I suppose the health risks of NOT having it done, and the fact that parent's are responsible for their children until they're 18, and are expected to make the decisions for their child completely escapes you.

It is far less traumatizing to a child to have it done at birth, then to have it done later in life as a result of an infection. I know someone that had it done at 10 years old, and they were in excruciating pain, wishing they had it done sooner (birth).

There should be no law banning the practice, it should remain up to the parents, as it always has been. If you can show me where there are complaints about the pain, from newborns, I might change my mind, but otherwise, this sounds more like a certain group trying to push THEIR beliefs on everyone in their area.

Leave it to some idiot in San Fransisco to ban this. I wonder how he feels about the pain from a partial birth abortion. But I guess the abortion pain is soon forgot by the baby.

Then its the same for ear ring piercings !

Parents still have the right to do this for religious reasons. There are also good health reasons to have it done.

Consider using anesthetic.

GROSS! Females love male circumcision! We will stop this disgusting proposal!

Seriously? I have been sitting here trying to type something for 5 minutes and as much as I love to argue on these posts, I can't even think of something to say. Butt out of my families life. Lloyd if you have a small piece of junk then take it out on your sock, not my family.

TM-689440, There is so much wrong with your post I have to tackle it a bit at a time.

I suppose the health risks of NOT having it done

There are NO health benefits of infant circumcision. For this reason, the AAP does not recommend it.

parent's are responsible for their children until they're 18, and are expected to make the decisions for their child completely escapes you.

Making a decision FOR a child is one thing, making the decision to have something DONE to a child is another. Just switch the scenario to subjecting an infant girl to a labiectomy and it's egregious. So why the double standard for boys?

It is far less traumatizing to a child to have it done at birth, then to have it done later in life as a result of an infection.

That's unfortunately an undying myth perpetuated by the medical community. Doctors used to think babies didn't feel pain. Shockingly enough, many circs are STILL performed without anesthesia. Unless you've actually been in a procedure room to witness one, you have no right to say it's "less" traumatizing. Why don't you ask the child how traumitizing it is? Oh yeah, they're not old enough to talk yet. That must make it ok then...

I know someone that had it done at 10 years old, and they were in excruciating pain, wishing they had it done sooner (birth).

I've heard of tons of people that were circumcised at birth that wished it never happened. What's the point of your anecdotal argument?

There should be no law banning the practice, it should remain up to the parents, as it always has been.

Wrong wrong and WRONG. The decision should be up to the CHILD. It's his frickin body, not the parent's body. How DARE you to feel that you have the RIGHT to determine what pieces and parts should be hacked off your child simply because you are a parent acting on your own religious or twisted morals.

If you can show me where there are complaints about the pain, from newborns, I might change my mind,

The evidence is that most of them will "fall asleep" or basically pass out from trauma because of the pain.

Wait until age 18? I had my helmet scrubbed at least a few times before that age.

As a resident of San Francisco, this is just another embarrassment. The "Nanny state" mentality that seems to constantly rear its ugly head in this town is getting old. In spite of this ridiculousness, the "City" is otherwise a great town.

Hey SF, instead of worrying about my pecker, balance the damm budget and keep the streets safe.

Yea, ban removing tonsils, wisdom teeth, and umbilical cords before age 18 as well. Joking. But these people should worry about their own lives and not the lives of others. If something done by others can't affect you in the slightest, why gather signatures? If I lived in San Francisco, I would oppose by telling this group to "GET OFF MY D!CK!"

I suppose the health risks of NOT having it done

Which are? Provide links when you post anything please.

There are also good health reasons to have it done.

Which are? With links please...

People are goingto vote on my right to have my weenie cut? I'm glad my parents had the foresight to have it done when my weenie and me were both tiny. I love my precision cut tool! I don't think I would care for the aroma of smegma. Cleaning is so easy and fun!

This guy needs to go crawl back under his rock. I can not believe he was able to get enough signatures to put this nonsense on the ballot. Aside from the freedom of religion issue, there are medical reasons for having a circumcision done at a young age. First off, young children are not the best at keeping themselves clean and not being circumcised increases the risk of urinary infections. Second, the pain and chance of permanent scarring are greater if you wait until you are older to have this done. The body is very resilient when we are young and loses that resiliency as we age. Also, to say that parents do not have the right to make this decision would be the same as saying that they have no right to make decisions regarding any elective surgery for their child. And what about a girl getting her ears pierced?!?!

This law, assuming by some miracle it passes, will never withstand legal scrutiny. Parents are empowered to make these decisions for their child and take responsibility for their child until they are 18. There is no reason that this should change. This law would also seriously intrude on religious freedom. If something like this were ever allowed to stand it would set a very dangerous precedent of allowing the majority to outlaw any religious practice involving minors they do not agree with.

OhMy999999

TM-689440, There is so much wrong with your post I will tackle it a bit at a time.

There are NO health benefits of circumcision. Because of this, the AAP does not recommend infant circumcision.

Yes, there are....infection, but you just read over that part because it doesn't fit YOUR ideas. The risk of infection is very real, and to honestly expect your child to completely clean out their foreskin after every urination is unrealistic.

Making a decision FOR a child is one thing, making the decision to have something DONE to a child is another. Just switch the scenario to subjecting an infant girl to a labiectomy and it's egregious. So why the double standard for boys?

This is making a decision for your child, which you said you understand. Where is the problem here? The parent is making the decision for their child to NOT have to deal with the pain at a much more rememberable age, than to deal with it at a time they will never remember. Do you remember your birth?

That's unfortunately an undying myth perpetuated by the medical community. Doctors used to think babies didn't feel pain. Shockingly enough, many circs are still performed without anesthesia. Unless you've actually been in the procedure room to witness one, you can't say it's "less" traumatizing. Why don't you ask the child how traumitizing it is? Oh yeah, they're not old enough to talk yet. That must make it ok then...

The point is, you are not going to remember that pain, where as if you had it done at a later age, you will remember that trauma for the rest of your life. HUGE difference. I would much rather deal with pain I won't remember, than to have my penis cut at 10 years old, remembering the horror for the rest of my life. I am grateful my parents had my long term health and memory in mind.

I know someone that had it done at 10 years old, and they were in excruciating pain, wishing they had it done sooner (birth).

I've heard of tons of people that had it done at birth that wished it never happened. What's the point of your anecdotal argument?

Same argument that you make, saying it shouldn't be done. Because there are always two sides to each coin, there should be no law saying that you MUST do it one way. We are allowed that choice, as Americans. You have no right to tell me I cannot do something to benefit my child for the long term.

Wrong wrong and WRONG. The decision should be up to the CHILD. It's his frickin body, not the parent's body. How DARE you to feel that you have the RIGHT to determine what pieces and parts should be hacked off your child simply because you are a parent acting on your own religious or twisted morals.

Because a child cannot speak and make an educated decision at birth, it again falls back on the people responsible for the child (the parents) to make that decision.

The evidence is that most of them will "fall asleep" or basically pass out from trauma because of the pain.

And never ever remember that incident again. If you have it done after 2-3 years old, you will remember it for the rest of your life.

Who are YOU to tell me what's best for my child(ren)?

The myths about it being detrimental for a male infant's penis to remain intact have been largely debunked.... This is genital mutilation, PERIOD.

For those that want to talk about the random teenager that has to have it done later in life, they are the exception, not the rule... and exceptions should not dictate accepted norms.

The vast majority of males that practice proper hygiene will not have ANY problems, and will infact experience many benefits.

Having said all that, I think a ban (at this point) is a step too far...

I WOULD however, like to see an end to the religiously motivated propaganda that convinces parents that this is a necessary procedure to have done... it's not... it's mutilation, and it is unecessary, traumatic, pain inflicted on the infant.

This is proof positive that the politicians of San Francisco have finally completely lost their f**king minds!!

I guess the Happy Meal toy ban should have been our sign, but damn if this doesn't make that bit of Communist behavior modification seem almost reasonable.

I always hope that the people of San Francisco will some day soon wake up and start giving some of their Communist politicians long overdue pink slips, but alas, elections come and go and the same inmates are running the asylum !!

Sometimes fools should just be ignored. It is time that Americans stop giving media time and attention to foolish people on foolish topics that infringe on traditional freedoms and choices that make America what it is.

Best to call stupid what it is....Stupid! Rationalizing the point makes it even worse.

zanilth

I suppose the health risks of NOT having it done

Which are? Provide links when you post anything please.

There are also good health reasons to have it done.

Which are? With links please...

So you're going to question where our links are, without providing your links saying circumcision is harmful to babies and should not be done?

Once I begin to think nothing more can surprise me, along comes a group favoring or disfavoring something that has been practiced for around 6 thousand years; who do these people think they are , what country do they think they live, and who the hell makes it any of their business!

TM, you make two points: Infection and memory.

No procedure in the history of medicine has been claimed to cure and prevent more diseases than circumcision, everything from a means to prevent or cure alcoholism, epilepsy, asthma, hernia, gout, rheumatism, curvature of the spine, headaches, etc. Today we tack on things like cancers and HIV. No new news here. Just the same old weak arguments to convince those that take things at face value without researching.

And as far as memory goes. There's a portion of the male population that DO remember the trauma from their circumcisions at birth. Potentially difficult to believe, even for myself, it does seem to be a valid truth for many of them which suggests that we are not mindless painless sponges until we reach the age of memory retention.

Another argument would be, why would you do anything with children at all at a young age? Why not just lock them in a closet until they're 4 or 5 years old. They're not going to remember any of it anyway.

The potential of non-recollection of memory isn't a good case to have a cosmetic procedure done to a child.

Who are YOU to tell me what's best for my child(ren)?

I am the advocate for the male children that are or may be subjected to a barbaric practice that needs to be confined to the history books, much like female genital mutilation has been in some cultures. I'm giving them a voice they don't have.

As parents, our duty is to PROTECT our children from harm. Not inflict it upon them.

Ban haircuts until the age of consent! And the evil practice of cutting a child's fingernails. Ah, San Francisco.

Hey OhMy999999....Your right, it's a terrible practice. I got mine cut and couldn't walk for 2 years.

So you're going to question where our links are, without providing your links saying circumcision is harmful to babies and should not be done?

Where did I state circumcision is harmful to babies and should not be done anywhere in the post that you quoted from?

Oh, thats right, I didn't! I simply asked to see the proof that those who assert it is for health reasons use to make that assertation.

Now, a few posts down, I did state that it wasn't 'for health reasons', and did post links shortly thereafter. I'm just simply giving 'pro-health snippers' the ability to prove their 'cut for health' mantality before posting the counter.

DenverYo

Ban haircuts until the age of consent! And the evil practice of cutting a child's fingernails.

You're comparing hair and finger nail cutting to slicing of the most concentrated cluster of nerve endings on our bodies?

I guess this means that gay guys like them with some skin.

Hey OhMy999999....Your right, it's a terrible practice. I got mine cut and couldn't walk for 2 years.

Jimbo, I just got questioned by my boss for LOL at work. hahaha. Classic.

I'm thankful that I was born and raised in a time when my mother and father were able to raise me how they saw fit. The filth that thinks they have a right to tell everyone how they should live their lives and raise their children are the #1 reason I won't bring a child into this horrible world. This trumps the fact that I will be the last to carry my family name, and that's just pathetic.

So you're going to question where our links are, without providing your links saying circumcision is harmful to babies and should not be done?

Burden of proof. YOU'RE advocating that the procedure be done, shouldn't YOU be the one to provide proof and reasoning for it?

If I advocate that all girls have their breast tissue removed to prevent the occurrence of breast cancer, should I be demanding people opposed to this to come up with proof and reasons why I shouldn't do it? Or would it be more logical for me to come up with reasons why I SHOULD do it and prove that it's beneficial?

I think there is a general misunderstanding of circumcision by those trying to ban it. You see in reality all those who circumcise their children within the first week or so of birth would rather do it while the baby is inside the mother's uterus as then everyone would agree it is okay, since then you can even kill it. However these people who so dearly want to have a child realize that if they perform the circumcision before the baby is born the baby may die so they push it off a few days and thereby give the baby a chance to be born and to live a full and happy life. Now along comes this group if intactivisits who wish they were killed before they were born and are upset that their parents lost that right to kill them once they were born and so they see it as an injustice that even after a baby is born we can still circumcise. So that I assume is the motivation for this nonsense. Perhaps we can make a big giant artificial uterus and put this fellow inside it and then whoever happens to own that uterus would exercise their right to abort whatever is inside that uterus and then we could put this issue to rest.

I strongly believe that circumcision isn't a medical issue, but a human rights issue. Here's a good article about it:

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/

Interesting reading OhMy999999 and TM-689440 arguments. I think TM's arguments for circumcision are weak even if I do favor the practice...Studies in Africa have shown that circumcision reduces the risk of STDs, it easier to keep clean (this shouldn't be an issue for grown men but we all know how little boys are), and I like the look of my circumcised penis and so does my wife...Now will I circumcise my son when he is born, I have not made that decision yet but I'm glad that I have the choice to make that decision for him...and unlike female circumcision the penis will still be able to feel pleasure.

Studies in Africa have shown that circumcision reduces the risk of STDs

Have you ever read this specific study? The control group they used, the environment, etc?

I'd be willing to bet you haven't. I have YET to meet a person who actually read on how the study was conducted yet still agrees that it is a viable study.

Here's some information about the AIDS studies done in Africa. I copied and pasted this from the Mothering.com forum (http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1246312/aids-and-circ-study):

While there may be some relation between circumcision and HIV in the limited context of the three RCTs in Africa, the 60% reduction rate will most likely not materialize in Africa or anywhere else once other factors come into play, which the RCTs did not/could not control for. One of the biggest problems with the studies is that they were terminated early, showing relatively few events. For example, far more men dropped out of the trials than we infected with HIV, and many of the infections occurred through means outside of sexual contact.

In any case, I think you should check out the blog below as it has the RCTs in pdf format as well as a wealth of other high quality information on the subject: http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/.

For a little light reading, I would suggest these posts as they explain well the pragmatic and ethical problems of introducing large scale circumcision programs in Africa: http://www.adriancolesberry.com/life/?cat=22.

And for a quick summary, here is a great fact sheet: http://www.intactamerica.org/sites/d...ousMistake.pdf

There is plenty of other great information online. My suggestion would be to avoid the "big headline news stories" as they provide almost no critical analyses other than reporting the big 60% statistic, which once scrutinized is really not that impressive.

Lastly, even if circumcision were to reduce HIV by 60% or higher, you have to ask yourself whether that is the best way to stop AIDS in sub-suharan Africa, the classic question of whether the ends justify the means. My answer is no. Condoms and education have been shown to work far better. Really, this is a great exercise of looking outside of the box. If, for example, cutting off parts of female genitalia were shown in an RCT to reduce HIV transmission would the western world all of sudden promote clinical female circumcision? The answer to that is probably not. For sure, people would be reluctant to do so, calling, at the very least, for more research. Indeed, our society has a double standard here, one that becomes ever more clear once you shift the paradigm.

I swear , there has to be something wrong with the water in California !!!!!!

I mean like hello ,what other explaination is there for the crazy and off the wall things that come out of there.

It more about having a permanant unchangable operation at a time when you have no decision or voice about what is being done to you. Many of us men are not happy about such a personal thing being done to us at a time that we are basically helpless and at the whim of the parent. Spank your kid and your a monster. Fillet a chunk of skin off their willy and you're not. Makes perfect sense. I don't understand how anyone could be against female circumcision and yet support male circumcision. And before the usual "it's not the same" crowd begins to chime in try to remember that it was during the Victorian era that circumcision became popular and a general rule instead a niche religious ceremony. And most of the Victorian era was about trying to repress sexual desire and gratification. Circumcisions popularity derived from the decrease in sensitivity to the penis from scarring not for nebulous health reasons that were moot with proper cleaning and care. This was great for a society who's men were wearing glass lined underwear to discourage erections(no joke).

zanilth, you sound like a birther.

OHMY, Interesting article...Not sure how much I would put all of my faith into it since it was written by two nurses. Hope you didn't base all of your arguments from just that one research study. I'm sure a lot of it is true but I would question portions of it.

Bebop- hows that?

Birther- someone who doubted that the President was born in Hawaii, despite evidence showing otherwise (with NO actual evidence against...)

My stance- someone who doubts a botched study who is using proof from MULTIPLE other sources (including the FACT that NO HEALTH ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD has endorsed circumcision as providing a health benefit...)

I don't see how the two correlate... Care to clarify? That's all I've said up to this point btw, was ask for clarification.

SHENANIGANIZER,

Thanks for reading it. Although it was written by nurses, it quotes nearly 70 references, many of them doctors.

There's lots more legitimate non-anecdotal info out there. I won't bother posting more links cause I don't want to get banned for spamming.

Funny, when I called it genital mutilation on a parenting board 12 years ago I was all but thrown out.

I am against circumcisioin except when it it medically needed. But to call a ban against it is unimaginable. what's next? Ban piercing a kid's ears before they are 18?

I mother to two children and neither, not my daughter nor my son had a scalpel come near their privates. But that was our choice as their parents. I can't imagine the group in SF getting away with that. No way!

how about the decision to end an unborn childs life? Thats OK??? To make a Law in favor of this practice or against it is stupid. As stupid as saying an unborn baby has no real right to live unless the parents want him/her to.

Does this mean I won't be able to donate my infants kidney to my boss now? I am the parent so I should be able to chose.

Don't get me wrong with my posts earlier- I'm not supportive of making it illegal to circumcise a baby... I'm only trying to state that if you do it, don't claim it is for medical necessity when it's not- regular circumcisions are done today for purely cosmetic reasons, and they were started as a means to inhibit masturbation.

This is nothing more than proof that there is a God, and that he drinks and has a sense of humor. "Im kinda bored, hey, just to have a little fun, Ill bet I can convince those Jews to whack the end of their peckers off, hahahaha". Gotta love a guy with a sense of humor!

Nothing like participating in a thread where my factual posts get collapsed but small penis jokes get a dozen thumbs up. Such are the priorities here. I'm out, laters.

This is great. While they pass a law to ban head coverings in France for Muslim women, here in San Fran we try to pass a law that prohibits removing head coverings.

The freaks proposing this legislation probably have a fetish for non-cut boys/men and want to make sure their are more of them available in the future.

Removing the entire penis is actually much more likely to stop the spread of disease and the risk of infection. Really, it's unfair to expect a male to shower and clean his penis. Just get rid of the pesky, filthy thing.

circumcision reduces STDs including AIDS

circumcisionreduces rates of penile cancer (treatment is penictomy)

Religous freedom, personal liberties issues

Im not sure why this is even a debate

I gotta say, I agree the practice is barbaric. I also don't feel it will be banned though due to religious freedoms. I'm happily fully skinned, and never had any of those mythical infections people preach against. The reason I never get infections is cause I know how to wash myself. My son is also fully skinned, and not for a moment did I consider snipping his tip.

This topic is kinda like the abortion debate. There are reasons for and against it. I fully understand and accept religious reasons for having the procedure done. But I find it funny how people talk about how you will become diseased if you don't have it done. For the past bizillion years, animals have been born with their skin, and you don't see them walking around all infected and in pain. Modern humans have been around for some 100K years now and I'm sure we survived just fine without the practice. I also doubt Neanderthals and Homo Erectus snipped the tip. I'm pretty sure the species does just fine with the skin.

Those who argue for circumcision on religious purposes should consider female circumcision too. I'm pretty sure people do that for religious purposes. But I would bet those who do accept male circumcision don't like the thought of female circumcision. Why the double standard?

So yeah, I understand the desire of religious people to have it done, I still don't agree with the practice.

female and male circumcision are two completely different procedures. Dont be confused because they have the same name

there are clear health benefits and no real downside to male circumcision--the opposite is true for female

For all those of you who think circumcision is necessary for health reason, what about those Europeans that (mercifully) have never adhered to this cruel practice. I lived in Europe for many years and no male child was ever circumcised, nor were there any adult males that I know of who were circumcised. I also doubt the males in African countries, where AIDS is rampant, are circumcised. Talking about Africa, in response to a previous remark, there are societies where females were and in some places still are circumcised. Cruel does not even begin to describe it.

susi

What's your point? Circumcision clearly reduces the transmission of STDs

eric- No it doesn't, my proof is listed in links below... Where is yours?

Oh, and females and males have completely different genitals. OF COURSE they are going to be different procedures. The impact (and effect) are quite often identical however...

Circumcision is not merely cosmetic. If you don't think there are sound hygienic and epidemiological reasons to get it done, try working as a physician (or even better, as a nurse or a med tech) in an emergency room. If you've never had to treat or clean the foreskin of an elderly, obese, or disabled person, you have no room to talk about the uselessness of circumcision. I can completely understand choosing not to do it to your child, but I also think there are plenty of reasons, beyond cosmetics, to do it.

As for so-called FGM (female genital mutilation, or sometimes called female circumcission), the comparisons to male circumcision are disanalagous. FGM often/usually results in horrendous complications later in life. Child birthing can be incredibly difficult and painful (much more so that it naturally is), and some women do not survive it. No such chronic effects from male circumcision (except perhaps that some say sexual sensitivity is diminished, but, as a circumcised man, my anecdotal report is that sex is still good :). I spent a brief period in Africa working on some FGM issues, and I can tell you that it is a bird of a different stripe from male circumcision.

eric-2573068 wrote "Circumcision clearly reduces the transmission of STDs"

Then uncircumcised Germany, UK, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, etc. should have significantly higher rates of STDs. Guess what? US has the highest HIV rate of all the countries listed.

