Circumcision should not be performed on minors under 18

"Tai" wrote in message
...
Stephanie wrote:
"WindingHighway" wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 7:09?pm, wrote:
Given that circumcision is nonreversible body modification, it should
not be performed on minors under the age of 18, except for true
medical reasons just as any other operation.


Reducing deaths from HIV and cervical cancer is a pretty good medical
reason.
The sexual, social, esthetic, and hygienic benefits are prefectly
valid too. Im sure the millions that have died from foreskin-
propagated diseases like these would agree with me.


Non-medically necessary circumcision on minors under age 18 should
maybe be prosecuted as mayhem.


You want to prosecute a third of the parents on earth??? Now, THERE
is recipe for mayhem! Get a grip.


And since circumcision is nonreversible, perhaps there should be a
waiting period for anyone to get circumcised even as an adult, just
as there is a waiting period for a sex change.


LOL! Its just a useless, smelly, ugly bit of skin for gods sake!
Save your energy for something that really matters, like abortion.



Steph, I couldn't believe my eyes for a minute until I worked out that
your quoting wasn't working properly again and only the two lines
immediately below these were your words!

OMG. I did not even notice that quoting was not working. What casuses that?




Might it just be that the foreskin heightens sexual plasure that give
you the twitches? And, incidentally, if yours smells, you can wash it.


Circumcision is genital mutilation,


Says who? Actually, its penile enhancement.


and impairs the abilities of the
male sexual organ.

Nonsense. There isnt a shred of scientific evidence for that
statement. If circumcision impaired the male sexual organ you can
bet your ass that men wouldnt do it or choose it for their sons.
Apart from anything else, being cut greatly improves your chances of
getting a blow job.

Stephanie wrote:
"Tai" wrote in message
[...]

Steph, I couldn't believe my eyes for a minute until I worked out
that your quoting wasn't working properly again and only the two
lines immediately below these were your words!

OMG. I did not even notice that quoting was not working. What casuses
that?

I have no idea! I use Outlook Express too, although I also have QuoteFix
installed, and have never managed to have it happen to me. All I can think
of is that you have some odd combination of settings switched on but it only
happens to you occasionally so there must be something else you're doing to
trigger it for a specific post.

What say you on the *fact* that some men that have undergone adult
circumcision say that their pleasure has increased since the procedure
then?




That's a plain lie. �It definitely impairs the male sex organ. �The
foreskin has nerves, protects the penis, and makes sex easier as it
slides back and forth over the head of the penis. �It also makes
masturbation easier.

It's too bad this group (alt.parenting.solutions, alt.circumcision) is
utterly irrelevant due to the high volume of fetish posters and
spam.

No medical association on earth (not even Israel's) recommends routine
infant circumcision. Many roundly condemn it. Even the policy of the
AAP - for which circumcision is over a $100 million per year industry
- is neutral only after weighing cultural factors which have nothing
to do with the child's well-being.

The evidence is there today for parents. (http://Circumstitions.com)
Cut your kid, and he will have every reason to resent you for taking
his choice away. The rate of cutting for newborns in California is
down to 21% as of 2005. For the US as a whole it's close to 50/50.
By the time your kid grows up, it will probably as rare in the US as
it is elsewhere. 80% of the world is intact and suffers no lack of
sex partners or unusual health problems. Most of the cut men in the
world are Muslims (outnumbering cut Jews 50 to 1).

In non-circumcising cultures (that is, excluding Muslims, Jews, US,
South Korea, and Philippines) the rate of intact adults choosing to
get cut is 0.3%.

Whatever "medical" reasons you might have heard about, none of them
justify taking away an infant's choice. The only factor remotely
associated with infancy is urinary tract infections, but girls get
more of those than any group of boys. The AAP's policy even mentions
that the UTI evidence is dubious due to the way the studies were
mishandled. The intact penis needs to be left alone, but nurses and
parents used to be instructed to forcibly retract and clean under the
foreskin, causing the infections.

Other supposed threats are dissolving before the pro-circs' eyes. HPV
now has a vaccine, HIV may have one soon. Regardless, infants are not
at risk for sexually transmitted infections. But circumcision does
not prevent AIDS, anyway. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS
were cut at birth. AIDS is more rare in non-cutting Japan than it is
in 95%-cut Israel. There are lots of places in Africa (like Cameroon,
Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania) where AIDS is more
prevalent among the circumcised.

