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.

clarinsgirl Tue 11-Feb-14 01:57:09

Your instincts are right. Handing your baby boy over for an unnecessary medical procedure feels wrong because it is wrong. If your baby boy reaches the age of 18 and decides that he wants to be circumcised then that's fine, his decision. Until then it's your job to keep him safe. Trust your instincts and protect your baby.

efy Tue 11-Feb-14 11:53:16

Hi clarinsgirl and thank you for your opinion. You are right, this is my instinct, I will just have to persuade my husband about this who thinks is not a matter of why but where and who is going to do it for the baby...

SamG76 Tue 11-Feb-14 14:38:49

For my DSs it was a very simple procedure, and of course it will help that your DH is a Dr. The answer to your question is yes, and assuming you discussed it before, I suspect your DH will be pretty furious that you're changing your mind. Why did you convert if you knew this was going to be an issue? Of course, if you can persuade him, all well and good.

WhiskyTangoFoxtrot Tue 11-Feb-14 14:46:22

It is a simple procedure, and usually uncomplicated.

But I think it should only be done when medically indicated.

I think your instincts are right.

MegBusset Tue 11-Feb-14 14:49:53

Your instincts are absolutely right. Over my dead body would anyone mutilate one of my sons unless there was a damn good medical reason.

eurochick Tue 11-Feb-14 14:50:36

Your instincts are right. There can be complications (as you have heard). I believe it should only be done when medically necessary.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 11-Feb-14 14:52:06

Your instincts are correct. If your child grows up and wishes to be circumcised let him make that decision for himself. It is wrong for a parent to modify their child's bodies to suit their own views (genuine medical reasons obviously excepted)

VegetariansTasteLikeChicken Tue 11-Feb-14 15:04:13

if there is a god, he created us in his image. So your baby is perfect and doesn't need to be altered.

If there isn't a god and you believe we evolved over millions of years and we are the pinnacle of evolution so far.. he is perfect and doesn't need to be altered.

I am American ds was born in the states where it is the cultural norm. I looked at my perfect little baby and knew there was fuck all I could do to improve him.

mercibucket Tue 11-Feb-14 22:06:33

its pretty unlikely your dh is going to change his mind tbh if it is for religious reasons. if it was purely cultural eg north american, then maybe, but if he is muslim or jewish, even non believers mostly see it is an essential op. always exceptions of course.

culturemulcher Tue 11-Feb-14 22:14:31

Trust your instincts!

Would you have an unnecessary medical procedure? No.

squeezelouise400 Sun 23-Feb-14 13:53:35

I would suggest you find a doctor/surgeon if possible of the same religion as yourself who would perform the procedure more safely and then your son will be in the best hands.

You need to make sure the person who performs the procedure is suitably qualified to do so, that they are particular about sterility and find out about pain relief.

Paintyfingers Sun 23-Feb-14 13:58:39

I think you should be honest with your DH and explain how you are feeling.

Topseyandturvey Mon 24-Feb-14 08:25:06

Because you have posted in health and not Aibu or chat I will answer the practical element of your post. I suspect I am from a similar background to you. I have 3 circumcised sons and come from a non circumcising family.

To reassure you I would say the following, please, I am not wishing to open a debate here, just sharing some info that might be useful to the OP: more than half of American babies are routinely circumcised and have been for years and years. None of my children felt a single thing during the procedure (no general anaesthetic), really and truely, and there was absolutely no indication that they were even in discomfort afterwards. Some babies sleep through the procedure. The most distressing part, if the baby is not satiated with milk or sedated in some way, is keeping them still (like you have to for injections). Circumcision is scientifically and medically known to be highly preventative in the transmission of HIV and cervical cancer virus. To such an extent that governments in Africa are introducing a persuasive voluntary circumcision campaign in sexually active adult males. It has been practiced for thousands of years without any effect on sex life (as you most probably know!).
Best wishes

Topseyandturvey Mon 24-Feb-14 08:26:04

Squeeze is right, sterility, pain relief, and experience are the most Important factors, whatever the religion or ethnicity of the practitioner

MoominMammasHandbag Mon 24-Feb-14 11:40:02

Just not true about the sex life thing Topsey. Circumcision removes thousands of nerve endings and leaves the penis exposed and further desensitised. Sex with a circumcised man, in my experience, is just much more abrasive.

SimLondon Mon 24-Feb-14 22:34:02

About a year ago a baby died after the procedure at a synagogue in London. There is no physical need or cause for a baby to go through this - its purely religious tradition and superstition - would you like to have some skin cut off you without pain relief by a non surgeon because its tradition? Think anyone who say's otherwise is clutching at straws.

SimLondon Mon 24-Feb-14 22:36:34

Look at the nhs's article on advantages/disadvantages, it comes out quite strongly on side of 'do not cut bits of skin off your baby without a good reason and a surgeon'

Martorana Mon 24-Feb-14 22:43:42

"Circumcision is scientifically and medically known to be highly preventative in the transmission of HIV and cervical cancer virus."

Replace "highly" with "marginally". Condoms are significantly more effective, actually, and do not involve performing non medically necessary surgical procedures on people who can't consent.

gobblegobs Tue 25-Feb-14 08:51:28

Topsey

The governments in west Africa are introducing campaigns to circumcise as the men refuse to wear condoms. The point highlighted in the study published in AAP journal. The same study showed "marginal" improvement in transmission do HIV and was carried out on CONSENTING adults.

Topseyandturvey Tue 25-Feb-14 18:44:20

Hmm, the report I read did not say marginal. of course condoms are more effective. This isnt a debate thread, please reread what op is asking.

Topseyandturvey Tue 25-Feb-14 18:46:54

And Sim, whyever do you think the op would be considering this without pain relief???? Im sure if she is hesitant she would consider lack of pain relief to be barbaric...

Martorana Tue 25-Feb-14 20:46:59

"Hmm, the report I read did not say marginal. of course condoms are more effective. This isnt a debate thread, please reread what op is asking."
No, it's not a debate thread. That is why the OP needs information, not misinformation.

baggins101 Mon 14-Apr-14 12:39:59

The arguments AGAINST circumcision are even more spurious than those supporting circumcision. There is NO evidence circumcision makes sex less enjoyable for men (I was circumcised at 29 years following a rather messy zipper accident and can honestly say sex is just as enjoyable.) The argument that uncircumcised is just as clean is clearly rubbish: the urethra isn't straight and ALL men lose a drip or two of urine some minutes after urinating which means the uncircumcised glans is bathed in urine which goes stale quickly in that nice, warm environment. This might not bother you, smelly armpits don't bother some people, but please don't claim uncircumcised is just as clean as circumcised: it isn't, no matter how well you wash. And my son was circumcised at age 5 (last year) with a plastibell: the ONLY pain he felt was the local unaesthetic injection, and that just for a moment since the injection immediately numbed the area. 8 days later the ring finally fell off in the bath. Circumcision IS a valid choice for parents since there are some benefits to it even if they are not so great that it is absolutely necessary. Unlike 1 in 600 uncircumcised boys, my son will never lie in a hospital bed waiting to have his penis amputated because circumcised men almost never get invasive penile cancer. And in the meantime his penis won't be soaked in stale urine most of the day.

Martorana Mon 14-Apr-14 12:43:15

Baggins, 1 in 600 men do not get penile cancer.

Martorana Mon 14-Apr-14 12:45:09

"And in the meantime his penis won't be soaked in stale urine most of the day.,

So what do you plan to do to ensure that your daughter's vulva and vagina are not "soaked in stale urine most of the day"?

theyoniwayisnorthwards Thu 17-Apr-14 00:43:43

My DP is circumcised and feels it HAS desensitised his penis, Baggins your personal experience is not enough to justify a sweeping generalisation. My sons are not circumcised and I think the OPs instincts are right. Urine is sterile.

BreakingDad77 Thu 17-Apr-14 00:51:59

What I was going to add is covered in www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx

Though the part on "consent to treatment" is a new one to me.

BreakingDad77 Thu 17-Apr-14 00:53:15

To add urine is sterile, people have survived natural disasters drinking it lol

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 01:27:06

Yes they do. The figures are readily available.
In the UK it is approx 1.4 per 100,000 per year. This only includes uncircumcised men since it is virtually unheard of in men circumcised as children.
1.4 x 78 years = 109 per 100,000 life chance.
As 60+ uk circumcision rate is approx 1/3 = 109 per 66,000.
66,000 / 109 = 605.
Therefore 1 in 605 uncircumcised men develop penile cancer.
And the rate has increased by 20 percent over the last decades, reflecting the post war drop in circumcision rate in the UK. Check BBC news for confirmation of this.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 01:36:19

Urine is sterile, eh? Not after a few hours festering under a nice warm foreskin mixed with dead skin cells it isn't!

BreakingDad77 Thu 17-Apr-14 01:41:47

The US cancer site has some interesting information re penile cancer www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-prevention

Can penile cancer be prevented?
The large variations in penile cancer rates throughout the world strongly suggest that penile cancer is a preventable disease. One way to reduce the risk of penile cancer is to avoid known risk factors whenever possible (see the section "What are the risk factors for penile cancer?").

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in some studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

In the United States, the risk of penile cancer is low even among uncircumcised men. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding human papilloma virus (HPV) infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Although infant circumcision can lower the risk of penile cancer, based on the risk of this cancer in the US, it would take over 900 circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer in this country.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 01:42:11

I have a suspicion that many men blame their age related impotence on circumcision. The brain is the biggest sex organ but leaky valves make erections weaker with age. Orgasms are more intense with a longer build up... and condoms do far more to reduce sensitivity yet guys have no problem getting erections when using a condom.
It is all just anti circumcision propaganda.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 01:43:53

Sorry, I missed tgat. How many men circumcised as children did you say suffered from invasive penile cancer?

BreakingDad77 Thu 17-Apr-14 01:46:05

Its all choice and you have to weigh it all up, Baggins I think you are being unfair to completely ignore the desensitizing issue as there are several people who posted on the NHS pros cons website saying they have suffered it.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 01:48:52

"So what do you plan to do to ensure that your daughter's vulva and vagina are not "soaked in stale urine most of the day?"

Not much we can do, is there. But we can do something simple to stop the penis being soaked in stale urine all day.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 01:53:33

Firstly you are absolutely right, BreakingDad77. It is a choice, and choosing circumcision is a valid choice for parents to make.
Secondly I really don't think I am wrong to dismiss the sensitivity issue. For the reasons already stated I think it is a bogus argument.

BreakingDad77 Thu 17-Apr-14 01:54:24

Your getting sidetracked baggins the dead skin cells are the problem.

Obviously this is the states and not the uk but (Proper scientific journal)

www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=488e687276f346699601a0275fc5827b&pi=2

The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. The study also identified
reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 neonatal boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision.

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 02:00:40

There is absolutely no reason why you should mutilate your baby. I am sorry to use that word, but that is exactly what it is.

Trust your instincts. If it is that important, your dear boy can chose to do it when he is older.

Well done for questioning it and thinking about it beforehand.

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 02:02:52

baggins what a load of rubbish. Cleanliness is much better than the surgical removal of a body part.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 02:04:26

There is no excuse for circumcision related death. None. Any such incident is the result of criminal negligence as done properly there is ni more chance of death from circumcision than a cut finger.

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 02:05:01

And OP your baby will feel pain. People dismiss it because 'they forget about it'. It doesn't matter, they still feel it. Many say 'oh my baby didn't even move/was very quiet' yes that's because babies go into shock. Studies have shown this. There's a reason adults have it under general anesthetic.

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 02:06:34

baggins there are risks with any surgical procedure, it doesn't have to be negligence. It can be a number of things that can't be foreseen. Which is why we do not put our children through unneeded procedures that have very dodgy ethical grounds.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 02:06:36

NurseyWorsey: please feel free to actually read my post and comment on what I wrote rather than using your imagination.

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 02:08:41

I have. You claim circumcision is cleaner. Should we remove body parts just because it's 'cleaner'? Should we remove inner labia? Cliterol folds?

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 02:09:58

NurseyWorsey: we are talking about circumcision, not mutilation. I quite agree that there is no excuse to mutilate your baby.

AND babies do not feel pain when treated with local anaesthetic, just like adults don't.

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 02:12:25

Baggins you obviously don't know the meaning of mutilation. The removal of a body part for no medical reason is mutilation. It is barbaric.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 02:13:11

NurseyWorsey: I am guessing you also protest against dentists who remove children's teeth and fit braces? Or is it just foreskins you you have a fetish over?

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 02:13:55

You can try and condone it all you like. How dare you remove a part if a boys penis for no reason. How dare you take that decision when there is no medical reason for it. It is causing no harm. No pain. But you willingly inflict the removal. It's disgusting.

YNK Thu 17-Apr-14 02:14:55

It IS mutilation if not a medical necessity!
I would kill anyone who tried to take a knife to my baby!

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 02:14:55

Hahahah

baggins do children have braces fitted before a problem is identified? No. So why should a child have a foreskin removal before a medical reason is identified?

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 02:19:02

YNK: that is your choice for your child and I respect your decision. Sadly you do not respect mine. Do you also plan to stop a dentist removing healthy but crowded teeth before fitting a brace to your child for purely cosmetic, non medical reasons?

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 02:20:32

There is no medical need to have straight teeth, NurseyWorsey. It is a cosmetic choice, nothing more. It is less medical even than circumcision.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 02:23:09

And a damn sight more painful too!

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 02:28:01

Actually no, it isn't just a cosmetic choice. To get braces on the NHS it has to be something that will impact on everyday life.

Even if it didn't, in regards to eating, would you like your child to have to go through life with bent teeth? They aren't supposed to have bent teeth. They'd be subject to ridicule, problems eating etc.

Non medical Removal of foreskin however doesn't do anything. It doesn't improve function. It doesn't fix what is wrong. It is purely for your selfish reasons.

The fact you compare braces to circumcision shows how silly you are. One repairs something that has gone wrong, one is removing part of genitals that you don't like.

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 02:28:37

And you have no idea of the pain, since you aren't able to gauge baby's pain.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 02:42:14

Your arguments are becoming more bizarre, NurseyWorsey.
1. Crooked teeth don't create any medical problem. The impact is purely social.
2. Since most people have crooked teeth to some degree or other I must presume that is the normal state. Perfectly lined up teeth is NOT normal.
3. Your argument that circumcision has no benefit whatsoever is not supported by facts. You could reasonably argue that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages but instead you play the usual foreskin fetish game of denial.
4. And yes, I think I can reasonably say that local anaesthetic kills pain in babies just as it does in afults... unless you have some EVIDENCE to the contrary, of course??

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 02:49:35

Baggins I'm seriously worried for you that you're comparing the cosmetic changing of wonky teeth to the removal of a baby's foreskin.

A child can say, no I don't want braces. You aren't giving a baby that privilege. There is no reason to remove a foreskin, there are many reasons to straightening teeth.

You are instead, chosing to remove a body part on the basis of.... Well of what exactly?

Tell me why you want to do it. What is the reason?

And the benefits? Please do tell me about these benefits. These benefits that can't be gained in other ways? These benefits that are akin to chopping off my toe to prevent from stubbing it?

YNK Thu 17-Apr-14 03:00:52

You are right, Baggins, I have no respect for anyone who would have a child mutilated!

confuddledDOTcom Thu 17-Apr-14 03:15:12

Did you really resurrect a thread just to fight on it?

My SS was done for genuine medical reasons, they left him until he was a little older in case he could live with it. It certainly did hurt him and seeing how bad it was for him his brother said "Give me my heart operations any day" from a child who has had over 30 operations in his life on his heart.

I'm not getting drawn in as others are obviously doing a good job.

AlpacaYourThings Thu 17-Apr-14 03:17:17

Trust your instincts, OP. It's barbaric mutilation.

If God didn't want all men to have a foreskin, why did he create men with foreskins? If God exists, then I am sure he wouldn't have made a mistake like that.

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 03:18:15

I didn't realise this was so old. I'm sorry about your son confuddled

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 03:22:21

"Baggins I'm seriously worried for you that you're comparing the cosmetic changing of wonky teeth to the removal of a baby's foreskin."

I am calling you out as a hypocrite and showing up the anti circumcision lie that claims children's bodies should ONLY be altered for medical necessity. In truth removing teeth is far more painful and has no medical benefit at all.

"A child can say, no I don't want braces. You aren't giving a baby that privilege."

Well, in fact I waited until my son was 5 before he was circumcised, but that aside you are deluding yourself if you think most kids CHOOSE to have teeth removed and braces fitted. They are persuaded to have them by their parents just as parents persuade them to eat their greens. We could leave it until they are adults and genuinely choose for themselves, of course. But early teenage years are best for braces.

"There is no reason to remove a foreskin, there are many reasons to straightening teeth."

Leaving aside the advantages of circumcision for a moment, you are now arguing that because we like the look of straight teeth it is OK to subject our children to a couple of years of pain to achieve them. Hypocritical?

"You are instead, chosing to remove a body part on the basis of.... Well of what exactly?"

On the basis of a careful consideration of the arguments for and against.

"Tell me why you want to do it. What is the reason?

And the benefits? Please do tell me about these benefits. These benefits that can't be gained in other ways?"

Cleanliness which cannot be gained through washing.
The knowledge that my son will never lie in hospital waiting to have his penis amputated.
The probability of at least reduced chance of catching a few nasty diseases.
The knowledge that condoms are good but condoms plus circumcision is better.

