premjan

I remember reading that there is some statistically significant (maybe not compelling) evidence that sperm make their way to the ovum better when there is no foreskin in the way. will have to search for the link. as for defending every possible human proclivity, I think the old morality about how people don't always know what is good for them still has some truth in it. of course, does the rabbi or the priest or the mullah know it better? perhaps not.

MrDarwin

Um... tell that to the boys who lost their penises, or had them seriously damaged. I'm sure it's cold comfort that their risk of getting penile cancer has gone from .001 to .0001 (or whatever the number is).

I'm surprised more people don't oppose circumcision for the simple reason that it is medically unnecessary and is the removal of a perfectly healthy, properly functioning part of the baby's body. And medical procedures always carry certain risks, however small. Why parents continue to subject their infant sons to such risks is something I have never been able to understand.

MrDarwin

Actually, there are some pretty well-documented benefits; there is a reduced rate of penile cancer and sexually transmitted diseases among circumcised men. Those who are pro-circumcision have jumped on the AIDS benefit--something that has only become an issue in the last few years--because I think they realized the other "benefits" were so small as to be negligible (e.g., penile cancer is so rare to begin with that the reduced rate is from slightly more than zero to about half of slightly more than zero).

Furthermore, I strongly suspect that these small benefits are not the reason why most parents (certainly not in the U.S.A.) subject their sons to circumcision in the first place. I'm willing to bet that 90% of those parents who have their sons circumcised do so because the boy's daddy is circumcised--the worst possible reason, in my opinion.

Adora

I said that. But I commented on the most common ones.

Okay, HR, I understand where you're coming from. But saying having your foreskin removed is as bad as having most of your genitals removed I still think is wrong. You could, perhaps, compare it to the removal of a finger, compared to the removal of an arm that's slowly going gangrenous. Which do you prefer? Which causes you the least inconvenience? Which is most difficult to overcome?

I could live without a finger. But living without an arm would be miles difficult.

Living without your foreskin may be difficult if there's a stigma about it (ie-, for example Jews hiding in Nazi Germany) but I still don't think it's possible to say it's equal to the removal of someone's ability to orgasm.

Could this simply be because uncircumcised men are not being taught to wash properly (because society is used to them being lazy and circumcised?)

See, I've also heard this one a lot, but I'd like to know where it came from. It's like a little while ago I findaly found that Finnish (or some other pokey little European country) study that linked breast cancer with abortions, and frankly, it was a single, very flawled, study which I don't think would hold up under intense scrutiny. But anti-abortionists jump up and down about it a lot. So I'd be suspicious of something like this until I saw the facts.

reprise

I just wanted to add that male circumcision is no longer common in Australia (and hasn't been since before my son was born in 1980) and that Australia is one of countries which has laws against female circumcision being performed here AND against taking females out of the country in order for the "surgery" to be performed.

If male circumcision confers the health benefits which are claimed, then rather than comparing rates of certain pathologies in first and third world nations we should be able to compare the rates of those pathologies in males in the US (where circumcision is still common) against those in Britain or Australia (where it is not). Does anyone know of any credible studies which make such comparisons?

Amen-Moses

Nope, but on raw figures the rate of penile cancer is similar in both the UK (virtually absent circumcision for many years now) and the US. But as has already been noted you are trying to compare numbers in the 1 per 500,000 population range. (and also it makes sense that removing a part of the penis will reduce the area in which penile cancer can act so you would expect the figures to be slightly in favour of circumcision anyhow, just as removal of an arm would reduce the number of skin cancer cases)

Amen-Moses

MrDarwin

Actually it's a little more specific than that. Glandular tissue in general is more prone to cancers, and the foreskin is glandular (think smegma). So it reduces the (already negligible) incidence of penile cancer in much the same way that removing infant girls' breasts would reduce the incidence of breast cancer.

I've said it before: we could cut in half the incidence of testicular cancer and breast cancer (two extremely common cancers with relatively high rates of mortality, certainly compared to penile cancer) by removing one testicle and one breast from infant boys and girls, respectively. Now, using the exact same reasoning as that used to support circumcision, why shouldn't a parent be allowed to have these procedures done to their newborn children?

Now... if male circumcision is such a great thing, why aren't uncircumcised men lining up in droves for the procedure?

reprise

Even if there was compelling evidence of health benefits for male cirumcision performed before puberty, that still doesn't explain why the majority of circumcisions are performed on neonates. Why not wait until the child is old enough to receive anaesthesia rather than subject it to the trauma and risks of the procedure during its first few weeks of life? There doesn't seem to be any argument for performing circumcision during the neonatal period except for religious reasons and "tradition".

liquid

Somewhere deep in the archives there is a debate on this. I argued for the anti-circ side, on the basis that unnecessary invasive procedures were medically unjustifiable.

The only established health benefit of circumsicion is a slight reduction in urinary tract infection because it is easier to clean. GUTs are rarely more than an irritation, and are almost completely avoidable with forekin or not. Just like you clean your teeth!

There is,as mentioned, a possible tiny reduction in penile cancer, which isn't a major problem anyway, and IIRC is almost insignificant in effect.

On the other hand there are a small number of botched circumcisions, usually problems relating to post-operative infection. This pretty much outweighs the GUT benefit described.

Removing the foreskin does reduce tactile feelings. However, people are still able to have fully functional sex lives either way, it's not a big issue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, because the small benefits are outweighed by the small risks, it is not justifiable to perform the operation except for specific medical conditions that may require it. IIRC from the previous debate, the AMA recommends against circs as a matter of course, but does not advise against the procedure if it is parental choice.

All of this was backed up with studies and AMA statements, and I beleive that most people accepted this conclusion.

liquid

hmmm tried searching but I think it was before the board altered, long time ago.

Of course, I don't expect you to take my comments without producing the evidence, but I don't have time to find it all again because I'm in exams, so enjoy your debate!