Cutting in infancy is the worst time. Pain management is a challenge
and the long-term effects of early pain experiences are just beginning
to be understood. Healing must happen in the foul diaper
environment. The infant can't communicate if something doesn't feel
just right. Skin bridges, skin tags, adhesions, jagged scars,
assymetry, bulgy truncated vein, tightness, and curveature are all
worse for procedures done to infants. Gouges and pits in the glans
from the necessary tearing of the still-fused infant skin from the
glans are very rare in procedures done later. http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm

It's just so easy. Every mammal on earth evolved his foreskin before
there was surgery or even soap. Leave him perfect, leave him
intact.

-Ron Low
HIS body HIS decision.

Stephanie wrote:

"WindingHighway" wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 7:09?pm, wrote:
Given that circumcision is nonreversible body modification, it should
not be performed on minors under the age of 18, except for true
medical reasons just as any other operation.

Reducing deaths from HIV and cervical cancer is a pretty good medical
reason.
--------------
Except what they don't tell you is that the HIV effect is quite tiny
and marginal here because we don't use anal intercourse for birth-
control, as they are forced to do in Africa. Here it would save FAR
LESS lives than ANY kind of condom program!!


The sexual, social, esthetic, and hygienic benefits are prefectly
valid too. Im sure the millions that have died from foreskin-
propagated diseases like these would agree with me.
------------------
Nonsense. The same germs are available there as on the mouth. In fact,
MORE germs are present on the mouth than on the anus or genitals!! The
foreskin is MORE likely to get an infection from your mouth than the
reverse!! And as for aesthetics, it sounds like you don't really like
real penises very well. Anyone who really enjoys giving fellation
will love the interesting and slippery foreskin with its fascinating
behaviors. And they will love the responsiveness to touch that it
gives the penis by protecting its glans.


Non-medically necessary circumcision on minors under age 18 should
maybe be prosecuted as mayhem.
/
You want to prosecute a third of the parents on earth??? Now, THERE
is recipe for mayhem! Get a grip.
------------------------------
We need to do it. Used to be a third of people smoked in bars and in
restaurants, and now very few do, and yet few have to be arrested for
it.


And since circumcision is nonreversible, perhaps there should be a
waiting period for anyone to get circumcised even as an adult, just as
there is a waiting period for a sex change.

LOL! Its just a useless, smelly, ugly bit of skin for gods sake!
--------------------
Your antisexual sickness is showing. You don't like real genuine
genitals and their shape and texture and responsiveness.


and impairs the abilities of the
male sexual organ.

Nonsense. There isnt a shred of scientific evidence for that
statement.
-----------------------
Now that's where you're patently wrong. The ONLY ones who "disagree"
with that research are the anti-foreskin crazies.


If circumcision impaired the male sexual organ you can
bet your ass that men wouldnt do it or choose it for their sons.
-------------------------
Wrong. Poeple do all sorts of stupid things when they are brainwashed
by church and society. Look at Nazi Germany, and at American sexuality.


Apart from anything else, being cut greatly improves your chances of
getting a blow job.
--------------------------
By someone who doesn't really LIKE to give blowjobs, maybe. Pass!
Steve

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:49:47 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

"WindingHighway" wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 7:09?pm, wrote:
Given that circumcision is nonreversible body modification, it should
not be performed on minors under the age of 18, except for true
medical reasons just as any other operation.

Reducing deaths from HIV and cervical cancer is a pretty good medical
reason.
--------------
Except what they don't tell you is that the HIV effect is quite tiny
and marginal here because we don't use anal intercourse for birth-
control, as they are forced to do in Africa. Here it would save FAR
LESS lives than ANY kind of condom program!!

Happily, of course, condoms and circumcision are not mutually exclusive,
and there is no need to choose between the two.

The sexual, social, esthetic, and hygienic benefits are prefectly valid
too. Im sure the millions that have died from foreskin- propagated
diseases like these would agree with me.
------------------
Nonsense. The same germs are available there as on the mouth. In fact,
MORE germs are present on the mouth than on the anus or genitals!! The
foreskin is MORE likely to get an infection from your mouth than the
reverse!! And as for aesthetics, it sounds like you don't really like
real penises very well. Anyone who really enjoys giving fellation will
love the interesting and slippery foreskin with its fascinating
behaviors. And they will love the responsiveness to touch that it gives
the penis by protecting its glans.

Interesting hypothesis. Do you have any evidence to support it?

