Let me fix that for you

HTH

Thanks for a better example of the false logic involved. It would be just like woman removing their mammaries pre-puberty to avoid breast cancer. And breast cancer is much more highly prevalent than any of those conditions of the penis mentioned.

But the point is: the logic is absolultey illogical. If we followed the logic of circumcision for medical reasons, we would chop off every part of our body to avoid any infection or disease there.

Religous nonsense aside, it is an assault on a minor, intefering with a minor in a sexual fashion , grevious bodily harm... the list goes on. What bloody right do we have to do this to infants in our care ? Barbaric, shameful and potentially very harmful to mind , body and spirit.

Most of the STD infections might be a justification for circumcision in countries where condom use is not common. Obviously the use of condoms is preferable though and these sort of papers have less relevance somewhere like Switzerland.

With something like UTIs, how serious are these? I'm pretty sure most of these are just temporarily discomforting, so I'm not sure they can justify circumcision.

I dunno. Genital herpes affects about 20% of the population. Breast cancer is closer to 10%.

Plus transmission of genital herpes isn't always prevented with a condom.

Edit: Your logic seems to be a bit off. The foreskin is relatively small and the absence won't really be noticed if removed at a young age. Cutting of a child colon or breasts would be far more noticeable. In fact some women probably prefer a snipped penis. Of course it's a clear indication that she isn't a keeper if that's an issue

For the record I'm not for or against circumcision. I don't really care either way.

But breast cancer is far more serious, isn't it?

Even if there is a chance of reducing the risk of herpes, isn't that a choice for an adult to make for themselves rather than the parents make the choice for the child?

Nah, it's more like chopping off the bottom third of your ear lobe to avoid brain cancer.


And if we followed the logic of washing to be cleaner we'd spend our whole lives in the shower....is this really as far as your conception of logic goes HB?

After your much-needed counselling to get over the obvious trauma you've (seen others) experienced, let's get down to reality. It's a tiny, useless speck of skin. The newborn doesn't feel it being chopped - they rarely even cry, even at the stage where they are crying due to a wet nappy. Almost everyone goes on to lead happy, healthy lives afterwards and it's a fact that it prevents certain illnesses etc. So, relax, the millions upon millions of people who've had it does are doing just fine.

So you're basically saying that if breast cancer had a 20% rate, you would recommend all women chop off their breasts?!?!

Again, the numbers don't matter. You don't go chopping off parts of your body to avoid infections, disease; you try to prevent the disease.

Actually you are proof otherwise.

No. What I'm saying is that you posted a wrong fact and I'm correcting you on it.

I don't get nearly as much pleasure from my earlobe . . .

I was just pointing out his facts were wrong.

Context, baby, context.

I don't know tbh, and I'm not inclined to spend the time looking it up.

As I mentioned, I'm not a fan of circumcision, however, our oldest had the chop at 3 due to constant infections. He was frequently in distress and was on and off antibiotics for a lot of the time. This played havoc with his diet and development (he's currently only just clinging on to the 10th percentile - he was tracking at the 50th before all this came on).

That aside, the GU surgeon explained that in infants (girls more than boys to be fair), there was a risk that infections at the tip of the penis could spread upwards to the bladder and in turn to the kidneys.

This could lead to longer term kidney complications, including failure.

After several attempts to control infections, the Drs advised the chop. It was not a decision we took lightly.

Our youngest (son) who is still "intact" has not had any such problems yet. And we hope he will not.

My main objection is that a blanket statement that there is no evidence of medical benefit is wrong. There is evidence, as has been shown several times over in this and t'other thread.

What people are objecting to is that they disagree with the risk/benefit justification based on medical grounds.

That's an important difference (to me anyway).

__________________
Never let right or wrong get in the way of a good opinion

Actually, I do ....

You get pleasure from my earlobe?

*changes locks*

Logical fallacy, baby, logical fallacy.

Studies have shown that there ain't that much pleasure derived from your foreskin either.

But you said it was a problem with a fact . . . are we talking empirical content or logic here?

They're doing it wrong