Circumcision as abuse

How can it be anything other than abuse? The physical mutilation, the
severe emotional and mental stress the child is placed under, are all
quite clearly a disturbing form of abuse.

If the child's health/life depended on it, then it would be
understandable.

What would you call it if someone came up to you and briefly informed
you (if they even bothered!) that they were going to cut a part of you
away from yourself? Because THEY had decided it would be best for you.
I cant imagine what a child must feel as all this is going on,
strangers cutting away at his body, removing a part of who he is,
whilst mummy and/or daddy are standing there watching? How messed up
is that?

That leads to the very good point you raise that this could well then
lead that child to grow up more aggressively as a form of protection
and prevention of that happening again.

Then the emotional issues for later on in life....it's truly
appalling.

Johanne-

On 1 Apr 2004 00:01:08 -0800, [email hidden]
(nahasafeemapetelan) wrote:

[unanesthetized circ]

Who does that ?

Such a person should be shot the very moment.

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--
*** DER NEUE VEREIN ***

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_p0.htm

From the perspective of an observant old grandma......
I've seen the benefits of circumcision for little boys through the years.
When they are babies it is much easier to keep them clean. As they aged and
become sexually active, the guys who were not circumcised tended to pick up
'diseases' more readily.....they were not as physically 'attractive' to
females as were circumcised men......and they were not as 'relaxed and
confident' about their sexual abilities or performance.

Perhaps not being as physically 'attractive' lead them to have sex with the
type of women who were more likely to carry sexual diseases (via multi
'unconfident' partners). Likewise, when speaking openly with uncircumcised
adult males in a safe non-sexual environment, they would express feeling a
bit 'out of the norm' and wished they'd been circumcised as babies.

No, I have no 'scientific' data or funded 'study' to reference.
I have never heard of a circumcised male who was traumatized
and wished as an adult that he'd never been circumcised. Quite the
opposite.

Coleah
====================
"Johanne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How can it be anything other than abuse? The physical mutilation, the
severe emotional and mental stress the child is placed under, are all
quite clearly a disturbing form of abuse.

If the child's health/life depended on it, then it would be
understandable.

What would you call it if someone came up to you and briefly informed
you (if they even bothered!) that they were going to cut a part of you
away from yourself? Because THEY had decided it would be best for you.
I cant imagine what a child must feel as all this is going on,
strangers cutting away at his body, removing a part of who he is,
whilst mummy and/or daddy are standing there watching? How messed up
is that?

That leads to the very good point you raise that this could well then
lead that child to grow up more aggressively as a form of protection
and prevention of that happening again.

Then the emotional issues for later on in life....it's truly
appalling.

Johanne-

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 18:30:24 GMT, "Coleah" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

From the perspective of an observant old grandma......
I've seen the benefits of circumcision for little boys through the years.
When they are babies it is much easier to keep them clean.

This is probably true.

Quoted message said:

As they aged and
become sexually active, the guys who were not circumcised tended to pick up
'diseases' more readily

I believe that epidemiological evidence suggests that uncircumcised
males are much more likely to get AIDS than their counterparts.

Quoted message said:

.....they were not as physically 'attractive' to
females as were circumcised men

I suspect that this has more to do with unfamiliarity with the
uncircumcised penis. In Europe where circumcision is less common I
suspect women find the circumcised penis less attractive.

Quoted message said:

......and they were not as 'relaxed and
confident' about their sexual abilities or performance.

Actually circumcision causes desensitization of the penis which is not
good wrt sexual performance or enjoyment (for the male).

Quoted message said:

Likewise, when speaking openly with uncircumcised
adult males in a safe non-sexual environment, they would express feeling a
bit 'out of the norm' and wished they'd been circumcised as babies.

I suspect that again this has to do with being different from the norm
in their region.

Quoted message said:

No, I have no 'scientific' data or funded 'study' to reference.
I have never heard of a circumcised male who was traumatized
and wished as an adult that he'd never been circumcised. Quite the
opposite.

