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

Misspixietrix

Oh heck.

CorusKate, I see a pretty united opinion on there not being a good medical reason for routine circumcision in the opinions of all medical organisations and legal bodies in the developed world, with exception of North America and Israel?

I can't think of a UK equivalent, where we hold an isolated opinion and set of guidelines or laws. Religion in schools perhaps?

Animation .

it must be an RoW out of step problem.

The Somali College of Paediatrics probably has some studies of their own.

Shakshuka Sun 06-Apr-14 16:03:14

How do you know I don't have a penis caruthers?

I know that you don't have a penis and I do know you are being disingenuous. But at the very least your non answer shows what motivates your opinions.

So so depressing and upsetting when people condone mutilating little girls and boys.

It starts with cultural reasons when those are,quite rightly,seen as bollocks, even those immersed in the culture, can't defend it so they then move into justifying it on health grounds.

Absolutely disgraceful.

Witch burning, circumsicion, FGM, binding of girls feet.

All the same cruel crap.

Shakshuka Sun 06-Apr-14 03:37:30

And we can quite understand why you, who do not come from a culture where male circumcision is the norm...

I wonder what made her fantasise that she knew anything about my culture.

Indeed PigletJohn me too. If you disagree. You're basically all toffee nosed white brits who don't have a clue. Even if you do.

And you, similarly, know not about mine since I never stated which one it is . Your statement was patronising in the extreme (and I still don't understand your use of the royal we).

Nor whether I am a man or a woman, although I'm not sure why it even matters.

I'm happy with the process I used to consider the issue of circumcision. I haven't seen any new evidence to make me change my mind. It's descending into real unpleasantness and abuse on the part of the anti circumcision gang so, like other posters, I'll admit to being bullied off.

Good luck with the rest of the monologue conversation.

To being bullied off? If you can't stand the heat don't stand in the kitchen. It is a debate. And what that always gets heated.

One*

It's a bit of a monologue because you are in a tiny minority here.

You can't get huffy just because most people point out that they think circumcision without a clear medical need is utter bollocks.

And that circumsicion in someone's front parlour without pain relief or proper medical care is weird, cruel, abusive and mutilating.

Shakshuka Sun 06-Apr-14 19:07:18
And you, similarly, know not about mine since I never stated which one it is

are you sure?

Shakshuka Sun 06-Apr-14 02:31:01
I'm not religious but I do come from a culture where male circumcision is the norm.

People providing clear ignored evidence is not bullying you off. The anti-circ 'gang' is preposterous. Just because Many disagree with a premise does not necessarily mean they are a gang.

CorusKate
"Which doctors and governments,"

Austria, Britain, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands
and by senior paediatricians in
Canada, the Czech Republic, France and Poland.

As a slight digression, it never fails to annoy me when someone says something like "MN always bangs one drum on this issue - does not mean that they are right though ...."

This thread has been highly polarised. I haven't done a count as such, but it seems a somewhat higher number of posters are strongly against routine circumcision whilst a substantial minority are equally strongly in favour, or at least in favour of a parent's right to opt for it. Given that most of the posters on both sides are fairly regular and for the most part respected contributors on a number of topics, how would you go about judging which side of the debate counts as MN and which is non-MN? In some senses we are all MN, in another sense none of us are. The Management hasn't expressed an "official" view, and even if they had, not all of us would agree with it - "us" encompassing in this context, not "the Royal we" , but everyone who chooses to post on this open discussion forum. Who's got the drum?

(ps If you're asking where I stand on this issue, I'd probably have shot anyone who tried to circumcise one of my precious boys, that's if their father didn't strangle the bugger first. But yeah, it could be cultural.)

CorusKate they were two. I married into a culture where this is the norm. I still didn't put ds through it. Any link that rebuts the premise held by others that it is done to prevent medical harm is classed as bias. I do however recommend you search the nocirc website but remember it IS bias. :)