FAQ 14: circumcision

kloo2yoo · 2011-05-20T16:03:30+00:00

FGC VS MGC

this shows the idiocy of separate treatment according to gender.

part 1 and part 2 had me laughing with the sarcasm, but provided a lot of references as well.

Some would say that circumcision (MGC, make genital cutting/mutilation) is qualitatively different from FGC (Female genital cutting / mutilation). That depends on the procedure. Educate yourself about the female anatomy lest someone convince you that the entire clitoris is removed.

As can be seen at 3dvulva.com* the clitoris isn't just the outside 'nub' part, so comparisons to FGC that is said to include "cutting off the entire clitoris" are likely inaccurate. Actually, parts of the clitoris grow behind the pelvic bone.

*this site shows anatomical drawings of genitalia.

Finally, the accusation that FGM destroys sexual pleasure for a woman is incorrect, if sexual pleasure = orgasm:

In this study, it is shown that the women who had been mutilated / cut / circumcised actually had a higher orgasmic rate than the control (uncut) group:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

RESULTS: The group of 137 women, affected by different types of FGM/C, reported orgasm in almost 86%, always 69.23%; 58 mutilated young women reported orgasm in 91.43%, always 8.57%; after defibulation 14 out of 15 infibulated women reported orgasm; the group of 57 infibulated women investigated with the FSFI questionnaire showed significant differences between group of study and an equivalent group of control in desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction with mean scores higher in the group of mutilated women.

fgc vs mgc: severity of procedures. Some will argue that FGC type III involves sewing the labia shut. This is an emotional argument when divorced from the fact that type III is not the most common type of FGC. It would be like jumping to a description of subincision in an argument against circumcision as it is most commonly practiced in the US.

kloo2yoo · 2011-08-11T20:15:12+00:00

Profit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/jfh0z/africa_must_be_informed_that_western_humanitarian/

http://sec.edgar-online.com/organogenesis-inc/10-k-annual-report/2001/04/02/Section2.aspx

http://www.malehealth.co.uk/22114-doctors-who-circumcise-are-breaking-law

http://www.tranquility.net/~rwinkel/MGM/primer.html

megazen · 2011-07-31T13:09:50+00:00

10 Reasons You Should Rethink Infant Circumcision

It's NOT your penis. No, seriously.. its not yours. Just being his parent doesn't give you the right to choose which healthy functioning body parts he gets to keep. Children aren't property!
A circumcised penis in NOT easier to keep clean. After a circumcision, the newly cut penis will be sitting in feces and urine. Is that cleaner? An intact newborn penis is protected from all of that by the foreskin. You wipe it clean like a finger (DO NOT RETRACT THE FORESKIN to clean underneath). In adulthood, it takes the man less time to rinse/clean under the foreskin than it takes a woman to clean her vulva. You do not amputate a body part just so you don't have to clean it..
The studies in Africa that stated that circumcision lowered the chances of contracting HIV are highly questionable and were poorly conducted. One study was abandoned altogether when an increase in transmission to women was shown. Which would YOU choose? Condoms or lopping off a highly sensitive sexual organ and THEN needing to wear a condom anyways.. only now you have decreased sensitivity. Most American men I know, hate wearing condoms because they "cant feel anything" so they choose to take their chances without them. This kind of thinking leads to an increased risk of STD, including HIV, not less. read more herehttp://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193 and herehttp://www.circumstitions.com/STDs.html
Penile cancer and circumcision- I hear this argument A LOT. Do you realize how rare penile cancer is? Ill give you an idea.. It is more rare than male breast cancer. Do we remove male breast buds at birth? NO. Having less penile tissue will reduce the risk but doesn't not mean you cannot get penile cancer. Men can still get it on the circumcision scar. So whats the BEST way to reduce your risk of penile cancer? Don't smoke and use protection. End of story.http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html
80% or more of the world is intact, not circumcised. And most never have any issues with their foreskin.http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html
Your religion does not require circumcision! *Christianity- The old covenant was done away with in Jesus. There are many verses in the New Testament speaking against circumcision, take a look for yourself :) http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/circumcision.html http://www.noharmm.org/christianparent.htm http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you. – Galatians 5:2

And even those who advocate circumcision don’t really keep the whole law. They only want you to be circumcised so they can brag about it and claim you as their disciples. – Gal 6:13

For there are many who rebel against right teaching; they engage in useless talk and deceive people. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation. They must be silenced. By their wrong teaching, they have already turned whole families away from the truth. Such teachers only want your money. – Titus 1:10-11

Watch out for those wicked men – dangerous dogs, I call them – who say you must be circumcised. Beware of the evil doers. Beware of the mutilation. For it isn’t the cutting of our bodies that makes us children of God; it is worshiping him with our spirits. – Phil 3:2-3

And I testify again to every male who receives circumcision, that he is in debt to keep the whole Law. You who do so have been severed from Christ...you have fallen from grace. - Gal 5:3

"As God has called each man, in this manner let him walk. And thus I command in all the churches. Was any man called in the circumcision [Old Covenant]? Let him not try to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in the uncircumcision [New Covenant in Christ]? Let him not be circumcised! Circumcision is nothing. And uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called. - 1 Cor. 7:17

And some men came and were teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.' But Paul and Barnabas together had great dissension and disputing with these men. . . Then Peter stood up and said to them 'Why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? - Acts 15:1-2, 7, 10

But if I still proclaim circumcision. . . then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.- Gal 5:11

I wish that those who are pushing you to do so would mutilate themselves! - Gal 5:121

But reject profane and old wive's fables, and exercise yourself towards godliness. Tim 4:7

*Muslim- Circumcision is not mentioned anywhere in the Qu'ran and many Muslims are vocal against circumcision. In the Qu'ran it says: "He created the heavens and the earth for a specific purpose, designed you and perfected your design." and Satan is quoted as saying "I will mislead them, I will entice them, I will command them to mark the ears of livestock, and I will command them to distort the creation of GOD." http://www.circumstitions.com/Islam.html

*Judaism- While circumcision is a traditional Jewish ritual, many devout Jews are becoming more vocal against circumcision, and Brit Shalom (Covenant of Peace) and Brit B'li Milah (Covenant without Cutting) are gaining in popularity. http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

Very few men ever need to be circumcised later in life- although in the US, circumcision is over prescribed. Mostly because American doctors tend to view the foreskin and an extra flap of skin that isn't needed or they aren't familiar with an intact penis and aren't well versed on intact care. A great way to reduce the risk of problems later on in life is to not retract the foreskin- this includes not letting health professionals retract it either. Forcible retraction can lead to adhesions and infections. Remember - intact? Don't retract. Only clean what is seen.
Circumcision is not "just a snip." The foreskin is fused to the glans in the majority of newborns. A circumstraint is used to immobilize the baby boy and then foreskin must be torn from the glans and usually a dorsal slit is cut to allow for the bell of the clamp or plastibell (yes, all circumcisions involve cutting). Here are some videos made by and for medical professionals- Gomco clamp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXVFFI76ff0&has_verified=1&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fl.php%3Fu%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DbXVFFI76ff0%2526has_verified%253D1%26h%3Dfa755&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fverify_age%3Fnext_url%3Dhttp%253A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%253Fv%253DbXVFFI76ff0%2526has_verified%253D1 & Plastibell procedure http://www.drmomma.org/2009/08/plastibell-infant-circumcision.html
The foreskin is NOT "just a flap of skin." http://www.circumstitions.com/Notjustaflap.html one in action (explicit)http://secretpenis.com/erection.swf "The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. The foreskin also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. This can occur during masturbation or intercourse. Friction is minimized, and supplementary lubrication is not needed. Without the foreskin, the glans skin, which is normally moist mucous membrane, becomes dry and thickens considerably in response to continued exposure. This change reduces its sensitivity. In addition, the loss of a secretion called smegma of the inner foreskin layer removes natural lubrication. Oral-genital sexual activity is more common in the United States than in many other societies. Could the lack of natural lubrication of the penis due to circumcision be a reason?" http://www.circumcision.org/foreskin.htm
Circumcision IS HARMFUL. The fact that the baby cannot vividly remember every part of the procedure is irrelevant. A lot of rape victims cant remember what happened to them, yet we don't minimize the issues they may have from the actual rape simply because they cant recall details. Please read- http://www.drmomma.org/2011/04/is-pain-of-circumcision-truly-brief.html and- http://www.drmomma.org/2011/03/he-didnt-cry-babies-in-shock.html and-http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html and lastly- http://www.drmomma.org/2009/10/mri-studies-brain-permanently-altered.html

kloo2yoo · 2011-04-24T15:59:31+00:00

Health & Efficacy:

This article explores, in detail, the data on which this recommendation is based, the difficulty in translating results from high risk adults in a research setting to the general public, the impact of risk compensation, and how circumcision compares to existing alternatives. Based on our analysis it is concluded that the circumcision solution is a wasteful distraction that takes resources away from more effective, less expensive, less invasive alternatives. By diverting attention away from more effective interventions, circumcision programs will likely increase the number of HIV infections.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gw7hn/more_evidence_that_circumcision_will_not_help/

kloo2yoo · 2011-05-20T16:00:13+00:00

LONG TERM EFFECTS

this shows common long term damage, both after accidental additional damage, and when done to so-called ideal standards. It discusses keratinization (callousing and dulling of the penis head)

kloo2yoo · 2011-05-20T16:01:00+00:00

PAIN

The data obtained from 184 nursing mothers of neonates show that although 86.93% subjects rated male neonatal circumcision pain as moderate to very severe, the procedure is performed (95.1%) without pain relief given, during or after.

kanuk's comment on pain here:

the trauma of the control (no pain control) group was so obvious and undeniable, they ended the control group prematurely on ethical grounds.

It has been acknowledged in the Jewish community for at least as long ago as the 12th century that circumcision is an effective effort to reduce sexual pleasure:

Well, one Jewish rabbi, Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), said in his work The Guide of the Perplexed, “…one of the reasons for it is… to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.” (Part III, Chapter 49).” source

Local anesthetics and strategies to soothe and minimize distress should be considered even for simple procedures, such as venipuncture. Some common painful minor procedures, such as circumcision, do not always receive the warranted attention to comfort issues. Available research indicates that newborn circumcisions are a significant source of pain during the procedure and are associated with irritability and feeding disturbances during the days afterward.9-11 Opportunities for alleviating pain exist before, during, and after the procedure, and many interventions are effective.12-17

(emphasis mine)

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;108/3/793

anesthesia:

In in newborns, circumcision is performed without anesthesia. Medically, this is proper even if local injectable anesthesia, such as local dorsal nerve block is used, because it may be associated with complications at that age.

Encyclopedia of Jewish medical ethics: a compilation of Jewish medical law page 204

http://books.google.com/books?id=aaklGZAID08C&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Up to 96 percent of the babies in the United States and Canada receive no anesthesia when they are circumcised, according to a report from the University of Alberta in Edmonton.

http://articles.cnn.com/1997-12-23/health/9712_23_circumcision.anesthetic_1_circumcision-study-foreskin-anesthetic?_s=PM:HEALTH (1997)

Many newborn males are circumcised without any pain relief during or after the procedure. However, many health experts and medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (search), recommend pain management practices for circumcision.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135725,00.html (2004)

doctors still refuse to acknowledge circumcision pain, and therefore are less sensitive themselves about anesthetizing infants undergoing the procedure:

This procedure is performed on more than 1 million babies each year in the United States alone, and many of them receive nothing to prevent or treat the pain.

http://www.drgreene.com/qa/no-excuse-circumcision-pain

Circumcision is the most frequently performed operation in the United States. Most neonatal circumcisions are performed with the use of clamps or devices (Plastibell, Gomco, Mogen) and without any form of anesthesia. The incidence of complications following neonatal circumcision varies in the literature from about 0.2% to 5%. The majority of circumcision complications occur with devices and clamps and rarely when performed through formal surgery (sleeve resection).

http://www.urologyweb.com/posthitis-balanitis-and-circumcision.html

kloo2yoo · 2011-05-20T16:02:25+00:00

HEALTH

A meta-study of 35 articles on circumcision vs. HIV found that:

When the raw data are combined, *** a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis *** (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded. (emphasis mine)

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

According to the retrospective study of urinary tract infections (UTI's) in US military hospitals which is usually quoted in support of MGM, it requires at least 50 to 100 circumcisions to prevent a single UTI infection

http://www.tranquility.net/~rwinkel/MGM/primer.html#MR

Dr. Rizvi notes several of the health myths about circumcision: as a 'cure for masturbation', and as a preventative for penile cancer, STDs in general, and HIV (with responses to the Uganda and Kenya studies), and points to a 2009 peer-reviewed study in The Lancet finding that "Circumcision of HIV-infected men did not reduce HIV transmission to female partners over 24 months; longer-term effects could not be assessed."

2009 Study Finds Male Circumcision Does Not Shield Woman From HIV

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-07-16-voa72-68744732.html

1994 study finds that circumcision has no significant effect on STD risks in developed nations:

Conclusions-From the findings of this study, circumcision of men has no signif- icant effect on the incidence of common STDs in this developed nation setting. However, these findings may not neces- sarily extend to other setting where hygiene is poorer and the spectrum of common STDs is different.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1195274/pdf/genitmed00023-0023.pdf

Another study has linked circumcision with a 'lower risk' of penile injuries(cuts, abrasions, etc) during sex, and thus concludes that there would be a lower risk of AIDS transmission. Other factors were lubrication and condom use. The former cannot be reversed; the latter two can be had. Additionally, the study was done in Kenya, where dry sex (a sexual practice involving the deliberate dessication of the vagina) is a common occurrence.

UTI

Although uncircumcised baby boys have a fourfold risk of getting urinary tract infections in the first year, the report says, that means, at most, a 1 in 100 chance. And although uncircumcised men -- especially those with phimosis, the painful inability to retract the foreskin -- have three times the risk of developing penile cancer, that risk is ''extremely low'' in America, where only about 9 of every 1 million men are diagnosed with the disease..

HIV:

The academy also reports that while studies suggest circumcised men have a reduced risk of contracting H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, ''behavioral factors appear to be far more important risk factors'' than circumcision status.

CANCER:

Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate. - American Cancer Society

kloo2yoo · 2011-05-26T04:35:48+00:00

Policies of national medical associations:

Australasia

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP; September 2010) state that "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons."[205]

The Tasmanian President of the Australian Medical Association (AMA), Haydn Walters, has stated that the AMA would support a call to ban circumcision for non-medical, non-religious reasons.[206]

Canada

The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996 and "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed",[92] and the 2004 information to parents says: 'Circumcision is a "non-therapeutic" procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social, or cultural reasons. [...] After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.'[119]

Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision "conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity." They called on doctors to inform caregivers seeking the intervention of the (in their assessment) medical and psychological risks and lack of convincing medical benefits. They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exists for female genital cutting.[207]

United Kingdom

"Male circumcision that is performed for any reason other than physical clinical need is termed non-therapeutic (or sometimes "ritual") circumcision. Some people ask for non-therapeutic circumcision for religious reasons, some to incorporate a child into a community, and some want their sons to be like their fathers. Circumcision is a defining feature of some faiths".

The BMA provides that "male circumcision is generally assumed to be lawful provided that it is performed competently; it is believed to be in the child’s best interests; and there is valid consent" from both parents and the child, if possible".

The BMA stipulates that "competent children may decide for themselves; the wishes that children express must be taken into account; if parents disagree, non-therapeutic circumcision must not be carried out without the leave of a court; consent should be confirmed in writing".

"In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child’s best interests falls to his parents. The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it."[93]

United States

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."[70] The AAP recommends that if parents choose to circumcise, analgesia should be used to reduce pain associated with circumcision. It states that circumcision should only be performed on newborns who are stable and healthy.[70]

The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."[13]

The American Academy of Family Physicians (2007) recognizes the controversy surrounding circumcision and recommends that physicians "discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son."[208]

The American Urological Association (2007) stated that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.[209]

citations at wikipedia (last verified 25 May 2011)

kloo2yoo · 2011-06-27T04:33:34+00:00

medical association statements:

South African Medical Association denounces circumcision of infants

thedude37 · 2011-03-03T03:27:19+00:00

Male genital mutilation needs to be banned for infants and boys. All children deserve whole and intact bodies. Adult men can make their own decisions.

craigdubyah · 2011-03-02T20:39:47+00:00

This isn't an FAQ.

This is a biased list of cherry-picked sources that reinforces your beliefs.

The following sources, in fact, are downright laughable:

[1] : A quote from an anti-circumcision advocate.

[3] : A graphic video intended to scare/gross out people

[8] : Extremely weak argument, as correlation != causation. In addition, as was pointed out by Gary LeHam, there is no plausible explanation for such an effect.

[9], [10]: These quotes are from the 1880's. You wouldn't allow feminists to bring up quotes from the 1880's, would you?

[11] - [15]: You point to some important studies here, but you don't specifically mention the many studies which showed circumcision to prevent STI transmission then quote two which found no effect. Bogus, one-sided reporting.

Regarding female circumcision: the clitoris develops from the same tissue that forms into a penis. Removal of a clitoris is, anatomically speaking, the removal of a penis. Not a foreskin.

Regarding pain: current medical recommendations, based on available evidence, call for pain relief to be used.

[27] Actually, long-term complications are higher in uncircumcised men, as they can develop phimosis, paraphimosis, and posthitis.

CutTheSchmuck · 2011-08-15T20:42:53+00:00

This FAQ is very biased. It provides links and info from biased sources. A lot of the information is incorrect or very, very old. Whenever you have to push your beliefs by providing false or trumped up info chances are you're being deliberately dishonest.

Hindu_Wardrobe · 2011-03-04T05:54:10+00:00

......are you saying FGM is okay?

kloo2yoo · 2011-03-02T20:16:44+00:00

[permanently deleted]

kloo2yoo · 2011-08-15T19:17:30+00:00

Other side of the coin, since these types of things seem to be very biased and often filled with false sources & facts:

FALSE: It's mutilation, not a medical procedure By that logic getting your tonsils out is throat mutilation. It's a medical procedure. It is done by medical staff, in hygienic and ethical ways.

Source: Kaiser pediatrics

FALSE: It causes loss of sensitivity! No it doesn't. Not only has that been DISPROVEN, there was no real evidence or studies to begin with.

Source: Adult Circumcision: No Sex Woes Seen webmd.com

Source: American Academy of Family Physicians aafp.org

Source: Circumcision Does Not Affect Sensitivity webmd.com

TRUE & FALSE: It's painful! So are most medical procedures where they cut a piece of you off. Tonsils, tumors, moles. Nothing can be removed without pain. However, "Opportunities for alleviating pain exist before, during, and after the procedure, and many interventions are effective"

Source: American Academy of Pediatrics

FALSE: It's a conspiracy by doctors to get money! Doctors are bound by laws, guidelines, and ethics. It's a multi-billion dollar industry. To claim that they are working a carnival game approach to rip people off for money is just silly. There are millions of doctors in the US alone, and I have trouble believing the majority of them violate the AMA's Unnecessary Medical Services Opinion.

Source: AMA Unnecessary Medical Services

FALSE: It's a USA phenomenon, the rest of the world doesn't do it! America is 4.5% of the world's population. Half of that 4.5% is male, so about 2.25% of the world's population is American men. And only 85% of them are circumcised. Where as 30% of men world wide are circumcised.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics

APPLES & ORANGES: They outlawed female circumcision! So why can we do it to boys? What has been termed "female circumcision," isn't a circumcision. It is a misnomer. It is the lopping off of the female clitoris. (Often times there will be a battle of semantics because there are other procedures dubbed with the term "female circumcision." Such as the removal of the labia, clitoral hood or other such removals. These are much less common.) Done in many areas as a rite of passage, and usually meant to prevent women from seeking sexual pleasure. The terminology "female circumcision" is a nickname, not the definition. The correct term is "clitoridectomy." To compare female circumcision to male isn't just a massive leap or apples & oranges. It is a deliberate ignorant statement. It is meant to compare the medical procedure of a male circumcision with the brutal & oppressive practice of removing a woman's clitoris. They aren't similar, and portraying them as similar is dishonest.

Source: Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

FALSE: It violates the rights of the child! Children don't have rights in the sense adults do. They don't have the right to bear arms, they don't have the right to vote, don't have the right to smoke a cigarette, don't have the right to consume alcohol, they don't have the right to work, generally they are useless as tits on a bull until they reach their teens. Up until then they are under the guidance of the parents. They have no rights.

As for waiting, sure. If the parent chose to not circumcise them they could do it later. But then they miss out on the protections of it's health boosts during their formative years. The years where the immune system is still working out the kinks. Kids get sick. A LOT.

FALSE: It's an american thing from the 1950s to prevent boys from touching themselves! It's not a 1950's thing, it's not a Jewish thing, it's not a masturbation thing, it has been around for thousands of years. It started as a hygiene tool, and became traditional & religious with time.

Source: History of male circumcision wikipedia.org

Source: Prevalence of circumcision wikipedia.org

FACT: It can prevent urinary tract infection. There are a significant number of studies that prove circumcision prevents urinary tract infection. UTIs can be fatal.

Source: Circumcision Reasons for ehealthforum.com

Source: Bladder Infections in Men – Are These Dangerous? urinarytractinfectionuti.com

Source: Department of Pediatric Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK & Department of Pediatric Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine

FACT: It helps prevent HIV. Multiple sources & studies have shown there is a greater risk to get HIV if uncircumcised. There are talks of brining this as a medical procedure to countries plagued by AIDS.

Source: World Health Organization scientificamerican.com

Source: Male Circumcision May Halve HIV Risk webmd.com

Source: Circumcision Could Cut HIV Infection, Male Circumcision Would Prevent Millions of AIDS Deaths in Africa webmd.com

FACT: Drop in cancer risk for men AND women It also decreases the chance of penile cancer, and helps prevent female partners from getting cervical cancer via HPV.

Source: American Academy of Family Physicians aafp.org

Source: Male Circumcision Cuts Women’s Cervical Cancer Risk webmd.com

FALSE: It cannot be undone This is incorrect, and can easily be researched via Google. Anti-circumcision opponents will often omit this fact, or call it a falsehood. However there are forms of circumcision restoration.

Source: foreskinrestore.com

All of this learned through medical references, journals, and studies. No propaganda based websites were used.

Title	FAQ 14: circumcision
Author	kloo2yoo
Upvotes	10
Comments	91
Date	March 2, 2011 7:44 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/fvzyl/faq_14_circumcision/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/faq-14-circumcision.1042578 https://theredarchive.com/post/1042578

Comments

LONG TERM EFFECTS

HEALTH