" These benefits that are akin to chopping off my toe to prevent from stubbing it?"

A new low for a foreskin fetish argument? ?

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 03:24:54

YNK: You didn't answer my question: are you willing to "mutilate" your child by having healthy teeth removed to fit a brace and achieve the socially desirable effect of a nice smile?

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 03:28:13

confuddledDOTcom: Sue the Doctor. Your child shouldn't have experienced any pain. My son didn't when he had it done at 5.

confuddledDOTcom Thu 17-Apr-14 03:56:55

Nursey, wasn't aiming my comment at you - apart from the bit where I said others were doing a good job wink

It was my stepson a few years ago now, far enough that his brother can tease him about it! When my son was born he had to be checked out and they're still talking about it - I think they're being over cautious as he doesn't have the family issues - we'll see in a few years.

YNK Thu 17-Apr-14 04:06:05

That would be entirely up to my child.
My son dithered about wearing a painful brace at age 11 and I admitted to him that I couldn't do it. (It was to correct an overbite).
He decided to go ahead.
I have had problems caused by my own overbite which has now, in my 50's led to me losing healthy molars (the other option was having my jaw broken and reset)
I have to take my hat off to him for perseverance. He has never regretted it.
I don't hold much store with cosmetic dentistry but it turned out there was more to it than just a pretty smile!

Martorana Thu 17-Apr-14 08:24:09

OK, Baggins- if you insist on comparing circumcision to braces on teeth, how about we agree to leave it til the child is 13 and let them choose?

MissRatty Thu 17-Apr-14 08:49:04

Sorry Baggins, but you are so defensive that it does sound like your circumcision has affected you quite badly, otherwise you would be able to contribute in a more effective and objective (and unoffensive) manner. I am being serious and not provocative here, but I do think you should reflect a bit more on how it has affected you and seek help if you feel you need it.

Circumcision does hurt infants, if it did not, I would be very concerned with regard to the infants ability to sense pain, which is a natural protective response, partucularly in an area filled with nerve endings.

FGM is carried out for cultural reasons - mainly based on the theory that it is more hygienic and therefore the person is cleaner in the eyes of religion, and we frown upon this. I do not see how male genital mutilation (with exception of valid medical reasons) is any different.

I have dated two men who were circumcised later in life and both did tell me that it affected sensitivity. This however is anecdote, not data (Baggins...note that anecdote does not equal data). One did have recurring infections down there after the procedure, so even as a consenting adult under medical supervision, it is not risk free.

The study referring to HIV has since been found to be exceptionally flawed and the findings overstated. This is a good article which links back to original studies and states the myths in a reader-friendly manner.

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

If you want a good source of unbiased, peer reviewed scientific studies, the Cochrane Library is the place to look online, not at anecdotes and sweeping generalisations from defensive internet users ;-)

To the original poster, you are lucky to have the insight that you have and to be querying this altogether shows that you are concerned about the procedure, and rightly so. You need to have a frank discussion with your partner and healthcare provider on this, as it is a highly emotive subject.

I certainly would not even entertain the idea unless there was a medical reason, and have little sympathy for the religious argument as I think it is a magnificent way of pretending to have no control over the situation, when actually its just quite a lazy way to be in a situation under which you are in control. What if your son, like you, converts later in life? He'll still be scarred by your decision.

As I said before, we are pushing to make female genital mutilation an imprisonable offence in the UK, and I see male genital mutilation no differently.

I hope you consider the facts before deciding. I do not doubt that you are in a dfficult position.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 09:50:23

YNK: I could have guessed that you would have had a dire medical need for a brace. What a coincidence! Entirely irrelevant though since the vast majority of braces are fitted for cosmetic reasons and you, hypocritically, have no problem with that. Which is my point.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 09:56:04

Martorana: You mosunderstand me, Martotana. I do not compare the removal of heakthy teeth and the fitting of a brace with circumcision. ... circumcision is much quicker and far less painful.
I use braces to demonstrate the hypocrisy of your claim that doing something to a child's body without immediate medical need is wrong.
It turns out that this only applies to the foreskin.... removing teeth for cosmetic reasons is perfectly acceptable!

AlpacaYourThings Thu 17-Apr-14 09:58:49

Brilliant post MissRatty

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 10:08:43

MissRatty: Thank you for your "genuine" concern however it is the lies and hypocrisy of foreskin fetishists like yourself that make me defensive.
I am sure your scientific sources are far superior to mine. They would be, wouldn't they.... they support YOUR beliefs!
I do not claim that circumcision is a cure for all ills, simply that there are enough benefits to make it a valid choice for parents.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 10:20:16

YNK said: "You are right, Baggins, I have no respect for anyone who would have a child mutilated!"

Indeed, YNK. Ignorance and intolerance are frequent bedfellows.

mawbroon Thu 17-Apr-14 10:30:52

My 8yo has been wearing braces for 18 months to expand his narrow palate. His high narrow palate was distorting his post nasal apertures, causing sleep apnoea. The palate was encroaching on the space needed for his Eustachian tubes so he was suffering congestion and hearing loss, as well as mouth breathing because his nostrils were also restricted by the high palate.

Braces have stopped all these problems. Now, I don't know about you baggins101, but I would not consider sleep apnoea, mouth breathing or ENT problems "cosmetic" hmm

PigletJohn Thu 17-Apr-14 10:43:41

one might think that cutting off parts of the human body because it's what you're used to, is not so much like straightening teeth, as like pulling them out.

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 10:48:14

I like the use of foreskin 'fetishes'. Sorry, but we're not the ones who are obsessed with the removal of if.

Cleanliness washing can't give? Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Do you have a penis? Because washing one really is quite simple.

And the foreskin is there to protect there are numerous reasons why they're there. But you seem to think you know better hmm

And you think the stubbed for analogy is ridiculous yes? That's because it is. Exactly the same as removal of a child's foreskin for no reason.

Martorana Thu 17-Apr-14 10:51:38

"I use braces to demonstrate the hypocrisy of your claim that doing something to a child's body without immediate medical need is wrong.
It turns out that this only applies to the foreskin.... removing teeth for cosmetic reasons is perfectly acceptable!"

No. I believe that doing something to a child's body without immediate medical need without consent is wrong. Children do not have braces fitted until they are of an age to decide for themselves whether they should have it done or not. I am suggesting that the same should apply to circumcision. You have not addressed this point.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 15:32:32

Mawbroon said "Braces have stopped all these problems. Now, I don't know about you baggins101, but I would not consider sleep apnoea, mouth breathing or ENT problems "cosmetic" hmm

My, my! Considering what, 99 percent of braces are fitted for purely cosmetic reasons we do have a lot of unhealthy people here, don't we!

And all entirely beside the point since you have no objection to braces being fitted for cosmetic reasons you are still a hypocrite.

MrsAtticus Thu 17-Apr-14 15:39:37

Not read whole thread, so sorry if I'm answering having missed something.
I also converted to a religion that requires circumcision. As far as I know the requirement does come from religion. There are many medical advantages for circumcision, which your husband as a doctor will have told you about I'm sure.
I'm not undermining your feelings about it, which are obviously very real and distressing to you. For me though, it was a simple matter of trusting that this was in the best interests of my son. It was a simple procedure, done in a professional way, and didn't cause undue distress. Our DS was also 1 year when he had it done.
It's a lot more painful to have it done as an adult so your son might not thank you for leaving the decision to him.
I hope you and your husband come to an agreement and you both feel as peace with the decision. Perhaps leaving it for a bit is the best option for now.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 15:41:03

Martorana said "No. I believe that doing something to a child's body without immediate medical need without consent is wrong. Children do not have braces fitted until they are of an age to decide for themselves whether they should have it done or not."

You delude yourself if you think most 12 year olds choose to have teeth removed and braces fitted. Their parents persuade them to have them just as I persuaded my daughter to have them.

And I "persuaded" my five year old son that being circumcised was better too. Does that make you suddenly think his circumcision was right? Of course not. NOTHING would persuade you that circumcision is ok so you really are talking complete nonsense in order to support your BELIEF that circumcision is mutilation.

PigletJohn Thu 17-Apr-14 15:53:45

steady on, baggins old chap.

I'm sorry to hear you had a filthy stinking penis until you were 29. Your zipper accident must have been absolutely frightful, I can't imagine how you managed to damage yourself so severely. I dread to think how bad the damage would have been if you had ripped a chunk out of your glans instead. Lucky it was protected by God's natural design, eh?

Martorana Thu 17-Apr-14 15:53:58

Well, 12 is much more able to consent than. 5 days.....

Why didn't mt you have your son circumcised as a baby if you think it 's such a good thing?

Martorana Thu 17-Apr-14 15:54:40

Well, 12 is much more able to consent than. 5 days.....

Why didn't mt you have your son circumcised as a baby if you think it 's such a good thing?

Martorana Thu 17-Apr-14 15:55:42

And have you had your daughter's labial lips removed so that they don't spend the day bathed in urine?

PigletJohn Thu 17-Apr-14 15:59:37

I'm told there are women who have their labia surgically trimmed because they have somehow got an inaccurate idea of what a human body looks like. I suppose the same thing must happen in countries where mutilation of baby boys is so common that they think an unmutilated penis looks wrong.

MrsPear Thu 17-Apr-14 16:05:14

Not read every comment but I wanted to add I married into a different culture and had two boys. My Dh wanted circumcision and I didn't. It got heated however he accepted my argument that can always get it done of they want but they can't get it undone?! We would had it done in hospital in his country but aren't religious ones done in home that would worry me more

MrsPear Thu 17-Apr-14 16:06:45

Oh and we had to firmly shut up with the comments about our boys funny willys!

mawbroon Thu 17-Apr-14 16:31:11

And you got that figure of 99% from where?

If you are actually interested in why orofacial structure is important to overall good health then have a read of this, especially the sleep apnoea section And it will also show you how idiotic your "teeth are not meant to be straight" comment is.

I don't know how you have reached your "hypocrite" conclusion. I have only questioned your comment that all braces are for cosmetic reasons and have not expressed an opinion on circumcision at all.

Straight teeth are IMO almost a side effect of his treatment. My motivation for seeking early orthodontic treatment was to improve his ill health and ensure that he will not need extractions when he is a teenager.

So you can get tae Falkirk with your circumcision = same as braces.

DaleyBum Thu 17-Apr-14 16:54:14

Agree with everything Nursey has said.

YNK Thu 17-Apr-14 17:56:15

You are the hypocrite baggins!

AlpacaYourThings Thu 17-Apr-14 18:31:29

I'm sorry to hear you had a filthy stinking penis until you were 29. Your zipper accident must have been absolutely frightful, I can't imagine how you managed to damage yourself so severely. I dread to think how bad the damage would have been if you had ripped a chunk out of your glans instead. Lucky it was protected by God's natural design, eh?

grin grin

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 21:10:16

Martorana said: Why didn't mt you have your son circumcised as a baby if you think it 's such a good thing?

Sorry... did I say it was such a good thing? I actually said there are some advantages to it and it is a valid choice for parents to make. I also said that as far as I could tell from the evidence there was not such an advantage to circumcision that all boys should be circumcised.

At the time of my sons birth neither my wife or I had looked into the evidence for or against circumcision in any depth. It only became important when a family friend contracted penile cancer.

The more we investigated circumcision, the more we found that the foreskin fetishists like you are happy to exaggerate and spread lies as long as it supports their beliefs.

You see, instead of looking at both sides of the argument from a neutral standpoint, the vast majority of foreskin fetishists have decided they don't like circumcision on an emotional level and refuse to consider anything that doesn't support their emotions. Bad science. Bad advice. Even worse than Brian Morris, and that is also bad science.

On balance there seem to be very few genuine disadvantages to circumcision (the pain argument is entirely fiction and certainly my own had not made sex less pleasurable over the years), and several viable advantages.

But you will believe on Wednesday what you believed on Monday, regardless of what you learn on Tuesday. I just feel your lies and misinformation should not go unchallenged.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 21:12:23

YNK said: "You are the hypocrite baggins!"

Please do feel free to elaborate, YNK. Or is this what you are reduced to now that you have lost the argument on reason?

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 21:15:12

foreskin fetishists

Is this your buzz word of the week? Poor.. very poor. It loses affect say... after the FIRST TIME.

There are plenty of men who have suffered physical and psychological damage due to circumcision. Men who have had to have further surgical procedures, counselling, refused to speak to their families after what they've done...

If you truly believe in the benefits which obviously you do, why not let your DC to make that decision themselves when they're older? Or are you worried they won't see it your way so you remove it whilst they're too young to protest?

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 21:22:24

AlpacaYourThings said: "I'm sorry to hear you had a filthy stinking penis until you were 29."

Yes. Its much cleaner now, thanks.

"Your zipper accident must have been absolutely frightful, I can't imagine how you managed to damage yourself so severely."

Thank you for your concern. I was in a hurry and the teeth were sharp. And since the nice clothing designer put a chord on the zip like they do with ski jackets, I pulled it with rather more force than was good for me.

"I dread to think how bad the damage would have been if you had ripped a chunk out of your glans instead."

Yes. I imagine it would have been far worse, seeing that the glans is so much more sensitive than the foreskin.

"Lucky it was protected by God's natural design, eh?"

Which god would that be?

KirstyJC Thu 17-Apr-14 21:24:30

I was going to say wow Baggins is a total cock.....but of course he isn'twink

Removal of body parts for non-medical reasons is unnecessary and barbaric. Just because it's been done for years doesn't make it right.

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 21:24:50

So because you weren't capable of cleaning your own penis, and you were clumsy enough to harm yourself... you removed your sons confused

Layl77 Thu 17-Apr-14 21:31:52

Have you seen a procedure being done? No? Have a look on YouTube. Vile, mutilating and unnecessary. Cutting off a part of your body might prevent something that is unlikely to happen anyway but increases the chances of your innocent baby being harmed. Your baby is much more likely to be admitted to hospital after undergoing circumcision

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 21:36:06

NurseyWursey said:

"foreskin fetishists

Is this your buzz word of the week? Poor.. very poor. It loses affect say... after the FIRST TIME."

An apt description though, wouldn't you say?

"There are plenty of men who have suffered physical and psychological damage due to circumcision. Men who have had to have further surgical procedures, counselling, refused to speak to their families after what they've done..."

I wouldn't want to denigrate anyone's suffering.... but really! How cosy does you life have to be for a lack of a foreskin to be your biggest worry!
Have you noticed how young guys rarely complain their circumcision stops them getting erections.... that it is mostly middle aged guys? Middle aged guys who are often a tad overweight? Who, perhaps, wrongly blame their age and weight related inability to get or maintain an erection on their circumcision?
Just saying.

"If you truly believe in the benefits which obviously you do, why not let your DC to make that decision themselves when they're older? Or are you worried they won't see it your way so you remove it whilst they're too young to protest?"

Before the age of 7 or 8 a plastibell or circumplast can be used. These are virtually painless (yes, they are - local anesthetic then my son didn't even want any of the stack of Calpol we had bought in preparation!) and bloodless methods of circumcision. Older boys and men have thicker skin and need stitches.. and usually a general anesthetic.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Thu 17-Apr-14 21:37:17

My brother wore braces and didn't have any teeth extracted. I thought that was pretty common.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 21:38:04

KirstyJC said: "I was going to say wow Baggins is a total cock.....but of course he isn'twink

Removal of body parts for non-medical reasons is unnecessary and barbaric. Just because it's been done for years doesn't make it right."

Humorous. Completely lacking in substance, but humorous.

Dontdoitreallydont Thu 17-Apr-14 21:44:00

I've NC for DS privacy. He was in agony afterwards and could not wear pants/trousers for 3 days. He cried hysterically every time we changed the dressing. Was 4 when it happened. He then developed keloid scars on his penis and hates it, he says they look like cows udders. In reality they are just enlarged scarring over the stitches but he is self conscious and upset. He had it done for medical purposes and it should not be done without absolute necessity. The GP who we saw for the keloid scarring said he often saw this complication.

Don't do it.

KirstyJC Thu 17-Apr-14 21:44:48

Thank you. Clearly the wine is having good effect. Having read your posts more clearly, I take it back though Baggins - you clearly are a total cock.

I don't think I need to have substance to express a thought though, surely? Not every post needs to be backed up by fabricated facts and figures you know. Any particular substance you think I should have? Some of us are just bored and fancy a laugh when they read a poster being a such a complete idiot.

Oh - and my opinion on something being barbaric is valid even though it is an emotional reaction you know. That's the point of opinions and feelings.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 21:46:36

Layl77: "Have you seen a procedure being done? No? Have a look on YouTube. Vile, mutilating and unnecessary. Cutting off a part of your body might prevent something that is unlikely to happen anyway but increases the chances of your innocent baby being harmed. Your baby is much more likely to be admitted to hospital after undergoing circumcision"

Thank you for bringing up this other lie, Layl77. Yes, I have. I was circumcised under local anaesthetic (unusual for an adult, but cheap!).
I didn't scream. Not because I am amazingly brave but because it didn't hurt. Marvelous stuff, anesthetic.

I also watched my five year old son's. I held his hand throughout the five minutes it took. To be fair he did shout out when they first injected the anasthetic, but it was cut short since the anesthetic started to work where the needle went in within a second. He then watche "Pokemon, The Movie" on the nurse's IPhone and was annoyed the procedure was so quick and the nurse wouldn't let him take her phone with him!