The circumcision ban is merely the culmination of the end of the circumcision trend in the US, peaking at rates of 90% in the 1960's to a rate of 33% today.

This is real proof...not an internet link, not someone's opinion. A true study

Assessment of the protective effect of male circumcision from HIV infection and sexually transmitted diseases: evidence from 18 demographic and health surveys in sub-Saharan Africa.
Gebremedhin S.

Source

Hawassa University, P.O. Box 12485, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. samsongmgs@yahoo.com

Abstract

A cross-sectional study based on the secondary data of 18 Demographic Health Surveys carried out in Sub-Saharan Africa was conducted to assess the protective effect of male circumcision from HIV infection and STDs. Information on 70,554 males aged 15-59 years was extracted. The association between circumcision and HIV infection and STD symptoms (Genital discharge or ulcer/sore) was assessed using logistic regression. Un-circumcision was significantly associated with risk of HIV with odds ratio of 4.12 (95%CI: 3.85-4.42). The association was even more significant, 4.95 (95%CI: 4.57-5.36), after adjustment was made for number lifetime sexual partners and socio-demographic variables. The risk associated with un-circumcision is significantly lower among younger men aged 15-29 years than older age categories. However, circumcision found to have no association with the symptoms of STDs. The study concluded that male circumcision can be considered as a way of reducing the spread of HIV infection.

PMID:

21243923

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I wouldn't want someone chopping on my junk when I'm 18.

AngelicaS wrote "GROSS! Females love male circumcision! We will stop this disgusting proposal!"

Although circumcision was introduced in the US as part of the anti-masturbation movement of the late 1800's, the #1 reason that this medically-unnecessary surgery persists is female preference as articulated by AngelaS .

vincent,

come on, you should know the answer to that. Circumcision is the ONLY factor in the risk of STDs--there's prevalence in a population, rates of protection usage, etc. You'd have to adjust and correct for all those

I shouldn't have to tell you that...

This is exactly the reason why San Francisco is pathetic thanks for telling people how to live @!$%#s...

I think it's pretty clear that this Lloyd Schofield is a size queen.....

I was circumcised at birth and have no complaints, I'm glad my parents did it. The first time I saw an uncircumcised one was in a p0rn and it was nasty as hell, lol!

google scholar the word "circumcision" and the first 10 or so hits are all related to the reduction of HIV infection risk....trials taking place in Africa.

scroll down a bit further and you will find "Circumcision in the United States" published by the AMA in 1997. I will quote:

"Results. - We find no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. However uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life."

So, maybe it has no significant difference when it comes to STD, but I don't think anyone (myself included) wants to experience ANY sexual dysfunctions!

A little backround on this guy........which of course msnbc left out

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=77266#ixzz1KlB7I6wg

Schofield became interested in the topic after seeing the Bay Area Intactivists marching in the Gay Pride Parade a few years back and has since become an "intactivist" himself.

I wonder....is he motivated by true medical concerns....or just "personal preference". (It IS San Francisco after all )

I suppose the health risks of NOT having it done

Which are? Provide links when you post anything please.

There are also good health reasons to have it done.

Which are? With links please...

Well, let's start here. I'm sure that with about 20 minutes of research, I could find many other similar articles.

WTF is going on with this country? Stay the hell out of peoples personal lives. I for one am glad my parents had the foresight to clip my foreskin.

regular circumcisions are done today for purely cosmetic reasons, and they were started as a means to inhibit masturbation.

That may be the most stupid statement I've seen on this board. I don't know of ANYONE whose parents had them circumcised for "cosmetic reasons". The only thing close to that is the fact that if a baby's father is circumcised, usually the baby will be circumcised as well, so he can better identify with his father. The reverse is true as well. My son is uncircumcised because his father is uncircumcised, and we mutually made the decision to NOT do a circumcision. (And regretted that choice later in life when my young son had to have a painful medical procedure done when his foreskin retracted and wouldn't go back by itself.)

Whether you are a religious person or not, you should know that circumcision was originally begun as part of the Abrahamic covenant with God - which is why it is practiced, not only by Jews, but by Muslims and many Christians. It has NOTHING to do with masturbation.

I would just like to point out that there is absolutely no comparison between male circumcision and female circumcision. I wrote a paper on female genital mutilation (FGM) when I was in college. The parents hold the girl down while someone uses a dull knife or piece of glass with no anesthesia and cuts off her clitoris and labia, then sews her up so that there is a little hole to pee out of. This causes many problems when the girl starts menstruating and can cause infections and painful child birth and intercourse. On the girl's wedding night the husband will either cut or rip her open for intercourse then she will be resown. This practice ensures that the girl gets no pleasure from intercourse and that she will not be unfaithful to her husbands. This is the most extreme case of FGM and the practice is still performed in some parts of Africa and Asia. The less severe form of FGM just removes the clitoris but the result is still that the girl will have no pleasure form intercourse. Men can still function properly if they are circumcised and I think that this should remain a personal preference.

Here is the link for FGM article from the World Health Organization:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

Some forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. Sometimes there's just an incision with nothing actually removed. One form just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with anesthesia. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. 91 males died of circumcision in just one province of South Africa last year.

Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.

One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."

Nowadays, it's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection?

Don't get me wrong. I'm totally against female circumcision, and I probably spend a lot more time and money trying to stop it than most people. If people are serious about stopping female circumcision though, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don't (and they get furious if you call it "mutilation"). There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the exact same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself (as well as labiaplasty and breast operations), as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice FGM will interpret western objections as something more than cultural imperialism.

Some forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. Sometimes there's just an incision with nothing actually removed. One form just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with anesthesia. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. 91 males died of circumcision in just one province of South Africa last year.

Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.

One victim wrote a book about it:

Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."

Some forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. Sometimes there's just an incision with nothing actually removed. One form just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with anesthesia. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. 91 males died of circumcision in just one province of South Africa last year.

Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.

One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."

Nowadays, it's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals though, even i

VickiC-2653645

Do you know what 'burden of proof' is? Someone who makes a claim is responsible for providing the evidence to back that claim up. Out of EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has stated circumcisions are done for medical reasons, there has YET to be one valid piece of proof posted to show such.

I wasn't making the claim that circumcisions are performed for health reasons. For someone to make that claim, they require proof.

I don't know of ANYONE whose parents had them circumcised for "cosmetic reasons".

No one does it for the identified reasons of 'cosmetics', but it DOES NOT OFFER ANY HEALTH BENEFITS in the VAST MAJORITY of cases. There are EXCEPTIONS to this rule, the same as there are for EVERYTHING.

Circumcisions are 'mainstream' here in the US because they are considered 'more attractive' than a non-circumcised penis. The 'claim' is that it is for health benefits, however there is no PROOF to back this claim up.

Whether you are a religious person or not, you should know that circumcision was originally begun as part of the Abrahamic covenant with God

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/

Circumcision began as a social ritual among a small number of tribal peoples in north-east Africa and the Arabian peninsular, and it later became the mark of initiation for two major religions. This page offers some leads on the early history of pre-medical circumcision, and considers the claims of some circumcision enthusiasts that these pre-literate societies were somehow motivated by hygienic or even scientific insights. A leading pediatrician demolishes the arguments in favour of this notion put forward by G.N. Weiss. An anthropologist reviews Marked in Your Flesh, Leonard Glick's study of Jewish circumcision, from ancient Judea to modern America. There is also a scathing recent editorial from the South African Medical Journal describing the deaths and injury caused by tribal circumcision schools, and calling for action to "halt the carnage". Meanwhile, as HIV-AIDS spreads among circumcised populations, thoughtful people look for real answers.

There is lots more interesting information just by clicking on the links. I specifically like this link, which outlines the timeline of the first HIV breakouts in the Middle East, which is a predominantly circumcised region. How do health nuts explain this?

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=69

@OhMy999999

That's unfortunately an undying myth perpetuated by the medical community.

So people should kowtow to the non-medical community?

@zanilth

This site also states the pros, but it seems that the larger cause of discord here is over the cons:

There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men.

The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. Cancer of the penis carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the penis. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18, which are sexually transmitted, are involved in cancer of the penis.

http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm

There are many more sites, and if you still want to bitch about links I will post more later when I have time.

If the ban takes effect, it will be classed as a misdemeanor. Unless the knife slips, in which case it will be classed as a - wait for it - miss-de-weiner.

I wish my parents hadn't had me circumcised. I need all the help I can get. The last time I took my clothes off in front of a woman, she accused me of being a lesbian. Once I was arrested for exposing myself on the subway, but the charge was dropped due to insufficient evidence.

I don't get no respect.

Oh, for heavens sake...why don't these petition passers get their noses out of other people's crotches. Butt out!! (no pun intended). Although that's pretty apropro don't you think???

Leave it to the whack-job libbies of San Francisco to try to pull crap like this! Can't we cut San Francisco off of California and let it float out to the Pacific? The city is completely useless to human civilization.

San Francisco is a nasty, filthy, hedonistic city which has long ago worn out it's welcome!

Do you know what 'burden of proof' is? Someone who makes a claim is responsible for providing the evidence to back that claim up. Out of EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has stated circumcisions are done for medical reasons, there has YET to be one valid piece of proof posted to show such

@ Zanith,

Are you incapable of reading? VickiC provided you with a "burden of proof" for medical necessity. Her own son was not circumcised. Later down the road, had to have a surgical procedure on his penis due to the fact that it retracted and it wouldn't correct itself. If the child had been circumcised THIS WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. Get it? Does she need to provide you with medical record to support her "proof" in order you to concede that there can be a medical need for circumcision?

You have been provided proof (via this thread) that runs contrary to your own line of thinking and still you refuse to see that it might, just might, still be a valid practice. When will you people stop trying to run everyone else's lives and start working on your own. You and your fellow "intactivists" want to go uncut? Have at it. Don't try to shove this drivel off on everyone else because it's what you personally believe.

Oh, and yeah, spare me your nurse written links and then the uber lame excuse as to why you can't list more validated clinical studies done by actual Dr's espousing harm done by circumcision. Just because the AMA doesn't "recommend" the practice doesn't mean they eschew it either.

My anecdotal experience is this; I waffled about getting my son circumcised but in the we decided to have it done. They gave him a pacifier that was dipped in sugar water and did the deed. While I agonized...the child never flinched. So much for excruciating pain inflicted upon a defenseless babe.

Why don't you guys try doing something important with your lives, like saving endangered animals or volunteering at homeless shelters... it'll get your mind off everybody's junk.

Night Hawk

I swear , there has to be something wrong with the water in California !!!!!!

I mean like hello ,what other explaination is there for the crazy and off the wall things that come out of there.

These are the same people that keep re-electing Nancy Pelosi....are you surprised that they support off the wall legislation?

@zanilth

Here ya go, smartass.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/MY01023/DSECTION=why-its-done

Then again, you'll simply claim that the Mayo Clinic is a Zionist front.

are more frequent in uncircumcised men.

Only an estimated 30% of men on the planet are circumcised. That means 70% aren't- of COURSE there's going to be more uncircumcised men with STDs, there are more of them!

http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global

In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a nweborn developed cancer of the penis.

Looks like you aren't looking for information, OR you are looking at bad information.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html

There are many more sites

Here's your problem. ALL of the websites that you continue to link to reference the same 'studies' that are flawed, and have been shown as flawed and incorrect. At least eric is posting something different (although he's posting reviews of studies, not studies themselves, and his reviews don't show the actual studies themselves to review the original data.)

VickiC provided you with a "burden of proof" for medical necessity (her son)

Actually that wasn't a burden of proof for the necessity of circumcision for medical reasons. Not every male has that problem, hers was the exception to the rule. Some women need labiaplasty, does that mean we should now state that female circumcision is actually medically beneficial?

Does she need to provide you with medical record to support her "proof" in order you to concede that there can be a medical need for circumcision?

Her case isn't evidence that circumcisions are medically necessary for everyone. Preventative medicine helps to stop things, but NOT by altering the body when the majority of people on the planet don't suffer from the same issue.

When will you people stop trying to run everyone else's lives

I'm not trying to run anyone else's life. If you want circumcision, go for it- I'm not against it.

I'm against people using FALSE reasonings behind things- there is no PROOF of a medical necessity of circumcision, there is no PROOF of a guaranteed medical benefit to having it done, there is only CIRCUMSTANTIAL numbers garnered from very few HIGHLY CONTESTED studies. Want a circumcision? That's fine- but don't BS anyone and claim it is for medical purposes unless the doctor has identified a problem you have, and claims that a circumcision will fix that problem.

Just because the AMA doesn't "recommend" the practice doesn't mean they eschew it either

In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.

NO HEALTH ORGANIZATION GLOBALLY supporting circumcision as a medical issue, with the AAP and ACOG, and NUMEROUS OTHER organizations that are medical groups (that I'd be willing to bet have doctors working with/for/on them....) also doing the same. That isn't nurse written information, that is pure unchangeable fact.

There are some cases where circumcision can be done for medical purposes- such as phimosis and paraphimosis. Just because it is useful in these cases doesn't mean if you don't get circumcised you'll get phimosis...

So much for excruciating pain inflicted on a defenseless babe...

I have never said anything about it being painful, or wanting it made illegal in the first place- I'm simply exposing the 'medically necessary' reasoning for what it is- BS.

But FYI, it has been shown that it does impact them, psychologically and other ways.

Chris - All you did was further show my point. Thanks, but it wasn't necessary.

Sometimes there's a medical need for circumcision, such as when the foreskin is too tight to be retracted over the glans.

There isn't a way to tell this until the boy is at least over 3 years of age- less than 10% of boys are born with a fully retractable foreskin.

http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/

That one has a couple studies done concerning circumcision, and actually has the ACTUAL study, with the ACTUAL data that was in the study, for review (see how that works, eric?)

As a retired nurse, I read many yrs. ago of a study that showed that wives of Jewish men had a much lower rateof cervical cancer. The only known factor that could be accounted for was the fact that all the men were circumcised.

MmmMmmBeer

you do realize that only 23% of American doctors belong to the AMA right?...

I read many yrs. ago of a study that showed that wives of Jewish men had a much lower rateof cervical cancer. The only known factor that could be accounted for was the fact that all the men were circumcised.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/menczer1/

You mean studies like this?

Here's the problem with that...

Modan et al. [14], and later Sharon et al. [15], reported that the incidence of cervical carcinoma among Jewish women born in North Africa was considerably higher than in those born in the other continents, mainly due to the high incidence in women born in Morocco. This observation was subsequently confirmed by Menczer and colleagues [16]. Their study included all cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in Israel during the 11 year period 1961–71. They found that the mean age-adjusted incidence rate in North African-born Jewish women was statistically significantly higher than in women born in Europe, Asia and Israel (8.3 vs. 3.6, 2.8, 2.5 respectively; P < 0.01). The lowest rates (1.54) were observed in Jewish women born in Yemen [17]. It seems, therefore, that there are not only marked differences in incidence between Jewish and non-Jewish women, but also considerable differences between various Jewish ethnic groups.

In case you don't go actually read the entire bit of information, they were comparing the rates of cervical cancer in jewish women of different ethnic groups to the rate of cervical cancer in non-jewish white women in NYC. The problem with this is you're only using one group as the basis, and comparing numerous others from it. Unless you view other groups of non-jewish women, the comparison isn't valid.

What is good about that article is right after that paragraph, they do indeed do that. I won't post any of that, but it does make this statement and analyze both parts of it:

Jews around the world practice two distinct traditional habits: the ritual circumcision of males 8 days after birth, and the prohibition by the family purity laws (Niddah) against sexual intercourse both during menses and 7 days after its complete cessation.

Now, something else that I find funny, and actually goes to further disprove any correlation between cervical cancer and circumcision- In the United States, it is estimated that 77% of men have been circumcised.

http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/USA

With this being the case, you would expect there to be a reduced rate of cervical cancer in the United States... But that isn't the case at all.

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsCervicalCancer/

That, paired with the mean age of cervical cancer diagnoses is late 40s, somewhat suggests that if either of the two were responsible (circumcision or sexual activity, considering the fact that jewish women refrain from sex for about 1/3rd of the month...) then maybe it's being more sexually active?

The myths about it being detrimental for a male infant's penis to remain intact have been largely debunked.... This is genital mutilation, PERIOD.

This statement is completely false - PERIOD! It actually LOWERS YOUR RISK OF GETTING HIV!

The World Health Organization declared three years ago that circumcision should be part of any strategy to prevent HIV infection in men. The organization based its recommendation on three randomized clinical trials in Africa that found the incidence of HIV was 60 percent lower in men who were circumcised.

"GROSS! Females love male circumcision! We will stop this disgusting proposal!"

And men love women with large breasts. If there were any proposal to stop men from forcing women to get implants, we will stand together to stop that disgusting proposal! /sarc

It is the child's body, not the parents. Circumcision should be legal, like tattoos, body piercing, and nose jobs. But it needs to be left up to the child whether or not they want it...not to their parents, or girlfriends. The 14th amendments protects body autonomy...it SHOULD protect babies from elective, cosmetic procedures done for "God." Get it done, but only when YOU can decide for yourself to have it done.

I would NEVER stand behind a society that allowed a man to force a women to get a mastectomy to prevent breast cancer. Nor would any of you. That is underlying issue of what is being discussed. The justification for taking over the body of another. Anyone who is pro-choice cannot for any reason support the supposed right of a one to have cosmetic, permanent surgery performed on another. And anyone who is pro-life could not possibly believe that a child has no rights.

What about sucking a fetus out of a womb without it's consent? Is that deplorable?

Like circumcision, it also involves the destruction of living human tissue.

Unlike circumcision, a potential human life is taken away during abortion.

In any case, have you heard of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution? Jews and others might have something to say about this law.

In any case: Taking the foreskin away does not take the pleasure out of sex.

This law is just an excuse for more government intrusion into private lives.

Ken, what you seem to be missing is that sucking the child out of the woman's womb is due to her right to bodily autonomy. Once a child is born, we have to all agree that is is a human, no matter which side of the issue you are on. So just as the woman has a RIGHT to her own body, the child has a RIGHT to his own body when it comes to elective surgeries to remove part of it.

You are correct that it is the same issue, but your logic is incorrect in the way you try to apply it to the situation. Bodily autonomy is the reason for the right to choose, which is why after a certain amount of time, abortion is illegal unless it is to save the mother. Once the law has determined the baby has developed enough to be "human," the right to choose to abort it shifts to the right of the child, say in the 20th week or whatever the laws are in your particular state.

But since no one can deny a child that is born IS human, it has a human RIGHT to its own body and should not be cosmetically operated on. Especially when the stated benefits are negligible enough to prevent pediatricians from recommending it. With the number that die or are maimed in the elective surgery more than zero, it is ridiculous to stand behind it because someone in a burning bush told you to cut the skin off of your son's penis. Just as silly as God telling Abraham to kill his son to prove his commitment to him. I'm glad we don't have that one as a religious right, aren't you?

If you can, do some research on David Reimer (had to have surgery to change his gender and ended up committing suicide, all because of a botched circumcision) and realize that his case is not alone. There are several people who have undergone troubles like his, or troubles of a slightly lesser degree (i.e. too much skin removed to achieve an errection w/out pain because of botched circumcisions).

Many religions and ethnic groups around the world practice ritual marking (or mutilation) of certain members. Most prevalent are ritual tattoos, but branding, scarring and FGM are also common. With the exception of circumcision, all are banned in this country for those under a specific age.

We are a nation of laws that apply to ALL residents, citizens or immigrants. We need to be consistent.

So while the Democraps want less government in our personal lives, they actually want more?

We need to be consistent

Frankly, what needs to be allowed is for parents to make their choices, for their reasons, and not be forbidden from following their beliefs, or from ensuring that their sons look like daddy. Even that last part is a legitimate comment and a legitimate reason for circumcising infant males.

The cells lining the foreskin have been proven in repeated scientific studies to be extremely amenable to hosting all kinds of sexually transmitted organisms, up to and including HIV. That means, simply, that being circumcised is one additional way to not only avoid such illnesses but to also avoid passing them along to sexual partners. And that is also a large part of the proportional growth of the Muslim population in Africa. I'm talking about demographics here, and not dissing any group.

Most men want to be able to "last longer" in order to better pleasure their partners. Being circumsised, particularly as an infant, actually gives men a better chance at lasting longer, because their "equipment" has become slightly desensitized.

Female circumcision, however, is an entirely different concept. Since it involves mutilation of the one ad only body organ that is made specifically for sexual pleasure (the female organ, although much smaller than the male one, has some 3 times the number of nerve endings of the male organ), it significantly damages/completely removes sexual pleasure for women. At it's worst, it also involves mutilation of the vulva, thus making menstruation painful and difficult, making both penetration almost impossible and making childbirth a life-threatienng event for both mother and child.

They also usually perform female circumcision at a much later age, hence, memory retention would fall into play. Cannot be compared.

Female Circumcision is banned. Male Circumcision should be. Saying memory retention is part of it is ridiculous. Then give females Rohypnol so they won't remember the circumcision, or do it under general anesthesia. Women in America were circumcised until the 1980's, so it's a myth thinking female circumcision is only done in third world countries.

There is no medical reason to circumcise, and there are exceptions to Jewish law to allow boys to be circumcised at later ages. Additionally, Jewish circumcision often removes less foreskin than the typical full removal done by doctors.

Female circumcision is some sick stuff, the people who advocate it should themselves have it done, with a hatchet.

rpearlston wrote "nsuring that their sons look like daddy. Even that last part is a legitimate comment and a legitimate reason for circumcising infant males."

Are you kidding? The rest of the child doesn't look exactly like daddy at any point in their lives due to aging. Why would anyone consider this important? Are female genitalia altered so that daughters look like mommy?

rpealtson wrote "Most men want to be able to "last longer" in order to better pleasure their partners. Being circumsised, particularly as an infant, actually gives men a better chance at lasting longer, because their "equipment" has become slightly desensitized."

Correct. Men are desensitized, often to the point at which it is difficult to orgasm or sustain an erection with a condom. If there health benefits to using a condom, circumcised men are more prone to shun condoms for this reason.

Couldn't they apply this same idea to abortion as well? No abortions for women under 18? I don't see them clammoring for this.

Jo An

I was born well before that 1980 date. While I won't say it wasn't done because there are groups in America who would do it for Victorian reasons, no one I have EVER know had it done to them. But I have seen the results of boys NOT having it done and it is not pretty. Even in the cleanest men, it is very hard to prevent infections. I have also seen my husband endure pain from tearing during intercourse.

There are too medical reasons to circumsize. It decreases infections and helps to keep cleaner. It is a preventive measure. It is not just a Jewish thing anymore. Most babies have it done because it is a typical practice in the US. There is no harm done to the child.

Texana Deb wrote "But I have seen the results of boys NOT having it done and it is not pretty. ."

All of Europe as well as Japan/Taiwan are fine examples of uncircumcised developed nations. How DO they get by?

Women in America were circumcised until the 1980's, so it's a myth thinking female circumcision is only done in third world countries.

You state this as though it was a general thing, like male circumcision. If that's so, please provide some proof. (PS - there is STILL female genital mutilation happening in this country, it's just kept more under wraps.)

Male circumcision is done because G-d chose it for His children, the Jews. It marked them as set apart from the pagans. Female circumcision is done so that the woman is hurt and it is usually done to control the woman. Totally different reasoning.

My kid is 13. The ex and I had him circumcised at 2 weeks. There was no pain. The doctor used a plastic ring placed over the head, but under the foreskin. A small string was tightened and the blood was cut off. The foreskin died and came off with the ring, all in one neat little package and no pain, no trauma.

Please stop telling me how to raise my kid. This is a nunya situation. Nunya business.

Well, let me try to make this comment before the thread gets collapsed -

So here is the thinking - keep the government away from my right to choose to murder an unborn infant but make the government write a law to hinder my right to choose to have my newborn son circumcised, even if it is for a religious practice. Logic? It's gotta be there somewhere, but I think if this guy doesn't want to circumcise his son, then don't but don't interfere with other parents right to choose what is in the best interest of their child.

Penile infections are much more common and much more severe in the uncircumcised. It is much harder to keep an uncircumcised boy clean and prevent bacteria from causing infections. Circumcision is much more painful the older men/boys get.

Stop trying to get into my pants government.

Remember everyone, it is California. They have places where they supply people with the equipment needed to get high. Fair enough. If they ban circumcisions because they are harmful, then soon to follow should be (rather should be included in the bill) is a ban on piercings (anywhere), tattoos, plastic surgeries et. al.

This is a perfect example, as is California as a whole, of government gone wrong, and inserting too much influence upon the public. If a person wishes not to do something, that is fine. However, do not impart that on someone else. We run into situations like this with too many social programs. At the end of the day, to be fair, everyone should get some kind of compensation from the government, or nobody should get anything. If we want to be fair.

SAN FRANCISCO is NOT the place that should attempt to ban this practice!

With such a large gay nitelife and their huge community residing there, the LAST thing they would need is a shortage of chewing gum...

Let's be honest here...

This is just ANTI-SEMITE prejudice.

And bad public health policy in the name of a campaign against "torture and mutilation." My wife had to have gall bladder surgery thirty odd years ago. Recovery was painful and she was left with a 9-10" scar across her side and belly. By this knuckle-dragger's thought, we should also ban surgery since it results in pain and mutilation.

Male circumcision become extremely popular in this country following WWII. This may be in part due to doctors seeing far less transmission of STD's amongst returning circumcised GIs. Another part might have been the strain of covering all those cases of infantile urinary infections among boys coming into the baby boom. Many hospitals performed the procedure as normal care post-delivery care. Often, they didn't even ask or tell the parents.

The rise of the 'feminist' movement in the 1980's was the first broad complaint against the practice, as a political counter-balance to advocate for better, and more considerate, medical care for young women. Even that discussion debated the health and personal preference issues for women, and men.

lmao, wow, these friggin big mouths are coming out of everywhere anymore. They scream their damn opinions and demand them put into law. Does circumcision interfere with his way of life or something? Go get plastic surgery and have it replaced then. Anybody know what the next earth quake prediction is for San Fran and when? The breeding pot of extremist's needs to become it's own little island floating out in the Pacific. Away from civilization, with nobody to bother them.

Look at this guy! LMAO, Richard Cranium????

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=87788&tsp=1

Absolutely NOTHING to say about this EXCEPT, no different than abortion, which means IT IS NOBODY'S BUSINESS what people do in their personal/private life!!

which means IT IS NOBODY'S BUSINESS what people do in their personal/private life!!

You're right... You can cut whatever off you want in your private time, but if person B down the street wants to cut on his kid, don't say anything... Even when that kid is a female.

My biggest problem with circumcision is this- people ignorantly excuse it as being medically necessary. People have heard from other people, who heard from other people, who heard from other people, that it was medically necessary.

You want it to look a certain way? Fine, say that... To anyone who claims (and believes) it is medically necessary, you are a @!$%#ing idiot- there is absolutely NO CONCRETE evidence to support this, and TONS of evidence to the contrary, not to mention that NOT ONE HEALTH ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD AGREES WITH YOU!

Isn't male circumcision surgical removal of the foreskin under local anesthesia while still a baby?

I will not bother to try to state what female circumcision is, as I doubt that it will not be blanked out on these message boards..... but most females can guess what it is the removal of and the reason for same.

And it is not to prevent infections either, as many now adult women who have had such a horrid act done to them as a child under less than sterile conditions and without anesthesia can tell tales of infections, tearing of the skin, abscesses etc and even to 4th degree tears in childbirth.... hmmm

So female circumcisions are done for what medical/health purpose....none

By the way, circumcision on an adult male due to pimosis (sp) is no fun for that male, but at least the person gets relieve from continuous anguish/pain.

It appears that people in this country are getting stupider (?) by the minute.

Yeppie...... now let's ban circumcisions just because circumcision is supposedly done on muslim males...... LOL

Let's ban food...... hey muslims eat food....don't they? LOL

Vincent, that was a stupid remark. I do not live in Europe or Japan/Taiwan and do not know men in that sort of personal way. I do not know if or how they manage or even IF they circumcise their children. I highly doubt that you are privy to the records of infections, tears, diseases of the men in this region. I am speaking of living with an uncircumcised man for over 30 years. I have SEEN the pain he went through numerous times due to tearing and finally, having to be circumcised in his 40's. There is no way to know what every uncircumcised man goes through since that is a very personal subject. I highly doubt YOU have any more if even as much knowledge as I do. But the fact remains, it is not an issue that a city or state has the right to regulate. You liberals cry about religion being practiced where you have to watch (shudder) but you think it is ok to teach the "wonderful" life style of the homosexual. How about if you mind your own business, and we will mind ours.

here we go... there are always those who want to put their two cents into what a family decides for their children... Government needs to get its nose out of the private lives of a family. If there are people who do not like certain practices then don't do them, however, stop trying to "pass laws" just because you don't agree with the practices of others. If you continue to push, then parents are going to start pushing back. Enough is enough.

Isn't male circumcision surgical removal of the foreskin under local anesthesia while still a baby?

Yeah, and your point of going over the obvious is (I already know where you're headed, but it's all good, I'll go along with you for a minute...)

There are many types of female genital mutilation, ranging from a removal of less than what is removed with male circumcision, to actual brutal mutilation. Female genital mutilation encompasses all of those. Now that we've got the actual definition out there, let's look at a few things.

Most people compare male circumcision to female genital mutilation to state you can't compare them- "You can't compare a procedure done in a dr office to brutal mutilation" etc. Would you say that is accurate (that most people do that, and that is what you are trying to do....) Here's the problem with that- there are 'male genital mutilations' done to the horrid extreme that females are done as well, but they aren't considered when just stating 'male circumcision'. You aren't looking at ALL of the info, so of course you can't compare them- but it isn't for the reason that you are thinking (which is that females are so much more brutal... OF COURSE they are, but it's because you are only comparing it to the medical procedures of males...)

So now that we've realized that in order to aptly compare male and female circumcision (let's stick with that so we are comparing the same term, then we'll define the term in both to show the same comparison for definition) we can now define the terms. Male circumcision, in this case, will refer to any instances of males having their genitals altered via surgical purposes (whether in a hospital/dr office, by a private physician/whoever performs them for various religious factions, or by a tribal design or such which would be construed as mutilation.)

Female circumcision, in this case, will refer to any instance of females having their genitals altered via surgical purposes (whether in a hospital/dr office, by a private physician/whoever performs them for various religious factions, or by a tribal design or such which would be construed as mutilation.)

You are aware that there is a large portion of women who undergo medically necessary procedures such as clitoridectomies, labiaplasty or vaginoplasty? These are women who are having their genitals altered due to medically necessary reasons- that fits the bill to be added to the mix in comparison.

My point is this- when you compare everything that you must compare between the two, circumcision is sometimes medically necessary in both genders. It has been proven by the pure fact that the majority of men on this planet aren't circumcised and most don't have issues... Therefore disproving circumcision as a medically necessary procedure. Simple factors such as PERSONAL HYGEINE, safe sex practice, etc. are what are the factors in preventing infection/disease/issues, whether you are circumcised or not.... It isn't the other way around.

Is it medically necessary (does it serve an actual medical purpose and needs to be done on every male?) No, it isn't.

Are there some cases where it does become medically necessary later in life? Yes, it does... Those are known as the exceptions though, not the norm.

Do I think we should ban it? Not at all. I don't particularly care one way or another, but I do think it is quite jacked up to state you have the choice (and it's 'normal') to surgically alter your son, but not the same for your daughter (even if done in a medical environment... If done as a child for ANY reason, it's considered bad...)

Besides (to your comparison) the guy stated there was no difference between this and abortion- which is something done mainly of choice (not due to health concerns) so if you'll use that argument to tell people to leave your circumcision decisions alone, I'll use the same to show the flaw in thinking compared to the same procedure in females.

there are always those who want to put their two cents into what a family decides for their children

In this case I think it is a wooden nickle.

I have read studies in the past that said wives of circumcised men had fewer instances of certain cancers. I have not seen/heard any reports on this lately though.

I have to say that I have been studying the psychology behind this for the past few years, and ever since they found out that babies do feel pain, they have been looking into the psychological effects caused by circumcision. They have found a decent amount of evidence showing that the trauma of that event does format the way that babies experience trauma and there is strong support for it leading to psychological problems in a number of cases later in life. Along with that they have proven that the first 3 years of life are the most important for the development of the human brain; the way that the child is treated and nurtured at this point is responsible for the child's identity and the way that they view the world. If they want it done later, let them. If they need it for medical reasons, by all means do it; however, if they do not need it, why are we risking negatively effecting the way that they develop mentally?

Also, for anyone saying that this is directly correlational to the female equivilant of getting ears pierced: I agree. They have seen very similar results from babies undergoing that trauma as they have with circumcision. Honestly I personally don't think it's right to do either of these to a child until they are old enough to understand what is being done to them and old enough to want it to be done to them.

Beyond that I have interviewed and watched several other interviews with people who had too much skin cut and could not achieve an erection later in life without agonizing pain because of circumcisions. Many of these people had to undergo several surgeries and skin grafts to have enough skin on the penis so that they would not be in pain every time their penis became erect. I understand that this is a minority of cases; however, so is the amount of people seeing any medical benefits from having it done. Wouldn't it just be easier to follow the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" axiom and save people from problems as they come along instead of risking creating problems.

Karl-2477668

I have to say that I have been studying the psychology behind this for the past few years, and ever since they found out that babies do feel pain, they have been looking into the psychological effects caused by circumcision

They know babies feel pain while in the womb too, but that doesn't stop partial birth abortion. These freaks are barking about circumcision and want a law to prevent part of the skin from being removed from the penis, but partial birth abortion gets a knife in the base of the skull and the babies brain are sucked out until it's DEAD. We'll NEVER KNOW about ALL the PAIN those babies had. No law to prevent this though. May those doctors suffer a long painful life. Sick selfish heartless humans! The priorities of this world are the cause of its destruction!

Texana deb, #3.24, You had a point until the last part of your post. Many of these edits being pushed are not being done by all the so called liberals, but rather by many conservatives who want to control everyone reproductive organs/sex lives etc.

Ask the present republicanconservativeteabaggerdinos in congress.....

Regarding homosexuality..... not all homosexuals are liberals. They are also libertarians and republicanconservativeteabaggerdinos.

Not all liberals agree with homosexuality, but I would hazard to say that most liberals believe that adults have a right to chose how they live their lives and who they chose to share it with providing it is not against the law.

There are many homosexuals who perfer to keep their private lives private, just like many hetrosexuals like to keep their private lives private.

One's sexuality, or even lack thereof, is his or her own business imo.

By the way, many of you conservatives and yes even some liberals do not believe in sex education, whether to be taught or discussed in school or even in the home and rather believe in abstainence, and that is what is taught if anything, to the detriment of those children who may end up with unintended pregnancies or even oral STDs and HIV/AIDS.

This is the 21st century..... we as adults need to start getting real.

We need to recognize all that is happening in society today and educate the children including teenagers and other young people of how to protect themselves period.

Remember, peer pressure at those ages are a _— itch especially in this day and age of instant media. Like the saying goes.....Do you know who may be sexting your kid? hmmm

Parents need talk to their children and impart their moral values to their children from an early age, and had better cover all the topics regarding sex and sexual practices or someone else will be telling them or introducing it to them later if not sooner.

This way whatever the child chose to do as an adult is up to him/her, and is then no longer the parents' responsibility/problem.

When you were young it was Playboy and Hustler etc no doubt, now that sort of thing including porn amoung other things is on the internet.

Still think that sex education covering all topics should not be covered or discussed? Hmm

Those bureaucrats need to find better things to do, other than getting into peoples private affairs.

BwaaaHaaaHaaaaHaaa!!!

Sides are starting to hurt!!

HaaaaHaaaaHaaaaa!!!

Its the same people who don't want others to get abortions.

Its the same people who don't want gays and lesbians to have sex.

Its the same human filth who carry misspelled signs screaming that Obama isn't a citizen while dangling teabags from their foreskin.

Nothing new. Just the same loons under a different name.

In other words human garbage that should mind their own business.

just more proof AMERICA is going down the tubes

. Women in America were circumcised until the 1980's, so it's a myth thinking female circumcision is only done in third world countries.

WTF? Yep... you caught us.... all of us past the age of 30 are walking around with our labias cut off... that's why we, of our generation, just can't abide the thought of g-strings. But I guess from your post that they drugged us so we don't really know that we are circumcised. So what then... you think we are so out of touch with our bodies we wouldn't know where are vajayjays are let alone if all the parts are there. *snort* This is a great way to end my day.... :D

What the hell... I'm sure you are from the same group that thinks people glow in the dark if they get too many x-rays, Obama still isn't a citizen and aliens have stolen your eggs. Awesome luck for them and they fun they have to look forward to.

San Franciscans and Northern Californians never cease to amaze me.

Here our economy is in the toilet and they are considering mens' penises.

Men, it seems that is always where their minds are at.

Meanwhile, how are we going to fund all these budgets in CA?

That is NOT the burning question on their mind.

Instead, they talk about penises.

What is going on up there?

I get it. For months now Liberals have been beating their chests protecting the 1st Amendment rights of Muslims to practice their faith, but it's not OK for Jews to do the same. This is a clear cut case of Religious bigotry. Let me repeat that to remind the Liberals in the audience, RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY.

Doesn't that sound like a familiar tune?

"Penile infections are much more common and much more severe in the uncircumcised. It is much harder to keep an uncircumcised boy clean and prevent bacteria from causing infections."

And there would be fewer yeast infections if you took off the clitoral hood of our baby girls. Heck, it might look better too. /sarc

Why must we continue barbaric acts of cutting our children? You want to do it to yourself, go ahead, but you want cut a piece of your boy's penis off? Come on...think past religion on this one. Leave it alone. The infections or problems that may arise are no more than the issues that arise with leaving the clitoral hood in place. Not to mention the issues that have happened in botched attempts. Leave it alone!

Justification of doing something to your child based on a a book written by people who saw god in a burning bush really need to stop...stop and look at the facts. I don't care if you like the way it looks, or believe it will be easier to take care of...heck, wouldn't it be easier to take care of if it wasn't even there? Come on, enough with the nonsense. Leave the babies alone. Let them make their own cosmetic surgery decisions when they are old enough.

To each their own, but let the babies have their 1st Amendment right to practice their own religion when they can use their voice, or at least the 14th Amendment right to privacy...don't treat them as inanimate objects. Not saying they can't have it done...just have to wait until they are old enough to get their consent. If it is not medically necessary, it should not be done without their consent.

I didn't walk or talk for year afterwards. Talk about trauma! Honestly, some of my best friends put it off for years. When their medical condition demanded it their suffering was intense. It is really beneficial healthwise.

"It is really beneficial healthwise."

For a small percentage, you may be correct and I'm glad your friends were able to make a decision that worked for their situation(s). But for the general population, it is not necessary, has no health benefit and actually desensitizes the unknowing participant. Since we all begin life with a nub for genitalia, our physiology is similar. If the chromosome acts on the baby, the nub grows out and forms the penis. If the chromosome does not act, the nub grows in and forms the clitoris. The "extra" skin could be cut off of either, but it is unnecessary. If we made it OK for parents to remove the clitoral hood of their daughters, I'm pretty sure the lack of medical backing of benefit and the potential to limit sensitization later in life would be more compelling than the health benefits (less infection) and aesthetics portrayed by supporters. No matter which ancient book told one to do it.

If a small percentage of the population benefited from nasal surgery, would we automatically do it for everyone? You wait until it is deemed necessary before performing a surgical act unless the PARTICIPANT decides for cosmetic reasons, they want it for themselves. Pediatrics is a well-researched and well-funded field. If they can find no reason to support it in this country, all the "it looks better" reasons in the world would should not be reason to subject our babies to the ancient practice. If you want to do it for yourself for religious reasons, then make that decision when you are old enough to give consent on your own. Most don't need it and will never find benefit from it. But all are subject to the desensitization.

If you do it for religious reasons, then coordinate your religion to coincide with the constitutional right to bodily autonomy, meaning allow the individual to make their choice.

If it is necessary, then you need to do what you can to fix something with surgery. If it isn't necessary, then cosmetic or elective surgery on one that can't speak for themselves is nothing short of barbaric...especially since it is not endorsed by the actual medical research in the field. "But I want to" is not a reason to allow a parent to cut anything off the genitals of their sons or daughters.

Bodily autonomy was construed as a constitutional right with the 14th amendment...but I guess they can't vote when they're just born, so why worry about it?

This is an unnecessary law. My son was born in just across the bay from San Francisco. You just tell the attending doctor if you want a circumcision or not on your child. Unless you think that it is being forced on the child, in which case you need to outlaw ear piercing as well.

Unless you think that is being forced on the child.

The child didn't decide for anyone to cut or not, so yes it is being forced on the child.

in which case you need to outlaw ear piercing as well.

The problem with this argument is that a girl can always remove her earrings and her ears heal back up. There is no way to regrow your foreskin, it's a permanent issue.

"...in which case you need to outlaw ear piercing as well."

Absolutely! Until a girl is old enough to understand the procedure and decides to have it done. Earrings for babies? WTF? Who are they dressing up for? But I guess at least the ear is still there and they can reverse it by leaving the earring out.

As a retired nurse, I read many yrs. ago of a study that showed that the wives of Jewish men had a much lower rate of Cervical Cancer than the rate of wives of non-Jewish men. This was at a time when circumcision wasn't regularly performed among non-Jewish men, many of whom were not born in hospitals.

"As a retired nurse, I read many yrs. ago of a study that showed that the wives of Jewish men had a much lower rate of Cervical Cancer than the rate of wives of non-Jewish men."

I'm sure that circumcision was not the only, nor even close to the most distinguishing factor there. It has a very limited effect. One change in behavior would change the entire look of the study, without changing anything about the penises involved.

I'm sure that circumcision was not the only, nor even close to the most distinguishing factor there.

It wasn't... I posted the information in the first comment thread.

There is more of a possible connection between cervical cancer and having sex period than there is between circumcision and non.

I found this to be very interesting...

FGM: Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only. Identical to male circumcision.

Anyone in favor of allowing the parents to decide on this one? Even if they're from the middle east? Anyone? *Crickets*

According to the WHO, type 1 involves cutting of part or all of the clitoris.

Texana Dev wrote " I highly doubt that you are privy to the records of infections, tears, diseases of the men in this region. "

No, I'm not, and neither are you. There is not a single US medical association that recommends routine circumcision. On what information are you basing your decision? A single personal experience with your husand?

After much research in deciding whether to circumcise my son (NOTE: I didn't), I learned that the complication rate for circumcisions is about twice the complication rate for the uncircumcised. That tells me that it is better to wait for a problem than try to prevent it with genital surgery.

One US child dies every year from circumcision. A dozen penises are harmed beyond function. The infection rate is 1-10%, depending on how the infection rate is classified. If parents knew that circumcision caused more harm than good, they would not choose circumcision.

Texana Deb, out of respect for the penile complications of your husband, isn't that a surgical procedure that can be decided as an adult of at least age 18 on a case by case basis for those affected? Given the complication rate, it would be similar to removing the breast tissue for all female infants to protect them from the possibility of future breast cancer.

BZe1 wrote "Isn't male circumcision surgical removal of the foreskin under local anesthesia while still a baby?"

There is some topical anesthesia applied, but in many cases, no anesthesthia is applied. But the procedure of separating an infant penis from its foreskin is akin to pulling fingernails. Such pain lasts for a week, and the evidence is the crankiness of male babies for a week. No surprise.

From the posts in this thread, apparently, there is great sensitivity to trimming female genitalia but no concern for trimming male genitalia. Do male babies deserve less legal protection? Ask a mother of a male child.

FGC consists of several distinct procedures. Their severity is often viewed as dependent on how much genital tissue is cut away. The WHO—which uses the term Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)—divides the procedure into four major types^[24] (see Diagram 1), although there is some debate as to whether all common forms of FGM fit into these four categories, as well as issues with the reliability of reported data.^[25]

Diagram 1:This image shows the different types of FGM and how they differ to the uncircumcised female anatomy.

[edit] Type I

The WHO defines Type I FGM as the partial or total removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) and/or the prepuce (clitoral hood); see Diagram 1B. When it is important to distinguish between the variations of Type I cutting, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only (which some view as analogous to male circumcision and thus more acceptable); Type Ib, removal of the clitoris with the prepuce.^[24] In the context of women who seek out labiaplasty, there is disagreement among doctors as to whether to remove the clitoral hood in some cases to enhance sexuality or whether this is too likely to lead to scarring and other problems.^[26]

[edit] Type II

The WHO's definition of Type II FGM is "partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora. When it is important to distinguish between the major variations that have been documented, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type IIa, removal of the labia minora only; Type IIb, partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora; Type IIc, partial or total removal of the clitoris, the labia minora and the labia majora.^[24]

[edit] Type III: infibulation with excision

The WHO defines Type III FGM as narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and repositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation)."^[27] It is the most extensive form of FGM, and accounts for about 10% of all FGM procedures described from Africa.^[28] Infibulation is also known as "pharaonic circumcision".^[29]

In a study of infibulation in the Horn of Africa, Pieters observed that the procedure involves extensive tissue removal of the external genitalia, including all of the labia minora and the inside of the labia majora. The labia majora are then held together using thorns or stitching. In some cases the girl's legs have been tied together for two to six weeks, to prevent her from moving and to allow the healing of the two sides of the vulva. Nothing remains but the walls of flesh from the pubis down to the anus, with the exception of an opening at the inferior portion of the vulva to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through; see Diagram 1D. Generally, a practitioner recognized as having the necessary skill carries out this procedure, and a local anesthetic is used. However, when carried out "in the bush", infibulation is often performed by an elderly matron or midwife of the village, without sterile procedure or anesthesia.^[30]

A reverse infibulation can be performed to allow for sexual intercourse or when undergoing labor, or by female relatives, whose responsibility it is to inspect the wound every few weeks and open it some more if necessary. During childbirth, the enlargement is too small to allow vaginal delivery, and so the infibulation is opened completely and may be restored after delivery. Again, the legs are sometimes tied together to allow the wound to heal. When childbirth takes place in a hospital, the surgeons may preserve the infibulation by enlarging the vagina with deep episiotomies. Afterwards, the patient may insist that her vulva be closed again.^[30]

Women who have been infibulated face a lot of difficulty in delivering children, especially if the infibulation is not undone beforehand, which often results in severe tearing of the infibulated area, or fetal death if the birth canal is not cleared (Toubia, 1995). The risk of severe physical, and psychological complications is more highly associated with women who have undergone infibulations as opposed to one of the lesser forms of FGM. Although there is little research on the psychological side effects of FGM, many women feel great pressure to conform to the norms set out by their community, and suffer from anxiety and depression as a result (Toubia, 1995). "There is also a higher rate of post-traumatic stress disorder in circumcised females" (Nicoletti, 2007, p. 2). ^{[31] [32]}

A five-year study of 300 women and 100 men in Sudan found that "sexual desire, pleasure, and orgasm are experienced by the majority (nearly 90%) of women who have been subjected to this extreme sexual mutilation, in spite of their being culturally bound to hide these experiences."^[33]

[edit] Type IV: other types

There are other forms of FGM, collectively referred to as Type IV, that may not involve tissue removal. The WHO defines Type IV FGM as "all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example, pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization."^[24] This includes a diverse range of practices, such as pricking the clitoris with needles, burning or scarring the genitals as well as ripping or tearing of the vagina.^[24] Type IV is found primarily among isolated ethnic groups as well as in combination with other types.^{[citation needed]}

According to WHO, typical male circumcision is equivalent to WHO Type 1 ... involving the prepuce. Guess what is involved in male circumcision? the prepuce... same thing! Female type 1 is banned but the equivalent in males is perfectly legal. Sexist.

According to the WHO, type 1 involves cutting of part or all of the clitoris.

But Type 1a does not. Type 1b includes the clitoris. But the laws against it are all the same. Zero Tolerance...unless you're male. Then the removal of the right to your own body can be justified away. Where is the United Nations now?

"The United Nations has also declared February 6 as "International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation"

The WHO doesn't have a 1a.

The WHO doesn't have a 1a.

Yes, you seem to be correct, but truly regardless of names, I was kind of shocked the WHO recognized clitoral only removal as FGM. There is a DISTINCT difference between clitoral hood only and part of the clitoris. BOTH are illegal (and should be) when referring to girls. And while I'm glad one of them is illegal as it refers to boys (unless they accidentally sever it while performing the other), we should treat both boys and girls with the same respect.

Type 1 - Excision (removal) of the clitoral hood with or without removal of part or all of the clitoris. But I think everyone agrees that there IS a distinct difference between "with/without part or all of the clitoris." But it is important to note, that when it comes to a female, no matter how it is done, even if it is EXACTLY like the male version, it is illegal (and it sure as heck should remain that way). Why is it not yet as illegal to perform the same operation on an infant male as it is on an infant girl?

This is what I do not understand. If it is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue that got the ban on performing the operation on females, then unless male infants aren't human, I believe they should have the exact same human rights as other humans.

The health reasons are issues if we don't do it

I'd bet neither of you could produce any actual verified proof that there are health reasons for males to be circumcised? There are very rare instances where it could be listed as a health issue, however 90+% of males wouldn't have health issues if not circumcised...

It's an urban myth, and I'm giving both of you the opportunity to learn that for yourselves.

zanilth, then you need to do your own research, in order to prove to yourself that your current viewpoint is wrong, DEADLY wrong. The health benefits are far more and far more important, than you seem to want to understand.

I've done my research rpearl, and can provide links.

http://preventdisease.com/news/articles/circumcision_pros_and_con.shtml

I really like that one- it references the studies that EVERYONE quotes when stating circumcision is for health reasons, and then also states those studies are WIDELY contested and really not up to par.

http://www.circinfo.org/parents.html

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/

http://men.webmd.com/news/20090325/circumcision-cuts-stds

Ah, California, the land of liberal thuggery, mind-numbing stupidity, interference in the personal lives of its citzens.

it is not "always something for the Californians" Circumcision is a throwback to the weird sexual hangups of the Victorians. No child should be circumcised for COSMETIC reasons.

And it's interference in the lives of personal citizens by permanently mutilating a baby's penis. Where is HIS choice? When did HE get to choose for himself? Where is HIS freedom?

peapod

I've already contested the report of 'plenty of compelling evidence showing the decreased risks in contracting hpv and infection'

If you could, please link a source to show any of your proof for your claim, whether the reasoning is 'tearing' or anything else.

If not, then please don't post information AFTER it has been contested without posting proof.

zanith,

those are not reputable sources. Find me an actual study, not some internet link. For some reason my copy/paste feature is not working, but go to pub med and type in circumcision + STD--you'll find plenty of studies showing the benefit

there we go...

Assessment of the protective effect of male circumcision from HIV infection and sexually transmitted diseases: evidence from 18 demographic and health surveys in sub-Saharan Africa.
Gebremedhin S.

Source

Hawassa University, P.O. Box 12485, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. samsongmgs@yahoo.com

Abstract

A cross-sectional study based on the secondary data of 18 Demographic Health Surveys carried out in Sub-Saharan Africa was conducted to assess the protective effect of male circumcision from HIV infection and STDs. Information on 70,554 males aged 15-59 years was extracted. The association between circumcision and HIV infection and STD symptoms (Genital discharge or ulcer/sore) was assessed using logistic regression. Un-circumcision was significantly associated with risk of HIV with odds ratio of 4.12 (95%CI: 3.85-4.42). The association was even more significant, 4.95 (95%CI: 4.57-5.36), after adjustment was made for number lifetime sexual partners and socio-demographic variables. The risk associated with un-circumcision is significantly lower among younger men aged 15-29 years than older age categories. However, circumcision found to have no association with the symptoms of STDs. The study concluded that male circumcision can be considered as a way of reducing the spread of HIV infection.

PMID:

21243923

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Shella wrote "Most males have it done as babies with limited pain. "

Separating the penis from a fused foreskin is similar to pulling off a finger nail.

eric- How are those not reputable sources? Debating 101- if you disagree with the information, counter it or show how the source is not reputable. You have done neither.

FYI, copy/paste not working isn't an excuse- copy/paste the link into a notepad, then minimize IE and hand-type the link.

There is only one study that has ever been linked- that is the Ugandi study, and that study has been proven flawed. ANY information garnered from this study should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt, instead of listened to with rapture...

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html

That gives a synopsis of the actual 'study' that everyone references, as well as red caveats that show what the problem with the study was... I particularly like this:

HIV is rare in Cuba, where circumcision is also rare, and common in Lesotho, where circumcision is common, and common among both the Zulu of South Africa who do not circumcise, and the Xhosa, who do.

The final point I'd like to make- if circumcision were done for health reasons, wouldn't various health organizations across the globe sponsor it? How then do you explain that NOT ONE SINGLE HEALTH ORGANIZATION sponsors circumcision as a viable health option?

eric-2573068, when the conditions change, does circumcised America have higher HIV transmission rates than uncircumcised Japan, UK or Sweden? YES.

zenith

it should be self-evident, but i'll explain if you wish. In science, opinion is considered the weakest form of evidence. That is what you have provided. Not only that, it is anonymous opinion off the internet. If you really need me to tell you why you can't trust that, you need remedial debate classes

I have provided you with a study, ie, more than just opinion---fact.

Not to mention the webmd link you posted actually supports circumcision. Did you even read it?

Why does no health organization support it? I'm not sure that that's true, but if it is, simply because you need very strong evidence before such a sweeping measure would be endorsed. Am I claiming to have iron clad evidence? No...but certainly the weight of it supports the practice

vincent,

please address my point i brought up in the previous post In a multivariate model where you are interested in one variable, you need to control the other factors. That is basic scientific study

Show me any evidence that they have higher rates of unprotected sex, higher rates of high risk practices, and LOWER circumcision with LOWER STD rates and then we'll talk

and zenith, check, you'll see my study posted

zenith,

i read your link critiquing the study. weak arguments at best that can be made of ANY study. Of course RCTs are best--but try funding that in subsaharan africa. Also, rates are relatively low, so observational is probably preferred

Zanith, it is not an urban myth. My husband endured the complications for 40+ years.

eric wrote "Show me any evidence that they have higher rates of unprotected sex, higher rates of high risk practices, and LOWER circumcision with LOWER STD rates and then we'll talk"

We can also talk by stating that conditions in the US are different enough to inhibit an HIV epidemic.

Show me a single American medical association that recommends circumcision. Then, we'll talk. The American Academy of Pediatrics states that it is unable to recommend circumcision.

vincent,

again, please refer to my earlier post. I'll copy and paste it here...

Why does no health organization support it? I'm not sure that that's true, but if it is, simply because you need very strong evidence before such a sweeping measure would be endorsed. Am I claiming to have iron clad evidence? No...but certainly the weight of it supports the practice

the rest of your post is nonsense ...what does "conditions in the US are different enough to inhibit an HIV epidemic" mean?

If it reduces rates of transmission there, then it probably will do it here to. Fair enough to say its an assumption, and I agree with that, but still the WEIGHT of the evidence supports the practice

Wasn't it California that decided Arizona needed to be taught a lesson?

eric,

I generally agree with your comments, however you should also consider that the prevalence of HIV in Africa is very different from prevalence in US, therefore the number needed to treat would also be different. While increasing circumcision rates in Africa might reduce their epidemic, it's effect on the spread of HIV in the US will probably be minimal, if any at all.

I wish we could circumcise California. I for one happen to LIKE freedom of religion, so pis$ off.

WELL, it won't be long NOW!

Eric, good for you. Finally someone that can show a statistical analysis instead of concensus and opinions. That's a rarity on newsvine. Thank-you

This is just another of a long line of PUBLICLY introduced propositions which either reflect wacko ideas, or limited foresight. Fortunately most of these propositions have failed at the ballot box, but enough have passed to leave the rest us us wondering about their drinking water.

BTW California, why have a legislature if any idiot can write a law like this?

circumcision and STD's

circumcision and HIV

From what I read, it does decrease the risk of some STD's, but does increase the risk of HIV. Thing is, anytime you have sex (especially unprotected sex,) you run the risk of catching something!

Peapod,

I didn't know that there were any Republicans in San Francisco.

grundik

if i remember my statistics right, number needed to treat is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction, which isn't based on the prevalence of the disease.

But overall you are probably right--the effect would be less here

Vine's Concise Dictionary has circumcise, circumcised, circumcising and circumcision. References first in the Old Testament and then in the New. With the exception that Paul said, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that Gentiles needn't be circumcised. Gentiles don't have that covenant with G-d. We have a relationship with Jesus.

Show me a single American medical association that recommends circumcision.

There isn't one- matter of fact, there isn't one in the world. They all have stated there isn't enough medical evidence to support it.

I have provided you with a study, ie, more than just opinion---fact.

No, actually you provided a summary of 18 health surveys that didn't use facts (instead used logistic regression- logical guessing) to piece together singular stats. What about the list of the surveys and their actual data? Or are you just supposed to take Gebremedhin at his word (but wait, doesn't that mean this is just an opinion piece, since he doesn't actually provide any information or proof of how he came to his assertation?)

Not to mention that, but how are you supposed to critique his 'study' if he doesn't provide you with what he studied?

Not to mention the webmd link you posted actually supports circumcision. Did you even read it?

I actually did, and posted it for that reason... If there would have been any actual relevant information to show exactly how circumcisions are medically necessary, people would have jumped on it... There wouldn't be this issue, we wouldn't be having this debate.

If it could be proven, it would be... With YOUR links, and with other SUPPORTIVE links, there is no verifiable proof.

I'm not sure that that's true, but if it is, simply because you need very strong evidence before such a sweeping measure would be endorsed

Really? It doesn't take too much for a health organization to support or not... But me personally, the fact that the larger population of males on this PLANET are not circumcised, and don't have anywhere near the issues we would if circumcision were truly due to medical reasonings.

Texana Deb

Circumcisions for medically necessary reasons are done- SOMETIMES. These are the exceptions to the rule, not the actual rule itself. Regular circumcisions are NOT done to prevent any medical complications.

Finally someone that can show a statistical analysis instead of concensus and opinions.

Except he didn't show anything except for an opinion of supposed data... There was no link to the data that was being analyzed, and no hint to anything else... Yeah, that's a sure-fire accurate study there....(/sarcasm)

logistic regression is more than logical guessing. Thats oversimplification to the extreme. Plus its 70,000 patients!!! That's a huge study! The proof is in there! Read the study! Cmon, that's better than you've provided, right?

your webmd post supported it. Not with data, i agree, that's why i said your evidence sucks. Why I wouldn't have posted it. But it supports it nonetheless

It doesn't take too much for a health organization to support it? Really, what are you basing that on? Fact is, there is no iron clad evidence to support it, and that's why its not universally endorsed. But the weight of the evidence supports it

Heres a randomized controlled trial. I would LOVE to see your argument against this. Keep in mind you have yet to post one, even one itsy bitsy study showing any harmful effects compared with my observational study and now RCT

Epidemiol Rev. 2010 Apr;32(1):121-36. Epub 2010 Jun 2.
Randomized controlled trials of interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: learning from the past to plan for the future.
Wetmore CM, Manhart LE, Wasserheit JN.

Source

Center for AIDS and STD and Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Box 358210, Suite 600, 2301 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98121, USA. cwetmore@u.washington.edu

Abstract

Globally, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) represent a significant source of morbidity and disproportionately impact the health of women and children. The number of randomized controlled trials testing interventions to prevent STIs has dramatically increased over time. To assess their impact, the authors conducted a systematic review of interventions to prevent sexual transmission or acquisition of STIs other than human immunodeficiency virus, published in the English-language, peer-reviewed literature through December 2009. Ninety-three papers reporting data from 74 randomized controlled trials evaluating 75 STI prevention interventions were identified. Eight intervention modalities were used: behavioral interventions (36% of interventions), vaginal microbicides (16%), vaccines (16%), treatment (11%), partner services (9%), physical barriers (5%), male circumcision (5%), and multicomponent (1%). Overall, 59% of interventions demonstrated efficacy in preventing infection with at least 1 STI. Treatment interventions and vaccines for viral STIs showed the most consistently positive effects. Male circumcision protected against viral STIs and possibly trichomoniasis. Almost two-thirds of behavioral interventions were effective, but the magnitude of effects ranged broadly. Partner services yielded similarly mixed results. In contrast, vaginal microbicides and physical barrier methods demonstrated few positive effects. Future STI prevention efforts should focus on enhancing adherence within interventions, integrating new technologies, ensuring sustainable behavior change, and conducting implementation research.

I can see why San Francisco may want a ban on circumcision. It makes a rear entry less trumatic, its a San Francisco thing You would have to live their to understand it. its more a issue of Gay rights ...... a individual's right to see to having a procedure performed to prevent the possibility of having it done at a later date when it could be a more painful ordeal. I have known grown men whom had to have this done and they don't recommend it but it had to be, they wished their parents would have chosen differently.... Where do these f%$#$$% people come from Their seems to be a damn activist for every thing is nothing sacred I smell Nancy Palosi here.

here's a report saying the CDC IS considering recommending circumcision in the US. While not glowing, it certainly doesn't say its harmful, and may be helpful

Male circumcision in the United States for the prevention of HIV infection and other adverse health outcomes: report from a CDC consultation.
Smith DK, Taylor A, Kilmarx PH, Sullivan P, Warner L, Kamb M, Bock N, Kohmescher B, Mastro TD.

Source

National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE, MS E-45, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA. Dsmith1@cdc.gov

Erratum in

• Public Health Rep. 2010 Jul-Aug;125(4):517.

Abstract

In April 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) held a two-day consultation with a broad spectrum of stakeholders to obtain input on the potential role of male circumcision (MC) in preventing transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the U.S. Working groups summarized data and discussed issues about the use of MC for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with women, men who have sex with men (MSM), and newborn males. Consultants suggested that (1) sufficient evidence exists to propose that heterosexually active males be informed about the significant but partial efficacy of MC in reducing risk for HIV acquisition and be provided with affordable access to voluntary, high-quality surgical and risk-reduction counseling services; (2) information about the potential health benefits and risks of MC should be presented to parents considering infant circumcision, and financial barriers to accessing MC should be removed; and (3) insufficient data exist about the impact (if any) of MC on HIV acquisition by MSM, and additional research is warranted. If MC is recommended as a public health method, information will be required on its acceptability and uptake. Especially critical will be efforts to understand how to develop effective, culturally appropriate public health messages to mitigate increases in sexual risk behavior among men, both those already circumcised and those who may elect MC to reduce their risk of acquiring HIV.

here's a cochrane review article. If you know ANYTHING of research, you would know that cochrane reviews are just about the gold standard of research. Also, this is a META-ANALYSIS of RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALS ALL OVER THE WORLD. And its in FAVOR of circumcision.

Game, set match

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD003362.
Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men.
Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks JJ, Volmink J.

Source

South African Cochrane Centre, South African Medical Research Council, PO Box 19070, Tygerberg, South Africa, 7505. nandi.siegfried@mrc.ac.za

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Male circumcision is defined as the surgical removal of all or part of the foreskin of the penis and may be practiced as part of a religious ritual, as a medical procedure, or as part of a traditional ritual performed as an initiation into manhood. Since the 1980s, over 30 observational studies have suggested a protective effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men. In 2002, three randomised controlled trials to assess the efficacy of male circumcision for preventing HIV acquisition in men commenced in Africa. This review evaluates the results of these trials, which analysed the effectiveness and safety of male circumcision for preventing acquisition of HIV in heterosexual men.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the evidence of an interventional effect of male circumcision for preventing acquisition of HIV-1 and HIV-2 by men through heterosexual intercourse

SEARCH STRATEGY:

We formulated a comprehensive and exhaustive search strategy in an attempt to identify all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress). In June 2007 we searched the following electronic journal and trial databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We also searched the electronic conference databases NLM Gateway and AIDSearch and the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov and Current Controlled Trials. We contacted researchers and relevant organizations and checked reference lists of all included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomised controlled trials of male circumcision versus no circumcision in HIV-negative heterosexual men with HIV incidence as the primary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and graded methodological quality. Data extraction and methodological quality were checked by a third author who resolved differences when these arose. Data were considered clinically homogeneous and meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed.

MAIN RESULTS:

Three large RCTs of men from the general population were conducted in South Africa (N = 3 274), Uganda (N = 4 996) and Kenya (N = 2 784) between 2002 and 2006. All three trials were stopped early due to significant findings at interim analyses. We combined the survival estimates for all three trials at 12 months and also at 21 or 24 months in a meta-analysis using available case analyses using the random effects model. The resultant incidence risk ratio (IRR) was 0.50 at 12 months with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.34 to 0.72; and 0.46 at 21 or 24 months (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.62). These IRRs can be interpreted as a relative risk reduction of acquiring HIV of 50% at 12 months and 54% at 21 or 24 months following circumcision. There was little statistical heterogeneity between the trial results (chi(2) = 0.60; df = 2; p = 0.74 and chi(2) = 0.31; df = 2; p = 0.86) with the degree of heterogeneity quantified by the I(2) at 0% in both analyses. We investigated the sensitivity of the calculated IRRs and conducted meta-analyses of the reported IRRs, the reported per protocol IRRs, and reported full intention-to-treat analysis. The results obtained did not differ markedly from the available case meta-analysis, with circumcision displaying significant protective effects across all analyses.We conducted a meta-analysis of the secondary outcomes measuring sexual behaviour for the Kenyan and Ugandan trials and found no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. For the South African trial the mean number of sexual contacts at the 12-month visit was 5.9 in the circumcision group versus 5 in the control group, which was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). This difference remained statistically significant at the 21-month visit (7.5 versus 6.4; p = 0.0015). No other significant differences were observed.Incidence of adverse events following the surgical circumcision procedure was low in all three trials.Reporting of methodological quality was variable across the three trials, but overall, the potential for significant biases affecting the trial results was judged to be low to moderate given the large sample sizes of the trials, the balance of possible confounding variables across randomised groups at baseline in all three trials, and the employment of acceptable statistical early stopping rules.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months. Incidence of adverse events is very low, indicating that male circumcision, when conducted under these conditions, is a safe procedure. Inclusion of male circumcision into current HIV prevention measures guidelines is warranted, with further research required to assess the feasibility, desirability, and cost-effectiveness of implementing the procedure within local contexts.

This post is purely to gloat. There is no comeback for you from this. None at all. You are dead wrong. Case proven

Sorry about the immaturity, i couldn't help it :)

Country girl

Yes, and California liberals are so for a woman's "rights" to kill their unborn children at any stage of the pregnancy, but they are now concerned that a circumcision will cause a baby boy pain "like pulling off a finger nail"? Sort of hypocritical, don't ya think?

here is another link.. the Mayo clinic..http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/MY01023/DSECTION=why-its-done

it does help prevent a lot of problems for men if circumcised.

The basis of this argument is that yes, there is statistical data that shows uncircumcised men have a lower risk of contracting HIV & STDs, but the other side of the coin is that the larger risk of contracting HIV & STDs is unprotected sex. Should this be the only reason parents choose to circumcise their children? The logical answer is NO. Circumcision is an elective surgery in most cases. Yes, there are religious reasons, but most often those circumcisions are not as drastic as the ones performed in the first day of an infant's life. Religion aside, as the parent of an uncircumcised child (teen) we have had no health problems, and the only problems we have encountered were doctors who were not trained to leave the uncircumcised penis alone. The other male children in our extended family are circumcised for the main reason that it is always done and they want their children to look like their father. This doesn't make sense to me, but it is their child and they can choose what to do since they are the parents. If it were up to me, insurance companies should not cover this elective surgery except in medical circumstances. Those who circumcise for religious beliefs are paying someone to perform the brit malah, so it is not an issue for the insurance companies. Still, education is the key. Don't have unprotected sex, because you can contract an STD or HIV, and education is always the KEY. It is very sad that most parents don't question this surgery, they just do it because it has always been done, and in fact, they don't question many things that involve giving birth or being a parent. Most parents put more thought into purchasing a car than preparing for the new baby. Only those who educate themselves can make educated decisions, and not all doctors will provide unbiased information since they don't benefit from a male child not being circumcised.

i agreed with your entire post until the end. Circumcision doesn't reimburse all that much. Its barely worth the dr's time. But good point about protection being a much, much bigger factor in std prevention

Change the wording of the proposed law to circumcise all males, no to circumcising females. and no more vacuuming fetuses from the safety of the mothers womb. that could be panfull and deadly for the fetuses. unless you have that fetuses permission.

eric- wrote "This post is purely to gloat. There is no comeback for you from this. None at all. You are dead wrong. Case proven"

source - South African Cochrane Centre, South African Medical Research Council,

Eric, the comeback is obvious: why does the US, the most circumcised Western nation, have the highest HIV infection rate? The two primary paths for HIV transmission in the US are 1) anal reception of HIV-infected semen and 2) intravenous injection of HIV-infected blood, usually associated with intravenous drug use.

How does circumcision play a role in either of the cases of fluid reception mentioned above?

I'm a 64 yr old white male. I am not circumcised, I don't have any diseases, never had any. I have had my share of different women without any medical isues. Anyone with good personal hygiene should have no problems, circumcised or not. Now, anyone want to refute those facts? You people need to stop listening to bull$hit. I don't know where a lot of you people get your *medical* information. I do know you should get another source. I have read just about every paper, research article,medical study, etc,etc,etc. The opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one and they are all different. Next thing you know, people will be telling thier kids the withdrawal method or anal intercourse prevents pregnancy.....

Next thing you know, people will be telling thier kids the ... anal intercourse prevents pregnancy.....

Yea... not many people are actually butt babies.

Now, anyone want to refute those facts?

Circumcision has proven health benefits, care to refute that fact?

vin,

I have shown study, after study, after study with randomized control data demonstrating the benefits of circumcision. I have shown you that the CDC has consulted with experts on the issue. And all you can do is repeat the same thing over and over again. I'll answer it for you again, but somehow I doubt it will stick.

Firstly, show me your source for that data. I'd like to see it myself

Secondly, circumcision is the ONLY factor in the risk of STDs--there's prevalence in a population, rates of protection usage, etc. You'd have to adjust and correct for all those before you start comparing between populations

Thirdly , the presence of open sores, wounds, or inflammation that reduces the skin's integrity which reduces the physical barrier to the virus

So if you have a chancre or other open sore on your genitalia, you have a higher risk of transmission. So if circumcision reduces the inflammation (it does) and reduces STDs (it does), it will reduce transmission of HIV.

A specific example would be human papilloma virus. The formation of condyloma, or genital/anal warts, break down the integrity of the epithelium--thus allowing for easier transmission of HIV. Since circumcision helps cut down on the rates of HPV as shown in my posts above, it cuts down on the rate of transmission of HIV

Fourthly, it is irrelevant even if you disagree with all the reasons I have provided. By the data shown, IT WORKS. It doesn't matter how. Your problem now is to explain the data above and reconcile that with your viewpoint, not dilly dally with the whys and hows

Secondly, circumcision is the ONLY factor in the risk of STDs-- there's prevalence in a population, rates of protection usage, etc. You'd have to adjust and correct for all those before you start comparing between populations.

You've stated that numerous times, but the one thing you have consistantly forgotten (and the one thing that NONE of your reviews that you've posted have taken into consideration) is personal hygeine.

You have yet to post to any study, instead have posted combined reviews of multiple studies that aren't even listed in the review themselves. There isn't any listed data to show what studies they used, what data they compared, etc. IN ADDITION to that, they didn't even complete the study- the ended ALL of them early, before the results were fully in (that sounds quite a bit like stacking the results to me...)

So your 'gloating' post just goes to show that you're immature, your consistant posting of reviews that don't actually show anything other than a summary of numerous studies (that you don't even know if they were relavent or not...) does nothing but clog up the board and further add to the confusion.

Your problem now is to explain the data above and reconcile that with your viewpoint, not dilly dally with the whys and hows.

Actually you couldn't be further from right. The problem is your 'data' isn't data at all, only a summary of unverified data. This isn't enough to form 'proof' of anything, especially when it doesn't actually prove anything (only suggest.) The 'why' and 'how' the data was attained is what you have to be concerned with to verify whether the data is valid or not. This isn't shown, it isn't verified, therefore your data is useless.

Condoms? cheap and effective. Eric, you've not posted sources so you are unreliable. Also, post sources from non-Jewish doctors and from people who aren't getting kickbacks.

Eric, you've not posted sources so you are unreliable.

He has posted links (the links are the Reviewer's names) to the peer review database that he links them from, but the problem is the summary of the 'studies' he links doesn't actually show (or link to) the original data- without that, you are correct in his unreliable data posting.

zanith

I realize now you have no idea what you are talking about. Please learn a little about scientific study before commenting The studies I published are not simply "reviews" of previous data but they are META-ANAYLSES of trials. That means they pool data from all available randomized trials, analyze it for heterogenity of data, method agreement, etc and come up with one big finding. It is the highest form of evidence there is. The fact that you do not recognize this and continually dismiss them as "reviews" speaks volumes

PLEASE COMMENT ON THE INDIVIDUAL TRIALS themselves if you disagree with the analyzed data. I see you conviently ignore that simple task. I even posted a single randomized trial that you have repeatedly ignored. Let me repost the title for your convenience

Epidemiol Rev. 2010 Apr;32(1):121-36. Epub 2010 Jun 2.
Randomized controlled trials of interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: learning from the past to plan for the future.
Wetmore CM, Manhart LE, Wasserheit JN.

Not only that, but if you bothered to read anything I posted, you would see that the "reviews" compile data from RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALS that were all stopped EARLY because they were shown to have such a benefit it was unethical to keep the trial going

Please comment on how you disagree with RANDOMIZED CONTROL DATA

Please comment on the individual randomized trial that you convienetly ignored, if you oppose meta analysis out of ignorance

its not "unverified data" you idiot. Its randomized control studies. What more do you want???

As for not "posting links" go and find them yourselves on pubmed. or google the study. Or go read about it. I've left you plenty of information. Its not that the data is unreliable, its that your brain is. To any person with a modicum of intelligence, the title of a journal, title of an article, and author's name carries more weight than some random link

zanith, LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL STUDIES FOR GOODNESS SAKES!. I couldn't have made it easier for you. I posted a single randomized trial, and observational study, and a meta analysis. Its not just pooled data, its primary data from a study. I can't believe you don't see the difference

"Circumcision has proven health benefits, care to refute that fact?"

I would have to agree that in some cases (a small percentage here in the US), you are correct. But then again, I would think removing the clitoral hood would also have health benefits in reducing infections of the area, and making it much easier to clean. The real question is, do we take the time to teach our children how to clean their bodies, or do we just cut that part off because they might not, or we don't want to take the time to do it?

There is no real reason to do it to all babies. If the benefits were that great, then the pediatric association would fully endorse the procedure. I don't believe the small benefit some point to is worth forcing an elective, cosmetic surgery on a baby that cannot possibly understand.

YOU HAVEN'T POSTED ANY DATA! YOUR LINKS GIVE FIGURES BUT NOT SOURCE DATA!!!!!

What do you not seem to understand about that? What you've posted amounts to the exact same thing as what I do here:

Compiled 27 results from various studies done between years 1 and 10, and found that removal of the left hand prevents theft in 27% of occasions.

Well wait a minute, there is considerable information missing from this, the LEAST of which is what were the individual studies, what were THEY studying, what was their information found, and how did the 'reviewer' use that information.

Without ALL of that information, my paragraph is completely useless- Without all of that information, you have given a review with NO SOURCES. YOU FAIL!

That means they pool data from all available........... and come up with one big finding.

No @!$%#, Sherlock... The problems are numerous... 1, they didn't use ALL available trials, they only used some (in certain locations.) 2. They didn't give us the information they used for analysis, 3. They didn't give the initial randomized trial information AT ALL!!!!!!!! THIS IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM!

Without that randomized trial information from EVERY TRIAL they did, their review is useless. I'm not trying to convince people of anything, therefore I am not required to go do the research. If you want to prove to anyone that there are valid medical reasons for routine circumcision, YOU PROVIDE THE SOURCE PROOF! Oh, and the title to a publication or the author himself carry no weight at all, it's the information that is within (or a product of) that matters.

that were all stopped EARLY because they were shown to have such a benefit it was unethical to keep the trial going.

Except for one problem.... It was unethical to STOP the trials EARLY because you haven't gotten all of the data. If they hadn't stopped it early, there was a chance that their results would have been different (if they had completed the studies, they may have found that it DIDN'T provide anything....)

That is why them ending the study early devalues the study- they didn't complete the information gathering process, therefore their analyzing process is guaranteed to be flawed.

LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL STUDIES FOR GOODNESS SAKES!

I can't.... THEY AREN'T THERE! Your 'review' links don't include them, THAT is why YOUR information includes UNVERIFIED DATA!

it's not "unverified data" you idiot.

Actually it's unverified because the original studies aren't posted. The person who reviewed these didn't list their sources (the original studies.) Oh, and you've been reported, you really shouldn't call people names when your information doesn't include what it needs to in order to be considered accurate.

Here eric, if you want to post information that is relevant, this is how you do it. This is dealing with the same topic, but slightly different area of information.

http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/

Included on that page is information on two separate studies, one performed by Pediatrician Douglas Gairdner (published in the British Medical Journal, Vol 2, PG 1433-1437, Dec 24, 1949) and one performed by Pediatrician Jakob Oster (published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, Vol 43, pg 200-202, April 1968.) There are numerous other studies listed, with numerous other doctors, who all take 'issue' with routine circumcision and it being done for medical reasons.

From that link I posted, you can see the information summary (on the direct page I linked) and then you can actually follow to the actual study performed by the Doctors so you can actually read the study information as performed and written BY THE DOCTOR.

None of your posts include that information. Without it, the website summary is useless (something you've basically used to try and nix my sources.) Your website summary is useless because it does not include the information that was compiled, only the compilation itself (which without any way to verify, is completely useless.)

"There are health reasons for doing it, and as a woman I would much rather be with a circumsized male than not."

But they are only helpful for a small percentage of the babies that it is forced on. I'm not sure your desire to be with someone who had the operation should play any part in their own right to bodily autonomy. Forcing anyone to have a procedure is actually more of a violation than preventing someone from getting one. The 14th amendment should completely override another person's desire to make someone else appear more attractive to them. What's next? Boyfriends or husbands forcing breast implants? /sarc

We should not give control of a cutting a live baby to anyone for any reason. If our society thought putting a plate in your lip made you attractive, how long would we wallow in the ignorance of doing this to our children before we realized we were trained to believe it...not that it actually does make one more attractive. Allow every individual the right to choose for themselves. Don't make that choice for them. If the pediatric association sees no reason to support it, then that should be evidence, in and of itself, that the health benefits so many speak of on this subject, in no way are enough to justify acceptance of the cosmetic surgery.

If you have ANY questions, talk to ANY pediatrician...seriously!

If the pediatric association sees no reason to support it, then that should be evidence, in and of itself, that the health benefits so many speak of on this subject, in no way are enough to justify acceptance of the cosmetic surgery.

While the pediatric association does not recommend circumcision, they definitely do not condemn the practice. In fact, they clearly indicate the choice should be up to the parents.

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.

And, if I had a male child, he would be circumcised... period.

fine, if you don't understand meta-analysis, and don't want to learn it now, fine. Please comment on the rct I posted now three times

Epidemiol Rev. 2010 Apr;32(1):121-36. Epub 2010 Jun 2.
Randomized controlled trials of interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: learning from the past to plan for the future.
Wetmore CM, Manhart LE, Wasserheit JN.

Source

Center for AIDS and STD and Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Box 358210, Suite 600, 2301 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98121, USA. cwetmore@u.washington.edu

Abstract

Globally, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) represent a significant source of morbidity and disproportionately impact the health of women and children. The number of randomized controlled trials testing interventions to prevent STIs has dramatically increased over time. To assess their impact, the authors conducted a systematic review of interventions to prevent sexual transmission or acquisition of STIs other than human immunodeficiency virus, published in the English-language, peer-reviewed literature through December 2009. Ninety-three papers reporting data from 74 randomized controlled trials evaluating 75 STI prevention interventions were identified. Eight intervention modalities were used: behavioral interventions (36% of interventions), vaginal microbicides (16%), vaccines (16%), treatment (11%), partner services (9%), physical barriers (5%), male circumcision (5%), and multicomponent (1%). Overall, 59% of interventions demonstrated efficacy in preventing infection with at least 1 STI. Treatment interventions and vaccines for viral STIs showed the most consistently positive effects. Male circumcision protected against viral STIs and possibly trichomoniasis. Almost two-thirds of behavioral interventions were effective, but the magnitude of effects ranged broadly. Partner services yielded similarly mixed results. In contrast, vaginal microbicides and physical barrier methods demonstrated few positive effects. Future STI prevention efforts should focus on enhancing adherence within interventions, integrating new technologies, ensuring sustainable behavior change, and conducting implementation research.

or this...

Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis.
Tobian AA, Serwadda D, Quinn TC, Kigozi G, Gravitt PE, Laeyendecker O, Charvat B, Ssempijja V, Riedesel M, Oliver AE, Nowak RG, Moulton LH, Chen MZ, Reynolds SJ, Wawer MJ, Gray RH.

Source

Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Male circumcision significantly reduced the incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among men in three clinical trials. We assessed the efficacy of male circumcision for the prevention of herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) and human papillomavirus (HPV) infections and syphilis in HIV-negative adolescent boys and men.

METHODS:

We enrolled 5534 HIV-negative, uncircumcised male subjects between the ages of 15 and 49 years in two trials of male circumcision for the prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Of these subjects, 3393 (61.3%) were HSV-2-seronegative at enrollment. Of the seronegative subjects, 1684 had been randomly assigned to undergo immediate circumcision (intervention group) and 1709 to undergo circumcision after 24 months (control group). At baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months, we tested subjects for HSV-2 and HIV infection and syphilis, along with performing physical examinations and conducting interviews. In addition, we evaluated a subgroup of subjects for HPV infection at baseline and at 24 months.

RESULTS:

At 24 months, the cumulative probability of HSV-2 seroconversion was 7.8% in the intervention group and 10.3% in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio in the intervention group, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.92; P=0.008). The prevalence of high-risk HPV genotypes was 18.0% in the intervention group and 27.9% in the control group (adjusted risk ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.90; P=0.009). However, no significant difference between the two study groups was observed in the incidence of syphilis (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.65; P=0.44).

CONCLUSIONS:

In addition to decreasing the incidence of HIV infection, male circumcision significantly reduced the incidence of HSV-2 infection and the prevalence of HPV infection, findings that underscore the potential public health benefits of the procedure. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00425984 and NCT00124878.)

"...parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."

They didn't offer a constitutional argument of whether or not they felt it is within the right of the parent to supersede the right of the child. By the very definition of their statement, they intentionally stay out of the decision by saying there is not enough evidence to support it. If it were found to be unconstitutional for one to demand an elective, cosmetic surgery of another, then the statement would reflect that law.

If it were truly in the best interest of the child, then surgery would never be performed unless necessary, or until that child can make that decision for themselves. It is THEIR body, not yours. Are you also in favor of removing your daughters clitoral hood as long as that is left up to the parents in the best interest of their child? If not, why? The same bacterial infection can occur and be alleviated by removing it. The same health reasons can be used. Why is it not done or argued for by parents?

And, if I had a male child, he would be circumcised... period.

And if you had a female child, would you contemplate removing the clitoral hood as well?

Wow eric, really? Just really? Come on, you keep doing the EXACT SAME THING!

Nothing you link from that peer review website will work. They are ALL REVIEWS OF OTHER STUDIES! You haven't linked the first study whatsoever.

FROM YOUR REVIEW!

To assess their impact, the authors conducted a systematic review of interventions......... Ninety-three papers reporting data from 74 randomized controlled trials evaluating 75 STI prevention interventions were identified

So FROM YOUR LINK, it states it is a review of trials... WOW, you're bright... Posting something you have been ranting was a trial, that ITSELF STATES IS A REVIEW?

Thanks for wrapping your loss of argument up for me.

Your second post is actually referencing an actual trial! The first one I've seen from you!

Only a million other problems with it... What trial was it again? Oh, it was one of the Ugandi trials, that ended early (which was unethical and gave incorrect results?) Also, that Ugandi trial doesn't take into consideration the MAJOR FACTORS that MUST be considered (personal hygeine and sexual activity.)

If you've noticed, I've managed to state exactly why your ONLY POSTED STUDY isn't working- the study wasn't done properly, they didn't consider the most pertinent issues that would impact the information, and they ended the study early... I've stated why the other information you posted wasn't applicable- it didn't give any source information to the actual studies the reviews were based on...

You still don't have a leg to stand on, eric...

