Mother files federal suit to block son's circumcision

[Kalis]

Until he is 18, it is up to his legal guardians. End of story.

And what if his legal guardians disagree?

Like in the actual story this thread is about, for example.

[Jaxi]

Actually it can have a lot of lasting effects

Now you're starting to get on the right track. Present them.

[Deleted]

It's a piece of skin at the end of their dick. We don't remember it, we don't get lasting effects from it, it doesn't hurt society, and it doesn't effect you.
Chill. Out. It's not that big of a deal.

It doesn't exactly look good. No deal for me if someone had done that to themselves without it being medically required.

[Sickjen]

I say circumcise because health reasons.

[Arewn]

Wait till he's 18 and let him decide for himself?
I guess the father doesn't want that because he realizes the chances the child will actually go through with it of their own volition is very low. Which in turn is further reason he shouldn't be forced to do it now.

[Themius]

If you can demonstrate that it has a negative effect on the child or society, sure, we can debate. Until then, it's just you not liking something.


Oh shit, he's trying to make me jealous of his junk!
Buddy, I'm not 15. These kinds of tactics ended many, many years ago for me when I left high school.

Decreased sensitivity in 30s and 40s because of keratin build up on head of penis is a fact.

[Strangebrew]

Unless there is a medical reasoning behind it, circumcision is mutilation when it comes to children or baby`s.

[Themius]

I say circumcise because health reasons.

What health reasons? They're mostly myths.

[Jaxi]

It doesn't exactly look good. No deal for me if someone had done that to themselves without it being medically required.

That's a cultural thing. Uncircumcised penises are not the norm over here. It's one of the last few remaining arguments to have it done in the first place.

[THE Bigzoman]

What health reasons? They're mostly myths.

One myth being that black men can't get their hands off white women and that ciricumsizing them is like cutting out their libido.


No, Seriously.

[Themius]

That's a cultural thing. Uncircumcised penises are not the norm over here. It's one of the last few remaining arguments to have it done in the first place.

It's not rare though, 58% of newborns are circumcised, that still leaves a large percentage of people who are uncut.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Why do you think it's good? What "benefits" are there?

What are the benefits of circumcision?
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

Note: Some studies show that good hygiene can help prevent certain problems with the penis, including infections and swelling, even if the penis is not circumcised. In addition, using a condom during sex will help prevent STDs and other infections.

[Arewn]

I say circumcise because health reasons.

So called "health benefits" are mostly a myth conjured up by Catholics to gain acceptance of the practice. The equivalent health benefits can be attained simply by washing yourself. Which you should be doing anyways.

edit: @mall security regarding phimosis and paraphimosis. Did you know cutting off your fingers can prevent hangnails?

[Deleted]

I am aware you are spouting off your opinion when the medical authorities here would disagree. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...isks-cdc-says/

And the point about the hair and shots was a simple reminder that we make health decisions concerning our kids all the time without getting their permission. But you already knew that. :P

Learn to read I suggest.

I stated globally.

And here have some also.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (2009) have written that the foreskin "is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even hemorrhage leading to death."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) argues that the human foreskin is "a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse and masturbation", and doesn’t stop there. The organization also states "circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity."

Another statement by the Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010): "That the relationship between circumcision and transmission of HIV is at the very least unclear is illustrated by the fact that the US combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The Dutch situation is precisely the reverse: a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS combined with a relatively low number of circumcisions. As such, behavioural factors appear to play a far more important role than whether or not one has a foreskin. (...) Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity."

A study published by the Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology (2011) concluded that "circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia [pain during intercourse] and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment."

A paper in The Austrian Journal of Health Psychology (2002) argues "the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings."

A study published by the Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (2010) states "there is no medical justification for routine circumcision in neonates or children. It should be performed only for established medical reasons and should not be universally recommended."

The British Journal of Urology International (2007) reads: “the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.”
Another study published by the British Journal of Urology International (2007) concluded "there was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings."

A study in The Journal of Public Health in Africa (2011) states "there is no scientific reason to believe that the [African Randomize Controlled Trial] results would necessarily apply to the general population. It is quite likely that applying research results from a high risk population to the general population will lead to failure."

An analysis of the African Randomized Controlled Trials in the Journal of Law and Medicine (2011): "the trials were compromised by inadequate equipoise; selection bias; inadequate blinding; problematic randomisation; trials stopped early with exaggerated treatment effects; and not investigating non-sexual transmission. Several questions remain unanswered. Why were the trials carried out in countries where more intact men were HIV-positive than in those where more circumcised men were HIV-positive? Why were men sampled from specific ethnic subgroups? Why were so many participants lost to follow-up? Why did men in the male circumcision groups receive additional counselling on safe sex practices? (...) any long-term benefit in reducing HIV transmission remains uncertain."

The American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2010) published a study titled "Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity".

The authors of one of the African Randomized Controlled Trials, PMID 16231970 (2005), have stated "This study has some limitations. It was conducted in one area in sub-Saharan Africa and, therefore, may not be generalizable to other places."

A study published by the Naval Health Research Center (2004), which conducted multiple separate logistic regressions to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI determined circumcision "is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. military population (...) Although known HIV risk factors such as inconsistent condom use, history of STI, multiple partners, and anal sex were found to be associated with HIV in this military population, there was no significant association with male circumcision."

The French National Council on AIDS (2007) has stated “The same measures are not applicable to the Northern countries. The recommendations of the WHO state that this strategy is aimed at countries with high prevalence, and not at countries with low prevalence or in countries where it relates specifically to one part of the population such as in France or the United States.”

A paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics (2010) found "the [analysis of African Randomized Controlled Trials] noted that further research was required to assess the feasibility, desirability and cost-effectiveness of implementation within local contexts. This paper endorses the need for such research and suggests that, in its absence, it is premature to promote circumcision as a reliable strategy for combating HIV.

A study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine (2012) among Carribean men reflects that "compared with uncircumcised men, [circumcised men] have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection (...) Findings suggest the need to apply caution in the use of circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy, particularly in settings where more effective combinations of interventions have yet to be fully implemented."

[JohnBrown1917]

That boy is lucky to have such a great mother who is willing to prevent him from being circularized at that age.

Is the boy himself an option?

This.

Anybody who is still pro-circumcision on babies, try watching the Penn & Teller bullshit episode on it(warning, not for the faint of heart).
Its sick that this is still so popular in the U.S.

[Jaxi]

Decreased sensitivity in 30s and 40s because of keratin build up on head of penis is a fact.

Stop the fact and proof shit. Science is about providing evidence to. It's inductive arguments versus deductive arguments.
At any rate, show me. The only thing I can find is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102
The observable flaw in this argument is that the nation where this study took place has a higher rate of medically circumcised individuals, not when they were children. Circumcisions taking place in later life are extremely painful and do not heal quite like a baby will.

[pateuvasiliu]

The one whose body is getting mutilated, obviously.

[Deleted]

One myth being that black men can't get their hands off white women and that ciricumsizing them is like cutting out their libido.


No, Seriously.

This has to a be a joke, is it?

[pateuvasiliu]

''"Under the circumstances of this case, circumcision is invasive, irreversible, painful and will cause [the child] physical and psychological harm," the suit reads.''

Fucking ridiculous.

Circumcision is and does all of those regardless of the age it's performed at.

[Deleted]

I say circumcise because health reasons.

It's just facisinating how American and European research so staunchly disagrees with each other.