Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is about the same number of people who are potentially saved from a national policy on chicken pox vaccination, since before the vaccine was widely used, about 100-150 people died each year from complications of the chicken pox: CDC - Chickenpox Overview - Varicella
If saving the lives of 150 people each year is enough reason to implement a national policy on the chicken pox vaccine (a vaccine that is not without potentially dangerous side effects: Chickenpox vaccine: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia), why is it not reason enough to have a similar policy on circumcision when it is elected for non-religious and non-medical reasons?
Thoughts (please be nice...just opening up a discussion...ok )?
Well, if you found out that '100-200 infants die each year in the United States due to circumcision' why didn't you publish a link which provides evidence to support that claim?
The link you published says: "...A new study published yesterday in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year,..."
Estimates? Don't they know whether somebody is dead or not? Does the US not keep records which include 'cause of death'?
What is 'The Journal of Boyhood Studies'?
The organisation which cited that article (three years ago, so by now they should surely have gotten beyond the 'guestimation' stage) is quite openly anti circumcision.
Yeah, I jumped the gun with this thread. There really are very few studies showing numbers of deaths....the most reliable data cited on the American Academy of Pediatrics website is 30 years old and only takes into account a small sampling of children of military parents. Hospitals don't always record that death is due to circumcision since it's technically not...it's due to complications like infection. Anyway, this is the only recent number I found, but on closer look, the Journal of Boyhood studies may or may not be reputable. It is supposedly peer-reviewed, but I'm not sure. Anyway, on further investigation, I'm finding there is no way to really get accurate numbers, so the 117 a year is very likely inaccurate. The man who did that looked at causes of death of infants in the first month of life and basically just assumed that many were due to complications from circumcision because there was a much higher death rate for males than females...anyway....I was hoping this thread would die.
Why do you want to chop a part of a little boy's willy off? (We wont go into clitoris-chopping so they din't get distracted by other males) - I'll argue that one later.
Traditionally, male circumcision was popular in the US because a significant number of doctors were jews.
Historical fact.
I'm not Surgeon. ( I do have an IQ in excess if 150 and a son - for that reason alone - I feel I have the right to comment.
My mother's firstborn was a male weighing 4.25 lb. He survived. He was uncircumcised.
That was me.My son was uncircumcised - until one day when he was 6 and was taken into the hospital (we were lucky, there was only one hospital within 150 miles) and given an emergency circumcision.
He survived. Had he not had the procedure, he would probably have died on the way home. THat's life - **** happens.
Nowadays many physicians consider male genital circumcision to be an unnecessary practice and are unwilling to perform it.
Because the 117 death figure alarmed me. But since that is probably not accurate, this discussion is kinda moot.
However, over 50% of American male infants are still circumcised before they leave the hospital, even though most physicians and medical associations agree that the risks outweigh the benefits for most people. That is an alarming trend in itself, to me, at least. There are some medically necessary reasons, of course. However, if you take Finland, where only medically necessary circumcision takes places, the circumcision rate is really low--around 1%.
The APA recently changed their stance from against it to neutral because of recent evidence that being circumcised can lower the transmission risk of AIDS and other STDs. I don't know if cutting off a piece of your infants genitals is the best way to help them prevent getting STDs, though. That's not exactly how I would approach it, but to each their own, I guess.
When our son was born, we had him circumcised, not for religious reasons but because it has become the norm in our society.
Most baby boys are circumcised, and it is the expectation through out the life span that boys and young men have had this done.
A female relative of mine refused to become serious with a male suitor because he was not circumcised. He had this done for her at 24. They are now married.
My son is nineteen now and away at college. We do not regret it. If we lived in another culture where this was not the norm we would not have done it.
Simple as that.
My son is nineteen now and away at college. We do not regret it. If we lived in another culture where this was not the norm we would not have done it.
Simple as that.
Depends on where you live as to whether it's "the norm" or not.
About 55% of baby boys in the US are routinely circumcised now. I think people should research it, and do what they think is best for their son, but doing it because it's the norm, or because everyone else is doing it is not the responsible gauge to use IMO.
I also know of many dads who are circumcised who chose not to circumcize their sons, in fact I think that particular trend is growing.
An article on Aug. 27 about a conclusion by the American Academy of Pediatrics that the health benefits of circumcising infant boys outweigh the risks referred incompletely to complications that arise from the operation. An estimate given in the article, that about 117 boys a year die as a result of neonatal circumcision — put forth by Dan Bollinger, a prominent opponent of circumcision, based on his review of infant mortality statistics — is cited often by critics of routine circumcision but widely disputed by medical professionals. A spokeswoman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the agency does not track deaths from infant circumcision because they are exceedingly rare. In the agency’s last mortality report, which looked at all deaths in the country in 2010, no circumcision-related deaths were found.
We are from the North - NY, MA, PA, OH. So I guess I am correct, it's the norm in those states.
Also, much of conventional literature seems to say that if the father was circumcised the son should be too.
We don't regret it at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)?
