How do uncircumcised men get laid?

Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
Dr Zen wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
karen hill wrote:
Honestly, most people can differentiate between ugly and beautiful.
Beauty is mostly standard throughout the world. Most women don't like
uncircumcised men. Studies have been done.

http://www.circlist.com/preferences/womenspref.html

Interestingly, the two studies claiming contradictory results were both
performed by anti-circumcision activists. In one of these cases, a
significant proportion of the author's sample are known to be female
anti-circumcision activists.

What can we safely conclude? Anti-circumcision activists like foreskin in
preference to circumcised penes.

Jake.

"Of 145 new mothers of sons responding to this survey, 71-83%
preferred circumcised penises for each sexual activity listed. "

So women were getting their child circumcised because they prefer cut
penises? Did anyone point out to them that having sex with their child
would be not only unethical but also illegal?

What makes you think that they intended to have sex with their child? Isn't
it more reasonable to see recognition of the fact that their child will
become a sexual being?

It's reasonable for the mother to believe her newborn's sex life will
be her concern?

Zen

"Chotii" wrote in message ...
"Chotii" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

Why do 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth,
eventually necessitate circumcision?


Provide cites to back up that claim. Here is the position of those
that count.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...cs%3b103/3/686
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits
of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances 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.
If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be
provided.


Note..that they no longer advocate rountine medical circumcisions.

I think "necessitate" is too strong a word. I think "receive" is
accurate.

Sorry to piggyback my own post, but I hit send, went off to fold laundry,
and had this thought:

If 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth eventually necessitate
circumcision, and if this requirement were to hold true across the entire
population (positing a population in which 0% were cut routinely at birth)
then by your own numbers, 90% of newborns would NOT require it....ever. If
100% of them were cut routinely at birth, 90% of them....90 boys out of
every 100.....would have undergone an unnecessary, intrusive, painful and
irrevocable medical procedure.

Is it ethically acceptable to perform medical procedures on 100% of a
population (I mean, 100% of those cut routinely) because 10% of them would
have needed it eventually anyway?

I stand by my statement: if it's necessary, then you do it. If it ain't
broke, don't fix it.


If its a medical necessity but not for cosmetic or religious reasons.

--angela (Radical, irrational nutcase. Clearly. I mean, can't you see
that?)

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 06:28:42 GMT, zolw wrote:

Well, I must admit that I am not for or against circumcision. I feel
that if the parents have strong tradition or religious beliefs, then
they should go for it. I mean it really doesn't seem to harm (it sure
hurts, but the normal procedure includes local anestesia, at least. So
the kid would have a "bit" of a burning sensation when urinating for a
few days).

If the parents on the other hand do not feel it to be neccessary & it is
not medically required (some boys need to have the foreskin removed due
to problems), then they shouldn't. I mean afterall, God/evolution
intended it to be there for a reason (nothing is there for no reason,
even the appendix is important in one way or another)

A few points:

- Circumcision removes 25% of the nerve endings in the penis. As such,
it reduces sexual pleasure.

- It seems to me that religious decisions should be left to the child,
when he's old enough to make up his own mind. I suspect more than a
few will conclude that the deity has more important things to worry
about than whether men remove pieces of their genitalia.

- A certain percentage of circumcisions are botched, and lead to
horrors like accidental amputation. Such risks may be justified if
there are medical reasons to circumcise, such as phimosis. An adult
may be willing to undergo some risk and pain because he's religious or
kinky. But I find it hard to see why a child should be forced to
undergo such a procedure now that the main health advantage of
circumcision -- a reduction in the rate of penile cancer -- has been
rendered obsolete by improvements in hygiene.

My problem with that thread is that "Karen Hill" here talks about
uncircumcised men as if they were sick or as if there was something
wrong with them. They are as nature intended them to be. & it is a load
of cr.. that most women prefer circumcised men.
Then it gets worse when she tries to get some sympathy by telling us
about her "sad" story of how she has been sexually used (not abused),
because of a scar on her chest. I hate people like this. Besides, what
on earth is such post doing on pregnancy newsgroup anyways?

Not to mention on alt.writing . . .

--

Josh

To reply by email, delete "REMOVETHIS" from the address line.

Chotii wrote:


"Chotii" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

Why do 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth,
eventually necessitate circumcision?

I think "necessitate" is too strong a word. I think "receive" is
accurate.

