Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications, experience, or professional qualifications of anyone posting on Mumsnet Talk and cannot be held responsible for any advice given on the site. If you have any serious medical concerns about your child, we would urge you to consult your GP.

Feeling forced to chose a circumcision...is it my husband,is the religion,is it really necessary?

(368 Posts)
efy Tue 11-Feb-14 01:19:10

I have read some messages related to this tread by some of you and I understand when you guys call people like us....crazy etc.
I come from a non-circumcised family, my three brothers have never done or need it.
After I have changed my religion I wanted to follow the requirements of being from this religion. I like to believe that I have personally done some changes which were related to my self.
Now that I have an almost 12 months son, it looks that I have to fill up another requirement, which is circumcision, because I am from the religion that requires circumcision but the difference is....the change I need to do does not envolve me directly...is actually my little baby boy.
How do I feel about this?? Well I feel is unnecessary, I already feel guilty for planning to handle my little precious boy in someone's else hands to just harm him...yeah that is exactly how I feel...me and his father taking him with his little smile to a place that God knows what may happen.
And you know what, it was actually planned for tomorrow but I feel relief for now because we have discovered the person who was suppose to do it has had an unfortunate case where the little boy had to be taken to hospital for more operations in order to be 'fixed'.
My husband was circumcised when he was 5 and he believes in it, I don't believe and I think is more cultural than religious, I just do not understand why God will leave this for us humans to do it? Why did he leave that thing there if it need to be removed and why on such as small baby? Why??
My husband speaks about it as being just a simple procedure because he is a doctor but this is not the point, what about the baby? how is he going to feel?
I am relief for now but I am not convinced that this is in anyway necessary if at all...
I rather feel pushed to do it along with my baby.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Wed 30-Apr-14 14:06:41

PS Entertaining in the sense of the randomness of the argument of course; nothing entertaining in cutting bits of babies.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Wed 30-Apr-14 14:05:30

" You had better hope anyone reading your comment hasn't bothered to read the rest of the thread because sadly for you all my posts are still here for all to see. ("

Everyone still posting on this entertaining thread has read the whole thing, I reckon, and we've all taken our own views on who is coming across as desperate.

Sallyingforth Wed 30-Apr-14 12:36:16

baggins I realised it was pointless continuing with the argument on the other thread, and I'm not going to continue here.

Neither of these threads was started about 'disease' issues, but you have taken them over and twisted them to your own agenda.

But I am glad to see that you are not making much headway here. Mothers usually know what's best for their children, unless blinkered by religious dogma - and it appears that even that is now beginning to wane smile

I very much hope that efy and others in her position will stand firm and not allow her perfect son to be mutilated.

Now carry on...

baggins101 Wed 30-Apr-14 12:04:05

Sallyingforth And this affects the validity of my arguments and evidence how?

Sallyingforth Wed 30-Apr-14 11:37:15

Thinking first might stop you looking desperate to prove a point that you have no real argument for.
and
You really are getting desperate

So, that's two more people you have called 'desperate' because you have failed to convince them with sound argument.

Your sole contribution to MN so far is 176 posts in two concurrent threads, telling people that they must cut bits off their healthy babies.

You're quite entitled to post like this of course. But I do wonder just what is your personal agenda, particularly when you resort to such responses to people disagreeing with you.

You are clearly very much in a minority amongst mothers who are reluctant to cut their children, and I doubt very much that you have actually persuaded anyone. But of course you are going to continue just the same...

