Circumcision?

[cool_chick]

ben parrish said:

Oh yea, if you do snip it, and you raise a liberal, sue the world brat, be prepared for the law suit. No kidding, saw it in a publication that a kid was suing his parents because he was circumcised.

That is rediculous. However, I must know, did the article mention he was a "liberal?" What specifically did it say about him being a "liberal?"

[Moses]

Originally posted by cool_chick
What specifically did it say about him being a "liberal?"

Likely an assumption based on the well known fact that Bush hates foreskins.

[Aurel]

I think this topic mandates more female opinions. How do you girls prefer it?

Aurel

[Nathans_Dad]

Agreed that the previous studies were pretty flawed, this one however looks like it was done correctly.

[ben parrish]

Yeah, everbody knows Bush hates foreskins. Jeezzz, where you been?

[Christien]

Cool, you're right, I don't really want to think about that but it *is* a consideration.

If I did raise a kid that ended up suing me for a choice I made when he was born, I think I'd have a few more things to worry about then the actual lawsuit. (for cyring out loud, can there be ONE topic in PPOT that DOESN'T degrade into black/white/liberal/conservative and everyone-who-disagrees-with-my-viewpoint-is-a-retard?! )

[Christien]

Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention we've decided to leave it, barring any last-minute advice from dr's and nurses we talk to in the hospital.

[ben parrish]

Cool choice, So are you a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat? oh never mind, You are in Canada.

Seriously, I enjoy the spider web direction these posts' take. makes for great laughs and exposes you to many differnt viewpoints. Heck, I am sure we all have changed our minds on an issue because of a well written, thought out counter point. It can be a little frustrating if you want a serious answer though.

Hope the delivery goes smooth and you have a happy, healthy little boy.
Ben

[Christien]

Thanks Ben! Although we don't know if it's a boy or girl yet, so this whole question may be moot for us!

My point was just that I didn't want to see this turn into yet another liberal vs. conservative bash-fest like so many PPOT threads turn into

But yep, so long as it goes smoothly and we have a happy, healthy boy or girl, everything's cool!

Chris

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
First, I have not seen any information on this study being declared seriously flawed. I just did a quick Google search and also found nothing. Would be interested to read any link you might provide.

Second, if that is the case, then it makes the study more robust, wouldn't it?

If you take a man who is less likely to have multiple sex partners and show a benefit in virus transmission, that benefit would be expected to be at least the same if not greater in someone who was at higher risk.

There is no known rationale behind the notion that circumcision reduces viral transmission. HIV is transmitted via bodily fluids, not transdermally.

The fact of circumcision and confounding variable of muslim influence would have had to have been controlled for in the study, and if it was not then the study is indeed flawed to the point of being worthless.

[bigchillcar]

yep..what pat said..

[VaSteve]

Originally posted by cool_chick
I"m going to be blunt.

My perspective is as a heterosexual female.

As a parent, I know you don't want to think about these things, but from my perspective, circumcision is all I want.....if you know what I mean....

ELAINE: Hey Jerry, you ever seen one?

JERRY: You mean that wasn't uh.

ELAINE: Yeah.

JERRY: No.. you?

ELAINE: Ya.

JERRY: What'd you think?

ELAINE: (shakes her head) No, had no face, no personality. It was like a martian. But hey, you know that's me.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by VaSteve
ELAINE: Hey Jerry, you ever seen one?

JERRY: You mean that wasn't uh.

ELAINE: Yeah.

JERRY: No.. you?

ELAINE: Ya.

JERRY: What'd you think?

ELAINE: (shakes her head) No, had no face, no personality. It was like a martian. But hey, you know that's me.

Obviously she wasn't "stimulating" enough to bring out "its'" personality.

[87coupe]

http://www.infoforhealth.org/pearls/2002/06-10.shtml

The interior side of the foreskin has a mucosal surface which is more susceptible to trauma than the tougher skin of the penile shaft or the glans. Moreover, the foreskin contains high levels of HIV target cells (such as Langerhan's cells). Indeed in a recent in vitro study of 14 foreskins, investigators from Chicago found that foreskin mucosal tissue had a 7-fold greater susceptibility to HIV-1 than cells in cervical tissue under the same conditions. Lastly, the presence of a foreskin appears to increase risk of ulcerative STDs such as chancroid and herpes, which are strong co-factors for HIV infection.

Thus there appears to be good biologic plausibility to the epidemiologic finding that male circumcision reduces risk of HIV infection.

[Moses]

Originally posted by 87coupe
The interior side of the foreskin has a mucosal surface which is more susceptible to trauma than the tougher skin of the penile shaft or the glans. Moreover, the foreskin contains high levels of HIV target cells (such as Langerhan's cells). Indeed in a recent in vitro study of 14 foreskins, investigators from Chicago found that foreskin mucosal tissue had a 7-fold greater susceptibility to HIV-1 than cells in cervical tissue under the same conditions. Lastly, the presence of a foreskin appears to increase risk of ulcerative STDs such as chancroid and herpes, which are strong co-factors for HIV infection.

Thus there appears to be good biologic plausibility to the epidemiologic finding that male circumcision reduces risk of HIV infection.

Stop bombarding us with facts! This is a political discussion, not a scientific one.

[artplumber]

Originally posted by Christien
....
But yep, so long as it goes smoothly and we have a happy, healthy boy or girl, everything's cool!

Chris

Too true. Do what you think is right.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by 87coupe
The interior side of the foreskin has a mucosal surface which is more susceptible to trauma than the tougher skin of the penile shaft or the glans. Moreover, the foreskin contains high levels of HIV target cells (such as Langerhan's cells). Indeed in a recent in vitro study of 14 foreskins, investigators from Chicago found that foreskin mucosal tissue had a 7-fold greater susceptibility to HIV-1 than cells in cervical tissue under the same conditions. Lastly, the presence of a foreskin appears to increase risk of ulcerative STDs such as chancroid and herpes, which are strong co-factors for HIV infection.

Thus there appears to be good biologic plausibility to the epidemiologic finding that male circumcision reduces risk of HIV infection.
http://www.infoforhealth.org/pearls/2002/06-10.shtml

I see. Is there a corresponding study, other than the one questionable study conducted in a west African nation, that supports the above theory?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by fastpat
There is no known rationale behind the notion that circumcision reduces viral transmission. HIV is transmitted via bodily fluids, not transdermally.

The fact of circumcision and confounding variable of muslim influence would have had to have been controlled for in the study, and if it was not then the study is indeed flawed to the point of being worthless.

HIV transmission in a nutshell:

Man puts penis into woman. Penis is uncircumcized and therefore the glans is a bit less toughened. This makes micro tears in the skin of the glans easier. Add to this that there IS IN FACT FLUID secreted from the vagina during sex (Pat, I know you are in your 60s...but yes, this did USED to happen), and this fluid will then become trapped between the glans and foreskin after withdrawal. Also, the study suggests that the epithelium of the inner foreskin is more susceptible to viral infection, thereby increasing the risk of transmission.

Pat, you really should stick to talking about things that you have a clue about...like bunkers and southern history.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
HIV transmission in a nutshell:

Man puts penis into woman. Penis is uncircumcized and therefore the glans is a bit less toughened. This makes micro tears in the skin of the glans easier. Add to this that there IS IN FACT FLUID secreted from the vagina during sex (Pat, I know you are in your 60s...but yes, this did USED to happen), and this fluid will then become trapped between the glans and foreskin after withdrawal. Also, the study suggests that the epithelium of the inner foreskin is more susceptible to viral infection, thereby increasing the risk of transmission.

Pat, you really should stick to talking about things that you have a clue about...like bunkers and southern history.

So, you're supporting the theory as well, do you have any studies at all supporting it? Other that the ( ) one conducted in western Africa?

[87coupe]

Given the evidence of health benefits, and the preference of at least North American women, I can't really see a reason why you wouldn't circumcise an North American born male child shortly after birth.