Infant Circumcision to Prevent Late Onset Diseases

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Is it ethical to practice infant circumcision to prevent diseases such as penile cancer, cervical cancer, AIDS, STDs and others. Many of these diseases are of late onset therefore, some people feel that males should be able to make to choice to get circumcised or not. Some people rebut such claims by saying that they believe that circumcision should be done at birth because some of these diseases can be a hassle and then circumcision of older males would be more complicated, painful, have a longer recovery time, and emotionally and psychologically traumatic because the male would be old enough to remember the circumcision.

What do you think?

[huginnmuninn]

circumcision doesnt prevent the diseases it just reduces the probability of getting the diseases. so heres how i look at it if you chop off any body part its less likely to get a disease there but people dont go around chopping their own body parts off for for a less likely chance of disease. people usually only chop off body parts if they definitely have a problem. so id say no to circumsion for medical reasons

[Amnesiac]

no, it should be a choice, and STDs are more easily prevented by safe sex practices than circumcision

[Andrzej]

Circumcision should always be a choice. The only reason infant circumcision is viewed as acceptable in society is because it is a tradition. A completely pointless tradition.

[Perseus]

Circumcision should always be a choice. The only reason infant circumcision is viewed as acceptable in society is because it is a tradition. A completely pointless tradition.

It's not pointless. I'm glad I'm circumcised. Lol. It looks better, and it does help prevent from the whole STD thing because there's no foreskin.

[dead]

It's not pointless. I'm glad I'm circumcised. Lol. It looks better, and it does help prevent from the whole STD thing because there's no foreskin.

Well while this is true. Would you rather have had a choice?

[Andrzej]

It's not pointless. I'm glad I'm circumcised. Lol. It looks better, and it does help prevent from the whole STD thing because there's no foreskin.

I never said that circumcision was wrong, in fact I'm uncircumcised and plan on getting circumcised later on in my life just for aesthetic reasons. What I'm saying is that forcing it upon people without their consent (infants) is wrong. Many people are perfectly fine being uncut, and I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there that were circumcised at birth and are unhappy about it. It's their body, so I think they should have a choice in the matter.

Circumcision does not prevent STDs, it decreases the chances of contracting them. Which is to obviously be expected, because of what huginnmuninn said...

if you chop off any body part its less likely to get a disease there but people dont go around chopping their own body parts off for for a less likely chance of disease.

[Amnesiac]

I never said that circumcision was wrong, in fact I'm uncircumcised and plan on getting circumcised later on in my life just for aesthetic reasons. What I'm saying is that forcing it upon people without their consent (infants) is wrong. Many people are perfectly fine being uncut, and I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there that were circumcised at birth and are unhappy about it. It's their body, so I think they should have a choice in the matter.

Circumcision does not prevent STDs, it decreases the chances of contracting them. Which is to obviously be expected, because of what huginnmuninn said...

Circumcision is also EXTREMELY painful to babies as they aren't given any treatment for pain. It's cruel and inhumane.

That rhymed.

[Perseus]

Well while this is true. Would you rather have had a choice?

If I had a choice, I would have chosen no because of the pain, lol. That's why you get it at birth.

[-Silence]

My son isn't cut but I plan to have him cut within the next month, that way he's so young that it wont be as traumatic. I don't see anything wrong with not giving him the choice and if it's cleaner and the risks are lower because he's cut I'm good.

But I also didn't know that guys sit around and talk about their junk.

[darkwoon]

No, it is not ethical at all. The benefits in terms of reduced disease risks are either unconclusive or too low to have any significant influence in developed countries. I'd consider it ethical only in Third-World countries where access to condoms is difficult or impossible for most of the population, and where medical facilities are not easily accessible: this would there be a good way to reduce transmission of STDs.

[dead]

If I had a choice, I would have chosen no because of the pain, lol. That's why you get it at birth.

This is why Anesthetic agents are used in the medical field.

[kryptonite]

circumcision doesnt prevent the diseases it just reduces the probability of getting the diseases. so heres how i look at it if you chop off any body part its less likely to get a disease there but people dont go around chopping their own body parts off for for a less likely chance of disease. people usually only chop off body parts if they definitely have a problem. so id say no to circumsion for medical reasons

no, it should be a choice, and STDs are more easily prevented by safe sex practices than circumcision



At least SOME people get it.

My son isn't cut but I plan to have him cut within the next month, that way he's so young that it wont be as traumatic. I don't see anything wrong with not giving him the choice and if it's cleaner and the risks are lower because he's cut I'm good.


Look up pictures and then say it's "not tramautic." :eek:

All you have to do is dab at the foreskin the same way you would clean a finger. If he's circumcised, there is TONS of care you need to do. Make sure the skin doesn't re-adhere, check for infections, etc.

The foreskin is there for a reason. Don't mess with nature.

[Amnesiac]

At least SOME people get it.

