Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

circumsized & breast removal

I was in the waiting room at the OB and read a STRANGE article. It was someone compairing circumsized penis' with breast removal. At first, I was like WTF. But after reading it, it was pretty funny.
Here is what it was saying.
( BTW I'm doing no justice to this article that was well written and by someone who has a clue about what they are talking about)

If you have a newborn male, most people get it circumsized to look like daddy's, easier cleaning, and health issuse later on. Did you know that studies show that men with un-circumsized penis' get prostate cancer at a higher rate.

Then, here is where it got odd......

If you base your decision to circumsize your baby due to health issuse does that mean if you had a little girl you would remove her breast at birth to avoid breast cancer?

Answer Question

Asked by DancerMomof2 at 8:26 PM on Dec. 22, 2008 in Just for Fun

Level 11 (597 Credits)
Answers (10)
  • O.o

    That's actually a good, valid point lol.

    Answer by caitxrawks at 8:29 PM on Dec. 22, 2008

  • that is odd. i dont think ive heard though that an uncircumzised penis leads to a higher rate of prostate cancer. i have heard of women getting a masectomy if they have a high risk of breast cancer

    Answer by Thalie at 8:29 PM on Dec. 22, 2008

  • That is just odd to me.....

    Answer by AshJoe05 at 8:33 PM on Dec. 22, 2008

  • Ok, circumcision and breast removal are not in any way equal. The former removes a layer of skin in a very small area. The latter removes the whole thing.

    Answer by Anonymous at 8:59 PM on Dec. 22, 2008

  • I agree with Anon, not to mention the foreskin serves very little purpose while the mammary provides milk for future children! Thus one is of a greater value than the other.

    Answer by beckcorc at 9:21 PM on Dec. 22, 2008

  • I could use a breast reduction!! UGH! (DDD's)

    Answer by Babylove76 at 9:30 PM on Dec. 22, 2008

  • Sorry beckcorc...the foreskin does not serve "very little purpose." I now invite you to research the function of the foreskin.

    Answer by TeaAndrews at 9:46 PM on Dec. 22, 2008

  • So since the appendix serves no purpose, should we remove all baby's appendixes (sp?) so they can never get appendicitis? I can kinda understand the article writer's point on this. And yes, circumcision is considered a minor procedure, but then again so is laporoscopic removal of the gall bladder. I used to be all for circumcision, and then I met my husband who is intact, keeps himself very clean, and has a very healthy penis.

    Answer by mamapotter at 9:58 PM on Dec. 22, 2008

  • Well I have 3 boys all circ'd but it got harder to make that choice with each birth. I think the point was that it is an unnecessary evil these days. My first son was born in 1986 and they circ'd him good! My last two born in 05 and 06...the one born in 06 hardly had anything removed..and you can tell. It tends to want to adhere to itself and is a bit more work to keep clean...but other than that he has no problems so far...but then again he is only 2. I think if I were certain that he would not get made fun of in the locker room I would choose not to have it done. Seems cruel and unusual to me.


    Answer by salexander at 10:31 AM on Dec. 23, 2008

  • The foreskin actually has several protective and sexual functions. The appendix also has a purpose... it is part of the digestive system. Every part of the body has a function and it is a bad idea to remove any of them when there is nothing wrong with them.

    Answer by sallymoon at 6:44 PM on Dec. 24, 2008

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.