I tried reading the site you linked to NA, but I found most of it to be reactionary and misinformed.

The studies they mention have very small test groups. A "survey of 35" or a voluntary survey which only 139 women actually responded to (from here which was referenced on the page NA linked to) is not compelling.

I also tried to read the "Jewish Circumcision" section of this site and thought it was interesting how all religious people pick and choose which part of the old text they want to follow. I do the same thing, as there is plenty in the Torah that I don't believe in, but to claim in the same breath that "Circumcision is not universal among Jews" and "A male born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether he is circumcised or not" is kind of silly. Obviously, the concept of being a "Jew" is up for debate, and stating "facts" like these is odd.

There are plenty of sites out there pro and con, and plenty of studies, pro and con. For instance, here's one that says that circumcision may reduce HIV risk by 70% (not conclusive, other studies underway). There are plenty of studies cited by various "academies" or "family" or "parent" groups for both sides. Some say it actually prevent penile cancer, some say it prevents cervical cancer in women, some say that it really doesn't do either, and from what I've read today it becomes obvious that this has more to do with hygeine. In the end it seems to me that all of it is a wash (get it, wash?) and that it helps/hinders both ways enough that the scientific side doesn't come into play.

I do not believe that it causes more harm than not getting it done, if it's done correctly.

And I further contend, IMHO, that any man who feels like he's missing something because he was circumcised at 8 days probably has the same self-esteem issues as a small breasted woman who gets silicone shoved under her skin. Grass is always greener.

A think an important distinction is being missed. A traditional Jewish circumcision performed by a mohel at a bris is NOT the same procedure as a medical cicrumcision performed at a hospital.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah

OMG, we just watched that episode last night. I had to pause Tivo for a while to recover from the shock of it. I was EXTREMELY uncomfortable for quite a while afterwards.

For those who do not watch House (and you should - it's a great show), here is what happened (this is NOT for the squemish - hence the spoiler tags):


As far as the comparison between declawing and spay/neuter: while any of the procedures are surgery, spaying or neutering is highly beneficial to the cat population at large (by decreasing the SEVERE cat overpopulation issue), whereas declawing is simply for the convenience of the owner.

Let us not forget that some cultures circumsize the girls!
____________________________________________

I was a mohel for a while. It didn't pay well, but the tips were good!

Correct. And, I think my feelings about that follow in the same lines as male circumcision. Why. Or, why are you still doing it?

Actually, no I'm not.

As to my ill advised rant of yesterday, I wan't even talking about a Bris. I was talking about the radical circumcisions performed in hospitals. Reading back, I understand that I have to take a lot of backlash about that, because I realize I was not NEARLY as specific as I thought I was being.

And you're right. The Bris has almost none of the characteristics of the surgery I'm talking about. I don't doubt what you've seen, nor do I doubt your ability to comment on that authoritatively. Please afford me that same courtesy.

I'm willing to bet that you have NOT seen a radical hospital circumcision performed. A radical circ is so different from a Bris as to make it difficult to even compare the two. It would be somewhat akin to comparing cutting your fingernail to having your fingernail pulled out by the root. GD has a post upthread making note of the difference in the 2 procedures.

A Bris involves removing the tip end of the prepuce that extends past the end of the glans. The glans is uninjuired in this procedure if done correctly. Yes, there is damage to the body, but not on a scale even approaching the damage caused by a radical circ. A radical circ involves slicing the foreskin lengthwise and tearing it away from the surface of the glans, literally skinning the glans alive.

Radical circumcision as performed in hospitals is very similar to female genital modification. 75% of the erogenous tissue of the penis is removed during a radical circumcision. The same is not true of a Bris.

CP, I want to thank you for addressing this in thread. It's been brought to my attention how my post was received and I appreciate the opportunity to set this right. Editting the original post seemed dishonest, so I'm happy to clear up any misunderstanding this way. I hope this post has done that.

Of ourse, the cat population at large got to that state (over population; bred traits that make bearing litters a health risk) due to human actions.

I thought this thread was about cats? It seems to have gone from *****'s to Cocks...lol

No problem. I just didn't want the confusion to continue.

Missed this before:
You misunderstand my point. My contention is with those that say that one surgery is different from another when it comes to being humane/inhumane, and I take issue with that. I'm not saying that surgery is inhumane - in fact, I said above that I support spaying and neutering.

Simply put:
Bad argument: "Declawing is inhumane because you are putting a creature through pain."
Good argument: "Declawing is inhumane because you are putting a creature through pain only to benefit YOU."

Well, you know....there's only so much you can say about cats.


NOT! (I could talk pets all day long - and in my job, I do!)