I saw a thread about this over at that other (ahem) vegan message board. Just wondering what other people think. Do we have some conflicting views. For those of you outiside of the US, it is a routine medical procedure even if you are not Jewish. However, numbers are declining (now less than 60%)

Here are some links about it:
http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/FAQ/

http://www.boystoo.com/anatomy/whatslost.htm

http://www.circumcision.org/

I actually decided a long time ago I wouldn't want to circumsize my son if I had one. But most people probably don't even get a chance to think about it, everyone assumes they will (in the US) and so they do it.

What is everyone else's thoughts?

i think it is wrong to remove a part of a person's body without their expressed permission.

Ahhhh!!!

This is a subject I am educated on, and very passionate and angry about.

There is absolutely NO reason to circumcise males. It is an awful, irrational, ill-informed, disgusting and unethical practice.

I cry to know that baby boys are being cut like this every day.

www.nocirc.org

b4s

I have experienced both cut males, and uncut males... and I can tell you- the uncut ones have the advantage!!!

Foreskin is not just useless skin. It is a funtional, useful, and necessary, vital part of the male sexual system. It protects the head of the penis, and enhances sensations.

If anyone says that foreskin causes disease, I say that anyone who would get those diseases does not know how to take a shower.

Circumcision is equivalent to cutting off your eyelids to prevent Glaucoma, or something.

Originally posted by YumHummus


Although it may be considered more sexually appealling in todays society,


In terms of sexual appeal, my opinion is exactly the opposite from today's society.


Then again, what kind of trauma will the boy be subjected to when he realizes that he is different from all his friends?



This really isn't a good reason to rob a boy of his natural body, his right to control his body, and his sexual future.

Besides.. it is very unlikely that the boy will realize how different he is. The cut-men that I talk to have NO idea what foreskin looks like or how it works. The Un-cut ones don't know what is taken away. That's what I've been told from different guys.

Originally posted by YumHummus
I
Then again, what kind of trauma will the boy be subjected to when he realizes that he is different from all his friends?



you could extend this further into all aspects of life. raising your children as jehova's witnesses. or vegans. for instance. i cannot see this as being a good argument for having a piece of skin cut off of your infant son.

not to mention, the circumcision rate is dwindling. it is not a stretch of the imagination to think that it will be the cut boys who are considered the 'weird' ones, some day in the future.

A Link That Couldn't Be Denied

The first evidence that uncircumcised boys may have a higher risk of avoidable diseases began to emerge in 1987. At the time, Tom Wiswell, MD, a neonatologist then at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., was an outspoken critic of circumcision. When a report from Texas came across his desk, suggesting a high rate of urinary-tract infections (UTIs) among uncircumcised boys in the first year of life, Wiswell set out to shoot the foreskin explanation down. He employed the Army's huge database of 200,000 boys to see if there was any association between circumcision and UTIs in the first year of life. To Wiswell's surprise, his study, published in the July 1986 issue of the journal Pediatrics, showed uncircumcised boys to be far more likely to have UTIs than their circumcised counterparts. He looked at the data every way he could. The association was undeniable.

In the 14 years since Wiswell's study, at least nine others have confirmed the connection between UTIs and circumcision. Taken together, the studies suggest that an uncircumcised boy is 10 times more likely than a circumcised one to contract such an infection in his first year of life. Other research suggests that possible kidney scarring caused by these early infections could also increase the risk of severe kidney problems and high blood pressure later in life, according to Edgar Schoen, MD, a researcher and clinician at Oakland, California's Kaiser Permanente Medical Center.

But the risks don't end with UTIs. Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) like genital herpes and syphilis also seem to strike uncircumcised men more frequently than those without foreskins, according to numerous studies.

And then there's invasive penile cancer, an agonizing disease that often leads to amputation and death. In the United States, about 1,300 men a year are diagnosed with the condition, and virtually all of them are uncircumcised (see the March 2000 issue of Pediatrics). And it is far more common in Europe and in parts of the developing world where circumcision is less common.

The X-Factor? Finally -- and most intriguing of all -- circumcision may help unravel a medical mystery that has puzzled AIDS researchers for years. Having a foreskin just might be the elusive "X-factor" that explains, at least in part, the huge differences in HIV infection rates in otherwise similar regions. Why, for instance, is the infection rate in Thailand 40 times higher than in the nearby Philippines? In most important respects, both countries are quite similar: They have lots of STDs and prostitution, as well as a bias against condom use. But there is one big difference -- and some researchers think it may be key: In the Philippines, newborn circumcision is the rule. In Thailand, it is very rare.

A decade of research -- largely neglected by the media -- shows a powerful connection between circumcision and high rates of AIDS among heterosexuals, especially in Asia and Africa. In early June, the British Medical Journal published a review of more than 40 studies over the past 10 years, all of them demonstrating a close association between heterosexual HIV transmission and lack of circumcision. The journal Lancet published another similar study in May.

Why would circumcision affect HIV transmission? According to the authors of the British Medical Journal review, published in the June 10, 2000 issue, there are three key reasons. The foreskin is made of specialized tissue with a high concentration of Langerhans immune cells, which are entry portals for the transmission of HIV. Also, the delicate mucous membrane of the foreskin is much more likely to incur lesions during sex than is the rest of the penis. Finally, an intact foreskin increases the risk of contracting an STD like syphilis, which in turn can boost the chances of spreading HIV.

No one suggests that foreskins cause HIV infection, only that they may be an important factor in transmission. Obviously, most European men are not circumcised, and HIV is not raging across the continent, as it is in sub-Saharan Africa, where circumcision is also rare. That may be because it takes a combination of factors to create an explosive heterosexual AIDS epidemic, including poverty and chronically untreated STDs, according to Daniel Halperin, a medical anthropologist at the University of California at San Francisco (see the November 1999 issue of the Lancet).

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1685.50622

Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skin cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.31 The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.

Circumcision desensitizes: Circumcision desensitizes the penis radically. Foreskin amputation means severing the rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in the foreskin itself. Circumcision almost always damages or destroys the frenulum. The loss of the protective foreskin desensitizes the glans. Because the membrane covering the permanently externalized glans is now subjected to constant abrasion and irritation, it keratinizes, becoming dry and tough. The nerve endings in the glans, which in the intact penis are just beneath the surface of the mucous membrane, are now buried by successive layers of keratinization. The denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance.

Circumcision disables: The amputation of so much penile skin permanently immobilizes whatever skin remains, preventing it from gliding freely over the shaft and glans. This loss of mobility destroys the mechanism by which the glans is normally stimulated. When the circumcised penis becomes erect, the immobilized remaining skin is stretched, sometimes so tightly that not enough skin is left to cover the erect shaft. Hair-bearing skin from the groin and scrotum is often pulled onto the shaft, where hair is not normally found. The surgically externalized mucous membrane of the glans has no sebaceous glands. Without the protection and emollients of the foreskin, it dries out, making it susceptible to cracking and bleeding.

Circumcision disfigures: Circumcision alters the appearance of the penis drastically. It permanently externalizes the glans, normally an internal organ. Circumcision leaves a large circumferential surgical scar on the penile shaft. Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin.32
Depending on the amount of skin cut off and how the scar forms, the circumcised penis may be permanently twisted, or curve or bow during erection.33 The contraction of the scar tissue may pull the shaft into the abdomen, in effect shortening the penis or burying it completely.34

Circumcision disrupts circulation: Circumcision interrupts the normal circulation of blood throughout the penile skin system and glans. The blood flowing into major penile arteries is obstructed by the line of scar tissue at the point of incision, creating backflow instead of feeding the branches and capillary networks beyond the scar. Deprived of blood, the meatus may contract and scarify, obstructing the flow of urine.35 This condition, known as meatal stenosis, often requires corrective surgery. Meatal stenosis is found almost exclusively among boys who have been circumcised.
Circumcision also severs the lymph vessels, interrupting the circulation of lymph and sometimes causing lymphedema, a painful, disfiguring condition in which the remaining skin of the penis swells with trapped lymph fluid.

Circumcision harms the developing brain: Recent studies published in leading medical journals have reported that circumcision has long-lasting detrimental effects on the developing brain,36 adversely altering the brain's perception centers. Circumcised boys have a lower pain threshold than girls or intact boys.37 Developmental neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott suggests that circumcision can cause deeper and more disturbing levels of neurological damage, as well. 38, 39
Circumcision is unhygienic and unhealthy: One of the most common myths about circumcision is that it makes the penis cleaner and easier to take care of. This is not true. Eyes without eyelids would not be cleaner; neither would a penis without its foreskin. The artificially externalized glans and meatus of the circumcised penis are constantly exposed to abrasion and dirt, making the circumcised penis, in fact, more unclean. The loss of the protective foreskin leaves the urinary tract vulnerable to invasion by bacterial and viral pathogens.
The circumcision wound is larger than most people imagine. It is not just the circular point of union between the outer and inner layers of the remaining skin. Before a baby is circumcised, his foreskin must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive. This creates a large open area of raw, bleeding flesh, covered at best with a layer of undeveloped proto-mucosa. Germs can easily enter the damaged tissue and bloodstream through the raw glans and, even more easily, through the incision itself.
Even after the wound has healed, the externalized glans and meatus are still forced into constant unnatural contact with urine, feces, chemically treated diapers, and other contaminants.

