 |
Should I circumcize my son?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes, of course. |
   |
20 |
25.32% |
| No, why would you? |
   |
51 |
64.56% |
| Try it on a banana first. |
   |
8 |
10.13% |
| Total: |
79 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
Regarding penile cancer:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/
quote:
It is thus categorically not true that circumcision eliminates the risk of penile cancer, although that assertion has been made nonchalantly in a number of papers by Schoen, Wiswell, and Weiss. In fact, the data indicate that only other factors -- among them cigarette smoking,18,27 genital warts, and 30 or more sexual partners -- contribute to the risk of penile carcinoma.27
...
There are many documented cases of penile cancer in circumcised men. To reduce the risk of penile cancer, men are best advised simply to use reasonable hygiene, practice responsible sexual behavior, and to avoid handling tobacco.
The history of the penile cancer myth was published by Fleiss and Hodges in the British Medical Journal30.
...
It is now clear that the major risk factors for both penile cancer and cervical cancer are the use of tobacco,27,33 which spreads carcinogens throughout the body via the bloodstream, and the presence of the human papillomavirus,35 which is communicated through sexual activity.
Abraham Wolbarst's promotional claims that circumcision prevented penile cancer were false and mislead the medical community for decades.30 Circumcision does not prevent penile cancer in men and it does not prevent cervical cancer in the female partner.
|
Then there's the real world facts that show otherwise as well:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html
quote:
Penile cancer is one of the rarest cancers - rarer even than breast cancer in men - and figures for it are hard to come by. Circumcised men get penile cancer at about the same tiny rate as intact men. Studies that seemed to show a correlation had not been corrected for age; penile cancer is a disease of old men, and the old men with cancer in the studies had simply been born at a time when circumcision was less customary than when the younger men without cancer were born. When men of the same ages were compared, the correlation vanished. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
Regarding STDs:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/
quote:
In a self-published pamphlet, Circumcision: A Parent's Decision for Life, the late circumcisionist Aaron J. Fink made the suggestion that the dried-out, cornified circumcised glans and mucosa would be "tougher," and somehow therefore less prone to infection, than those of intact men. This claim was even published in The New England Journal of Medicine, but, in fact, there is no evidence to support Fink's theory.5,10,13
...
It is documented that circumcised adult males exhibit a greater tendency to engage in risky sexual behavior. Hooykaas and colleagues reported that circumcised men in the Netherlands engage in more risky sexual behavior and have markedly higher rates of STDs.3 Laumann and colleagues reported more risky sexual behavior amongst circumcised men in the United States and have higher rates of STDs.9 Michael et al. reported more variability in sexual behavior, less condom usage, and more STD amonst the predominantly circumcised population of the United States as compared with the predominantly non-circumcised intact males of the United Kingdom.12
...
Fleiss et al. have described the many natural immunological protective mechanisms provided by the prepuce against infection.10 The prepuce has many immunological protections against disease.10 These mechanisms may explain why surgically-altered, circumcised men seem to have a greater incidence of many different STDs. Dried-out mucous membranes are more prone to infection than naturally moist ones (the reason people tend to get more colds in the wintertime!).
...
Laumann et al. reviewed data from the National Health and Social Life Survey.8 They found no evidence of a prophylactic role for circumcision. In fact, there was a slight tendency in the opposite direction.9 The absence of the foreskin was significantly associated with bacterial STDs among men who have had many sexual partners in their lifetimes. A rate of 25.4/1000 for chlamydia was found in circumcised men compared with a rate of zero in intact men; herpes was 14.9/1000 in circumcised males compared with 8.1/1000 in intact males.9
...
Tanne reported on the epidemic of STD, including herpes, human papillomavirus infection, hepatitis B, and HIV infection in the United States.11 The incidence of STD in the United States is amongst the highest in the industrialized world. This should not be surprising, considering the high incidence of circumcision in the US: According to Laumann et al., data from the National Health and Social Life Survey indicate that, in 1992, of 1511 men surveyed who were between 18 and 59 years of age, 77 percent of U.S. born men were circumcised.9 This high percentage is unique among the industrialized nations.8
...
Recent studies have demonstrated that circumcised men are more at risk of contracting urethritis,2 gonorrhea,8 syphilis,9 genital warts4,8 and chlamydia.9 Cook discovered that, when genital warts occur in intact males, they tend to occur near the distal (tip) end of the penis4--the region where the foreskin's protection would be least effective. |
Anyway, I think I've made my point.
The idea that circumcision helps prevent cancer and STDs is an old wive's tale, like masturbation causing you to go blind.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-08-2002 09:09
|