Sorry to piggyback my own post, but I hit send, went off to fold laundry,
and had this thought:

If 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth eventually necessitate
circumcision, and if this requirement were to hold true across the entire
population (positing a population in which 0% were cut routinely at birth)
then by your own numbers, 90% of newborns would NOT require it....ever.
If
100% of them were cut routinely at birth, 90% of them....90 boys out of
every 100.....would have undergone an unnecessary, intrusive, painful and
irrevocable medical procedure.

Is it ethically acceptable to perform medical procedures on 100% of a
population (I mean, 100% of those cut routinely) because 10% of them would
have needed it eventually anyway?

The way to determine this is to look at the "cost" of each option. Please
note that I'm not just talking about financial cost. I'm also including
pain, risk of complications, and so on.
With universal RIC (let's just consider all or nothing, for simplicity), we
have:
Cost = 100 x (cost of newborn circ)
Without RIC, we have:
Cost = 10 x (cost of later circ)

So, from these figures, we can see that RIC is justified if the cost per
individual is one tenth or less the cost of a later circ.

The cost of a later circ is certainly greater, because it must include the
cost (in terms of distress, etc) of conditions that circ would have
prevented. In addition, there is greater expense, more pain (particularly
if the circ is performed after the onset of puberty), loss of school or
work time, etc.

Of course, it's not easy to quantify these costs, but this is a broad
structure that must be used.

Jake.


I stand by my statement: if it's necessary, then you do it. If it ain't
broke, don't fix it.

--angela (Radical, irrational nutcase. Clearly. I mean, can't you see
that?)

Chotii wrote:


wrote in message
om...
"Chotii" wrote in message
...
"karen hill" wrote in message
m...
"Chotii" wrote in message
...
"karen hill" wrote in message
om...
There is all this talk about the foreskin being a harbinger of
disease
with the studies to back it up.

Cites, please?

And you know that word...harbinger? I do not think it means what
you
think
it means.

--angela

http://www.medicirc.com/meditopics/medicirc_topics.html

http://www.medicirc.com/medicirc_references.html

I do not find his arguments convincing. In fact, his examples of
'proof' that the anti-circumcision activists are all misguided
look....gee,
pretty
sane to me. Some of those quotes were even from peer-reviewed medical
journals, claiming no health benefit to routine infant
circumcision....and
yet somehow the author of the web site uses them as proof that
anti-circ folks are all misguided.

Angela, if as you claim, you are not partial to the uncircumcised
member, why (as expected) do you immediately dismiss reputable medical
studies?

I didn't see a single actual cite on the first page, just a lot of
assertions. I saw a man who stands to benefit financially from the
continuation of infant circumcision, promoting his business.

How so?


On the second page, I *do* see a LOT of cites. Alas, I don't have access
to those medical journals, and I have no idea what those articles say. As
he provides neither quotes nor links, I find those named journal articles
no more convincing than the ones listed on the nocirc web site, which does
NOT stand to benefit financially from the continuation of infant
circumcision. I don't even think it stands to benefit from an end to
infant circumcision.

Is financial benefit all you can see?


And as far as I can tell, sir, there are as many journal articles
discussing
the damage done by circumcision as the benefits thereof. How do *you*
balance one extensive list of journal articles (pro) against another
extensive list (con)?

Difficult question indeed. I wish there were an easy answer.


Why do you immediately come to the defense of the anti-circ
ilk? You value the opinion of laymen over physicians!? In other words,
you asked Karen to provide medical info, knowing that you were never
going to accept it!? Typical anti-circ tactic!! Any research that
disagrees with your warped position is deemed
flawed!?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Professor Brian Morris has studied these people in detail. Many of
whom (especially the foreskin restorers) suffer from several
psychological disorders, including narcissistic and exhibitionistic
body image, depressions, major defects in early mothering, and ego
pathology. It's often referred to as "Partialism" - "...if the
behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant
distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important
areas of functioning." The simplest definition of partialism is
"exclusive focus on part of the body."

Has it not occurred to you that different people react differently to
severe
trauma? How many examples shall I give?

Some women have cesarean sections and are so traumatised they will not
have any children afterward. Many do fine and go on to have several or
many children.
Some women have vaginal births and are so traumatised they will not have
any children afterward. Many do fine and go on to have several or many
children. Some men and women who experience combat conditions become
'shell shocked'. Some never recover. Many cope and go on to have normal
lives. Some premature infants who experience intrusive medical procedures
to keep them alive wind up with all kinds of psychological problems,
including but not limited to oral aversion, necessitating feeding tubes
even though they
are physically normal. (I have such a child.) Many do just fine and
you'd never know all the things they went through.

