Circumcision does not prevent HIV infection. The Auvert study in South Africa reported 20 infections in circumcised males.[11] A study in Kenya reported 22 infections in circumcised males. Brewer & found higher rates of HIV infection in circumcised virgins and adolescents.[24] The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world. Male circumcision, therefore, cannot reasonably be thought to prevent HIV infection.

 

There are many methods of HIV transmission, including:

• 
   
  
• mother-to-child infection,
  
• transfusion of tainted blood[25]
  
• infection with non-sterile needles used in health care,[25]
  
• infection by homosexual and heterosexual anal intercourse,[26]
  
• infection by needle sharing to inject illegal drugs,
  
• traditional African scarring practices,
  
• tribal (ritual) circumcision,[24]
  
• female circumcision,[27]
  
• male-to-female heterosexual transmission, and
  
• female-to-male heterosexual transmission.
  

 

I was always taught circumcision was healthier, since bacteria and dirt can't pile up under the folds or something to that effect?

 

Either way, what's the problem with circumcision? Honestly, once you're grown up you don't even remember being circumcised and it's not like it's some kind of handicap for life that you're receiving in the name of religion...

It is though. If loss of feeling on your genitals isn't a handicap then I don't know what is.

I really wish that title was different. I hate misleading titles, the opinion and emotive language should go in the posts, the fact of the matter goes in the title. It's really not difficult.

 

The cultural or religious aspects and the medical benefits are irrelevant, they're arguments for whether parents should circumcise their children or not. The problem here is whether parents who wish to do so should be stopped from circumcising their child.

 

The question that it hinges on for me is: Does it actually harm anyone? The answer I would say is no, being circumcised does not diminish the quality of life for the child and does not inhibit them in any way. As long as that isn't infringed, parents are the ones with the responsibility and should be allowed the freedom to do what they wish. Using the word mutilation is all very well, but you have to remember the rational reason to why we object to mutilation, it's something that harms the mutilated person.

 

If one person gets their face [bleep]ed up by someone, its mutilation.

 

If everyone did it to their kids, its culture. :lol:

 

At any rate I still believe that any permanently body altering surgeries [such as plastic surgeries or circumcisions] should not be rights the parents have over their children.

 

If parents/guardians didn't have that right, that would make performing medical surgeries on children difficult if not impossible. That then causes harm, and that's exactly what we don't want.

 

True about the culture thing though, but what can you do about it?

 

I wouldnt say Uncut is harmful after all that is the way nature intended it to be. What can you do about cultural mutilations? Not allow the parents to do them until the whild is an adult. Also I would support parents rights to do life saving surgeries on children, however cosmetic ones like circumcisions or plastic shouldn't be done until the child is old enough to decide that.

 

If a kid had a condition where his foreskin was harmful, Id support the parents to get him circumcised as a medical necessity. However as far as religion or cosmetics go they shouldn't hold the right. Also to people who compared this to getting ears pierced, if you dont wear ear rings the hole will close eventually, so its not >permanent< body modification. Circumcision is roughly the same as childhood plastic surgery or getting a permanent tattoo at birth but even a tattoo isnt perfect because those can be removed now.

 

Again to anyone that quotes me, my stance is about human rights not the benefits or disadvantages of cut vs uncut.

 

I disagree. What if you had a child that was disfigured in a road accident, and the parents wanted to go ahead with plastic surgery to correct that? Would you deny their child the quality of life they would reclaim if they had that surgery at a young age? I agree that this isn't really like getting your ears pierced either though.

 

@Other posters: The medical benefits are irrelevant. Irrelevant. Stop talking about them. You're complicating the issue when it's not needed.

I disagree. What if you had a child that was disfigured in a road accident, and the parents wanted to go ahead with plastic surgery to correct that? Would you deny their child the quality of life they would reclaim if they had that surgery at a young age? I agree that this isn't really like getting your ears pierced either though.

 

@Other posters: The medical benefits are irrelevant. Irrelevant. Stop talking about them. You're complicating the issue when it's not needed.

 

The difference is that your instance is corrective surgery. Circumcision isn't.

I really wish that title was different. I hate misleading titles, the opinion and emotive language should go in the posts, the fact of the matter goes in the title. It's really not difficult.

 

The cultural or religious aspects and the medical benefits are irrelevant, they're arguments for whether parents should circumcise their children or not. The problem here is whether parents who wish to do so should be stopped from circumcising their child.