You may find the following study of interest, in which 83% preferred
circumcised partners for fellatio, compared with 2% who preferred
uncircumcised partners.

http://www.circs.org/library/williamson/index.html

and impairs the abilities of the
male sexual organ.

Nonsense. There isnt a shred of scientific evidence for that
statement.
-----------------------
Now that's where you're patently wrong. The ONLY ones who "disagree"
with that research are the anti-foreskin crazies.

What specific research are you talking about?

No medical association on earth (not even Israel's) recommends routine
infant circumcision. Many roundly condemn it. Even the policy of the
AAP - for which circumcision is over a $100 million per year industry
- is neutral only after weighing cultural factors which have nothing
to do with the child's well-being.

That's funny. I don't see it as *only* weighing cultural factors at
all. Why do noncircer's assume that parents chosing circ for their
boys equates to an uneducated/uninformed decision? The stats are
pretty clear in the AAP policy statement, as they are in policy
statements/studies of other professional organizations, such as
urology.

The AAP statement clearly states, and after providing much information
pertaining to stats, that...Existing scientific evidence demonstrates
potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however,
these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal
circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are
potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to
the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in
the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of
all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and
be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate
for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic
traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this
decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural
pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for
circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If
circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be
done on infants who are stable and healthy.

It instead merely points out that there are potential medical
benefits, albeit not for the newborn's current well being. Therefore,
potential doesn't mean that there are benefits that are unknown, but
instead it means there *are* medical benefits in the future, but
because they cannot clearly identify for which adults that would be,
the word potential is used, as in for some people.


The evidence is there today for parents. (http://Circumstitions.com)
Cut your kid, and he will have every reason to resent you for taking
his choice away. The rate of cutting for newborns in California is
down to 21% as of 2005. For the US as a whole it's close to 50/50.
By the time your kid grows up, it will probably as rare in the US as
it is elsewhere. 80% of the world is intact and suffers no lack of
sex partners or unusual health problems. Most of the cut men in the
world are Muslims (outnumbering cut Jews 50 to 1).

Nah, no cut male I know resents their parents today at all and rather
is really thankful it was done when they were infants. Most people
didn't make the decision based strictly on how it looks or because
they wanted their child to *fit in*.


The intact penis needs to be left alone, but nurses and
parents used to be instructed to forcibly retract and clean under the
foreskin, causing the infections.

You cannot possibly be saying that no intact penis suffers from
various conditions that require treatment, period.


Other supposed threats are dissolving before the pro-circs' eyes. HPV
now has a vaccine, HIV may have one soon. Regardless, infants are not
at risk for sexually transmitted infections. But circumcision does
not prevent AIDS, anyway. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS
were cut at birth. AIDS is more rare in non-cutting Japan than it is
in 95%-cut Israel. There are lots of places in Africa (like Cameroon,
Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania) where AIDS is more
prevalent among the circumcised.

The HPV vaccine is still a threat in and of itself. Even the AAP
acknowledges that syncope is a common occurrence after injection and
states that patients needs to stay put for up to 10-15 minutes, and
the syncope isn't merely brought on by a fear of needles. And yet the
commercials still fail to cite this as a side effect. Some people are
actually passing out days later after vaccination. Vaccination is
another incidence in which parents make informed decisions for their
children and where the children have no input, and there have been
links made connecting vaccination with the development of autoimmune
conditions, thereby also irrevocably changing one's body. People
curious about this issue of STD reduction need to run some searches on
their own to find objective information, rather than biased.


Cutting in infancy is the worst time. Pain management is a challenge
and the long-term effects of early pain experiences are just beginning
to be understood. Healing must happen in the foul diaper
environment. The infant can't communicate if something doesn't feel
just right. Skin bridges, skin tags, adhesions, jagged scars,
assymetry, bulgy truncated vein, tightness, and curveature are all
worse for procedures done to infants. Gouges and pits in the glans
from the necessary tearing of the still-fused infant skin from the
glans are very rare in procedures done later. http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm

This is rather something that anti-circ'ers tell themselves. Sure, in
the past, anesthesia was not even used and it was unknown that a child
may be in a state of shock that caused a child to not cry through a
circumcision as a result, but that isn't the case today. With proper
anesthesia, there is no pain, and the pain of an injection of
anesthesia into the penis is no different than restraining your child
against its will to receive painful vaccinations up to the age of 6.
Actually, the needles used for anesthesia these days are so fine that
a lot of children don't even flinch upon injection and they do not cry
at all throughout the procedure. Some kids cry from the second they
are unswaddled, period. People are also capable of searching for
information on foreskin conditions/problems, just as they are for
searching for circumcision complications. Just curious, are you able
to provide statistics on the difference between the two, as in how
many circumcisions face complications (taking into consideration that
some people chose highly trained medical professionals in a hospital)
compared to how many incidences there are of foreskin-related
problems?


