Circumcise my baby boy?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

He didn't even bother to read the information before he downplayed it based solely on the name of the site on which some of it was hosted.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the phrase "International Coalition of Genital Integrity" anywhere on any of the three pages to which I linked anyway, but even if it were there, so what?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's odd these two quotes are in the same post.

If you look at the first link you provided:
Backup Linky

and read the very FIRST sentence.

Cape Town - Organisations including the International Coalition of Genital Integrity on Friday cautioned against reports indicating that mass circumcisions could help prevent the spread of HIV.

In that same article there is another organization sourced:

National Organisation of Restoring Men

I could go on and on....

[ QUOTE ]
If the information they present is backed up with credible sources, who cares what they call themselves?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a reasonable argument in theory or if you are in an ivory tower. However, in practice.... no. I will admit there are some exceptions but they are very rare.

To be honest even quoting mainstream news sources will often get you into trouble. The bbc does a decent job when it comes to science (due to it's natural tendency to side with academic research) but it will side with the hardcore liberal given the chance and they can be pretty bad when they do. The very popular www.junkscience.com and www.techcentralstation.com
go the other direction and are absolutely horrible when talking about scientific research IMO. Now if I consider those sources less than reliable, just imagine what I think of the links you provided. I will admit the last link you showed was pretty good, however there are plenty of holes I really don't want to go into. In short, I'm not completely sold on her methodology. Also, I am not familiar with that journal you linked to. I stick to mainly science, cell, nature and their sub journals. There are plenty of others that are good though. If an article links to one of those journals in it's bibliography, you are normally golden.

If you want a real source of information on this topic, here is a good link. It's simple, easy to read, and has a magical thing called bibliography which is linked to reputable peer reviewed journals.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte.../320/7249/1592

It will tell you HOW circumcisions stop HIV.

Ok, I've now wasted too much time on OOT simply making this post.

[Dex]

Excellent post, wacki.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He didn't even bother to read the information before he downplayed it based solely on the name of the site on which some of it was hosted.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the phrase "International Coalition of Genital Integrity" anywhere on any of the three pages to which I linked anyway, but even if it were there, so what?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's odd these two quotes are in the same post.

If you look at the first link you provided:
Backup Linky

and read the very FIRST sentence.

Cape Town - Organisations including the International Coalition of Genital Integrity on Friday cautioned against reports indicating that mass circumcisions could help prevent the spread of HIV.


[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct. I honestly did not notice that there when I looked at those pages as I was responding to your post.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want a real source of information on this topic, here is a good link. It's simple, easy to read, and has a magical thing called bibliography which is linked to reputable peer reviewed journals.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte.../320/7249/1592

It will tell you HOW circumcisions stop HIV.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are lots of rebuttals that can be found here. Some even have a magical thing called a bibliography which is linked to reputable peer reviewed journals.

I'm not looking to be a nit with this study or its rebuttals. The point is that the conclusion of this study is, at best, debatable.

The REAL point is this. The study itself is pointless. There are these really neat things called condoms. People, regardless of their circumcision status, can choose to use them to dramatically reduce their risk of HIV infection.

People will point to this study to support their opinions that male infants should be circumcised, or that circumcision is "right", or whatever, because of the study's implication that circumcision will lower the risk of HIV infection.

Ultimately, however, even if there were studies that conclude that circumcision is 100% effective in preventing HIV infection, this should not be used as a reason to force circumcision upon anyone.

Let me propose an equally ridiculous idea: removing female infants' breasts, at birth, would have a 100% success rate at preventing breast cancer. Obviously, the very idea that something like this should be proposed as a preventative measure is completely absurd. The very idea that circumcision should be proposed as a preventative measure for HIV infection is no less absurd.

[wacki]

Those responses were made by the people who read that website. I could log in and make a response like they did. You have to be extremely cautious reading that material.

would write more but time is short.

also, I agree it's not a practical prophylactic

[VBM]

The literature says that something like 60% of baby boys in America aren't circumcised, so I don't think he'll be looked at funny either way.

My wife & I just had a son & we both wanted to, but I shared your hesitation to circumcise him, as I think that part of a man's body should always be treated nicely. I pictured him coming back screaming and angry and scared and in pain.

But, truthfully, it took 15 minutes & he was just really drowsy afterwards. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I think really either way is fine. If he's not, plenty of kids won't be. If he is, its not nearly as traumatic an experience as you may think it will be.

[ QUOTE ]
My wife & I just had a son & we both wanted to, but I shared your hesitation to circumcise him, as I think that part of a man's body should always be treated nicely. I pictured him coming back screaming and angry and scared and in pain.

But, truthfully, it took 15 minutes & he was just really drowsy afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, why did you decide to do it?

[VBM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My wife & I just had a son & we both wanted to, but I shared your hesitation to circumcise him, as I think that part of a man's body should always be treated nicely. I pictured him coming back screaming and angry and scared and in pain.

But, truthfully, it took 15 minutes & he was just really drowsy afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, why did you decide to do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife's family is Christian so she had convictions about it. I'm also in the circumcised club myself and I figured if it was something he may do later anyhow, it'd be less traumatic in his newborn days than it would later.

[Shajen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My wife & I just had a son & we both wanted to, but I shared your hesitation to circumcise him, as I think that part of a man's body should always be treated nicely. I pictured him coming back screaming and angry and scared and in pain.

But, truthfully, it took 15 minutes & he was just really drowsy afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, why did you decide to do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife's family is Christian so she had convictions about it. I'm also in the circumcised club myself and I figured if it was something he may do later anyhow, it'd be less traumatic in his newborn days than it would later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do any of you people who are against circumcision for pain reasons really think a baby will remember?

[Sightless]

[ QUOTE ]


Do any of you people who are against circumcision for pain reasons really think a baby will remember?

[/ QUOTE ]

Will it remember it, No?

Might it cause some very deep seeded psychological traumma? could be

[ QUOTE ]
My wife's family is Christian so she had convictions about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, I suppose. However, for other Christians out there that are considering cirumcision for religious reasons, I should point out the following Biblical passage:

[ QUOTE ]
Galatians 5:2-12 (NIV)
2| Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3| Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4| You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5| But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6| For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

7| You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8| That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9| "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." 10| I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11| Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12| As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome.