Circumcise baby or not

[OneLight]

Oh I see. You are not really seeking advice. You are only trying to convert folks to a point of view. No thanks. Im not interested in playing that game.

Advice is fine. False claims are not. There is no known health issues where being circumcised can prevent. There may be other issues that make it wise but not falsely claimed health issues. It is a very profitable surgery for the Doctors however.

I sent you a PM. This is not a false claim but real life experience.

[ladypeartree]

This is just like the argument for or against vaccination ... it is a matter of individual choice

Some will chose NOT to vaccinate and will be fine whilst others will contract the disease

Others will chose TO vaccinate and will be fine whilst others will regret it due to alergic reactions...

[freedfromsin]

This is just like the argument for or against vaccination ... it is a matter of individual choice

Some will chose NOT to vaccinate and will be fine whilst others will contract the disease

Others will chose TO vaccinate and will be fine whilst others will regret it due to alergic reactions...

Actually it is not the same. A shot and surgery are very different. Also any reactions to a shot are so rare that it is not even worth mentioning. There needs to be a clear reason for doing something or not doing something, not simply a whim. Doctors claim there is no pain in the process of circumcising a new born. I suppose that is why they ALL scream bloody murder. That being said even if there was no pain at all there still should be a clear logical reason to do any surgery. Not simply because I think it is best without information.

[Rick-Parker]

Just curious, did Onelight give you permission to share his PM with us?

Uncircumcised men are about twice as likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) and pass it along to sexual partners, resulting in higher cervical cancer rates in regions where the majority of men are uncircumcised [source: Infectious Diseases Society of America]. It also appears that circumcision helps protect against infection from chlamydia and syphilis [source: JAMA].

Recent studies have shown that circumcision can dramatically reduce the rate of HIV infection. According to these studies, a circumcised man is 60 percent less likely to contract HIV than an uncircumcised man [source: Timbert]. (This holds true only in the case of female-to-male transmission -- circumcision hasn't been seen to influence the rate of male-to-male HIV transmission [source: JAMA].)

A majority of people around the world believe that it's easier to maintain the cleanliness of a circumcised penis than an uncircumcised penis [source: WHO] My source.

[freedfromsin]

Just curious, did Onelight give you permission to share his PM with us?

Uncircumcised men are about twice as likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) and pass it along to sexual partners, resulting in higher cervical cancer rates in regions where the majority of men are uncircumcised [source: Infectious Diseases Society of America]. It also appears that circumcision helps protect against infection from chlamydia and syphilis [source: JAMA].

Recent studies have shown that circumcision can dramatically reduce the rate of HIV infection. According to these studies, a circumcised man is 60 percent less likely to contract HIV than an uncircumcised man [source: Timbert]. (This holds true only in the case of female-to-male transmission -- circumcision hasn't been seen to influence the rate of male-to-male HIV transmission [source: JAMA].)

A majority of people around the world believe that it's easier to maintain the cleanliness of a circumcised penis than an uncircumcised penis [source: WHO] My source.

all those statements are TOTALLY false. Those are all old wives tales that has been totally debunked. Go here if you want the truth http://www.nocirc.org/

[other one]

Just curious, did Onelight give you permission to share his PM with us?

Uncircumcised men are about twice as likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) and pass it along to sexual partners, resulting in higher cervical cancer rates in regions where the majority of men are uncircumcised [source: Infectious Diseases Society of America]. It also appears that circumcision helps protect against infection from chlamydia and syphilis [source: JAMA].

Recent studies have shown that circumcision can dramatically reduce the rate of HIV infection. According to these studies, a circumcised man is 60 percent less likely to contract HIV than an uncircumcised man [source: Timbert]. (This holds true only in the case of female-to-male transmission -- circumcision hasn't been seen to influence the rate of male-to-male HIV transmission [source: JAMA].)

A majority of people around the world believe that it's easier to maintain the cleanliness of a circumcised penis than an uncircumcised penis [source: WHO] My source.

all those statements are TOTALLY false. Those are all old wives tales that has been totally debunked. Go here if you want the truth http://www.nocirc.org/

Speaking of old wives, I've had three business friends who were circumcised in thier late 30's. All three of them tell me that sex is better and their wives say it is much much better..... can't go into details here, but as most things, it's just up to the individual.

One thing you said that I don't think is true, I don't know a single doctor or organization that says that circumcision does not hurt. What they say is that when it's done at birth, no one remembers it. My son didn't cry but a couple of minutes and then all was well with him. He did that when he was hungry.

My personal feelings are that the Father had some intention for it when he told the Israelites to do so. It was not some kind of manhood thing, for the kids didn't really know what was happening. I had my son done and would again. I'll also recommend any of my grandsons also. If it was something that would long term hurt you, I don't think God would have demanded it from Abraham. And I guess some would say that he shouldn't have put it there in the first place if he wanted it cut off.

My comment to that would be that maybe he didn't., May be that Adam didn't have a forskin and it was a genetic defect that happened and he wanted the Isralites to go back to the origional Adamic model.

We know that the Egyptians precticed it and I've read somewhere the Sumerians did also before that.

So, it is my personal belief that orginal mankind did not have a foreskin and God was seeing to it that we reverted back to the origional model.

It's my story and I'm stickiin' to it, and it makes as much sense as anything else you might bring up for not.

[Guest LadyC]

ok, i've kept my mouth shut thus far, mainly because i think this is a personal preference issue. i have one grandson (out of three) who didn't get circumcised until he was 4, and had to have it done for health problems. it was very painful for him, but once healed, it resolved the urinary issues he was having.

that's neither here nor there though, and has nothing to do with what finally made me open my mouth to post here.

freed, i totally understand your distrust of government propoganda... and if the sources that had been listed had been only cdc and who, i'd probably have stayed silent. but you're dismissing jama in favor of some one-sided, biased organization promoting a single point of view? ROFL, that really cracks me up!

now, if you'd like to show any documentation that JAMA later rescinded its information based on new research, that's one thing. but to just say that jama is spreading old wives tales that have been debunked makes you appear to be, well, gullible is probably the most polite way to say it.

do you even know what jama is? it is not a government sponsored organization, ya know. it's a scientific journal that publishes findings from EXTENSIVE research... and if new research ever proves previous analysis of data to be incorrect, they publish the new findings.

it isn't a book of old wives tales.

[wyguy]

I had it done to me when I was a baby, and I'm still upset that I wasn't asked!

Hundreds of nerve endings tossed into a hospital incinerator, gone forever!

I'm sure it's the reason I'm so cranky all the time!

[freedfromsin]

ok, i've kept my mouth shut thus far, mainly because i think this is a personal preference issue. i have one grandson (out of three) who didn't get circumcised until he was 4, and had to have it done for health problems. it was very painful for him, but once healed, it resolved the urinary issues he was having.

that's neither here nor there though, and has nothing to do with what finally made me open my mouth to post here.

freed, i totally understand your distrust of government propoganda... and if the sources that had been listed had been only cdc and who, i'd probably have stayed silent. but you're dismissing jama in favor of some one-sided, biased organization promoting a single point of view? ROFL, that really cracks me up!

now, if you'd like to show any documentation that JAMA later rescinded its information based on new research, that's one thing. but to just say that jama is spreading old wives tales that have been debunked makes you appear to be, well, gullible is probably the most polite way to say it.

do you even know what jama is? it is not a government sponsored organization, ya know. it's a scientific journal that publishes findings from EXTENSIVE research... and if new research ever proves previous analysis of data to be incorrect, they publish the new findings.

it isn't a book of old wives tales.

Then you should be able to post the information, RIGHT? I posted information how about you doing the same if you say there is some other?

Long before the American Academy of Pediatrics issued its first policy statement on circumcision, the practice was well established in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Thousands of years later, in 1971, the Academy acknowledged the historical tradition, but found "no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision." This position was maintained until 1989, when the Academy's evaluation of then-recent data led to the belief that "medical benefits, as well as risk" were associated with newborn circumcisions. In 1999, as a result of new research, the Academy modified its position and while acknowledging potential medical benefits, clearly stated that these benefits were not sufficient to cause the Academy to recommend routine circumcision.

When ever you see a the medical people go back and forth in such a short time you know that they are all wet.

http://www.expectantmothersguide.com/library/philadelphia/circumcision.htm

Edited August 31, 2010 by freedfromsin

[Guest]

I had it done to me when I was a baby, and I'm still upset that I wasn't asked!

Hundreds of nerve ending tossed into a hospital incinerator, gone forever!

I'm sure it's the reason I'm so cranky all the time!

:24:

A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance: but by sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken. Proverbs 15:13

>>>>>()<<<<<

Jesus

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Colossians 2:11

Saves

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John 3:7