When determining cause and effect, at least some indication is needed of the
true cause. If a significantly *greater* percentage of circumcised men
suffered from such problems than uncircumcised men, this might suggest that
circumcision was the cause. But there is no evidence to suggest that.


It doesn't take an EINSTEIN (circumcised Jew - greatest mind of the
20th century) to know that sane people do not blame all of their
life's ills on the loss of foreskin. Tens of millions of circumcised
men are leading happy, healthy sexual lives.

And some of them are not, and the damage can be directly attributed to
their 'surgery'.

Can it?

Neither you, nor any study in the world, can predict nor
deny the experience or feelings of an *individual*. The plural of anecdote
is not data. But every anecdote is equally valid compared to any other
anecdote. But what YOU are doing is saying, if they have a problem,
they're just sick and broken. You don't ask how they GOT that way. And you
deny them the right to know how they DID get that way.

We certainly know that they have issues. But an OCD sufferer with a dirt
obsession might feel that their problem is dirt. A similar kind of thing.
It's clear that the dirt issue isn't the real problem - it's just an outlet
for it.


If a man feels pleased with his member after surgery, good for him! I hope
he always feels that way. But what do *you* suggest for the men who are
NOT happy with what was done to them? What will you say? Too bad, get over
it, be a man, be strong, you don't feel what you feel, that can't possibly
be a problem for *you* because it isn't a problem for *me*, or the 523 men
in study X over here....?

*I* say it takes a hell of a strong man to admit that his
apparently-normal
penis has a problem. Moreso when society is telling him, "No, no, you're
normal. Everybody says so, and so it MUST be true." But some of these men
DO have problems, directly attributable to their surgeries. Problems that
were absolutely avoidable.

They have problems, which they attribute to their surgeries. But the real
problem lies in their attitude to it. Or perhaps something deeper.


Why do 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth,
eventually necessitate circumcision?

I think "necessitate" is too strong a word. I think "receive" is
accurate.
Many problems have more than one fix. Some doctors only know of one.
Some circumcisions are medically unavoidable. But that falls into a
different category in my mind. You have a problem, you fix it. But if it
ain't broke....

You cannot deny, surely, that circumcision is necessary in a non-zero
proportion of uncirc'd males, though it is true that it is sometimes
unnecessary.


If you squat over a mirror, you will notice that you have foreskin
as well!! 4 folds (labia minora & majora) and a clitoris.
Unfortunately for women, God forgot to design a backup plan!eheee In
terms of physiology, the clitoris (epicenter for pleasure) is not
comparative to the male prepuce, because the head of the penis (not
the foreskin) is where the greatest degree of sensation lies. Unlike
men, women have no choice but to spend billions of dollars a year on
feminine hygiene products.

Uhhhh.

The clitoral hood is homologous to the prepuce. I don't see women standing
in line to have theirs excised, and you know why? Because it would bare
the glans clitoris to constant dry chafing against the underwear, and it
would be as irritating as hell. Almost no woman raised in the Western
tradition
would do this. But a great many of them choose the same procedure, more
or less, for their sons.

And I have no idea what you're talking about with this 'billions of
dollars
a year on feminine hygiene products'. What products are these? Menstrual
products? That has nothing to do with the external labial tissue.
Anti-fungal medications? This is actually mostly a factor of the
carbohydrate-and-sugar filled Western diet, combined with (in many cases)
hormone-altering contraceptive measures. Again, it has little to do with
the design of the body parts.

Besides, a lot of men *like* women with mature, adult, untidy-looking
labia. The idea of labioplasty (which is always an option of course) is
repellent
to them. I see no reason why women might not have the same attraction to
a mature, adult, untidy-looking prepuce. (and before you misquote me,
please note I did not say "unwashed".)

As for choice!? Parents have the legal right to decide what is in
the best interest for their children.

Yesssss. I didn't say it was illegal....did I? I do consider it
unethical.

I have had to choose surgery for one of my daughters....3 times. Open
heart, once. Stomach, twice. Two of my children have had to have cavities
filled.
In EVERY CASE I made these choices to correct existing, known problems.
The only thing I ever actually had done to any of them prophylactically
was to have the tongue-tie on my twins clipped, though that was arguably
also to correct a known problem (twin #1 was not nursing effectively, twin
#2 had a tighter tie than #1)

I must ask....if you had a son, and he reached adulthood and said to you,
"I resent the fact that you had this done to me," how would you respond?
"We felt it was best at the time, we're sorry, here is restoration
information?"
or something more along the lines of "Don't be stupid"? Or something in
between? Would you think he'd have some narcissistic disorder and write
off his feelings about his own body, or would you validate them and say,
"Many men feel the same way you do, what would you like to do about it"?

