[Banana]

And we are back to our former standstill where I side with whats best for developing nations like the ones in Africa were there is a clear statistically measurable benefit of preventing disease for people who have circumcisions.

It seems that because we live in a more developed part of the world circumcisions seem very unnecessary because of the low amount of disease compared to other parts of the world.Circumcisions are of course a weird ritual thought up by our ancestors but by some happy accident they do have small benefits.My question is if there is no benefit to not having a circumcision and only a slight benefit to having one wouldnt you want your child to have that benefit as slight as it may be?

Link that study. Because it's not clear statistical benefit. And last time I checked, infants, even in Africa, weren't acquiring AIDS from sex. AIDS is most prolific in underdeveloped countries. I would likely support circ'ing a child there just as I support birth control there. When something becomes a health hazard, then it's necessary to consider alternative. AIDS as an STD isn't a epidemic in North America. And according to the AAP

"Evidence regarding the relationship of circumcision to sexually transmitted diseases in general is complex and conflicting. . . . Behavioral factors appear to be far more important risk factors."

Also, there is a case to be made that the research regarding HIV and foreskin is flawed. http://www.nocirc.org/2008-07_Mothering-Fauntleroy.pdf

Circumcision was originally promoted to prevent masturbation. Why are we holding on to this standard?

And to the second part, no, I wouldn't. Because the risk of medical complications actually outweighs the benefits. The single largest negative effect of being uncircumcised is UTI's.These are treatable. The single biggest risk of circumcision is botched surgery. Not always treatable.

[snarg]

once again, tweety insists that because he feels a certain way, facts will not get in his way
thanks for being consistent in your self-righteousness
the cuke has shot down all your blather, but do stick to your guns
is your hs diploma from a real school or is it a ged?

[Banana]

Why do you think pediatric societies don't support infant circumcision if there is a "slight benefit" as you put it? Shouldn't they be in favour of something that a. makes them money and b. has some medical benefit?

[BIRD33]

once again, tweety insists that because he feels a certain way, facts will not get in his way
thanks for being consistent in your self-righteousness
the cuke has shot down all your blather, but do stick to your guns
is your hs diploma from a real school or is it a ged?

Nice timing snarg.Below is all the facts I'm basing my arguments on.Did they teach you the meaning of the word "Pompous" in college?How about the word "Failure"?You really put that degree to good use.What time is your 60 some year old ass working today?



http://www.insanetrain.com/forums/showth...ion&page=5

I don't see anything that you posted that is as important as reduced HIV infections.If you give your kid a 50% less chance of catching a fatal disease by circumcising him doesnt that outweigh any benefits like improved feeling during sex?




Research by the World Health Organization published in the US Public Library of Science Medicine journal in July, 2006, showed that men who had been circumcised had a significantly lower risk of infection with the AIDS virus, and calculated that if all men were circumcised over the next 10 years, some two million new infections could be avoided.[84]

In March 2005, a Cochrane review of the medical evidence concluded that, “Although the positive results of these observational studies suggest that circumcision is an intervention worth evaluating in randomised controlled trials, the current quality of evidence is insufficient to consider implementation of circumcision as a public-health intervention.”[85] Initial population based studies suggesting that circumcision might play a protective role were criticised because confounding factors such as religion may have skewed the results; the reviewers therefore commented that the results of randomised controlled trials then underway would be critical.[85]

The results of the first randomised controlled trial was published in November 2005. It found a 60% reduction in the rate of new HIV infection (from 2.1 per 100 to 0.85 per 100 in the intervention group and claimed that male circumcision provided a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa.[46]

Two further randomised trials of the effect of circumcision on HIV infections conducted in Uganda and Kenya were originally scheduled to be concluded in 2007. However, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) stated on December 13, 2006 that they had stopped the trials early citing that circumcision was so effective that it would be unethical to continue the experiment and not offer circumcision in the uncircumcised men who were acting as controls. The results showed that circumcised males in Uganda were 53% less likely to get infected and circumcised males in Kenya were 48% less likely to get infected.[86]

A possible mechanism relates to Langerhans cells, a part of the human immune system. Szabo and Short suggest that Langerhans cells in the foreskin may provide an entry point for viral infection.[87] Three studies identified high concentrations of Langerhans and other HIV target cells in the human prepuce.[88][89][90] Additionally, McCoombe, Cameron, and Short found that the keratin is thinnest on the foreskin and frenulum.[91] Conversely, some authors believe that the prepuce has an important immunological function, and that its removal increases the chances of infections.[92] This hypothesis has been criticised on technical grounds.[93]

[BIRD33]

Why do you think pediatric societies don't support infant circumcision if there is a "slight benefit" as you put it? Shouldn't they be in favour of something that a. makes them money and b. has some medical benefit?

Liabilities probably.

[snarg]

Why do you think pediatric societies don't support infant circumcision if there is a "slight benefit" as you put it? Shouldn't they be in favour of something that a. makes them money and b. has some medical benefit?

don't ask such hard questions
thanks

sin

birdbrain

[BIRD33]

don't ask such hard questions
thanks

sin

birdbrain

Boy do you look stupid.Do you find any faults with the information I posted?

