I know it isn't linked to Islam, and I'm not talking about the Middle East here, I'm talking about African Muslims. They used their religion as a defense so they can justify what they are doing, despite it having nothing to do with their religion at all. It probably is a tribal ritual, I know that it has nothing to do with Islam.

Religion is a sensitive thing, if you associate something like female circumcision with religion then you can walk all over people.

And as you said, murder and suicide is a sin in Islam, yet extremists still associate it with their religion, they are complete hypocrite using religion as a defense.

And trust me, I know how you feel, sadly some Americans will lap up any shit Fox News tells them, other Western countries aren't that much better either. Luckily BBC news is ACTUALLY news, not propaganda.

Well i run into that too with jehovas witness. They could have terrible trauma and be bleeding out but simply wont accept blood or blood products. We educate, inform them of possible outcomes and respect their CHOICE. We provide comfort and do everything we can, some accept platelets, frozen plasma etc. becuase when youre actively dying its funny but 9 times out of 10 people want to live regardless of "religious policy"

the fact of the matter is its a choice, we have literature and we have facts to back up the benefits. we also have facts to back up the possible lack of benefits. Some people simply argue it doesnt make a difference in aids/cancer and thats fine. Most of the medical community agrees that it does far more good than having it not done, but we let the parents decide.

You can argue until youre blue in the face and rightfuly so about the pros or cons or evidence of lack of benefit etc. We know for a FACT a few things.

1) Foreskin has no benefit in protecting the penis throughout the life of a human being

2) Meticulous care of the glans penis is necessary throughout life.

3) Bacteria dwell in dark, warm moist places, this is under the foreskin

Now, i havent seen solid evidence about lack of pain, i do know first hand that babies have slept right through the procedure and they balled their eyes out after being restrained in their legs only to have fall right back to sleep before the snipping and sleep through it. Ive seen babies suck a pacifier right through the procedure away without flinching at the incision or clamping. I believe from what ive witnessed it causes no distress. Thats what i tell mothers and fathers who ask, and i say we dont know for sure. We say its not medically necessary but the potential outcomes from doing it are positive whereas there is a chance based on the facts we know about bacteria and the need to clean meticulously its difficult to prevent infections in some instances as the child grows and even in adulthood.

Anytime people are petitioning to remove the choice of something its scary. Anytime people who (liek the poster above talking about colostomy "bags" and rmeoving throats at birth etc) base this reasoning on a complete lack of education and more idealistic religious or unfounded bizarre analogies its scarier.

In the end its a choice, a choice thats not forced or pushed on parents. Its religiously driven, if we start replacing science and medicine based on religion we are in trouble.

thanks for understanding.

The foreskin has a function. It is still living tissue made to protect the glans. Since the foreskin also contains nerve endings, it also heightens stimulation. You're trying to tell me that the pros outweigh the cons, since when does severing of nerve endings on one's junk EVER have a pro that outweighs it.

You're being over dramatic about the care of such things too. There are plenty of intact males who do not clean regularly and still have had little to no problem whatsoever. It's been part of humans for thousands of years, and the way you speak, if you miss one day of cleaning, it will shrivel up and fall off.

I honestly think that you need to do a bit of research yourself. You mention lack of knowledge, and you're trying to justify your argument with ethos, in your case, saying you know best because you work in the medical industry. Give me a logical explanation of WHY even minimalistic maintenance is not sufficient enough to warrant a procedure that's potentially risky and usually debilitating to one's sensation.

sorry i can't do anything but laugh i find you to have a funny way of replying :). removing throats at birth rofl.

And it most certainly has. To my knowledge theres no scientific proof of it "for sure" lowering the risk of cancer. But as i said in my previous post, we know for a fact certain things about why the procedure is beneficial. If parents are hesitant we do NOT do it. We will absolutley not do any medical procedure without the parents (or patient in other situations) verbalizing an understanding and why they want it done. Its not like we go in their with a debate team to convince them or anything.

We explain theres no need to be alarmed or scared if they choose to not have it done, just they must meticulously educate their child on the importance of cleanliness after intercourse, drying after bathing, washing daily, checking to make sure its been cleaned thoroughly....in the end these are the facts and in the end its usually done because while theres no factual concrete evidence of preventing or limiting cancer, we know having the foreskin removed limits the possibility of infection and essentially is easier to maintain that part of the body.

