WHO agree with circumcision

[Creole]

Alas, some benefits of circumcision.
circumcision

Oh I'm all for slicing yer cock up.Really civilised behaviour innit?

Thing is those "benefits"....yes, tehy possibly could be a benefit to a few people that may have those problems, but shold we not then just give all BAbygirls mastectomies, to reduce the risk of possible breastcancer develloping, or pull all teeth out, incase of infections, or pull mails out, because they could possibly get infected or be in-growing, or amputate legs incase we may break them...the list would be pretty endless, tbh...of what we would, should/could remove to avoid possible problems in the future...basically, maybe we just shouldn't have children at all, afterall, nothing can happen to someone who never existed...

hear hear.

lol, that was nails not mails, lol

lol at slicing yer cock up!

Actually, I think it is unlike female 'circumcision'.

I read this in the paper and thought of MN...

it's TOTALLY unlike female circumcision - there is absolutely NO benifit whatsoever for female circumcision - it is quite simply mutilation.

. Whereas there can be benefits for males.

"Have yourself and your partner tested for HIV before you ditch the condoms."

oh yes - so easy to do in developing countries where this is being recommended.

And I think this quote

"Three African trials have shown that circumcision halved the rate of HIV infection in heterosexual men."

would be reason enough to follow it through.

"All three African trials were stopped early because the results were so dramatic - with reduced rates of new HIV infections of 48-60%."

And in countries where up to 1/4 of the population is living with HIV I think that's pretty staggering!

But to then extend the results of this study in Africa in an attempt to justify infant circumcision here (rather than consensual adult circumcision) seems a bit of a leap to me. And smacks of adopting research to justify a procedure that some might have had done NOT for the medical benefit. I truly truly doubt that circumcisions done here in the UK or in America are done as a "preventative" measure in respect of HIV/cervical or penile cancer.

I too am uneasy about comparing male/female circumcision. Not sure why, but am.

However, I would have thought it would be cheaper, and make more sense to advocate condom use and washing of penis to really limit the spread of HIV/cervical cancer rather than the wholesale circumcision route.

fannyannie..no one said it couldn't be beneficial for grown/sexual active males in Africa or other areas where the Aids rates are high and hygiene is very much an issue...but western Baby boys do not geberally fall into that category, so, for them these benefits do not count....therefore circumcision is unecessary (unless there are true medical reasons...which is a whole different issue).

I assume, the cultures in which female circumcision is done will argue that there are benefits to that...in the end though...unless there is a medical necessaty male and female circumcision are equally mutilation....

but the article doesn't say that its being recommended world wide! It says

"The recommendations largely apply to countries where rates of heterosexual transmission is high." - ie developing countries particularly in Africa.

But not equally mutilating surely?

"However, I would have thought it would be cheaper, and make more sense to advocate condom use and washing of penis to really limit the spread of HIV/cervical cancer rather than the wholesale circumcision route."

The article also says that this would be done ALONG SIDE existing measures to encourage condom use!

fannyannie..exactly, and that bit is not disputed really...but some people see it as a "here you go, told you so...there are benefits to it", as in see we are right to do it to our newborn Babys too...we do it to protect them from this, unlike you norty parents that don't believe it's rightto do...kinda thing!

and, o.k. maybe it's not quite an equal mutilation, but a mutilation non the less....

I take that as a reference to my posts.

But the point of my posts are, alot of people from the anti-circumcision bridgade have stated there are NO scientific benefits blah, blah. And it seems some are now back tracking.

I have never in my posts stated whether am for /against on male circumcision.

What I believe is, this is a public support forum where people come for advice. People shouldn't be attacked for their choices, nor should we force our views on them.

I think we all know circumcision will never be eradicated, just like prostitution really.

Each to their own I say.

Creole

Creole...you are right you didn't actually say which side you are on, lol!
However, o.k. the research finally has been accepted by WHO, and that is a good thing...I am a person that does trust WHO, as they don't take just the odd minor study and go wiht that, but look at the wider picture...however, teh research only justifys sexually active adult circumcision, so, it doesn't apply to anyone other than that group...so, yes, accumulated (sp?) research has shown a benefit for a certain group, but that is all it has done...therefore there are still no true benefits to circumcision that will actually justify this sort of mutilation.

