To circumcise or not to circumcise?

[Losty]

What is your evidence that there's any true decreased risk? It must be all those millions of dudes in other countries with penis cancer...

I've never read any studies outside of America that agree with most of the things on your list.

What's the point in me finding another study if you're just going to disregard any that I post?

I have a son. I have read every single study I could find on the topic. There's no evidence that any of this crap about health risks due to not circumcising is true.

[Foxaèr]

Anecdotal

Well, isn't that an interesting word.

[Aegon]

What's the point in me finding another study if you're just going to disregard any that I post?

I have a son. I have read every single study I could find on the topic. There's no evidence that any of this crap about health risks due to not circumcising is true.

What makes a study true and what makes a study crap to you?

[Foxaèr]

I suddenly remembered.

How convenient.

[Losty]

I didn't ignore it. I clicked it. I saw it was the AAP and I already know their stance. I posted it just yesterday along with the stances of pediatrics groups around the world.


I know they're skerred to take away muh freedoms to treat my child like shit. It's why spanking isn't illegal as well. It doesn't change the facts. The facts that even they do not recommend it as it has no significant benefits. Do they outweigh the risks? Probably but having a low risk doesn't make something more moral.

All I know is this: not circumcising can lead to numerous health risks over the course of the boy's life, and circumcising will change the way he jerks off. Benefits outweighing risks is the reason anybody ever does anything. There are so many decisions new parents have to make while raising a child. If the upside is the prevention of numerous health risks and a decrease in likelihood of catching certain infections and diseases, and the downside is changing the way he jerks off.... I certainly don't blame anyone for choosing to circumcise.

You don't know that. It sounds like a load of horse crap to me.

[Foxaèr]

What makes a study true and what makes a study crap to you?

I'm just guessing personal bias.

[thesummerqueen]

Yes, it is an interesting word. It's passive aggressively asking Aegon to back his shit up, because "numerous problems" sounds a lot more serious than it is, in my own research experience as far as finding statistics on 'problems' uncut guys get.

[Rhondazvous]

37 pages dedicated to the foreskin. wow! Hats off!

[Losty]

I have a son. I have read every single study I could find on the topic. There's no evidence that any of this crap about health risks due to not circumcising is true.

What makes a study true and what makes a study crap to you?

Studies that are peer reviewed. And done outside of America.

Still, even from your own link to the AAP earlier they say there's not enough benefit to do this routinely.

[GrandizerII]

Why should you have a vendetta against parents who likely made a decision out of ignorance based on what they thought was best for you?

Show me some scientific evidence that shows a causation (not a correlation) of infections or disease?
Have you ever had an orgasm with your foreskin intact? Can you link the study?
Are you sure your argument is not made out of ignorance? I read a study yesterday where 38 women said that there was no difference in sexual stimulation and 9 said that there was increased sexual pleasure and 0 said that there was decreased pleasure after having their labia and clitoral hood cut. Knowing this, would you also advocate for female circumcision or at least say it's not a big deal?

It's barbaric because it is chopping off part of a baby's genitals for no good reason. How could that ever not be barbaric?

There are huge differences between male and female circumcision. FMG affects the girl's ability to become pregnant later on in life, it is way more commonly botched, and way more tissue and nerve endings are removed. The rate of botched male circumcisions are relatively much lower. 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/co...130/3/e756 
"Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits from male circumcision were identified for the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction."

lol, the same organisation that, at one point, assented to female genital cutting.

Here's a response to that review:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03...6.abstract

Abstract:

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released a policy statement and technical report on circumcision, in both of which the organisation suggests that the health benefits conferred by the surgical removal of the foreskin in infancy definitively outweigh the risks and complications associated with the procedure. While these new documents do not positively recommend neonatal circumcision, they do paradoxically conclude that its purported benefits ‘justify access to this procedure for families who choose it,’ claiming that whenever and for whatever reason it is performed, it should be covered by government health insurance. The policy statement and technical report suffer from several troubling deficiencies, ultimately undermining their credibility. These deficiencies include the exclusion of important topics and discussions, an incomplete and apparently partisan excursion through the medical literature, improper analysis of the available information, poorly documented and often inaccurate presentation of relevant findings, and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence given.