patrick.net

thunder, dude, what were you looking for when you found this story? lol

Ha! Bap, you'd be surprised at how many anti-circumcision nuts (pun intended) there are out there. Paleo Diet Websites have commenters, Radical leftist sites, weightlifting sites, etc. - all bargle blah about "health" and "being natural". Antibiotics, Ibuprofen, and Polio Vaccines aren't natural either. Many are anti-Semitic and others insist circumcision is 100% child abuse. The Science suggests otherwise.

I gotta tell you, pseudoscience is everywhere.

Or just don't have sex with gay men.

I thought they made a cure years ago.
With the miracle drug Trinoassitol.

Hey, if you completely cut baby's genitals off right when they are born and cannot decide for themselves, you reduce the risk to close to zero! Yay for mutilation and dependence!

mell says

Hey, if you completely cut baby's genitals off right when they are born and cannot decide for themselves, you reduce the risk to close to zero! Yay for mutilation and dependence!

Reductio ad absurdum

zzyzzx says

Or just don't have sex with gay men.

For really. No straight person has ever gotten an STD.

thunderlips11 says

mell says

Hey, if you completely cut baby's genitals off right when they are born and cannot decide for themselves, you reduce the risk to close to zero! Yay for mutilation and dependence!

Reductio ad absurdum

Nothing against it if you want to do it to 'protect' yourself when you are old enough to make your own decisions.

thunderlips11 says

Ha! Bap, you'd be surprised at how many anti-circumcision nuts (pun intended) there are out there. Paleo Diet Websites have commenters, Radical leftist sites, weightlifting sites, etc. - all bargle blah about "health" and "being natural".

I agree that we do all sorts of unnatural things that are beneficial, but I have to say, cutting someone's penis without their consent is pretty extreme. Why not let them make the decision when they are older? Sex is supposed to be a lot better with an uncircumcised wiener -- and you want to take that away from baby Thomas!

swebb says

zzyzzx says

Or just don't have sex with gay men.

For really. No straight person has ever gotten an STD.

It's about risk management like everything else in life, and by not having anal sex and avoiding risk groups you can cut it very close to zero, so that comment has merit. Statistically the risk is very low compared to other everydays risks. If you live like a nun or a priest you can certainly cut your risk close to zero as well - HPV though (and some other "STDs") can also transmit via used towels or other skin on skin contact, though the risk is very low. Everybody though gets infected at least with HSV1 and EBV throughout their lives.

thunderlips11 says

Circumcised Males have 42%+ reduction in HIV infection

Yes, and;

thunderlips11 says

being circumcised almost completely eliminates the risk of Penile Cancer.

Maybe not so much.

Anyway, unless one is being raised in a HIV riddled country (The US has a 0.4% HIV infection rate compared to the 20%+ in some African countries), both of these "positives" are only slight changes to risk.

The American Cancer Society on penile cancer prevention:
"In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

* * * * *

Perhaps the most important factor in preventing penile cancer in uncircumcised men is good genital hygiene."

Circumcision is certainly not a "slam-dunk", when making this choice for a baby we can not ignore the risks of circumcision.

Complications happen in 0.2% of infant circumcisions, and these complications range from swelling, infection, to loss of penis and death.

As a religious rite the risks can go up significantly, for example:
http://gothamist.com/2012/03/08/rabbis_circumcision_death_investiga.php
http://gothamist.com/2012/06/07/circumcision_sucking_gave_11_nyc_bo.php

The risk v. benefit is far from clear, and very slight on both ends of the spectrum. Once you perform the circumcision it is, for all intents, impossible to reverse, but you can always get one later if the positives become a much more obvious.

mell says

If you live like a nun or a priest you can certainly cut your risk close to zero as well - HPV though (and some other "STDs") can also transmit via used towels or other skin on skin contact, though the risk is very low.

Hmmmm...is that the story you are sticking with? Did your significant-other buy it?

Foreskins are very useful for piercings and anti-social tatoos.

They need a "Smegma March" on Sacto to outlaw circumcisions. Those precious, fermenting secretions and pheromones should be a constitutional right! They make the little invaders feel at home when they make the beach head.

