only that some parents do not want it for their children
but medicine says their in a net gain.

The problem with this is that it doesn't hold up in the West. Particularly when it comes to the spread of STDs or penile infections, we are talking about benefits which are clear in places like sub-Saharan Africa where personal hygiene is not of the standard that we are used to and where condom use is not widespread, whether for cultural or financial reasons.

No, not really.

Vaccines are all recommended to be used on the population at large because otherwise you lose herd immunity.

Here, it is very clearly being stated that the medical benefits are not substantive enough to recommend routine circumcision.

So not at all the same thing.

So, if the benefits in Africa are say, 98%
and the benefits in the west are 10%, in slowing down STDs.

I've written in here before that no two things are ever the same.
Is their any similarity? Even to a lesser degree? I think so.

I don't have a problem with schools requiring vaccinations before enrollment

I do not believe circumcision should be mandatory or banned. If i had a kid I probably would want to have it done. I also would give my kids the HPV vaccines. I don't think we will even make those mandatory, perhaps we should.

I suppose to the first part. Only problem is most of the parents who don't want to give their kids vaccines are completely uneducated about them apart from hearing Jenny McCarthy site a completely debunked, bushleague 'study' that was full of flaws (The glaring one being a sample size of about a dozen children). It's really a shame the damage done by that is still making its rounds. I wonder how many kids have gotten seriously ill, maimed, or have died as a result of it

I would agree that it's not like vaccinations in a number of ways.

First of all the "costs" of going uncircumsized are much less than those of going unvaccinated, both to the individual and to others.

Second, vaccination isn't weighted with all the religious/sexual baggage that circumcision clearly is.

That said, I've always found the virulent opposition to circumcision a little suspect. I feel convinced that it is rooted primarily in the aforementioned baggage, and because of the unreasonable emotion tied to it, there seems to be a real lashing out at any suggestion that circumcision might not be the worst thing in the world--might even have some benefits for some people.

There are no organizations devoted to stopping the piercing of baby girls' ears even though this too is essentially a non-essential cosmetic change.

I'm curious is to what might be the "real" motives of the American Pediatric Society in coming out with this recent stance. Since it's clearly based on limited studies in Africa what is their "real" goal? Perhaps the organization is dominated by Jewish religious zealots?

I get what you're saying and that thought has definitely crossed my mind, but the big difference is that piercing is relatively minor, reversible, and making a hole is much different than excising an entire part of the anatomy

It's a pretty small part though. . .

My argument is that the true big difference is there is no religious/sexual baggage attached to ear piercing.

It's actually pretty large (15 square inches) and contains the highest concentration of nerve endings in the penis.

I'm sure if parents started piercing their daughters' vaginas, it would be a much different story

Indeed.

The experience of most circumsized males as hardly a life marred by trauma.

At least none that I've noticed personally.

If sex would be so much better "intact" I honestly cannot imagine what I"m missing.

TMI?

Sean that's how it is around here. Like I said earlier I'd be surprised to find an UNcircumcized male that was born and raised in the west Michigan Dutch/CRC community. I've asked a few of these guys about circumcision and *none* have ever told me they wished it hadn't been done, in fact their responses ranged from not really caring to it being preferable. I don't know anyone that has complications from a botched job. Around here it's done at birth and that's the norm, even for those that are the first generation removed from Europe. I'm not defending or condoning it, just saying. Since I'm not a guy I can't presume to know what they're missing out on being circumcised...

As a woman, I have noticed a difference in tactile responsiveness between circumcised and uncircumcised men, FWIW.

I think that the current rates (2012) in the US are down to about 50%, and anecdotally, a friend of mine who is an ob/gyn nurse says that there is a huge difference between the number performed now as compared to 10 years ago when she graduated so she sees it as a definite trend reversal. Keep in mind that there will be regional differences as well.

Hmmm, was that post a thread killer? :wink:

for it to be a valid study
there would have to be a large, diversified sampling group

This has been my experience as well.

The reasoning behind circumcision preventing STDs is because it removes a part of the body that's more likely to get small tears through which things like HIV can pass into the blood stream. Does not seem like valid reasoning to me considering the existence of condoms. If you're counting on cutting off a part of your body to lower your risk of HIV I think you're putting your eggs in the wrong basket.

Like neutering dogs to avoid testicular cancer or spaying female dogs to avoid pyo...

No, I don't think the prevention/cleanliness arguments hold up here in the west.

So the motivation of the AMERICAN Pediatric Society was. . . .?

I read an article on this a couple of days back

and came to the conclusion there is a small net gain and no real negatives.