I'm talking about hygiene more than anything, but removing the foreskin completely eliminates a way in which STDs can manifest themselves. And again, every little bit helps. You can look at it as one measly percent, or you could look at it as the one percent being someone (or some people) who could have avoided an STD if they were circumcised, which sacrifices what in the end, really? Also, you can pull statistics from many different places, and you're going to get different results every time.

What? Could you explain more fully here? Which STDs? What do you mean by "manifest themselves"?

Or they could have avoided the STD by practicing safer sex and better hygiene. And look at it this way: you face a 1% chance of dying from a motor vehicle accident during your lifetime (source); does that mean you should completely avoid driving, just to be safe? According to your logic, it does.

And further, Vegangelica didn't "pull statistics" from random internet sites; she used a number of very reputable organizations to support her data, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the International AIDS Society

Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually-transmitted diseases.

Not everyone is privy to proper personal hygeine, let alone sexual health. It's not just a matter of "we have access to showers".

It's not realistic to go through your whole life avoiding driving for most people, and many people are willing to take that risk. For most people, leading an even somewhat fulfilling life without access to transportation would be impossible. A circumcision is an extremely low-risk, routine procedure that causes no negative side effects from a medical standpoint. If you are morally opposed to having your child circumcised that's fine; I'm arguing this purely relating to health risks. Even the most modest research shows there is an increased risk of medical problems in uncircumcised children.

I never accused her of that. These are hardly facts though. No matter how well research is conducted there are always biases involved, whether it be sample size, what type of people were researched, or something else. Different studies will show different results. Even if we knew the true number, and it was almost negligible, it's still something. I look at it from the point of, "Why not?"

Again, which agents? Which diseases? It's interesting, because of everything I've learned about STDs, I've never heard of this.

...really? How difficult is it to wash your junk?

Can you produce some of this research? I'd love to see it.

...really?

My mom was going on about circumcisions being covered by state funded healthcare and the fact that millions of dollars would be saved if they weren't covered by the plan. Hell, they aren't cheap and most of the people that order the procedure for their children don't do it for religious reasons. It's just stupid, why even bother covering something that's superfluous and purely cosmetic?

People can castrate themselves for all I care, but why circumcise your child just because "It looks better". It's all subjective, but mutilating your children's genitals based on your views of what looks good and bad?

Fuck off .

Bacterial agents.

Gonorrhea, chancroid, syphillis to name a few.

Not sure we should be using your knowledge of STDs as the measuring stick.

Cleaning under the foreskin has to be done thoroughly. It's more difficult for some than others. Some can't even withdraw their foreskin all the way back.

Circumcision Decreases Risk of Contracting STDs, Study Says - WSJ.com

One of the first ones that came up on google. Don't take this as fact though. Like I said, you're going to get different results.

I like turtles.

I would like to see someone in here come forward and say "I was circumcised and it has negatively affected my quality of life".

Near as I can see, the objection is coming from knowing how much it would hurt now, as an adult.

I think the biggest objection is that it involves performing unnecessary surgery on a baby. Considering that all surgery comes with some amount of risk, this means that circumcision is exposing babies to a potential harm. The question is: is there a valid reason to do so? As far as I can tell, the answer is no.

I'm curious why people are discussing this as an issue of health, or not. The reason why children are circumcised has nothing to do with medical science. It's in the Bible, and the vast majority is carried on due to tradition.

Now, find me an analysis on cutting off toes, or nipples, or the health effects of anything else. There are none. The only reason that it's being analyzed on that level is to distract the fact that the tradition has been carried over so many years obviously due to religious tradition, any other 'health fact' involving is just a distraction of that.

I think the real issue is where the line blurs between legally accepting a bizarre, potentially dangerous, and unnecessary ritual for a religious right, or not.

I'm not cut, and I don't have AIDS.

/anecdotal evidence.






But seriously... don't cut parts of your child's penis off. I hope that someday this is just as legitimate a law as not being able to cut your child's fingers off for whatever retarded reason...