That is not true. There are many men who have decreased sensitivity in
their penis that wish they were not circumcised. This is especially
true when they get older when it is more difficult to get an erection.

Aloha,

Rich

Quoted message said:

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance

<Rich.@.> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

......and they were not as 'relaxed and
confident' about their sexual abilities or performance.

Actually circumcision causes desensitization of the penis which is not
good wrt sexual performance or enjoyment (for the male).

From a woman's perspective 'sensitive penis' are not as satisfiying for
"them" longevity-wise. If a balance is desired between enjoyment (for the
male) and a climatic ending performance (for the female) a circumcised penis
is perferred by the woman. If on the other hand a man is 'super sensitive'
and his enjoyment thus short-lived he could experience the same effect with
a box of warm liver.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, I have no 'scientific' data or funded 'study' to reference.
I have never heard of a circumcised male who was traumatized
and wished as an adult that he'd never been circumcised. Quite the
opposite.

That is not true.

As I was speaking strictly for myself and my experience....it is.

Quoted message said:

There are many men who have decreased sensitivity in
their penis that wish they were not circumcised. This is especially
true when they get older when it is more difficult to get an erection.
Aloha,
Rich

This is a new area for me to learn and understand. I have heard of
difficult in older men with getting and maintaining erections, but thought
it was an internal hormonal or prostrate type condition. Women have
discomfort as they get older which can assist in a general lack of desire
for sex. I've seen the television commercials about erectile dysfunction
(Bob Dole), but have not taken the opportunity to educate myself from a
males perspective (probably since any overwhelming desire for sex was years
and years ago <g>.)

Thanks for sharing, Rich. I will do some reading for an expanded point of
view.

Coleah

"nahasafeemapetelan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
In the best situation, the procedure should be left to the

Quoted message said:

individual to make his own choice after the age of consent. I'm
afraid your wild rhetorical style will doom your effectiveness, but I
wish you the best in your quest.

=======================
I agree 100%! I was talked into having this done by the hospital personal
(and my mother) to my own son back in the 1960s. To think how he must have
suffered.... and all for nothing!
--
Kim
The most amazing BS artists there are:
http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Johanne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Then the emotional issues for later on in life....it's truly
appalling.

==========================
It is appalling! What's most appalling is how many centuries this had been
going on! It's only now that anyone is asking questions and wondering what
the hell they were doing..... sickening!
--
Kim
Colonics to clean out your stuffed up @$$
Of all the toxic goodies you do not pass
Globs of gunk and the mucus you store
Parasites, flukes and worms galore
So take a colonic so you can pass
All these nasties from your paracitized @$$.....
The most amazing BS artists there are:
http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

X-No-Archive: yes

<Rich.@.> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There can be many reasons but decreased sensitivity is one of them.
Men have a hard (no pun intended) enough time, when they age, in
getting an erection, that any decrease in sensitivity is going to work
against them.

====================
I have a close male friend who is 55 years old. Both he and his wife
confided in me several times about their sexual difficulties. He would need
Viagra about 2 hours BEFORE sex to get an erection. By the time the pill
worked, often one or both had lost interest in sex. The spontaneity was
gone. Sex was becoming a chore instead of pleasure and fun. There were
times the Viagra didn't work at all! Their sex-life was the pits. Due
mostly to other reason she finally left him last year. He was very worried
the next women would find him undesirable because of his erectile
dysfunction. I could understand that. His self-esteem was down the
toilet.

Enter a YOUNGER and much thinner, prettier woman than his wife was. He
recently met a 41 year old divorcee who looks about 30! (I don't know if
she had a face lift, or facial surgery). After a very brief time they
became intimate. Despite his fears he had NO ERECTION PROBLEM with this
younger women!