Just more foreskin fetish propaganda with videos of babies being circumcised without anasthetic as though this was still the norm outside religious circles. Learn some facts, Layl77, before you try to teach others.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 21:52:23

I should add that the disolvable stitches I had DID cause pain.. they went hard after a few days and caught on everything. That was the only pain I suffered but it wasn't pleasant. This was a good reason for having my son done while they could still use the circumplast which doesn't have stitches.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 21:57:48

Tut tut, KirstyJC. I have no problem with personal attacks but I do like to see some substance in the post as well. Your "I think it is barbaric" argument isn't relevant to anyone but you.

KirstyJC Thu 17-Apr-14 22:02:20

It wasn't an argument Baggins. I was expressing a personal opinion. Can't you tell the difference? It doesn't need to be relevent to anyone except me - that's the point of an opinion.

Good job you don't mind personal attacks though...since it seems even your clothing is making personal attacks on you.......

ravenAK Thu 17-Apr-14 22:08:06

So if your adult circumcision was so painless, baggins, that's great.

It means that anyone contemplating a spot of topiary on their ds's willy can be reassured that said ds can be left to make the decision at an appropriate age, & if they do decide in favour, it'll be straightforward & untraumatic.

NurseyWursey Thu 17-Apr-14 22:10:13

Now who's the hypocrite Baggins?

Your reason for doing it as a child is because it was 'virtually painless', but you say as an adult it is too? Adult is in they - y'know, so they can make an informed choice as to whether they want something removed for no reason.

MissRatty Thu 17-Apr-14 22:12:15

Baggins, I am certainly not a foreskin festishist, or I would not have had partners who were circumcised. I value and love all shapes, forms and sizes that exist, whether they be modified or not.

The references I have provided are not mine, they are the references used by all medics worldwide. If they state something which challenges my schemas then I adapt my way of thinking on the basis of the evidence, not the other way around.

Anywho, this is not about my views or yours, but about an individual who is trying to make an informed decision for the good of her son, and your arguing and myth-spouting is not constructive.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 22:25:06

DaleyBum said: "Agree with everything Nursey has said."

When two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 22:33:37

KirstyJC said: "It wasn't an argument Baggins. I was expressing a personal opinion. Can't you tell the difference? It doesn't need to be relevent to anyone except me - that's the point of an opinion.

Good job you don't mind personal attacks though...since it seems even your clothing is making personal attacks on you......."

Personal attacks and an abundance of unsubstantiated personal opinion. I expect nothing less from evangelical foreskin fetishists. I am rarely disappointed.

Layl77 Thu 17-Apr-14 22:36:56

That's great you numbed your son before you cut off a piece of his skin but most people don't. The OP I presume is not going to.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 22:40:49

NurseyWorsey said: "Now who's the hypocrite Baggins?"

Ummm... think you need to look up the word "hypocrite." It is a person who says one thing and does another.

"Your reason for doing it as a child is because it was 'virtually painless', but you say as an adult it is too? Adult is in they - y'know, so they can make an informed choice as to whether they want something removed for no reason."

Keep reading, Nursey. I believe I said, "I should add that the disolvable stitches I had DID cause pain.. they went hard after a few days and caught on everything. That was the only pain I suffered but it wasn't pleasant. This was a good reason for having my son done while they could still use the circumplast which doesn't have stitches.

You will also find, with a bit more of that reading thing, that general anaesthetic is usually required for adult circumcision but only local for infants. Avoids the risk of a general.

And there are other advantages to circumcision as a child such as almost zero chance of getting penile cancer.

KirstyJC Thu 17-Apr-14 22:42:02

Unsubstantiated personal opinion? I really don't think you understand what the word 'opinion' means. It doesn't need to be substantiated. Proof is not required for a person to hold a belief or opinion. That's the whole point.

Are you sure it was just your foreskin you lost? Only you don't seem to be too intelligent tbh (or else it really is true that men think with their penises and since yours is missing a bit.......well that might explain a lot)

And you really have a thing about fetishes, don't you? There are better websites for people like you, you know.

You are right about the personal attack though, but then I'm bored and you are such an easy target.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 22:45:58

Layl77 said: "That's great you numbed your son before you cut off a piece of his skin but most people don't. The OP I presume is not going to."

Really? Hospitals in the US still normally circumcise without anesthetic? If that is really the case then it is unacceptable in this day and age.

However with the track record of exaggeration and lies which stream from the "intactivist" websites (where y'all seen to get your "facts") I would need more than your word that this is common practice.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 22:52:13

Dear KirstyJC,
I am sorry to hear that all of your opinions are unsubstantiated, but it is honest of you to admit it.

I try to base my opinions on research and fact. You should try it. It would be a refreshing change for you.

KirstyJC Thu 17-Apr-14 22:56:39

1/10

(You do realise that I don't give a shit about whether people cut the end of their cocks off, right, and that I am just winding you up because you seem like a real tosser and hilariously stupid?)

I assume you are doing the same, since otherwise you are misunderstanding the point of most other posts on here. You can't really be that thick and misinformed.

joanofarchitrave Thu 17-Apr-14 23:01:51

OP, I agreed to have my son circumcised. I regret it. I think I felt that because I wasn't actually converting, my son would not really belong to the religion unless I agreed to him having it done. In reality, it is not this procedure that makes a person part of a religion. There are people in all religions who do not go along with individual parts of them - though in the case of the religion I am thinking of, it is certainly unusual.

There have been no particular long-term bad effects that I know of, and I don't really expect any. But I still regret it. Talk more to your husband and don't be patronised out of your feelings.

PigletJohn Thu 17-Apr-14 23:04:09

I have never heard a more ridiculous term than "intactivist"

It appears to mean a person who is opposed to the routine mutilation of children without medical need.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 23:05:07

You are trying to wind me up by admitting that your own opinions are worthless??

Wow. I would hate to see you trying to put yourself down!

Kendodd Thu 17-Apr-14 23:12:30

Oh dear, oh dear baggins.

Have you thought about the chances of you son having a nasty accident with a zip without the protection a foreskin would provide?

Joking aside, this was not your choice to make, it was your sons choice that you took away from him. I don't dispute you arguments in favour of circumcision but there are also many many arguments against it. Who knows what side your son might have fallen on.

baggins101 Thu 17-Apr-14 23:26:03

Kendodd,

There are arguments for and against circumcision and yours is the ONLY valid argument presented so far. However as a parent you have a duty to make decisions you think are in the best interests of your child. My son may be grateful he is circumcised and he may, indeed, prefer that it hadn't been done. Either way I doubt it is going to dominate his life or that he is going to need therapy as a result! As a parent you make decisions in the best interests of your child every day. This is just one of them.

VivaLeBeaver Thu 17-Apr-14 23:47:45

some men are very affected by it

I've certainly read about men having counselling.

AlpacaYourThings Fri 18-Apr-14 01:53:50

AlpacaYourThings said: "I'm sorry to hear you had a filthy stinking penis until you were 29."

Erm, I didn't. I quoted PigletJohn. I can't take credit for his comments, I just thought his post was very funny.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 18-Apr-14 07:04:02

"When two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary."

What a thoroughly fatuous comment.

Layl77 Fri 18-Apr-14 07:42:12

Shall we cut off breasts as there's a hell of a lot of beast cancer nowadays?
Yes baggins I think you'll find those who circumcise for religious reasons don't do so in hospital and use all sorts of barbaric methods. Some sucking the blood from the babies penis it really is shocking.

Layl77 Fri 18-Apr-14 07:42:29

Breast cancer*

baggins101 Fri 18-Apr-14 09:30:57

Layl77 said: "Shall we cut off breasts as there's a hell of a lot of beast cancer nowadays?"

If you could snip of a fold of skin which didn't affect the function of the breasts but removed the risk if breast cancer, most good parents would get it done. (And yes, orgasms are just as intense when you are circumcised!)

"Yes baggins I think you'll find those who circumcise for religious reasons don't do so in hospital and use all sorts of barbaric methods. Some sucking the blood from the babies penis it really is shocking."

I specifically noted that traditional religious circumcision is done without anesthetic and I do not condone that practice. To post such videos in an effort to scare all parents into thinking their child will suffer in such a manner if they are circumcised in hospital is nothing more than intactivist lies and propaganda.

Martorana Fri 18-Apr-14 09:34:15

So, let me get this straight. Your main reason for circumcision is the risk of penile cancer?

What is your reason, then, for not leaving the procedure until the child concerned is in a position to consent to it?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 18-Apr-14 11:02:01

And how would you comment on the information above that more than 100 babies died in the US during circumcision or after?

No surgery is without risk.

baggins101 Fri 18-Apr-14 11:05:45

Martorana said: "So, let me get this straight. Your main reason for circumcision is the risk of penile cancer?

What is your reason, then, for not leaving the procedure until the child concerned is in a position to consent to it?"

This is like running in circles. You lot don't seem to retain information for more than a couple of posts.

No, Martorana, that men circumcised in childhood almost never get penile cancer while 1 in 600 uncircumcised men do is only ONE reason I have given for deciding to circumcise my son.

Perhaps instead of making me repeat the same things again you would like to address the question I posed: if you could remove a small flap of skin which didn't significantly affect the function of the breasts in return for a virtual guarantee that your daughter would never suffer from breast cancer, would you do it?

(Not that I expect an honest answer to this question from an intactivist who opposes circumcision as a matter of principle.)

baggins101 Fri 18-Apr-14 11:19:41

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "And how would you comment on the information above that more than 100 babies died in the US during circumcision or after?

No surgery is without risk."

In the UK there have been two deaths from circumcision in the last ten years. Both were caused by excessive bleeding following botched home circumcisions by non-medical religious circumcision who were criminally negligent in their actions.

The death rate for circumcisions carried out by trained Doctors in medical institutions is 0.

I suspect the same is the case in the US. I also suspect that the number of deaths attributed to circumcision has been greatly exaggerated by intactivists to fit their own agenda. The recent case of Joshua Haskins being a perfect example.

The actual risk of dieing from circumcision should be about the same as dying from a cut finger: both involve nothing more than cut skin. That some imbeciles ignore a baby loosing a cup full of blood from a cut is negligence, not a reflection of the risk of circumcision.

The other risk is general anesthetic. This is simply not required for childhood circumcision as it can be done with a plastibell or circumplast under risk free local anesthetic. Yet some hospitals still use a general anesthetic for very young children for this simple and pain free procedure.

You should be arguing for better practice when circumcising, not banning a procedure that can be undertaken virtually risk free.

Martorana Fri 18-Apr-14 11:30:26

I quoted the penile cancer one because it is the only one that bears any scrutiny at all.

Can anyone confirm the 1:600 uncircumcised men get penile cancer statistic?

And just for the record, I am not an "intactivist". I am just someone who opposes performing non medically required surgical procedures on somebody unable to consent. Particularly when such a procedure can be done at any point in the person's life, so it can wait until they are able to consent.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 18-Apr-14 12:05:30

"a virtual guarantee that your daughter would never suffer from breast cancer, would you do it?"

No. I would let her decide whether to do it.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 18-Apr-14 12:06:55

"The lifetime risk has been estimated as 1 in 1,437 in the United States and 1 in 1,694 in Denmark.[8]"

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 18-Apr-14 12:07:10

(Of penile cancer)

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 18-Apr-14 12:08:49

"Circumcision during infancy or in childhood may provide partial protection against penile cancer. Several authors have proposed circumcision as a possible strategy for penile cancer prevention;[1][16][21] however, the American Cancer Society points to the rarity of the disease and notes that neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommend routine neonatal circumcision.[11]"

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 18-Apr-14 12:13:18

I will happily suggest that my sons do the following;

"The use of condoms is thought to be protective against the HPV associated penile cancer.[1]
Good genital hygiene, which involves washing the penis, the scrotum, and the foreskin daily with water, may prevent balanitis and penile cancer. However, soaps with harsh ingredients should be avoided.
Cessation smoking may reduce the risk of penile cancer.[7]
Phimosis can be prevented by practising proper hygiene and by retracting the foreskin on a regular basis.
Paraphimosis can be prevented by not leaving the foreskin retracted for prolonged periods of time."

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 18-Apr-14 12:24:52

To put the penile cancer risk in context:

"In 2010, in the UK, the lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is 1 in 8 for women and 1 in 868 for men."

AlpacaYourThings Fri 18-Apr-14 12:30:58

You should be arguing for better practice when circumcising, not banning a procedure that can be undertaken virtually risk free.

I would 'argue for' is the ban of circumcision first.

baggins101 Fri 18-Apr-14 13:48:45

Well, TheDoctrinOfSnatch, your figures are accurate as far as they go. Now you need to consider that penile cancer is almost unheard of in men circumcised as children.

Since 80% (approx) of the high risk males in the US are circumcised, the lifetime risk is shared exclusively among them.

This means the lifetime risk for and uncircumcised man in the US is 1437 divided by 5... a one in 300 chance. Twice as high as in the UK! I suggest you get your sons down to the clinic as soon as possible!

And Denmark is often quoted by intactivists to defend their argument that circumcision has no benefits. Denmark is certainly an anomaly. Perhaps they under-report? Perhaps they are good at identifying the disease early? Who knows.

Whatever the reasons for Denmark's low figures, unless we all plan to move to Denmark we have to deal with the reality of our own countries. What we DO KNOW is that men circumcised as children are almost completely protected from the disease.

Oh, and the number of cases of penile cancer has risen by 20% in the UK over the last two decades... almost exactly reflecting the post war drop in circumcision rate for men now in the high risk age group.

baggins101 Fri 18-Apr-14 13:53:25

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "To put the penile cancer risk in context:

"In 2010, in the UK, the lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is 1 in 8 for women and 1 in 868 for men."

1 in 868 of ALL MEN, which is exactly the same as 1 in 600 UNCIRCUMCISED MEN. You intactivists do love twisting the figures to suit your own agenda, don't you!

And yes, the risk of penile cancer is far, far less than the risk of breast cancer, but no less traumatic for those unlucky one's who get it.

Is it worth circumcising just to prevent the 1 in 600 chance of getting this nasty cancer? That is a matter of opinion - BUT it IS one of the benefits of circumcision you should consider when weighing up the pro's and cons.

baggins101 Fri 18-Apr-14 14:00:39

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said:

"I will happily suggest that my sons do the following;

"The use of condoms is thought to be protective against the HPV associated penile cancer.[1]"

Yes. As long as they ALWAYS use a condom. Remember to tell them that circumcision AND using condoms is better than condoms alone.

"Good genital hygiene, which involves washing the penis, the scrotum, and the foreskin daily with water, may prevent balanitis and penile cancer. However, soaps with harsh ingredients should be avoided."

Yes, it may. But remember to tell them that circumcision WILL reduce their chance of getting penile cancer to virtually nil.

"Cessation smoking may reduce the risk of penile cancer.[7]"

Yes, it may. But remember to tell then that circumcision WILL reduce their chance of getting penile cancer to virtually nil.

"Phimosis can be prevented by practising proper hygiene and by retracting the foreskin on a regular basis.
Paraphimosis can be prevented by not leaving the foreskin retracted for prolonged periods of time."

Yes, it can. But remember to tell them that circumcision reduces the chance of phimosis and paraphimosis to absooutely zero.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 18-Apr-14 14:05:55

The Danish circumcision figures are around 1.6% of the population. Interesting that you have decided they are an anomaly, for whatever reason.

Interesting too that the figures you cite for the US have NOT caused US cancer bodies to make the recommendation you suggest.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 18-Apr-14 14:17:27

Incidentally, putting something in context is neither a positive or a negative action. It's simply providing additional context.

PigletJohn Fri 18-Apr-14 14:56:54

baggins, can you show us the source of your assertion

"... penile cancer while 1 in 600 uncircumcised men do"

please?

baggins101 Sat 19-Apr-14 23:26:26

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "The Danish circumcision figures are around 1.6% of the population. Interesting that you have decided they are an anomaly, for whatever reason."

*You are aware what an anomaly is, are you? It is something that is different from the norm, unexpected. I have decided nothing, the Danish figures for penile cancer are an anomaly by virtue of the fact that they are so different from other countries.

There must be a reason for this but I find it hard to believe it is just that the Danes are scrupulous about cleaning under their foreskins. As I said previousely, unless we all intend to move to Denmark we have to deal with the situation we have.

One thing that is true in Denmark as much as in every other country is that invasive penile cancer is virtually unheard of in circumcised men.*

"Interesting too that the figures you cite for the US have NOT caused US cancer bodies to make the recommendation you suggest."

Not at all. As you have already noted, 1 in 600 still makes this cancer rare, but no less traumatic for the guy lying in his hospital bed waiting to have his penis amputated.

PigletJohn Sat 19-Apr-14 23:39:40

is that a "no" then?

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 00:50:03

PigletJohn said: "baggins, can you show us the source of your assertion

"... penile cancer while 1 in 600 uncircumcised men do"

please?"

*Certainly. It is easy enough to work out from verifiable date:

550 new cases of penile cancer per year (with more than 50% death rate)

www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/type/penile-cancer/about/risks-and-causes-of-penile-cancer

UK male population 31 000 000

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

UK male life expectancy 79.5 years

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

550 per year x 79.5 years = 43,725 cases in average lifetime

Shared among 31 million males = 43725 out of 31,000,000 chance for all males
= 1 in 708 chance for all males (raw lifetime risk)

Since penile cancer is almost unheard of in circumcised males, this risk is shared between uncircumcised males only.

