Its no wonder that fundamentalist Muslims are messed up in the head...

[Ripsnort]

"Most Afghan boys are circumcised between the age of two and five by religious elders who say a prayer before removing the foreskin with a knife -- without anaesthetic.

If the boys are lucky, they will be plunged into an icy stream before the ritual in order to numb any pain."

[/b]

"Any pain" would be an understatement!

Full Story

[Sandman]

Ever watch a circumcision?

It's senseless, brutal act of maiming done without anesthetic...

... oh and it happens every day to hundreds if not thousands of infant boys in this country.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Ever watch a circumcision?

It's senseless, brutal act of maiming done without anesthetic...

... oh and it happens every day to hundreds if not thousands of infant boys in this country.

Infancy pre-1: "No recall of the pain associated with the surgical procedure"

1 yrs or older: "Total recall of the pain associated with the surgical procedure"

Senseless?  I guess if you could care less about the hygiene aspect of it...

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Ripsnort



Senseless?  I guess if you could care less about the hygiene aspect of it...

You could have your arms removed too, wouldn't ever have to wash those pesky armpits again!

[Curval]

It isn't the circumcision of boys that concerns me in Musilm countries...it is the circumcision of girls that deeply disturbs me!

I got cut...I have no memory of it..thank God.  I'm also glad it was done.  Uncut looks awful...and from what I have been told (by women) can smell pretty awful if not looked after properly.

[Ripsnort]

Incidently just about ALL hospitals use local anestisia (sp) today for these minor procedures (pun intended)

1. Protection from urinary tract infection (UTI)
Since 1980, at least ten research studies have been published linking urinary tract infections to a lack of circumcision. 1-10 These studies found a minimum twelve-fold increased risk for urinary tract infections among uncircumcised males one to sixteen years of age, as well as among adult males. There is no data that contradicts these findings.

In 1997 a team of pediatric surgeons at Wolfson Hospital, Holon, Israel, conducted a study that established a relationship between failure to circumcise and increased urinary tract infection in infants. The team concluded that “streptococci, strict anaerobes, and genital mycoplasmas were found almost exclusively in uncircumcised males of more than fifteen years of age.” They further stated, “Our results also support the role of the prepuce [uncircumcised foreskin] as a reservoir for sexually transmitted organisms.” 11

2. Guarding against cervical cancer
In an important study done on the cause of cervical cancer, it was discovered that there was a 2,000% greater incidence of cervical cancer among non-Jewish women whose husbands were uncircumcised. A New England Journal of Medicine article, published in April 2002, affirms the relationship between cervical cancer and men who are not circumcised. 12 In reporting on this study, The Wall Street Journal notes the long-standing debate over the merits of circumcision in combating sexually transmitted diseases: “The results come at a time when public opinion is turning away from circumcision, which many doctors have increasingly come to view as painful and unnecessary.” 13

According to the Journal, “uncircumcised men are more likely to harbor human papilloma virus (HPV).” HPV, a sexually transmitted virus, is believed to cause nearly all cervical cancer. The article also states that if all men were circumcised, it could “reduce the incidence of cervical cancer world-wide by as much as 43%.”

3. Avoidance of penile cancer
After reviewing the data from 50,000 cases in the past half-century, Dr. Thomas Wiswell concluded that “circumcision categorically prevents penile cancer.” 14 Out of 50,000 cancer cases, only ten had occurred in circumcised men. These men had all been circumcised later in life. Thus, none of the men diagnosed with penile cancer had been circumcised during infancy. 15,16

4. Reduction of harmful bacteria
Circumcision unquestionably facilitates better hygiene and the avoidance of conditions that result from uncleanliness. However, the most compelling reasons for circumcision among pediatric surgeons and urologists are balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and phimosis (stricture of the foreskin, resulting from recurrent infections). These painful conditions almost always occur in uncircumcised males. In babies, balanitis is caused by soiled diapers, as well as by playing or sitting in dirty areas.

[midnight Target]

3. Avoidance of penile cancer
After reviewing the data from 50,000 cases in the past half-century, Dr. Thomas Wiswell concluded that “circumcision categorically prevents penile cancer.” 14 Out of 50,000 cancer cases, only ten had occurred in circumcised men. These men had all been circumcised later in life. Thus, none of the men diagnosed with penile cancer had been circumcised during infancy. 15,16

I bet if we had little girls breasts removed we could avoid breast cancer too.

[Curval]

Originally posted by midnight Target


I bet if we had little girls breasts removed we could avoid breast cancer too.

Maybe..but if you get circumcised they don't cut the whole thing off...just the skin at the end.

[Dnil]

Sounds like someone is a little sensitive about their turtle neck.

[Dowding]

I've always found it makes for interesting talking point if the women hasn't been with a circumsized man before...

[Eagler]

this is to be expected from a culture that has Seven Day toejamters

ex AF co-worker was telling me about these, talk about nutcases

[Sandman]

1. Contradictory evidence regarding UTI can be found here: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/altschul/

2. The cervical cancer argument as been disproved here: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer//

3. For penile cancer: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer//maden/

4. For bacteria... proper care: http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/care/

The International Coalition for Genital Integrity has classified circumcision as a type I genital mutilation.

Circumcision is surgery, and like all surgery it has risks. These include:

Excessive bleeding
Injury to the glans
Infection (raw wound is exposed to feces and urine in diaper)
Complications from anaesthesia, if used
Surgical error, including removal of too much skin
In rare cases, complications can be life-threatening.

Up to 20% of circumcised males will suffer from one or more of the following complications, to some degree:

Meatal stenosis (narrowing of the urethral opening due to infection and subsequent scarring, that occurs almost exclusively in circumcised boys) [15]
extensive scarring of the penile shaft
skin tags and skin bridges
bleeding of the circumcision scar
curvature of the noodle
tight, painful erections
psychological and psychosexual problems

I stand by my statement. It's brutal and unnecessary.

[Thrawn]

What Sandman said.  And infantile amnesia is no rationalization for someone hurting and mutilating a baby.  The baby still experiences it.

The only reason people have their baby boys mutilated is because they're are sheep follow what's "normal" in western society.

Luckily, less and less people are practicing this bizarre ritual.

If having foreskin was so bad don't you think evolution would have taken care of it by now?

[Ripsnort]

Well, its not like your not known to put your head in the sand

I stand by mine, which, I might add, is supported by the AMA.

Through the 1990s and into the new millenium a reversal of the downtrend began. In the light of an increasing volume of medical scientific evidence pointing to the benefits of neonatal circumcision, the pediatric professional bodies of various countries have reviewed the evidence and formulated recent policy statements. The reports have to be read in their entirety to be fully comprehended. Isolated quotes taken from these by anti-circ groups is a problem. What is stated in the details of the various reports is much like what is presented in the present review of the medical literature. The latest statements of the American Association of Pediatrics in 1999 [7], the Canadian Paediatric Society [54] and the Australian College of Paediatrics in August 1995 and adopted by the College in May 1996 [11] provide information on the benefits and possibility of rare or minor risks. These fall short of drawing an obvious conclusion from the evidence they present, i.e., that circumcision is the best choice for lifetime health and sexual well-being. The hesitancy is undoubtedly a consequence of the sensitivity of this issue, as well as medico-legal caution and the recognition of the hysteria that this subject can provoke because of the diversity of opinion in the community, where anti-circ groups tend to bombard such professional bodies in an attempt to "win" their political cause. More on this is in the section "Anti-circumcision lobby groups".

Instead, the statements of these professional bodies urge medical practitioners to fully inform parents of the benefits and minor, rare risks of having their male children circumcised. Thus publicly they give the impression that the benefits and harms were very evenly balanced [64]. However, well-informed medical practitioners only have to read the statements in full to be able to draw their own conclusion. Recognized authorities in the USA in particular strongly advocate circumcision of all newborn boys.

[Curval]

I gotta be honest here....both my boys are UNcircumscised.

I just couldn't do it to them.