just my 2 cents

[muminshock]

I'm probably going to regret posting this, but I find it really interesting that the Pro-RIC people almost always cite "it's cleaner" as a reason to circ - the risks of disease they are avoiding is worth it... from my research, the risk of a UTI in an uncircumcised penis is 1 in 100. The incidence of hypospadius (a condition that requires the foreskin to fix it) is 1 in 150. SO even though you are more likely to get a UTI if you are not circ'd, what happens if you have a boy with hypospadius. Wouldn't it be easier to just teach your child good hygiene and then you still have the ability to fix this problem should he be unlucky enough to have it...

And as for the infections, that are mostly due to "a little bit of poo getting under the foreskin"... again, good hygiene... we all teach our girls to wipe from front to back, so if there was a surgical way to avoid his would we opt for that instead too...

Like I said, I might end up regretting this, but I have posted in the anti section so I guess I am preaching to the converted. It just frustrates me I guess, kind of like the whole "can't have daylight savings coz our curtains will fade". If you don't want it, that's cool, each to their own, but give me a logical reason please :p

[Nowhere]

totaly totaly agreee

[muminshock]

totaly totaly agreee
Thanks Amy :wave:

[Lily of the Nile]

Yes, we're all on the same page (almost) here. I just wanted to say I love your avatar :yes:

[muminshock]

Yes, we're all on the same page (almost) here. I just wanted to say I love your avatar :yes:
Thanks! That was a fun day... and my pants actually stayed white :laughing:

[Bnbub]

Totally agree!! I cud maybe understand back in the day before they had daily baths etc, but now..... It's a pointless point to make!! :) I wud think it's harder to keep a girl free from infection than a boy with all the cracks and crannys :D

[Bellini]

I completely agree. It's not difficult to teach a child good hygiene.

[Achelois]

It's unclear whether circumcision does actually prevent some UTIs. It may increase the risk. The foreskin is not the breeding ground for bacteria some would like us to believe - it's protective, in the way that the labia and clitoral hood are (or eyelids, if you want to extrapolate it further).

Those pushing it for any medical reason are either arrogant enough to assume they can improve on nature, or have a religious or cultural agenda and try to skew research accordingly, or all of the above. Science and medicine are constantly evolving, and what seems good practice one century seems ludicrously outdated the next. This is a time line of what we've been told circumcision will prevent so far. (http://www.veoh.com/collection/Circumcision/watch/v1028772JgXD37Sy#watch%3Dv1134639X63btBHB)

Good science and medicine are moving towards preventing unnecessary surgery, as surgery carries risks, ones which may outweigh any perceived benefits. Tonsils are removed less often than they used to be as more is understood about their function. Even the appendix, which Darwin believed redundant, has been only recently shown to increase the levels of beneficial intestinal flora. To suppose that the foreskin has no function (when we already know that it does) and that aggressive surgery dating back to biblical times is an appropriate way to 'fix' any problems is ridiculous. There's more about urinary tract infections (http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html) - for which the lifetime risk is small anyway - here (http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html).