14464540:Monsieur_Patate said:
			
		
	
	
		
		
			Interesting to see that the AAP changed their minds at least twice on the issue in the past 25 years. Doesn't exactly instill strong confidence, and there still doesn't seem to be consensus on the issue either (critique of the AAP's opinion from 2015):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4364150/
The main issue some have with the AAP's changed stance is that they based it heavily on HIV prevention through studies done in Africa, doesn't exactly translate well to the US, plus it's kinda silly to rely on circumcision to prevent HIV in a country with wide access to testing and condoms anyway. (basically routine circumcision in Africa to curb the spread of HIV makes sense, but in western countries, probably not so much).
More importantly, the AAP is the only western medical body to recommend circumcision while most European ones discourage it in all cases other than when religion dictates it. I'm generally inclined to trust the world medical consensus over a single medical body. (And again, those other western countries all have lower rates than the US for all those health conditions despite having virtually no circumcision, so it's not like this is really an important factor to begin with.)
I think of it this way:
- Does circumcision have benefits? Yes, but very limited ones.
- Does circumcision have downsides? Yes, but very limited ones.
So at the end of the day, everyone is free to weight the pros and cons and make their own decision, and like I said if you want to do it for religious, cultural, or personal reasons, knock yourself out, but per the global medical consensus, it's not a necessary routine procedure, it's a personal choice.
		
 
		
	 
“If you are an American man,” declares Jewish activist Eric Clopper, “if you take your penis in your hand, you will see a scar where you have been raped of essential elements of your humanity, because of the demonstrably evil influence Judaism has on this country.”
“Cultures that punish infants or repress sexuality are violent.” – James W. Prescott, Ph.D. (2007)
In the 1860’s, many puritanical doctors believed sexual pleasure was the root of all evil. That “the foreskin was highly erogenous and facilitated masturbation, [therefore] a small minority proposed the only reasonable course of action was to circumcise children. In 1877, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (of Battle Creek, Michigan), a self-described Seventh-day Adventist1 and the inventor of Kellogg’s Cornflakes, published Plain Facts for Old and Young in which he promoted circumcision as a cure for masturbation. In The Treatment of Self-Abuse and its Effects (1888), Kellogg advised piercing the foreskin with metal wires to prevent erection and the use of carbolic acid to burn a child’s clitoris (female circumcision). Other recommendations included covering the organs with a cage and binding hands. Though none of the terrible proposals of torture of little girls and boys proposed by Kellogg were widely accepted by Americans or in his own congregation, of which he was eventually excommunicated from, his fringe theories would also have never prevented seeking out sex or masturbation in adolescence or adulthood. Suchlike the traditions of Jewish rabbis, Kellogg proposed that male circumcision “be performed without administering anesthetic, as the ‘brief’ pain attending the operation will have a salutary [beneficial] effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.” Hence, psychological trauma.
In 1941, the Jewish president of Planned Parenthood and Vice President of the American Eugenics Society, Alan Guttmacher, maintained, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that “circumcision prevents the male focusing on his own genitals, therefore “masturbation is considered less likely”1 – a reechoing of Kellogg’s widely discredited theories. Thirty years later, on the grounds that circumcision “may avert masturbation,”2 renown urological textbooks such as Campbell’s urology (1970) repeated Guttmacher’s long debunked claims.  The fixation on Kellogg being the catalyst for the adoption of circumcision in America is misplaced, or, rather, over-exaggerated. Circumcision in the 19th century was a fringe procedure, usually confined to proponents of Judaism and Mohammedanism, not widely adopted by the influence of Kellogg, who was discredited by his own fold and excommunicated. Rather, cleanliness, HIV and cancer prevention as well as venereal disease pushed by the Jews Abraham Leo Wolbarst, “Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure,” and Aaron Fink were the determinant factors which instated circumcision as a kind of American deity.
It is no coincidence that outside of Jewish and Muslim communities, circumcision was rare, and where neonatal circumcision was practiced in majority Christian countries, religious observance was almost never a motive. It may be significant that “Jewish applicants to American medical schools comprised 60% of all applicants in the 1930’s [an over-representation by a factor of 240 or 24,000%], at a time when circumcision was becoming common in America.”
>>>I think of it this way:
>>>- Does circumcision have benefits? No.
>>>- Does circumcision have downsides? Yes.
Circumcision also has been linked to sudden infant death syndrome1 “due to how quickly circumcisions are performed, most doctors opt out of anesthesia for the treatment, leaving the baby traumatized by the pain. Additionally, the most common complication as a result of circumcision is bleeding, although shock, sepsis, circulatory shock, hemorrhage, and death can occur.2 Deaths occur secondary to loss of blood or systemic infection from the circumcision wound.
Paul D. Tinari, Ph.D., director of Pacific Institute for Advanced Study, underwent a study on the psychological effects of circumcision, declaring that “our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings.” They “tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic ‘circumstrain’ using Velcro restrains. We also completely immobilized the infants head using standard surgical tape. The entire apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber. […] Analysis of the MRI data indicted that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. The greatest changed occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes. A neurologist who saw the results postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victims brain association with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after surgery indicated that the child's brain never returned to its baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this research indicted that the brain of the circumcised infant was permanently changed by surgery.” These findings, however, were disparaged by the ‘authorities’ of medicine. “All of the participants in the research including myself,” said Tinari, “were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ‘ethical’ regulators [emphasis added]. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action.”
Are the purported ‘positive benefits’ of circumcision worth mutilating an infants genitalia and causing permanent psychological trauma to ‘prevent’ what the pro-circumcision and inventor of Graham Crackers, Sylvester Graham, a Presbyterian,1 called the “toothless with gums, ulcerous with a deeply sunken stature, featuring glassy eyes [masturbator], […] that confirmed and degraded idiot[?]” Well, no, because mutilating a child’s genitals does not prevent adulthood masturbation. And what about the other purported ‘positive’ impacts such as an intact boy needing to be circumcised later in life due to health complications? An intact boy has a 1 in 16,667 chance of needing to be circumcised later in life.2 A circumcised boy has an estimated 1 in 11,000 chance of dying from his circumcision.3 Hence, your son is more likely to die from circumcision than ever need one in his lifetime.  Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity,4 is associated with sexual difficulties,5 additionally the purported benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission are greatly exaggerated:6 there is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV.7 Furthermore, circumcision decreases sexual pleasure,8 decreases efficiency of nerve response in the glans of the penis,9 is linked to pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae,10 results in significant loss of erogenous tissue,11 has negligible health benefits,12 causes pain and psychological trauma of the infant,13 14 which may increase care and medical attention in the first 3 years of life.15 Additionally, circumcision may lead to abnormal brain development and subsequent deviations in behavior.16 Is the price worth it, especially when no negligible positive benefits are observed? After all, you were born with a foreskin for a reason. Really, ask yourself this question, “why cut off approximately 1/2 of the total surface area of your penis and between 50 and 80% or more of its erogenous sexual nerve[?]”17
Infant circumcision is as it appears during a prima-facie observation. The physicians will lie to your face while your child cries in agony in the back room. Any argument to the contrary, any indifference to this heinous practice defines 'gaslighting’ of child torture and licenses permanent induced trauma on the most innocent stage of a humans life. The act of cutting off a crucial part of the body of an infant is rape, plain and simple. Yet, any attempt to expose male circumcision for what it is, particularly in America, is met with laughter, disdain or anger against the messenger by both men and women alike. This must change! Many have no clue, parents included, who are conned into this disgusting practice… the con being the criminals approach used to lure victims!
Sources: Pubmed, don't care.
I can also debunk genital circum. protects agaisnt AIDS.