Circumcision rate in 50+ age (high risk age group) = 25 % approx
Lifetime risk for uncircumcised male is 1 in 531

But let’s call it 1 in 600 to be generous.

Martorana Sun 20-Apr-14 06:29:52

I don't understand what's wrong with washing.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 07:38:04

From the same link - last sentence...

"Men who have difficulty drawing back their foreskin (a condition called phimosis) may get a build up of smegma. Men with phimosis have a risk of penile cancer that is 5 to 11 times higher than other men. But because penile cancer is rare their risk is still small."

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 07:43:14

Did you make up the 25%?

"The NHS now tries to guide parents away from the practice and the most recent figures suggest just 3.8 per cent of male babies are circumcised in the UK. This is down from a rate of 20 per cent in the 1950s, when there was a belief, especially among those who could afford to have it done privately, that it was more hygienic."

"The World Health Organisation back in 2007 estimated that around 30 per cent of males aged 15 and over are circumcised around the world, with almost 70 per cent of these being Muslim."

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10201882/Circumcision-is-one-of-the-oddities-of-the-Royal-Family.html

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 09:34:05

Martorana said: "I don't understand what's wrong with washing."

Th urethra in a man is long and isn't straight. When a man urinates, some urine gets trapped in the urethra which then leaks. This is why all men lose a drip of two of urine even several minutes after urinating.

In an uncircumcised man this drip or urine spreads out over the glans, bathing it in urine which goes stale very quickly in that nice, warm environment. This is why the uncircumcised glans is usually damp.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 09:37:40

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: From the same link - last sentence...

"Men who have difficulty drawing back their foreskin (a condition called phimosis) may get a build up of smegma. Men with phimosis have a risk of penile cancer that is 5 to 11 times higher than other men. But because penile cancer is rare their risk is still small."

Yes. We have already established that a 1 in 600 risk of getting a cancer, however nasty that particular cancer is, is not a priority for most health authorities, particularly those with limited resources.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 09:40:33

It
Is
A
Small
Risk

Seriously. Breast cancer: 1 in 8 lifetime risk and no-one proposes pre-emptive mastectomies for all, even after breast feeding years.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 09:53:23

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "Did you make up the 25%?"

*No, Snatch. I didn't. You must be desperate now if you are arguing the toss over 20% or 25% circumcision rate! I have also seen references which give the current over 60's a 30% circumcision rate.

Either way the risk of a uncircumcised man getting penile cancer is greater than 1 in 600, so what is your point?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 09:55:34

If you didn't make it up, what was your source?

PigletJohn Sun 20-Apr-14 10:06:32

looking at baggin's link, I see it actually says "Penile cancer is a rare cancer in Western countries. Around 550 men are diagnosed each year in the UK. That means that only 3 out of every 1,000 cancers diagnosed in men in the UK are penile cancer"
and also
"However, it is important to remember that circumcision is only one risk factor for this type of cancer. Other risk factors such as smoking and HPV infection are more important."

I was trying to find how many people per year are diagnosed with other cancers, so I could use baggin's method for calculating the "1 in n" lifetime figure, unfortunately the other cancers I looked at do not seem to have a "how common is it" section.

PigletJohn Sun 20-Apr-14 10:12:33

I was especially interested to see from baggin's link that

"Uncircumcised men should regularly pull back their foreskin to clean under it. If they don’t do this, secretions and dead skin cells can build up. This thick, often bad smelling substance (known as smegma) can cause irritation and inflammation of the penis. Men who have difficulty drawing back their foreskin (a condition called phimosis) may get a build up of smegma. Men with phimosis have a risk of penile cancer that is 5 to 11 times higher than other men. But because penile cancer is rare their risk is still small."

So I think we can agree that the filthy stinking penis mentioned earlier, as well as being highly undesirable, is a good indicator of a grown-up person who might benefit from making his own decision as an adult. It is not relevant to people without this problem. I do however see from an ad link that sometimes appears on this thread that there are stretching methods which can deal with phimosis without surgery.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 10:24:55

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said:
"It
Is
A
Small
Risk"

*A small but entirely preventable risk, and a particularly nasty disease with devastating consequences.

However the point is made: this is one of the benefits of circumcision you should consider when deciding whether to circumcise your son.

The other benefits include:

1. It is cleaner. This benefit has also been established in this thread, the only argument against it being "I don't care that the glans is covered in stale urine as the female parts may also have stale urine on them."

This seems to be the intactivist mantra: If you can't solve EVERY problem then don't try to solve any! (There are other cancers you can get so don't bother protecting your son from penile cancer; There are other parts of the body which are not clean so don't other making any part clean!)

2. There is growing evidence that the risk of acquiring variety of sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV) is reduced in a circumcised man.

To which intactivists respond, "Use a condom!"... as though a circumcised man cannot use a condom! Circumcision seems to provide a level of protection and since not everyone uses a condom all the time (particularly since pregnancy can be avoided with the pill) it is clearly better to be circumcised AND use encourage condom use.

To claim circumcision is wrong you need to demonstrate that the drawbacks significantly outweigh these benefits. And yet the intactivists have to resort to lies and exaggerations to do this....

1. "It makes sex less pleasurable." Not true. Old, fat circumcised men simply blame their age and weight related impotence on their circumcision. The sensation of having the exposed glans stimulated would seem to balance any stimulation received from the ridged band sliding over the glans, and either way an orgasm is more intense the longer the build up to it is.

2. "It is barbaric and unnecessary." No argument at all. One man's "barbaric" is another man's "civilised." And we have already established that there are at least some benefits from it so whether it is necessary or not depends on the level of risk you wish to take.

3. "It is painful and lots of babies die" Lies and exaggeration. Done professionally there is no risk of death or serious injury and it should be virtually pain free. Not that intactivists give a damn about truth, they will happily post videos and pictures of (non)medical negligence and screaming babies and claim it to be the norm in order to frighten parents because of their own foreskin fetish. Shame on them. Shame.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 10:30:18

PigletJohn said: stuff.

You do understand "risk factor", don't you? Do you think, perhaps, that ALL uncircumcised men have an equal chance of getting penile cancer? No. Being uncircumcised is only one risk factor, phimosis is another, as is smoking. However because they are only factors which increase your risk you can stop smoking and cure your phimosis and STILL contract penile cancer. Circumcision removes the greatest risk factor of all, the foreskin. Penile cancer in uncircumcised men is almost unheard of.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 10:33:55

"It makes sex less pleasurable." Not true. "

Not true for you. True for plenty of other circumcused men. Not necessarily old fat impotent ones (how charming)

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 10:35:49

Do you advocate a double mastectomy after breast feeding has finished? Or even before, since the health benefits of breast milk vs formula are nothing like the 1 in 8 breast cancer risk?

Do you believe in pre-emptive removal of the tonsils and appendix?

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 10:35:51

TheDoctrineOfSnatch tried to score a cheap, irrelevant point by posting: "If you didn't make it up, what was your source?"

FUlly referenced historical circumcision figures for you to study:

www.cirp.org/library/statistics/UK/

Martorana Sun 20-Apr-14 10:37:16

I am not an activist. I am vainst the performing of no. Medically necessary surgery on people unable to comsent.

Baggies. Some questions.
Why not wait until a boy is able to consent so that he can decide for himself?
My dp has taught our son how to keep his penis clean- why didn't mt you do the same for yours?
We will be teaching our so that if he has sex with someone about whose sexual health he is not 100% sure he should use a condom. Why don't you teach your son the same?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 10:37:51

It wasn't a cheap point. It was a question.

PigletJohn Sun 20-Apr-14 10:39:02

if baggins insists on using his silly term "intactivist" to mean a person who disapproves of cutting off bits of the human body without medical need, does anyone mind calling him a "mutilationist?"

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 10:44:41

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said:
""It makes sex less pleasurable." Not true. "

Not true for you. True for plenty of other circumcused men. Not necessarily old fat impotent ones (how charming)"

O, I think circumcision has become the bogeyman for some, an excuse for all sexual problems they suffer. The brain is the most important sex organ and young men can get an erection without touching their penis. As men get older this becomes more difficult and there comes a time when you need to start it up by hand and hop on while it is still going (just like an old car!) Thankfully I haven't reached that stage yet, but when I do I will buy viagra and not blame my age related weak erections on circumcision instead of a badly designed sex organ which evolved when men rarely lived beyond their 30's.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 10:46:46

Sounds fair to me, PJ.

From your link, baggins:

"The BMA consider male circumcision to be an invasive, radical procedure"

Are the BMA also intactivists?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 10:47:34

I don't think "reduced sexual pleasure" and "impotence" are the same.

BrunoBrookesDinedAlone Sun 20-Apr-14 10:59:29

This should be a very simple issue.

Humans disagree VERY vehemently on whether circumcision is a good or a terrible thing if done for non-medical reasons.

It is not reversible.

Therefore, the only REASONABLE solution is to never ever circumcise an infant, but to allow every human male to decide on their own circumcision when they are an adult. This makes perfect sense as a. They will know by then whether the are religious or not, and whether they wish to make the decision to be a circumcised person and b. the medical risk that the procedure entails can be recognised, in that the person undergoing the procedure can consent.

Circumcision is good or bad depending on your outlook.

Circumcising babies for religious reasons is a disgusting betrayal of human rights and a foul, dangerous mutilating procedure that should be made ILLEGAL.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 11:00:08

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: Do you advocate a double mastectomy after breast feeding has finished? Or even before, since the health benefits of breast milk vs formula are nothing like the 1 in 8 breast cancer risk?

Do you believe in pre-emptive removal of the tonsils and appendix?

This is a typical intactivist nonesense argument. "But is you cut off the foot they will never get an ingrown toenail!" they cry gleefully.

There is a massive difference between cutting off a breast and cutting off the flap of skin over the glans. If you cannot see this difference there is no hope for you. So no, I do not advocate removing breasts to after breastfeeding. Tonsilitis is not a devastating disease, it does not kill you (as over 50% of penile cancers do) and does not require amputation (or partial amputation) of the penis (as over 80% of penile cancers do.)

The risk of getting penile cancer is low but the consequences are horrific. The risk of getting tonsilitis are high but the consequences are minimal and easily cured.

Removal of the appendix requires general anesthetic and cutting through the abdominal wall. Not quite the same as a ten minute, pain-free procedure under local anesthetic. So no, I do not advocate routinely removing the appendix.

I do, however, advocate removing teeth so that braces can be fitted to straighten teeth and make them look nicer. As do you, I believe.... double standards, what!

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 11:13:36

Martorana said: "I am not an activist. I am vainst the performing of no. Medically necessary surgery on people unable to comsent."

And yet you seem to accept the intactivist arguments wholesale...

Baggies. Some questions.

OK. Go for it.

Why not wait until a boy is able to consent so that he can decide for himself?

Because the procedure is far simpler and less painful as a child. The plastibell or circumplast can only be used up until about the age of 8 years because the skin is too thick after that. It takes a few days for the ring to fall off and healing to be complete in a child but takes 4 to 6 weeks for an adult circumcision to heal, and for all that time the teenager or adult must stop masturbating or having sex, which is very difficult for a young male! Also, some of the benefits are greater the earlier the procedure is done: prevention of penile cancer for example.

My dp has taught our son how to keep his penis clean- why didn't mt you do the same for yours?

I did. And he did. But as already noted a penis is only clean until he next urinates so the glans is almost always soaked in stale urine regardless of how well he washes.

We will be teaching our so that if he has sex with someone about whose sexual health he is not 100% sure he should use a condom. Why don't you teach your son the same?

Condoms are excellent... as long as they are always used. Bit drunk, girl is on the pill, no condom to hand... you get the picture. Condom good, condom AND circumcision better.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 11:17:56

BrunoBrookesDinedAlone said: "....Circumcision is good or bad depending on your outlook.

Circumcising babies for religious reasons is a disgusting betrayal of human rights and a foul, dangerous mutilating procedure that should be made ILLEGAL."

Believe me, I am no oadvocate for religion. However even religion occasionally hits upon a truth even if it is for the wrong reason. There are far more harmful things religion does than circumcision, brainwashing a child into fearing his own thoughts because he thinks they are being monitored and judged is a far worse thing than circumcision.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 11:25:24

PigletJohn said: "if baggins insists on using his silly term "intactivist" to mean a person who disapproves of cutting off bits of the human body without medical need, does anyone mind calling him a "mutilationist?"

Intactivist isn't my term. It is the name the foreskin fetishists have given themselves.

PigletJohn Sun 20-Apr-14 11:30:07

I am not aware of anyone on this thread who considers themselves a fetishist.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 11:36:55

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "The BMA consider male circumcision to be an invasive, radical procedure"

Are the BMA also intactivists?

*You mean in the same way you intactivists claim the US CDC and AAP are populated by circumcision fetishists because they have stated that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks??

No. I think it is far cheaper for the NHS to amputate the penis of one man in his sixties than to circumcise 600 boys. Therefore the "establishment" policy is not to recommend routine circumcision.

Despite all that, however, the NHS has updated its advice on its website recently and at least now recognises there are potential benefits to routine circumcision. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of routine circumcision but a step in the right direction none-the-less. The BMA hasn't updated its position for many years.

www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 11:40:13

PigletJohn said: "I am not aware of anyone on this thread who considers themselves a fetishist."

Fetishists rarely do. Then again, perhaps most here are simply overtaken by the emotional reaction, "I don't want my child cut for any reason." They will be cut eventually. A cut knee is more painful and takes longer to heal than a plastibell or circumplast circumcision.

PigletJohn Sun 20-Apr-14 11:46:23

You are a mutilationist, then, because you advocate cutting bits off infants when there is no medical need.

You are also a foreskin fetishist, although you may not consider yourself to be one.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 11:48:04

" A cut knee is more painful and takes longer to heal than a plastibell or circumplast circumcision."

Yes, cos an accident and a deliberate choice to operate are the same.

ASmidgeofMidge Sun 20-Apr-14 13:11:30

Your calculation of a 1 in 600 risk is deeply flawed, baggins. It assumes that all males face the same risk of what is a vanishingly rare cancer. That my DS, aged 3months, is at the same risk as a male aged 70 with diabetes and who has smoked all his life.

Definition of fetish

ASmidgeofMidge Sun 20-Apr-14 13:12:50

I don't think there are any fetishists here with reference to the first meaning. Wrt to the second meaning, I think the irrational devotion (to circumcision) is yours

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 13:52:29

PigletJohn said "You are a mutilationist, then, because you advocate cutting bits off infants when there is no medical need.

You are also a foreskin fetishist, although you may not consider yourself to be one."

My, my! How typical of someone who has lost an argument on reason to resort to mindless personal attack.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 13:55:25

ASmidgeofMidge said: "Your calculation of a 1 in 600 risk is deeply flawed, baggins. It assumes that all males face the same risk of what is a vanishingly rare cancer. That my DS, aged 3months, is at the same risk as a male aged 70 with diabetes and who has smoked all his life."

*No, ASmidgeofMidge, it is your mathematics that is deeply flawed, not my logic.

Think about it. if you can't figure out why the figure remains 1 in 600 regardless of the high risk age group then come back to me and I will explain it to you.*

ASmidgeofMidge Sun 20-Apr-14 14:00:58

I'm all ears...

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 14:02:03

ASmidgeofMidge said: "I don't think there are any fetishists here with reference to the first meaning. Wrt to the second meaning, I think the irrational devotion (to circumcision) is yours"

Then I suggest your comprehension skills are as poor as your mathematical skills. Regardless of whether you consider the benefits I have clearly demonstrated are sufficient to defend circumcision, my decision to circumcise my son was most certainly not irrational.

My argument was, and remains, that circumcision is a valid choice for a parent to make, not that all parents should be forced to circumcise their sons.

ASmidgeofMidge Sun 20-Apr-14 14:27:06

Baggins? I can't figure it out...

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 14:30:08

ASmidgeofMidge said: "I'm all ears..."

Fair enough.

It is a LIFETIME RISK. It doesn't matter WHEN in his life your son gets penile cancer (he clearly won't get it in childhood, or below the age of 40 in fact). If the ONLY age you could get the disease was 43 the lifetime risk would remain exactly the same. That one in every 600 boys born will develop penile cancer in their lifetime if they are not circumcised and that none of them will develop the disease in childhood are not contradictory facts.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 14:33:45

What's your position on the HPV vaccine for boys?

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 14:46:27

TheDoctrineOfSnatch: Do you understand why the current age of your son doesn't affect his lifetime risk? And do you understand why the 550 annual cases is divided by the entire male population to get the lifetime risk figure?

Perhaps you feel that since the 550 are all over 40, only those over 40 should be included? Of course this would give you the "over 40" risk of developing penile cancer rather than the lifetime risk, and since the 550 cases would be divided by a much smaller population, the risk of an over 40 getting the disease would be significantly higher. 1 in 300 if half the male population are over 40, for example.

ASmidgeofMidge Sun 20-Apr-14 14:47:01

The at-risk period is only in later life ... and that's assuming that everyone has the same risk, which isn't the case.

The incidence of penile cancer in the US according to this was predicted to be roughly 1 in 100,000 in 2012.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 14:48:04

TheDoctrineOfSnatch... sorry for addressing the last post to you, it was intended for ASmidgeof Midge!

Why would you think I would oppose HPV vaccine for boys if it worked? Does it?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 14:49:49

I don't know. I thought you might as you have clearly read a lot about penile cancer. HPV is a factor in penile cancer, as it is in cervical.

