bitchy

[merlechaotix]

The following was written when I was feeling sorry for myself, and generally acting like an idiot. I'm leaving it up so the next time I feel like that, I can read it and remember how stupid I can be sometimes.

Comments

[batgirl39]

Actually circumcision is done in most cases of a baby being born nowadays due to medical reasons. Now, this isn't a medical practice that must be done nor is it mandated to be done, but some of the reasons are interesting:

- A lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.

- A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised males.

- A slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV, the AIDS virus.

- Prevention of foreskin infections. (which are nasty and painful, I can show you pictures if you think otherwise)

- Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.

- Easier genital hygiene.

Now as you said, this isn't your choice to make, but when you're a baby it's much easier and less painful to get circumcised than when you're an adult. Plus, up until you can make your own cognitive decisions, your parents have the right to. If they hear from a doctor all these benefits from just a minor surgical procedure, they'd be inclined to do it for your health, you're their son after all. Just some food for thought. Maybe you'd want to reconsider not circumcising your kids before they need to have a major operation later in life because of phimosis or need to be on tons of antibiotics when they're 4 because their penis is pussing and bloody.

[reverend_death]

Actually circumcision is done in most cases of a baby being born nowadays due to medical reasons. Now, this isn't a medical practice that must be done nor is it mandated to be done, but some of the reasons are interesting:

As early as 1971 and 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) took a stand against the routine circumcision of newborns on the basis that there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period. This position was reiterated in 1983 by the AAP, as well as by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their joint publication Guidelines for Perinatal Care.

- A lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.

Numerous studies have been done on the risk of UTIs for circumcused and uncircumcised male children, including several large scale ones involving the US military. Overall, the risk factor for uncircumcised male infants of a UTI is only about 12-13% higher than that for circumcised males within the first year of life.

Furthermore, an epidemiological study of UTIs during the first year of life involving 169 children born in Israel found that 48% (27/56) of the male infants presented with UTI within 12 days after ritual circumcision.

- A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised males.

The incidence rate of cancer of the penis is 0.3 to 1.1 per 100,000 men per year in developed countries and 3 to 6 per 100 000 men per year in developing nations. In the United States the incidence rate is less than 1 per 100,000 per year. This is similar to the rates in Norway and Sweden, where circumcision is rarely performed.

- A slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV, the AIDS virus.

While a significantly greater incidence of STDs - including genital herpes, candidiasis, gonorrhea and syphilis - among men who were not circumcised than among those who were circumcised has been previously reported, a cross-sectional study performed in 1994 of heterosexual male patients attending a sexually transmitted diseases (STD) clinic showed that circumcision had no significant effect on the incidence of common STDs.

- Prevention of foreskin infections. (which are nasty and painful, I can show you pictures if you think otherwise)

The overall incidence of foreskin infection with proper hygiene is low in developed nations. Obviously though it will be lower in those who lack a foreskin to get infected, just as ingrown toenails are much less prevalent on those without feet.

Part 2

[reverend_death]

(Since it cut me off at 4,300 characters)

- Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.

In the last three decades, as the circumcision rate in North America has declined, the most common official recommendations and guidelines from medical societies, as well as infant care books written by experts, have emphasized that it is normal not to be able to retract an infant's foreskin fully and that it need not be done. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends gentle soap and water cleaning, but specifically recommends against forcible retraction. There is now some suspicion that forceful retraction that results in inflammation may actually contribute to pathological phimosis at an older age. Although the rate of surgical treatment of phimosis (usually circumcision) is falling, some pediatric urologists have argued that many physicians continue to have trouble distinguishing developmental non-retractility from pathological phimosis, and that phimosis is overdiagnosed.

- Easier genital hygiene.

Easier genital hygiene does not mean better. Having or not having a foreskin does not significantly impact a boy's ability to keep his penis clean. The deciding factors are how well he's taught to clean himself and how much he applies himself.

Now as you said, this isn't your choice to make, but when you're a baby it's much easier and less painful to get circumcised than when you're an adult. Plus, up until you can make your own cognitive decisions, your parents have the right to. If they hear from a doctor all these benefits from just a minor surgical procedure, they'd be inclined to do it for your health, you're their son after all. Just some food for thought. Maybe you'd want to reconsider not circumcising your kids before they need to have a major operation later in life because of phimosis or need to be on tons of antibiotics when they're 4 because their penis is pussing and bloody.

Circumcision may lead to complications, which range from minor to severe. They include easily controllable bleeding, amputation of the glans, acute renal failure, life-threatening sepsis and, rarely, death. The rates of complications reported in several large case series are low, from 0.2% to 0.6%. However, published rates range as widely as 0.06% to 55%. It's been suggested that a realistic rate is between 2% and 10%.

With regards to your closing comments. While you may not recall the pain of circumcision as an infant clearly, the procedure is no less painful for an infant than for an adult male. That said, most reputable doctors will use a dose of lidocaine to block the pain response during the procedure on an infant just as they would on an adult.

Doctors trained in the last three decades are much less likely to recommend parents circumcise their sons at birth without compelling medical need. While parents may have the legal right to make medical decisions for their children, those decisions aren't by their very nature right or just. They could just as easily decide to remove fingers as foreskin. From my perspective, without much more compelling medical reasons no one has the right to mutilate their child. If a parent attempted to force such a procedure on a child old enough to speak without a very compelling medical reason it would be considered abuse and possibly torture, so I see no reason not to count it as abuse when it occurs before the child can even voice an objection.

Now my parents didn't circumcise me, and I'm greatful for that. I wasn't raised to believe in the idea of cutting off a part of your body to avoid medical complications which might or might not happen. Until now I've never even heard of foreskin infection, though it does make sense that it could happen. Likewise, I've never had a UTI in my life. I was however, taught how to wash myself properly.

In the grand scheme of things, circumcision isn't just a medical procedure for everyone though. It can be a religious one, and I don't mean to step on any toes when it comes to God. Personally though, the whole concept is just plain cruel.