I assume that most men are at least contented with what they have, whether
it has been altered or not. But some are not. Tell me: why is it
acceptable for adult men to choose circumcision, and to encourage others
to do the same, and to be happy with their choice, yet men who seek
restoration, to quote your own source,

"...suffer from several psychological disorders, including
narcissistic and exhibitionistic body image, depressions,
major defects in early mothering, and ego pathology. It's
often referred to as "Partialism" - "...if the behavior, sexual
urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or
impairment in social, occupational, or other important
areas of functioning." The simplest definition of partialism
is "exclusive focus on part of the body."

I know this question isn't aimed at myself, but my opinion is that it's not
possible to make such a general statement. It is undoubtedly true that
*some* restorers suffer from such disorders, and I'm also sure that *some*
adult circees do, too.

Jake.


If we allowed children to decide
for themselves, not one would attend school. Not one would seek out
medical intervention. There is no choice when it comes to the
well-being of a child. Every precautionary measure should be taken to
ensure that a child leads a happy, healthy productive life. And
circumcision is one such measure that is analagous to immunization -
in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually
minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime. If left till later ages,
the individual has already been exposed to the risk of urinary tract
infections, the physical problems, and carries a residual risk of
penile cancer. Therein lies the problem of "choice."

I suspect that intelligent, educated individuals can look at information
about circumcision, much as they do the information about vaccination and
even the merits of institutionalised, government-run education systems,
and
reach different and equally valid conclusions. That is why there *is* a
debate. You look at the things that might go wrong and try to avoid them
in advance: I look at the things that might go right and say Don't mess
with it if you don't have to...and if you have to, well, then, you have
to.

"Dirty Johnny" shouldn't have to wait until he supposedly reaches the
age of reason, in order to be circumcised. There are no health
benefits to foreskin. Only hindrances! An ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure.

What if little Johnny grows up and likes his uncut member just fine? What
if he LIKES it that way, has no problems with it, and can't imagine having
somebody remove part of it? What about that? Because that's true for
millions of men. No doubt hundreds of millions. I'd probably say
billions, but my mind won't wrap around numbers that big.

And I think intelligent, educated individuals can also disagree about the
whole 'ounce of prevention' thing. We in Western society do not take
antibiotics just in case we might get sick. We don't sterilise our houses
in case germs might get in. We don't remove the breasts of girl children
in
case they might have breast cancer (a very real risk). We don't perform
cesarean sections on every pregnant woman in case they might have
difficulties in childbirth. We're even finding out that germ-killing
soaps and so on are *bad* ideas, and that children who grow up in
too-clean conditions may be at risk of illnesses and allergies precisely
because their
growing immune systems are not being challenged by enough real germs.
It's easy to take the "just in case" mentality too far.

Lastly, those who tend to nitpick at spelling &
grammar, usually have very little else to work with!

Clearly you have never seen 'The Princess Bride'. I recommend you go rent
it, watch it, and then re-read my first post in this thread.

--angela (unrepentant anti-circ person. But if this disqualifies me to
participate in this thread, your blatant pro-circ opinion also
disqualifies you.)

Joshua P. Hill wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 06:28:42 GMT, zolw wrote:

Well, I must admit that I am not for or against circumcision. I feel
that if the parents have strong tradition or religious beliefs, then
they should go for it. I mean it really doesn't seem to harm (it sure
hurts, but the normal procedure includes local anestesia, at least. So
the kid would have a "bit" of a burning sensation when urinating for a
few days).

If the parents on the other hand do not feel it to be neccessary & it is
not medically required (some boys need to have the foreskin removed due
to problems), then they shouldn't. I mean afterall, God/evolution
intended it to be there for a reason (nothing is there for no reason,
even the appendix is important in one way or another)

A few points:

- Circumcision removes 25% of the nerve endings in the penis. As such,
it reduces sexual pleasure.

You assume that sexual pleasure is directly proportional to quantity of
nerve endings (incidentally, the 25% figure is a guess, since circumcisions
differ).


- It seems to me that religious decisions should be left to the child,
when he's old enough to make up his own mind. I suspect more than a
few will conclude that the deity has more important things to worry
about than whether men remove pieces of their genitalia.

Inclined to agree with you there.


- A certain percentage of circumcisions are botched, and lead to
horrors like accidental amputation.