Female partners of circumcised men do not report a lower rate of cervical cancer,40 nor does circumcision prevent penile cancer.41 A recent study shows that the penile cancer rate is higher in the US than in Denmark, where circumcision, except among Middle-Eastern immigrant workers, is almost unheard of.42 Indeed, researchers should investigate the possibility that circumcision has actually increased the rate of these diseases.

Circumcision does not prevent acquisition or transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). In fact, the US has both the highest percentage of sexually active circumcised males in the Western world and the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Rigorously controlled prospective studies show that circumcised American men are at a greater risk for bacterial and viral STDs, especially gonorrhea,43 nongonoccal urethritis,44 human papilloma virus,45 herpes simplex virus type 2,46 and chlamydia.47


http://www.nocirc.org/articles/fleiss1.html

Taken together, the studies suggest that an uncircumcised boy is 10 times more likely than a circumcised one to contract such an infection in his first year of life. Other research suggests that possible kidney scarring caused by these early infections could also increase the risk of severe kidney problems and high blood pressure later in life, according to Edgar Schoen, MD, a researcher and clinician at Oakland, California's Kaiser Permanente Medical Center.
Ten times what original rate? and times what rate of kidney scarring? What I am getting at, is if your infant is uncircumsized, what is the overall chance of kidney scarring? Of UTI?

Even if there are certain higher rates, I feel it is an issue of consent. I don't think there is an overwhelming danger of not doing it, therefore out of respect for my son, I will let him make the decision.

And as far as the STD thing, wonder if women with parts of their removed have decreased risk of getting STD's too? I doubt anyone of us would see that as justification.

To all of you who spout data: Show the reference! You could be making it up for all I know. Give the journal title, volume # and year. Please. I would be very interested in looking at the data, but don't quite consider the bantering on a message board as the final word. In God I trust, everybody else show me the data.

For example, the rates of infections going up ten times could be going from 1 in 10 million to 10 in ten million. Or, they could be going from 5 in 100 to 50 in 100. Both are ten fold increase in absolute risk. I need to have a specific reference with the data to make any kind of judgement as to the relative risk reduction vs the absolute risk reduction.

In the mean time: OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!

Hi Cuke (can I call you cuke?)
The links at the bottom of the previous posts are the published documents that Mr. Acorn and B4S have posted here.
You'll find your credits and references there.

To Kreeli and B4S-
As a postscript to my original post on this thread, I would just like to emphasize the fact that I only posed the question
"Then again, what kind of trauma will the boy be subjected to when he realizes that he is different from all his friends?"
as speculation on what the opposing argument might be.
Basically, thinking aloud, so to speak, and examining both sides of the issue, as I have a tendency of doing.

Naturally, the opinions of schoolchildren being the the basis for such a detrimental decision as whether or not to remove part of a boy's body is an absurd thought indeed.

Yeah, that is rather like saying that buying 2 tickets doubles your chances of winning the lottery.

But there is a serious problem with the statistical argument that circumcision is justified due to penile cancer or uti rates. Penile cancer affects 10 out of every 1 million American males. Is an invasive medical procedure necessary for such a low incidence? This must be weighed agaist a complication rate of 2,000 surgical complications for every 1 million circumcisions. (http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceUS.htm) (this is taken from the 0.2% conservative figure.) In other words it is far more likely that a man will die from sugical complications of circumcision than the circumcision will prevent invasive penile cancer.

Then there is the philosophical problem. Even if circ is effective is it justified as a prophilactic treatment for disease, or should we develop non-surgical solutions?

I don't like circumsion at all. It's one thing if an adult male decides to have it done, but the babies have no choice.

I have heard theories that circumsion prevents the spread of HIV. I can't remember the name of the anthropologist (sorry, no reference), but she did maps, showing the areas with the most cases of HIV, and then overlaid a map showing cultures that practice circumcision. She found a correlation between circumcision and low HIV rates. But correlations don't equal causality.

And really, even if it did show that circumcision reduces the risk of getting STDs, there are other ways to prevent them without resorting to mutilation.

I don't really understand the whole idea that women like circumsized men better. Have they done studies on this? Because frankly, I prefer uncircumsized men.

I completely agree with Brake4Squirrels on this.

One thing though: b4s says: "The cut-men that I talk to have NO idea what foreskin looks like or how it works."

I am a "cut" man and I know exactly what the foreskin looks like, and how it works. I made a point of finding out. And I resent being mutilated. I made sure my son did not have his foreskin removed, despite the fact that though some of his Jewish relatives thought that laughing and drinking and having a party, while mutilating a baby, would be a dandy idea.

By the way: I remember my own circumsion.

As a circumsized male, I have to say, I wish my parents had been more enlightened. I wish I still had my foreskin. I imagine it would have been fun to play with...

I certainly enjoy playing with foreskins on other males... :tame:

urgh.

having a foreskin doesn't mean you're going to contract an STD.

having unprotected sex with an infected person does.

what a dumb argument.

Another disadvantage of circumcision is that it causes your plastic surgeon to be called away to take care of emergencies, instead of attending to patients likd yourself, with appointments, thus forcing you to wait for hours before your surgeon can get back to you again. This happens every so often, in hospitals, when the wine-drinking moiles and medical surgeons who circumcise boys, snip the glans right off with the the foreskin. Then the plastic surgeon has to arrange for an anesthetist to come and anesthesize the child, so she can remove the child's nipple, and stick it on the end of his penis.

This happened to my someone I know, when the plastic surgeon, who she had an appointment with to do a skin graft, had to go do a nipple graft onto a penis, instead of taking care of her skin graft. After waiting for hours, she had to reschedule her skin graft for another day.

After an episode of Sex and the City where one of the women dates an uncirc guy and is grossed out, I realized I had never seen one. So I went on the web and found some porn sites that specialized in that sort of thing, and it didn't look as weird as I imagined. Actually nothing like I imagined. It was different, but definitely not gross.

I will never never cir'c if I have a son. Never. I did as much research as I could when I was pregnant(i had a girl though) and nothing I could find gave me any reason to believe that it's a good thing. It's never okay to cut off a part of an infants body without a damned good reason. And the best reason most pro-circ'ers can give is that "they'll look like everyone else!" Which is just an inherintly wrong line of thought to start with, but considering the decline of circs, it won't be too much longer before most males are intact and the minority are cut.

At any rate, I refuse to do anything permanent to my child's body without her permission, excluding medical emergencies of course. Which is exactly why her ears aren't pierced.

Circumcision Case to Proceed to Trial
North Dakota district Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger denied a motion for summary judgment by defendants in the Flatt v. Katak circumcision case, and decided it will proceed to trial on February 3, 2003. The precedent-setting decision confirms that a baby who is circumcised can sue his doctor when he reaches the age of majority, even if there was parental consent for the circumcision, and even if the results are considered to be 'normal.' "This is the latest in a series of warning to doctors who still circumcise: proceed at your peril because, even if you get parental consent and do a standard job of the circumcision, the child can still grow up and sue you for taking away part of his penis," says lawyer J. Steven Svoboda, executive director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC).

Like the on-going William Stowell case in New York, this case would be a breathrough in establishing that circumcision is litigious even where there is no "botch" and "consent" is given, but there are problems with the consent." In this case, the mother was not informed about the procedure prior to signing the "consent" form. Plaintiff Flatt's attorney Zenas Baer says, "There will be a nine-person jury hearing this precedent-setting case. I am optimistic we will be able to have the "informed consent" issue decided by a jury.

Svoboda said, "This is the second significant legal victory this year, after the case of William Stowell also survived summary judgment and is proceeding to trial. Both cases will establish that, even where the procedure is performed at the professional standard, a circumcision is litigious if the consent is not informed."


http://www.nocirc.org/news/

Originally posted by cucumber
To all of you who spout data: Show the reference! You could be making it up for all I know. Give the journal title, volume # and year. Please. I would be very interested in looking at the data, but don't quite consider the bantering on a message board as the final word. In God I trust, everybody else show me the data.

I gave you the link. You can check it out for yourself.

Originally posted by YumHummus


Naturally, the opinions of schoolchildren being the the basis for such a detrimental decision as whether or not to remove part of a boy's body is an absurd thought indeed.

Hallelujah!

Originally posted by kirkjobsluder
Is an invasive medical procedure necessary for such a low incidence?

No. It is an excuse given by circumcisors to promote the act. Circumcision started in America during Victorian times when sex was seen as dirty and immoral, and they recommended it be done to prevent young boys from masturbating. (Foreskin makes masturbation easier and better.)

I am so glad to see most here are against it. Please SPREAD THE WORD!! I want to see the incidence of circumcision drop down from 60% to 0%.

I wouldn't do this to my son for anything in the world, and I hope nobody else would either.