What does something like this tell us? This is the THIRD man I've known who
suddenly lost his erection problems with a new partner! Are many of these
older men with a problem just tired of their wives? They don't find then
sexually attractive or stimulating anymore? Why does a new partner suddenly
cause them to function normally again? The other 2 men were with new women
but woman their same age - not younger women. I wonder if any research has
been done on this?
--
Kim
Colonics to clean out your stuffed up @$$
Of all the toxic goodies you do not pass
Globs of gunk and the mucus you store
Parasites, flukes and worms galore
So take a colonic so you can pass
All these nasties from your paracitized @$$.....
The most amazing BS artists there are:
http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For those who are interested, a link to an archive of the Men's Health
article on circumcision I referred to in an earlier posting:

http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm

Warning: contains photos some may find disturbing.

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 18:30:24 GMT, "Coleah" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

From the perspective of an observant old grandma......
I've seen the benefits of circumcision for little boys through the years.
When they are babies it is much easier to keep them clean.

If you think so, you were doing it wrong. Many doctors did tell
mothers to retract the foreskin and clean under it. This is wrong and
was known to be wrong then. A boys foreskin should be retracted for
cleaning exactly as often as you would douche a baby girl - Never!!

See
http://familydoctor.org/x2276.xml#How_do_I_care_for_my_baby%27s_penis_if_I_choose_not_to_have_him_circumcised_

Quoted message said:

As they aged and
become sexually active, the guys who were not circumcised tended to pick up
'diseases' more readily.....they were not as physically 'attractive' to
females as were circumcised men......and they were not as 'relaxed and
confident' about their sexual abilities or performance.

There is no proof of this. It is an old wives tale.

....

Quoted message said:

No, I have no 'scientific' data or funded 'study' to reference.
I have never heard of a circumcised male who was traumatized
and wished as an adult that he'd never been circumcised. Quite the
opposite.

You have now heard of a circumcised male who wishes as an adult that
he had never been circumcised. And as a teen too. The butcher who
circumcised me took off so much skin that as a teen erections were
painful. If I could find his tombstone I would scratch on it "Burning
in hell for circumcising baby boys."

Ma'am, I fear that you are quite ignorant about the subject.
Recommend next time that you do not post.

--
Neal

Note: To contact, unmunge and remove the "@giganews.com" from the address

"Tanya" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those who are interested, a link to an archive of the Men's Health
article on circumcision I referred to in an earlier posting:

http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm

Warning: contains photos some may find disturbing.

From the article...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In 1985, Milos founded NOCIRC. "It's all such an unspeakable cover-up. The

doctors are in denial, so the hospitals are in denial, so the parents are
intentionally, illegally uninformed. Circumcision is the worst fraud in
American medical history."<<
http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm

NO CIRC Founder Marilyn Milos helped PERPETUATE the fraud!

See Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398

"Tanya" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those who are interested, a link to an archive of the Men's Health
article on circumcision I referred to in an earlier posting:

http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm

Warning: contains photos some may find disturbing.

==================================
OMG... that poor helpless infant. :*( They don't even put something on it
to numb the pain.
--
Kim
The most amazing BS artists there are:
http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/naturopathicmafia/Quackery.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

james T said:

nahasafeemapetelan said:

I think you're right that
at least unanesthetized circ should be considered criminal child
abuse.

Why don't they just freeze it with that ethyl-chloride [censored]?

US medical practice is not to use anaesthesia on children under 2 years
for minor surgery. Until a few years ago no anaesthesia was used even in
the case of major surgery (eg organ transplants) for infants under 2
years : US doctors were tought that children under 2 years don't feel
pain like adults and hence the risk of death from anaesthesia was not
justified. Most US doctors only started using anaesthesia for major
surgery when some of the immigrant doctors (who were universally
appalled by US practice) kept careful records and proved that the
mortality rate was twice as high for major surgery performed without
anaesthesia on infants under 2 yeas.

Of course US doctors continue to perform "minor" surgery on infants
without anaesthesia, since there is no evidence of higher mortality
rates from not using anaesthesia in minor surgery. One wonders how they
reconcile their belief the infants under 2 years don't feel real pain
with the higher mortality rates in major surgery (where the most likely
explaination is that half the babies were dying from shock caused by pain).