True, but these are extremely rare.

Such risks may be justified if
there are medical reasons to circumcise, such as phimosis. An adult
may be willing to undergo some risk and pain because he's religious or
kinky. But I find it hard to see why a child should be forced to
undergo such a procedure now that the main health advantage of
circumcision -- a reduction in the rate of penile cancer -- has been
rendered obsolete by improvements in hygiene.

HIV, etc don't count, then?


My problem with that thread is that "Karen Hill" here talks about
uncircumcised men as if they were sick or as if there was something
wrong with them. They are as nature intended them to be. & it is a load
of cr.. that most women prefer circumcised men.
Then it gets worse when she tries to get some sympathy by telling us
about her "sad" story of how she has been sexually used (not abused),
because of a scar on her chest. I hate people like this. Besides, what
on earth is such post doing on pregnancy newsgroup anyways?

Not to mention on alt.writing . . .

Dr Zen wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Dr Zen wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
karen hill wrote:
Honestly, most people can differentiate between ugly and beautiful.
Beauty is mostly standard throughout the world. Most women don't
like
uncircumcised men. Studies have been done.

http://www.circlist.com/preferences/womenspref.html

Interestingly, the two studies claiming contradictory results were
both performed by anti-circumcision activists. In one of these cases,
a significant proportion of the author's sample are known to be female
anti-circumcision activists.

What can we safely conclude? Anti-circumcision activists like foreskin
in preference to circumcised penes.

Jake.

"Of 145 new mothers of sons responding to this survey, 71-83%
preferred circumcised penises for each sexual activity listed. "

So women were getting their child circumcised because they prefer cut
penises? Did anyone point out to them that having sex with their child
would be not only unethical but also illegal?

What makes you think that they intended to have sex with their child?
Isn't it more reasonable to see recognition of the fact that their child
will become a sexual being?

It's reasonable for the mother to believe her newborn's sex life will
be her concern?

To a limited extent, yes. A good parent wants his or her child to have the
best possible life. Sex is a part of life.


Zen

Jake Waskett wrote in message ...
Dr Zen wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
Dr Zen wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote in message
...
karen hill wrote:
Honestly, most people can differentiate between ugly and beautiful.
Beauty is mostly standard throughout the world. Most women don't
like
uncircumcised men. Studies have been done.

http://www.circlist.com/preferences/womenspref.html

Interestingly, the two studies claiming contradictory results were
both performed by anti-circumcision activists. In one of these cases,
a significant proportion of the author's sample are known to be female
anti-circumcision activists.

What can we safely conclude? Anti-circumcision activists like foreskin
in preference to circumcised penes.

Jake.

"Of 145 new mothers of sons responding to this survey, 71-83%
preferred circumcised penises for each sexual activity listed. "

So women were getting their child circumcised because they prefer cut
penises? Did anyone point out to them that having sex with their child
would be not only unethical but also illegal?

What makes you think that they intended to have sex with their child?
Isn't it more reasonable to see recognition of the fact that their child
will become a sexual being?

It's reasonable for the mother to believe her newborn's sex life will
be her concern?

To a limited extent, yes. A good parent wants his or her child to have the
best possible life. Sex is a part of life.

Jake, I'm going to put it to you that in normal circumstances the
child's sex life as we would normally understand that term would not
be beginning for some dozen years at least, and if it is exercising
the mother at the point of birth, she needs help. It is not in any
case *ever* going to be his mother's business. That's something the
mother is obliged to take no part in, unless I suppose you feel she
might procure ladies for him. Maybe you resent the lack in your own
mother, but really, dude, that isn't what they're for.

Zen

(Sky King) wrote in message . com...
"Chotii" wrote in message ...
"Chotii" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

Why do 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth,
eventually necessitate circumcision?

Provide cites to back up that claim. Here is the position of those
that count.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...cs%3b103/3/686
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits
of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances 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.
If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be
provided. Note..that they no longer advocate rountine medical circumcisions.


