WTF? "Half of all uncircumcised males will, over the course of their lifetime, develop some kind of medical issue related to their foreskin."

[missingwelliesinsd]

Question as a Brit in the USA. I just read this news article on the never-ending debate (in the USA at least) of whether it's better to circumcise male babies. Some paper just issued by the Mayo Clinic concluded that the benefits out weigh the risks 100-1 and it would be unethical to not circumcise a male baby just it it would be if you don't get immunizations for your child. WTF?

I know that circumcising can help reduce STD transmissions - but hey, just use a condom! What I can't believe is that "50% of non-circumcised males have medical issues with their foreskins." That would make 50% of most of the male population of Europe having foreskin issues at some point. Can this be right? I tend to think it's just American prejudice against foreskins after decades of snipping. I'm TTC and if I do and we have a boy, no way am I snipping the poor thing.

Here's the article:
jezebel.com/circumcision-rates-decline-in-the-u-s-1557539810

Thank you - i can't link or copy and paste on my phone.

Quite clear that its not mutilation.

shakshuka there's no health benefits to circumcision neither.

My dp is Jewish and he is 'done' and so is my dss. We had our ds done when he was 2 weeks old. I thought about it a lot when I was pg and decided it was a good idea based on the problems highlighted above.

When the baby is so young it is a very minor op. We had it done in a reputable ( v important ) clinic. It took 5 mins no exaggeration. My baby cried more for the fact he hates being naked lol. Afterwards we gave him a feed and he forgot all about it. There have been no issues all healed etc. apparently they gave no nerve endings there at that age.

Misspixie

There definitely are health benefitd. Do a bit more research.

Caruthers

My mistake. I didnt realise you were posting as a group in lockstep, representing one another.

What are peoples prejudices?

You seem unable or reticent to define what you meant.

Do a bit more research oh dear god. Do you even bother to read the thread? That link was trotted out about 'health benefits' . Then people against trotted out scientific links refuting that bonkers assertion! Mutilate - to damage something irreparably. As you can't repair it per se. Yes the description fits.

Prepare yourself for a tirade now as you are, according to the ignorant and uninformed, a mutilator and child abuser.

Sashh, thanks for those two links. The first dates back to 1998. There has been an material body of research since then which has reliably shown that the foreskin is associated with a higher incidence of several bacterial and viral-transmitted illnesses. That, in my view, indicates that the foreskin does not have an immunological function; quite the opposite.

Your second link is to an intactivist website. That is their 'homemade' literature - it is not actually a scientific report. While it does string together a lot of medical terms, it does not articulate any actual immunological benefit of having a foreskin, eg: what conditions does it protect against? How much protection does it offer? How has that been verified? Are the studies peer-reviewed?

More research would mean doing more than just reading this thread.

There you go again Prima. Shouting bias to anyone who provides irrefutable links. Shakshuka I am neither ignorant or uninformed thanks. Neither are the other people on this thread who have the audacity to disagree with you.

"There definitely are health benefitd. Do a bit more research."

Load of Rubbish!

Then you clearly need to read the thread again. Most people on here have done more than just read the thread as a premise of their research.

Animation the research is only acceptable if it is supporting the circ argument. HTH. :)

Primafacie

I wouldn't bother. People have made up their minds and are only seeking confirmation that circumcision is terrible.

Even if research showed how great might be, such research would be discredited as the poweful Jewish lobby seeking to find medical reasons to justofy circumcision as has happened on this thread. It simply doesnt fit the narrative of mutilation and abuse. Shocking.

The cries of ignorant and uninformed are annoying, arent they?

No I wouldnt bother neither. Especially when alt links provided are simply being dismissed as bollocks. It's also rather ignorant to suggest that those who disagree with the practice have no insight into how other people's religions and cultures work but hey ho.

Yes of course they are. Especially when said by someone who's well...uninformed.

try this

For me this isn't about the benefits or otherwise its about the removal of a healthy piece of skin for no reason.

and yes men do complain about it so those saying that its ok because DH/DS/DSS have no issues are wrong.

Thank you for proving my point, misspixie.

A rationalisation - the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason.

This is all rationalistion not valid research.

dontForgetYourBrolly personally I would hope you were arrested and charged with grievous bodily harm.

Why don't you chop bits off your vulva?

There are absolutely no he doth benefits from this cruel act unless it is done for strictly medical benefits under an anaesthetic.

Simply vile. And you added a lol about your child crying!

Completely agree animation.