Circumcision Debate?

[lalicopa]

I'm probably opening up a *huge* can of worms here, but here goes:

My son is circumcised. We're Jewish. I was still against it all together, but agreed for several personal reasons. I do not believe in it and if I were to have another son, it would be a huge issue (considering all the people I've met and all the information I've gathered in the years since Laszlo was born.)

I was at the beach today and was talking to an expectant mom who I went to high school with. She has 2 daughters and found out that this is a boy. I asked if she's going to have him circumcised (she and her husband are Jewish as well.) She said she was. Then her stepfather started in, saying how all boys should be circumcised because it's not healthy to be intact. He said that the rates of cervical cancer in the wives/partners of uncircumcised men are much higher. I'm too tired to do actual research tonight, so I figured I'd open this up to you intelligent people.

He also said that his father owned a hospital around WW2 and that all the military were forced to be circumcised before they left for battle, no matter how old they were. Is this true???? Also, he said that the few men who were not, came down with urinary infections. This guy said to me, "It leads to higher rates of infections even in normal situations, imagine how bad it is in the trenches."

I know I'm naive about all of this, so forgive me. I just found this man to be a total moron, but I did not have the information to back up what I was saying, so I just said that there's a huge movement to leave baby boys intact and that there seems to be no problem with that at all. I was angry that I wasn't able to argue with him because he's a jerk and it would have been fun to put him in his place, but far be it from me to have an argument when I really don't know what I'm talking about!

So, what's the deal? Cancer rates increased? I know the infection thing is bullshit.

Comments

[babyslime.livejournal.com]

No, the cancer thing is also bullshit. All that stuff is bullshit... the glans is an internal organ and meant to be covered!

I highly reccomend posting this in cut_uncut or unkindestcut for better answers!!

[babyslime.livejournal.com]

theunkindestcut rather

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Not a scrap of truth in it. Europe's 'male' cancer rates aren't any higher than the USA's, and we don't do routine circumcision (a lot of Jewish and Muslim boys are done, but there's a trend towards not cutting them either). Nor is there any surge in female cancer rates over here.

[custard-kisses.livejournal.com]

I haven't really looked to deeply into the circumcision thing as I live in a country that it's practically unheard of so I've never had need to. I can only really give my experience of males who are not circumcised, 1 father, 1 brother, 1 husband and 6 sons. My father served in Aiden and Yemen in the 60's for a few years while in the army, and my Grandfathers both in WWII and it was never a UK requirement to circumcise afaik...well they didn't cut there's off anyway lol
None of my sons have ever had an infection, I can't even ever recall any friends speaking of infections in their sons so I'm guessing that's just some urban legand to defend the practice.
I have heard the cervical cancer thing but it sounds kind of dubious to me. Cervical cancer is linked to the Human papillomavirus, and I don't think a foreskin would increase you chances of getting this, it's just a piece of skin. Many sexual partners can increase ones risk of getting the virus, as you are widening your base of contact, but I don't think one penis with skin or without will make any difference at all.
I haven't seen the study but there are a few well known risk factors such as smoking, use of oral contraceptives , young age at first sexual encounter and more than one sexual partner. If the study seperated out those risk factors and still found that a foreskin or lack of one increased their partners chances of having CC then that would be interesting read.

[lalicopa.livejournal.com]

see my other comment further down.

[cvantien.livejournal.com]

He can get off his high horse. There is a vaccine coming out that will eradicate the whole cervical cancer problem (ie, it has been proven to be 100% effective against HPV which causes most cervical cancers). I posted about it a while back .

The thing about military being forced to be circumcised was due to the areas in which they were due to be fighting, the same reason as why circumcision was originally started (well, theoretically anyway). Places where it is difficult to keep yourself clean and you may end up with any types of fungus it is definitely safer to be circumcised than not. This is generally not an issue in 2005. Dickhead.

[jbarbie23.livejournal.com]

oooh, the cancer argument is my FAVE! I say chop off EVERYTHING that might get cancer. That would certainly lower your risk. Liver cancer? Not if you have it removed before 8 days old! Skin cancer? Peel it all off before baby ever sees the sun. Bilateral mastectomies at birth for all! That's my solution to cancer. o_O

Yeah, the less tissue you have, the less risk you have of cancer - that's true of ANY body part. But the tissue that is left doesn't have any way of magically knowing that other tissue was removed and therefore somehow resisting the growth of cancer cells. So... yeah. Not a good argument. Cancer doesn't fester in dark, moist places - it's not fungal. What are people thinking sometimes?!

[lalicopa.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but his argument was that women get the cancer, not the men.

I'm still baffled.

[lalicopa.livejournal.com]

(see my other comment here)

[catyak]

Europe doesn't have a problem but then Europeans know how to care for foreskins. There's an entire generation of Americans who've never seen an intact penis due to medical advice that circumcision was good. So thwey're a bit afraid of it and believe all the hype about disease and other nasties. Despite the hype, Europeans do not suffer from an epidemic of diseases related to non-removal of foreskins.

I looked up the phimosis statistics a while back and it was something like 4 in 10000 get it. Contrast that to 1 in 500 who have problems with a botched circumcision, the "cure" causes more problems than the condition it's supposed to prevent. The other one commonly quoted by circumcision advocates is balanitis, which is an infection that can be avoided by basic hygiene. As above, knowing how to care for a foreskin ought to avoid this issue so only the ignorant need to be cirumcised to protect them.

OK, so I'm biased; I've still got mine and my son still has his. If he wants to get his chopped off when he's 18 then he's free to do so, but at least he's got the choice to stay intact if he wants to.

D

[lalicopa.livejournal.com]

I just did some research. On the American Cancer Society's website, they mention "sex with uncircumcised males" as a risk factor for cervical cancer. My guess from reading is that men who do not know they have HPV can spread it and perhaps the signs of the virus are hidden by the foreskin (or on its underside and not visible). HPV is apparent in ALL cases of cervical cancer, so that's clearly the link.

[allyphoe.livejournal.com]

I saw somewhere recently that cervical cancer has become a hallmark of poverty and lack of access to medical care, more than anything else.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050826/NEWS40/107260121 for instance.

When I was looking at stats, IIRC the odds of circ-related complications were similar to the odds of having medical conditions related to not circumcizing (increased risk of UTIs, for instance). I figured that wasn't sufficient reason to circ for medical reasons.