The idea behind it is like anything though. I could go 2 years without washing my hands after going to the bathroom and never get sick. But wash meticulously and end up gettign sick. We just make our decisions and information based on the facts: bacteria liek these places and gather there, its not easily visible an dmust be maintained because of this and removing or keeping is a moot point as theres no harm to the function of the body keeping or cutting. we stress it doesnt mean they will get an infection but we offer them the choice to prophylacticly limit the risk potential. thats all. And again, its a choice, not sure why people feel the need to force religious or social beliefs on people for no reason other than their egos.

People should be able to choose if they want their foreskin cut off not be forced to get it cut as a baby..

Yeah almost as ridiculous as justifying an unnecessary procedure that permanently affects the child for the rest of their life and calling it acceptable.

I most certainly have not tried to make it sound like this is a necessity. In fact ive said multiple times it isnt. If the best reasoning you have is "people have done it for thousands of years" then youve got nothing. Go find me medical documentation from the 1920's. Let alone 3000 years ago, you ahve no idea the prevalence of glans penis infection, irritation, transferring of infection etc.How many babies died of PKU being not diagnosed, oh but they didnt do it 3000 years ago so we shouldnt do that, right? What about eye infections from the vaginal canal at birth before antibiotic ointment was invented to use after birth? How many deaths? You dont know? Thats right you dont know how many men from 3000 years ago has infections, or passed on infections without knowing.

Youre ignoring the advancment of our knowledge of bacteria, fuck antibiotics are less than 90 years old, yet youre content with simply doing things "like they did 3000 years ago"?

Im not saying i know more than everyone argueing in favor of forcing people to follow nothign more than ideology (but i am saying i know far more than you) but the fact is the only reason people are forcing this (or i should say the reasoning they can verbalize) is not grounded in science.

The medical community knows its not necessary, thats why its a choice. we also give vitamin K injections, we also use erythromycin eye ointments after birth, we do PKU testing to ensure babies are receiving proper and accurate nutrition.....they didnt do that 3000 years ago because antibiots werent invented but do you know why? When a baby passes through the vaginal canal they can get gonorhhea or other STD's just simply from birth even if the mother doesnt have those diseases, it infects their eyes so we prophylactically give ointment.

If all you have is "people dont wash and they didnt get an infection" you absolutley lack the knowledge of not only preventative medicine but medicine in general. Nothign in life let alone medicine is black and white. There is failure, success and in between. People who never smoke, never worked with carcinogenic agents develop lung cancer in their 40's. Why? we dont know.

We see things we cant explain and we do the best to help people remian healthy and happy. By knowing what we know about bacteria and the covered glans penis we offer this service if parents want it. Thats all.

You know absolutley nothing about bacteria, colonization or how diseases work. You take a small (and probably made up) pool of adult males who rarely clean their glans penis and use it as a reason to not have this optional procedure done. Youre the kind of person who would vote for this, who would compare this to removing bowels and throats prophylactically. Unreal, and why i fucking hate 95% of the people who are allowed to vote on topics theyre painfully uneducated about.

Yeah I understand the medical ideas behind it. The problem though, on the medical side, isn't the washing. THe problem is parents not giving a single fuck, not informing their kids, not taking responsibility because Americans are pussies when it comes to talking to their kids about sex. Additionally, given an environment where intact was more common, kids could inform each other through common experience and let each other know what to do. This is what it's like in foreign countries (well at least in France it is) where the procedure is uncommon. On the medical side, it's really just another case of treating the symptoms. And it's treating the symptoms of parental negligence by treating a cause.

On the religious side of things, it's an affront. There is a lot of propoganda out there fueled by religious groups that are pro-circumcision because they feel like circumcision is some kind of religious rite. There is a long sordid history with circumcision in religion. Many were cut at puberty to coincide with female menstruation. When circumcised peoples would conquer others, they would circumcise the defeated nation's peoples as a means of marking ownership. On the religious side, this is a hostile takeover, IMO.