 

The question that it hinges on for me is: Does it actually harm anyone? The answer I would say is no, being circumcised does not diminish the quality of life for the child and does not inhibit them in any way. As long as that isn't infringed, parents are the ones with the responsibility and should be allowed the freedom to do what they wish. Using the word mutilation is all very well, but you have to remember the rational reason to why we object to mutilation, it's something that harms the mutilated person.

 

If one person gets their face [bleep]ed up by someone, its mutilation.

 

If everyone did it to their kids, its culture. :lol:

 

At any rate I still believe that any permanently body altering surgeries [such as plastic surgeries or circumcisions] should not be rights the parents have over their children.

 

If parents/guardians didn't have that right, that would make performing medical surgeries on children difficult if not impossible. That then causes harm, and that's exactly what we don't want.

 

True about the culture thing though, but what can you do about it?

 

I wouldnt say Uncut is harmful after all that is the way nature intended it to be. What can you do about cultural mutilations? Not allow the parents to do them until the whild is an adult. Also I would support parents rights to do life saving surgeries on children, however cosmetic ones like circumcisions or plastic shouldn't be done until the child is old enough to decide that.

 

If a kid had a condition where his foreskin was harmful, Id support the parents to get him circumcised as a medical necessity. However as far as religion or cosmetics go they shouldn't hold the right. Also to people who compared this to getting ears pierced, if you dont wear ear rings the hole will close eventually, so its not >permanent< body modification. Circumcision is roughly the same as childhood plastic surgery or getting a permanent tattoo at birth but even a tattoo isnt perfect because those can be removed now.

 

Again to anyone that quotes me, my stance is about human rights not the benefits or disadvantages of cut vs uncut.

 

I disagree. What if you had a child that was disfigured in a road accident, and the parents wanted to go ahead with plastic surgery to correct that? Would you deny their child the quality of life they would reclaim if they had that surgery at a young age? I agree that this isn't really like getting your ears pierced either though.

 

@Other posters: The medical benefits are irrelevant. Irrelevant. Stop talking about them. You're complicating the issue when it's not needed.

 

I would support reconstructive surgery, not destructive surgery. A major injury, yes get the reconstructive surgeries done [doubtful the child would object to it anyways].

 

Though where it gets iffy for me is if the child was born with a major deformity should the parents have the right to change their kids looks?

 

Here is a good example:

 

Cleft lip and palate's would be something I support a cosmetic surgery for, as this will help with speech, attractiveness, health, etc. plus arguably can be considered a medical emergency where there would be negative side affects for doing nothing.

 

In relation to a circumcision...

 

A circumcision may or may not have benefits, my beef with it is that not getting circumcised has no disadvantages [not enough of a difference in reducing risk of std's for it to be justified, nor is the "why does mine look different" in a society where sex education is a click away or a responsible parent is completely able to tell their kids about] and is certainly not a medical necessity [except in specific cases where it is one I support the surgery].

 

In unnecessary permanent [not earrings which the hole in your ear can close, or even tattoos which can be fully removed with enough money] cosmetic surgeries I think the patient should have the right to say no, which a baby doesnt have.

 

Good example, I'll run with that. You say that attractiveness is an acceptable reason to correct a cleft lip in a child, but that's purely a cultural reason. Society could treat children with cleft lips no differently than children without. It would be a better and more tolerant world. Unfortunately, that's not the case. A child with an uncorrected cleft lip would feel pretty isolated from the culture it grows up in.

 

I'm not Jewish, so I might be taking a leap here, but I assume that circumcision is the same thing in Jewish families, albeit a version that isn't so outwardly obvious. As far as they're concerned, being uncircumcised is something against their own cultural norm. As such, they should be at the liberty to correct that, so long as it does not harm the child.

I really wish that title was different. I hate misleading titles, the opinion and emotive language should go in the posts, the fact of the matter goes in the title. It's really not difficult.

 

The cultural or religious aspects and the medical benefits are irrelevant, they're arguments for whether parents should circumcise their children or not. The problem here is whether parents who wish to do so should be stopped from circumcising their child.

 

The question that it hinges on for me is: Does it actually harm anyone? The answer I would say is no, being circumcised does not diminish the quality of life for the child and does not inhibit them in any way. As long as that isn't infringed, parents are the ones with the responsibility and should be allowed the freedom to do what they wish. Using the word mutilation is all very well, but you have to remember the rational reason to why we object to mutilation, it's something that harms the mutilated person.

 

If one person gets their face [bleep]ed up by someone, its mutilation.

