Circumcision became common practice in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s, but pediatricians are beginning to oppose it now.
Historically, circumcision has been documented as a religious practice for people of the Jewish faith to symbolize their covenant to God since the beginning of its origins, and the Egyptians practiced circumcision more than 2000 years ago. It has evolved into a routine procedure, which for many parents, has nothing to do with religion.
The current debate is over whether circumcision is dangerous and unnecessary for newborn male infants. Opposition views circumcision as being much like a cosmetic procedure that provides no medical benefit to the child. They even point to evidence of harmful effects that can cause death in approximately 1 out of 6000 circumcisions performed per year.
The supporting side feels that circumcision is better for the child in terms of hygiene -- the area is easier to keep clean without the foreskin. Also, some supporters say circumcision serves as a prevention against cervical carcinoma, a condition that some say is worsened with the presence of smegma. However, there is nothing statistically relevant to validate those claims.
With everything that you've seen in the media, you've probably come to conclusions of your own. So this week, weigh in and share your opinions on this highly controversial issue:
Do you think that we should continue circumcising male newborn babies? Is it right or wrong? Why or why not?
Hardly, these have been available every were for quite sometime.
http://intactipedia.org/index.php?title=Immunological_and_Protective_Function_of_the_Foreskin
"Vaginal dryness is among the TOP complaints of American women especially older women." -- there's no convincing evidence that it's related to circumcision, however. "Those Chinese researchers clearly showed with a rock solid methodology that circ decreases sensitivity to vibration" -- a "rock solid methodology"? Craig, turn the propaganda dial down a notch or two. I haven't read the full text of the study, because I can't read Chinese, and hence can't evaluate their methodology, and I'm willing to bet that you can't either. So what we actually have is one study, with a methodology that cannot be evaluated, reporting an effect on vibration sensitivity, and two others (Bleustein 2003 and 2005) that found no effect. "The foreskin is good at detecting stretch, temperature, and touch" -- there's little evidence in support of these claims, with the exception of light touch, which studies indicate the foreskin is about equal to the rest of the penis in sensing.
"If you are to back your germ theory claim, one must wonder how the conclusion of the foreskin being dirty was logically and/or scientifically deduced." -- not my claim, but it seems a reasonable thing to say. I would think such a deduction would be based upon the fact that balanitis and posthitis are seen so much more frequently among uncircumcised males.
"there's little evidence in support of these claims, with the exception of light touch, which studies indicate the foreskin is about equal to the rest of the penis in sensing." if you call histology little evidence then sure.
"They tested sensitivity to vibration before and after circumcision. this effectively controls for some the short comings encountered in the sorells study." -- I guess you mean the fact that Sorrells et al did not test vibration? It's interesting in that respect, though I'd want to look into the methodology in more depth, to see if I can understand why the results differ from the Bleustein studies. "if you call histology little evidence then sure." -- If a colleague shows me an electronic circuit design, it might look as though it would do a certain job, but unless it's built and tested, there's no way to be sure. Similarly, anatomy might suggest sensitivity, but it's no substitute for testing. It's actually worse than a circuit diagram, though, because anatomical studies tend to be rather ambiguous, often contradicting each other, identifying the same objects differently, etc., etc. One set of authors might identify a nerve ending as type A when really it's type B, so it would be a mistake to use the known characteristics of type A when predicting the resulting sensitivity. You need to be very cautious indeed when using such anatomical data to predict sensitivity.
The Chinese researchers had better elements of control because they were testing the sensitivity to vibration before and after on the same people. This controls for hereditary and age differences and so on. you can purchase the full copy here for only a few cents: http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical_zhnkx200804009.aspx they also have a ton of other research i will look into on this cite. an abstract is available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18481425 CIRP offers its criticism of Bleustein http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bleustein2/
http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical_zgnkxzz200909011.aspx Another found decreased sensitivity to vibration: " Measuring 150 patients the glans penis vibration perception threshold before and 4 months after the change, and statistically, the results show that the penis Glans penis vibration perception threshold is different before and after surgery (P <0.05), with statistical significance." http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical_zgnkxzz200909011.aspx
Lallemand C-F. Des Pertes Seminales Involontaires, 3 vols. Pasis: Becht Jeune 1836, 1839, 1842. Vol1.,pp.463-1: vol2., 70-162; vol. 3,.pp266-7,280-9 it was read and i myself summarized his "findings" in a few words. The youtube vid only let me know they existed. The recovery of the documents and the citation is not "plagiarism". If some one tells you about a book that you reference, do you site your friend for telling you the book exists?
Bollinger said: M.J. Moses declares that Jews are immune to masturbation because of circumcision I said: M.J. Moses declares that circumcised Jews are immune to masturbation in these publications they actually use the word immune.
Male circumcision is a form of permanent body modification.