|
tazzygirl -> RE: Believer(s) of god are plague to this world. (10/17/2009 9:08:41 AM)
|
quote:
No, I am not joking. Any population in which the penis of their males is circumcised - including Muslims and USA Christians - by my definition is on the Jewish physiological and cultural evolutionary track, eventually - after a number of generations - resulting in increased frequency of homosexuality (I expect; research is required), increased frequency of congenital diseases (and ugliness; it is a package deal), polygamy (and rapists; another package deal), crime and hence the sharia (including the stoning, drowning and throat cutting and 'honour' murders of females), and in martyrdom
So, you are saying if a male is circumcised then he is 1) a product of a Jewish faith. and 2) will soon follow the tracks of rapists, polygamy, criminals and martyrs.
Got figures to back all that up? Any research? Any idea of how many men who commit murders, rapes, ect, are in fact circumcised? Any figures on how many who commit these crimes are not?
I do believe the pediatric association for many, many years have encouraged circumsicion for male infants as a way to prevent problems later in life, having nothing to do with faith or religion.
quote:
Non-religious circumcision in the English-speaking world
Infant circumcision was taken up in the United States, Australia and the English-speaking parts of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom. There are several hypotheses to explain why infant circumcision was accepted in the United States about the year 1900. The germ theory of disease elicited an image of the human body as a conveyance for many dangerous germs, making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function, and from this premise circumcision was seen as preventative medicine to be practiced universally.[20] In the view of many practitioners at the time, circumcision was a method of treating and preventing masturbation.[20] Aggleton wrote that John Harvey Kellogg viewed male circumcision in this way, and further "advocated an unashamedly punitive approach."[21] Circumcision was also said to protect against syphilis,[22] phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, and "excessive venery" (which was believed to produce paralysis).[20] Gollaher states that physicians advocating circumcision in the late nineteenth century expected public scepticism, and refined their arguments to overcome it.[20]
Although it is difficult to determine historical circumcision rates, one estimate of infant circumcision rates in the United States holds that 32% of newborn American boys were being circumcised in 1933.[23] Laumann et al. reported that the prevalence of circumcision among US-born males was approximately 70%, 80%, 85%, and 77% for those born in 1945, 1955, 1965, and 1971 respectively.[23] Xu et al. reported that the prevalence of circumcision among US-born males was 91% for males born in the 1970s and 84% for those born in the 1980s.[24] Between 1981 and 1999, National Hospital Discharge Survey data from the National Center for Health Statistics demonstrated that the infant circumcision rate remained relatively stable within the 60% range, with a minimum of 60.7% in 1988 and a maximum of 67.8% in 1995.[25] A 1987 study found that the most prominent reasons US parents choose circumcision were "concerns about the attitudes of peers and their sons' self concept in the future," rather than medical concerns.[26] However, a later study speculated that an increased recognition of the potential benefits of neonatal circumcision may have been responsible for the observed increase in the US rate between 1988 and 2000.[27] A report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality placed the 2005 national circumcision rate at 56%.[28]
In 1949, the United Kingdom's newly-formed National Health Service removed infant circumcision from its list of covered services, and circumcision has since been an out-of-pocket cost to parents. As a result, prevalence in the UK is age-graded, with 12% of those aged 16–19 years circumcised and 20% of those aged 40–44 years,[29] and the proportion of newborns circumcised in England and Wales has fallen to less than one percent.
The circumcision rate has declined sharply in Australia since the 1970s, leading to an age-graded fall in prevalence, with a 2000-01 survey finding 32% of those aged 16–19 years circumcised, 50% for 20–29 years and 64% for those aged 30–39 years.[30][31]
In Canada, Ontario health services delisted circumcision in 1994.[32]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcise
|
|
|
|
