What exactly is the advantage of circumcision and why is their such insistence?

[FrigginRexManningDay]

I was watching 'What to expect when you're expecting' last night and one of the male characters was insisting on circumcision for his unborn son,which turned out to be a girl.

One of the reasons he agreed with was making the penis less sensitive. I don't understand the reasons behind it. AFAIK its not healthier or cleaner. I understand it being done for medical reasons of course,but it just seems unnecessary to be so routine in America.

The perception of disfigurement is not cultural. Persecution, ostracism and different treatment of an individual who is disfigured is common throughout nature. Treatment for a disfigurement is a way of averting this treatment. Treating a disfigured person differently is totally wrong, but it happens everywhere and anywhere. A child with a large unsightly birthmark is sadly bound to be subject to a life being treated differently because of it. Treating a disfigurement is forestalling a life of being treated differently.
Circumsision is private and hidden. There are a few tenuous health benefits, otherwise, its done by parents purely to appease their religion. A baby is hardly likely to be persecuted by their peers for not being circumcised, theres a good chance their peers will never even know, and is never asked their opinion. If its that important to them, surely they can make the decision when they reach majority.

I mean, why?

As the great Jack Reacher would say () when it all boils down to it, who does it benefit? Really?

I'd say nobody. I'm not an atheist, I don't follow a religion, but I refuse to believe in a god or God who legitimately thinks it's a good idea.

(Sorry to be flip, I think it's time for bed!)

Circumcision isn't private and hidden. Have you never been to a brit milah or a khitan party? Ain't nothing private OR hidden!!

The health benefits aren't tenuous. They are there and they are real and the evidence for them is strong. It's true that the benefits aren't great but the magnitude doesn't make them tenuous.

And of course the perception of disfigurement is cultural! What one culture considers a disfigurement, another considers quite beautiful. And I never said a foreskin is a disfigurement, just that people ARE prepared to do procedures which aren't medically necessary for cultural reasons, except they have a mental block seeing past their own culture

If you are part of a culture or religion where circumcision is expected and the norm, then not being circumcised could really put your marriage prospects in jeopardy. It's not as simple as waiting until majority since you've missed the oppotunity to carry out the procedure simply and safely as a newborn. Doing it as an adult is far more complex, risky and painful. Many parents who circumcise their babies wish to save their children from the increased risk of circumcision when older.

I'm an atheist as well and I'd probably circumcise. God does much worse things in the bible than circumcision!

x post with kungfu
There are cultures where it is the norm, where circumcision is not performed by a doctor in a sterile environment. Id speculate that in those cultures, the risks are much greater and aren't necessarily outweighed by the benefits.

That's probably true Saggy but hardly relevant to the debate.

If you are an atheist, what do you care what God did? Atheists don't believe in God!
The health risks of not circumsising are also counteracted by teaching good hygiene and sensible use of barrier contraceptives. Surely a much less brutal path and one that the owner of the penis can take responsibility for themselves.
There is no earthly reason in the first world for the removal of a piece of your child in the name of religion.

And plenty of medical reasons in the third world for not letting some witch doctor remove a part of your child and expose them to infection.

a very interesting article

That's not quite true Saggy. For example, circumcised infants are 100 times less likely to get a UTI. And SOME of the health RISKS (good that you acknowledge that there is a risk) of not circumcsing can be mitigated by good hygiene and barrier contraceptives....and yet somehow there are many STIs which could be prevented by barrier contraceptives and are still around today. Funny that. Nonetheless, the benefits of contraception, while small, are still acknowledged in the medical community.

Yes, those 'third world' witch doctors who go around removing parts of children....yes, they are very relevant to this thread. I suspect that statement belies the general narrow minded thinking I've seen on this thread. Still, not to worry, I'll keep those witch doctors away from my boys ifI have any.

And while one may not believe in God, one may still believe he is mentioned many times in the bible

also very interesting

more debunking
The whole site is very interesting. Especially the page on circumcision and HIV.

Unsurprisingly, there are also pro-circumcision websites.
Like this:
www.circinfo.net/
www.gilgalsoc.org/pubs.html
www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews
www.malecircumcision.org/
www.circumcision.net/

Id suggest you check the above site out. Especially the bits about the effect of circumcision pain on newborns. And the invalidity of the research into HIV. Quite a lot of which was carried out in Africa. Where those witch doctors you are avoiding hang out.

Did you not think it interesting Saggy that that last page you linked to they ended by saying 'references available on request'. Why not put down your references? I know you think it's interesting - so do I, but perhaps in a different sense of the word.

I suggest you look at this page where they actually cite their references (generally considered good practice unless you have something to hide)
www.malecircumcision.org/research/male_circumcision_research.html

Not that I think HIV prevention is really reason enough in developed countries as heterosexual sex is not the main mode of transmission.

Are you aware that Africa is not a country?

www.malecircumcision.org/research/male_circumcision_research.html

Oh, I looked at the HIV page you suggested. References available upon request they say there as well. So basically we don't know if they're making it up as they go along. If you could actually see the references, maybe I'd take them seriously. What a joke of a website!

And the picture of the stern looking doctor at the side As though that is going to give them some authority rather than actually citing their references!!

This is what you rely for information? It actually explains A LOT!

Ah, but you aren't in Africa. You are citing your own evidence based on African studies then rejecting mine because you aren't in Africa. Which I never called a country BTW. Which has no bearing on the argument anyway--
Im sorry, but nothing you can say or do will ever convince me that radical surgery on a child to prevent something that can be prevented with decent education and a simple course of antibiotics is a good idea.
Its horrible. You inflict pain on a baby. You cut off a part of a baby. Its pointless and cruel.

What on earth are you talking about? All I'm asking is that they CITE their references.

Ah, going back to the name calling. OK, I think that sums up the essence of your argument.

I don't need to convince you. I've seen what you base your arguments on. I prefer to base mine in scientific evidence rather than hyperbole and conjecture.

I don't reject your evidence because I'm not in Africa (WTF?). I reject the 'evidence' you linked to because they don't cite the references which means we don't know if they're making it up. Which they probably are. Which is why they don't want to cite their references.

You can mock, which BTW weakens your argument and makes you look foolish, or you could request the references.
At least one of your links is clearly aimed at Africans. Do you live there?
Did you read the page on pain in newborns? Do you care? No.

Ive had enough now. Ive got better things to do.