Kendodd Wed 30-Apr-14 11:25:45

I have a little predication smile

I had a quick look at the legalities of circumcision and various court cases that have been brought in different countries. It seems many countries are agitating for a ban. I doubt any country would be brave enough to take on the religious lobby who I fear would react violently though. I would like to bet that somewhere in the world in the next 15 years somebody will bring a court case suing the people who circumcised them without their consent when they were a child. I wonder what the outcome will be?

baggins101 Wed 30-Apr-14 11:14:27

ASmidgeofMidge said: "Baggins, parents choosing to circumcise their child are only making a valid decision if it's supported by the evidence. You haven't shown anyone that this is the case. Indeed, from links posted above, it could be argued that there are more fatalities from complications arising from circumcision than from penile cancer. I see you're still trotting out the 1 in 600 figure.

grin < toothy hyena smile

You really are getting desperate grin. Who do you think you are fooling, Smidge? You had better hope anyone reading your comment hasn't bothered to read the rest of the thread because sadly for you all my posts are still here for all to see. (Including the evidence from every source that 1 in 600 is, if anything, an underestimate of the risk of penile cancer.)

ASmidgeofMidge Wed 30-Apr-14 10:23:53

Baggins, parents choosing to circumcise their child are only making a valid decision if it's supported by the evidence. You haven't shown anyone that this is the case. Indeed, from links posted above, it could be argued that there are more fatalities from complications arising from circumcision than from penile cancer. I see you're still trotting out the 1 in 600 figure.

grin < toothy hyena smile

baggins101 Wed 30-Apr-14 10:09:31

Kendodd,

A kindly word of free advice: think through your arguments before you post.

For example, you should have thought:

"When was Jewish law written?"

"Did they know about germ theory at the time?"

"Is this really an argument against circumcision by medical practitioners in the 21st century?"

You see how it works? Thinking first might stop you looking desperate to prove a point that you have no real argument for.

baggins101 Wed 30-Apr-14 10:04:21

Kendodd said: You have convinced nobody on this thread.

You will believe on Wednesday what you believed on Monday, regardless of what you learn on Tuesday. It never entered my head that I would convince you, just that you would run out of intactivist arguments. And it seems you have!

In fact the only things I have learnt is that children and babies do die and are injured after being circumcised by doctors in hospitals in the 21st century, I never thought this was a possibility for a completely unnecessary procedure. I knew babies die in third world villages after being circumcised by the local butcher but not in hospitals in the west.

So you have learned that the intactivist websites are full of propoganda and lies. Well, that's a step in the right direction I suppose.

.....Or perhaps you take all that nonsense at face value? Please tell me you did some research to find out WHY babies die from "circumcision"..... I wouldn't want you going any further down in my estimation.

The other thing I've learnt is that people who support circumcision are so convinced that they are right that all reasoned thinking has left them and they are reduced to name calling. Even dismissing well established medical evidence, for example on the loss of sensation some men feel, by basically saying that they couldn't get it up anyway. I could go on but I might as well talk to a brick wall. I guess you can't pause for thought now though can you, it's too late.

Ah! That old Wednesday syndrome again.

^Please post links to all the research backing up this "well established medical evidence" I have ignored.^

Of course this is not to say that circumcision has no advantages, and I haven't said that at any point, or instance if we lived a country with endemic HIV, maybe you do live in one baggins?

So you HAVE learned something! No, wait... My mistake. You haven't. Reduction in heterosexual HIV is but one benefit of circumcision.

So... in summary... you have no rational point to make. Again. Just lots of hot air and insults. Which is great, of course, since it means I have achieved my goal with you.

Kendodd Wed 30-Apr-14 09:41:43

Even religion gets it right occasionally

Yes, I agree, Jewish law allows parents who have had three sons die from circumcision to leave the fourth son intact.

H. Raban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "To a third she may be married, but to a fourth she should not be married. [If she produces males and they were circumcised and died, if the first was circumcised and died, the second and he died, the third may be circumcised, but the fourth should not be circumcised]" [T. Shab. 15:8A-C].

MumsyFoxy Wed 30-Apr-14 09:25:35

Well said Kendodd.

Kendodd Wed 30-Apr-14 09:18:58

You have convinced nobody on this thread.

In fact the only things I have learnt is that children and babies do die and are injured after being circumcised by doctors in hospitals in the 21st century, I never thought this was a possibility for a completely unnecessary procedure. I knew babies die in third world villages after being circumcised by the local butcher but not in hospitals in the west.