It's just so easy. Every mammal on earth evolved his foreskin before
there was surgery or even soap. Leave him perfect, leave him
intact.

Some people believe their sons are *perfect* circ'd.

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:49:47 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

"WindingHighway" wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 7:09?pm, wrote:
Given that circumcision is nonreversible body modification, it should
not be performed on minors under the age of 18, except for true
medical reasons just as any other operation.

Reducing deaths from HIV and cervical cancer is a pretty good medical
reason.
--------------
Except what they don't tell you is that the HIV effect is quite tiny
and marginal here because we don't use anal intercourse for birth-
control, as they are forced to do in Africa. Here it would save FAR
LESS lives than ANY kind of condom program!!

Happily, of course, condoms and circumcision are not mutually exclusive,
and there is no need to choose between the two.
-------------------------
Sure there is. If you want to avoid disease and maximize pleasure
for both partners, use condoms and don't bother with circumcision.


The sexual, social, esthetic, and hygienic benefits are prefectly valid
too. Im sure the millions that have died from foreskin- propagated
diseases like these would agree with me.
------------------
Nonsense. The same germs are available there as on the mouth. In fact,
MORE germs are present on the mouth than on the anus or genitals!! The
foreskin is MORE likely to get an infection from your mouth than the
reverse!!

Interesting hypothesis. Do you have any evidence to support it?
-------------------------
Read anything on bacteriology and surgical sterility.


And as for aesthetics, it sounds like you don't really like
real penises very well. Anyone who really enjoys giving fellation will
love the interesting and slippery foreskin with its fascinating
behaviors. And they will love the responsiveness to touch that it gives
the penis by protecting its glans.

Interesting hypothesis. Do you have any evidence to support it?
-------------------------
I'm bisexual, stupid. I have personal experience!


You may find the following study of interest, in which 83% preferred
circumcised partners for fellatio, compared with 2% who preferred
uncircumcised partners.

http://www.circs.org/library/williamson/index.html
---------------------------
When an aesthetic survey is biased by social programming it is flawed.
If you did it in Europe your data would be QUITE different.

In a fair environment, you'd lose, BIG time!


and impairs the abilities of the
male sexual organ.

Nonsense. There isnt a shred of scientific evidence for that
statement.
-----------------------
Now that's where you're patently wrong. The ONLY ones who "disagree"
with that research are the anti-foreskin crazies.

What specific research are you talking about?
------------------------------
I don't do cites. I've read it. You go read it, and then you'll know.

I don't do cites because people start cutting and pasting phony cites
off partisan websites that are not peer-reviewed, and the truth gets
lost. I encourage anyone serious to do their own research online, and
not trusting ANYONE blindly.
Steve

Since posts like these are making me vomit into the back of my throat,
I'm out. Puhlease, as if circ'd men don't love it and have no feeling.
@@


And as for aesthetics, it sounds like you don't really like
real penises very well. Anyone who really enjoys giving fellation will
love the interesting and slippery foreskin with its fascinating
behaviors. And they will love the responsiveness to touch that it gives
the penis by protecting its glans.

Interesting hypothesis. Do you have any evidence to support it?

-------------------------
I'm bisexual, stupid. I have personal experience!

Chris wrote:

That's funny. I don't see it as *only* weighing cultural factors at
all. Why do noncircer's assume that parents chosing circ for their
boys equates to an uneducated/uninformed decision?
----------------
BECAUSE there's NO reasonable supportable medical reason.


The stats are
pretty clear in the AAP policy statement, as they are in policy
statements/studies of other professional organizations, such as
urology.

The AAP statement clearly states, and after providing much information
pertaining to stats, that...Existing scientific evidence demonstrates
potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision;
---------------------
Some few disorders are thereby preventable, but that's like saying
that early female breast removal is efficacious. It is, but it is
morally reprehensible!! Why? Because it deprives someone of their
CHOICE!: Their choice of body appearance and of their own RELIGION~


however,
these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal
circumcision.
----------------
Which means they still copped-out if they didn't tell you not to
because it was immoral! Quit experimenting on children!
Steve