 

If everyone did it to their kids, its culture. :lol:

 

At any rate I still believe that any permanently body altering surgeries [such as plastic surgeries or circumcisions] should not be rights the parents have over their children.

 

If parents/guardians didn't have that right, that would make performing medical surgeries on children difficult if not impossible. That then causes harm, and that's exactly what we don't want.

 

True about the culture thing though, but what can you do about it?

 

I wouldnt say Uncut is harmful after all that is the way nature intended it to be. What can you do about cultural mutilations? Not allow the parents to do them until the whild is an adult. Also I would support parents rights to do life saving surgeries on children, however cosmetic ones like circumcisions or plastic shouldn't be done until the child is old enough to decide that.

 

If a kid had a condition where his foreskin was harmful, Id support the parents to get him circumcised as a medical necessity. However as far as religion or cosmetics go they shouldn't hold the right. Also to people who compared this to getting ears pierced, if you dont wear ear rings the hole will close eventually, so its not >permanent< body modification. Circumcision is roughly the same as childhood plastic surgery or getting a permanent tattoo at birth but even a tattoo isnt perfect because those can be removed now.

 

Again to anyone that quotes me, my stance is about human rights not the benefits or disadvantages of cut vs uncut.

 

I disagree. What if you had a child that was disfigured in a road accident, and the parents wanted to go ahead with plastic surgery to correct that? Would you deny their child the quality of life they would reclaim if they had that surgery at a young age? I agree that this isn't really like getting your ears pierced either though.

 

@Other posters: The medical benefits are irrelevant. Irrelevant. Stop talking about them. You're complicating the issue when it's not needed.

 

I would support reconstructive surgery, not destructive surgery. A major injury, yes get the reconstructive surgeries done [doubtful the child would object to it anyways].

 

Though where it gets iffy for me is if the child was born with a major deformity should the parents have the right to change their kids looks?

 

Here is a good example:

 

Cleft lip and palate's would be something I support a cosmetic surgery for, as this will help with speech, attractiveness, health, etc. plus arguably can be considered a medical emergency where there would be negative side affects for doing nothing.

 

In relation to a circumcision...

 

A circumcision may or may not have benefits, my beef with it is that not getting circumcised has no disadvantages [not enough of a difference in reducing risk of std's for it to be justified, nor is the "why does mine look different" in a society where sex education is a click away or a responsible parent is completely able to tell their kids about] and is certainly not a medical necessity [except in specific cases where it is one I support the surgery].

 

In unnecessary permanent [not earrings which the hole in your ear can close, or even tattoos which can be fully removed with enough money] cosmetic surgeries I think the patient should have the right to say no, which a baby doesnt have.

 

Good example, I'll run with that. You say that attractiveness is an acceptable reason to correct a cleft lip in a child, but that's purely a cultural reason. Society could treat children with cleft lips no differently than children without. It would be a better and more tolerant world. Unfortunately, that's not the case. A child with an uncorrected cleft lip would feel pretty isolated from the culture it grows up in.

 

I'm not Jewish, so I might be taking a leap here, but I assume that circumcision is the same thing in Jewish families, albeit a version that isn't so outwardly obvious. As far as they're concerned, being uncircumcised is something against their own cultural norm. As such, they should be at the liberty to correct that, so long as it does not harm the child.

 

Well attractiveness was a minor reason for cleft lip as there is more medical complications by not doing anything then just being ostracized, but for circumcision its not like your friends and family will see you there on a daily basis [or ever]. Besides by the time he would be having sex he would likely be able to decide for himself if circumcision is something he wants. But I know what your saying the whole "mine looks different then his, is there something wrong with me?" its part of growing up, sex ed [>] mindless conformity, imo.

 

Its not as blatantly everyday as your face, but even then attractiveness isnt the only reason I'd allow parents to make decisions for say cleft lips, its also because of the medical complications that go with that if left untreated.

 

So you regard attractiveness, a purely social/cultural concept, as enough of a reason alone to have the surgery? If so, I rest my case.

Circumcision does not prevent HIV infection. The Auvert study in South Africa reported 20 infections in circumcised males.[11] A study in Kenya reported 22 infections in circumcised males. Brewer & found higher rates of HIV infection in circumcised virgins and adolescents.[24] The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world. Male circumcision, therefore, cannot reasonably be thought to prevent HIV infection.