An un-basted penile head is a sad penile head.

swebb says

I agree that we do all sorts of unnatural things that are beneficial, but I have to say, cutting someone's penis without their consent is pretty extreme. Why not let them make the decision when they are older? Sex is supposed to be a lot better with an uncircumcised wiener -- and you want to take that away from baby Thomas!

Giving somebody a vaccine without their consent can be considered extreme - many people think so. However, the benefits outweigh the concerns IMHO. Every time a mother gives a baby a vaccine, or infant meds, it is without the infants consent.

As the MD so eloquently stated, if there was a vaccine that did was circumcision has been shown (over and over again) to do, it would be a no-brainer to recommend that it be given to all infants.

There is no scientific evidence that circumcision reduces penile sensitivity, penis size, or any other common claims made by Anti-Circs.

Because circumcised men are less likely to transmit HIV, Herpes, and HPV, it is a PUBLIC HEALTH issue.

Many people have sex prior to 18.

thunderlips11 says

As the MD so eloquently stated, if there was a vaccine that did was circumcision has been shown (over and over again) to do, it would be a no-brainer to recommend that it be given to all infants.

Correct, it would be a no-brainer, but if that same vaccine also caused the occasional penis to be mutilated, or fall off, or the child to die, then it would be banned.

leo707 says

Correct, it would be a no-brainer, but if that same vaccine also caused the occasional penis to be mutilated, or fall off, or the child to die, then it would be banned.

Which almost never happens. The rate of complications from circumcision is less than .2%, and the vast majority of them are ordinary infections that can be expected from any surgery and quickly resolved with no lasting harm.

The records of 136,086 boys born in US Army hospitals from 1980 to 1985 were reviewed for indexed complications related to circumcision status during the first month of life. For 100,157 circumcised boys, there were 193 complications (0.19%). These included 62 local infections, eight cases of bacteremia, 83 incidences of hemorrhage (31 requiring ligature and three requiring transfusion), 25 instances of surgical trauma, and 20 urinary tract infections. There were no deaths or reported losses of the glans or entire penis. By contrast, the complications in the 35,929 uncircumcised infants were all related to urinary tract infections. Of the 88 boys with such infections (0.24%), 32 had concomitant bacteremia, three had meningitis, two had renal failure, and two died. The frequencies of urinary tract infection (P less than .0001) and bacteremia (P less than .0002) were significantly higher in the uncircumcised boys. Serious complications from routine prepuce removal are rare and relatively minor. Circumcision may be beneficial in reducing the occurrence of urinary tract infections and their associated sequelae.

thunderlips11 says

The rate of complications from circumcision is less than .2%

In that one study...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20158883
"Most studies reported no severe adverse events (SAE), but two studies reported SAE frequency of 2%. The median frequency of any complication was 1.5% (range 0-16%). ...Traditional circumcision as a rite of passage is associated with substantially greater risks, more severe complications than medical circumcision or traditional circumcision among neonates."

http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/circumcision
"Complications of circumcision

Circumcision may lead to complications, which range from minor to severe. They include easily controllable bleeding [84][85], amputation of the glans [84]-[86], acute renal failure [87], life-threatening sepsis and, rarely, death [84][85]. The evidence of postoperative complications is unknown [84]. The rates of complications reported in several large case series are low, from 0.2% to 0.6% [8]. However, published rates range as widely as 0.06% [88] to 55% [89]. Williams and Kapila [90] have suggested that a realistic rate is between 2% and 10%.

Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

The most famous gender reassignment after a circumcision:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2004/06/gender_gap.html

"Born in 1965 in Winnipeg, he was 8 months old when a doctor used an electrocautery needle...burning off his entire penis as a result.

* * * * *

For Dr. Money, David was the ultimate experiment to prove that nurture, not nature, determines gender identity and sexual orientation—an experiment all the more irresistible because David was an identical twin. His brother, Brian, would provide the perfect matched control, a genetic clone raised as a boy...

