-Wiki -All hail the Wiki -Because none of you read Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision Oh I know most of you won't read it, so unless you explicitly state you have read it I will disregard you as ignorant. I oppose it. I had no choice in the matter though, but there was no significant medical reason for it being done. By the way, even a newborn can feel pain, if not more so than an adult because a newborn has more nerves and overall brain mass which is lost with the natural aging process (unused brain matter and nerves are shut down between about 7-12 years of age, after which all their basic learning needs should be completed, including language and basic math and such - imprinting people, imprinting). Considering for much of this century doctors used a crushing device that would literally crush the foreskin off, it does seem to me to be rather barbaric and completely un-needed. Besides, if we really wanted to stop AIDS we would start a policy of quarantine in high riskers (prostitutes, and those still willing to procreate even though they are infected). Oooh, what a horrid idea... segregating the highest risk from the population to prevent the spread of a horrible disease which infects millions and there is no cure for. Golly gee wirlikers, what ever shall we do. I think it should be up to the individual whether or not they are mutilated or not, and should be allowed when they are mentally capable of making that choice (say around 15-18+, with <18 having parental consent) otherwise you are just making the choice about something drastic and non-life saving for someone and basically projecting your will on them. I declare you must all have one toe amputated at birth - you wouldn't like that I bet.
about 400 baby boys die each year from circumcision about 7 baby boys are turned into baby girls because of botched circumcision each year in the USA In 1999, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) issued yet another statement that said the data on potential benefits were insufficient to recommend the practice of neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision. Shortly thereafter, the American Medical Association declared that neonatal circumcision is a non-therapeutic procedure. More parents began to opt for genital integrity and the percentage of boys circumcised once again began to decline. http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/ [CIRP Comment: No one knows if a newborn baby has a bleeding disorder. Although circumcision cuts through arteries and veins that provide blood to the foreskin, it is not customary to do a clotting factor test prior to circumcision. If a bleeding disorder exists it will be discovered only during the course of the operation. Post-circumcision bleeding is an extremely serious matter. Substantial bleeding cannot be tolerated, because the quantity of blood is an infant's body is quite small. Bleeding can lead to exsanguination, followed by hypovolemic shock, followed by death. Post-circumcision bleeding requires immediate medical attention.] A new born baby has 360ml of blood in it's body, about 3/4 a pint the loss of just 3 table spoons of blood is 45ml = 15 % of blood loss, causing exsanguination, or hypovolemic shock. on the Death certificates either exsanguination, or hypovolemic shock are used, and not circumcision that caused either of them. hypovolemic shock can result in multiple organ failure brain damage, coma and death. Clinical symptoms may not present until 10-20% of total whole-blood volume is lost. Hypovolemia can be recognized by elevated pulse, diminished blood pressure. Note that in children, compensation can result in an artificially high blood pressure despite hypovolemia making it difficult to diagnose. Modern Diapers/nappies absorb both blood and urine making it very difficult to see how much blood has been lost, the result being that the baby has already entered hypovolemic shock before any problem is noticed. i have a movie of a baby having a circumcision done to him, anyone that wants to see it, and hear him scream are welcome to. just pm me for a link
It's fairly common in China. I think it's 14% of all cancers among Chinese, but I may have the number wrong. Chinese don't circumsize of course
lets cut the breasts of all baby girls, that would solve breast cancer too right? i mean 1 in 5 women will be affected by breast cancer at some point.
Ha ha ha ha ha... Nice solution for breast cancer. But also fitting reply against circumscision. It is more or less equal to declawing in a cat...
Don't laugh, some greedy doctors go as far as suggesting their victims, I mean patients, just that. Young girls, too. They have a fancy medical term for it
Preventive mastectomy. Here (please don't read if you have blind faith in medical profession) - http://www.breastcancer.org/preventive_mastectomy_brca1_brca2.html
did i laugh? i just pointed out your stupid reasoning for circumscision, by saying all baby girls should have their breasts removed to prevent breast cancer. there is a difference between reading this and understanding it. you clearly have either not read it, or didn't understand it. this was all adult females that had abnormal BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, the 105 women that opted for the double preventive mastectomy less than 2% got cancer in 6 years, a reduction of upto 83% of the risk, thats pretty impressive if you ask me. 49% of the women that didn't have the double prophylactic mastectomy ended up with cancer. there are 14 different forms of breast cancer and the women were all adults and given a choice based on sound medical grounds. thats more than i can say for a baby boy strapped down in pain while having his penis mutilated. when you can give sound ground backed up with figures then come back, untill then you have no grounds to back up your reason to mutilate the penis of baby boys
No need to attack me, it doesn't matter to me whether you circumcize your children. You can believe or do anything without me interfering
i didnt attack you, i just pointed out the bullshit you posted was just that, pure bullshit. next time read the content of the page you are trying to use as worthless junk. as in this case, it proved you soooo wrong.
Also according to statistics they are less cervical cancer amongst women who are with men who are circumcised.
Let’s talk statistics and compare these 2 countries (Algeria “circumcised†and Canada “non circumcisedâ€). The comparison below is in relation to the number of new incidents of Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer. Data from WHO. These 2 countries have more or less similar number of Cervical Cancer reported incidents in 2007. Canada with population of 32 million, reported 1502 new cases. Algeria with population of 33 million reported 1726 new cases. Statistics can work in any ones favour depending on how data is manipulated. So one cannot conclude based on facts on the link between circumcision and cervical cancer. There is simply no evidence, FULL STOP.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2157 We do not know with whom these women had sex with, the algerian women cold have had sex with non muslims men. In Canada 30 yeras ago 40% of men were circumcised. although there is a sharp decline now. It has been proven that women who are in a relationship with a circumcised man are less likely to get cervical cancer.
This is a ridiculous explanation; Algeria is a Muslim country where the majority of its men are circumcised. Are you saying that the majority female population in Algeria are marrying or having sex with non circumcised men from abroad? The percentage of females with Cervical cancer in Algeria is very similar to other neighboring countries such as Morocco or Egypt. So, you aren't happy with the example of Canada, fine. How about Japan? In Japan there is a Crude incidence rate of 12 with cervical cancer in every 100,000 women. In Bangladesh there are 18.6 per 100,000 women. I don't say that there aren't some good benefits of circumcision, and I'm neither for nor against it and I think it's a matter of a personal choice. However I have yet to see a strong evidence of the link between circumcision and cervical cancer, because current statistics doesn't show a big difference between countries. In regards to your link and the mentioned research: Read this:
Actually as per the studies circumcision only helps when woman's partner is of high risk (with 6 or more sexual partners), otherwise the risk is on almost the same level. So it not a help in all cases. Exactly.
Anyone discussed female circumcision? http://www.answering-islam.org/Sharia/fem_circumcision.html http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=241
Most of those parents were indoctrinated by their parents so it can be a hard 'tradition' to brake. Calling it barbaric is a little strong, the parents are obviously doing what they think is best for their child. I would prefer it if parents didn't brainwash their kids with a particular religious view.