[Paddy]

Little Paddy 2.0 kept his bits. If we stay in the U.S. I think it will get him more tail.

[Banana]

And that is what you consider "a clear statistical measurable benefit"?

Szabo and Short suggest that Langerhans cells in the foreskin may provide an entry point for viral infection.

May?

Cicumcision not an effective mechanism in preventing HIV among gay men http://www.cirp.org/news/medicalnewstoday2008-10-09/

In Rwanda, circumcised males have higher rates of HIV http://www.cirp.org/news/themonitor2008-08-01/

America has high rate of circumcised males AND highest rates of HIV in the developed world. http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm

Lower rates of HIV also found in circumcised women, but we don't promote that, do we? http://www.nocirc.org/publish/11-HIV.pdf

[Banana]

Liabilities probably.

Really? You mean, you don't buy that the possible risks outweigh the possible benefits?

[snarg]

Boy do you look stupid.Do you find any faults with the information I posted?

answer nana's question, smart guy

[Banana]

Boy do you look stupid.Do you find any faults with the information I posted?

I do.

Short term studies in Africa cannot be applied to babies in North America because the populations have little in common....In addition, a number of scientists and scholars are rasing questions about the African studies themselvesin terms of methodology, statistical results, confounding factors, ethics and other issues.

http://www.nocirc.org/2008-07_Mothering-Fauntleroy.pdf

I'll pass on circ'ing my child to prevent HIV. I'll teach him to use a condom. If he wants to engage in high risk behaviours as a adult, he can decide to remove his foreskin if he feels that is his very best defense against HIV.

[Banana]

No evidence male circumcision protects against chlamydia or gonorrhea, say results of RCT .

http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/2009/0...-rct-.html

[Paddy]

This subject is very close to Cucumber's heart.

[BIRD33]

And that is what you consider "a clear statistical measurable benefit"? May?

Cicumcision not an effective mechanism in preventing HIV among gay men http://www.cirp.org/news/medicalnewstoday2008-10-09/ Never said that

In Rwanda, circumcised males have higher rates of HIV http://www.cirp.org/news/themonitor2008-08-01/

From the same article

"Many people are not even aware that the results from the above mentioned Randomised Controlled Trials are about prevention of female-to-male HIV infection.

Secondly, not many young people (and probably adults as well) seem aware that the trial results clearly indicate that male circumcision reduces the risk of infection. Unfortunately, many young male adolescents and some men prefer reading or hearing reducing the risk as eliminating the risk.

Undoubtedly, there is 'a heaven of difference' between risk reduction and risk elimination and hopefully, this can be well grasped in the preventive campaign against HIV/Aids."

America has high rate of circumcised males AND highest rates of HIV in the developed world. http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm

We are one of the largest countries in the world.This is a #'s game not anything that has to do with how a virus gets transmitted.

Lower rates of HIV also found in uncircumcised women, but we don't promote that. http://www.nocirc.org/publish/11-HIV.pdf

Not what we are talking about.

[I]

Two further randomised trials of the effect of circumcision on HIV infections conducted in Uganda and Kenya were originally scheduled to be concluded in 2007. However, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) stated on December 13, 2006 that they had stopped the trials early citing that circumcision was so effective that it would be unethical to continue the experiment and not offer circumcision in the uncircumcised men who were acting as controls. The results showed that circumcised males in Uganda were 53% less likely to get infected and circumcised males in Kenya were 48% less likely to get infected.[86]


[/I]Thats not a may[I].
[/I]

[leeman]

8... have you been playing with the tags again??

[Banana]

This subject is very close to Cucumber's heart.

Very much so. I strongly believe babies should be left intact and very much abhor the arguments of "it looks funny" or "it's gross" that North Americans seem to cling to when they mindlessly mutilate their son's penis.

[BIRD33]

I do.

http://www.nocirc.org/2008-07_Mothering-Fauntleroy.pdf

I'll pass on circ'ing my child to prevent HIV. I'll teach him to use a condom. If he wants to engage in high risk behaviours as a adult, he can decide to remove his foreskin if he feels that is his very best defense against HIV.

That certainly is your option.I'll give my kid the automatic almost 50% less chance to get HIV without him doing anything.

[Blondie]

Jimmy's thoughts on the subject?

[Banana]

America has high rate of circumcised males AND highest rates of HIV in the developed world. http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm

We are one of the largest countries in the world.This is a #'s game not anything that has to do with how a virus gets transmitted.

Do you have any idea how stupid you just made yourself sound? These are RATES, not numbers. They are based on PERCENTAGES, not population.

And why can't we talk of female genital circumcision. Did you bother reading the very first thing I linked in this thread?

So, if I get this straight, you are promoting circumcision because one African study suggested that HIV rates may be lower among African adult males, and you are ignoring the other research which suggests other factors play more important roles and that the studies may not be considered statistically sound?