...At age 2, Brenda angrily tore off her dresses. She refused to play with dolls and would beat up her brother and seize his toy cars and guns. In school, she was relentlessly teased for her masculine gait, tastes, and behaviors. She complained to her parents and teachers that she felt like a boy..."

From the first link:

CONCLUSIONS: Studies report few severe complications following circumcision. However, mild or moderate complications are seen, especially when circumcision is undertaken at older ages, by inexperienced providers or in non-sterile conditions. .

There were more complications with circumcision at "older ages", which is exactly what anti-circs are proposing when they wish ban infant circumcision. Even so, it was also "especially by inexperienced providers or in non-sterile conditions". IE Mufasa, the prayer leader of the Blue Turkomen tribe unsurprising did not wash his holy rusty knife when circumcising little Achmed in the dirt floored village hut (after shooing the goats away), and the parents later shlepped the kid to the DWB clinic for some antibiotics where it got entered into the log.

The Conclusion goes on:

Pediatric circumcision will continue to be practiced for cultural, medical and as a long-term HIV/STI prevention strategy. Risk-reduction strategies including improved training of providers, and provision of appropriate sterile equipment, are urgently needed.

The second study:
While Canada did not recommend ROUTINE circumcision, I'm glad they reassessed the data and were much less against it generally than they were in 1982. In their opinion, the benefits and harms were equal, and thus they could not recommend as a routine procedure, probably because the Canadian Pediatricians included third world studies when it came to complications, which is odd because Canadian Hospitals do not do circumcisions in dirt floored huts... etc. etc..

Why the Brits and Canadians are including results from the third world when assessing the complications of Circumcision is weird, unless they are trying to get an outcome that confirms their cultural bias.

I was unable to find ratios of deaths to circumcisions performed in either meta-study.

However, the American Academy of Pediatrics is now recommending that circumcision be covered by insurance, and that the benefits outweigh the harms:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html?_r=0
http://www.nature.com/news/doctors-back-circumcision-1.11296

And most interesting was this correction to the NYT article:

An article on Aug. 27 about a conclusion by the American Academy of Pediatrics that the health benefits of circumcising infant boys outweigh the risks referred incompletely to complications that arise from the operation. An estimate given in the article, that about 117 boys a year die as a result of neonatal circumcision — put forth by Dan Bollinger, a prominent opponent of circumcision, based on his review of infant mortality statistics — is cited often by critics of routine circumcision but widely disputed by medical professionals. A spokeswoman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the agency does not track deaths from infant circumcision because they are exceedingly rare.In the agency’s last mortality report, which looked at all deaths in the country in 2010, no circumcision-related deaths were found. (An article on Aug. 23, 2011, about decisions by parents on whether to circumcise their sons also referred incompletely to the complications from the operation, citing the same mortality estimate.)

The CDC's lack of deaths from circumcision gels well with other studies that showed only 3 deaths out of 50M circumcisions from the middle of the century in the USA, all of which were the result of undiagnosed Hemophilia or Fraud, and none of them carried out in a medical environment by medical professionals.

Finally, the WHO embraces circumcision as a tool against HIV spread.
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings* is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

thunderlips11 says

There were more complications with circumcision at "older ages", which is exactly what anti-circs are proposing when they wish ban infant circumcision.

Yes, the risks do seem to increase as age increases.

thunderlips11 says

Even so, it was also "especially by inexperienced providers or in non-sterile conditions". IE Mufasa, the prayer leader of the Blue Turkomen tribe unsurprising did not wash his holy rusty knife when circumcising little Achmed in the dirt floored village hut...

