Featured Sections
 Home
 What's New
 Beginners' Tour
 True Stories
 The Male Body

Male Health: Circumcision Articles
 Penis Sensitivity Test
 The Medical Basis
 History in USA
 Jews
 Horror
 Small Penis
 Cancer
 Protect Your Son
 Foreskin Restoration
 Digital Fiction: Unguiscision



Advertise on
fathermag.com






FatherMag eMail


Topic Indexes
 The Joy of Fathering
 Importance of Fathers
 Fathers & Sons
 Fathers & Daughters
 Custody & Divorce
 Child Support
 Single Fathers


 Fathering News
 Fathering Forum
 Fathering Poetry
 Fathering Fiction


Advertise on
fathermag.com



Except where otherwise indicated, the contents of this page are copyright
© 1995 - 2005 Fathering Enterprises.
All rights reserved.


Legal
disclaimer

picture
Log in

Log in is not necessary, everyone can post in this forum.


Re: Boy's Death Highlights New Dangers of Neonatal Circumcision


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post a Followup ] [ FatherMag Forum ]

Posted by Jake

In Reply to: Re: Boy's Death Highlights New Dangers of Neonatal Circumcision posted by Texas Dad w/ 3sons

> "Jake, what motivates you to say something like this?"

I'm quite familiar with the anti-circ tactic of suddenly creating a "danger" of circumcision out of nowhere, often by exploiting media attention to a tragedy.

> "You seem to want to "talk down" the risk by quoting old data"

You seem to imply that the "old" data is somehow contradicted by the "new" data. It isn't.

> "but you are misleading parents as to the risks they face when opting for surgery that the medical establishment doesn't even recommend."

No, there's no misleading, unless you're suggesting that these figures are invalid?

And I'd note that the medical establishment (the AAP) don't recommend for or against.

> "The whole point of this article is that today the practice of neonatal circumcision involves new risks parents did not face in earlier times."

More precisely, the point of this article was to speculate in that regard.

> "Because such diapers didn't exist until recently, this is a NEW hazard that many parents may not be aware of."

Yes, and they should be certainly be aware of such things.

> "Even the old figures misrepresented the hazard."

You don't justify this, but go on to say, in an apparently disconnected comment:

> "The risk of disease late in life (which circumcision was supposed to reduce) has to be discounted by the portion of life expectancy already attained against the far costlier risk of harming someone early in their life."

Certainly, one has to consider and weigh up the risks. I don't personally agree that risk to a younger person is inherently "costlier", but that's a matter of values - there's little point in arguing the point.

> "the new risks that infants face merit very serious consideration."

Certainly, all risks should be considered, I agree.


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Your Name and/or Location:

Subject:

Comments:

Enter this code number:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FatherMag Forum ]


fathermag.com
The on-line magazine for men with families.



Legal Disclaimer

Powered by
BindNine.net

\n $srvcstring\n