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.
bah. none of your options for the poll were appropriate.
yes it's american, yes it's christian, yes it originated with the jewish.
...there's another thread, in parenting, on almost the very same topic. and the percentages are staggering for the general US population. the majority of men are circumsized, whether for religious reasons or not, but for serious health reasons.
Absteining from voting in your poll until you can provide more open minded options!
Last edited by Marylandkitten; 08-10-2007 at 08:39 AM..
Christianity does not call for circumcision. The first Church Council in Jerusalem declared that circumcision was not necessary (Acts 15). St. Paul had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:1-3) but in his letters he warned gentile Christians against adopting the practice (Galatians 6:12-16, Philippians 3:2-3). While in most countries, Christians do not circumcise,[35] it is customary among the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Churches and also some other African churches[6] Some Christian churches in South Africa oppose circumcision, viewing it as a pagan ritual, while others, including the Nomiya church in Kenya,[36][6] require circumcision for membership. Some participants in focus group discussions in Zambia and Malawi said that Christians should practice circumcision because Jesus was circumcised and the Bible teaches the practice. Male Circumcision: context, criteria and culture (Part 1), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, February 26, 2007.
The Greek Orthodox Church celebrates the Circumcision of Christ on 1 January,[37] while Orthodox churches following the Julian calendar celebrate it on 14 January. The Russian Orthodox Church considers it a "Great Feast".[38] In the Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches it has been replaced by other commemorations.[39] At the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442, the Catholic Church condemned circumcision among the Copts and ordered against its practice.[35]"
Other nominally Christian areas (Europe, Latin America) do not circumcise.
It was adopted by the US during WWII because some of the alleged medical benefits not for religious reasons.
Today’s medical research shows no significant difference in health either way.
And there is a world of links, to the negative side of not having it done.
It increases the chances of disease and serious health issues as he grows older, if it is left unscircumsized.
from Circumcision: Pros and Cons we have :
1. Circumcision lowers your son’s chances of getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life.
2. Although a rare condition, cancer of the penis is essentially eliminated in circumcised males.
3. Research shows that males who are circumcised have a slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
4. Circumcision eliminates foreskin infection that occur at the peak ages of 3 to 5 years.
5. Circumcision prevents phimosis, a narrow opening that makes it impossible to retract the foreskin at a later age.
6. Genital hygiene, which is particularly important in unsanitary conditions, may be easier after circumcision.
and from Circumcision: Weighing the pros and cons - MayoClinic.com we have :
Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it easy to wash the penis — although it's simple to clean an uncircumcised penis, too.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in the first year is low, but these infections may be up to 10 times as common in uncircumcised baby boys. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis may narrow so much that it's difficult or impossible to retract. This can also lead to inflammation of the head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is very rare, it's less common in circumcised men.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Safe sexual practices remain essential, but circumcised men may have a slightly lower risk of certain sexually transmitted diseases — including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, and human papillomavirus (HPV), which causes genital warts. Some strains of HPV also cause cervical cancer.
Serious health reasons? Are we reading the same material? LOL! You list mostly minor problems, all very rare, some nearly unheard-of in all but Third World nations.
I just don't get why this is such a common procedure, or why people feel the need to defend it so vigorously.
Serious health reasons? Are we reading the same material? LOL! You list mostly minor problems, all very rare, some nearly unheard-of in all but Third World nations.
I just don't get why this is such a common procedure, or why people feel the need to defend it so vigorously.
Probably because it's a personal choice that's attacked so vigorously.
I can understand why those with a family history of problems (Jeff, for example) would have their sons circumcised. Just as I can understand why a woman with a family history of breast cancer might have a preventative masectomy.
But the current medical evidence does not support routine infant circumcision.
This would be valid if not for one major point- the problem, (in my view), begins with those who assert that a natural penis is "funny-looking", and those who don't circumcise are "wierd". Yes, many on the other side feel circumcising is wrong, but I've never heard anyone say anything about the look of it.
Personally, I wish parents would all make this decision for themselves, respect others' right to do so, and refrain from trying to scare or ridicule others into circumcising.
I think.. every man that was circumsized almost will vote to keep up the practice. And every man that was not, will feel the need to stand on his socially moral and ethical soapbox and declare the injustice it is, and how you should all "buck the trend" and not give in to the wordly fashoin that is so barbaric to male infants.
But to answer the above poster's previously sarcastic question, yes - for example, if you had a high rate of cervical cancer or something to that extent in your family history, I would think it more than acceptable to take the necessary procedures before the unthinkable could happen, to lessen your chances for severe health risks.
For a lot of people, it's a religious choice. for others, it's a "follow or not follow the world" choice.
To each his own No harm in defending what you think is right. I would just hope you would do it in the best interests of your child, rather than an insistence on conforming or opposing any said religious "trend" that is out there, whether it is getting more popular, or less, for the health benefits alone.
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.
