Why do people STILL do this to their babies?

Question

Did you know that deaths from MRSA outnumber deaths from AIDS (HIV)?

And you can prevent yourself from getting HIV by use of condoms and being careful who you sleep with.

But people still get their babies circumcised because they believe it makes them slightly less likely to contract HIV, even though many get MRSA from their circumcision wounds and die that way.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/10/prweb564917.htm

Answer 1

This is still done because of ignorance and superstition, but as more and more parents, and doctors, become educated the rate of male genital mutilation is falling.

to isr... :The article says that a circumcised male is TWELVE TIMES more likely to contract MRSA then a boy that is left complete!

Even if you don't do the math, taking this risk is stupid and appalling.

The death figure also doesn't take into account the number of victims of the infection that suffer severe damage from the high risk antibiotics that must be used to combat the infection. These are used only for the very stubborn infections as a last resort and can cause organ damage resulting in life long complications.

Many cases of "super bug" require tissue amputation; if the infection starts out in the "circumcision" wound guess what is going to be amputated. Will that make your son "look more human"? What a stupid twit!

The rest of the world doesn't mutilate their boys and they have a better health record than the US. They have lower HIV rates, they have lower STD rates, they have lower rates of cervical and penal cancer; they don't "circumcise" their male babies and they also have a lower infant death rate, coincidence?

If anybody should lose custody, it should be the mindless twits that subject babies to unneeded cosmetic surgery.

Answer 2

There is no good reason. It's the result of over a hundred years of propaganda that this is a good thing to do but every medical authority now admits that the risks outweigh any possible benefits. For example the baby has a higher chance of dying from the circumcision itself than from penile cancer.
Circumcision removes over half the skin of the penis (about 15 square inches or 40 square centimetres, in an adult) and it's not just simple skin. It's packed with nerve endings, special anatomical features like the ridged band and has a unique elastic gliding action, allowing it to slide on itself and act like lube. This action is what most males use to masturbate with except those who are cut so tightly that they have to use lube or just rub it dry. Of course the intact male has the option to use lube too if he wants to. During intercourse it acts like lube on entry and may act as a dam, preventing lubricating secretions escaping from the vagina. In one study women reported that sex with an intact partner was gentler and more satisfying since he doesn't have to thrust as hard to feel enough stimulation. Removing the foreskin turns the surface of the glans from an inner mucosal membrane to outside skin. Newly circumcised adults usually go through some weeks of intense discomfort as the glans is constantly exposed to rubbing on clothing, until it develops a thicker keratin layer and becomes less sensitive. A new study has shown real differences in fine touch sensitivity between circumcised and intact penises and that the most sensitive parts of the intact penis are those that would be removed by circumcision.
A few intact males have problems with tight foreskin but this is only a tiny proportion of intact males. The condition can now be almost always treated with simple stretching exercises, sometimes in combination with a steroid cream that speeds up the process. However doctors who do not value the preservation of the foreskin often still trot out circumcision as a first-option treatment in the US and even some other countries.

Answer 3

I truly hope alexeverwander was just writing the crap that she wrote for shock value and she isn't really serious. Circumcision makes men look human? Seriously?

Anyway, circumcision is carried out because of fear-mongering and ignorance. Plain and simple. Plus, the bruised egos of circumcised men perpetuate the practice. They stomp and cry that their sons must "look like them" . Which makes no sense because even if you do circumcise the baby's penis, it's still not going to look anything like the father's. Baby penises and adult penises are different, period.

As for the MRSA infections you cited, that is very scary. But people who are eager to slice into their son's penises won't care. They're not concerned with reason. Just with conformity and sheep mentality.

Answer 4

It's mostly ignorance and inertia. Ill-informed parents have their son cut in 1950 because it's fashionable and "modern." He has his son cut in 1978 because he thinks it's just what everybody does and he wouldn't want his son not to be the same as everyone else. And the third generation gets cut in 2007 because "he should look like Daddy" and Daddy thinks it's just the way men are -- they have a birth defect called foreskin that has to be corrected.

The only way to break the cycle is through geting the information out there that circumcision is unnecessary, dangerous, painful, disfiguring, and not something loving parents do to their babies.

Answer 5

Circumcision makes them look more human. And it reduces the risk of thousands of other diseases, including cancer.Not to mention improving their hygiene and protecting future partners. People who don't get their sons circumcised should lose custody to someone who will step up and do what's best for the child.

Answer 6

first of all yahoo answers is a place to get ANSWERS. its not just another place to put your opinions.

and second of all-the article says that 32 out of 100000 kids gets mrsa but it doesnt say how many of those are UNcircumsised kids....`
plus jews ROCK!