ASmidgeofMidge Sun 20-Apr-14 14:50:01

There is a difference between incidence and incidence rate

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 14:51:40
ASmidgeofMidge Sun 20-Apr-14 14:53:55

550 cases dx'd per year per 31 000 000 men

Total incidence rate = 1.8 per 100 000

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 14:58:47

TheDoctrineofSnatch said: "I don't know. I thought you might as you have clearly read a lot about penile cancer. HPV is a factor in penile cancer, as it is in cervical."

I did research it when deciding about our son, yes. My understanding is that about 40% of penile cancers are attributed to HPV. Is that correct?

ASmidgeofMidge Sun 20-Apr-14 15:02:47

Which is why I would question the rationale of circumcision for such a rare illness.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 15:03:43

ASmidgeofMidge said:

"550 cases dx'd per year per 31 000 000 men

Total incidence rate = 1.8 per 100 000"

Yes. So what are you disputing? The 550 cases per year claimed by Cancer Research and all other cancer bodies that I can find? Or the male population? Or the "about 1 in 100,000 figure which turns out to be 1.8?

I am not sure what your point is.

ASmidgeofMidge Sun 20-Apr-14 15:11:05

My post of 1447, and the figure of roughly 1 in 100 000 was based upon the data in the journal article I linked to. My post of 1453 and the figure of 1.8 per 100 000 was based upon your figures in your post of 0050. Apologies as I should have made that clearer.

My point is that 1/1.8 in 100 000 is not the same as 1 in 531. You are misrepresenting the level of risk

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 15:11:34

ASmidgeofMidge saod: "Which is why I would question the rationale of circumcision for such a rare illness"

That is a matter of opinion. 1 in 600 is rare, but not "vanishingly small." And when you consider how devastating it is and the extremely high mortality (one of the highest mortality in cancers), and consider that preventing penile cancer is just one of the advantages of circumcision and that the risks and negatives of circumcision are so small, circumcision is a valid choice to make for your son.

ASmidgeofMidge Sun 20-Apr-14 15:19:18

Re risks of circumcision I'd refer you back to the journal article linked by BreakingDad77 above

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 15:22:14

It has a 50% mortality rate, is that really one if the highest amongst cancers? I'm surprised.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 15:34:22

ASmidgeofMidge said: "My point is that 1/1.8 in 100 000 is not the same as 1 in 531. You are misrepresenting the level of risk"

No, I am not overstating the risks : both figues compliment the other, one os the chance of a man getting cancer in his lifetime and the other is the risk of an individual male getting penile cancer in any particular year of his life.

Of course intactivists like the second figure because it really does make penile cancer risk look vanishingly small, and they use ot on the hope tjat their audience won't understand what the figure means.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 15:38:22

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "It has a 50% mortality rate, is that really one if the highest amongst cancers? I'm surprised."

No ot isn't the highest mortality rate among cancers, but I never said it was. Pancreatic cancer has a much higher mortality rate, for example. It is, however, very high up the mortality table and therefore more lethal than the vast majority of cancers.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 15:47:00

"And when you consider how devastating it is and the extremely high mortality (one of the highest mortality in cancers)"

Is what you said.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 15:49:03

TheDoctrineOfSnatch,
By the way, the /100,000 type figures are used to help plan funding and resources in the medical field and have little or no value to individuals. They apportion risk equally to each year of life, giving a baby the same 1.8 in 100,000 chance of getting penile cancer this year as a 70 year old man. Life risk, the chance of getting a particular illness at some point in your life, is much more meaningful.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 15:52:19

You are addressing the wrong poster again.

This table doesn't have penile cancer on it for some reason but here are the cancers it lists at >50% mortality:

Pancreatic cancer – 94%
Liver cancer – 83.9%
Lung cancer – 83.4%
Esophageal cancer – 82.7%
Stomach cancer – 72.3%
Brain cancer – 66.5%
Ovarian cancer – 55.8%

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 15:54:19

TheDoctrineOfSnatch sais: "And when you consider how devastating it is and the extremely high mortality (one of the highest mortality in cancers)"

Is what you said."

Yes. That is exactly what I said. It is written just a few posts back.

Again I am at a loss as to your point. ONE OF THE HIGHEST MORTALITY is not quite the same as THE HIGHEST MORTALITY!!

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 15:56:12

I never said the highest mortality. You misread my reply:

"TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "It has a 50% mortality rate, is that really one if the highest amongst cancers? I'm surprised."

To which you said:

"No ot isn't the highest mortality rate among cancers, but I never said it was"

I never said that you said it was, if you read carefully.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 15:57:46

You are addressing the wrong poster again.

This table doesn't have penile cancer on it for some reason but here are the cancers it lists at >50% mortality:
TheDoctrineOfSnatch said:"
Pancreatic cancer – 94%
Liver cancer – 83.9%
Lung cancer – 83.4%
Esophageal cancer – 82.7%
Stomach cancer – 72.3%
Brain cancer – 66.5%
Ovarian cancer – 55.8%"

Yes. And? tbuconfused

waterlego Sun 20-Apr-14 15:59:29

I'm with Brunobrookes. The issue of consent is the overwhelming one for me.

When my son is old enough to read and understand the facts and statistics regarding penile cancer and HIV, he can make his own choice, for his own body. I would not be so arrogant as to make a choice on his behalf which affects a delicate part of his body.

I'm not male, so have no idea how attached (haha) a man might feel to his foreskin and therefore I'll leave well alone and allow my son to make that choice, if he wishes.

That's not to say that I think fathers should choose this for their sons either. It didn't occur to my husband to circumcise our son.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 16:11:55

And...I thought it was an interesting table.

Do you acknowledge yet that you misread my post?

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 16:42:27

TheDoctrineOfSnatch sad: "Do you acknowledge yet that you misread my post?"

Yes, it seems I did. Apologies for that. And your table was interesting. Irrelevant, but interesting!

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 16:46:31

Thank you.

I thought the table was relevant in the context of cancers with high mortality rates.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 16:48:26

waterlego said:stuff about consent.

Fair enough, but my question to you is why you single the foreskin out as a consent issue.

ASmidgeofMidge Sun 20-Apr-14 16:54:20

Survival rates at 5 years are quoted as being between 70-80% between 2002 and 2006... I found this with only the most cursory of Googling.

here

ASmidgeofMidge Sun 20-Apr-14 16:55:45

Methinks there's a bit of scaremongering going on here...

PigletJohn Sun 20-Apr-14 16:55:49

Try asking her if she thinks parents should make the choice to amputate the breasts from baby girls to avoid the risk of breast cancer.

See if, as you suggest, she singles the foreskin out as a consent issue.

I think you may find it is because this is a thread about circumcision.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 16:58:14

Thanks, Midge. Or do you prefer Smidge?

grin

waterlego Sun 20-Apr-14 16:59:24

Bagging, I take it you mean that there are other decisions we make on behalf of our children? Well yes, there are plenty.

I have to decide which school they will go to, because they don't know enough about education to make that decision for themselves.

I choose (largely) what they eat, because if I didn't, they would eat bread/chocolate/cheese/sausages all the time, and overwhelming evidence suggests that such a diet would not be healthy, and could make them overweight.

I decide what time they go to bed, because if I didn't, they'd stay up all night watching crap cartoons on Youtube, and not be fit for school in the morning. And because I like some peace and quiet of an evening.

In all of these cases, I am making decisions based on overwhelming evidence about what is healthy and sensible. Feeding them a very unhealthy diet and letting them stay up late every night could constitute neglect, could it not? None of these decisions involves putting them through a medical procedure to remove a part of their body.

Just out of interest (and they're nosy questions, so feel free to ignore)... Am I right in thinking that you were circumcised as an adult because of a medical problem? If this is the case, I wonder why you had not chosen circumcision prior to that, because of the benefits as you see them. Have you ever wished that your parents had made that choice for you when you were an infant?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 17:00:09

Updated mortality table in light of Midge's numbers:

Pancreatic cancer – 94%
Liver cancer – 83.9%
Lung cancer – 83.4%
Esophageal cancer – 82.7%
Stomach cancer – 72.3%
Brain cancer – 66.5%
Ovarian cancer – 55.8%
Leukemia – 44%
Laryngeal cancer – 39.4%
Oral cancer – 37.8%
Colon cancer – 35.1%
Bone cancer – 33.6%
Rectal cancer – 33.5%
Cervical cancer – 32.1%
Kidney cancer – 28.2%
Bladder cancer – 22.1%

waterlego Sun 20-Apr-14 17:01:03

Sorry, baggins not bagging. blush

Thank you PJ, you are entirely correct.

ASmidgeofMidge Sun 20-Apr-14 17:03:51

Tis a pleasure, Doctrine

Open to Smidge or Midge grin

Martorana Sun 20-Apr-14 18:42:40

Fair enough, but my question to you is why you single the foreskin out as a consent issue."

I don't.
I apply the same principle to any non medically necessary surgical procedure performed on a person unable to
consent. Down to, and including, ear piercing.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 21:56:33

ASmidgeofMidge said: "Survival rates at 5 years are quoted as being between 70-80% between 2002 and 2006... I found this with only the most cursory of Googling."

*Sadly survival rates depend on how early the cancer is diagnosed. According to the BBC (discussing the 20% rise in penile cancer recently) the cancer is usually either mistaken for a rash in the early stages and ignored, or misdiagnosed as an STD by Doctors. As a consequence, they stated, the mortality rate from the disease was over 50% where with early diagnosis only 1 in 10 men would die.

HOWEVER, most cases, even with early diagnosis, require surgery and this involves removing up to 2cm of healthy tissue surrounding the cancer. A 4cm lump taken from a glans is going to leave it pretty damaged. A full or partial penectomy is a common consequence of this cancer.*

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 22:02:08

PigletJohn said: "Try asking her if she thinks parents should make the choice to amputate the breasts from baby girls to avoid the risk of breast cancer.

*See if, as you suggest, she singles the foreskin out as a consent issue.

I think you may find it is because this is a thread about circumcision."

I tried asking generally is anyone would refuse to allow teeth to be extracted from their child's mouth in order for a brace to be fitted and the teeth straightened for purely cosmetic reasons.

Guess how many came forward and said they wouldn't remove teeth from their child for cosmetic reasons.....

So yes, Piglet, both she and you are being hypocritical is claiming you would do nothing to your child's body that didn't have an immediate medical need.*

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 22:04:02

Martorana said:

"I apply the same principle to any non medically necessary surgical procedure performed on a person unable to
consent. Down to, and including, ear piercing."

Except tooth extraction for cosmetic reasons, eh!

PigletJohn Sun 20-Apr-14 22:07:52

baggins said "Fair enough, but my question to you is why you single the foreskin out as a consent issue."

Answer is, she doesn't

If you had asked me, I don't either.

Your question is based on a fallacious, self-invented premise.

waterlego Sun 20-Apr-14 22:16:54

So yes, Piglet, both she and you are being hypocritical is claiming you would do nothing to your child's body that didn't have an immediate medical need.

If by 'she', you are referring to me, can you please point out where on this thread I have been shown to be a hypocrite?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 22:19:42

Since you can't be bothered to read back for yourself, Mart posted:

OK, Baggins- if you insist on comparing circumcision to braces on teeth, how about we agree to leave it til the child is 13 and let them choose?

Absolutely nothing about cosmetic tooth extraction. HTH.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 22:21:00

Because you didn't answer a question baggins posted somewhat incoherently several pages before you joked the thread, waterlego. Obvious, innit tbugrin?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 22:21:57

Joked the thread = joined the thread

<any mental leap to "this thread has become a joke" is entirely Dr Freud's fault>

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 22:22:57

waterlego said:

"In all of these cases, I am making decisions based on overwhelming evidence about what is healthy and sensible. "

Sensible is a nice get out of jail free card, eh! It allows extraction of teeth so that a brace can be fitted to make them look better.... but then again it also allows circumcision which has more benefits than drawbacks, doesn't it!

"Just out of interest (and they're nosy questions, so feel free to ignore)... Am I right in thinking that you were circumcised as an adult because of a medical problem? If this is the case, I wonder why you had not chosen circumcision prior to that, because of the benefits as you see them. Have you ever wished that your parents had made that choice for you when you were an infant?"

I was circumcised as an adult following a rather bloody argument with an unusually sharp zipper!

I knew little about circumcision before this and what I did know was the lies and exaggerations the intactivists spew forth.... screaming babies, ridiculous claims of the risk of death, insensitive penises and lack of sexual pleasure and no benefits at all. All crap, of course, but you don't know that until you check it out for yourself.

I would never have circumcised my son if I didn't believe the advantages outweighed the disadvantages and if I wouldn't have wanted to be circumcised myself as a child.

poor OP has not been back. Probably too scared to join in the massive bunfight!

waterlego Sun 20-Apr-14 22:27:42

Sensible is a nice get out of jail free card, eh! It allows extraction of teeth so that a brace can be fitted to make them look better.... but then again it also allows circumcision which has more benefits than drawbacks, doesn't it!

I have said nothing anywhere on this thread about my attitudes and beliefs wrt extracting teeth or fitting braces. As Doctrine correctly said, you evidently asked that question some pages back before I joined the thread.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 22:29:00

waterlego said: "If by 'she', you are referring to me, can you please point out where on this thread I have been shown to be a hypocrite?"

I have no idea of your sex so I do apologise for making the wrong assumption.

So, to establish whether you are a hypocrite, are you the only poster here who would refuse to encourage your child to have teeth extracted and a brace fitted in order to straighten out his / her teeth so they look better?

If you can honestly say you would tell the dentist you will wait until your child is 18 and can their own decision I will withdraw my accusation.....

Or perhaps add an accusation of dishonesty....

5madthings Sun 20-Apr-14 22:31:42

Bloody hell Baggins you seem a bit obsessed, having joined mnet to post solely about this issue. Yet you yourself weren't circumcised until age 29 and then only because of a 'zipper accident' why if you think it is so amazing did you not have it done before? And going on about an uncircumcised penis not being as clean etc, it's perfectly clean if you wash! Or did you have a problem doing this?

Would you have circumcised your son if you were not circumcised yourself? Again if you think it is so marvelous why did you wait until he was five?

I suspect had you not had your zipper incident you would still be uncircumcised and so would your son, but having Been forced to have it done yourself you have since desperately tried to convince yourself that it is better...

Circumcision can have medical benefits and may be needed medically in some cases but in general it's fine to leave males uncut, let them make the choice themselves when old enough.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 22:47:21

OK. For those who haven't bothered to read this thread before contributing to it, I challenged those who claimed they would never alter their child's body without their consent. I asked if they would be willing to allow teeth to be extracted and a brace fitted in order to make a cosmetic improvement to their teeth. (Extraction of teeth is commonly required to allow the teeth to be straightened.)

No-one said they would tell the dentist to wait until their child was 18 and could decide for him / her self.

A couple made claims that braces could be fitted to cure a medical problem, which was irrelevant to the point I made.

And someone else seemed to think that 12 year olds make their own decision about having teeth extracted and braces fitted which is nothing more than self-righteous delusion since parents normally "persuade" their kids to have braces: 12 year olds do what their parents tell them to do. Why do you think Muslim boys undergo circumcision in late childhood, and many teenagers in South African communities undergo barbaric circumcision rituals. To claim otherwise is to lie to yourself.

So the label of "hypocrite" fits well with anyone claiming that altering your child's body in a way YOU feel is in their interests is mutilation.

still wouldnt chop a bit of my son's penis off for no good reason. I do not know of anyone with penile cancer and do not know of anyone here who is circumcised either.

you seem a little obsessed (understatement)

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 23:06:47

5madthings said: "Bloody hell Baggins you seem a bit obsessed, having joined mnet to post solely about this issue."

Challenging the lies being posted in this thread about circumcision is as good a reason as any to join.

Yet you yourself weren't circumcised until age 29 and then only because of a 'zipper accident' why if you think it is so amazing did you not have it done before?

Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect you to have read the whole thread before posting, but I would expect you to have read the last few pages at least. Clearly you haven't or you wouldn't be asking questions answered so recently.

And going on about an uncircumcised penis not being as clean etc, it's perfectly clean if you wash! Or did you have a problem doing this?

Again, had you bothered to read a bit you would find this question has been responded to in detail.

Would you have circumcised your son if you were not circumcised yourself? Again if you think it is so marvelous why did you wait until he was five?

Responded to in detail a few pages back. Try reading before posting.

I suspect had you not had your zipper incident you would still be uncircumcised and so would your son, but having Been forced to have it done yourself you have since desperately tried to convince yourself that it is better...

And I suspect that you have a foreskin fetish which is why you cannot accept circumcision is a valid choice for parents to make for their son, and why you make such pitiful efforts to undermine those who do.

Circumcision can have medical benefits and may be needed medically in some cases but in general it's fine to leave males uncut, let them make the choice themselves when old enough.

Once again your laziness is apparent. This has been addressed in detail in recent pages.

waterlego Sun 20-Apr-14 23:10:12

I would not make my child undergo tooth extraction for purely cosmetic reasons, no. If it were initiated by them, I would support them in it. In all likelihood, it would be suggested by a dentist, in the first instance. I would then ask my child what they thought about the dentist's suggestion. So no, I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.

By the way, there are actually a number of medical reasons for orthodontics- it is not always purely about the cosmetic. For example, overcrowding can cause discomfort or make it more difficult to maintain oral hygiene.