 

This is probably one of the bigger examples of correlation not equating to causation I have read today. There are a metric ton of factors here that haven't been factored in, like education. There's just not enough data to support such a conclusion. Or deny it. There's no real way to tell based on the data you linked.

 

Hell, let's do a quick google search of sorts: South Africa has a population of ~49 million, and the United States has a population of roughly ~300 million as of 2009, for simplicity's sake. According to Avert (On US statistics), there's an estimated 1 million or so with the virus. This obviously isn't exact, and it could be a lot higher or lower. That's roughly an infection rate of 3%

 

Now, as for information on South Africa, a short and simple summary is that in 2008, a national survey was conducted where roughly 90% of households involved took part, 89% of that agreed to answer the survey, and 64% agreed to take an HIV blood test. If we multiply those percentages, we get a rough picture of 50% of the population, and their infection rate was much higher, going as high as ~27% in the 31-35 age group. It decreased below that for other ages, but it never quite dipped below the 3% estimate in the United States. There is some obvious variance for the SA survey, as we aren't sure about the other 50% relatively. The rate could potentially be half or double.

 

The conclusion of sorts: Circumcision wasn't factored in, but I'm not sure if that's as large of a factor as a lack of education on the matter. As for the higher rate in the United States, that honor actually goes to South Africa assuming infection rates stay roughly close to the same as they do now. And besides, South Africa does have a higher infection rate in males AND females.

 

Huh, I might have accidentally verified your point instead of disproving it. But education is a much larger factor than penis skin, and there's no way to tell if circumcision affects HIV rates. Not ethically anyway.

 

This is probably one of the bigger examples of correlation not equating to causation I have read today. There are a metric ton of factors here that haven't been factored in, like education. There's just not enough data to support such a conclusion. Or deny it. There's no real way to tell based on the data you linked.

 

Hell, let's do a quick google search of sorts: South Africa has a population of ~49 million, and the United States has a population of roughly ~300 million as of 2009, for simplicity's sake. According to Avert (On US statistics), there's an estimated 1 million or so with the virus. This obviously isn't exact, and it could be a lot higher or lower. That's roughly an infection rate of 3%

 

Now, as for information on South Africa, a short and simple summary is that in 2008, a national survey was conducted where roughly 90% of households involved took part, 89% of that agreed to answer the survey, and 64% agreed to take an HIV blood test. If we multiply those percentages, we get a rough picture of 50% of the population, and their infection rate was much higher, going as high as ~27% in the 31-35 age group. It decreased below that for other ages, but it never quite dipped below the 3% estimate in the United States. There is some obvious variance for the SA survey, as we aren't sure about the other 50% relatively. The rate could potentially be half or double.

 

The conclusion of sorts: Circumcision wasn't factored in, but I'm not sure if that's as large of a factor as a lack of education on the matter. As for the higher rate in the United States, that honor actually goes to South Africa assuming infection rates stay roughly close to the same as they do now. And besides, South Africa does have a higher infection rate in males AND females.

 

Huh, I might have accidentally verified your point instead of disproving it. But education is a much larger factor than penis skin, and there's no way to tell if circumcision affects HIV rates. Not ethically anyway.

Err, you didn't read what I wrote correctly.

 

The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world.

 

With:

Male circumcision, therefore, cannot reasonably be thought to prevent HIV infection.

 

I'm saying that from the information we have we cannot conclude that circumcision prevents HIV. I'm not saying it doesn't either, only that we can't conclude either way.

I really wish that title was different. I hate misleading titles, the opinion and emotive language should go in the posts, the fact of the matter goes in the title. It's really not difficult.

 

The cultural or religious aspects and the medical benefits are irrelevant, they're arguments for whether parents should circumcise their children or not. The problem here is whether parents who wish to do so should be stopped from circumcising their child.

 

The question that it hinges on for me is: Does it actually harm anyone? The answer I would say is no, being circumcised does not diminish the quality of life for the child and does not inhibit them in any way. As long as that isn't infringed, parents are the ones with the responsibility and should be allowed the freedom to do what they wish. Using the word mutilation is all very well, but you have to remember the rational reason to why we object to mutilation, it's something that harms the mutilated person.

 

If one person gets their face [bleep]ed up by someone, its mutilation.

 

If everyone did it to their kids, its culture. :lol:

 

At any rate I still believe that any permanently body altering surgeries [such as plastic surgeries or circumcisions] should not be rights the parents have over their children.

 

If parents/guardians didn't have that right, that would make performing medical surgeries on children difficult if not impossible. That then causes harm, and that's exactly what we don't want.