Look up pictures and then say it's "not tramautic." :eek:

All you have to do is dab at the foreskin the same way you would clean a finger. If he's circumcised, there is TONS of care you need to do. Make sure the skin doesn't re-adhere, check for infections, etc.

The foreskin is there for a reason. Don't mess with nature.

Thanks for the compliment :D and I agree, foreskin is there for a reason. There's no strong reason to remove it.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

the actual drop in disease rates are so low, it wouldnt make a huge difference. Circumcision is outdated and wrong.

[Perseus]

This is why Anesthetic agents are used in the medical field.

But still, you're getting your junk CUT. Why would I want to do it when I can remember it?

And actually, there isn't really a reason for the foreskin anymore. There is no point in having it.

[nick]

And actually, there isn't really a reason for the foreskin anymore. There is no point in having it.
Its there to protect the head of your penis, the glans, which is (in uncut men) extremely sensitive. Its like keeping a sword in a scabbard when its not in use to keep the blade sharp.

Its pointless saying which looks better, nearly everyone will say whichever way they are. Personally I find uncut way more attractive and way more sexy. I find it shocking in this day and age that anyone carries out needless cosmetic surgery on babies. Should be illegal.

[Perseus]

Its there to protect the head of your penis, the glans, which is (in uncut men) extremely sensitive. Its like keeping a sword in a scabbard when its not in use to keep the blade sharp.

Its pointless saying which looks better, nearly everyone will say whichever way they are. Personally I find uncut way more attractive and way more sexy. I find it shocking in this day and age that anyone carries out needless cosmetic surgery on babies. Should be illegal.

It makes sense to have it when we didn't wear clothes and roamed about the African Savanna, but now we have clothes, so we don't really need that extra protection.

[Continuum]

the actual drop in disease rates are so low, it wouldnt make a huge difference. Circumcision is outdated and wrong.

Not really, it could help solve some STD problems, even though you need to sacrifice a bit of stimulation afterwards so I have to go with choosing what to do with it.

[nick]

It makes sense to have it when we didn't wear clothes and roamed about the African Savanna, but now we have clothes, so we don't really need that extra protection.
Not true, it protects your glans from rubbing against your clothes which would be really unformfortable for an uncut guy.

[huginnmuninn]

And actually, there isn't really a reason for the foreskin anymore. There is no point in having it.

there isnt a really a point in a pinky toe either but people dont go cutting those off for no reason

[Perseus]

Not true, it protects your glans from rubbing against your clothes which would be really unformfortable for an uncut guy.
You have a point. But the original reason is no longer needed.

there isnt a really a point in a pinky toe either but people dont go cutting those off for no reason

Go walk without your pinky toe. Tell me how that works.

[dead]

You have a point. But the original reason is no longer needed.



Go walk without your pinky toe. Tell me how that works.

It actually doesn't change the effectiveness of walking when it's not there, but it will change how it feels since you would be lacking nerves and lacking balance when not wearing socks and/or shoes.

[Perseus]

It actually doesn't change the effectiveness of walking when it's not there, but it will change how it feels since you would be lacking nerves and lacking balance when not wearing socks and/or shoes.

I was talking about balance. -.-

[dead]

I was talking about balance. -.-

Well then stop beating around the bush.

[Azunite]

People don't cut skin off for no reason people. There are always extra thing in your body such as appendecitis.
It does reduce the chances of STD or other penis-related diseases. That's why we don't have AIDS here and everyone has AIDS ın america

[Amnesiac]

People don't cut skin off for no reason people. There are always extra thing in your body such as appendecitis.
It does reduce the chances of STD or other penis-related diseases. That's why we don't have AIDS here and everyone has AIDS ın america

As far as I know, almost nobody has AIDS in the U.S.... I don't see where you got that from. Circumcision or not, people are going to get AIDS, I don't think there's much of a difference in HIV rates between Australia or Canada (uncut nations) and the U.S. (a majority cut nation)

[night stalker]

A penis without the foreskin is like an eye without the eyelid.
Males who were circumcised as newborn babies have never had a healthy penis. They don’t know what a penis is. A circumcised wiener is not a real penis.

[Tiberius]

Anyone who says that circumcision is harmful and doesn't help to prevent any problems/diseases is totally wrong and ignoring many studies performed by the medical community for over 100 years.

This site (http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page4.htm) is a credited medical site created by doctors that explain that there are MANY medical benefit to circumcision.

And WebMD (http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20030430/circumcision-does-not-affect-sensitivity) showed a study(one of dozens) that showed no conclusive evidence that circumcision hinders any sensitivity. So please, if you guys want to speak about a medical issue, get some real medical facts to back your debates.

In addition, those that say "his body, his choice" really are hypocrites. Just because they might not like it, doesn't mean it's not good for them. Children hate eating their vegtables, yet parents make them eat it because of the benefits. Giving a child a shot for the flu lowers their chance of contracting the virus, but it hurts and no child likes getting shots. Parents are responsible for making medical decisions for their children before they are of an age to make an educated, rational decision, so it's really not his choice until he's a teen. Like the medical community always says "prevention is the best cure" or "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and that's just what circumcision is in our modern society.