The examples I previously gave of death (and herpes transition to infants) happened in New York, USA. Complications are not limited to the developing world.

leo707 says

As a religious rite the risks can go up significantly, for example:
http://gothamist.com/2012/03/08/rabbis_circumcision_death_investiga.php
http://gothamist.com/2012/06/07/circumcision_sucking_gave_11_nyc_bo.php

The range of complications found in the studies is huge. I agree that any studies showing in the 55% range of complications are not happening in the US. I don't have time to look through all the references, but I doubt any industrialized nation studies had more than 4ish%.

leo707 says

range as widely as 0.06% [88] to 55% [89].

thunderlips11 says

Which confirms circumcision as an HIV/STD prevention strategy

I agree that circumcision is a good HIV prevention strategy in areas where HIV is prevalent, education is low, and high-risk behavior is abundant. There is no industrialized nation that has these issues. Hygiene and safe sex is much more effective at controlling HIV spread than circumcision, and does not carry the risks.

thunderlips11 says

The American Academy of Pediatrics is now recommending routine circumcision and for it to be covered by insurance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html?_r=0

Ummm...not really...Yes, they are recommending that insurance covers it, but from the article you cited:
"But the academy stopped short of recommending routine circumcision for all baby boys, saying the decision remains a family matter. The academy had previously taken a neutral position on circumcision."

“We’re not pushing everybody to circumcise their babies,” Dr. Douglas S. Diekema, a member of the academy’s task force on circumcision and an author of the new policy, said in an interview. “This is not really pro-circumcision. It falls in the middle. It’s pro-choice, for lack of a better word. Really, what we’re saying is, ‘This ought to be a choice that’s available to parents.’ ”

thunderlips11 says

While Canada did not recommend ROUTINE circumcision...

I have yet to be convinced that routine circumcision is called for, but I do think that there are times when circumcision is a good choice. Like when living in an area with a large % of the population has HIV, or when a boy is born with a penis that has a foreskin prone to infection.

A few other interesting items from your link:
"Circumcision does not appear to reduce H.I.V. transmission among men who have sex with men, Dr. Diekema said. 'The degree of benefit, or degree of impact, in a place like the U.S. will clearly be smaller than in a place like Africa,' he said."

"Two studies have found that circumcision actually increases the risk of H.I.V. infection among sexually active men and women, the academy noted."

"Significant complications are believed to occur in approximately one in 500 procedures. Botched operations can result in damage or even amputation of parts of the penis."

thunderlips11 says

An estimate given in the article, that about 117 boys a year die as a result of neonatal circumcision — put forth by Dan Bollinger, a prominent opponent of circumcision, based on his review of infant mortality statistics — is cited often by critics of routine circumcision but widely disputed by medical professionals.

I would like to read Bollinger's methodology, but unfortunately his study is only available for pay. :(
http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=488e687276f346699601a0275fc5827b&pi=2

I guess it is just as well, because I really don't have the time today.

thunderlips11 says

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the agency does not track deaths from infant circumcision because they are exceedingly rare.In the agency’s last mortality report, which looked at all deaths in the country in 2010, no circumcision-related deaths were found.

Maybe I am missing something here, but why would one find circumcision related deaths in a report done by an organization that does not track those kinds of deaths?

leo707 says

The examples I previously gave of death (and herpes transition to infants) happened in New York, USA. Complications are not limited to the developing world.

Yes, in a non-hospital setting by non-medical personnel (Mohel). I absolutely agree that circumcisions should be performed by medical professionals in sterile settings.
The Method section of the British Study (first link in your previous post) states they use studies from all over the world, including "Arabic" literature. They didn't confine their meta-study to the first world. That was what I was referring to - not your other link about NYC.

leo707 says

"Circumcision does not appear to reduce H.I.V. transmission among men who have sex with men, Dr. Diekema said. 'The degree of benefit, or degree of impact, in a place like the U.S. will clearly be smaller than in a place like Africa,' he said."

Yes, that seems to be the case.

leo707 says

For Dr. Money, David was the ultimate experiment to prove that nurture, not nature, determines gender identity and sexual orientation—an experiment all the more irresistible because David was an identical twin. His brother, Brian, would provide the perfect matched control, a genetic clone raised as a boy...

Yes, Poor David, victim of blank slaters/social constructivists... Dr. Money was also a child abuser. However, extraordinarily rare dismemberment does happen - just like very rarely people suffer death or permanent paralysis from routine vaccinations or even routine surgeries for minor injuries.
leo707 says

"Significant complications are believed to occur in approximately one in 500 procedures. Botched operations can result in damage or even amputation of parts of the penis."

Which would be 0.2% What is significant? Dismemberment? An minor infection resolved in 48 hours or less with oral antibiotics? NYT should have sourced that.
leo707 says

Maybe I am missing something here, but why would one find circumcision related deaths in a report done by an organization that does not track those kinds of deaths?

I assume that it's so rare, and years go by between incidents (despite millions being circumcised each year), that some years, like 2010, it doesn't even show up.

I have a hard time thinking that the CDC wouldn't count something that causes hundreds or even just a dozen deaths per year.
I have a hard time believing that out of the countless millions each year that are circumcised, if any but the most infintesimal number suffered dismemberment, that there wouldn't be an activist group, class action suit, some kind of reporting on it.
leo707 says

“We’re not pushing everybody to circumcise their babies,” Dr. Douglas S. Diekema, a member of the academy’s task force on circumcision and an author of the new policy, said in an interview. “This is not really pro-circumcision. It falls in the middle. It’s pro-choice, for lack of a better word. Really, what we’re saying is, ‘This ought to be a choice that’s available to parents.’ ”

Thanks for that correction. However, anti-circs want to ban childhood circumcision entirely, regardless of the parent's beliefs or the openness of doctors and medical organizations to the procedure. Which is why that SF judge shot down the proposal - he knew it would be overturned in a heartbeat by any court at first challenge.

leo707 says

I agree that circumcision is a good HIV prevention strategy in areas where HIV is prevalent, education is low, and high-risk behavior is abundant.

Like Alabama, or the South Bronx ;)

Bap33 says

thunder, dude, what were you looking for when you found this story? lol

Must have been on the weird part of the internet again.

Step #1 - Close Browser
Step #2 - Reopen Browser
Step #3 - Start over on Google or Youtube

didn't the Sodomite Nation get really pushy about stopping all flap trimming? It was a few years ago, but I think that was going on. Anyone recall the specifics?

thunderlips11 says

Which would be 0.2% What is significant? Dismemberment? An minor infection resolved in 48 hours or less with oral antibiotics? NYT should have sourced that.

Yeah, that is an issue I have been having with all the sources I have been reading. They are not clear what "significant complications" are vs. just "complications." However, I would imagine that a minor infection would not rate as "significant."

Those details are often buried in the text of a study, and we have been mostly citing abstracts and news articles that tend to leave details like that out.

thunderlips11 says

Dr. Money was also a child abuser.

Ug, yeah...that is a horrible story.

thunderlips11 says

However, extraordinarily rare dismemberment does happen - just like very rarely people suffer death or permanent paralysis from routine vaccinations or even routine surgeries for minor injuries.

Yeah, it would be nice to see the data sets side-by-side. When the Canadian and American Pediatric Associations both come to the conclusion that routine circumcisions are not recommended, but it is up to the parents I am assuming that they have access to better more complete data than I do after an afternoon of Googling.

thunderlips11 says

However, anti-circs want to ban childhood circumcision entirely, regardless of the parent's beliefs or the openness of doctors and medical organizations to the procedure.

Yeah, I think that an all out ban would be a net loss for healthcare. However, I would not be opposed to a ban on non-doctors performing circumcisions in less than ideal circumstances. If you are going to do it, at least it should be getting done right.

thunderlips11 says

Like Alabama, or the South Bronx ;)

Ah, haha...yes, you have a point there.

Bap33 says

didn't the Sodomite Nation get really pushy about stopping all flap trimming? It was a few years ago, but I think that was going on. Anyone recall the specifics?

This may be what you are referring to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/san-francisco-circumcision-ban_n_863945.html

How about some of you dumb fucking degenerate serfs and peasants actually watch a mutiliation of the penis being performed on a child before opening your mouth about shit you actually know nothing about but just read and accept the bullshit from the medical cartel....