Note that in adults (who certainly feel pain) major surgery without
anaesthesia (which does happend accidentally or in emergency room
settings) actually has marginally lower mortality rates, indicating
that, if anything, adults are more capable of handling excruciating pain
than infants under 2 years of age.

nahasafeemapetelan said:

Todd, as a former medical assistant, I agree with you that infant
circumcision is child abuse. I've wondered if that, along with
hormonal differences, of course, is what makes boys and girls
different from each other psychologically.

Note that most psychological studies showing differences in boys and
girls under the age of 4-6 years were performced in USA while, similar
studies in Europe fail to show any differences.
(Differences after the age of 4-6 occur in both USA and Europe, but by
that age it is likely that upbringing alone could explain those
differences).

One intriguing explanation (other than the US knee jerk response that
European research is inferior to US research) is that male infants in
USA are subjected to surgery without anaesthesia while European male
infants are not.

"Neal" <nealUNDERSCOREsmithATrocketmailDOTcom> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you think so, you were doing it wrong. Many doctors did tell
mothers to retract the foreskin and clean under it. This is wrong and
was known to be wrong then. A boys foreskin should be retracted for
cleaning exactly as often as you would douche a baby girl - Never!!

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.
I didn't mean forcibly retracting newborns, and you are correct.
As a baby boy developes more care is needed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As they aged and become sexually active, the guys who were
not circumcised tended to pick up 'diseases' more readily.....they
were not as physically 'attractive' to females as were circumcised
men......and they were not as 'relaxed and
confident' about their sexual abilities or performance.

Quoted message said:

There is no proof of this. It is an old wives tale.

Hmmmm.....here is some things I found in my brief search.
http://www.circinfo.net

Urinary Tract Infections
The association of lack of circumcision with infections of the urinary tract
is unequivocal.
In a study of 14,893 male infants aged < 1 year who had been delivered
during 1996 at Kaiser Permanente hospitals in Northern California, 86% of
the UTIs occurred in the uncircumcised boys. Incidence during the first
year of life was 2.2% in uncircumcised boys and just 0.22% in circumcised
(odds ratio = 9:1).

Phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin)

Paraphimosis (where the retracted foreskin cannot be brought back again over
the glans)

Zipper injury In uncircumcised boys the foreskin can become accidentally
entrapped in zippers

Elderly men In elderly men, infections and pain from balanoposthitis,
phimosis and paraphimosis are seen and carers report problems in achieving
optimal hygiene in uncircumcised men.

Bathroom 'splatter' Boys and men who are not circumcised can be a source of
irritation if they do not retract the foreskin when they urinate, as
'splatter' will occur.

Frenular chordee , results from an unusually thick and often tight frenulum
and prevents the foreskin from fully retracting, being present in a quarter
of all uncircumcised males [78]. The frenulum then tears during intercourse
or masturbation.

Psychological sequelae Follow-up 5 years later of 117 boys circumcised for
phimosis, balanitis scarring of the prepuce, or ballooning when urinating
found that 95% expressed complete satisfaction and the only psychological
effect was slight shyness in the school change-room in 9% of boys in this
Swedish study [207, 208]. The study showed that parents had nothing to fear
for their son's psychological well-being from circumcision.

INFLAMMATORY DERMATOSES
Most cases of inflammatory dermatoses are diagnosed in uncircumcised men.
Thus circumcision is protective

Balanitis:
In babies, balanitis is caused by soiled diapers, playing and sitting in
dirty areas, antibiotic therapy, as well as yeast and other micro-organisms.
Balanitis caused by the group A haemolytic variety of Streptococcus is
present "exclusively in uncircumcised boys".

