Had routine circumcision been in place-48% reduction in STD's

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Amputation is not a cure for disease! Don't mutilate your children! A baby's cortisol levels during a circumcision reach 300 nm/L and their heart rates reach 180 beats/minute. That is TORTURE levels! Even doctors who use lidocaine for pain relief have said all it does it "take the edge" off, the baby still feels most of it. Circumcision is GENITAL MUTILATION! It removes the foreskin which is LOADED with erogenous nerve endings.

Also, how do you gather an accurate sample for HIV contraction in circumcised vs intact men in a country where all but 1% or 2% of the population is not circumcised? The only men in Africa who are circumcised are the one's who are wealthy and who's parents could afford the medical costs. Read more, there are studies documented on cirp.org that were conducted worldwide with much larger samples that show that circumcised men have higher rates of all STD's.

This is yet another attempt by the multibillion dollar American circumcision industry to scare and stupify the masses into amputating a wonderful part of their son's penises so that doctors can man an extra $30,000 a year and sell the amputated foreskins to cosmetic companies to use to develop anti-wrinkle creams.

BARF!

 

One more thing. Removing the clitoral hood in women is anatomically equivalent to removing the foreskin in men. The clitoral hood is a mucous membrane that protects the clitoris. Same with the labia minora and majora, they are folds of skin that hold in moisture. Why doesn't someone suggest amputating those women's parts too? If moist areas for the virus to harbor itself is really the problem then those should be valid "treatments" too. But we never consider those options. It's because our western culture is perfectly fine with the idea of cutting up boy's penises. We're abhorred by doing the same thing to girls, even though a clitoredectomy (removing the clitoral hood) is no more damaging or invasive than a male circumcision.

"People are lining up for it...Why?"

People line up for it because they believe what they are told and know nothing else. Which is the same reason why routine neonatal circumcision continues, despite every single medical organization in the world recommending against it as a medical procedure. Those studies are seriously flawed, and many of the world's top pediatricians and urologists have stated so. Go to cirp.org and read some of the articles.

 

Here's a link
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

 

My intuition tells me that circumcised men that are clinging desperately to the hope that their own circumcision was indeed necessary who are the ones that are supporting these studies. It's become very obvious to every medical organization in the world that male circumcision is abusive and unnecessary and the easiest way for a circumcised man to deal with that reality is to find some situation, regardless of how absent or far-fetched it is from your own life, that helps to justify the violation done to your own body. As a result, the cycle of abuse continues.

 

THE CONCLUSION FROM OVER 40 STUDIES CONDUCTED OVER 10 YEARS

Conclusions

Confounding factors to the study of the relationship of HIV infection to male circumcision include:

* female circumcision
* "dry sex"
* genital ulcer disease
* other STDs
* unsafe medical practices
* viral load
* religion
* culture
* education, occupation, and socio-economic status
* condom use
* migration status
* age
* location of the study

The Cochrane Review found that the existing studies fail to control for most of these confounding factors so the evidence produced is unreliable. After more than forty studies over a span of time greater than a decade, the Fink hypothesis that circumcision somehow reduces HIV infection remains unproven. Ntozi recognizes that this idea that circumcision can reduce HIV infection is only a hypothesis, but would like to see a controlled study carried out to see if circumcision would reduce the tragic epidemic that continues to rage in Africa.34

From time to time the popular press reports that one doctor or another recommends circumcision to reduce HIV infection. While it may be their personal opinion that circumcision prevents HIV transmission, since this has not yet been conclusively demonstrated, these opinions cannot be considered informed medical opinions. Frequently, the news item is based on a single study rather than the complete body of the medical literature. It would be foolish to base public health policy on such reports.

The conditions in Africa are very different from those in the developed world. It would be wrong to apply findings from Africa to the developed nations.

The Cochrane review of the medical literature "found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men."68

 

Checkmate!

 

The foreskin is loaded with errogenous nerve endings, just as many as the glans. You ARE depriving your son of much sexual pleasure by circumcising him. It's also not your body to choose whether or not you cut part of it off. Almost no men would choose to cut of their foreskin when they are at an age when they can consent. To maintain the culturally perpetuated practice you have to impose the amputation on them before they can fight back.

 

"Male circumcision does not alter normal functions."
The foreskin is supposed to allow the penis to glide within a sheath inside of the vagina, allowing for comfortable intercourse even when the it's dry sex. Circumcision does indeed prevent this natural and normal function.

"In fact, some say the lack of a foreskin actually enhances sensation."
There are studies claiming a circumcised man's glans is as sensitive as an intact man's glans. However, you can not test for the loss of the foreskin in the circumcise man because it is not there. The sensitivity of the foreskin has value in itself. What you are saying is the equivalent to say my armpit is still sensitive even though I'm missing my arm.

"Indeed circumcision is even prescribed for some medical conditions in order to facilitate proper function."
That's just not true. Medical conditions that necessitate a circumcision are incredibly rare and can almost always be treated with creams or antibiotics. "Proper function" is to have the foreskin gliding like a sheath between the penis and vagina. You're also ignoring all the risks that come with surgery, like infection and adhesion (I dare you to look up penile adhesion and see have debilitating it is for men, it occurs to some degree in almost %10 of all circed men)

"The circumcised male, therefore, is not deprived of any thing and thus is not mutilated"

Your ignorance is profound and unwavering. I'll trust the top doctors at Harvard Medical School and the top pediatricians in Europe long before I listen to your grossly uninformed ranting."

 

"One reason that flawed studies are published is that science is affected by cultural values. A principal method of preserving cultural values is to disguise them as truths that are based on scientific research. This 'research' can then be used to support questionable and harmful cultural values such as circumcision. This explains the claimed medical 'benefits' of circumcision."

"Long-term psychological effects associated with circumcision can be difficult to establish because the consequences of early trauma are only rarely, and under special circumstances, recognizable to the person who experienced the trauma. However, lack of awareness does not necessarily mean that there has been no impact on thinking, feeling, attitude, behaviour and functioning, which are often closely connected. In this way, an early trauma can alter a whole life, whether or not the trauma is consciously remembered.

"Defending circumcision requires minimizing or dismissing the harm and producing overstated medical claims about protection from future harm. The ongoing denial requires the acceptance of false beliefs and misunderstandings of facts. These psychological factors affect professionals, members of religious groups and parents involved in the practice. Cultural conformity is a major force perpetuating non-religious circumcision, and to a greater degree, religious circumcision. The avoidance of guilt and the reluctance to acknowledge the mistake and all that that implies help to explain the tenacity with which the practice is defended."

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSLAU98331720080319

circumcised men no less likely to get diseases

 

I feel sorry for the people who are gullalbe enough to believe that cutting the skin off the end of a man's penis will lowre his chances of an STD.

I'll tell you how to not catch an STD . DON'T FUCK ANYONE WITH AN STD.

 

Any study that is conducted by the Christchurch School of Medicine I will not trust. By the name of the school the study is already biased.

 

that's a bit ridiculous, WC, it's a highly respected school of medicine with a very old name.

 

but the countries with the lowest hiv/aids/STD/ teen pregnancy rate also have the lowest circumcision rates? obviously circumcision is not a major factor as then the u.s. should be the best but in actuality the U.S. compares terribly with any other similar country

why is this? are european kids having less sex? well quite the opposite, their legal age of consent is 16 in most countries....

There is a different attitude in much of europe, teens are treated as if they will have sex, and are given the necessary education and tools to do so. they are taught about condom use and they are heavily encouraged by the government which does not respond to pressure from religious groups as much as the U.S.

 

quite possibly the stupidest arguement i've ever read...ever...

wanna know how to stop std's?

condoms. safe sex. get tested. abstinence. use your brain.

not shave skin off of your pecker, if you fuck a nasty hooker, you will get an std foreskin or no foreskin.

 

agreed. i can't believe the crap people can be convinced to endure, or inflict on their loved ones. the sheep make life more difficult for us all.

 

probably because the ones who "endure it" don't remember it, and thus it's just not that bad to them.

 

well, i have this theory that circumcision causes deep psychological trauma and conflict in relationships throughout life...and if i'm right, whether they remember it consciously is a moot point.

 

i don't know that it does. uncirced men are every bit as likely to have relationship troubles. that's just people. i'm neither condoning nor deriding the practice, as i have no experience with it at all. i have daughter's, brother's and a husband who are all cut. the boys don't seem to have a problem with it, but i don't know how i'd feel about it if i had an infant son. i just couldn't say, honestly.

 

i can actually remember things that happened when i was an infant. what makes you think boys and men don't remmber that? have you ever had a piece of your crotch chopped off to know this?


quote=mamaKCita;4735441]probably because the ones who "endure it" don't remember it, and thus it's just not that bad to them.[/quote]