 

True about the culture thing though, but what can you do about it?

 

I wouldnt say Uncut is harmful after all that is the way nature intended it to be. What can you do about cultural mutilations? Not allow the parents to do them until the whild is an adult. Also I would support parents rights to do life saving surgeries on children, however cosmetic ones like circumcisions or plastic shouldn't be done until the child is old enough to decide that.

 

If a kid had a condition where his foreskin was harmful, Id support the parents to get him circumcised as a medical necessity. However as far as religion or cosmetics go they shouldn't hold the right. Also to people who compared this to getting ears pierced, if you dont wear ear rings the hole will close eventually, so its not >permanent< body modification. Circumcision is roughly the same as childhood plastic surgery or getting a permanent tattoo at birth but even a tattoo isnt perfect because those can be removed now.

 

Again to anyone that quotes me, my stance is about human rights not the benefits or disadvantages of cut vs uncut.

 

I disagree. What if you had a child that was disfigured in a road accident, and the parents wanted to go ahead with plastic surgery to correct that? Would you deny their child the quality of life they would reclaim if they had that surgery at a young age? I agree that this isn't really like getting your ears pierced either though.

 

@Other posters: The medical benefits are irrelevant. Irrelevant. Stop talking about them. You're complicating the issue when it's not needed.

 

I would support reconstructive surgery, not destructive surgery. A major injury, yes get the reconstructive surgeries done [doubtful the child would object to it anyways].

 

Though where it gets iffy for me is if the child was born with a major deformity should the parents have the right to change their kids looks?

 

Here is a good example:

 

Cleft lip and palate's would be something I support a cosmetic surgery for, as this will help with speech, attractiveness, health, etc. plus arguably can be considered a medical emergency where there would be negative side affects for doing nothing.

 

In relation to a circumcision...

 

A circumcision may or may not have benefits, my beef with it is that not getting circumcised has no disadvantages [not enough of a difference in reducing risk of std's for it to be justified, nor is the "why does mine look different" in a society where sex education is a click away or a responsible parent is completely able to tell their kids about] and is certainly not a medical necessity [except in specific cases where it is one I support the surgery].

 

In unnecessary permanent [not earrings which the hole in your ear can close, or even tattoos which can be fully removed with enough money] cosmetic surgeries I think the patient should have the right to say no, which a baby doesnt have.

 

Good example, I'll run with that. You say that attractiveness is an acceptable reason to correct a cleft lip in a child, but that's purely a cultural reason. Society could treat children with cleft lips no differently than children without. It would be a better and more tolerant world. Unfortunately, that's not the case. A child with an uncorrected cleft lip would feel pretty isolated from the culture it grows up in.

 

I'm not Jewish, so I might be taking a leap here, but I assume that circumcision is the same thing in Jewish families, albeit a version that isn't so outwardly obvious. As far as they're concerned, being uncircumcised is something against their own cultural norm. As such, they should be at the liberty to correct that, so long as it does not harm the child.

 

Well attractiveness was a minor reason for cleft lip as there is more medical complications by not doing anything then just being ostracized, but for circumcision its not like your friends and family will see you there on a daily basis [or ever]. Besides by the time he would be having sex he would likely be able to decide for himself if circumcision is something he wants. But I know what your saying the whole "mine looks different then his, is there something wrong with me?" its part of growing up, sex ed [>] mindless conformity, imo.

 

Its not as blatantly everyday as your face, but even then attractiveness isnt the only reason I'd allow parents to make decisions for say cleft lips, its also because of the medical complications that go with that if left untreated.

 

So you regard attractiveness, a purely social/cultural concept, as enough of a reason alone to have the surgery? If so, I rest my case.

 

He never said that. He said that attractiveness was a minor part of it, and that medical reasons are far more important.

 

And Furah, while I wholly agree with your points, it has been shown that circumcisions in Africa have *helped* (not prevented) the spread of HIV.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-1293.2008.00596.x/abstract

 

That's a study done in Africa looking at circumcision vs. HIV rates. It does help, but they also say safe sex practices must be used in any case to actually prevent the transmission. On that grounds, education > circumcision as a means of reducing HIV spread.

I really wish that title was different. I hate misleading titles, the opinion and emotive language should go in the posts, the fact of the matter goes in the title. It's really not difficult.

 

The cultural or religious aspects and the medical benefits are irrelevant, they're arguments for whether parents should circumcise their children or not. The problem here is whether parents who wish to do so should be stopped from circumcising their child.

