Circumcision

[JakRandom]

"So no one's bothered to mention why evolution hasn't made us precircumcized?"

So let me see if I fallow your line of reasoning correctly...

The human p***s is formed with the foreskin intact. This, as with all other biological features, formed as a result of evolution and thus, must be the best way to do it. Right?

Well, I'd have to disagree. Firstly, this line of reasoning gives evolution some sort of 'magical designing power' (somewhat like that of the intelligent designer) to make and create perfect structures. We both know that this is incorrect and that natural selection can only act on the current structures at hand and that that can only create a structure that is better than the one that preceded it. Secondly, this is suggesting that, just because something exists in nature, it must be so important that we, humans, could not possibly be able to come up with something better. If this were true, and we actually acted on all biological structures and functions, not just the ones we don't like, with this in mind, all modern medicine would have to disregarded as something evolution didn't see fit to change.


"Was this posted already? http://www.circumstitions.com/reasonsnotto.html

It freaked my s**t out."

This actually gets back to what I was saying earlier, about the credibility of this site, just look at the head of the page:

"I always see more problems from a circumcision than from a foreskin." - a paediatrician, quoted on America On Line.

Oh thank goodness, now I know some supposed pediatrician on AOL sees more problems with circumcision than with foreskin. When quoting such credible sources, such as the winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine AOL Pediatrician Guy, how can we not believe the claims made on this page:

"Because it aint broke: don't fix it"

"Because God knew what S/He was doing when S/He put it there. / Because Nature knows best."

"[it can cause] SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - cot death)"

"Increased risk of HIV" ORLY

"Because he might be switched with another baby being circumcised at the same time (Memphis, TN, 16/4/98 (AP))"

In all honesty I admit that I have been somewhat belligerent in calling some people here ignorant, however, until I read this page I had no idea how accurate the accusation was. I have no problem engaging in discussion about this issue but I do have a problem if all thats informing the opposing opinion is this kind of crap.  

[Covered-Up Boxers]

SaintChaos

lol no offense but im so glad im not a guy due to stuff like this xP

There's still female circumcision. While most of this thread focuses on the mutilation of baby penises(peni?), female circumcision is hardly mentioned. It's a range of procedures, by the way. It ranges from getting rid of the clitoris to... eh. gonk Also known as Female Genital Mutilation.

I'm going to assume that most of you are against female circumcision. To those of you who support male circumcision, what I'm hearing here is: cutting off parts of the p***s is okay and healthy, but vaginal mutilation is inhumane.

And, get this, only a few weeks ago it was banned in Egypt(as said by Wikipedia):

Quote:

On June 28, 2007 Egypt banned female genital cutting after the death of 12-year old Badour Shaker during a genital circumcision. The Guardian of Britain reported that her death "sparked widespread condemnation" of the practice. Egyptian newspapers reported that earlier in the day of her surgery, the girl had given out sweets, in celebration of her excellent grades in school. [37]

 

[JakRandom]

No, what I'm saying is that having my foreskin removed was harmless because I had a normal childhood, normal adolescence and am a normal functional adult with a normal healthy sex life. If my circumcision had been comparable to female genital mutilation (lets say that the opening of the urethra was sewn shut or the head of my p***s cut off) this would not be the case. Let me see if I can say it in another way, because were all atheists and don't believe in gods greatness were are also like satanists who hate all that is good and glory in evil and destruction, is this correct?  

[Baron von Turkeypants]

Soy un hombre muy honrado,
que me gusta lo mejor

OK, apparently evolution only makes things that aren't best suited for their environment. My bad, professor. If only I knew natural selection led to evolutionary pathways that were the most inefficient, maybe I could have passed my biology class. Good job on the reasoning, though. It's always nice to see someone totally misunderstand what I was saying.

Las mujeres no me faltan,
ni el dinero ni el amor

 

[JakRandom]

There it is again, "best suited to its environment" not good enough, but best suited. We all know that there on no such things as genetic disease, right? Our bodies are so perfect, molded by natural selection in such a way that modern medicine could never benefit them. C'mon, you said it your self, you've taken classes on evolution and genetics, you know its not a perfect precess. Why didn't we evolve differently is not an argument.  

[ElenaMason]

Redem

There are no significant medical benefits to circumcision. Certainly none that outweight the medical risks that accompany the surgery, and almost all of them are only significant LONG after the child is old enough to decide for themselves.

Tell me, how does a 50% cut in HIV infection rates (although that study has some major procedural issues and is not in the least conclusive) mean that you should subject newborn boys to painful and damaging surgeries?

The foreskin is there to keep the glans supple, moist, and clean. Ripping it off at birth is just stupid.

Someone mentioned we should understand why it is done... well the reason it is now popular in the US is because it was promoted as a way to prevent children from masturbating in their teens.

As a Jewish/Muslim cultural practice, it was meant to be a sacrifice to establish a covenant with god, if I recall correctly.

Quote:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (FamilyDoctor.org) states that circumcision can help to prevent urinary tract infection in infants, and according to Richard M. Parker (PedsUroLogic.com), intact foreskins can lead to phimosis, a condition in which the foreskin narrows and cannot retract, or balanoposthitis, an infection of the glands and foreskin. The American Urological Association supports both these claims in a 2003 statement. "

Quote mining.
While it is true, removal of the foreskin also causes various problems. From keratinisation of the glans, blood infections from the surgery, to skin bridges, to major scarring and painful erections.
The official position of the AAP is as follows.

