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, sensationalist points are not making your arguing any more professional. You really think that I said we should go back to 3000 years ago, including nonsterile places, improper hygeine (by a LOT worse standards than 17th century London), bathing water that wasn't treated. The chances of infections caught now are miniscule in comparison to back then. Are you saying that despite the advancements we have made to treat and prevent such infections, the only way is STILL cutting off parts of our dicks? Seriously?

You're right, nothing is black and white, but your argument of "we should do it, just in case" seems pretty overkill to tackle this. Outside of the US, the circumcised are in the minority. The 2000 British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyle found that 16% of 16-44 year-olds were circumcised. Now tell me, if the majority of these people were having frequent infections and troubles pertained by keeping the foreskin intact wouldn't the government actually step in and do something about it? This is what's wrong with America. Medicine is a business, so people are STRONGLY encouraged to take the path that will reap the most financial benefit. Your earlier claim that "most medical practitioners recommend it" is totally reversed throughout the rest of the world. Oh, and look at that, the rest of the world isn't going to hell in a handbasket from overcrowded hospitals from penile infections. Funny that. Nice to see you're part of the American privatisation machine.

You know what I hate? People who argue their points using the ethos method of persuasion (ie. "You don't know anything about it. I do. I work with it"). Your claim that circumcision is necessary is flawed by the logical fact that, for example, the UK's majority is uncircumcised, yet the country is not sufferng any such hardships from a majority of the popuation "not cleaning frequntly enough".

One part I do agree on, however, "i fucking hate 95% of the people who are allowed to vote on topics theyre painfully uneducated about." 100% correct, which is why you really should look up such statistics and educate yourself before you take a stand on this.

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.

You really havent actually read what ive been saying at all. Great. Take care

steverhcp02 said:
Well, being a nurse and witnessing dozens of circumcisions i can tell you a couple of things. Babies often times sleep through them. I understand it helps all the people saying this is inhumane to use words like mutilation and deform, but the fact of the matter if a baby IS crying its generally because we are restraining their legs and the confinement in a non "warm" way, like when we wrap in a blanket is what causes outbursts.

How do we solve these outbursts? A simple glucose and water solution on a pacifier puts the babies at ease, yes even with the "mutilation" in progress.

I have a question if you don't mind answering: At your workplace what is done for the child to deal with the pain? I searched a bit and had noticed that anesthetic hadn't ever been used universally only until recently, only I'm not too sure about the reliability of the source.

Using scary words like mutilation and disfigurement is easy and fun to sensationalize a very safe, very practical procedure.

While the word mutilation has negative connotations, it's quite apt in its use here. However, the use of the word alone cannot determine one's motives. Granted, it is likely that it is more often then not used as a sensationalist hook.

EDIT: After searching in a medical dictionary, the word mutilate is dependent on the body part being essential. That would categorize circumcision as not being mutilation. However, it would also mean that having the earlobe of a baby removed at birth would not be considered as mutilation either. Curious.

To people saying "pulling back skin and washing is easy" It is, the same way as drinking 8 glasses of water a day, breathing deeply upright in bed is but people still get pneumonia and people still dont do these things every day because while its easy its not always done because as a society we pay attention to extremely apparent physical things which under your foreskin is not.

I can appreciate this, but I wouldn't think a non-essential operation necessary where proper parenting and/or education could substitute.

So yes, parents make an executive decision based on the information we give them of pros and cons. Cons being possible stimulation. Cons can include a possible mistake, just as any medical procedure. We are honest and as a medical profession who cares for countless readmmision of people not doing "easy" things, im completely in favor of a parent making an informed decision for their newborn BEFORE he can talk and rationalize or justify his choice which at that time would be traumatic to lose a part of your body, however small.

I hope all of you parents who want your kids to decide let them choose their meals, bedtimes and if they want to go to school. It must be very liberating for them to be in charge of such "serious" things at that age.

This is an unfair statement. Firstly, choosing between meals (as one example) and having a part of your body removed are of a completely different magnitude. Secondly, one choice is non-essential (you admitted yourself that there isn't conclusive evidence that there are significant advantages) while the other is essential for both proper physical and mental maturation.

steverhcp02 said:

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

I'm unsure that I would categorize myself under either of those. Well, definitely not the first two, though I can't possibly rule out the last one - I suppose not many of us could. Anyhow, my sole reason for being against it is that it seems to be such an extreme decision made without any decisively beneficial factors. Now, if I ever had an opportunity to vote on the matter, I would most likely vote to leave the option in the parents' hands (largely because the risks associated are so low - 0.2% - 3% according to kidshealth.org and it is a non-essential body part) but on a personal level, it just seems wholly unnecessary and absurd that it's an option presented to me.