http://www.drweiss.org/necesary.htm (typo exists in the URL) "It is
obvious that the list of potential medical diseases of the penis are
not only extensive but could be fatal, as with malignancy. The
expenses of treatment for foreskin diseases and complications suggest
that on a cost containment basis alone neonatal circumcision is the
more desirable. Medical authorities in Canada (1981), after extensive
studies, have concluded: About 10% of males not circumcised at birth
will eventually require circumcision. ...More important, neonatal
circumcision is associated with much lower morbidity and mortality and
with lower costs than therapeutic circumcision. Thus prophylactic
circumcision is recommended for the male population as a whole..." -
DR. GERALD WEISS, American Diplomate American Board of Surgery, Fellow
American College of Surgeons Fellow International College of
Surgeons....
If you (et al) are so concerned with childhood pain, why would you
subject tens of thousands of infants to unnecessary infections!? The
same infections that would have no reason to exist, if not for the
presence of foreskin. 1% is 1% too many! 10% becomes inexcusable!! 10%
vs. 0%! Which do you choose!? DOH! Lastly, what part of "existing
scientific evidence demonstrates potentional medical benefits of
newborn male circumcision" did you not understand the first time
around?ehe Medical find after medical find states that foreskin is a
cesspool for disease. A welcome mat for HIV! Now who wants to increase
their chances of dying from STDs, just so they can hang on to a piece
of extra skin? One would have to be insane! Low and behold, these are
the same insane individuals who try to regrow skin that will
ultimately act as a detriment. Foreskin is just as useless as the
appendix, post-umbilical cord, wisdom teeth & hymen. It serves no
useful function, other than to cause a lifetime of unwanted hassles.
Once again, the benefits far outweigh the risks. Circumcision only
occurs once. Foreskin upkeep can last a lifetime. So which one of the
two is more profitable!? DOH! In the end, it is better to err on the
side of caution & civility than not. Now onto Angela...eh Ah, but
foreskin is broken! If a flap of skin grew over your TUSH, would you
revel in the bacteria that it traps!? Of course not! You would run to
the doctor to have it removed. Well, male foreskin should be treated
no differently!! -D, NYC "Circumcision is like a substantial and
well-secured annuity; every year of life you draw the benefits.
Parents cannot make a better paying investment for their little boys"
- DR. P.C. REMONDINO

I think "necessitate" is too strong a word. I think "receive" is
accurate.

Sorry to piggyback my own post, but I hit send, went off to fold laundry,
and had this thought:

If 10% of newborns not circumcised at birth eventually necessitate
circumcision, and if this requirement were to hold true across the entire
population (positing a population in which 0% were cut routinely at birth)
then by your own numbers, 90% of newborns would NOT require it....ever. If
100% of them were cut routinely at birth, 90% of them....90 boys out of
every 100.....would have undergone an unnecessary, intrusive, painful and
irrevocable medical procedure.

Is it ethically acceptable to perform medical procedures on 100% of a
population (I mean, 100% of those cut routinely) because 10% of them would
have needed it eventually anyway?

I stand by my statement: if it's necessary, then you do it. If it ain't
broke, don't fix it.


If its a medical necessity but not for cosmetic or religious reasons.

--angela (Radical, irrational nutcase. Clearly. I mean, can't you see
that?)

"Chotii" wrote in message ...
"Jake Waskett" wrote in message
...
Joshua P. Hill wrote:

- A certain percentage of circumcisions are botched, and lead to
horrors like accidental amputation.

True, but these are extremely rare.

Ah yes, this clearly makes it all right for the ones for whom it IS botched.
"Oh, we're so sorry, there was a 1 in (I'm making this up) 1,000,000 chance
it might have happened, and it happened to you, and now you have no glans on
your penis....so, um....have a nice life, here's a couple million dollars to
make you happy." --angela

Angela, try conserving a few of your anti-circ cliches for another
day! LOL! You've just about used all of 'em up!ehe FYI: You literally
have a 1 in 1 million chance of losing your penis from circumcision.
About the same statistical probability of being struck by lightning.
If we use your rationale, let's do away with childbearing, dentistry,
plastic surgery, coronary surgery, and every other beneficial medical
procedure that has a greater rate of injury and/or death when compared
to circumcision. No surgery is without its fair share of risk. But
only one form of surgery can claim to be the safest & most common cut
of all - circumcision. As with any common surgery, the benefits always
outweigh the risks!! Angela, thousands of pedestrians are killed each
and every year. If those same pedestrians sat at home and never
crossed the street, they would still be alive, no?! LOL! -D, NYC "The
anti-circumcision craze has developed because groups of conservative,
sensitive, medically misinformed individuals, some with fanatical
emotionalism, have not seen the consequences of a society where males
are not circumcised. While medical prophylactic measures are readily
accepted by our society, surgical prophylaxis is in danger of being
discarded by an overemphasis on the return to the "natural." The
intense pain of natural childbirth is seen as a reward while the minor
discomfort, if any, of circumcision is magnified beyond reason." - DR.
GERALD WEISS