Posthitis
Inflammation of the foreskin is limited to uncircumcised males.
Other disorders include psoriasis, penile infections, lichen sclerosus,
lichen planus, schorrheic dermatitis, and Zoon balanitis (referred to
above). All patients with Zoon balanitis, bowenoid papulosis, and
nonspecific balanoposthitis were uncircumcised. Lichen sclerosis is found in
4-19% of all foreskins [54]. In older patients progressive Lichen sclerosis
or other inflammatory changes lead to phimosis [14]. For a more extensive
account on diseases of the penis see [57, 110]

SEXUALLY-TRANSMITTED DISEASES
In South Australia, a study in 1992 showed that uncircumcised men had more
chlamidia (odds ratio 1.3) and gonoccocal infections (odds ratio 2.1).
Similarly in 1988 a study in Seattle of 2,800 heterosexual men reported
higher syphilis and gonorrhea in uncircumcised men, but no difference in
herpes, chlamidia and non-specific urethritis (NSU).

Penile Cancer
American Cancer Society web page shows 1300 cases annually with 220
fatalities (1997 data). Penile cancer represents approximately 0.1-1% of all
malignancies in men in the USA and other western countries. penile cancer
occurs almost entirely in uncircumcised men. Neonatal circumcision
virtually abolishes the risk

PROSTRATE CANCER
Prostate cancer accounts for 27% of new cancers in males and 7% of deaths.
Uncircumcised men have twice the incidence of prostate cancer compared with
circumcised, and this cancer is rare amongst Jews

============================================

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, I have no 'scientific' data or funded 'study' to reference.
I have never heard of a circumcised male who was traumatized
and wished as an adult that he'd never been circumcised. Quite the
opposite.

Quoted message said:

You have now heard of a circumcised male who wishes as an adult that
he had never been circumcised. And as a teen too. The butcher who
circumcised me took off so much skin that as a teen erections were
painful. If I could find his tombstone I would scratch on it "Burning
in hell for circumcising baby boys."

Have you looked into other possile causes:
Painful erections:
a.. Penis disorder
a.. Peyronie's disease
a.. Priapism

or looked for a' foreskin restoration clinic' to correct things

Here's an unscientific website with stretching techniques.
http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/restore/uncirc.txt

=================================

Quoted message said:

Ma'am, I fear that you are quite ignorant about the subject.
Recommend next time that you do not post.
Neal

Don't fear just because I have never heard your point of view.
And thank you for sharing, Neal.
People learn from other people posting.
Terrific results and education can come out of shaing, observations,
experiences and points of view from lot's of other posters. Thank goodness
for learning, when we are willing to open ourselves up to different
possibilities, rather than cling to the stilted life of just one. Live in
peace.

Coleah

Thank you for posting that link. I started crying while I saw those
pictures and I feel *so* glad I decided not to put my son through that. He
had to have several heel [censored] blood draws as it was in the hospital and he
was clearly upset for quite a while after each one.

Why put a little baby who doesn't understand pain or what's going on through
a COSMETIC procedure? Especially without anesthesia. I wonder how many
American men would be willing to go through circumcision without any
painkiller? *shakes head*

If Ian wants a circumsized penis, then he can have it done when he's 18,
along with piercings, tattoos, or any other body modification he feels the
need to get. IMO, it's not my decision to make.

Another good website to refer people to is
http://groups.msn.com/APhearts/circumcision.msnw. It has numerous articles,
including another one with pictures, although not as compelling as this one
was.

- Joanne
DS Ian, 5 mos old on 4/6!

"Tanya" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those who are interested, a link to an archive of the Men's Health
article on circumcision I referred to in an earlier posting:

http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm

Warning: contains photos some may find disturbing.

Like many things in today's world....lifestyles, traditions and
practices......are being challenged as now being abusive, mean spirited,
'unequal' or 'unfair' to some group or another. Having lived through some
pendulum swings already, I have no doubt that this issue will make a wide
swing as well.

Then years down the road when enough men have gotten penis cancer, a variety
of infections and STD's (passing them on to partners) the pendulum will
swing back again with lawsuits against the government, doctors and HMO's for
failing to adequately protect the men of America. Perhaps sons may sue
parents for the money to have it done as adults, shaming them for not doing
it for them when they were infants. (It's kind of like having your tonsils
out....adults have a much harder time with it than children.

In the future, educate your uncircumcised sons of the importance of hopping
right out of bed and washing every time after sex. Particularly if they
have multiple partners (e-coli is found naturally in vagina's, but not a
pretty thing when transferred to another vagina via an uncircumcised male
who put off cleaning up). The moist environment in the little hooded
monster can grow all kinds of goodies to provide grief.

Circumcise or not?
Six of one......half dozen of the other, pick your own poison.

Life IS like a box of chocolates,
Coleah
=======================
"jjmoreta" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thank you for posting that link. I started crying while I saw those
pictures and I feel *so* glad I decided not to put my son through that.

He

Quoted message said:

had to have several heel [censored] blood draws as it was in the hospital and

he

Quoted message said:

was clearly upset for quite a while after each one.

Why put a little baby who doesn't understand pain or what's going on

through

Quoted message said:

a COSMETIC procedure? Especially without anesthesia. I wonder how many
American men would be willing to go through circumcision without any
painkiller? *shakes head*

If Ian wants a circumsized penis, then he can have it done when he's 18,
along with piercings, tattoos, or any other body modification he feels the
need to get. IMO, it's not my decision to make.

Another good website to refer people to is
http://groups.msn.com/APhearts/circumcision.msnw. It has numerous

articles,

Quoted message said:

including another one with pictures, although not as compelling as this

one

Quoted message said:

was.

- Joanne
DS Ian, 5 mos old on 4/6!

"Tanya" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For those who are interested, a link to an archive of the Men's Health
article on circumcision I referred to in an earlier posting:

http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm

Warning: contains photos some may find disturbing.

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:26:11 GMT, "Coleah" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Neal" <nealUNDERSCOREsmithATrocketmailDOTcom> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you think so, you were doing it wrong. Many doctors did tell
mothers to retract the foreskin and clean under it. This is wrong and
was known to be wrong then. A boys foreskin should be retracted for
cleaning exactly as often as you would douche a baby girl - Never!!

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.
I didn't mean forcibly retracting newborns, and you are correct.
As a baby boy developes more care is needed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As they aged and become sexually active, the guys who were
not circumcised tended to pick up 'diseases' more readily.....they
were not as physically 'attractive' to females as were circumcised
men......and they were not as 'relaxed and
confident' about their sexual abilities or performance.

Quoted message said:

There is no proof of this. It is an old wives tale.

Hmmmm.....here is some things I found in my brief search.
http://www.circinfo.net

You certainly went to a very biased site. I can refute virtually
everything they say, but that would be a Verrry long post.

Let's look at some countervailing facts:

From the 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics

http://www.aap.org/policy/re9850.html

"SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits
of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient
to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

Note that those are only potential benefits.

Quoted message said:

Urinary Tract Infections
The association of lack of circumcision with infections of the urinary tract
is unequivocal.
In a study of 14,893 male infants aged < 1 year who had been delivered
during 1996 at Kaiser Permanente hospitals in Northern California, 86% of
the UTIs occurred in the uncircumcised boys. Incidence during the first
year of life was 2.2% in uncircumcised boys and just 0.22% in circumcised
(odds ratio = 9:1).

There has only been one prospective study (all the rest were
retrospective, with all the flaws of studies of that type). That was
the Toronto study. http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/to2/

"Our estimated relative risk for admission for UTI of 3.7 was similar
to that reported by Craig and colleagues13 (4·8, table 2) but lower
than estimates reported by others."

So they reported a UTI rate less than half the rate generally being
reported. And they admit that some of the boys classified as
uncircumcised may have been later circumcised outside the hospital.
They also noted that circumcision was associated with a higher
socioeconomic status, and it is known that a lower socioeconomic
status is associated with a high incidence of health problems.

From their data, you would have to circumcise 100 boys to prevent 3.7
UTIs, and then one of the circumcised boys would get a UTI anyway.

Quoted message said:

Phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin)

Cutting off the finger prevents hangnails, too.

Quoted message said:

Paraphimosis (where the retracted foreskin cannot be brought back again over
the glans)

Is almost always iatrogenic

Quoted message said:

Zipper injury In uncircumcised boys the foreskin can become accidentally
entrapped in zippers

Ha!!! And if they are that careless and are circumcised, they will
catch the glans or shaft skin. Show me a documented case.

Quoted message said:

Elderly men In elderly men, infections and pain from balanoposthitis,
phimosis and paraphimosis are seen and carers report problems in achieving
optimal hygiene in uncircumcised men.

Bathroom 'splatter' Boys and men who are not circumcised can be a source of
irritation if they do not retract the foreskin when they urinate, as
'splatter' will occur.

Old wives tale.

Quoted message said:

Frenular chordee , results from an unusually thick and often tight frenulum
and prevents the foreskin from fully retracting, being present in a quarter
of all uncircumcised males [78]. The frenulum then tears during intercourse
or masturbation.

Cutting off the finger prevents hangnails, too.
....

Quoted message said:

SEXUALLY-TRANSMITTED DISEASES
In South Australia, a study in 1992 showed that uncircumcised men had more
chlamidia (odds ratio 1.3) and gonoccocal infections (odds ratio 2.1).
Similarly in 1988 a study in Seattle of 2,800 heterosexual men reported
higher syphilis and gonorrhea in uncircumcised men, but no difference in
herpes, chlamidia and non-specific urethritis (NSU).

From the American Medical Association
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-2511.html

"Regardless of these findings, behavioral factors are far more
important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually
transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision
cannot be responsibly viewed as "protecting" against such infections."

Quoted message said:

Penile Cancer
American Cancer Society web page shows 1300 cases annually with 220
fatalities (1997 data). Penile cancer represents approximately 0.1-1% of all
malignancies in men in the USA and other western countries. penile cancer
occurs almost entirely in uncircumcised men. Neonatal circumcision
virtually abolishes the risk

American Cancer Society:
http://www3.cancer.org/cancerinfo/load_cont.asp?st=pr&ct=35&language=english

"Circumcision: Whether or not circumcision is a negative risk factor
(if it protects against penile cancer) is a very controversial issue.

"Circumcision is the removal of a part or all of the foreskin at birth
or later on in life. This practice has been suggested as conferring
some protection against cancer of the penis by contributing to
improved hygiene. However, the penile cancer risk is low in some
uncircumcised populations, and the practice of circumcision is
strongly associated with socio-ethnic factors which in turn are
associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have
taken these other factors into account is that circumcision is not of
value in preventing cancer of the penis. It is important that the
issue of circumcision not distract the public's attention from
avoiding known penile cancer risk factors -- having unprotected sexual
relations with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human
papillomavirus infection) and cigarette smoking."

Quoted message said:

PROSTRATE CANCER
Prostate cancer accounts for 27% of new cancers in males and 7% of deaths.
Uncircumcised men have twice the incidence of prostate cancer compared with
circumcised, and this cancer is rare amongst Jews

Strange. The Urologists don't know about this.

American Cancer Society
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_prostate_cancer_36.asp?sitearea=

That page is entitled "What are the Risk Factors for Prostate Cancer"
and circumcision is not mentioned. I think that if uncircumcised men
have twice the prostate cancer rate of circumcised men someone other
than circinfo.net would have noticed it.

Try to find a less biased site next time. And do a long search, not a
brief one.

--
Neal

Note: To contact, unmunge and remove the "@giganews.com" from the address

Coleah said:

From the perspective of an observant old grandma......
I've seen the benefits of circumcision for little boys through the years.
When they are babies it is much easier to keep them clean.

How could it possibly be easier? You don't do anything special with a
baby's uncirc'ed penis - just wash it off. I hope you're not
suggesting that you have to retract the foreskin to clean it - that can
injure a baby, since the foreskin isn't likely to be retractable that
that age.

Clisby