Cannibal Anarchy will feel just as painful as this. ApocalypseFuck can also watch the videos and he will also agree that cannibal anarchy should feel just like this.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/UAGNnqyNidY&playnext=1&list=PL666B22F3C271CCD5&feature=results_main

http://www.youtube.com/embed/acc70D2ApFg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/embed/NPxjhLq3eUQ&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/embed/MMOG6P0RknU

http://www.youtube.com/embed/2PTtmOwqJF8&feature=related

OP just takes everything what western medical "doctors" say as fact just because they are the "official authority"...

Anyone that relies on western medicine, treatments and doctors is a fucking clueless retard peasant.

Boycott all western medicine if you want to live well. It is all a big fucking racket & one of the biggest frauds right next to college.

Vaccines are also a fraud as well.

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

Vaccines are also a fraud

Ack! Vaccines and fluoridated water are perhaps the best public health measures ever, and the only examples of preventive care that actually do save money. For the cost of one week of the Iraq War, or even one day of our current medical-industrial complex budget, we could have multiple vaccines against HIV and eradicate the disease totally, like what happened with smallpox. Or maybe Robber Baron's comment was meant to be sarcastic, since PhRMA make so much $$$ off drugs they aren't interested in vaccines.

thunderlips11 says

I assume that it's so rare, and years go by between incidents (despite millions being circumcised each year), that some years, like 2010, it doesn't even show up.

Well, at least one kid died in 2010 from circumcision:
http://www.pregnancyandbaby.com/the-hatch-blog/articles/935637/pushing-your-parenting-agenda-how-far-is-too-far

I'm just happy to see someone advocating an alternative to condoms, because condoms suck bigtime.

liberals are an odd sort ... they demand the law allow to have a baby get it's head smashed, brains sucked out, and torn limb from limb when the completed birth is not wanted by the woman, BUT, they don't want to see the male kid's peter trimmed should it somehow not be aborted. A really odd sort indeed.

zzyzzx says

Or just don't have sex with gay men.

So when all sexually transmitted diseases are eliminated by science, will you proclaim "have as much gay butt sex as you want!"?

It is disingenuous to link the morality of homosexual sex and practical matters like STD prevention, especially when condoms are completely effective in preventing the spread of these STDs.

If you want to argue that homosexual sex is immoral then open a new thread and start that thread by answering the following question. Why the fuck is gay sex immoral?

I have yet to hear any conservative give an answer to this other than that their racist, sexist, pro-slavery, pro-murder Christian religion says gay sex is immoral. But given that the Bible says slavery is moral, I say fuck the Bible, it's not a good source of morality.

leo707 says

mell says

If you live like a nun or a priest you can certainly cut your risk close to zero as well - HPV though (and some other "STDs") can also transmit via used towels or other skin on skin contact, though the risk is very low.

Hmmmm...is that the story you are sticking with? Did your significant-other buy it?

Yeah, but I also have been thoroughly tested which is something couples can demand from each other. That being said, there are tons of different HPV strains and a lot of viruses that each partner carries and can transmit that are not on the trend list these days since they have been around forever, which cause far more health issues in numbers than the common STDs combined. I am not saying that you shouldn't protect yourself (if you are promiscuous), but if you wanted to take care of your health in the most effective way STDs overall would not be a huge topic. Btw. you cannot test a guy for HPV as of today with any confidence. It's a very complicated topic, some clear them out every time, some don't and can transmit.

Bap33 says

liberals are an odd sort ... they demand the law allow to have a baby get it's head smashed, brains sucked out, and torn limb from limb when the completed birth is not wanted by the woman, BUT, they don't want to see the male kid's peter trimmed should it somehow not be aborted. A really odd sort indeed.

I somewhat agree with this, I think states should be able to regulate abortion on the state level, and while I am against criminalizing it, I often wonder how one can not include unborn children in defending everyone's freedoms.

thunderlips11 says

Wow, if you knew that a two-minute, largely painless (but only on infants with less developed nerves) operation could reduce your child's chances getting HIV by nearly 50%, you'd be nuts not to do it.

I don't have kids so I haven't had the need to research this, but I do remember back in the 1990s there were a lot of people stating that male circumcision was as barbaric and harmful as female circumcision and that the only reason it was done was that it was a cultural norm.