I'm sorry I still don't think you can class male circumcision with female gential mutilation AT ALL.

FGC has NO benifits whatsoever, and in a very large % of cases causes long term damage or even death. Male circumcision does have some benifits - and complications arising from it are much rarer.

"According to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for Type I, 32% for Type II, and 55% for Type III). Mothers with FGC Type III were also found to be 30% more at risk for cesarean sections and had a 70% increase in postpartum hemorrhage compared to women without FGC. Estimating from these results, and doing a rough population estimate of mothers in Africa with FGC, an additional 10 to 20 per thousand babies in Africa die during delivery as a result of the mothers having undergone genital cutting."

Whereas male circumcision has a complication rate of just 1-2%.......AND does have some medical benifits. It also doesn't stop the man having a "normal" sex life and use of his penis - whereas FMC does.

fannyannie, well,a ctually that is not correct, it does blokes sexuality, believe me...I know...my dh had a circumcision for medical reasons....it does effect him...and me, too....

maybe in a TINY % of cases it does - but no way in the same way that female genital mutilation does....

no, if course it doesn't, and if you read a previous message of mine I did say that it isn't the same, however, it still is mutilation, which was all I said....and come on, no matter how much you want to white wash that fact...that is the truth...unless there is a medical necessaty it's not a thing one should do to their new born baby...ffs, there are people who think it's bad to give the Kids their immunisations, which are, impo a necessatity medically....oh yeah, just lets cut some skin of our Kids, and let it be at one of the most sensitive parts...the part that isn't even meant to disconnect at all from a newborn...the foreskin...wonderful...........sorry, still a painful procedure for religious beliefs or cosmetic reasons...and neither whitewashes with me, personally...

oh, and don't think the percentage is so tiny, there are poor blokes who have a foreskin remade because they have been mutilated and feel not right...surely, it would be better to just let them make their minds up about loosing it in the first place...surely only medical necessary removal of foreskin is actually ethical!
I mean, we wouldn't just remove anything else..just incase....oh yeah, maybe we should schedule every adult for a livertransplant..they bound to abuse that organ...insanity...or not?

Well my hubby believes in circumcission for our little boy and i dont we are from diff countries cultural differences right there, I think it's just torture for te boy i have brothers who are doing ok.

My son was circumcised. I lived in Israel ad all boys are done there on the 8th day after birth. Believe me, he hardly peeped, the Rabbi that did it has done millions of other babies and it was all over and done with in a few seconds.

The healing process went without any notice.

I accepted to have him done (even though I am not Jewish) as all males there are, and I wouldn't want him to be any different from his peers, school, army etc...as he grew up.. (that would have caused more stress in the long run)...

Personally, my opinion, I think its better for it to be done.

I remember my little brother having an rash under his foreskin (he was about 3) and he went through agony with it. It was just something that stuck in my mind. (Even he remembers it)!

First off, apologies for resurrecting this thread, I'm aware that it's not viewed as good form on this site, but I've only just seen it and as this is a subject that I feel extremely strongly about I just had to add my two pennies worth.

People like me, who are totally against infant male circumscision unless there are complelling medical reasons for it, are often told that by voicing our opinions we are not respecting others' right to choose to have their sons circumscised.

I think that's missing the whole point.

The whole point is that it is patently not under any circumstance a parent's right to choose to make a decision to totally unnecessarily mutilate their child's body without their consent.

In short, my position is that morally, it is simply not their choice to make. End of.

I find it totally bizzaire that in the UK there is legislation to protect dogs from the unnecessary and cruel practice of mutilating dogs' tails by docking yet there is no legislation on the statute book to protect the unnecessary mutilation of the penises of male infants and children.

here's my view (i'm religious and circumsised my son) health benefits are b*llo&ks, excuse the pun. circumsised men are less likely to get HIV as they are probbly religious, and therefore less liely to be promiscuous (moral self or just more scared of punishment)