Circumcision and trans puberty blockers in children

Parents are supposed to clean their children until their children can clean themselves. Besides, male circumcision wasn't indended to promote hygiene, it was intended to prevent masturbation. In any event, data shows no real correlation between circumcision and either a reduction in infection or a reduction in masturbation (except in cases where its done improperly and causes erectile dysfunction). Its almost entirely cosmetic at this point, aside from the afforementioned risk of ED.

 

I alluded to the American Academy of Pediatrics and their recommendation (benefits of circumcision outweigh risks) is central to the paper cited. This paper points to health and hygiene as primary motivators for choosing circumcision in the group, rather than religion or aesthetics ("being like dad" could be aesthetic or it could be just that a circumcised father wouldn't know how to help an uncircumcised son be clean). About the hygiene, certainly some of the benefits are related to that, but it simply won't happen. Relying on encouraging hygiene is like relying on abstinence-only sex education. It's not that it's false, it's just not effective policy for promoting better outcomes.

 

It fits the definition of a mutilation however

I don’t believe removing a highly sensitive and useful portion of a baby’s anatomy because someone doesn’t want to teach them how to be hygienic is a particularly good reason — especially with the complications, though rare, that come with circumcision.

 

What's useful about it in the modern context?

I wanted to show actual numbers for benefits. Actually the cdc has the numbers:

"
Health benefits: Male circumcision can reduce a male’s chances of acquiring HIV by 50% to 60% during heterosexual contact with female partners with HIV, according to data from three clinical trials. Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent).

While male circumcision has not been shown to reduce the chances of HIV transmission to female partners, it does reduce the chance that a female partner will acquire a new syphilis infection by 59%. In observational studies, circumcision has been shown to lower the risk of penile cancer, cervical cancer in female sexual partners, and infant urinary tract infections in male infants.

Health risks: The overall risk of adverse events associated with male circumcision is low, with minor bleeding and inflammation cited as the most common complications. A CDC analysis found that the rate of adverse events for medically attended male circumcision is 0.4% for infants under 1 year, about 9% for children ages 1 to 9 years, and about 5% for males 10 years and older. More severe complications can occur but are exceedingly rare. Adult men who undergo circumcision generally report minimal or no change in sexual satisfaction or function.

Stage of life: Circumcision is simpler, safer, and less expensive for newborns and infants than for adult males. Delaying circumcision until adolescence or adulthood enables the male to participate in – or make – the decision, but could diminish the potential benefits related to sexual health and increases the risks."

https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html

 

Thank you. I agree with this 100%.

 

democrats constantly talk about Science. Well Science and Nature go hand on hand, for many things. What about accepting a person the way they are?
What about a child's natural body chemistry? Why would anyone want to change that? especially from a logic, nature, scientific, and morale stand point of view.

 

Nature doesn’t always do things correctly. Should a child accept a like of teasing and misery if nature stuffs up?