract infection.

COMPLICATIONS

The complication rate of the circumcision operation itself - from bleeding to amputation of the penis - is at least one in 200 according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. So you can see that there's no benefit at all.

PENILE CANCER

When it comes to penile cancer, the Academy notes that it is so rare that it should not be a significant influence on the decision to circumcise.

STDs

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) have been claimed to be more common in the intact male. But is this true?

There is no doubt, as the AAP says, that behavioral factors are far more important in determining your risk of STDs and that there are some sexually transmitted diseases that are more common in circumcised men.

FATHER TO SON

The most common reason men give for circumcising their sons is so they will look like them. This is a poor reason to do this to a newborn baby.

DIFFERENCES: SEXUAL SATISFACTION OF WOMEN

Recent studies have found that sexually, circumcised men are different from intact men. The glans or tip of the intact penis is more sensitive. Circumcision removes the equivalent of 15 square inches of skin in the adult male. One study recently published in the British Journal of Urology found that intact men are more satisfying to their female lovers than circumcised men.

HISTORY

Circumcision was initially introduced into this country by reformers who wanted to prevent masturbation, but according to recent studies, if this was the objective, the reformers have failed.

PREVENT MASTURBATION?

Research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that men who are circumcised are more likely to masturbate and to prefer certain sexual practices including oral sex and anal sex

It is possible that the decrease in penile sensation that accompanies circumcision could be playing a role in the seeking of different sexual practices that offer more stimulation.

ETHICS

Ethically, the AAP walks a fine line. While they admit that parents and physicians have an ethical duty to act in a child's best interest and well being, they fall far short of recommending that we have an ethical duty to leave a child's genitals intact.

It seems clear to everybody that female circumcision is a gross and obvious violation of that right, but somehow male circumcision is not seen as extreme an intrusion. The AAP does say that, "parents should not be coerced by medical professionals to make this choice."

PAIN

The pediatricians finally admit the obvious: that there is considerable evidence that newborns experience extreme pain and significant stress during a circumcision which, unfortunately, is performed most of the time without any analgesia whatsoever.

Why it's taken so long for pediatricians to admit this obvious fact is a clear condemnation of previous circumcision policy. When I was in medical school, doctors tried to teach me that babies don't feel any pain.

SCOPE OF IMPACT

Although it's hard to get numbers, the best that we have tell us that 65 percent of newborns are circumcised in the United States with higher rates in the east. It's estimated there are 1.2 million newborn males circumcised in the U.S. every year at a cost of between $150 to 270 million


WHY DO WE ALL PAY?

It seems that, with this newest information, HMO's and other health insurers should stop paying for this medically unnecessary procedure and use that money for other, more important aspects of pediatric care


YOU COUNT: TAKE A LOOK AND LEARN MORE

The toughest sell, of course, will be the American public, which is why we are offering you a picture of an infant undergoing circumcision as well as something many American men and women have never seen before - an intact, natural penis.

A CHANGING WORLD

Internationally about 80 to 85 percent of the male population is uncircumcised. The AAP is not the first, but the fourth major medical society in the world to change its circumcision policy. Australia, the U.K., and Canada already have instituted more humane policies. Hopefully, we will go much further toward stopping this barbaric practice which is decidedly unhealthy for us and our children.

from: http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/9985.html