Quote:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) found both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision. It felt that there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and recommended that parental decisions on circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account. The AAP also recommended using analgesia as a safe and effective method for reducing pain associated with circumcision, and that circumcision on newborns only be performed on infants who are stable and healthy.[159]

Quote:

What, the sleek, streamlined look isn't enough justification in and of itself?

The dried up scarred mutilated look, you mean? No. Not justification enough. :p

Quote:

Also, to whoever stated that circumcision cuts back on sexual arousal:

It scars the glans, and removes some of the most sensitive areas fo the p***s. So yeah, it does.

on that last part, jesus christ really? *shudders* well to each his own ^^;  

[Baron von Turkeypants]

Soy un hombre muy honrado,
que me gusta lo mejor

I fail to see how cutting of a piece of skin qualifies as modern medicine. It's also nice to see you don't find it the least bit strange that millions of years wouldn't have gotten rid of a little piece of skin, let alone let it grow in the first place. But hey, what do I know.

Las mujeres no me faltan,
ni el dinero ni el amor

 

[Fuzzy Kittens]

Baron von Turkeypants

ProjectOmicron88

First of all, a 50% reduction in the chance of getting HIV or AIDS is not enough reason for me to condone lopping off the tip of someone's member. Second, this can be avoided by not sleeping around, and using protection, which essentially negates that "benefit".

Soy un hombre muy honrado,
que me gusta lo mejor

But why be responsible when you can be promiscuous out the a**?

Las mujeres no me faltan,
ni el dinero ni el amor

Why retaliate with a well-structured argument when you can make an offhanded sarcastic remark about everything?  

[Baron von Turkeypants]

ZeeFishee

Baron von Turkeypants

ProjectOmicron88

First of all, a 50% reduction in the chance of getting HIV or AIDS is not enough reason for me to condone lopping off the tip of someone's member. Second, this can be avoided by not sleeping around, and using protection, which essentially negates that "benefit".

Soy un hombre muy honrado,
que me gusta lo mejor

But why be responsible when you can be promiscuous out the a**?

Las mujeres no me faltan,
ni el dinero ni el amor

Why retaliate with a well-structured argument when you can make an offhanded sarcastic remark about everything?

Soy un hombre muy honrado,
que me gusta lo mejor

Thank you for the ad hominem. It really helps out the argument.

Las mujeres no me faltan,
ni el dinero ni el amor

 

[JakRandom]

You fail to see how an ancient practice which has been supported by the medical community qualifies as medicine? Well, I'm not here to educate you, you can believe what you want. Human society and technology has far outpaced biological evolution, to claim that because we have a better alternative to the foreskin now means that the foreskin served no perpose for millions of years is a weak argument.  

[Baron von Turkeypants]

Soy un hombre muy honrado,
que me gusta lo mejor

You're right, it is a weak argument, and an argument I didn't make. You keep stretching my words to absurd lengths. Lemme spell this out for you: I didn't say it didn't qualify as medicine, I said it didn't qualify as modern medicine. No wonder you're seeing all these bad arguments when you're quoting things no one's said. Next time you bother to refute something, please make sure you're refuting something in this thread, not a fabrication in your mind. Once again, why did the foreskin bother growing in the first place?

As for modern medicine and its marvels when it comes to circumcision, let's take Europe into account. By all standards, it has adopted "modern medicine," sometimes to a greater degree than in America. But then why are the majority of males there uncircumcised?

I would also like a few examples of how human technology has "far surpassed" evolution. I've yet to see an artificial filter that works half as efficient as the liver.

Las mujeres no me faltan,
ni el dinero ni el amor

 

[Cirosan]

The serious amount of debate in here only supports my point. I have seen both sides of the argument, and there are significant advantages and disadvantages to circumcision. However, whether or not it is worth it is a matter of opinion left up to the individual.

The serious issue I have with it is that in some cases, circumcision is forced on the newborn without any reasoning on their part. If this was an issue such as vaccination, where the pros outweighed the cons by a large margin, the issue would be much clearer, however circumcision is split exactly 50/50 when it comes to pros and cons. What about the child? How about leaving it up to them instead of the parent? Yes, I realize the child cannot make an educated decision at that point in life, which is precisely why it should not happen!  

[ProjectOmicron88]

Cirosan

The serious amount of debate in here only supports my point. I have seen both sides of the argument, and there are significant advantages and disadvantages to circumcision. However, whether or not it is worth it is a matter of opinion left up to the individual.

The serious issue I have with it is that in some cases, circumcision is forced on the newborn without any reasoning on their part. If this was an issue such as vaccination, where the pros outweighed the cons by a large margin, the issue would be much clearer, however circumcision is split exactly 50/50 when it comes to pros and cons. What about the child? How about leaving it up to them instead of the parent? Yes, I realize the child cannot make an educated decision at that point in life, which is precisely why it should not happen!

Took the words right out of my mouth with that one.  

[Laprasite]

I found a site with arguments from both sides.
http://www.circumcision.org/advocates.htm  

[JakRandom]

Because the statment, "I fail to see how cutting of a piece of skin qualifies as modern medicine." Implies that a procedure condoned by the modern medical community is not in fact medicine.

"It's also nice to see you don't find it the least bit strange that millions of years wouldn't have gotten rid of a little piece of skin, let alone let it grow in the first place."

If you have the comprehensive understanding of evolution you claim to, you should have no problem understanding that the foreskin could be a better exaptation than existing alternatives. Whether the 'ancient p***s' did or didn't have a foreskin is unknown. However, making the claim, 'why didn't evolution make them uncircumcised' implies that natural selection has had the chance to compare and select upon the two. Because no research that I am aware of suggest that this is the case, I call your argument a BS argument.