The other thing I've learnt is that people who support circumcision are so convinced that they are right that all reasoned thinking has left them and they are reduced to name calling. Even dismissing well established medical evidence, for example on the loss of sensation some men feel, by basically saying that they couldn't get it up anyway. I could go on but I might as well talk to a brick wall. I guess you can't pause for thought now though can you, it's too late.

Of course this is not to say that circumcision has no advantages, and I haven't said that at any point, or instance if we lived a country with endemic HIV, maybe you do live in one baggins?

baggins101 Tue 29-Apr-14 23:07:34

Even religion gets it right occasionally.

MumsyFoxy Tue 29-Apr-14 22:47:57

Where and who by it is carried out greatly affects the safety of the pricedure (however it can never bring risk to zero, as ANY surgical procedure carries a risk). The simple question to ask is: is the circumcision carried out for religious reasons? If so, then it is deeply immoral to carry out surgery and ritual on a baby. You can dress it with as many layers of cultural rekativism as you like, but the fact remains that removing a part of a person's penis for no medical necessity is barbaric.

baggins101 Tue 29-Apr-14 22:27:19

MumsyFoxy said: "How is being against religious circumcision a "propaganda"?

I have no time for religion and if you are ONLY referring to religious circumcision carried out without anesthetic and by non-medical staff, I agree with you on the whole. However if you are suggesting circumcision carried out in a medical setting with anesthetic is "genital mutilation" and "painful" and "risky" you will need to back up your claims with some evidence, not just the lies and exaggerations emanating from the American anti-circumcision activists.

MumsyFoxy Tue 29-Apr-14 22:17:27

How is being against religious circumcision a "propaganda"?

baggins101 Tue 29-Apr-14 21:27:54

Efy
MumsyFoxy Sais: when circumcision is done on a defenseless baby it is genital mutilation. Let's not go on the "merits" of circumcision; it is a painful and risky procedure and, in this case, totally unnecessary. Respect your son's basic human rights, let him decide (when he's an adult) what to do with his foreskin.
I hope common sense and reason will prevail over superstition and tradition.

I suggest you read some of this thread, MumsyFoxy. You are doing nothing more than regurgitating baseless anti-circumcision propaganda.

ForeskinHyena Tue 29-Apr-14 21:02:02

Oh no there's an ear piercing one now. Baggins, what is your view on ear piercing for babies and young children, just out of interest?

Ken, my new name is a bit embarrassing on other threads, when people want to refer to me and have to call me Foreskin instead of Lynda I'm a little bit blush!

MumsyFoxy Tue 29-Apr-14 20:09:52

Efy
when circumcision is done on a defenseless baby it is genital mutilation. Let's not go on the "merits" of circumcision; it is a painful and risky procedure and, in this case, totally unnecessary. Respect your son's basic human rights, let him decide (when he's an adult) what to do with his foreskin.
I hope common sense and reason will prevail over superstition and tradition.

baggins101 Tue 29-Apr-14 20:02:06

Ah! Got it.... NurseWorsey. But that doesn't help me understand your point. You do realise NurseyWorsey posted AFTER me (and in response to me.)

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Tue 29-Apr-14 19:59:00

NurseyWorsey.

baggins101 Tue 29-Apr-14 19:58:05

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "You do get that none of us are NW, don't you?"

NW?

New Worlders? Newt Watchers?.... Ah! Newly Weds?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Tue 29-Apr-14 19:14:39

You do get that none of us are NW, don't you?

Since you revived the thread two months after it was started, perhaps you don't.

baggins101 Tue 29-Apr-14 17:32:51

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "No one called you a mutalationist until you started calling us intactivists."

I didn't realise anyone HAD called me a "mutalationist!" How... ridiculous.

Circumcision was first referred to as "mutilation" and "barbaric" by NurseyWorsey on page 2. If you make such comments about the choices other parents have made you can expect a robust response.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now