Circumcision

For Venus - from link posted above.

Myth 4:
Circumcision can reduce cervical cancer rates

Fact 4:
The above statement probably derived from an article in New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 that claimed that circumcision reduced the risk of causing cervical cancer. Despite the study being flawed and the conclusions exaggerated, many still cite it as "proof" that circumcision can reduce cervical cancer rates.

That fact is most medical institutions such as American Cancer Society, The Cancer Research UK, The American Academy of Pediatrics and Canadian Paediatric Society
do not link non-circumcision to cervical cancer.

Consider this fact: 91% of American men born in 1970 and 83% of American men born in 1980 were circumcised and U.S is considered to have very high rate of circumcision rate but strangely U.S is also reported as country with highest cervical cancer rates compared to countries with the lowest rates of circumcision like Holland, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Scandinavia, the U.S.S.R., China, and Japan. It is obvious that circumcision rates do not affect the cervical cancer rates across the globe.

Jane10, none of what I say is 'wishful thinking'. I source my information before I post it, including facts concerning the royal family.

Obviously, circumcision, for whatever reason is popular in the U.S.A. Thank you for your input, Luckygirl.

Can't understand why the fact that the Windsors who favour this procedure should support the argument. They never seem to have a very good grasp on reality.

It was just an observation, Whitewave, that is all. I don't think a grasp of reality comes into the mix. My point was that the highest in the land see nothing 'barbaric' about having it done.

(Incidentally no numbing injection is needed at eight days for an infant, but would be required if carried out later on in life. It is a very minor procedure. And I repeat, no harm comes to the baby.)

Regarding Cervical cancer and circumcision, I have just read that women who have had multi partners are better protected from cervical cancer if the man is circumsized. Monogamous woman do not get cervical cancer so readily from a circumsized partner. Figures were recorded to prove this.

Note Jane10, information that is not wishful thinking, but sourced!

I sense that this is more an emotive issue rather then being dealt with rationally, and I have no further comments to make on the subject as we seem to be going around and around. Let's agree to differ.

Venus there speaks a sensible woman

Yes we will obviously differ as we will absolutely always disagree -among other things about who we perceive to be the 'the highest in the land'- an archaic term to go along with an archaic practice!

Whatever, Jane10, whatever!

Some things are harder to agree to disagree than others though- and in this case, I just can't. But will agree that we are going in circles and nowhere (sadly for those poor kids).

Many OT laws were sensible for the time as there was not the benefit of running water, higher levels of hygeine etc. So circumcision may have been a better option 3-4000 years ago. Same with the list of prohibited foods..mostly stuff that would give you gastric illness if not totally fresh and kept well in the earmer climes of the Middle East. Now with fridges etc. the rules are outdated and not relevant for health reasons but for Muslims and Jews are deep in their shared culture.

I understand that Jewish women whose partners are likely to have been circumcised have a lower rate of cervical cancer than women whose partners are uncircumcised.

Has any group ever done a proper analysis of why these stats show what they do? Could there be social and religious attitudes within the Jewish community that makes their men or woman far less likely to have multiple sexual partners? That is a big risk factor in Cervical Cancer.

Have their been any studies on the incidence of cervical cancer in the partners of large populations of circumcised non Jewish men?
This group might be living in cultures where there are far less social controls on promiscuous sexual activity? That in itself would produce a higher risk factor which might not bare any relationhip to circumcision.

There are so many "variables" that need to be assessed in trying to find the actual causes of any scientific findings. Nothing like this is straight forward.

I am sure that there is a source for the information that many members of the Royal Family are 'Roundheads' (strange choice in the circumstances - surely there's no doubt about which part of Charles I was cut off), but I do wonder what on earth the source was.

Here is a whole website on the History of Circumcision

Given how painful and, sometimes, life-threatening, appendicitis can be, should all babies have their appendices removed shortly after birth? Btw It is quite minor procedure.

If chopping off little bits of boys' bodies is the best thing to do, then the loving god, who cared so much about his creation, got the design seriously wrong – don't you think?

Nelliemoser there was info on that research posted previously on this thread. Comparing rates of cervical cancer among women in countries with high levels of circumcision and those in countries with low levels of circumcision there was no difference. No point in circumcision in this day and age.

Exactly absent - silly god to put this pointless bit of skin there.

I agree with Teetime. Both my English husbands were circumcised in the Fifties and appeared to have suffered no ill effects. Hygiene is increased for both partners and (I understand) their sexual pleasure. While I realize there are many who do not want their boys circumcized, and that there can be complications, I wish they would not equate it with FGM which at its worst removes the clitoris, labia and stitches up the vagina. It is also usually done without anaesthetic by numpties when the girl is 6-8. It leaves those girls with no sexual pleasure and severe physical disabilities when it comes to sex and childbirth, and severe problems with menstrual blood.

I don't know if you watched the video that someone posted earlier on this or another thread but, whilst circumcision may not be as painful and life-changing for males as FGM is for females, it still appeared to be causing a great deal of pain to a tiny baby, and over a fairly prolonged period of time - it was absolutely horrific.

It is genital it is mutilation and there is no need to do it at all. The fact that it is worse for girls is indubitable but it is nevertheless desperately cruel for little baby boys. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Well said Jane.