• CDC: Circumcision benefits outweigh risks
    148 replies, posted
[QUOTE]NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. health officials on Tuesday released a draft of long-awaited federal guidelines on circumcision, saying medical evidence supports having the procedure done and health insurers should pay for it. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines stop short of telling parent to get their newborn sons circumcised. That is a personal decision that may involve religious or cultural preferences, said the CDC's Dr. Jonathan Mermin. But "the scientific evidence is clear that the benefits outweigh the risks," added Mermin, who oversees the agency's programs on HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. These are the first federal guidelines on circumcision, a brief medical procedure that involves cutting away the foreskin around the tip of the penis. Germs can grow underneath the foreskin, and CDC officials say the procedure can lower a male's risk of sexually-transmitted diseases, penile cancer and even urinary tract infections.[/QUOTE] [url]http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d18e670cfdbe48f1963be0790dab9474/cdc-circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks[/url]
Because skin on the tip of your penis is dangerous....
[quote]But "the scientific evidence is clear that the benefits outweigh the risks," added Mermin, who oversees the agency's programs on HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.[/quote] Condoms exist, it saves losing sexual stimulation for the rest of your life.
[QUOTE=Vasili;46620596]Condoms exist, it saves losing sexual stimulation for the rest of your life.[/QUOTE] What exactly is wrong with being less sensitive?
[QUOTE=FordLord;46620604]What exactly is wrong with being less sensitive?[/QUOTE] Where's the benefit?
What are the benefits exactly? Less chance of getting STDs when going bareback? That's not something you should do anyway and if you do, your lack of foreskin is not something to hope on.
[QUOTE=Vasili;46620596]Condoms exist, it saves losing sexual stimulation for the rest of your life.[/QUOTE] It's not like lack of foreskin makes unprotected sex anywhere near safe, it just gives you a slightly better chance at the Russian roulette.
Circumcision is genital mutilation as far as I'm concerned when it comes to conducting it on those who cannot or have not consented to it unless a medical situation which warranted a circumcision were present. There's no reason to make someone's sexual organs less sensitive and potentially have them hold resentment against those who got the man circumcised or even themselves if they view themselves as defective because of this operation.
We should cut off the earlobes of babies at birth. It would completely prevent possible gangrene from frostbitten earlobes, and the benefits outweigh the risks. Earlobes have no pertinent function and serve only as a possible source of infection. They should be done away with at birth, before a person is old enough to remember the painful surgery. And it should also be done to babies to prevent the awkwardness of living with earlobes around other kids who don't have earlobes.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;46620615]Are you serious? It makes sex permanently less enjoyable, even if only by a little, that's pretty bad.[/QUOTE] If you had it done as a kid, you wouldn't notice a difference
id like to have the option of circumscision,. thanks very much.
[QUOTE=FordLord;46620604]What exactly is wrong with being less sensitive?[/QUOTE] Less powerful orgasms?
[QUOTE=Exho;46620667]If you had it done as a kid, you wouldn't notice a difference[/QUOTE] that isn't the point
people who are circumcised will say its better. people who have not had their genitals mutilated will say that not being circumcised is better. It's not really a huge deal either way imo
And reducing everybody's stomach capacity by 50% significantly lowers the risk of obesity, yet I don't see anybody giving babies gastric bypasses without their consent.
[QUOTE=Exho;46620667]If you had it done as a kid, you wouldn't notice a difference[/QUOTE] The most impressive part of this statement, is that you see no issue with that.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46620665] And its weird my parents didn't even tell me "Oh by the way son, we cut off your foreskin" like they just expected me to grow up and find out for myself (which I guess I did but it was pretty rude of them)[/QUOTE]You seem to be American, in which case it's cut by default so I can see why they wouldn't tell you as they didn't see it as unusual.
I have phimosis. I might need to get this done. :(
To all you saying boys should have a choice [QUOTE]The guidelines say circumcision is safer for newborns and infants than for older males, noting the complication rate rises from 0.5 percent in newborns to 9 percent in children ages 1 to 9,[/QUOTE]
Circumcision is removing nerves, objectively reducing the sensation. Saying that it's acceptable because circumcised people don't know this sensation is like saying that there's nothing wrong with blinding people at birth because they've never known what it's like to see, so they can't tell the difference.
Circumcision is removing nerves, objectively reducing the sensation. Saying that it's acceptable because circumcised people don't know this sensation is like saying that there's nothing wrong with blinding people at birth because they've never known what it's like to see, so they can't tell the difference.
Or justifying forced mastectomies because hey lets prevent breast cancer.
[QUOTE=Dougz;46620762]To all you saying boys should have a choice[/QUOTE] a lot of things are safer when you're a child. but they shouldn't be performed excepting particular medical reasons (and they aren't most of the time, except in the case of circumcision in some western countries)
"germs can grow underneath the foreskin" this is under the assumption that people who aren't circumcised never wash and let their foreskin become a hive of super aids and death, this is stupid lol
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;46620768]Circumcision is removing nerves, objectively reducing the sensation. Saying that it's acceptable because circumcised people don't know this sensation is like saying that there's nothing wrong with blinding people at birth because they've never known what it's like to see, so they can't tell the difference.[/QUOTE] Are you really comparing sexual sensitivity to eyesight? lol
[b][u][i]GIVE US YOUR FORESKIN.[/i][/u][/b]
I don't even understand why this is an argument. If people want to circumcise their kids, then whatever. Don't do it to your own if you don't like it. It's not some crazy mutilation. A small piece of skin is not the same as removing half of someone's stomach capacity. Start arguing about something that matters.
[QUOTE=FordLord;46620604]What exactly is wrong with being less sensitive?[/QUOTE] Oh I don't know maybe because it fucking sucks
i don't get facepunch's hatred of circumcision. didn't surprise me when you all rejected the CDC. i bet if they ruled in your favor shit would have been waayyyy different.
[QUOTE=Zareox7;46620820]I don't even understand why this is an argument. If people want to circumcise their kids, then whatever. Don't do it to your own if you don't like it. It's not some crazy mutilation. A small piece of skin is not the same as removing half of someone's stomach capacity. Start arguing about something that matters.[/QUOTE] This. The anti-circumcision sentiment here on FP is crazy. As if all our parents are horrible people
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.