 

The question that it hinges on for me is: Does it actually harm anyone? The answer I would say is no, being circumcised does not diminish the quality of life for the child and does not inhibit them in any way. As long as that isn't infringed, parents are the ones with the responsibility and should be allowed the freedom to do what they wish. Using the word mutilation is all very well, but you have to remember the rational reason to why we object to mutilation, it's something that harms the mutilated person.

 

If one person gets their face [bleep]ed up by someone, its mutilation.

 

If everyone did it to their kids, its culture. :lol:

 

At any rate I still believe that any permanently body altering surgeries [such as plastic surgeries or circumcisions] should not be rights the parents have over their children.

 

If parents/guardians didn't have that right, that would make performing medical surgeries on children difficult if not impossible. That then causes harm, and that's exactly what we don't want.

 

True about the culture thing though, but what can you do about it?

 

I wouldnt say Uncut is harmful after all that is the way nature intended it to be. What can you do about cultural mutilations? Not allow the parents to do them until the whild is an adult. Also I would support parents rights to do life saving surgeries on children, however cosmetic ones like circumcisions or plastic shouldn't be done until the child is old enough to decide that.

 

If a kid had a condition where his foreskin was harmful, Id support the parents to get him circumcised as a medical necessity. However as far as religion or cosmetics go they shouldn't hold the right. Also to people who compared this to getting ears pierced, if you dont wear ear rings the hole will close eventually, so its not >permanent< body modification. Circumcision is roughly the same as childhood plastic surgery or getting a permanent tattoo at birth but even a tattoo isnt perfect because those can be removed now.

 

Again to anyone that quotes me, my stance is about human rights not the benefits or disadvantages of cut vs uncut.

 

I disagree. What if you had a child that was disfigured in a road accident, and the parents wanted to go ahead with plastic surgery to correct that? Would you deny their child the quality of life they would reclaim if they had that surgery at a young age? I agree that this isn't really like getting your ears pierced either though.

 

@Other posters: The medical benefits are irrelevant. Irrelevant. Stop talking about them. You're complicating the issue when it's not needed.

 

I would support reconstructive surgery, not destructive surgery. A major injury, yes get the reconstructive surgeries done [doubtful the child would object to it anyways].

 

Though where it gets iffy for me is if the child was born with a major deformity should the parents have the right to change their kids looks?

 

Here is a good example:

 

Cleft lip and palate's would be something I support a cosmetic surgery for, as this will help with speech, attractiveness, health, etc. plus arguably can be considered a medical emergency where there would be negative side affects for doing nothing.

 

In relation to a circumcision...

 

A circumcision may or may not have benefits, my beef with it is that not getting circumcised has no disadvantages [not enough of a difference in reducing risk of std's for it to be justified, nor is the "why does mine look different" in a society where sex education is a click away or a responsible parent is completely able to tell their kids about] and is certainly not a medical necessity [except in specific cases where it is one I support the surgery].

 

In unnecessary permanent [not earrings which the hole in your ear can close, or even tattoos which can be fully removed with enough money] cosmetic surgeries I think the patient should have the right to say no, which a baby doesnt have.

 

Good example, I'll run with that. You say that attractiveness is an acceptable reason to correct a cleft lip in a child, but that's purely a cultural reason. Society could treat children with cleft lips no differently than children without. It would be a better and more tolerant world. Unfortunately, that's not the case. A child with an uncorrected cleft lip would feel pretty isolated from the culture it grows up in.

 

I'm not Jewish, so I might be taking a leap here, but I assume that circumcision is the same thing in Jewish families, albeit a version that isn't so outwardly obvious. As far as they're concerned, being uncircumcised is something against their own cultural norm. As such, they should be at the liberty to correct that, so long as it does not harm the child.

 

Well attractiveness was a minor reason for cleft lip as there is more medical complications by not doing anything then just being ostracized, but for circumcision its not like your friends and family will see you there on a daily basis [or ever]. Besides by the time he would be having sex he would likely be able to decide for himself if circumcision is something he wants. But I know what your saying the whole "mine looks different then his, is there something wrong with me?" its part of growing up, sex ed [>] mindless conformity, imo.

 

Its not as blatantly everyday as your face, but even then attractiveness isnt the only reason I'd allow parents to make decisions for say cleft lips, its also because of the medical complications that go with that if left untreated.

 

So you regard attractiveness, a purely social/cultural concept, as enough of a reason alone to have the surgery? If so, I rest my case.

