circumcision in usa

[mandoman]

Idiotism of america seems endless.

More so every day. The subject doesn't really matter, either.
The increasing idiocy is about all you can count on in the US these days.

 

[maxcok]

Hey Max, since you are so intent on calling people out,...

What the fuck? Since when is engaging in calm, logical, well-reasoned debate "calling people out"?

THIS is about the only example and by far the worst "calling out" I've seen in this thread:

Parent's have a right to have medical procedures performed if they feel it in the best interest of their child. What child do you know that would consent to removal of his tonsils? Here's an idea...MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. You don't have the right to tell parents not to circumcise their sons. If you don't want to have your sons(s) circumcised, good for you, don't shove your views down the throats of others.

If you can't handle having your views called into question and can't debate in a mature fashion, you need to either grow up or shut up.

.....here's the article that discusses the methodology of the study:

Steep Drop Seen in Circumcisions in U.S. - NYTimes.com

I quote, "The numbers are based on calculations by SDI Health, a company in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., that analyzes health care data; they do not include procedures outside hospitals (like most Jewish ritual circumcisions) or not reimbursed by insurance."

As you can see, the number does NOT include circumcisions done in doctor's hospitals or not paid by insurance.

I have no idea what you mean by "doctor's hospitals", and I see no mention of them in the article you cited. Moving on..... The Jewish presence in the US is only 2%, and one could reasonably presume not all of them practice ritual circumcision. The latest statistics I could find for the percentage of babies born outside of a hospital in the US suggest it's in the neighborhood of 1%, mostly delivered by midwives or other attendants, only 7% of that 1% by physicians. One could reasonably conjecture that babies born outside a hospital setting are far less likely to be circumcised. The same would be true when the procedure is not covered by insurance, especially in the case of Medicaid, the federal program for underprivileged, which increasingly does not cover it. Looking at this logically, it would therefore be reasonable to expect that circumcision rate would be no higher, and if anything lower, if these subgroups were included in the study data. Feel free to provide independent data that supports your so far completely unsupported contention that circumcision rates are much higher than the study indicates.

Meanwhile, allow me to quote from the article you linked:

C.D.C. officials last week declined requests for interviews about the study, . . . “C.D.C. was not involved in the collection of the data that was cited, nor has C.D.C. undertaken any review of this particular data for the purpose of calculating rates,” [C.D.C. spokeswoman Elizabeth-Ann Chandler] wrote [via e-mail]. “As such, we cannot comment on the accuracy of this particular estimate of infant male circumcision.” But she did not dispute the waning popularity of circumcision.

Slight increase in home births reverses 15-year decline - USATODAY.com​

I perfectly understand the passion of people who object to RIC. Any way you try to justify it, there's no getting around the fact that it's the unnecessary removal of healthy, functional, highly specialized, intimate tissue from a nonconsenting, vulnerable infant, permanently altering his normal, natural body integrity and sexual function, often with lifelong negative repercussions. I especially understand the passion and anger of men who have come to resent this having been done to them without their consent.

I do not understand the anger that comes from circumcision proponents like you when someone dares to even question the sense of this practice, which clearly only persists because of tradition and cultural conditioning. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why you are so threatened by the prospect that circumcision rates have been dropping steadily in the US, and dramatically it appears in the past decade or two. Why do you even care if, as you maintain, it's a "choice"? It makes no sense whatsoever that you would be so angry about this trend and try to dispute it, with nothing but your own personal bias to "prove" otherwise.

Above all, I truly don't understand why a man who is uncircumcised as you claim to be, would be such an angry and provocative proponent of the practice. It causes me to seriously question if that's really true, or if it's just a deflective part of the persona you've created for this debate. What exactly is your stake in this anyway, and why are you so defensive, angry and insulting?

 

[barely8]

God, I hate these debates....

 

[maxcok]

^ Then why bother to read them? Or post?

Here's a secret: I hate them too. But then, I think dispelling myths and educating people on the humanity of preserving the body integrity of infants and children is important.

 

[SirConcis]

The circ rates are under-reported now because mothers/babies are often discharged much sooner than before and the circumcision is done during a separate visit.

Or, when the birth is covered by insurance, but the circ isn't, there is 2 sets of paper work, so they don't see the cirumcision in the birth paperwork.

I am not denying that the circ rates are going down. But the 33% number is not quite realistic for the USA.

 

[vitaman]

This thread has less to do with the facts of circumcision and a more to do with hating Americans for any handy reason.

 

[maxcok]

The circ rates are under-reported now because mothers/babies are often discharged much sooner than before and the circumcision is done during a separate visit.

Or, when the birth is covered by insurance, but the circ isn't, there is 2 sets of paper work, so they don't see the cirumcision in the birth paperwork.

I am not denying that the circ rates are going down. But the 33% number is not quite realistic for the USA.

Please provide data or documentation to support your theories.

Once again, why is it so important for circumcision enthusiasts to deny that the rate has dropped dramatically in the past decade or so? Why do you even care? It's as if you find it threatening that the majority of parents have come to understand that circumcision is entirely unnecessary, if not harmful. Do you find that shift in awareness threatening, and if so, why? If you have some other reason for being so determined to discount the data by whatever uneducated theoretical argument you can dream up, feel free to enlighten us.

 

[B_tim001]

I dont get why so similar societies like europe and america, which is basically appendix of europe one people routinely circumcise and other are much against it... DOnt get it

 

[maxcok]

I dont get why so similar societies like europe and america, which is basically appendix of europe one people routinely circumcise and other are much against it... DOnt get it

Part of the reason is that the American healthcare system like America in general is entirely profit driven -- capitalism out of balance and run amuck. If the medical establishment can make a profit on circumcision, it's in their financial interest to convince parents it's normal and necessary to have their baby boys "snippered".

Add to that it became a badge of affluence and upward financial mobility, a status symbol, so important in American society. Eventually it was mostly only poor people who couldn't afford the procedure who left their children intact, hence being uncircumcised became 'abnormal' and a sign of shame.

Another big reason is America's puritanical and schizophrenic attitudes about sex. In the beginning, it was promoted as a way to discourage masturbation by removing the self-lubricating and only "moveable part" of the penis. Add to that our over-squeamishness about hygiene and normal body functions in general.

There are other reasons as well, but those are a few of the biggies.

 

[D_Ulmer Uncut]

Its still a legal and valid decision a parent can make for his/her/their son. So really, there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[TheIrishStallion]

I don't see why it's so hard to let the kid decide for himself. What parents don't understand is that the foreskin doesn't have a 100% chance of getting an infection. I lived for 18 years with a foreskin, perfectly fine. Of course, I chose to have mine done 'cause I like the look

Also the poster above me is a sick fuck, kekekeke

 

[maxcok]

I see you first deleted your post #51, Mediteraneanguy, where you quoted and addressed me directly, and then replaced it with new much more benign post, after IrishStallion had commented on it. Very unethical.
You barely made it under the wire before the edit window closed. I bet you were sweating bullets. Fortunately, I had already started to respond, so I have your original post preserved in the next two bolded quotes to follow. IrishStallion's comment makes much more sense now, doesn't it?

Hey moron, I provided it to you yesterday. That 33% figure your so infatuated with under reports circ rates.

You've provided no data that disputes that rate. Not even the CDC spokesperson disputes it, as I quoted from your linked article.

Get over it...you sick freak and don't worry about whether or not I circ my son...ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

I haven't said anything to you regarding your son. I didn't even know you had a son.

What I did ask, and what you notably did not answer is this:

I do not understand the anger that comes from circumcision proponents like you when someone dares to even question the sense of this practice, which clearly only persists because of tradition and cultural conditioning. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why you are so threatened by the prospect that circumcision rates have been dropping steadily in the US, and dramatically it appears in the past decade or two. Why do you even care if, as you maintain, it's a "choice"? It makes no sense whatsoever that you would be so angry about this trend and try to dispute it, with nothing but your own personal bias to "prove" otherwise.

Above all, I truly don't understand why a man who is uncircumcised as you claim to be, would be such an angry and provocative proponent of the practice. It causes me to seriously question if that's really true, or if it's just a deflective part of the persona you've created for this debate. What exactly is your stake in this anyway, and why are you so defensive, angry and insulting?

Seriously, most of your posts concern circumcision and foreskin issues, and quite a few are angry and insulting.

Such as:

....the anti-circ crow needs to STOP shoving their opinions down other people's throats.

I love how the anti-circ fanatics think that they are smarter than doctors, PhDs, and researchers who have more experience than they do. Its actually quite funny!

I don't know why the anti-circ WHACKOS feel the need to respond? He's asking for information from people who have had it done. I don't know why you nut jobs don't just MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. You don't have the right to tell parents not to circumcise their sons. If you don't want to have your sons(s) circumcised, good for you, don't shove your views down the throats of others.

Hey moron, I provided it to you yesterday. That 33% figure your so infatuated with under reports circ rates.

Get over it...you sick freak and don't worry about whether or not I circ my son...ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

Seriously dude, if you can't control your anger and refrain from being insulting, you need to stay away from these discussions.

Like I said:

If you can't handle having your views called into question and can't debate in a mature fashion, you need to either grow up or shut up.

