Contraceptions not always used and because one is better than the other doesnt always make the other reduntant. Things can be used in conjuction together for a better plan of attack. If the child was missing out on something you would have a case.
Contraceptions been around for donkeys of years, yet problems still excist.
.
If its done properly under proffessional medical care there is no risk to very little risk. If driven undrground and conducted by cowboys or just done by cowboys yes there is a risk.
You aren't going to like this but here we go.
With regards to complications following surgery, there is around a 1-3% incidence of complications following circumcision. There a 0.5% infection rate occasionally leading to sepsis or blood poisoning, 1% haemorrhage rate, issues with adhesion between the head of the penis and the remaining skin and a large number of repeat visits due to displeasure from a cosmetic perspective. It has been found that in modern facilities that there is a return/revisiting of the surgery in 22% of all cases. Now this is in 1st world surgeries where there is the technology and cleanliness to take care of the infant.
In 3rd world countries such as Africa this number raises significantly from 1-3% to 20.2% and includes botched jobs resulting in excessive bleeding, infections, long term pain and insufficient removal of foreskin require revisiting of the surgery. There are even recorded cases of having the glans inadvertently removed!
To Quote:
Neonatal circmcision is totally unnecessary, and there is no current role for preventative or prophylactic neonatal circumcision.
Unfortunately, 70-80% of neonatal circumcisions are performed by obstetricians, who can neither manage their complications (2-5% incidence) nor obtain proper informed consent (defined as outlining risks and benefits of a procedure, as well as alternatives-including nothing) for neonatal circumcision. Currently, the American College of OB-GYN (ACOG) have no paramenters for training (learning and performing neonatal circumcision, managing complications)of residents, who then go out and continue this practice.
In my practice, as a pediatric urologist, I manage the complications of neonatal circumcision. For example, in a two year period, I was referred 275 newborns and toddlers with complications of neonatal circumcision. None of these were 'revisions' because of appearance, which I do not do. 45% required corrective surgery (minor as well as major, especially for amputative injury), whereupon some could be treated locally without surgery.
Complications of this unnecessary procedure are often not reported, but of 300 pediatric urologists in this country who have practices similar to mine...well, one can do the math, to understand the scope of this problem...let alone, to understand the adverse cost-benefit aspect of complications (>$750,000) in this unfortunate group of infants and young children. Fortunately, neonatal circumcision is on the decline as parents become educated...but the complications still continue.
Until the time that the USA falls in step with the rest of the planet who does not submit newborns to neonatal circumcision, ACOG should assure that the training of obstetricians to perform this procedure is adequate, particularly in avoiding and managing complications of a procedure that is unnecessary, and that obstetricians learn to obtain proper informed consent from parents who have no idea of the problems that can ensue.
M.David Gibbons, MD
Associate Professor, Pediatric Urology, Georgetown University School of Medicine and George Washington School of Medicine. Attending Pediatric Urologist, Childrens National Medical Center, Washington, DC. Director, Pediatric Urology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC. Head, Pediatric Urology, Inova Fairfax Hospital For Children, Falls Church, Virginia.
I'm sorry but faced with a 1-3 in 100 chance of putting my child through pain and distress, repeated surgery and the off chance that they might cut his todger off!!! Sod that for a laugh. The more I research this, the more disturbing the whole thing becomes. The risks FAR FAR outweigh any advantages. The more I understand and the more educated I get on this subject the less I accept that there is ANY basis for this procedure.
Here is something that I had to chuckle at, despite it being a rather sad outcome of circumcision. Apparently there are incidences of 'hairy shaft' where the childs growth has resulted in the pubic hair being pulled along the shaft of the penis causing painful intercourse.
So we have as a direct result of circumcision (an entirely un-needed procedure)
Aesthetic Damage
Penile Adhesion
Phimosis
Hairy Shaft
Wound Dehiscence
De-Gloving (yes it is as awful as it sounds)
Haemorrhages
Meatal Stenosis or Ulcers
Urethrocuteneous Fistula
Ongoing Infection leading to blood poisoning
Scalded Skin Syndrome
Bladder Infections
Neuroma
Urethra Blockage
Buried Penis Syndrome
Penioscrotal Webbing
Deformity
Necrotising Faciitis
Priapism
Gastric Rupture
Plastibell Ring Injury
LOSS OF THE GLANS!!!
Worse - Loss of the penis
Brain Damage and Clamp injuries, Coma and finally Death.
In Africa during the period of 2001-2005 from 1748 admissions there were 107 mutilations and 177 deaths. Sorry dude but there is no arguing back from this one.
Please feel free to read up on the anecdotal evidence:
http://www.circumstitions.com/news/news-cont.html
People always have choice, they have choice in science but choose to abuse it? Whats wrong with wigs or curly sideburns
just becuase it isnt with modern fashion sense doesnt make it wrong.
The burka isnt a "must" its out of choice, if women choose to wear said garment who are we to decriminate? Im aware it is also enforced by men on many occassions but thats just an instance where people are abusing religion, as pointed out people abuse science.
Theres nothing wrong with the above is it is done by choice, problem is when its enforced by bad people. Sorry dont know where i have missed you question? You were saying why the need for all the fire and brimstone, and i said why do we need prisons?
The issue is that so often it is not a choice, it is an expectation and if the woman 'chooses' to not then they are osctricised. Nothing is 'wrong' with curly sideburns but it is a requirement for the religion. Why? How does that make you more or less holy? If we have prison then why do we need hell?
If i didnt cover the choice bit properly and the option to exclude bad things from religions. Its again a matter of opinion, what you find bad others do not. Religion if you actually believe in it, is the commandments of god, who are we as mere mortals to decide what we wish to follow of what god says? i dont also see it as bad, as the saying goes "too much choice is a bad thing". We dont choose to do many things, especially in life.
In the absence of god in my life, I am still a good person, I still treat others well and help people in need. I choose to do these things because it is good not because I live in fear of going to hell and there is no ritual that makes me feel more or less worthy of doing these good things.
One thing that i just happened to realise, incidentally whilst using the toilet
was how offensive it must be to non-circumcised people when we are saying its done for hygienic reasons implying you are unhygienic ! ive just become aware to that fact and can now understand this is a major point in why you guys are so against it, if you werent you would be implying you were dirty. So apologies from me if this has caused offence and rightly so, it was not intended that way!
None taken. A dirty person is dirty because they don't clean. If you clean every day then it's a moot issue. But it's not a major point.
Again just shows your ignorance.