 

He never said that. He said that attractiveness was a minor part of it, and that medical reasons are far more important.

 

'Twas a question, not a statement, although I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. He did say 'attractiveness isn't the only reason I'd allow parents to make decisions for cleft lips', suggesting he thought it was valid reason. I'm just waiting for clarification.

A valid reason to contribute to the whole. Cleft palate is not just cosmetic, it always comes with medical side effects too, so it is irrelevant.

http://sexinfo.wetpaint.com/page/Male+Circumcision

 

Below is a list from the Circumcision Information and Resource Pages website presenting 12 known functions of the foreskin:

 

to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.

to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.

to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion thoughout life.

to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.

to lubricate the glans.

to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.

to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.

to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.

to serve as an aid to penetration.

to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.

to serve as erogenous tissue, because of its rich supply of sexually sensitive nerve endings.

to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner.

Err, you didn't read what I wrote correctly.

 

The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world.

 

With:

Male circumcision, therefore, cannot reasonably be thought to prevent HIV infection.

 

I'm saying that from the information we have we cannot conclude that circumcision prevents HIV. I'm not saying it doesn't either, only that we can't conclude either way.

 

Except excerpt from Studio's post says something different:

 

International Clinical Trials

Three randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted in Africa to determine whether circumcision of adult males will reduce their risk for HIV infection. The study conducted in South Africa [9] was stopped in 2005, and those in Kenya [10] and Uganda [11] were stopped in 2006 after interim analyses found a statistically significant reduction in male participants risk for HIV infection from medical circumcision.

 

In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study. In all three studies, a few men who had been assigned to be circumcised did not undergo the procedure, and vice versa. When the data were reanalyzed to account for these occurrences, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk for HIV infection compared with those who were not circumcised. The Uganda study investigators are also examining the following in an ongoing study: 1) safety and acceptability of male circumcision in HIV-infected men and men of unknown HIV infection status, 2) safety and acceptability of male circumcision in the mens female sex partners, and 3) effect of male circumcision on male-to-female transmission of HIV and other STDs.

 

Anyhow, you cannot look at a country's overall infection rate and conclude anything. Saying that since 80% of the males in the US are circumcised and that since the US has the highest HIV infection rate, circumcision can't reasonably be thought to protect people from HIV is a logical fallacy. You've completely ignored literally hundreds of variables about sexual practices and preferences among people at risk for HIV in the US (What if, the only part of the population becoming infected were homosexual males, where the data points to circumcision having no benefit? What if most people getting HIV were the ones uncircumcised?). The study above tries to isolate those factors to make a better conclusion (whether or not the study was fraught with errors is another thing, but if you want to refute it you'd best look into it).

A valid reason to contribute to the whole. Cleft palate is not just cosmetic, it always comes with medical side effects too, so it is irrelevant.

 

That's just nonsense, these things are either deciding factors or not, there's no middle ground or points system. Even if the condition had no associated health risks, it would be unethical to stop parents from giving permission to operate on the child. The social problems alone that the child would experience would amount to harm, and we have laws, responsibilities and rights in place to minimise that harm when possible.

I love you ring, marry me

Anyhow, you cannot look at a country's overall infection rate and conclude anything. Saying that since 80% of the males in the US are circumcised and that since the US has the highest HIV infection rate, circumcision can't reasonably be thought to protect people from HIV is a logical fallacy. You've completely ignored literally hundreds of variables about sexual practices and preferences among people at risk for HIV in the US (What if, the only part of the population becoming infected were homosexual males, where the data points to circumcision having no benefit? What if most people getting HIV were the ones uncircumcised?). The study above tries to isolate those factors to make a better conclusion (whether or not the study was fraught with errors is another thing, but if you want to refute it you'd best look into it).

Exactly. there are far too many variables, as I have stated before. I don't think it would be legal for us to do a lab test and determine once and for all. Although I don't see how losing the foreskin, which helps lubricate and therefore reduce friction, would make gaining HIV less likely.

Exactly. there are far too many variables, as I have stated before. I don't think it would be legal for us to do a lab test and determine once and for all. Although I don't see how losing the foreskin, which helps lubricate and therefore reduce friction, would make gaining HIV less likely.

The study was already done, and those were the conclusions. Also in Studio's post were the reasons they believed why HIV infection would be less likely (had to do with micro-abrasions on the skin).

I think using condoms is more effective then a circumcision, making HIV prevention a null point regardless.

How does having a second protection not help?

I agree that is what the debate boils down to, but I don't understand why you would force someone not to circumcise their child. It would make sense if it was harming the child, but it isn't. On top of that, it forces those who weren't circumcised at birth to go through a great deal of pain.

I think using condoms is more effective then a circumcision, making HIV prevention a null point regardless.

How does having a second protection not help?

I agree that is what the debate boils down to, but I don't understand why you would force someone not to circumcise their child. It would make sense if it was harming the child, but it isn't. On top of that, it forces those who weren't circumcised at birth to go through a great deal of pain.

 

So cutting off part of a child's body without any medical necessity is not harm?

I think using condoms is more effective then a circumcision, making HIV prevention a null point regardless.

How does having a second protection not help?

I agree that is what the debate boils down to, but I don't understand why you would force someone not to circumcise their child. It would make sense if it was harming the child, but it isn't. On top of that, it forces those who weren't circumcised at birth to go through a great deal of pain.

 

It doesn't force anyone to go through any great deal of pain unless they choose to do it later on. Last time I checked it wasn't a mandatory medical procedure.

 

It really shouldn't matter. Circumcised or not you shouldn't have unprotected sex unless you firmly believe there is no risk of disease transmission, etc. So the argument really doesn't mean anything.

I think using condoms is more effective then a circumcision, making HIV prevention a null point regardless.

How does having a second protection not help?

I agree that is what the debate boils down to, but I don't understand why you would force someone not to circumcise their child. It would make sense if it was harming the child, but it isn't. On top of that, it forces those who weren't circumcised at birth to go through a great deal of pain.

 

So cutting off part of a child's body without any medical necessity is not harm?

Depends what part of the body we're talking about, whether anaesthesia is used properly, and so on, and so forth. If you can name some negative consequences to child circumcision, then I'll change positions.

@Ring: You realize the further away from birth you are, the more sensitive your penis gets, and the more surface needs to be removed during the operation, right? I hope you do. Not only does that imply it hurts more when you're an adult, but it also means it hurts a lot less as an infant, if at all. Don't picture it as chopping up your own genitals, because that's not what it is. If you can picture the penis of a baby, you can understand where the nail clipping comparison comes from; it's a lot less barbaric than you think, unlike female circumcision.

As for the permanent body alteration, I don't buy it either. I don't see how it matters. It doesn't change anything, at least when you don't consider religion. If your parents somehow changed your blood type at birth, notwithstanding the compatibility issues that would come up in the prospect of blood transfusions, would you complain?

I think using condoms is more effective then a circumcision, making HIV prevention a null point regardless.

How does having a second protection not help?

I agree that is what the debate boils down to, but I don't understand why you would force someone not to circumcise their child. It would make sense if it was harming the child, but it isn't. On top of that, it forces those who weren't circumcised at birth to go through a great deal of pain.

 

So cutting off part of a child's body without any medical necessity is not harm?

Depends what part of the body we're talking about, whether anaesthesia is used properly, and so on, and so forth. If you can name some negative consequences to child circumcision, then I'll change positions.

@Ring: You realize the further away from birth you are, the more sensitive your penis gets, and the more surface needs to be removed during the operation, right? I hope you do. Not only does that imply it hurts more when you're an adult, but it also means it hurts a lot less as an infant, if at all. Don't picture it as chopping up your own genitals, because that's not what it is. If you can picture the penis of a baby, you can understand where the nail clipping comparison comes from; it's a lot less barbaric than you think, unlike female circumcision.

As for the permanent body alteration, I don't buy it either. I don't see how it matters. It doesn't change anything, at least when you don't consider religion. If your parents somehow changed your blood type at birth, notwithstanding the compatibility issues that would come up in the prospect of blood transfusions, would you complain?

If it doesn't change anything then why perform a potentially lethal operation?

Of course they do, burden of proof is on them. We were happily living uncircumcised until someone decided it was a good idea on boys, and later on girls.

Really comes down to religion and culture vs childs rights.

How about parent's rights versus nanny state?

Alright, I'll think about it.

 

Really comes down to religion and culture vs childs rights.

How about parent's rights versus nanny state?

Yeah, [bleep] the police!...

Alright, I'll think about it.

 

Really comes down to religion and culture vs childs rights.

How about parent's rights versus nanny state?

Yeah, [bleep] the police!...

"Excuse me Mr. and Mrs. ...., We need to check your son's penis to make sure you didn't give him an illegal circumcision."