Monday, November 06, 2006

Circumcision appears to reduce STD risk

Circumcision appears to reduce STD risk

4 comments:

Beanie's Appa said...

Would you cut off any other body part to reduce the chance of disease for that part? I hope your answer is "no".

Circumcision is no replacement for vaccines, safe sex, condoms.

Anonymous said...

This is interesting.
I find it odd that someone so anti-hospital, anti-formula, only wanting what is healthy and best for their child would try to justify cutting a third of their child's penis off because "It may lower STD's". If that makes you feel better, sure, go ahead and think that.
If circumcision really reduced STD's or HIV, then why do adult Americans, who are mostly circumcised, have a higher rate of STD's & HIV/AIDS than places like Europe or South America? It's interesting, because I think using comdoms and/or practicing abstinence would really reduce the risk of STD's, regardless of you circumcision status.
And about studies...I bet we could find plenty of studies that show how risky homebirth is over hospital birth, wouldn't you agree? Or would you agree those studies are a bit flawed and probably sponsored by doctors or hospitals?
There is always two sides of a story. But even if circumcision reduced STD's by 30%, it still doesn't justify cutting ALL little boys.
Your little boys have a zero precent chance of getting an STD since they are children and not sexually active. It's a shame you didn't leave the circumcision decision up to the owner of the penis. A real shame!

The Mommy Blawger said...

Gee, I merely posted a link. I didn't even comment!

Beanie's appa... There are women who test postitive for the BRAC gene mutation and have opted to have prophylactic mastectomies. I wouldn't choose it for myself, but as the daughter of a breast cancer survivor I can't say that the answer is "no" for everyone.

Vaccines, safe sex, and condoms are really working in Africa, aren't they?

Anonymous... First, I am not anti-hospital or anti-formula, though I see that I may come off that way. I *am* for informed choice; individuals knowing the benefits & risks of any decision, weighing them, and then making the decision that is right for themselves and their family. I do get irritated when I hear anti-circ folks state that there are *no* benefits to circumcision. That is not true. The risks may far outweigh the benefits, in your estimation. But let's deal with facts and evidence, not emotion.

There are risks to homebirth just as there are risks to hospital birth. Sometimes epidurals make labor go faster, and sometimes formula feeding is the best choice for a particular mother and baby. Life is not without risk. We choose the set of risks that we can live with and, hopefully, after understanding all the relevant information.

"Your little boys have a zero precent chance of getting an STD since they are children and not sexually active."

Not true... just ask my grandmother who was a CPS supervisor and saw babies with STDs... of course, I am not going to circumcise my boys just because they might be a victim of sexual abuse, but a child's chance of getting an STD is "nearly" zero, not actually zero.

As a parent, I make decisions all the time on behalf of my children that affect their lives profoundly. It is a weighty responsibility, to be sure. But that is my job as a parent.

paperback said...

people are definitely passionate about circumcision. it's a hot topic in this country, likely because it's on the wane but it's still a practice of the majority.
i know this is an old post, but if you're still interested in the discussion, OpposingViews.com is having a debate right now about whether or not boys should be circumcised. check it out if you'd like.