Yeah, of course it's personal opinion. The original point of my post was basically saying, "I'm circumcising my kid, and here's why." I never said everyone should be required to be circumcised, but at the same time these (in my opinion) wack-jobs out in San Fransisco that want to outlaw it are out of their minds. Like you said, there is certainly room for discussion, but the very fact that people like you and I can have a discussion leads me to believe that there is no good reason to ban such a thing.

YellowOneKinobi

Thanks for the quick reply ^^
Let me see then...

- "So, you agree with me.In the first half of 2011 over 1,300 men have been diagnosed with penile cancer. It occurs in approximately 1 in 100,000 men. Personally, I'd rather have a zero percent chance of coming down with it."
Where do you keep getting that "zero" from? I agree with you, like I said. Amputating a part of any organ reduces the likeliness of it developing cancer, but cancer can develop in the glans and shaft just as likely as it does in the foreskin.

- "You are absolutely incorrect. Phimosis is when, in an uncircumsized child, the foreskin does not develop properly and it is unable to retract. It has NOTHING to do with 'scar tissue.'"
In an uncircumcised child the foreskin is not suppose to retract at all. Hormones will eventually make it mobile, but until then it's not going anywhere. If after puberty still nothing happened it can be treated with topical creams, resulting in a close 100% rate of success. Only in cases where scar tissue has build up due to an operation or improper care through parents or doctors is circumcision needed.

- "Wrong again. This is caused during development and has nothingwhatsoever to do with 'handling of junk.'"
The foreskin doesn't pull itself back, especially not since it's fused to the glans and immobile like I stated. Maybe you should revise your definition of "paraphimosis", it seems like you do not know what this is.

- "So we are in agreement that circumcision prevents balanoposthitis. What you are wrong about, is that the chances of balanitis occurring alone are vastly decreased (almost to the point of zero percent) when a person is circumcised."
Well, of course we agree ^^" after all, if you have no nails on your fingers and toes you can't get ingrown nails either, thus a cut guy can't get balanoposthitis. However again with simple logic you can see the flaw in this argument. The foreskin is fused to the glans in infants and kids, there is no way for the foreskin or the glans to get inflammend since they are by definition internal organs at that time. A circumcised boy's glans however gets into direct contact with feces and other stuff. Why should removing the foreskin magically make the glans infection-proof?

- "Once again you are completely wrong. The studies I've read and discussed with our doctorswere done on adults, not infants recently circumcised (hence the point I made about "in the future")"
Don't you think that "in the future" your son can take care of himself? As in, just taking antibiotics in the rare case of an UTI like everybody else (uncut or not) does?

- "The evidence doesn't support your claims at all, but personally I really don't care at all about this one (as I said before)."
Which "evidence" are you talking about? ^^"

- See my thoughts (or lack there of) on the STD's one.
If you say so~


Well it seems your oppinion is pretty carved in stone anyways, but let me ask you this. Do you expect a person that gets 500$ out of performing said non-therapeutical operation to advice you against it?

Anyway, I apologize for the last two one-line answers. Trying to get some stuff done before the weekend starts but I'll reply in more detail (hopefully) in a little while.

YellowOneKinobi

Edit: I also added a second video, as the argument I was going for wasn't fully contained in the first one. It's just 4minutes long though, would be nice if you could take a look at it too.

You're just chock-full of misinformation. Preciesly why I get my information from speaking with, you know, actual doctors.

YellowOneKinobi

How about you hear it from the mouth of a doctor then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKCQIVC4rwg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zktbJgd217I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaWiBzZYG9Y

My opinion: Personal choice totally. Reasons for that have already been stated.

Also about that I'm "cut and fine"-argument. Usually the problem there is the definition of "fine". You perceive what is "normal" for you as "fine". Cut guys can suffer from adhesions, skin-bridges, patches of necrotic tissue, sensitivity loss, decay of the penile meatus, hairy shafts, painfully tight erections, etc. and still claim that they are perfectly "fine" with it.

Circumcision:
- Greatly reduces the chance of developing penile cancer
- Totally prevents phimosis
- Totally prevents paraphimosis
- Totally prevents balanoposthitis
- Greatly reduced chance of UTI
- Reduces risk of contracting many STD's
- Reduces the risk for cervical cancer in sexual partners
YellowOneKinobi