 

[TheIrishStallion]

Guys I think we should start removing our kids' fingernails because fingernails are nasty and get dirt under them. It would be much cleaner.

Also, appendectomies should be mandatory because the appendix is useless.

Cool logic

edit: actually the appendectomy one doesn't make much sense. the foreskin actually has a function, my bad

 

[mandoman]

I don't see why it's so hard to let the kid decide for himself. What parents don't understand is that the foreskin doesn't have a 100% chance of getting an infection. I lived for 18 years with a foreskin, perfectly fine. Of course, I chose to have mine done 'cause I like the look

Also the poster above me is a sick fuck, kekekeke

Tbat's the best reason to have it done. None of the others have any validity, except things like frostbite.
Perfect. You had the option, and exercised it. I truly wish everyone had that opportunity.
As far as the legal option, we may get to see in San Francisco soon.

 

[maxcok]

A passing observation.... Mediteraneanguy7's account has been disabled. His new username is Ulmer Uncut.

Just in case anyone was confused by the quoting, posting, and general shenanigans.

As far as the legal option, we may get to see in San Francisco soon.

Are you in that area? Isn't there a similar move happening in Berkeley?

What do you think the prospects are either one could succeed?

 

[TheIrishStallion]

Tbat's the best reason to have it done. None of the others have any validity, except things like frostbite.
Perfect. You had the option, and exercised it. I truly wish everyone had that opportunity.
As far as the legal option, we may get to see in San Francisco soon.

Yeah i'm glad I had the choice. Because trust me, the research that shows things like reduced sensitivity, etc. are very true. About 50% of the sensitivity is gone now. Of course, I can restore plenty of this by applying vitamin e ointment to moisturize the head.

But during my time with the skin, never had a single infection. Because I bathe regularly, like normal people do. I mean really the only reason you should do it for hygiene is if you're too much of a slob to bathe. And there's a good alternative for preventing STD's. It's this incredibly complex plan that I thought of, called the "don't fucking sleep with people who have STD's" plan. It's a concept that's incredibly hard to grasp, so i'm writing a book with lots of pictures in it to help misinformed parents.

 

[B_circin867]

The Hispanic people have the highest rate of births in the USA. Mostly they don't circumcise as is their custom. That fact of statistics make the rate of new born males who are being circumcised seem to be going down. The rate, however, of circumcisions is going up among Caucasians, African-Americans, Orientals, Filipinos, Polynesians (which includes Hawaiians) and Muslim and Jewish males where the rate is 100%. Most of these circumcisions are now done as outpatients in the hospitals and in clinics and doctors offices. The rate of infants who are circumcised in the hospital after the mother gives birth is going down. Mothers usually leave the hospital the next day. Hence the infant's circumcision may take place just after birth which is the old tradition. But most parents wait and have the circumcision done in a week or two.

 

[D_DickBWreth]

I used to be embarrassed about being un-circumcized. But I respect my parents so much for going against the norm, not putting their children through a traumatic experience shortly after coming into the world, and giving me protection against jeans-rub.

 

[maxcok]

The Hispanic people have the highest rate of births in the USA. Mostly they don't circumcise as is their custom. That fact of statistics make the rate of new born males who are being circumcised seem to be going down. The rate, however, of circumcisions is going up among Caucasians, African-Americans, Orientals, Filipinos, Polynesians (which includes Hawaiians) and Muslim and Jewish males where the rate is 100%. Most of these circumcisions are now done as outpatients in the hospitals and in clinics and doctors offices. The rate of infants who are circumcised in the hospital after the mother gives birth is going down. Mothers usually leave the hospital the next day. Hence the infant's circumcision may take place just after birth which is the old tradition. But most parents wait and have the circumcision done in a week or two.

Please feel free to provide verifiable independent data to support your theories. As if it matters.

 

[mandoman]

The Hispanic people have the highest rate of births in the USA. Mostly they don't circumcise as is their custom. That fact of statistics make the rate of new born males who are being circumcised seem to be going down. The rate, however, of circumcisions is going up among Caucasians, African-Americans, Orientals, Filipinos, Polynesians (which includes Hawaiians) and Muslim and Jewish males where the rate is 100%. Most of these circumcisions are now done as outpatients in the hospitals and in clinics and doctors offices. The rate of infants who are circumcised in the hospital after the mother gives birth is going down. Mothers usually leave the hospital the next day. Hence the infant's circumcision may take place just after birth which is the old tradition. But most parents wait and have the circumcision done in a week or two.

You may like to think that, but Nevada has the lowest circumcision rate in the US.
Student
and it was only 22% Hispanic in 2005, the last year for which figures are available.
Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia