I was looking for another article and came across this old one and had to comment. I could not believe this biased poll of "should genital mutilation be forced on half the population" or "should parents be allowed to decide to mutilate the genitals of their child who cannot consent"? Searching circumcision on Global News it is disturbing that a Canadian media company has such a bias for male genital mutilation.
Children don't get STIs, teenagers or adults do. It is not necessary for babies.
A girl is 8 times for likely to get a UTI then boys. UTIs are cured with antibiotics.
A female's risk of breast cancer is significantly higher than a male's risk of penile cancer. Is this author going to recommend amputating the breast buds of girls?
European men are nearly all intact with no greater rate of UTIs, STIs, or penile cancer.
Cultures that perform FGM do MGM mutilation for the exact same reasons.
To prophylactically advocate for amputating the most sensitive part of a person's body with over 20,000 nerve endings violates the hypocratic oath, the UN Human Rights and Rights of the Child, and the Nuremberg Code.
Dirk - 3 years ago
This is a pro circumcison debate, which use fully outdated studies not covering the latest research, full of non proof statistic. Do better research on the internet than believing such a pro circumcision non objective page!
Zack - 8 years ago
I didnt vote because their was no option for: No. I dont agree with unnecessary cosmetic procedures. I dont believe myth, bias and propaganda. His body, his choice.
Stu - 9 years ago
So amputating part of your body leads to a lower risk of cancer in that part of your body, as is shown here with foreskin or hell, the bottom ear flap or breasts too. Shaving all kids' heads would solve lice as well. Some studies show slightly reduced risks of STI spread for circumcized individuals while others show notably higher chances of erectile dysfunction and nerve damage. In foreskin obsessed USA, they regularly recommend circumcision. In Europe, they don't. Penile infection goes beside non-issues like scurvy. If you want your boy to be circumcized, then at least wait until they're old enough to answer if they too want part of their body amputated. You have to know it's their deserved right to choose, not you or anyone else. Will they have spread STIs at age 10? Don't force the choice out of it.
Jason - 10 years ago
Because the human male foreskin is important in proper penile development throughout childhood and very functional in adulthood, it is unethical to remove it from a minor without a diagnosis of a present, serious medical condition.
Europe and South America do not have higher prostate cancer rates than the United States. They do not have a large circumcised male population and we do. Their penile health overall is better than ours. Circumcision confers no health benefits. It only detracts.
Richard - 10 years ago
What kind of options are these? Pure propaganda. There isn't even a "Should circumcision be banned?" option.
Don MacAlpine - 10 years ago
OK. So, I know science is a norm. How much of this is really related to other factors, like diet and obesity? I am not circumcised. I am 62, and currently no prostrate problems. I watch my diet (now closer to the eastern vegetarian style). My father turns 97 in two months. No cancer, but a hard working farmer who burned calories working hard every day. The cultures pointed to as taking 'circumcision' as 'normal' practice also tend to be more kosher or even more vegetable eating than the high fat North American diet. A major problem with foreskins, as my father was wise to teach all 5 sons, was daily hygiene. What factor does this play in 'studies' like this? Too many variables NOT ANALYZED leads to 'the science' being suspect. This is where journalistic integrity becomes important or we get the same thing we did for other things... warped 'science'.
Juan - 10 years ago
It's not for the parents to decide. I did not consent and I'm missing a chunk of mine. I protest.
Kelly C. - 10 years ago
It's not the parents' decision. It's the person who owns the body part's decision. Unless something is wrong with the part, no decisions need to be made by the parents. HIS body, HIS choice, HIS right.
Intact genitals are a human right.
Scott - 10 years ago
It is important that parents make informed decisions about things that affect the long term health of their children. In this case the research strongly points towards benefits of this procedure. Many who choose to claim it violates rights may also have to explain to their child at a later date why as their parents they did not take steps to reduce the possibility of disease. This is especially true if the child were to contract an sti or develop cancer. This is not new research and the has never been any reason to deny its truth.
Tim - 10 years ago
Genital mutilation, for men or women, should never be coerced. I can only be a person choice made as an adult.
Alex - 10 years ago
Being circumcised should only be decided by the MAN who owns the foreskin. It is a pure violation of a BOY'S basic human rights for anyone to have him circumcised, and it should be a criminal act to do it! Since the MAN can't consent yet! Maybe this flawed research has been on men who simply don't clean their foreskins properly! Simple as that! Since breast cancer is virtually the highest cause of death for women, maybe girls should have their breasts removed as teens! Bet that will touch a nerve! Leave out dicks alone!
Jaelyn - 10 years ago
Forced genital cutting is a human rights violation. It should ONLY be the choice for a MAN to decide for himself. www.circumcisionharm.org
This information is outdated!
I was looking for another article and came across this old one and had to comment. I could not believe this biased poll of "should genital mutilation be forced on half the population" or "should parents be allowed to decide to mutilate the genitals of their child who cannot consent"? Searching circumcision on Global News it is disturbing that a Canadian media company has such a bias for male genital mutilation.
Children don't get STIs, teenagers or adults do. It is not necessary for babies.
A girl is 8 times for likely to get a UTI then boys. UTIs are cured with antibiotics.
A female's risk of breast cancer is significantly higher than a male's risk of penile cancer. Is this author going to recommend amputating the breast buds of girls?
European men are nearly all intact with no greater rate of UTIs, STIs, or penile cancer.
Cultures that perform FGM do MGM mutilation for the exact same reasons.
To prophylactically advocate for amputating the most sensitive part of a person's body with over 20,000 nerve endings violates the hypocratic oath, the UN Human Rights and Rights of the Child, and the Nuremberg Code.
This is a pro circumcison debate, which use fully outdated studies not covering the latest research, full of non proof statistic. Do better research on the internet than believing such a pro circumcision non objective page!
I didnt vote because their was no option for: No. I dont agree with unnecessary cosmetic procedures. I dont believe myth, bias and propaganda. His body, his choice.
So amputating part of your body leads to a lower risk of cancer in that part of your body, as is shown here with foreskin or hell, the bottom ear flap or breasts too. Shaving all kids' heads would solve lice as well. Some studies show slightly reduced risks of STI spread for circumcized individuals while others show notably higher chances of erectile dysfunction and nerve damage. In foreskin obsessed USA, they regularly recommend circumcision. In Europe, they don't. Penile infection goes beside non-issues like scurvy. If you want your boy to be circumcized, then at least wait until they're old enough to answer if they too want part of their body amputated. You have to know it's their deserved right to choose, not you or anyone else. Will they have spread STIs at age 10? Don't force the choice out of it.
Because the human male foreskin is important in proper penile development throughout childhood and very functional in adulthood, it is unethical to remove it from a minor without a diagnosis of a present, serious medical condition.
Europe and South America do not have higher prostate cancer rates than the United States. They do not have a large circumcised male population and we do. Their penile health overall is better than ours. Circumcision confers no health benefits. It only detracts.
What kind of options are these? Pure propaganda. There isn't even a "Should circumcision be banned?" option.
OK. So, I know science is a norm. How much of this is really related to other factors, like diet and obesity? I am not circumcised. I am 62, and currently no prostrate problems. I watch my diet (now closer to the eastern vegetarian style). My father turns 97 in two months. No cancer, but a hard working farmer who burned calories working hard every day. The cultures pointed to as taking 'circumcision' as 'normal' practice also tend to be more kosher or even more vegetable eating than the high fat North American diet. A major problem with foreskins, as my father was wise to teach all 5 sons, was daily hygiene. What factor does this play in 'studies' like this? Too many variables NOT ANALYZED leads to 'the science' being suspect. This is where journalistic integrity becomes important or we get the same thing we did for other things... warped 'science'.
It's not for the parents to decide. I did not consent and I'm missing a chunk of mine. I protest.
It's not the parents' decision. It's the person who owns the body part's decision. Unless something is wrong with the part, no decisions need to be made by the parents. HIS body, HIS choice, HIS right.
Intact genitals are a human right.
It is important that parents make informed decisions about things that affect the long term health of their children. In this case the research strongly points towards benefits of this procedure. Many who choose to claim it violates rights may also have to explain to their child at a later date why as their parents they did not take steps to reduce the possibility of disease. This is especially true if the child were to contract an sti or develop cancer. This is not new research and the has never been any reason to deny its truth.
Genital mutilation, for men or women, should never be coerced. I can only be a person choice made as an adult.
Being circumcised should only be decided by the MAN who owns the foreskin. It is a pure violation of a BOY'S basic human rights for anyone to have him circumcised, and it should be a criminal act to do it! Since the MAN can't consent yet! Maybe this flawed research has been on men who simply don't clean their foreskins properly! Simple as that! Since breast cancer is virtually the highest cause of death for women, maybe girls should have their breasts removed as teens! Bet that will touch a nerve! Leave out dicks alone!
Forced genital cutting is a human rights violation. It should ONLY be the choice for a MAN to decide for himself. www.circumcisionharm.org