The case the opposition made was that male circumcision causes extreme pain for the baby who often passes out as a result and causes a loss of sensitivity when sexual maturity is reached.

Penn and Teller had an episode on circumcision on Bullshit! Season 3 Episode 1 where they went into details about how bad it was.

Not being an expert on the subject myself, I'd be interested if there are experts on the matter that can say whether or not the babies actually do feel intense pain during the procedure and whether or not the other alleged effects are real. The episode of Bullshit says that babies are actually hypersensitive to pain, not less sensitive.

The article in this thread seems credible to me, so I'm willing to accept that the procedure does lower HIV transmission to men a bit, but I'd count on a condom way before counting on circumcision for that. If the other negative effects are legitimate, then I'd still be hesitant to have the procedure performed on any kid I had.

I'd like to see more unbiased facts about this subject from non-political and non-religious sources.

Bap33 says

liberals are an odd sort ... they demand the law allow to have a baby get it's head smashed, brains sucked out, and torn limb from limb when the completed birth is not wanted by the woman, BUT, they don't want to see the male kid's peter trimmed should it somehow not be aborted. A really odd sort indeed.

No one wants to see a baby get it's head smashed. That's a disingenuous argument just like when the left try to argue that pro-lifers are just anti-women assholes who want to control women's bodies.

I really need to get out my thesis that answers the abortion question once and for all.

curious2 says

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

Vaccines are also a fraud

Ack! Vaccines and fluoridated water are perhaps the best public health measures ever, and the only examples of preventive care that actually do save money. For the cost of one week of the Iraq War, or even one day of our current medical-industrial complex budget, we could have multiple vaccines against HIV and eradicate the disease totally, like what happened with smallpox. Or maybe Robber Baron's comment was meant to be sarcastic, since PhRMA make so much $$$ off drugs they aren't interested in vaccines.

Another thing to disagree on ;) I completely disagree on fluoridated water which is again mostly a US-phenomenon (and a few other countries) as most other countries weighed in and found more risks that benefits, on the Vaccines I partially agree since there a useful and more or less useless/dangerous vaccines. Debating those would be a different topic.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

liberals are an odd sort ... they demand the law allow to have a baby get it's head smashed, brains sucked out, and torn limb from limb when the completed birth is not wanted by the woman, BUT, they don't want to see the male kid's peter trimmed should it somehow not be aborted. A really odd sort indeed.

No one wants to see a baby get it's head smashed. That's a disingenuous argument just like when the left try to argue that pro-lifers are just anti-women assholes who want to control women's bodies.

I really need to get out my thesis that answers the abortion question once and for all.

we can keep it on simple terms.
At [TIME FRAME "X"] before birth the left/liberal/sodomite/pro-abortion crowd has no problem with dick flaps getting tossed away with the destroyed baby. But, at [TIME FRAME "X"] after birth, the same crowd has all these deep reasons to save the dick flaps (and the baby) from any and all harm. How's that? No religion mentioned. No existentialism. No Jedi mind tricks. It is due to these types of things that I say liberalism is a mental disorder. One that I think is fostered and increased by drug abuse and/or sexually immoral activity.

Bap33 says

we can keep it on simple terms.

Just so you know. They are people out there who disagree with both mutilation of genitals and abortion.

You need to stop supporting mutilation of genitals by trying to discredit those don't support it through a generalization taken out of your ass.

And by the way, I hate liberals as well. But trying to assume that genital mutiliation opposers are all liberals is a insult to your intelligence.

Bap33 says

we can keep it on simple terms.
At [TIME FRAME "X"] before birth the left/liberal/sodomite/pro-abortion crowd has no problem with dick flaps getting tossed away with the destroyed baby. But, at [TIME FRAME "X"] after birth, the same crowd has all these deep reasons to save the dick flaps (and the baby) from any and all harm. How's that? No religion mentioned. No existentialism. No Jedi mind tricks. It is due to these types of things that I say liberalism is a mental disorder. One that I think is fostered and increased by drug abuse and/or sexually immoral activity.

You don't really believe that, do you? And how the hell do you define a sodomite?