BTW, those studies are all flawed anyway. The only way you could accurately deduce whether circumcision actually helped to prevent STD transfer or not would be to have x number of circumcised clean males, x number of circumcised infected males, x number of non circumcised clean males, 2 number of non circumcised infected males, 2x number of infected females and 2x number clean females. Infected males sleep with clean females, clean males sleep with infected females. After x amount of time, retest everyone and those numbers will tell you whether circumcision helps or not.

That is the absolutely ONLY way you can accurately verify whether it helps or not.

It is THEIR body, not yours.

This statement is not a reflection of the law. Currently the law recognizes that ALL medical decisions on minors are the prerogative of the parents. You can argue that perhaps it shouldn't be, but the courts have disagreed.

The pediatric association stays out of the decision because they recognize that unlike FGM, male circumcision causes no harmful effects and has some potential benefits.

zanith

For the last time, they are not simply reviews of other studies, they are meta analysis. Meaning that they analyze data from numerous trials giving a larger patient population and higher statistical power. The source data is listed in the study--you are just too lazy to look it up. Meta analysis studies are the highest form of evidence You should educate yourself on these before discussing them further, because you are embarrassing yourself in the meantime

The fact that they ended the study earlier is actually STRONGER evidence--it was ended early because the results were so positive it was unethical to continue it? Why would you think that would change with time?

Your example of a proper study makes no sense How many scientific studies have you been involved with?...let me guess, zero. I've published >10--you honestly have no clue what you are talking about

but fine, here's a non-uganda study

Display Settings:

• Abstract

Format

• Summary
• Summary (text)
• Abstract
• Abstract (text)
• MEDLINE
• XML
• PMID List

Apply

Send to:

Choose Destination

• File
• Clipboard
• Collections
• E-mail
• Order
• My Bibliography

• FormatSummary (text)Abstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListCSV

Create File

• 1 selected item: 19086814
• FormatSummarySummary (text)AbstractAbstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListMeSH and Other Data
• E-mail
• Additional text

E-mail
"SPAM" filtering software notice

Add to Clipboard

Add to Collections
Order articles

Add to My Bibliography

J Infect Dis. 2009 Jan 1;199(1):14-9.
Effect of male circumcision on the prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus in young men: results of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Orange Farm, South Africa.
Auvert B, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Cutler E, Nieuwoudt M, Lissouba P, Puren A, Taljaard D.

Source

Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, University of Versailles, France. Bertran.auvert@uvsq.fr

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

A causal association links high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) and cervical cancer, which is a major public health problem. The objective of the present study was to investigate the association between male circumcision (MC) and the prevalence of HR-HPV among young men.

METHODS:

We used data from a MC trial conducted in Orange Farm, South Africa, among men aged 18-24 years. Urethral swab samples were collected during a period of 262 consecutive days from participants in the intervention (circumcised) and control (uncircumcised) groups who were reporting for a scheduled follow-up visit. Swab samples were analyzed using polymerase chain reaction. HR-HPV prevalence rate ratios (PRRs) were assessed using univariate and multivariate log Poisson regression.

RESULTS:

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the prevalences of HR-HPV among the intervention and control groups were 14.8% (94/637) and 22.3% (140/627), respectively, with a PRR of 0.66 (0.51-0.86) (P = .002). Controlling for propensity score and confounders (ethnic group, age, education, sexual behavior [including condom use], marital status, and human immunodeficiency virus status) had no effect on the results.

CONCLUSIONS:

This is the first randomized controlled trial to show a reduction in the prevalence of urethral HR-HPV infection after MC. This finding explains why women with circumcised partners are at a lower risk of cervical cancer than other wom

here's an RCT from kenya

Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial.
Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, Agot K, Maclean I, Krieger JN, Williams CF, Campbell RT, Ndinya-Achola JO.

Source

Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. rcbailey@uic.edu

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Male circumcision could provide substantial protection against acquisition of HIV-1 infection. Our aim was to determine whether male circumcision had a protective effect against HIV infection, and to assess safety and changes in sexual behaviour related to this intervention.

METHODS:

We did a randomised controlled trial of 2784 men aged 18-24 years in Kisumu, Kenya. Men were randomly assigned to an intervention group (circumcision; n=1391) or a control group (delayed circumcision, 1393), and assessed by HIV testing, medical examinations, and behavioural interviews during follow-ups at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. HIV seroincidence was estimated in an intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with the number NCT00059371.

FINDINGS:

The trial was stopped early on December 12, 2006, after a third interim analysis reviewed by the data and safety monitoring board. The median length of follow-up was 24 months. Follow-up for HIV status was incomplete for 240 (8.6%) participants. 22 men in the intervention group and 47 in the control group had tested positive for HIV when the study was stopped. The 2-year HIV incidence was 2.1% (95% CI 1.2-3.0) in the circumcision group and 4.2% (3.0-5.4) in the control group (p=0.0065); the relative risk of HIV infection in circumcised men was 0.47 (0.28-0.78), which corresponds to a reduction in the risk of acquiring an HIV infection of 53% (22-72). Adjusting for non-adherence to treatment and excluding four men found to be seropositive at enrollment, the protective effect of circumcision was 60% (32-77). Adverse events related to the intervention (21 events in 1.5% of those circumcised) resolved quickly. No behavioural risk compensation after circumcision was observed.

INTERPRETATION:

Male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition in young men in Africa. Where appropriate, voluntary, safe, and affordable circumcision services should be integrated with other HIV preventive interventions and provided as expeditiously as possible.

heres an RCT from south africa

Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial.
Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A.

Source

Hôpital Ambroise-Paré, Assitance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Boulogne, France. bertran.auvert@apr.aphp.fr

Erratum in

• PLoS Med. 2006 May;3(5):e298.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Observational studies suggest that male circumcision may provide protection against HIV-1 infection. A randomized, controlled intervention trial was conducted in a general population of South Africa to test this hypothesis.

METHODS AND FINDINGS:

A total of 3,274 uncircumcised men, aged 18-24 y, were randomized to a control or an intervention group with follow-up visits at months 3, 12, and 21. Male circumcision was offered to the intervention group immediately after randomization and to the control group at the end of the follow-up. The grouped censored data were analyzed in intention-to-treat, univariate and multivariate, analyses, using piecewise exponential, proportional hazards models. Rate ratios (RR) of HIV incidence were determined with 95% CI. Protection against HIV infection was calculated as 1 - RR. The trial was stopped at the interim analysis, and the mean (interquartile range) follow-up was 18.1 mo (13.0-21.0) when the data were analyzed. There were 20 HIV infections (incidence rate = 0.85 per 100 person-years) in the intervention group and 49 (2.1 per 100 person-years) in the control group, corresponding to an RR of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.24%-0.68%; p < 0.001). This RR corresponds to a protection of 60% (95% CI: 32%-76%). When controlling for behavioural factors, including sexual behaviour that increased slightly in the intervention group, condom use, and health-seeking behaviour, the protection was of 61% (95% CI: 34%-77%).

CONCLUSION:

Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa. (Preliminary and partial results were presented at the International AIDS Society 2005 Conference, on 26 July 2005, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.).

here's one from turkey demonstrating reduced rate of UTI

Circumcision for the prevention of significant bacteriuria in boys.
Nayir A.

Source

Department of Pediatrics, Pediatric Nephrology Division, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, University of Istanbul, Tarik Zafer Tunaya sok 2/6, Gumussuyu-Istanbul, 80040 Turkey. nayir@ttnet.net.tr

Erratum in

• Pediatr Nephrol 2002 Apr;17(4):307.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether circumcision affects significant bacteriuria in boys. During a 60-month prospective study, 100 boys with microbiologically confirmed symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) were evaluated. Twelve patients with abnormal ultrasonography findings were excluded from the study. Eighteen of the boys had not been circumcised due to parental choice. The remaining 70 boys with normal renal ultrasonography were randomly allocated into two groups. In the first group 35 boys ranging in age from 6 months to 10 years (mean 33.2+/-30.9 months) were observed for 6 months and urinary cultures were taken monthly. When they had a positive urine culture (with or without any symptoms), they received antibiotic treatment. After 6 months they were circumcised and then observed for another 6-month period. Group 2 comprised 35 boys aged from 3 months to 9 years (mean 29.1+/-36.7 months). They were circumcised immediately after the first UTI and were followed for 6 months. Urine samples were obtained by the bag technique in infants and by the mid-stream technique in older patients. In the uncircumcised group, the rate of significant bacteriuria per patient did not change in two 6-month follow-up periods (3.46+/-0.91 and 3.33+/-0.97 episodes). In group 1, the rate of positive urine cultures dropped from 3.57+/-1.11 to 0.14+/-0.35 episodes after circumcision (P<0.001). In the second group, the rate of significant bacteriuria was 0.17+/-0.38 episodes after circumcision. Among the uncircumcised patients, symptomatic UTI was observed in 6 cases (3 cases in the first period of group 1, 1 case in the first and 2 cases in the second period of the uncircumcised group), whereas after circumcision no patient had symptomatic UTI. The mean age at circumcision was 42.7+/-28.4 months. No complication due to circumcision occurred in any patient. UTI may also occur in boys after the 1st year of life. The present study indicated that circumcision in boys decreases the rate of positive urine cultures. Therefore circumcision could be considered as a part of UTI therapy

to summarize, i have provided multiple observational and RCTs to demonstrate the benefits of circumcision. I have even provided you with a cochrane meta analysis that you are frankly to dumb and/or ignorant to understand.

You have provided nothing aside from inane and nonsensical critiques

Even accepting some of your complaints, you have yet to show any evidence of harmful effects.

So, in summary, we have evidence it MAY be beneficial, and NONE to the contrary

again....game, set, match

I'm not even going to bother looking at them- I've looked at the last ten you've posted, and in their own wording they stated they were reviews of various studies. I'll believe them in the fact of they can at least state what they are (and that lines up with the information they had.) If you don't even know what you're linking to, I'm done with it. Besides, it shows your desperation when you have to reduce to insults (4.51.)

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13585.page

The AMA actually classified non-ritualistic/non-religious circumcisions as non-therapeutic. So yes, they do NOT support it for routine medical purposes, and actually state otherwise.

Have fun on the ignore list, and (if NV staff decide to do their job) on your suspension.

you turned me in? what a baby

here's an excerpt from your own posted link:

The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

That's exactly what ive said all along....

"...male circumcision causes no harmful effects and has some potential benefits."

So let's take a quick look at your two statements. The first is that it causes no harmful effects. Well, it is a surgery. It swells, it bleeds, it gets infected, and in some cases they mutilate the penis. All for your second statement...a potential benefit. The potential is for a small percentage to "benefit" in this country. Those that need it to medically function. The rest of the "potential" is so iffy that the Pediatric association does not stand behind the procedure.

It appears you brought FGM into the conversation, where I did not. I said remove your daughters clitoral hood. That is not FGM. It is a simple procedure that has no harmful effects and has some potential benefits. /sarc

It really sounds ridiculous to do that to a girl doesn't it. Just doesn't make sense, but your arguments could easily be made by those who believed they had the right to cut their daughters genitals for a potential benefit. No matter how you justify it, it would be wrong. Just because our society has done it, doesn't mean it is right. There are huge examples of this throughout our history. Sometimes you have to change what is done to make it right.

"Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice." 1999 AMA Interim Meeting: Summaries and Recommendations of Council on Scientific Affairs Reports. American Medical Association. December 1999. pp. 17. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13585.shtml.

Back in 1999 they didn't approve and it hasn't gotten any better publicity since then. I can't think of anyone who is a proponent of removing the clitoral hood, which approximates the same surgery...even though it would have potential benefits of fewer infections. Think about why that is...and then try your argument on yourself. I think it makes itself very clear.

Which is exactly what I've said... There is no affirmative evidence or proof that routine circumcisions have medical benefits.

BTW, the most accurate way to verify something in this instance is to test that specific issue in a controlled environment, where you can clearly control the outside factors and truly test something based on its own merit. Otherwise, the possibility for outside influence weighs heavily on the end result, and in this instance there are entirely too many things that would be more leading circumstances for transmittal or not than circumcision or not.

Well, it is a surgery. It swells, it bleeds, it gets infected, and in some cases they mutilate the penis.

Going on two years after wrecking a motorcycle and requiring an ORIF to repair my shattered collarbone, I can definitely attest to there being obvious nerve damage at the site of my surgery incision. Most, if not virtually everyone I have ever had any discussions with concerning surgery scars state there is noticeable nerve damage.

They notice this because they have a before and after, but I also think that because the nerves 'overlay' after a circumcision cut, it helps to avoid feeling the large 'dead spot' one would normally have after removing a chunk of skin holding a few thousand (if not more) nerve endings.

zanilth,

Try this one for size... WHO generally considered a reputable organization

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html

As far as you complaints on lack of data in eric's posts you are way off... you are trying to apply your layman's understanding to scientific studies. Also, a lot of links to scientific papers with actual data require payment for subscription, so if you want I can flood you with references, but it is on you to pay to read them.

The bottom line is, my money is on most circumcised men not having any regrets about being circumcised in infancy, just as much as most uncircumcised men having no regrets about not being circumcised in infancy. If you have a problem with it take it up with your parents, not the medical establishment.

As for myself, I'll continue to do circumcisions at parent's requests. Oh... and I was voluntarily circumcised, without any medical indications, at age 13.

"Oh... and I was voluntarily circumcised, without any medical indications, at age 13."

Which is exactly the way it should be. You voluntarily doing it. If a parent requests it (and if you are a physician as it appears), I would think you would objectively suggest to them the same thing pediatricians have come to realize. There is no distinct benefits to it for every child. In some cases, for a small percentage, the advantage is there...but as a physician, you have to tell parents that it is a choice they are making to do an elective, cosmetic surgery on their child, right? If a parent asked you to remove their daughters clitoral hood because they liked the way it looked, would you do it? If so, do you condone it as their right to request that surgery...and if not, why?

There is no real reason to do it to all babies.

It isn't, it is an elective procedure. The petition is trying to change that, which is a bad thing.

It swells, it bleeds, it gets infected, and in some cases they mutilate the penis.

They are talking about successful surgeries, not botched attempts. Your claim would be like saying heart transplants have the side-effect of death.

Back in 1999 they didn't approve and it hasn't gotten any better publicity since then. I can't think of anyone who is a proponent of removing the clitoral hood, which approximates the same surgery...even though it would have potential benefits of fewer infections.

Can you demonstrate that it does? Because there are studies showing a variety of benefits to chopping a male.

Most, if not virtually everyone I have ever had any discussions with concerning surgery scars state there is noticeable nerve damage.

None of mine are much less sensitive, most are no less actually.

"They are talking about successful surgeries, not botched attempts."

Bleeding, swelling, and infection are not botched attempts. Destroying the penis is a botched attempt. When you remove a protective layer, that which is underneath is no longer protected. It doesn't take a doctor to understand that if you removed the clitoral hood on females, over time, it would be less sensitive as it is no longer protected. It is the same thing as we all start out with the same physiology. So one certainly wouldn't notice the lack of feeling they should have if it were gone from birth.

But my statement was not made to say all are that way. It was a statement to weigh the minimal "possible" health benefit for a small percentage vs. the actual concept of the surgery, done not to themselves, but to someone else. If it is unnecessary, and it is not done, there would be NO botched attempts, infections, or any issues with bodily autonomy. There are a few people I'm sure that wished their parents had just left them alone...and a few parents that wish the same. Even if the risk is small, it goes down to zero if you elect not to do it in the first place.

I'm not against the procedure, I'm against forcing it on someone else. Let each person decide for themselves if they want it done. It is an unnecessary, elective, cosmetic procedure with "benefits" that are so questionable the medical field doesn't stand behind them. So the risk vs. reward in addition to the right of the individual to make their own decision is paramount to my point of view. What the parent wants, when it is not necessary, must be weighed against allowing a person to choose for themselves what they want to do with their body.

It is an unnecessary, elective, cosmetic procedure with "benefits" that are so questionable the medical field doesn't stand behind them.

WHO stands behind circumcision. They are in the medical field last time I checked. And, your statement is difficult to evaluate since both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC are overdue in either renewing their current policy statement (AAP) or issuing a policy statement (CDC). In fact, rumor has it that both are going to endorse circumcisions. The rumor has so much teeth that anti-circumcision groups have petitions going to try to halt such action by the CDC and AAP. I doubt though, that even if the CDC and AAP endorse circumcision you will change your opinion here, so why even mention it?

drew2012 wrote "There are too medical reasons to circumsize."

Not a single US medical association recommends circumcision. If there were any medical benefits that outweighed the risk of the procedure (one baby death every year, several damaged penises, high rates of infant infection), surely even one association would recommend circumcision.

"Most babies have it done because it is a typical practice in the US. "

The US is the only industrialized nation to circumcise, although the rate has dropped from 90% in the 1960's to 33% today. This cosmetic surgery is falling out of fashion.

"There is no harm done to the child."

Separating a penis from nerve laden foreskin is similar to pulling fingernails - painful. Circumcised boys are cranky for the week following the procedure. If your fingernails were pulled, you'd be cranky for a week as well.

It was a statement to weigh the minimal "possible" health benefit for a small percentage

There are demonstrated and measurable benefits, unlike any claimed drawbacks.

Not a single US medical association recommends circumcision.

Can you show me any that recommend against it?

The US is the only industrialized nation to circumcise, although the rate has dropped from 90% in the 1960's to 33% today.

Source? The number I've seen for the US puts it at 75% being cut.

eric wrote "I have shown study, after study, after study with randomized control data demonstrating the benefits of circumcision."

Eric, there are 2 million male infants born in the US every year. There are 50,000 new cases of HIV every year, with nearly all of them caused by 1) reception of HIV-infected sperm due to unprotected sex and 2) reception of HIV-infected blood. Since circumcision prevents exactly zero of those infection cases, how many cases of HIV are prevented by circumcision?

Do you understand that the reason no US medical association is able to recommend the routine circumcision of 2 million US male infants is because the complication rate is significantly higher than the benefit rate?

eric wrote "its not "unverified data" you idiot. Its randomized control studies."

Eric, these studies can not be repeated in the US and other industrialized environments and thus are specific to the African environments with their specific combination of health, hygiene and sexual practices. The US HIV infection rates (higher than in European countries with a very low circumcision rate) attest to that.

grundik wrote "As for myself, I'll continue to do circumcisions at parent's requests. Oh... and I was voluntarily circumcised, without any medical indications, at age 13."

What are your reasons for spending health plan dollars in voluntary circumcision?

at least grundik did it voluntarily... sadly his patients are being forced under the knife.

"It appears you brought FGM into the conversation, where I did not. I said remove your daughters clitoral hood. That is not FGM."

I want to correct my former statement. After doing more research on it, I found that Type 1a Female Genital Mutilation cuts off only the clitoral hood, and since we all have the same basic physiology, it is identical to the current circumcision of a male. So while we have global outcry to prevent it on our girls, we seem to have a an outcry to make sure parents have a right to do it to their boys. So this gets even more odd...

vincent,

you miss the point.

With Africa's higher HIV prevelance, is circumcision more beneficial there than here. Yes, undoubtedly. So what?

Are condoms, abstaining from high risk behavior, refraining from IV drug use, etc more effective. Yes, undoubtedly. Again, so what?

The issue here is DOES circumcision have ANY benefits. YES. Are they marginal in a population without high risk features and one that uses protection. Yes

But it is beneficial nonetheless, even marginally. Show me evidence to the contrary

Did it ever occur TO YOU that we have a much higher rate of IV drug use in the US than europe, and this may account for our higher HIV rate?

Again, you do not understand singling out a single variable in a multivariate system. I have tried to explain this to you numerous times and you either don't understand it or ingore it. Im sorry, but this is crucial when analyzing data. You really need to get control of this skill

"WHO stands behind circumcision."

As it correlates with sexually active men. Show me an infant that is sexually active and can possibly benefit and I might even accept it would be beneficial to the infants IN AFRICA! But since HIV is contracted through sexual contact, I cannot for the life of me think of one reason an individual couldn't be allowed the right to choose for themselves. A lot of justification is thrown around WHY we should be able to do it to infant boys, and then balk when talking about doing it to infant girls. Why do we feel the need to control an infants decisions about his penis? Leave it alone! It should be illegal, just as it is illegal to put a knife on an infant girls genitals, unless medically necessary.

But it is beneficial nonetheless, even marginally.

OK, you seem to believe that marginal benefit constitutes a reason to allow one person to force another into an elective surgery. Since the Mayo Clinic states HUGE benefits, not just marginal ones to elective breast removal, would it be OK to allow parents to decide to remove all of their babies breast tissue?

"Prophylactic mastectomies are highly effective. Studies show it reduces the risk of developing breast cancer by 90 percent in moderate- and high-risk women."

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prophylactic-mastectomy/WO00060

It is insane how we try to justify it for one and make it illegal for another. Point to your marginal benefit and see if it outweighs over 100 deaths each year from attempting the procedure. I'm sure of those 100 infant boys, none of them would have benefited anywhere near the level high enough to risk their lives. Parents should NOT be able to opt their infants into a cosmetic, elective surgery that involves cutting their genitalia...whether they are boys OR girls.

To have conflicting law based on gender in this day and age is a reflection of puritan days. Maybe we should stick our head in the sand and look for a witch to hunt...all logic and reality notwithstanding. It's just what we've always done, so instead of recognizing the injustice, we justify it??

justice,

valid point about sexually active men rather than infants benefiting from circumcision. I will add that by the time infants grow up to be sexually active men they may have already contracted STDs before they decide to look at circumcision. So it may be too late by then. Your point also fails to address the reduction in penile cancer seen from circumcionsion. But we agree its beneficial? So why ban it? We don't ban smoking around infants, which is clearly harmful. We don't ban feeding toddlers mcdonalds, which is clearly harmful. So why would we ban something that may be helpful down the road? Just because the infant can't consent? Not good enough--the infant doesn't consent to the activities described above but they are allowed to continue

as far as your mastectomy comparison...hardly the same thing at all. First off, prophylactic mastectomy is only recommended in HIGH RISK women, regardless of what your internet link says--that's patients with very strong family histories, BRCA positive, or prior history of breast cancer

If you had an infant you knew was that high risk, then hey, maybe circumcision wouldn't be such a bad idea

But the larger point is that there are social, cultural, and religious factors associated with circumcison--none for mastectomy

Of course I wouldn't do a procedure PURELY if the benefit were marginal, but along with the above, and I don't see a reason it should be banned

Also, quit comparing it to female circumcision. They are not the same thing at all. Don't get confused because they have the same name

haha..i just read that you said "we all have the same basic physiology"

Hahahaha..what a ridiculous, untrue statement

So I assume you pee sitting down?

Is it your time of the month?

Hahahaha

"Your point also fails to address the reduction in penile cancer seen from circumcionsion."

Untrue...since the increase in warts circumcised men saw reflected a higher percentage than the reduction of penile cancer, it was ceased to be used as a "benefit" by those justifying it in previous generations.

Shouldn't laws of human rights exist for all people, or just people you choose?

"haha..i just read that you said "we all have the same basic physiology"

We all start out identical in the womb, acted on or not acted on by a chromosome. Then the nub either retracts and forms a clitoris and clitoral hood, or extends and forms the penis and foreskin.

Keep laughing...but do tell, since preventative breast removal for cancer showed a 90% effective way to prevent breast cancer in medium to high risk groups, should all parents be able to decide to remove all of the breast tissue in their baby girls? Right...didn't think so. Even with THAT kind of benefit, you'd probably be the first to say it would be against their human right NOT to be operated on.

With MC killing over 100 infant males a year, do the true benefits warrant the operation. The APA doesn't seem to think so. The cancer researchers sure seem to think elective mastectomy would help prevent cancer, but yet neither you nor I would agree that someone ELSE should force another to have it done. What a horrendous human crime that would be, right?

"First off, prophylactic mastectomy is only recommended in HIGH RISK women, regardless of what your internet link says"

And the WHO only says it's beneficial to HIGH RISK men. Your point?

But the larger point is that there are social, cultural, and religious factors associated with circumcison--none for mastectomy

Oh really...so you're saying regardless of the facts and data that make it illegal for one group to have an operation forced on them, because it's what we've done, it should be continued to be done. It doesn't matter that over 100 infants die each year in a cosmetic operation they cannot possibly understand? That it's OK to perform genital cutting, but only if it is a male you are doing it to? I think you would now have to completely understand the logic used by those countries that support FGM.

show me anywhere at all wher you saw that circumsized males had more "warts" please, id love to see that flat out lie in print. You, my friend, are a liar

My point in the second post was to point out the utter absurdity of your statement trying to compare male and female parts. Lets do the lay person test first. They look and feel different. We're at 3rd grade now, if you're keeping track. The male penis is a cylidrical organ while the female vagina is an inward pouch. Yes, when we are not more than a few cells, or even a few weeks past conception, yes we all start out gender female. But a lot happens between then and now :)

If a baby is high risk, maybe the parents should consider mastectomy since that is the ONLY SOLUTUION.

For men, high risk means they can wear condoms, be smart, avoid IV drugs, etc. Circumcision isn't the only answer. So you say, well then why do it? Please refer to my earlier comments about religioun, personal freedom, and the benefits of circumcison

My point is that circumcision is a whole let less destructive than mastectomy--to borrow your analogy--which should a womam have--double mastectomy or trim the tip off her nipple. What do you thinK?

I don't understand your last statemnent, nor understand how you got it from what i said. female genital mutulation is completely wrong, barbaric, and of no use whatsover. The complete oppositte of male circumcision

Listen, the final argument rests on a few points that I'll summarize from both our posts

1. Circumcision is purely elective, and therefore should not automatically be forced on a helplfess infant--PRobably true

2. Circumcision has very rare, but real complications. True

3. Circumcision may decrease male sensitivity during sex--maybe true (no flowers for the wife---bada bing!)

4. Circumcision is a long tradition among jews and is one of the central commandments for any man. True

5. Circumcision's harms are outweighed by its benefits in high risk situations/places. Undoubtedly true

6. Circumcisions effect is much less clear in the US, but would likely cause minimal benefit at best

7. I do a lot of things to my child without consent, some neutral, some harmful, and the government has no place interfering excepting for extreme circumstance

8. Circumcionsin protects agaisnt STDs, although not nearly to the degree that condoms, abstinence, or avoiding IV drugs do

I believe we agree on 1-8. I just see that weight of evidence in favor of circumcision because I highly value personal freedom, and if what I'm doing probably won't hurt my kid, and might help him, then why the hell not

show me anywhere at all wher you saw that circumsized males had more "warts" please, id love to see that flat out lie in print. You, my friend, are a liar

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1195083/

"A recent study comparing heterosexual men with and without confirmed sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in an urban STD clinic showed that uncircumcised men were less likely than circumcised men to have genital warts detectable by clinical examination (adjusted odds ratio 0.7, 95% confidence interval 0.4, 0.9)."

I would prefer you not use the term liar because you were unaware of it.

"I do a lot of things to my child without consent, some neutral, some harmful, and the government has no place interfering excepting for extreme circumstance"

Then why don't you think parents have a right to order a hoodectomy of their daughter if they believe it should happen?...might be harmful, but it does have benefit. /sarc I in no way believe this should be legal. If you elect to have a doctor cut part of your baby's genitals off because you like the way it looks, I consider that extreme circumstance...just like a female infant. Let HIM decide when he gets old enough.

female genital mutulation is completely wrong, barbaric, and of no use whatsover. The complete oppositte of male circumcision

But the WHO considers ANY cutting of a female to be FGM, including just the removal of the clitoral hood, which is the exact same surgery as removing the foreskin. So it is NOT opposite of a male as much as it is exactly the same as the surgery on a male.

Circumcionsin protects agaisnt STDs, although not nearly to the degree that condoms, abstinence, or avoiding IV drugs do

But unless you live in Africa, it will not protect against STDs...and even if there were CONCLUSIVE evidence (which there is not) that circumcision prevents STDs in the US, all babies by default are already protected against STDs because they are not having sex. Why the hurry to do it? Why not wait until the child can decide for themselves what to do with their body. Boys and girls deserve the human right to their own body.

I just see that weight of evidence in favor of circumcision because I highly value personal freedom,

I too highly value PERSONAL freedom. But YOUR desire to have freedom removes your child's right (male or female) to the human right of body autonomy...all for a surgical procedure that is elective and cosmetic with both minor benefit and some minor and some MAJOR negative consequences.

I agree, that we are closer to being in agreement than some of our posts show, but I think we miss on one point. If I had to choose between the right of someone to do something to someone else, or the right of the person to decide for themselves, I firmly believe the right should rest with the individual who the elective, cosmetic procedure is performed on.

again, drop the FGM comparison. That's like saying, "we should allow parents to murder their kids if they don't clean their room" Obvious extremes are excluded...I shouldn't need to keep telling you that

Why wait? Because it may be too late by then. I already said that. Plus, there are religious aspects to consider. Circumcision must be done at 6 days for jews

Please list any Major negative consequences. You havent even listed a minor one yet

Would you support a ban on smoking around infants? What about a ban on parents buying their kids happy meals? Where do we stop?

by the way, your study is garbage

I post a 70,000 patient meta-analysis showing the benefits of circumcision, and your response is a 17 year old retrospective study of 450 medical records. And the authors don't claim that warts are less COMMON in uncircumcised males, just fewer DETECTED on exam--who cares--maybe the foreskin covers up the warts. No tests for actual HPV infection, no tests for other STDs. Who cares

Justice,

Do you think we should also wait and let kids make their own decisions about vaccinations? After all there are nutjobs out there debating the benefits of that as well.

Comparing male circumcision to FGM is not valid. While MC definitely has medical benefits (as well as risks), FGM has none of the benefits, but only risks.

And as far as my statement about being circumcised at age 13, without any medical indications, I forgot to add that I WISH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WHEN I WAS AN INFANT!

The bottom line is, if you don't want to have your kid circed you don't have to, but if I want to have my boy circed I don't want government telling me that I can't.

"again, drop the FGM comparison."

I will not stick my head in the sand. The WHO specifically calls the removal of the clitoral hood (exact same as the foreskin) is FGM. I didn't even realize that before this post...how incredibly sexist is that? If you have an issue with that, take it up with the WHO. Maybe they can get that corrected so you can tell people your version is correct.

Until they allow for a hoodectomy, I stand with the statement that cutting the clitoral hood (or the foreskin) by their own definition is mutilation. It does not have to be done.

Circumcision must be done at 6 days for jews

FYI: Actually, it is 8 days due to the bible..."And on the 8th day he shall have his foreskin circumcised" (Leviticus 12:3)

I post a 70,000 patient meta-analysis showing the benefits of circumcision, and your response is a 17 year old retrospective study of 450 medical records. And the authors don't claim that warts are less COMMON in uncircumcised males, just fewer DETECTED on exam--who cares--maybe the foreskin covers up the warts. No tests for actual HPV infection, no tests for other STDs. Who cares

Yeah, umm it was so conclusive that the APA didn't find enough evidence to support doing it. I'm going to go with them on this one...no disrespect to your ability to find the report. So apparently YOU care about marginal benefits compared to taking away someone's right to body autonomy. You may of course believe what you want, but it will be quite interesting to see the courts try your logic when it comes to marginal benefit vs. human rights. I don't need to argue it, I only give logical reason for the suit to have been placed.

And by the way...if you call someone a liar...and they give you data that proves what they said..."your study is garbage" is not really an apology. It is not MY study. There are others if you care to Google it, but it won't matter to you. You have your marginal information that is gospel to you (pun intended), and no other marginal data will be accepted if it doesn't line up with your opinion. Fine. I can accept that. I cannot accept fighting for human rights for females, and fighting against them for males. ANY justification that is not a glowing recommendation of the APA is just that...justification for ones desire to cut another's genitals.

FGM has none of the benefits, but only risks.

That is untrue. Infection of the area would never happen, because it is not there. HIV rates were shown to decrease with women that had it done. Is that a reason to do it? NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Do you think we should also wait and let kids make their own decisions about vaccinations?

That comparison fails. Now if they only gave vaccinations to males and because of it, their right index finger fell off, then I would have an issue with it. If there were a law banning the vaccination on girls because of the risk, but made it a parents decision to give it to a boy, then yes, I'd have an issue with that, as should every American Citizen.

The bottom line is, if you don't want to have your kid circed you don't have to, but if I want to have my boy circed I don't want government telling me that I can't.

I can hear it in India now..."Bottom line is if you don't want to have your daughters clitoral hood removed, you don't have to, but if I want my daughter to have the operation, I don't want government telling me that I can't."

Can you now see the right of the parent usurping the human rights of the child? Can you see that it doesn't matter what it says in a book written by a guy that saw God in a burning bush and waited on a mountain for two weeks for God to carve commandments in stone? Really? I'm sure the people in India have an ancient book they follow as well. What makes you so sure that your writer was any more correct about human rights than their writer?

And as far as my statement about being circumcised at age 13, without any medical indications, I forgot to add that I WISH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WHEN I WAS AN INFANT!

I wished I'd have had my tattoo put on when I was an infant, it would have been so much easier. So what? Do we allow cosmetic surgeries on babies when they don't need it? Elective, cosmetic surgeries should not be the choice of one to do onto another. Do it to yourself. If you are so intrigued by it, then go in and have them remove more...I don't care. If a mother chooses to have her son circumcised, I hope she first signs up to have her clitoral hood removed in her own elective surgery. If she can not see any reason to do it, perhaps the same logic can sink in before she forces it on another.

again, male and female anatomy are completely different. I shouldn't need to tell you that. there is no comparison between female and male circumcision. The clitoris is a clitoris, the foreskin is a foreskin. The clitoris is the MAJOR source of female sexual pleasure--the foreskin is not--notwithstanding some nerve endings there. Ask any circumcised guy--sex still feels pretty darned good. Ask a victim of FGM--if you get the same answer I'd be shocked. They are not exactly the same. boys have a penis, and girls a vagina. by the way, there is considerable evidence for the benefits of circumcision, and no signficant evidence for its harms. The opposite is true of FGM. If you don't accept this fact, you are just putting your own viewpoint above the facts

Really? 6 days or 8 days? Is that really important? Smacks of being a smart-alec

Another point you are overlooking is that circumcision is MUCH MUCH more difficult and more risky to do on an older child/adult than an infant. So that's a very good reason NOT to wait

But the data WAS conclusive enough for the WHO to endorse it--seems like you keep ignoring that point. Not only that, the bigger issue is that the APA didn't CONDEMN it--as you are trying to do. I don't have to show that it is strongly beneficial and needs to be endorsed--if it is not harmful and mildly beneficial, then why ban it?

I wasn't trying to apologize, so that may be the source of your confusion. I also am fully aware that you do not publish scientific studies..the your was not mean to indicate authorship. Im also not going to do your work for you--if you have other studies, by all means, post them.

Also, you show your ignorance with you scientific evaluations. It is not my opinion. Just use some common sense---a 70,000 patient meta analysis is a much more powerful study than a 450 patient chart review. That's not opinion--its fact. There's a difference. Even in the study you posted, the authors admit their findings are contrary to what MOST other studies found. So you are trying to pass off an anomaly as the average. You need to look at the weight of ALL the evidence, not just one or two small studies

You are trying to make this a human rights issue, but you ignore one of the most fundamental rights--freedom of religion.

If you are going to ban circumcision, then why not ban secondhand smoke or mcdonalds. You ignored that question but it is central

But the data WAS conclusive enough for the WHO to endorse it--seems like you keep ignoring that point. Not only that, the bigger issue is that the APA didn't CONDEMN it

Not only do they not condemn it, they specifically state that male circumcision is the prerogative of the PARENTS in consultation with their physician to identify any risks or benefits. So, if this is such an unethical procedure, why does almost every medical association in the world advocate for parental responsibility in making the decision?

You still have not addressed why it should be illegal to removal a baby's foreskin, which has potential health benefits, but the removal of a 6th digit or webbing is acceptable despite imparting no survival or health benefits whatsoever.

"Really? 6 days or 8 days? Is that really important? Smacks of being a smart-alec"

Nope...just an FYI so you knew...nothing more.

Not only do they not condemn it, they specifically state that male circumcision is the prerogative of the PARENTS in consultation with their physician to identify any risks or benefits.

As they would with any surgery that is not illegal...yet. If FGM Type 1 clitoral hood removal was not outlawed, they would be forced to state the same. That operation is the prerogative of the parents because THEY can't support it. It doesn't take a lot of logic to work through that.

"there is no comparison between female and male circumcision. The clitoris is a clitoris, the foreskin is a foreskin. The clitoris is the MAJOR source of female sexual pleasure--the foreskin is not"

I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be a black hole for understanding. The CLITORAL HOOD is not the clitoris, just as the foreskin is not the head of the penis. Now that we have THAT out of the way, the clitoral hood IS exactly the same as the foreskin. Cut one, cut the other...it just doesn't matter. Women have them elect to have them altered all the time with plastic surgeons...It is just as safe as a circumcision.

I have NEVER stated the clitoris is the foreskin. You keep saying it and disagreeing with it. Well, stop saying it, and you can stop disagreeing with it. I am stating that the clitoral HOOD is the same as the foreskin...both known as prepuce, yes? Both can be removed...

But if you do it on a girl it is defined as FGM...apparently if you do it on a boy, suddenly we get people saying...well, I think it is OK to do that on a boy, but goodness, keep that knife away from a girl. She should have a right to her own body. Ummm...clear enough?

"You still have not addressed why it should be illegal to removal a baby's foreskin, which has potential health benefits, but the removal of a 6th digit or webbing is acceptable despite imparting no survival or health benefits whatsoever."

Apples, you need a new name...the whole comparison thing seems to escape you. If you alter a disfigurement to bring it back to "normal," it would be different from altering NORMAL for no reason. I would really like to know if you cut the prepuce off a male or a female, why should one be illegal and one be legal. Now that's apples to apples for you.

Before you respond, please remember the prepuce is ONLY the clitoral hood and my example does not involve cutting anything else off of the female. It is a straight, apples to apples comparison. WHY is there a law against doing it to girls...yet you fight so hard to do it to boys. Don't you find it a little odd?

Don't you find it a little odd?

No, while they may be structurally similar, there are advantages to male circumcision not present in clitoral hood removal.

. If you alter a disfigurement to bring it back to "normal," it would be different from altering NORMAL for no reason.

It may not be "normal" but 6th digit removal is completely cosmetic- completely. There is no medical or reproductive need. It will never impart any advantage to remove and since anesthesia is used, this surgery is much more invasive and dangerous. How then should parents be able to decide that a purely cosmetic surgery can be performed on their infant, a surgery much more likely to kill the infant than male circumcision, but a procedure that may impart life-long benefits should be outlawed?

"It may not be "normal" but 6th digit removal is completely cosmetic- completely."

OK, so either you don't get it, or you REFUSE to get it. Either way, have a good day.

It may not be "normal" but 6th digit removal is completely cosmetic- completely."

Not quite. As stated here, there are generally no issues once this procedure is done, but there can be problems with the 'normal' digits, which is another reason why they remove.

more importantly to correct associated problems with what remains.

http://www.eatonhand.com/hw/hw024/htm

i am a black hole for understanding when it comes to concepts that don't make sense. I just find it hard to wrap my mind around it

At any rate, I was thinking of posting all the anatomic differences between the two structures, but what's the point

Lets assume for a second that thery are exactly the same. So what? The procedures produce completely different results. Even if they are the same anatomically, which I strongly disagree with, they are clearly different PHYSIOLOGICALY which is really what matters

Male circumcision offers maybe some benefit, and no clear harm (aside from making HPV more difficult to detect on clinical exam)

FGM removes sexual pleasure, and has no demonstratable benefits (even mild benefits like male circumcision)

Male circumcision, while not endorsed by the APA, is not even discouraged--just not recommended in a blanket fashion. And the WHO DOES recommend it

FGM is NOT ENDORSED by any organization, and is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED

So again, I ask you, why do you care so much if the two structures are analagous? Their removal CLEARLY has different effects

And again, waiting until maturity makes male circumcision MUCH more difficult and risky. So you can't just adopt a wait and see attitude

And if you're going to ban something benign like MC, then how can you justify not banning clearly harmful things like secondhand smoke around infants or fast food to toddlers? Where would our freedom be then?

This is it, then I am done. I agree that we disagree.

FGM removes sexual pleasure,

No it doesn't. Not the type I'm talking about...apples to apples comparison. Removing the PREPUCE ONLY would remove only as much "theorized" future sexual pleasure as a removing the prepuce on an infant boy.

and has no demonstratable benefits (even mild benefits like male circumcision)

Yes it would HAVE to...in theory...it has the SAME type of cleanliness "benefit" justification so many speak of when trying so hard to get at his penis. It is ridiculous to point to "it can't get dirty if we cut it off" as a benefit to doing it. To get the information you seek, in the types of studies you'd accept, we'd have to do it to millions of infant girls like we do with infant boys in order to get the "marginal" benefit justification for cutting an infant girl. The LACK of information is NOT confirmation that it is not there. It means we got to a law to prevent it before it was too late and people would be arguing to keep the right to cut their daughters prepuce off. The LOGICAL conclusion is that if you remove folds of skin, be it on a boy or a girl, you would see the same hygienic benefit for each, since they are both HUMAN. The HIV "benefit" doesn't occur until they are sexually active (and only in certain parts of the world), so it plays no part in forcing a circumcision on an infant boy in the U.S.

Male circumcision, while not endorsed by the APA, is not even discouraged--just not recommended in a blanket fashion. And the WHO DOES recommend it

If it were illegal, like the SAME procedure on a female, the APA would strongly discourage it..right? Come on now, stay up with this one.

And again, waiting until maturity makes male circumcision MUCH more difficult and risky. So you can't just adopt a wait and see attitude

I bet waiting to get your ears pierced or getting a tattoo is more painful as you get older as well. Your "justification" is just that. If a person can decide for themselves what to do with their body, and it is more risky as they get older, what do YOU care what they decided to do with THEIR OWN penis? If they choose to get it fine, if they choose not to because they weigh the risks and benefits, will you lose sleep because you didn't get to choose to cut it off for them before they could make the choice to leave it alone? The argument is borderline sadistic.

And if you're going to ban something benign like MC, then how can you justify not banning clearly harmful things like secondhand smoke around infants or fast food to toddlers?

Wow! Really? OK, there actually IS a ban in some states, I haven't looked it up for all, on smoking in a vehicle with someone under 18. So the ban CAN exist. If the fast food happy meal came with cutting part of your kids genitals off, or any part of the anatomy, and it was already illegal to take your daughter to it, then taking away the boy's right to is own body by taking HIM to the fast food place should be banned as well! But I digress...Your comparison and gender-based justifications continue to get sillier.

FGM DOES have effects on sexual pleasure. Its well documented

I don't care what your "theory" or "belief" is. FACTS! FACTS! Those are what matter. Maybe we would have to carry out studies to find out if FGM has any benefits--certainly not on millions of people-BUT IT HASNT BEEN DONE! I don't care what you think the results "might" show--YOU HAVE NO PROOF. Dealing with the evidence we have right now, MC has benefits, FGM does not. And girls don't get smegma by the way, so your comparison falls flat again

Legality has nothing to do with it...what about that do you not understand? If zimbabwe made condoms illegal tomorrow, the WHO would still recommend them--its science, not laws. Why can't you understand that?

Its not just that its more painful later on--the surgery has more complications. If it were just pain, you would be right. But its more than that, so youre wrong

Stop mixing metaphors. Happy meals are clearly bad for kids, yet legal. MC is not clearly bad, yet you support a ban... HOW DO YOU NOT SEE HOW RIDICULOUS YOUR STANCE IS?

this is what we call proof. It completely shows you how wrong you are

The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003: an overview for district nurses.
Griffith R, Tengnah C.

Source

School of Health Sciences, Swansea University, UK. richard.griffith@swan.ac.uk

Abstract

Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons. An estimated 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM with some three million girls at risk in Africa every year. The procedure has no health benefits and can cause severe bleeding and continence problems, and later, potential childbirth complications and newborn deaths. FGM is internationally recognized as a violation of one's human rights (World Health Organisation, 2008). In the UK it is a procedure outlawed by the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003.

"Happy meals are clearly bad for kids, yet legal. MC is not clearly bad, yet you support a ban..."

Happy meals come with a toy and both genders partake. They do not come with a toy for girls and a scalpel for boys.

FGM is internationally recognized as a violation of one's human rights (World Health Organisation, 2008). In the UK it is a procedure outlawed by the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003.

Hello?? And in time, it will become gender neutral as our barbaric society realizes that cutting ANY infant for cosmetic purposes (albeit marginal benefits claimed by those trying to justify reasoning for following instruction to cut part of their son's genitals off by a voice in a burning bush), is a violation of their human rights...just like females are recognized currently.

Eric said "again, male and female anatomy are completely different."

Eric, a male heart is the same as a female heart. A male foreskin is the same part as the female foreskin (o.k.a. clitoral hood). Same function, same structure...

Eric wrote "6. Circumcisions effect is much less clear in the US, but would likely cause minimal benefit at best"

Because the conditions of HIV transmission in the US are different, the risks of the surgery with no or inadequate analgesia on an infant outweigh the benefits.

In any case, you ignore the ethics of genital sculpting and are at odds with every pediatric medical association in the Western world as none of them recommend routine infant circumcision.

Banning sex among homosexuals would have the greatest impact on HIV transmission in the US and every comparable Western country. Instead, you recommend infant genital sculpting.

I just noticed this:

And girls don't get smegma by the way, so your comparison falls flat again

Are humans not very similar to each other? Perhaps you've been sold a bill of goods by the media and society and have accepted without question. However, just from a logical deduction, if there is a fold of skin and it is wet and warm, things can grow. If you remove that fold of skin, presto, all gone. Now comes the question...is the possibility of smegma, or infection due to not cleaning your body well enough reason to cut that part of your body off, or... should you learn to clean it better. Think carefully on this as I'm sure you've eaten with dirty hands before.

Anyway, just do a quick Google search, or if you'd rather not, please read below...the first is an article link, the other from Wiki:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/451330/smegma_women_have_it_too.html

Females

The accumulation of sebum combined with dead skin cells forms smegma. Smegma clitoridis is defined as the secretion of the apocrine glands of the clitoris, in combination with desquamating epithelial cells.^[2] Glands that are located around the clitoris and the vulva majoris secrete sebum. Contaminated, and retained smegma (smegmaliths) usually disappear when the cause is removed.^[3]

The results of the studies were flawed. Think of it this way, the US has one of the highest circumcision rates in the world. We also have one of the highest rates of HIV. If circumcision made it less likely to spread the virus, wouldn't we have one of the lowest rates?

Like I said. Flawed empirical data.

Those studies (the 'big one' about HIV most notably) simply tested a certain amount of circumcised males and uncircumcised males, and then a few years later retested them. They then decided that circumcision = less HIV (without considering the rate of which the males were promiscuous, drug use, or any other contributing factors.)

Kinda like the weed test- toss a rat brain in a blender and some pot, hit puree= Yep, weed kills your brain...

Yeah, SUUUUUUURE. And that's not a skewed test...

Without commenting on the issue of the city passing such laws, I will say that at least some of those studies mentioned by da doc have been overturned. Where did you read them? Did you get the original article from Nature or other such journals?

I absolutely respect the opinion of medical professionals, but unfortunately there have been problems in the past when they head up scientific studies without a scientist on board.

Did you actually read the studies? of course not, because the studies have been proven to have been flawed. As soon as the numbers started to go back up in circumcised men, they stopped the "study."

You can't spread AIDS. I swear. The lack of education is astounding. Try reading a book, will ya?

Daniel

You can't spread AIDS. I swear.

Im not sure what you are saying, AIDS isnt spread somehow?

This being San Francisco does it have anything to do with gays?

Can't spread aids?...is that you?...."Daniel my brother?"

It has nothing to do with SF or its community. I was referring to a post above mine that suggested AIDS is spreadable. His/her post suggested a person can spread AIDS, and that isn't true. It's just a minor technicality. A person can spread HIV.

ohmy,

come on, you should know the answer to that. Circumcision is the ONLY factor in the risk of STDs--there's prevalence in a population, rates of protection usage, etc. You'd have to adjust and correct for all those

I shouldn't have to tell you that...

Does anyone understand how HIV is spread? The two primary transmission paths in the US are 1 ) anal reception of HIV-infected semen and 2) reception of HIV-infected blood from an intravenous needle. Circumcision plays no role in reducing the two primary HIV transmission paths.

fishing is GOOD today.....

vince,

My man, lots of other factors are important. One you are ignoring being the presence of open sores, wounds, or inflammation that reduces the skin's integrity which reduces the physical barrier to the virus

So if you have a chancre or other open sore on your genitalia, you have a higher risk of transmission. So if circumcision reduces the inflammation (it does) and reduces STDs (it does), it will reduce transmission

eric, while in theory you are correct, there is no difference in STD transmission among comparable populations such as the US with Germany, Australia or the UK with the exception of HIV, for which the US has the highest rate. While I appreciate your attention to variables in a study, obviously, I am not able to conduct the study you seek, and, likely, neither are you.

Don't overlook the reason circumcision was introduced on a large scale in the late 1800's : reduction of penile sensitivity to reduce masturbation, which was thought to be harmful at the time. So, when reduction in sensitivity is coupled with condom usage, what do you think circumcised men will be more inclined to do than uncircumcised men? -> avoid condoms

i don't care why it was originally introduced, could be wrong reason, right thing to do scenario. At any rate, irrelevant

As to the first part of your post, do not just sweep aside the fact that it is correct in theory. That's a huge point. Without convincing/ironclad evidence one way or the other, why not side on the fact of valid scientific hypotheses?

Again, how many times can I say the same thing---you are trying to find a difference attributed to one variable in a multi-variate system. YOU CAN"T DO THAT! They also speak less german in the US than in germany. Must be because of circumcision...there is less snow in the US than norway--circumcision again? do you see my point yet?

No, I can't do a randomized trial between us and europe. But I have provided you with not only a hypothesis supported by science but good OBSERVATIONAL data. What have you provided? And please don't give me a link to some internet site. If you don't provide me an actual study, i'm not going to read it

Again, how many times can I say the same thing---you are trying to find a difference attributed to one variable in a multi-variate system. YOU CAN"T DO THAT! They also speak less german in the US than in germany. Must be because of circumcision...there is less snow in the US than norway--circumcision again? do you see my point yet?

Eric, that is exactly what you are doing.

So America has one of the highest rates of hiv in the world eh? At less then 1% we are pretty damn low. There are about 20 countries with way higher hiv rates than 1%. Some as high as 20%+. In those countries circumcision isn't practiced. And the study wasn't just "testing people once then testing again" Having a foreskin does make you more susceptible to stds and urinary track infections. PLUS smegma mmm nom nom nom.

"Austrian researchers analyzing biopsies from circumcised and uncircumcised men found that the inner foreskin of the penis contains a higher concentration of Langerhans cells -- a prime target of the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV -- than any other part of the male foreskin. Because this would make the inner foreskin more susceptible to HIV, removing it through circumcision would help lower a man's risk of contracting HIV, they concluded."

How about you weirdos against circumcision just stop. We know that you guys are social outcasts and girls don't like uncircumcised guys but trying to force it on everyone so more people end up like you in order for you to feel like less of an outcast is just sad.

marley..

how am i doing that? I have provided a study with 17,000 participants that shows circumcision has a negative hazard ratio with stds. Look at table 1 of the study I provided. It clearly shows the populations were matched for all other variables. Not to mention that I am comparing equivalent populations, ie in the same continent rather than the vastly different groups not only within america but between here and europe

Please read my posts/links before commenting. Thank you

OhMy99999 its equally possible that your info is flawed did you ever think of that.........San Fran to Nanny Town.

90+% of males wouldn't have health issues if not circumcised...

hey!!!

that's a number I can live with coming out of wierd west coast.

that's a number I can live with coming out of wierd west coast.

That's actually a number I posted, and it didn't come from the west coast. You mis-posted the quote, so I didn't see it before now...

70% of the males on this planet aren't circumcised... If it were 'medically necessary', don't you think most of those 70% would be having issues?

eric-2573068 wrote "I have provided a study with 17,000 participants that shows circumcision has a negative hazard ratio with stds. Look at table 1 of the study I provided."

Eric, while your study may be valid under conditions in Africa, it is clear that conditions differ in the US with running water, condom usage, lower use of prostitutes, health care for women so that healthy vaginas can combat STDs including HIV as well as high condom usage. Without question, the environment of South Africa and other similar nations with a 33% HIV infection rate is much different from the nearly neglible HIV infection rate of all industrialized nations. The answer is probably the simplest : daily washing and condoms are the best way to avoid STDs.

If you've ever been forced to take an HIV test because of a paranoid girlfriend, you'll find that the the first questions are are

1) Have you ever had unprotected anally-receptive sex with a homosexual man?

2) Do you use intravenous recreational drugs?

It's clear that you have an agenda to continue circumcision despite its fall in popularity in the US and rarity in all other first world nations.

Agreed! What a bunch of MANIACS!

YEAH! If I want to cut off my daughter's clitoris, that is MY RIGHT!

Oh wait...

Since when did hacking off a perfectly good body part of a child become the right of the PARENTS? Oh yeah, back when religion said it was a sin to masturbate and Kellogg came up with a great plan to curb that by ripping an organ (yes it's an organ) from infant babies.

Mark, sarcasm is always understood (and greatly appreciated) in my neck of the woods.

I am willing to hear Beckey's response. How is this different than what Mark suggests? How is it not your son's decision as well?

Because cutting of a girls clitoris, or female circumcision, is done so that any type of sex will not be pleasurable to the female. Also, in many of the countries where it is done, it is done with a piece of glass or sharp rock without anesthesia.

Becky: strange, awkward, mystifying use of capital letters. Not to mention the basic logic. Should have stopped with ".... raise our children!" Everything after that presents a frightening argument. Clearly a parent is not free to do anything and everything to a child. Challenge the possibility of the ban. Justify circumcision. The religious argument is a solid start. Oh, wait.... that was someone else......

gigi
If its "your" daughter and "your" religion says do it...snip snip! And what if there is a big promotion if you happened to donate one of her kidneys to your companies president, you are the parent.

Is it up the state to say that no kids get glasses because its unnatural?

Yes, what is it with people and their awkward and strange use of capital letters? Does Beckey think she is raising Jesus maybe?

If someone was abusing their child, people would be asking why didn't the state government do something. The bottom line is circumcision is child abuse and an outdated ritual. Just because parents wish to choose this option doesn't make it right in the same way parents choosing to beat their children or only feed them once a week isn't right. Just because the parent wishes something doesn't make it right or moral.

Becky wrote "STOP telling us how to raise our children! If I want to have my Son Circumsized, thats NONE of the city or states business!"

I'd like to have the labia minora of my future daughter trimmed as well as her clitoral hood amputated and paid for with my medical insurance.

No matter how you cut it, it's male genital mutilation.

STOP telling us how to raise our children!

STOP treating your children like property!!! They have rights, too! I would be scared to be one of Explorerdog1's children.

Sorry, but there is equal evidence on both sides of the line over whether this can help or hurt, so just like other major life decisions, leave it to the parents. Don't legislate how I will raise my kids.

For those of you who try and equate this with forced female circumcision, you're friggin idiots. There is no comparison whatsoever. Read a few articles, watch a few videos, see 9-10 year old girls get held down by their relatives and have chunks removed with no anesthesia, then having the vaginal opening sewn shut. Tell me thats the same as having a bit of foreskin removed as an infant in a hospital.

Chris from Yucalpa wrote "For those of you who try and equate this with forced female circumcision, you're friggin idiots."

An infant is strapped down for the procedure as well, and it is also often performed in the US with minimal or no anaesthesia. The pain is probably similar to pulling a finger nail.

But the equation to amputation of the clitoral hood or inner labia under the same strapped and partially-anesthetised conditions for male circumcision are accurate.

"Tell me thats the same as having a bit of foreskin removed as an infant in a hospital. "

Do you realize that the *entire* foreskin is amputated in US circumcision? This is different than the partial foreskin removal of the ancient blood ritual.

Vincent, the problem with people today is that they don't do the research. You are correct that female surgery is much more painful than male, and it's done for different reasons.

Let me understand the San Francisco logic, circumcision is wrong but abortion is OK?

Thats what im saying. This is a non issue how about we focus on something more important like the killing of millions of babies by their own parents heellooooo

There is a world of difference between male and female circumcision. It's done in males for both religious and medical reasons, usually as an infant. And to be perfectly honest, show me an adult who has mental issues from that surgery.

For women, it was never mandated by Islam that it had to be done, it was simply permitted based on comments made by Mohammed which some some believe were never made. It's a social custom only. There is no legit medical reason for it. It's done for the simple purpose of denying women sexual pleasure.

There is a reason why it's called Female Genital Mutilation....

boys are circumcised with a local anethesia.... see this link ...http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/MY01023/DSECTION=why-its-done

And it also is a useful way to avoid many health risks for men.

I have the solution, Lets cut California loose from the rest of the lower 48 or at least from San Francisco south build a 30 foot wall along its eastern and northern borders , and just let them sink themselves in their bureaucratic bull@!$%# with out dragging the rest of the nation down the toilet with them. They can then prove to the rest of us how their social structure and nannyism is so superior to the primitive hardline states that for some reason wind up supporting them. this just proves how stupid and helpless they have become this should not even be a issue, and while the subject of rights is here you should not be allowed to murder your unborn child. Stuff that up your liberal yazoo....Down with Blue.

Its time to get real here is it possible that this issue is being opened up for a bigger cause, is it possible that male circumcision is not the issue at all but such a rule may set presidence on a similar issue this could be a for or against something else like female circumcision, we know the western world would never allow that practice. what could be underlying here.

I agree with( Joy 57111) the foreskin being left on could cause many health problems for men as well as women, men can get an infection under the foreskin and then transfer that infection to the women through intercourse.

"STOP telling us how to raise our children! If I want to have my Son Circumsized, thats NONE of the city or states business!"

Maybe not the states, but certainly it is your son's business! What if parents routinely got nose jobs done on their infants? How about some breast implants? A tattoo? How about a belly ring? Would any doctor do it if it wasn't necessary? If a doctor did do it, would society say, "Well, poor kid, guess that was the parents call."

Once the child is born, it should have the same rights of body autonomy as the rest of us. No one should be able to perform or authorize cosmetic surgery on infants. If a person of such faith decides for themselves they want to have the tip of their penis cut off, who is anyone to stop them? But until they can decide, we should keep our cosmetic, surgical hands off the children.

TJ- how about a little soap and water for that itchy foreskin? Why do it to a baby when a baby doesn't have sex?

"I agree with( Joy 57111) the foreskin being left on could cause many health problems for men as well as women"

And leaving your ears on could cause many issues for cleanliness behind them. It is a "fear" argument that has no basis in the medical field. The benefits are not supported by the pediatric association that has studied it much more in-depth than any of us. I'm all for a person making the call to have it done...to themselves. We should not have a society that forces elective, cosmetic procedures on others. It is quite simple, whether you like the idea of circumcision or not. I personally don't care what someone chooses to do to their own body...but I'm against EVERY scenario in which a decision is made to force cosmetic surgery on an infant.

"Is it up the state to say that no kids get glasses because its unnatural?"

If parents were surgically implanting them in their children "just in case" they might need them later, then HELL yes!

If a child NEEDS glasses, you get them for them. You don't FORCE them to wear them if you don't need them...but that is exactly what this is about. Everyone is worried about THEIR rights to cut someone else. It is already illegal for parents to opt the EXACT same surgery (classified as Type 1a FGM) for their daughters even though the same bacteria and cleanliness arguments could be made. It is done on female minors only in medically necessary situations. Adult women can and do have it done whenever they want. So it's not a new law of personal body autonomy...and it's truly not a new concept to our society...but the outcry of preventing boys to be included in it is honestly just really strange.

Shouldn't all humans be protected equally, until they can choose for themselves what happens to their body...especially when it comes to cosmetic surgery? Is it infringing on a parents rights to prevent them from putting a tattoo their infants? How about a really cool belly ring for the little newborn? Let's get their ears pinned back...sure looks better.

"If I want to buy my child a happy meal, who does San Francisco think they are,"

Does the happy meal come with a toy, or the ritual cutting of your child's genitals? If they cut a piece off your child every time you went there, as a parent, you probably wouldn't go there...and the government SHOULD step in and stop them from doing it. Or if it was just your son, you'd be OK with it?

Let me reverse the question...Who do YOU think you are to take away his rights? This is the same argument the U.S. and other developed countries make to third world countries who have their rituals in place to FGM.

FGM include cutting ANY part of the female, even just the clitoral hood, which is IDENTICAL to the currently legal procedure performed on males. Why the desire to control a boys penis? Why not leave it alone and let him decide when he gets old enough? There is no harm in waiting and could potentially save his life if he happens to be one of the over 100 unfortunate ones who lose their lives in the cosmetic procedure each year, and countless others are mutilated by accident. And to top it off, quite a few are sadistic enough to do it without anesthesia! What kind of mad science have we been led to believe? We see it as clear as day when it happens to girls in foreign countries...heck we have our own laws that make it illegal to put a knife on any part of a female infants genitals (thank GOD!), but we stumble as a society when it comes to boys. We start justifying it, saying the cutting is beneficial, yeah, that's it, beneficial...and it's a ritual, yeah, that's it, a ritual...and it prevents war, yeah, that's it, prevents war. Come on...use your head. It is not YOUR rights that are at stake here...it is your baby boy's rights.

If you are pro-choice, you believe in body autonomy. You HAVE to in order to support a woman deciding to end a potential human life. If you are pro-life, you support the right of the fetus to live. You HAVE to support the right of a live, breathing baby to it's own body, free from being operated on because someone else thinks it looks nice, or is following a ritual that was written in a book (what if that book was witchcraft? why not?).

Take a second to read post #3

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience

CS Lewis

So Melanie, how do you feel about abortions???

Same thing dirtbag, if you are against abortion, don't do it in your family. She's just suggesting you leave her family alone; nobody's forcing you to circumsize anyone. Moron.

100% agree with you. Once again, the few are trying to push THEIR views on the many. What's sad is people actually listen to them and give them attention.

If you don't want to cut your son, then don't, but DO NOT tell me what I can or can't do because you don't like it. It's legal for me to do so, so F**K off.

Is there any practice that you would object to given your " nobodys forcing you" ideal. Just because you do not wish to sell your child to the neighborhood pedifile shouldn't mean I can't. Are other organs off limits or is it just because it is a penis and therefore can be mutilated at will? If I choose to sleep with my daughter why can you object? Does it become you get to make the rules based at what you personally find acceptable and of course others do not. Circumcision is mutilation.

Melanie wrote "How about this... if you are against circumcision, don't do it in your family."

Female, but not male, circumcision is banned in the US. Why is the government telling me what to do with my family?

Common sense Vincent Denali, common sense, which is apparently not so common with you! There's a big difference between femal genital mutilationa nd male circumsion. When a male is circumsised, other than the pain, nothing much is lost, but when a female is mutilated, then she has problems giving birth, her mensstrual cycle has issues, amongsta host of other problems......see the sense???????

Vincent, female "circumcision" is not the same as male. Read the posts above and if that's not sufficient do some research on your own.

(You come across as an older white male about to stroke out, you might want to rein it in a bit.)

Is there any practice that you would object to given your " nobodys forcing you" ideal. Just because you do not wish to sell your child to the neighborhood pedifile shouldn't mean I can't. Are other organs off limits or is it just because it is a penis and therefore can be mutilated at will? If I choose to sleep with my daughter why can you object? Does it become you get to make the rules based at what you personally find acceptable and of course others do not. Circumcision is mutilation.

Terminally stupid argument. Selling a human being of any age is ILLEGAL in this country. Pedophilia - including incest - is ILLEGAL in this country. Circumcision is NOT illegal. If you're against circumcision, fine - but at least TRY to use rational, not emotional, arguments.