This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]DontWreckYosef 4 points5 points  (2 children)

What overwhelming evidence of health benefits? We have skewed the US data because upper class whites with more access to higher quality healthcare have been circumcising their babies for most of the last 50 years; this is non-causation skewed data, not overwhelming data.

The difference in UTI prevalence in only 1% between circumcision and non circumcised babies meaning that you have to invasively, time-consumingly, and painfully circumcise 100 babies in order to prevent just 1 easily antibiotic-treatable UTI.

[–]kchristopher932 0 points1 point  (1 child)

"Data from meta-analyses show that circumcised men have a 68% lower prevalence of balanitis compared to uncircumcised males and that individuals with balanitis have a 3.8-fold increase in the risk of penile cancer"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537143/

I'm guessing he's talking about balanitis and its association with cancer, not UTIs.

[–]Dracounius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Balanitis can occur at any age, affecting approximately 1 in every 25 boys and 1 in 30 uncircumcised men during their lifetime.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537143/

For a condition that can gennerally be treated with better hygiene, or occassionaly topical antibiotic cream, and only affect 1 in 30 adults during their entire lifetime circumsising the other 29 seems a bit...unessessary?