I suspect had you not had your zipper incident you would still be uncircumcised and so would your son, but having Been forced to have it done yourself you have since desperately tried to convince yourself that it is better...
5madthings I wondered the same.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 23:10:32

Braces are fitted on a case by case basis, following medical advice.

No poster on this thread has said they wouldn't consider circumcision for their child if a medical professional had advised it.

No medical professional following NHS guidance in the uk advises pre-emptive circumcision.

So your analogy isn't parallel.

Hope that helps.

waterlego Sun 20-Apr-14 23:13:53

Hear hear Doctrine

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 23:14:40

ilovepowerhoop said: "you seem a little obsessed (understatement)"

Interesting angle. Much better that I just allow the anti-circumcision lies/ delusions to remain unchallenged, eh!

And just to reiterate my original position: the benefits of circumcision outweigh the drawbacks, and although the benefits are not so great that it should be considered essential, it is a valid choice for a parent to make for their child, not "mutilation".

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 23:28:31

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "Braces are fitted on a case by case basis, following medical advice."

Yes... and usually for cosmetic rather than medical reasons. Or are you trying to pretend most braces are fitted to cure a medical problem??

No poster on this thread has said they wouldn't consider circumcision for their child if a medical professional had advised it.

Entirely irrelevant. The point was that they would allow teeth to be extracted and a brace fitted for cosmetic reasons.

No medical professional following NHS guidance in the uk advises pre-emptive circumcision.

*A meaningless statement. What you mean is the NHS doesn't recommend pre-emptive circumcision. It follows that any Doctor recommending circumcision isn't following NHS guidance!

It is interesting to note (as I did a little way back, that NHS guidance has softened towards circumcision on the website and that they do, at least, recognise there are some advantages to it. Link was provided.*

So your analogy isn't parallel.

My analogy clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy of those who claim no procedure should be undertaken on a child unless it is medically necessary.

Hope that helps.

Well, it was a good attempt at wriggling out of an accusation of hypocrisy.

waterlego Sun 20-Apr-14 23:31:14

But I don't think a single poster has actually said that they would make their child have teeth extracted, for purely cosmetic reasons. So where are all these hypocrites you're so paranoid about?

Martorana Sun 20-Apr-14 23:33:19

Baggins- are you genuinely saying that a 12/13 year old is not able to make an informed decision about whether or not to have comsmetic dental treatment??? Have you actually met any 12 year olds?

Do you really think that a 12 year old is as incapable of informed consent as a baby?

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 23:35:05

waterlego said: "I would not make my child undergo tooth extraction for purely cosmetic reasons, no. If it were initiated by them, I would support them in it. In all likelihood, it would be suggested by a dentist, in the first instance. I would then ask my child what they thought about the dentist's suggestion. So no, I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. "

Then you are either unique among parents or a liar. I cannot imagine a parent who would choose to leave their child with a crooked smile for the sake of misguided principles. Shame on you.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 23:38:14

Oh goddess, do I have to state the bleeding obvious?

"I would not make my child undergo tooth extraction for purely cosmetic reasons,"

Seconded.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 20-Apr-14 23:46:24

Right, well, fun as this has been, there is a fantastic science jokes thread that needs my attention.

Ta ta.

waterlego Sun 20-Apr-14 23:48:31

Shame on you

Oh, for goodness sake. Just because you like to tamper with your child's perfectly acceptable body, doesn't mean we're all it.

Shame indeed! Such delicious irony grin

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 23:51:31

Martorana said: Baggins- are you genuinely saying that a 12/13 year old is not able to make an informed decision about whether or not to have comsmetic dental treatment??? Have you actually met any 12 year olds?

Do you really think that a 12 year old is as incapable of informed consent as a baby?

I have a 12 year old who had four teeth extracted two weeks ago in preparation for having a brace fitted next month. I also have a 16 year old who had a brace fitted a few years ago (she now has beautiful straight teeth.)

12 year olds are not very good at looking to the future. She didn't think anything of her overlapping teeth and had to be pursuaded that having nice teeth would benefit her in her life. Taking her to have the teeth extracted was traumatic for her and her mother. The dentist only removed one on the first visit (it was planned to remove two that day) because my daughter was too distressed. It took a lot of persuading to get her to attend the next visit.

12 year olds tend to make decisions based on now rather than the future. That is why they usually need persuading to do their homework.

12 year olds are not adults and cannot be left to make decisions about their future on their own. That is why they have to live with an adult who can pursuade them to do the right thing... or at least the right thing as far as the parent is concerned.

baggins101 Sun 20-Apr-14 23:58:59

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "Oh goddess, do I have to state the bleeding obvious?

"I would not make my child undergo tooth extraction for purely cosmetic reasons,"

Seconded."

Predictable. tbushock

Martorana Mon 21-Apr-14 00:16:51

"12 year olds are not adults and cannot be left to make decisions about their future on their own. That is why they have to live with an adult who can pursuade them to do the right thing... or at least the right thing as far as the parent is concerned."

They most certainly can when it's something that can easily wait- like teeth straightening. And I don't agree, actually- I think 12 year olds are cleverer than you think they are.

Out of interest, how does your son's mother feel about your new found evangelism for circumcision?

Kendodd Tue 22-Apr-14 09:47:27

Out of interest baggins101 how much does the risk of penile cancer increase if circumcision is done in young adulthood instead of young child/babyhood? Is the increased risk (if any) great enough to justify not waiting for the person concerned to decide for themselves?

I get your point about teeth straightening, although with teeth straightening there are advantages to having it done before age 18. It doesn't take as long because children's teeth move around quicker than adults and of course there is the cost. Done as a child purely (although as somebody said there are some heath benefits even in these cases) cosmetic cases would be treated free on the NHS, wait until an adult and it would cost many many thousands of pounds, money some people just won't have. Also a young teenager IS much more capable of consent than a five year old or a baby. In fact if they didn't consent despite much parent pressure/persuasion I very much doubt the procedure would be done. Also I doubt very much adults ever wish for their crocked teeth back, although they might be troubled by the process to straighten them. Having straight teeth has a great impact on a persons life as well, it even improves their marriage and job prospects. I wish my parents had had my teeth straightened and resent them for not doing it (amongst other things I resent them for though.)

Although I concede there may be some advantages having circumcision done as a baby/young child, for instance being able to use the procedure you describe and with a baby, even if it is painful they won't remember it. IMO the consent issue outweighs this and I will say again that this was not your choice to make but I do hope you get away with it and it doesn't become a cause of contention between you and your son.

I'm guessing the foreskin is there in the first place to protect the penis? It makes the penis, sort of, retractable, just like many other mammals. You could argue that we not longer need this because we now wear clothes, although these have their own hazards, right baggins The removal of it is mostly religious/cultural and some religious/cultural practises came from very sensible roots maybe in the past a lot of people did get infections there and cutting the foreskin off prevented this? Just like in the past a lot of people got sick eating pork so pork was banned. These days we can cook pork safely and wash regularly so don't need these traditions. This whole paragraph is just me thinking out loud.

Anyway I say all this with an (intact) 7yo half Jewish boy who won't be circumcised while I'm responsible for him (unless of course medically needed) and a 8yo girl who will most likely need braces.

LyndaCartersBigPants Tue 22-Apr-14 10:11:37

Baggins I haven't read the full thread, but have just read some of the later posts and wanted to say that my DS was advised to have braces to straighten out his perfectly OK teeth. I admit they are not completely straight, but to me they look absolutely fine.

DS didn't want braces, got quite upset at the thought of them, so I explained about confidence as an adult, that if he waited and wanted them done later that it would cost him thousands and let him decide for himself.

Similarly my DD is 7 and wants her ears pierced. Having had mine done at the age of 10 I have since let them close up as I don't like them anymore, but there are still holes in my ears 30 years later. I don't blame my parents for letting me pierce them, but I certainly won't allow a 7 year old to choose to have permanent holes made in her ears.

Perhaps once she is 10-12 I will allow her to choose as she will better be able to understand the long term implications. I would never have had her ears pierced because I wanted her to have them done without her having any say in it, because while there may be a perceived advantage to being able to wear pretty earrings, it is not my body to alter.

So Baggins, you said "If you can honestly say you would tell the dentist you will wait until your child is 18 and can their own decision I will withdraw my accusation....." For me I can categorically state that yes, this is the case.

Kendodd Tue 22-Apr-14 15:22:03

Baggins Just to come back at your point about an imaginary flap of skin on a girls breast being removed.

Well, lets imagine this flap does exist and that removing it dramatical reduces the risk of breast cancer and lets imagine that breast cancer has the same profile as penile cancer, 1 in 600 the vast majority of which are concentrated in the later years, and the same treatment outcomes apply. Now lets also imagine that (unlike the foreskin) this flap really does serve no useful function but despite this some women are still very attached to this flap and would not choose to have it removed, maybe they believe it increases sensitivity.

Are you really saying that you would take this decision away from your daughter and have this flap removed when she was a child and had no say in it? Equally, you seem surprised upthread that other people wouldn't do this and would wait for them to decide for themselves...really, you can't see why parents would wait?

It sounds to me Baggins that you panicked a little because of your uncles cancer, understandable maybe, do you know if there is any genetic element to penile cancer? Oh, and any figures on cancer risk if circumcision is left until young adulthood instead of done in childhood yet?

As for you constantly using the term 'intactivists' I don't think I have read any posts saying that adults should not be allowed to choose to be circumcised (please correct me if I'm wrong) maybe people are better described as 'consentactivists'?

BTW Do you know how badly you would have been injured by that zip had you not had a foreskin?

Kendodd Wed 23-Apr-14 12:13:50

Is that it? Are you not coming back Baggins? Does that mean I win?

ASmidgeofMidge Wed 23-Apr-14 12:59:23

grin

PigletJohn Wed 23-Apr-14 13:28:00

surely there is a limit to the amount of time any normal person, over the age of 14, wants to spend arguing about penii?

baggins101 Thu 24-Apr-14 09:38:55

LyndaCartersBigPants said: "DS didn't want braces, got quite upset at the thought of them, so I explained about confidence as an adult, that if he waited and wanted them done later that it would cost him thousands and let him decide for himself.......

....So Baggins, you said "If you can honestly say you would tell the dentist you will wait until your child is 18 and can their own decision I will withdraw my accusation....." For me I can categorically state that yes, this is the case."

Oh, no. That won't do at all. Good parents don't get their kids to do thins by dragging them kicking and screaming. If they have any sort of relationship with them they convince them to do the things they don't want to do. Going to school, doing homework, not hanging out on a street corner drinking cider.... whatever. And getting circumcised too. Don't forget most Muslim boys are circumcised between about 8 and 12 years old....

You convinced your child to have braces fitted just as Muslim parents convince their son to be circumcised.

I repeat my earlier claim: ""If you can honestly say you would tell the dentist you will wait until your child is 18 and can their own decision I will withdraw my accusation (of hypocrisy)"

You used your parental authority to get your child to have braces fitted for cosmetic reasons. Did he have any teeth extracted for this? Many do. And I suspect that even if yoru son didn't, you would have persuaded him to have the teeth extracted if it was necessary for his teeth to be straightened.

And yet claim you are opposed to circumcision on principle because a parent has no right to alter their child's body, regardless of whether the parent believes it to be in their child's interest.

You are, LyndaCartersBigPants, a hypocrite.

LyndaCartersBigPants Thu 24-Apr-14 09:51:36

No, my son didn't have braces fitted!

LyndaCartersBigPants Thu 24-Apr-14 09:52:57

If he wants the done as an adult, that's his choice.

baggins101 Thu 24-Apr-14 10:34:17

Kendodd said: Out of interest baggins101 how much does the risk of penile cancer increase if circumcision is done in young adulthood instead of young child/babyhood? Is the increased risk (if any) great enough to justify not waiting for the person concerned to decide for themselves?

Penile cancer is just one of the benefits of circumcision, Kendodd. The advantages of getting your son circumcised before the age of 8 are:

1. It is a simple and PAIN FREE procedure using the pastibell or cicumplast with local anesthetic. These methods of circumcision cannot be used after the age of 8 as the skin is too thick.

2. It takes days rather than weeks for the circumcision to heal. An adult or adolescent male would have to refrain from all sexual activity (including masturbation) for about six weeks, which is very frustrating.

3. Circumcision in childhood provides almost complete protection against penile cancer. Circumcision in adulthood does not.

4. There are also advantages with significantly reduced risk of UTI in childhood. Urinary tract infections are, like penile cancer, uncommon but even with modern medicine can cause long term harm. This protection only starts from when the boy is circumcised

Although I concede there may be some advantages having circumcision done as a baby/young child, for instance being able to use the procedure you describe and with a baby, even if it is painful they won't remember it. IMO the consent issue outweighs this and I will say again that this was not your choice to make

And yet teeth straightening IS your choice to make? When deciding to convince your child to have teeth extracted and a brace fitted you, like all good parents, weigh up the advantages and disadvantages and make what you believe to be the best decision for your child. And there are disadvantages to fitting a brace: pain and discomfort for as long as a couple of years; it is time consuming to clean the teeth with braces fitted; possible ridicule from peers; lots of visits to the orthodontist; etc. But the long term benefits outweigh these drawbacks.... or so you decide as a good parent.

So lets pretend for a moment that you accepted the benefits of circumcision outweighed the drawbacks, I fail to see how you can claim "the consent issue outweighs this" for circumcision but not for fitting a brace, without leaving yourself open to the accusation of hypocricy.

Your comment about removing a flap of skin to protect from breast cancer is fine as far as it goes... but in your scenario there is no advantage to having the flap removed in childhood. With the foreskin there ARE advantages to having it removed in childhood. You clearly don't see them as over-riding, but there certainly are advantages.

The bottom line, Kendodd, is that it IS a valid choice for parents to make. The advantages are not so great that it should be considered essential, but then the disadvantages are also minimal, despite what the intactivists say. You cannot die from circumcision any more than a cut finger, you can only die from excessive bleeding (over a cupful for a baby) or general anesthetic, and these are matters of criminal medical (or parental) negligence, not circumcision itself. Cut a foreskin off with a pair of scissors and just wind a bandage around it and walk away and yes, the risk is high. And the Intactivists exaggerate even those figures. The recent case of Joshua Haskins being a prime example.

And although I won't repeat them now, the other claims of long term harm are equally exaggerated by the intactivists, and lapped up by those who want to lap them up.

And finally, the term Intactivist is not mine. It is the name the pressure groups opposing circumcision have given themselves. The arguments "facts" and figures given by most in this thread are straight from the intactivist websites.

PigletJohn Thu 24-Apr-14 10:42:52

Has anybody on this thread (except mutilationist baggins) used the term to describe themselves?

baggins101 Thu 24-Apr-14 10:48:11

LyndaCartersBigPants said: "No, my son didn't have braces fitted!"

Before I accuse you of being a bad parent, perhaps you could explain your reasons for not convincing your son to have a brace fitted?

Are his teeth not too bad so you felt it would be OK for him to live like that? In which case you decided the advantages were not so great for him so left it. That would be a reasonable decision in my view.

Or is your relationship so poor with your son that he wouldn't listen to you and you couldn't persuade him? In which case you really need to work on your relationship.

Or perhaps you are a "free parent" and allow your son to do what he wants? Perhaps he doesn't have a bed time? Perhaps you let him drink and smoke? That is not a parenting choice I would advise.

Or perhaps, most worrying, you are so weighed down by your principle of non-intervention that you are happy to saddle him with a bill for thousands and the embarrassment of being the only twenty-something wearing a brace to work for a couple of years?

Please help me to understand your decision not to persuade your son to have braces fitted.

PigletJohn Thu 24-Apr-14 11:03:01

Where is that withdrawal that baggins promised?

baggins101 Thu 24-Apr-14 11:08:50

PigletJohn said: "Where is that withdrawal that baggins promised?"

Let's wait for a response, shall we. If she says that his teeth are not so bad then the accusation of hypocrisy stands. If she has left her son with visibly crooked teeth because of a misguided principle then I will withdraw the accusation of hypocrisy and replace it with an accusation of being a bad parent.

PigletJohn Thu 24-Apr-14 11:29:00

Silly boy.

baggins101 Thu 24-Apr-14 11:31:32

PigletJohn said "Silly boy."

....said PigletJohn as he ran away with his tail between his legs.

PigletJohn Thu 24-Apr-14 11:33:48

Very silly boy.

Kendodd Thu 24-Apr-14 13:38:17

baggins101

To respond to your post up thread.

1. It is a simple and PAIN FREE procedure using the pastibell or cicumplast with local anesthetic. These methods of circumcision cannot be used after the age of 8 as the skin is too thick.

2. It takes days rather than weeks for the circumcision to heal. An adult or adolescent male would have to refrain from all sexual activity (including masturbation) for about six weeks, which is very frustrating.

Both of these arguments are complete nonsense because they are working on the assumption that the child WILL choose to be circumcised as an adult. I believe it is very rare for an adult male to just decide one day that they'd like to be circumcised. I don't have any figures on this, maybe you do? Therefore, in most cases, no operation is ever performed so no pain is experienced and he can masturbate as much as he likes without interruption.

3. Circumcision in childhood provides almost complete protection against penile cancer. Circumcision in adulthood does not.

Have you come back with those figures on how much the risk increases if left until young adulthood yet?

4. There are also advantages with significantly reduced risk of UTI in childhood. Urinary tract infections are, like penile cancer, uncommon but even with modern medicine can cause long term harm. This protection only starts from when the boy is circumcised

I believe you. Any figures on the number of children suffering 'long term harm' because of contracting an ITU due to being uncircumcised? Could washing have prevented these?

LyndaCartersBigPants Thu 24-Apr-14 13:52:42

I think his teeth are ok as they are and more importantly, so does he. They're not perfectly straight American style teeth, but they are fine as they are and I didn't want him to endure the discomfort and social awkwardness that he was worried about, in order to possibly prevent him feeling self conscious about his smile as an adult at some point in the future.

When he is older, if he wishes he'd had them done then he can make his own decision and spend his hard earned cash straightening them up.

My own teeth were a bit wonky as a teen, the day I was going to have braces fitted my dentist died. I never had them, my teeth sorted themselves out. His may or may not do the same. Either way, at 12 I think he has a right to have a say in what happens to his body when there is no immediate threat to his health or well-being.

Ahem...

...am I still a hypocrite?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Thu 24-Apr-14 17:25:46

Lynda, you are either a hypocrite or a bad parent, don'tcha know? Those are your only choices grin

Kendodd Thu 24-Apr-14 17:30:47

Oh and baggins101 if you do come back to me with some figures re: point 4 maybe you could compare them to the number of circumcised children who injure their penis that would otherwise have been protected from injury if they still had a foreskin.

LyndaCartersBigPants Thu 24-Apr-14 18:03:04

Coming from the mutilationist, I'll take that as a compliment wink

AlpacaYourThings Thu 24-Apr-14 18:16:51

Gosh, is he still hanging on about the benefits of circumcision? <yawn>

Being judged as a hypocrite or a bad parent <meh> if that's the best argument he can come up with...

baggins101 Thu 24-Apr-14 23:04:24

My, my! The Hyenas are out in force, aren't they! Lots of bluster but sadly lacking in any substance I note. It is a shame how you go around attacking parents for making the decision to circumcise their sons and yet have nothing to back up your attacks but emotional vitriol. Well, most anyway.

But we have moved forward.

Sadly there is very little substance to respond to in this last batch of froth but lets see what I can find....

Kendodd: You are looking for statistics, although since you are arguing against circumcision I would like to think you had seen statistics and had some idea what you were arguing about. Sadly you are not the only one arguing against circumcision in this forum without having a clue what they are talking about.

The CDC (US Center for Disease Control) has conducted a review of research into the effects of circumcision. Some of their findings are available here:

www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/otherconditions.html

including the finding that:

a retrospective review of 5 studies with 592 cases of invasive penile cancer in the United States; none of the cases were in men who had been circumcised in infancy.

and in another

98% (of cases of invasive penile cancer) were in uncircumcised men; of 118 cases of carcinoma in situ, 84% were in uncircumcised men.

Some studies have found that the penile cancer rate for those circumcised as adults is actually marginally higher than uncircumcised men, however these results are skewed since a since a significnant percentage of men circumcised as adults as a result of phimosis, another known risk factor.

You also asked for statistics about penile injuries. I have no idea. However I would say that it is far more difficult to catch a smooth exposed glans in a zip than loose skin so I suspect there are very, very few zipper accidents involving a bare glans... although that doesn't stop a circumcised man catching the shaft skin in a zip.

Your point (2) is irrelevant. If significant numbers of men found circumcision so awful you wouldn't have so many non-religious circumcisions in the US. What father is going to circumcise his son if he finds his own circumcision so bad (religious reasons excepted)? There are many reasons why an adult would not want to go through circumcision so for them the disadvantages are more likely to outweigh the benefits.

I do know that about 15% of 16 year olds have been circumcised in the UK and that the percentage increases with age, but since circumcision rates were higher in the past I have no idea how many were circumcised as adults.

Point 4: ?? What is an ITU? If you mean UTI then no-one catches a UTI because of being circumcised. Uncircumcised boys are 3.5 times more likely to catch a UTI. Babies are at highest risk of kidney damage from a UTI. Cleanliness certainly does play a large role in preventing UTI's, however since the advice is not to retract the foreskin of a baby or toddler as it can be damaged there is nothing a parent can do to avoid UTI's in uncircumcised infants.

Have I missed anything??

waterlego Thu 24-Apr-14 23:13:01

I think you missed your apologies to me and Lynda for calling us hypocrites.

baggins101 Thu 24-Apr-14 23:15:22

LyndaCartersBigPants said: I think his teeth are ok as they are and more importantly, so does he. They're not perfectly straight American style teeth, but they are fine as they are and I didn't want him to endure the discomfort and social awkwardness that he was worried about, in order to possibly prevent him feeling self conscious about his smile as an adult at some point in the future.

When he is older, if he wishes he'd had them done then he can make his own decision and spend his hard earned cash straightening them up.

My own teeth were a bit wonky as a teen, the day I was going to have braces fitted my dentist died. I never had them, my teeth sorted themselves out. His may or may not do the same. Either way, at 12 I think he has a right to have a say in what happens to his body when there is no immediate threat to his health or well-being.

Ahem...

...am I still a hypocrite?

So let me get this straight.... you were trying to pull a fast one, making it look like you didn't persuade your son to have a brace fitted as a point of principle when all along it was because his teeth weren't that bad anyway!

So what does this prove? Nothing as far as the consent issue is concerned. You left it because it wasn't a problem, not because of a principle that you wouldn't do anything to alter your sons body until he was old enough to decide for himself rather than being persuaded by his parent.

And what if he had looked like Bugs Bunny? Same story? You would shrug your shoulders and leave him to face a huge bill and ridicule when he was an adult?

Yes, Lynda. You ARE a hypocrite. And I should add a fraud as well since you used this nonsense to dispute the consent issue.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Thu 24-Apr-14 23:26:07

Oh wow, Lynda, you're a fraud as well!

envy

LyndaCartersBigPants Thu 24-Apr-14 23:28:50

If he had Bugs Bunny teeth and was happy to keep them, yes I would accept that his wishes were more important than vanity or wanting to conform to some idea of physical perfection.

I am not a hypocrite. I told the dentist that despite their recommendation to straighten up his teeth, I wouldn't force him to do that because NOT to do so wouldn't cause him any health/functional/confidence issues.

I would also argue that if everybody was born with Bugs Bunny teeth, but a few (mainly religious) people routinely had certain teeth removed and braces fitted, but plenty or people also left them au naturel, that he wouldn't feel the need to alter them because they would be exactly as nature intended.

baggins101 Thu 24-Apr-14 23:32:35

Waterlego said: "I think you missed your apologies to me and Lynda for calling us hypocrites."

Let it be known that Waterlego has declared that he/she would refuse treatment for his/her child if his teeth made them look like Bugs Bunny as a matter of principle. He/she would not attempt to persuade him to have a brace fitted and would leave his teeth for him to sort out when he was an adult.

The accusation of being a hypocrite is therefore withdrawn and replaced with an accusation of being an incompetent parent who has failed in his/her duty of care towards his/her child for the sake of his/her personal beliefs.

Will that do you, Waterlego? Or would you prefer to admit you are lying in order to "score a point"??

LyndaCartersBigPants Thu 24-Apr-14 23:35:06
baggins101 Thu 24-Apr-14 23:37:10

LyndaCartersBigPants:

Ditto the comment to Waterlego. I must say there are an extraordinary number of people with exceptional illnesses on this forum when it fits their argument, and now an extraordinary number of inept parents too, also conveniently fitting their argument. But so bit it. You are the one declaring your position on an open forum.

LyndaCartersBigPants Thu 24-Apr-14 23:39:42
LyndaCartersBigPants Thu 24-Apr-14 23:42:26

And I didn't say I wouldn't attempt to convince him to have them done, I would explain the pros and cons and allow him to have his own input into the decision, as it is HIS body. As I have already stated. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

waterlego Thu 24-Apr-14 23:43:07

Well, your definition of incompetent parenting differs from mine.

My conscience is clear.

baggins101 Thu 24-Apr-14 23:44:47

LyndaCartersBigPants said: there are a lot of us bad parents around. Apparently I'm in good company with Mick Jagger!

No Lynda. There are very few of you bad parents around. Most parents persuade their kids to do what is in their ling term interests rather than pandering to the whims of a 12 year old.

LyndaCartersBigPants Thu 24-Apr-14 23:44:57

Mine too, I haven't chopped off my son's foreskin.

waterlego Thu 24-Apr-14 23:48:43

And actually baggins, you've yet again misquoted me, by putting your own spin on my responses.

I haven't 'declared' anything. I certainly didn't say I would refuse any such dental treatment. I said I wouldn't force it. There's quite a difference there, if you care to examine the subtleties. But I'm getting that subtlety isn't really your thing.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Thu 24-Apr-14 23:50:19

"the most recent figures suggest just 3.8 per cent of male babies are circumcised in the UK. "

(Quoting my own post)

Do you have more recent figures than the 24 year old study from your mutilationist site that you linked to above, which showed 12,6% of 16-24 year olds being circumcised? Is that what you've based your "about 16% of 15 year olds in the UK" on?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Thu 24-Apr-14 23:51:34

"...a good argument."

When you say a GOOD argument, Lynda...

grin

LyndaCartersBigPants Thu 24-Apr-14 23:52:20

Well I'm quite enjoying it Doc!

baggins101 Fri 25-Apr-14 09:39:23

LyndaCartersBigPants said: "I didn't say I wouldn't attempt to convince him to have them done,"

waterlego said: "I haven't 'declared' anything. I certainly didn't say I would refuse any such dental treatment. I said I wouldn't force it."

Not the iron ladies, that's for sure. These ones ARE for turning! Now Lynda would try to convince her son to have braces fitted for cosmetic reasons and waterlego "wouldn't refuse such treatment" on the grounds that she would be making alterations to her child's body without their consent.

Well, at least you have demonstrated you are not callous parents. Hypocrites for sure, but not callous parents.

I have never suggested you should drag your child kicking and screaming to the dentist. No half competent would need to. And of course you discuss the reasons why you want them to have it done and listen to what they have to say. You even add their views to the "pros and cons" list. But at the end of the day you are the responsible parent and must do what is in the best interests of your child, and you achieve this by persuading them. Just like Muslim parents persuade their 12 year old sons to get circumcised because they believe it is in their child's best interests. Assuming you have a good enough relationship with your child there is no need for force or coercion.

Or did you think all 12 year old Muslim boys are bound and dragged to their circumcision??

The case of the Muslim boys clearly demonstrates that a competent parent can convince their 12 year old of just about anything. So does the fact that so many young teenagers wear braces and so few have the wonky teeth Lynda seems to be actually proud of.

Therefore there is NO real choice for the 12 year old. If you are so set on real choice then you wait until the child is an adult and beyond your easy influence.

So the bottom line is there is the consent issue you claim is so important is ONLY important if the decision made is not one you agree with! If YOU think it is important for the long term interests of your child you are happy to use your parental authority to persuade your child.

The "consent is the top priority" argument fails.

baggins101 Fri 25-Apr-14 10:13:56

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "Do you have more recent figures than the 24 year old study from your mutilationist site that you linked to above, which showed 12,6% of 16-24 year olds being circumcised? Is that what you've based your "about 16% of 15 year olds in the UK" on?"

My figures come from The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. The most recent figures available are for 2001. A new survey was carried out recently but all the findings are not available yet.

Such surveys are the most reliable method of finding circumcision figures: circumcisions carried out by private practices are not usually recorded anywhere, not even on the patient notes held by the GP, and since the NHS only funds circumcision for immediate medical need their figures are far below the actual circumcision rate.

According to that survey, 11.6% of 16-24 year olds reported being circumcised, with 3.8% being circumcised for medical reasons.

baggins101 Fri 25-Apr-14 10:18:10

Since the 3.8% reported circumcisions for medical reasons in the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles is exactly the same as your 3.8% figure, I am guessing the survey was the origin of your figure. Sadly it has been misused, probably by intactivists for their own agenda.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 25-Apr-14 10:23:39

Mine referred to male newborns being circumcised. You are talking about a subset of some other age group. So I doubt they are the same.

Still unclear how you get from 11.6% on a 13 year old study (which I note has dropped by 1% from the study 10 years before) to 15% on a slightly younger group. But hey.

baggins101 Fri 25-Apr-14 10:49:02

So what have we established in this thread so far?

1. Well, we have established that circumcision DOES have benefits. It IS cleaner (wasing does not stop drips of soon stale urine soaking the penis head), it DOES prevent penile cancer and it DOES reduce the risk of some other illnesses such as UTI's and STD's.

The anti-circumcision response has been:
a. You can't keep every body part clean, including female parts, so who cares if the penis head is damp with stale urine all the time.

b. Penile cancer is rare. (Which it is, but it is a terrible disease for the 1 in 600 who get it and suffer amputation or partial amputation of the penis.)

c. The many works showing a protective effect from circumcision are flawed.

2. We have established that the benefits of circumcision ARE recognised by medical bodies: the Centre for Disease Control, the American Pediatric Association and even the NHS in a recent update on their website.

3. We have established that circumcision can and should be, and usually is, virtually pain free and free of any significant risk in childhood.

The anti-circumcision response has been to post a link to a baby screaming as he is circumcised without anesthetic to frighten parents.

4. We have established that circumcision before the age of 8 is quick and simple (taking five minutes) and pain free. We have also established that childhood circumcision provides many benefits adult circumcision does not. (zero penile cancer risk, easy and quick procedure, reduces risk of kidney damage from UTI's.)

The anti-circumcision response has been to claim that because an unknown but low number of adults get circumcised child circumcision is not necessary. (ignoring the advantages of circumcision and the disadvantages of adult circumcision.)

5. We have established that the drawbacks and risks of circumcision have been greatly exaggerated by the anti-circumcision evangelists for their own agenda. This includes posting videos of screaming babies, untrue warnings of the risk of death and claims of severely overstated claims of desensitising of the penis following circumcision which use circumcision as the scapegoat for nearly all male sexual disfunction.

We have established that the issue of consent is actually an issue of whether you agree with the benefits of the procedure. Persuading a child to undergo a non-medically essential procedure is perfectly acceptable, it seems, as long as you think the benefits are great enough. Therefore consent ceases to be an issue and whether you agree that the benefits are greater than the risks and drawbacks becomes the only issue.

The anti-circumcision response has been to try to mislead by giving bogus examples and then to backtrack when they realised the implications of such claims on their fitness as a responsible parent.

A fair summary, I think.

baggins101 Fri 25-Apr-14 10:55:00

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "Still unclear how you get from 11.6% on a 13 year old study (which I note has dropped by 1% from the study 10 years before) to 15% on a slightly younger group. But hey."

My apologies. The 15.8% figure is the combined 16 to 40 age group. It divides down to 11.7% for 16-19 year olds and 19.6% for 40-44 year olds. (Not sure what happened to the 19-40 year olds!)

waterlego Fri 25-Apr-14 11:06:06

FWIW, my teeth are pretty wonky. This is because, although I consented to having a brace as a teenager, I grew bored of it and stopped wearing it. My parents pointed out the benefits of continuing its use, but in a non-persuasive manner, and they did not insist I continue to wear it.

Despite my wonky teeth, I have managed to live a normal life. I've been very successful in securing jobs and have managed to attract quite a number of suitors over the years; even snaring a gorgeous husband, who is benevolent enough to overlook my grotesque imperfections.

baggins, you have consistently misunderstood and misquoted other posters' responses on this thread. You read what you want to read, instead of what is actually written. I don't wish to bang my head against this particular brick wall any longer. I am neither a hypocrite nor an incompetent parent. I wish you good luck in your campaign to convince the world that it is acceptable to chop bits of children's bodies off. I remain unconvinced.

Good day grin

baggins101 Fri 25-Apr-14 11:17:16

waterlego,

I never thought for a moment I would convince you. It is a perfectly valid choice for a parent NOT to circumcise their child. My object was to show that the vehement, vitriolic opposition to circumcision is not justified and that the arguments used to demonise parents who choose circumcision are baseless.

There are valid arguments for and against circumcision and circumcision is a valid choice for a parent to make for their child.

Sadly most of those who jump on the anti-circumcision bandwagon and shout abuse at circumcising parents no nothing about the topic they claim such expertise in.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 25-Apr-14 11:23:53

Baggins

Has anyone typed abuse at you in this thread re your decisions or have you in fact typed abuse at others?

LyndaCartersBigPants Fri 25-Apr-14 16:35:48

Well I'm convinced, I'm off to book the DSs into the local chop shop, I'll get DP to go along too and see if they can do a 3 for 2.

If I get them all to read these persuasive arguments I'm sure they'll realise that it is in their best interests and will happily consent to having their foreskins cut.

In the meantime I may also ask if they can have their tonsils and appendixes removed to prevent the possibility of any future issues there.

I'll totally dismiss DS1's concerns about the dentist and use some Jedi mind tricks to convince him that he really does want braces.

While I'm waiting I'll have a preventative double mastectomy because who knows, I may get breast cancer at some point in the future and these pesky things bouncing around in front of me have served their purpose now.

Then we'll all go and have a lovely family portrait done with our wincing wonky smiles, safe in the knowledge that none of us can ever get ill again.

baggins101 Fri 25-Apr-14 23:00:02

TheDoctrineOfSnatch:
Check back to page 2. I think you will find first blood goes to NurseyWorsey (who went on to demonstrate a startling level of ignorance.)

baggins101 Fri 25-Apr-14 23:05:38

TheDoctrineOfSnatch,
Great idea. Get the sane surgeon who did your full frontal lobotomy, he did a brilliant job.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 25-Apr-14 23:09:18

She said that the practise you advocate was barbaric and disgusting. She didn't call you personally any names

In between her two comments on the practise, you asked her if she had a foreskin fetish.

HTH.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 25-Apr-14 23:09:55

Oh baggins, have you mixed me up with another poster AGAIN?

Sigh.

baggins101 Sat 26-Apr-14 00:05:02

TheDoctrineOfSnatch: Yes, I'm afaid I have mixed you up again. You all blend into one after a while.

As far as NurseWorswy's comments are concerned they are there for all to read. That's the beauty of the Internet, you can't deny the comments you make.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sat 26-Apr-14 00:18:22

As are yours, baggins.

baggins101 Sat 26-Apr-14 00:28:59

They certainly are.

Kendodd Sat 26-Apr-14 15:22:36

Oh this thread has moved on a bit since I last looked!

I have only really read the last page will read the rest later maybe. I do think it's funny the NHS doesn't recommend circumcision though it's it Baggins? I think you should alert all the experts that looked at the evidence at once that you know better than they do. Oh and you can laugh in their faces if they raise the issue of consent, of course a parent has complete jurisdiction over their child's body and can chop off any bits they don't like.

BTW Baggins why did you wait until your child was five when (according to you) the benefits are greater in infancy? And why didn't you get yourself circumcised as soon as you were old enough?

somewheresomehow Sat 26-Apr-14 20:48:19

How the hell is circumcising a baby pain free, its totally cruel to mutilate an infant. If there is a medical need then fine, but to do it just because some religion or sect or whatever says so is utter madness.

baggins101 Sun 27-Apr-14 14:26:20

somewheresomehow said: "How the hell is circumcising a baby pain free, its totally cruel to mutilate an infant."

How can you lecture others on circumcision when you clearly know so little about it yourself? Your arguments against it are so week that you are forced into using emotive terms like "mutliate" to intimidate parents into silence.

Circumcision is painless, regardless of age, since local anesthetic works just as well for infants as older children or adults. That some Jewish people CHOOSE to circumcise without anesthetic is not an argument against circumcision, it is an argument against traditional Jewish circumcision.

"If there is a medical need then fine, but to do it just because some religion or sect or whatever says so is utter madness."

IF it was just because a religion said so and IF it caused more harm than good then, yes. It would be utter madness. However since this ISN'T the case then your argument has no validity at all.

baggins101 Sun 27-Apr-14 17:53:07

Kendodd said: "Oh this thread has moved on a bit since I last looked!

I have only really read the last page will read the rest later maybe. I do think it's funny the NHS doesn't recommend circumcision though it's it Baggins? I think you should alert all the experts that looked at the evidence at once that you know better than they do."

Again, an argument out of ignorance. The NHS has softened its opinion on circumcision recently: their website now acknowledges the advantages of circumcision. Although this is far from a ringing endorsement of routine circumcision the wording is notable:

Where they list the potential benefits they state:

^There ARE several potential advantages and disadvantages associated with circumcising boys shortly after they are born.^

Where they list the risks they state:

^CRITICS of circumcision argue that it has disadvantages, such as:^

And you FAIL to note that the American CDC and AAP state that circumcision is not only a valid choice for parents to make but that funding SHOULD be available for all parents to choose circumcision for their child. A clear critisism of the states who have withdrawn funding for circumcision for financial reasons.

As far as the NHS is concerned, you should also acknowledge that funding is a major factor in the recommendations it makes. It is far cheaper, for example, to amputate the penis from on man than to circumcise 600 boys (not that that makes it any better for the one in 600 who will one day lie in a hospital bed waiting for his amputation, knowing that the one thing that would have certainly prevented this is if his parents had chosen to circumcise him as a child.

If you think I am cynical, that money plays no part in the recommendations of the NHS then consider the various cancer drugs that have been witheld by the NHS over the years for cost reasons.

(A recent example: www.activequote.com/news/uk-government-accused-of-withholding-cancer-drugs-from-the-nhs-to-save-money.aspx )

So no, Kendodd, I do not need to educate the professionals. They are fully aware that there are benefits as well as potential drawbacks to circumcision. The only question is whether you consider the benefits outweigh the drawbacks (which include cost.)

"Oh and you can laugh in their faces if they raise the issue of consent, of course a parent has complete jurisdiction over their child's body and can chop off any bits they don't like."

No, Kendodd, they can't. Which should tell you something about circumcision.... the reason it isn't banned anywhere in the world )unlike FGM) is because there is NO EVIDENCE it causes any significant harm.

"BTW Baggins why did you wait until your child was five when (according to you) the benefits are greater in infancy? And why didn't you get yourself circumcised as soon as you were old enough?"

You really haven't read much of this thread, have you! I have responded in detail to this point twice already. The short answer is that I wasn't aware of the truth behind the arguments until I did more than just read the intactivist lies and exaggerations which they have flooded the internet with, helped along by well meaning but ignorant individuals who have jumped on the anti-circumcision bandwagon.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 27-Apr-14 18:19:26

" It is far cheaper, for example, to amputate the penis from on man than to circumcise 600 boys "

I very much doubt this, especially as there will be treatments for cancer alongside amputation to prevent recurrence and spreading of the cancer. I await your health economic statistics, agog.

baggins101 Sun 27-Apr-14 21:34:20

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "I very much doubt this, especially as there will be treatments for cancer alongside amputation to prevent recurrence and spreading of the cancer. I await your health economic statistics, agog."

Pray tell, Snatch, what is it that baffles you so this time? That it costs the NHS £600,000 to circumcise 600 boys? That 1 in 600 uncircumcised boys will eventually develop penile cancer? That the treatment for penile cancer usually involves removing the tumor and 2cm of healthy tissue around the tumor? That, sadly, most cases of penile cancer are misdiagnosed in the early stages as STD's or a simple rash by both Doctors and patients?

Tell me what baffles you and I will try to enlighten you.

ProcessYellowC Sun 27-Apr-14 22:20:10

The death of a baby following circumcision in my-then GP practice, which I changed as soon as this was revealed, stays with me whenever I read stuff about circumcision. The circumstances were horrible.

This article lists his name.

www.cirp.org/library/death/

baggins101 Sun 27-Apr-14 22:28:30

ProcessYellowC said: "The death of a baby following circumcision in my-then GP practice, which I changed as soon as this was revealed, stays with me whenever I read stuff about circumcision. The circumstances were horrible. "

Can you expand on the circumstances? Was the circumcision carried out at your GP practice? What was the cause of death?

PicandMinx Sun 27-Apr-14 22:33:49

Did the OP come back?

Kendodd Mon 28-Apr-14 10:20:14

Oh dear baggins you really are in corner here aren't you. To admit that actually circumcising your boy might not have been what he would have chosen for himself and that parents don't have the right to do whatever they like with their child's bodies wouldn't put you in a vary good light would it! You have no choice really except to keep banging on about the tiny chance he might get penile cancer as an old man, I can really see why you keep doing this and sympathise. I'm sure you thought you were acting in the best interests of your children and don't doubt that your heart really was in the right place. I guess your uncles cancer really frightened you as well, I hope your uncle's recovered and is ok now.

Your argument about circumcising children isn't completely without merit but really the risks you mention are so low and whether you admit it or not there are downsides beyond the consent issue. I can see from this thread though that you are so blinkered you won't see any of them though. Having said all that I'm very glad you're so pleased with your new penis, genuinely. BTW I'm not anti circumcision at all, it's your body so your business what you do with it. I also really hope you do get away with circumcising your son and he doesn't think you overstepped a line when he's older, the chances are you will get away with it.

As for calling other people bad parents if they can't or won't persuade their teenage children to have braces when they don't want them, actually I hope that by the time my children are teens they will have the self confidence to stand up to me. Even if it's something I think is in their best interests, if they really don't want their teeth straightened they should not be scared to put their foot down and say 'no, this is my body'. Maybe they are on their way to being some sort of radical feminist and crocked teeth make a statement about who they are or are really geekie and aren't interested at all in how they look. I think that sort of bodily autonomy is very important for a young woman to have and think that if they can stand up to us at that age regarding what does and doesn't happen to their own body, then good. This of course isn't to say that I would just let the decide for themselves, I'd nag and keep revisiting it and would feel very frustrated if they refused teeth straightening, but that would be my problem, not theirs. I know that you obviously think differently.

Anyway, if that makes me a bad parent in your eyes then so be it, sign me up for your bad parent club. Waves at all the other bad parents!

baggins101 Mon 28-Apr-14 14:40:05

Kendodd said: "blah, blah, blah"

Re-writing reality as you wish it were does not help the anti-circumcision argument. Do you have any reasoned argument to support the position that circumcision is something parents should not be permitted to choose for their son?

So far you have argued that it is wrong in principle because parents shouldn't do anything permenant to their child unless it is a medical necessity...

and failed as it has been shown that even the hardened intactivists wouldn't play the "consent" card if a parent chose to have teeth removed and a brace fitted for cosmetic reasons. Which clearly leaves them, and you, open to the accusation of hypocricy.

Anything else? Or is the failed argument of consent, which you exclusively apply to foreskin removal, the only argument you have to demonise parents who choose circumcision?

PigletJohn Mon 28-Apr-14 16:05:48

when did you decide you were having an argument about "permitted?"

baggins101 Mon 28-Apr-14 16:29:24

PigletJohn said: when did you decide you were having an argument about "permitted?"

When the anti-circumcision hyenas started calling it mutilation. Or are you suggesting parents are permitted to mutilate their kids?

LyndaCartersBigPants Mon 28-Apr-14 16:38:13

Oh my gosh is he still going?! There are a few like him on here today, I wonder if bilbo has some pseudonyms?

PigletJohn Mon 28-Apr-14 16:43:42

bag wrote "....parents should not be permitted to choose "

Perhaps he imagines that there is some kind of law which means he was not permitted to do what he did.

Obviously he lives in a world of fantasy.

ChildishRevolution Mon 28-Apr-14 17:29:06

My DS had been circumcised by the NHS because one of his .. sacks.. wasn't in sync with the other one.

He was put in gen. anesthetics

BreakingDad77 Mon 28-Apr-14 17:45:48

Is this thread still going?

I gave up when Baggins continued to talk hysterically about urine and ignoring actual published data.

Above I found data on circumcision deaths on <28 day yr olds did anyone ever find any info on UK?

baggins101 Mon 28-Apr-14 20:32:30

Wow! The foreskin hyena's are out in force today, aren't they!

So, let me address the issues you have brought up:

Let me see... abuse..... more abuse.....

I guess this is to be expected when a group who stick their fingers in their ears and shout, "Mutilation" at parents who dare to circumcise their boys suddenly realise their arguments have little merit.

If you have any more questions please do not hesitate to ask.

baggins101 Mon 28-Apr-14 20:39:57

Oh, and BreakingDad77, perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a link to this "actual published data" about urine under the foreskin?

And a link to the circumcision deaths you mention. You see, the NHS lists the risks of circumcision and guess what... death ISN'T one of them.

Perhaps you should direct your "arguments" (for want of a better word) at ritual circumcisions carried out by non-medical staff rather than circumcisions in general.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Mon 28-Apr-14 21:38:08

Ooh, we've been upgraded from intactivists to Foreskin Hyenas.

What an honour!

Kendodd Tue 29-Apr-14 09:22:59

Which clearly leaves them, and you, open to the accusation of hypocricy.

Didn't all the posters say they WOULDN'T force their children to have braces? I don't see how this makes us all hypocrites. I even detailed why I wouldn't force them, as did others. You obviously have trouble understanding the information in front of you.

You also put us in you special 'bad parent' book, <waves at everybody>. Seems like you're on your own in the 'good parent' book, everybody else is in here grin.

Maybe you can come back with one of your 'what have we established (in your own head)' posts, that did make me snigger smile.

What would you have done baggins if your wife had been against it? Maybe you could have used your powers of persuasion unfortunately I don't think they're as good as you think because you've managed to convince nobody on this thread.

Also baggins what are you going to say to your son if he is pissed off with you about this? Are you just going to shout him down, call him names and say he's wrong and you are right?

You have said upthread that you think NOT circumcising is a valid choice for parents to make. If your so convinced you're right about this why do you think that not circumcising IS ok?

ForeskinHyena Tue 29-Apr-14 09:41:02

Just testing out my new username <waves at the other bad parents>

baggins101 Tue 29-Apr-14 11:48:43

Kendodd said:

"Didn't all the posters say they WOULDN'T force their children to have braces? I don't see how this makes us all hypocrites. I even detailed why I wouldn't force them, as did others. You obviously have trouble understanding the information in front of you."

Force? You will find I said that if you had to force your child to get braces fitted you really needed to work on your relationship with them. I even asked if you (plural) thought that Muslim boys were dragged kicking and screaming to their circumcision (they traditionally circumcise between 8 and 12 years old). Of course not. Their parents persuade them that it is in their interests to get it done.

Now, the reason you are a hypocrite is not just that you stated you would attempt to persuade your child to have braces fitted but the fact that you wouldn't start shouting "mutilation" at other parents who did. You reserve that honour exclusively for parents who decide circumcision is in their child's best interests.

"You also put us in you special 'bad parent' book, <waves at everybody>. Seems like you're on your own in the 'good parent' book, everybody else is in here grin."

Not so special. And since you admitted you would try to persuade your child to have braces fitted if you felt it was in his interests you are spared the indignity of the naughty step. You will have to make do with the label "hypocrite". The bad parent book is reserved for parents who refuse to persuade their child to have braces fitted on the misguided principle that they should do noting to alter their child's body until they are old enough to make a genuinely independent choice.

"Maybe you can come back with one of your 'what have we established (in your own head)' posts, that did make me snigger smile."

I am glad that the truth makes you smile. Unless there is any item on the list you do not feel is inaccurate? Please let me know and I will point you to the correct page in this forum.

"What would you have done baggins if your wife had been against it?"

I would have discussed it with her like an adult. Being an adult she would refrain from emotive clap-trap like "mutilation" and look at the evidence. That is why I married her: because she is a rational adult who doesn't lap up everything she reads on clearly biased websites.

"Maybe you could have used your powers of persuasion unfortunately I don't think they're as good as you think because you've managed to convince nobody on this thread."

Oh, dear. Comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it. My claim is that children are easily persuaded by their parents, not that I have magic powers of persuasion. Nice try at an insult though.

"Also baggins what are you going to say to your son if he is pissed off with you about this? Are you just going to shout him down, call him names and say he's wrong and you are right?"

I will tell him why we, as his parents, thought it was the right thing to do. I will leave the shouting and name-calling to those who cry "mutilation" at parents who choose circumcision for their kids.

"You have said upthread that you think NOT circumcising is a valid choice for parents to make. If your so convinced you're right about this why do you think that not circumcising IS ok?"

I also explained this upthread. The advantages of circumcision are not so great that circumcision should be considered essential. There are far greater risks to your life and well-being than those mitigated by circumcision. However circumcision is a quick and simple procedure with virtually no risk and minimal drawbacks that does at least remove one set of risks. As such it is a valid choice for parents to make for their child, but not essential.

Kendodd Tue 29-Apr-14 15:34:40

ForeskinHyena

Love your name! I hope your going to keep it?

I might change mine to bagginsaysI'mahypocrite or maybe badparent what'd you think?

As I said earlier baggins you really have backed yourself into a corner here. You might want to re-read some of your posts to see where you've gone wrong. Although I wouldn't do it now, I think it will be several years before you see things a little more clearly without the panic that's coming across on this thread and are able take more of a balanced view. I admit your uncle's cancer must have been very frightening and do understand how that could scare somebody into taking such drastic action. As I said earlier, I hope you uncle's okay now.

Kendodd Tue 29-Apr-14 15:53:20

ProcessYellowC

shock I've just read your link, I had no idea so many babies and children died from this. I really thought complications were vanishingly small and the idea that a child might die afterwards didn't even cross my mind!

Actually I did hear about a case in Germany when a baby died, I think a baby died, maybe they were just injured, surely they wouldn't have died, it was on the radio so I must have misheard. Actually, maybe the children who do die have other medical conditions, maybe injury to the penis and that's why they are being circumcised in the first place? The story in Germany was only reported because the German government wanted to ban it without good medical grounds, I think they had to back down because of the religious lobby. I had no idea babies did die from this, that's just horrible.

Kendodd Tue 29-Apr-14 16:05:46

Yes, I was right, I looked it up the German baby didn't die, he was 'just' injured. No government ruling was made, it was just a court ruling that circumcision was illegal. I thought that surely the child can't possibly have died. Link here www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18793842

I'm not going to look up any more stuff about circumcision, it's too horrific!

Actually baggins you'll have some nice fluffy links, I know, I'm going to look up some pictures of kittens or something, try to take my mind of ProcessYellowC link.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Tue 29-Apr-14 16:30:00

No one called you a mutalationist until you started calling us intactivists.

HTH.

baggins101 Tue 29-Apr-14 17:23:58

Kendodd said: "blah, blah"

Oh dear! Not a very gracious looser are you.

I can't find any substance in your post to respond to, just insults and some very strange twisting of reality. Was there a point in there you wanted me to respond to?

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.

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 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 19:59:00

NurseyWorsey.

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.)

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.

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!

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.

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

How is being against religious circumcision a "propaganda"?

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 22:47:57

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 23:07:34

Even religion gets it right occasionally.

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?

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

Well said Kendodd.

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].

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.

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.

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 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.)

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?

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...

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 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...

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.

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.

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