[Nexus]

It may be painful. The upside is that none of us will remember said pain, which is why it's carried out at birth rather than at an age where the child could make the decision themselves.

[darkwoon]

Anyone who says that circumcision is harmful and doesn't help to prevent any problems/diseases is totally wrong and ignoring many studies performed by the medical community for over 100 years.
It is true that it can potentially prevent a couple health issues - statistics and studies tend to show that. However, the real benefit in developed countries where efficient healthcare systems and treatments are available, are unconclusive.

This site (http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page4.htm) is a credited medical site created by doctors that explain that there are MANY medical benefit to circumcision.
Just for the record, that article precisely concludes that:
There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.

And WebMD (http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20030430/circumcision-does-not-affect-sensitivity) showed a study(one of dozens) that showed no conclusive evidence that circumcision hinders any sensitivity. So please, if you guys want to speak about a medical issue, get some real medical facts to back your debates.
...And any scientifically honest debate requires presenting a full range of studies and facts, not trying to support one point over another.
So, I also invite the reader to take notice (for example) of The Effect Of Male Circumcision On Sexuality (2007) (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/69318.php) concluding that circumcision adversely affects sexual function in a significant number of men. Likewise, the content of the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision) clearly shows that there is no consensus if circumcision is positive or negative. There are dozens of studies showing that circumcision negative effects outweight positive ones.

In addition, those that say "his body, his choice" really are hypocrites. Just because they might not like it, doesn't mean it's not good for them.
The problem here is that, unlike vegetables, we don't really know if it is good or bad for them.

Giving a child a shot for the flu lowers their chance of contracting the virus, but it hurts and no child likes getting shots.
True, but such shots won't give the child a lifetime, non-return physical change.

Parents are responsible for making medical decisions for their children before they are of an age to make an educated, rational decision, so it's really not his choice until he's a teen. Like the medical community always says "prevention is the best cure" or "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and that's just what circumcision is in our modern society.
Again, given that the overall benefits of the procedure in our developed countries are not clear, the "principle of caution" should play - don't apply a non-reversible surgical act without having reasonable certainty on its necessary nature. So far, I've yet to find a single modern scientific study demonstrating the necessity of generalized circumcision. Feel free to prove me wrong on this, though.

[kryptonite]

there isnt a really a point in a pinky toe either but people dont go cutting those off for no reason

Exactly. When you circumcise a baby, you might as well also remove a kidney, their spleen, their gallbladder, and their appendix. All that stuff is "unneeded."

No medical organization in the world recommends infant circumcision. Every "yes" reason has an equal "no" reason to cancel it out. With the photos and videos of babies being circumcised, why would anyone want their kid undergoing such pain when a parent is supposed to be keeping them safe?

[Tiberius]

Again, given that the overall benefits of the procedure in our developed countries are not clear, the "principle of caution" should play - don't apply a non-reversible surgical act without having reasonable certainty on its necessary nature. So far, I've yet to find a single modern scientific study demonstrating the necessity of generalized circumcision. Feel free to prove me wrong on this, though.
Please tell me where, in any study, does it say that these almost unanimous results are only applicable to third-world countries? It's also interesting to note that many of them are carried out in the United States. Fascinating when you're wrong, isn't it?

[Antares]

Might as well git 'er done while you're 2 days old rather than at 25.

I think that people make a big deal out of nothing.
I am circumcised and I can say that I can care less that my parents made me this way.
Hell, most kids have no idea what the difference is until the teenage years.

I thought all guys looked this way until VT

[dead]

Might as well git 'er done while you're 2 days old rather than at 25.

I think that people make a big deal out of nothing.
I am circumcised and I can say that I can care less that my parents made me this way.
Hell, most kids have no idea what the difference is until the teenage years.

I thought all guys looked this way until VT

Thank you. Its not a big deal.

[Suicune]

Exactly. When you circumcise a baby, you might as well also remove a kidney, their spleen, their gallbladder, and their appendix. All that stuff is "unneeded."

Your kidneys are vital. I don't know about you, but everybody needs a kidney.

[kryptonite]

Your kidneys are vital. I don't know about you, but everybody needs a kidney.

You can live without one kidney.

You can also live without the following:
http://io9.com/356738/how-many-of-your-internal-organs-can-you-live-without

[smartteen18]

In our family every male is circumcised. I am very glad that I am also. In fact in our high school all of us are circumcised. In the USA 95% of all men are also.

[Gamma Male]

Circumcision should be illegal. It reduces sensitivity, and it's a violation of the baby's rights. Do we go cutting off healthy pinky toes to prevent them from getting infected? No. I'm circumcised but wish I hadn't been.

The reason having a foreskin makes the glans more sensitive is because it protects it from chaffing. When you don't have one your glans rubs up against your pants and naturally becomes harder and less sensitive to prevent oversensitivity. It's pretty basic science.

[Melodic]

Bumped

:locked2: