To be dreadfully sad that in the 21st century child abuse seems to be part of the culture in a so-called modern, progressive and enlightened country like the USA

[Perriwinkle]

I've been watching a lot of American baby programmes on satellite TV lately and have been horrified and saddened to see how many parents, who appear to be loving, caring, very protective parents who are determined to everything right by their children, have their sons circumcised in hospital just before they bring them home.

These parents then get stressed and worried when these babies are what they describe as "fussy" (which I've gathered seems to mean a collection of things such as not feeding/sleeping/settling well and crying a lot). Clearly these poor babies are in huge discomfort, due to the barbaric and hugely invasive and unnecessary procedure that's been carried out on them.

When the parents are talking to camera about their early experiences of parenthood, how it has made them feel and what their hopes are for the future, they are all full of wanting to do the best for their child, to love, cherish and protect them and about being the best parents they possibly can for their child. This seems to be so at odds with giving consent for that child to have its genitals mutilated just a day or two earlier.

One woman I saw was talking about how she was in pieces when her son had to "get his first shots" as she called it (injections I assume?) yet she said nothing about his circumcision. I know that the vast majority have it done because when you see them changing nappies you know they have had it done because they have big wadge of gauze there to protect the wound site and you often hear them saying they have to be careful due to the circumcision. If only these parents could be educated to see that it is not in their child's best interests to have him circumcised, rather than thinking it is.

I really can't believe that this practice is still carried out as routinely and widely as it is in the USA even though there is no medical justification for it and no sound evidence to justify that it is in any way beneficial or more hygenic than leaving the baby intact.

What a shame that in many cases such clearly educated and rational people, who do not appear to have any religious imperative to carry out this barbaric practice are still doing this to their children in their droves. It means that millions of children are being subjected to this abusive practice on a daily basis in the USA.

Surely with proper education and information this could be turned around and this vile practive wiped out? I know having it done due to a religious imperative is a whole different argument but surely if non Jewish and Islamic people were properly informed and enlightened on the subject surely the incidence of this completely unneccessary abusive practice could be drastically reduced and in time eschewed by the overwhelming majority of parents?

I understand that routine non ritual circumcision was once a feature of many cultures but that it has successfully died out due to education and enlightenment. Wouldn't it be lovely to think the same could happen in the USA?

It may be banned from hospitals in Australia but it is very easy to arrange to have it done privately.

You are deluded if you think it will be banned in your life time. It is one of the oldest and safest surgical procedure, it has been done for thousands of years and it is the most performed in the world.

Nah, we getting more enlightened throughout the world and questioning everything. It will be banned in UK by 2050.

Fine, let's meet on gransnet in 39 years to see if it has.

Right if I had a son I would get him circumcised as a baby.

Before you throw something, here is why:

DH had to undergo a circumcision as an adult due to a medical problem which only appeared when he was older. It caused him a lot of pain, both before and after the op. He had to have a general anasthetic, which is dangerous in itself. He was also traumatised (wouldnt you be!) at the thought.

If he had it done as a baby, that would never have happened, and apparently its not an uncommon thing.

so while I wouldnt know it would definitley happen to my son, Id want it done while he was tiny and would have no memory of it, and not have to go through the whoel medical problem, associated pain, and the the op as an adult.

A few years back, I might have had a totally different viewpoint, but watching DH go through the whole thing was horrible.

"Why do these apologists never address the points you make? It's far easier to insult people and dismiss what they say as "shit" I suppose than put across a reasoned rebuttal."

Because your points are a heap of hooey, Perriwinkle.
Fight shit with 'shit' is my motto.

It's too easy to be insulting when discussing causing harm to a baby, for those that wouldn't dream of doing it it seems barbaric and to those that do it they have already surrendered and justified their own actions. It is only occasionally that someone pops up to say they cried when they watched their baby scream or something a little more humane. It is a long road.

It's far easier to insult people and dismiss what they say as "shit" I suppose than put across a reasoned rebuttal

That is exactly your tactic Periwinkle - ignore any reasoned debate and demonstrably spout shit on your Daily Broadcast. I'm increasing thinking this is not actually a thread but a political broadcast from the anit-snip brigade

It's all sarcasm, I tells ya.

And the reason why circumcision is not as popular as it used to be in the US is largely due to latino immigration. It's got nothing to do with the 'more educated, enlightened echelons" (lmao). Out of curiosity, where exactly do you think the Jewish diaspora sits on the American education ladder?

You haven't bothered to answer any of the posts on the science in support of circumcision, so you are not in a position to lament the lack of response to Posies' irrational waffle. Reasoned rebuttal isn't exactly your middle name.

Stealth I think you may be right, this is just too wailing to be true.

Why don't people that cut their children understand that people who don't find it barbaric? It's not beyond reason is it.

Oh I had to read your post three times prim just to understand it.

Science supports circ in third world countries, it's to do with unwashed penises and virus thriving. There is no research about health outcomes in the Western world or Asia.

rhondajean you might as well get the baby's tonsils and appendix taken out at the same time at that rate - and probably all his toenails pulled out too just to be on the safe side - just in case he gets an ingrowing one and a nasty infection sets in. Sound ridiculous? Yes it is but no more ridiculous than cutting off another part of his anatomy "just in case" there's a problem wiht it in the future.

You can't possibly mitigate for everything that could happen in the future. It makes no sense whatsoever to arbitrarily pick on the foreskin to cut off "just in case". What your husband went through is tough but shit happens in life but it's no justification for inflicting unneccessary pain and suffering on your son and cutting off a part of his body that seves a anotomical purpose and is meant to be there.

What loving parent deliberately sets out to cause their newborn baby harm and suffering within the first hours of his life when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable?

Posies, I understand that you don't understand it and that you don't agree with it. Whether it is barbaric, as you say, is open to interpretation. We are always someone else's barbarian - if the whole wide world was to examine your own parenting, there would without a doubt be lots of areas where the 'barbarians' would find you lacking.

I'm sorry you found my post hard to understand, I will try and be clearer :).

"that seves *an anotomical purpose"

Very selective about what you cut from that TIME article you found when you were Googling weren't you Primafacie? Read on a bit further to where it says:

"...But intactivism is also gaining traction among educated, middle-class whites. As University of Virginia sociologist Brad Wilcox observes, "It's these new parents that are unwilling to let kids suffer."

The article even goes on to say that the penny is dropping among some American Jews:

"Instead of opting for a bris, the rite in which a boy's foreskin is removed at 8 days old, Theo Margaritov's family welcomed him in April with a brit shalom, a cut-free ceremony. "That's the way God made him," says his mom Deborah, 33, a raw-foods cooking teacher in Brooklyn, N.Y."

Have a read of this site and you might actually learn something rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la":

www.circumstitions.com/

Perriwinkle, why are you so aggressive? I have no idea what article you are referring to, but it is no great mystery that the latinos are the fastest growing demographic group in the US and that they don't circumcise. I don't need a journalist to tell me that, thank you very much.

And I am not about to rely on the circumstition.com drivel either. You do know that [gasp] not everything you can read online is true, don't you? That website is the equivalent to the Daily Mail, and I don't read that either.

LOL at 'raw foods cooking teacher'. Seems rather a contradiction in terms...

You must not have heard much about the success of circumcision in Africa as a means of preventing the spread of HIV infection (along with avoidance of unprotected penetrative sex, reduction in the number of sexual partners and consistent condom use.) It seems that enlightened African men are not experiencing the alleged sexual side effects nor the newfound qualms of well to do Americans, nor are they feeling the ethnocentric self righteous umbrage of the British at the thought.

Math. I think equating circumcision practice in small parts of Africa where HIV is huge to benefits in Western society is ludicrous. If someone has HIV in the West the difference between cut and uncut is minimal. The only way to prevent HIV is to wear a condom. It's quite irresponsible to suggest circumcision as protection in the West, don't you think? So that defuncts the health benefit theory.

So what is so critical for religious reasons to cut the foreskin? Not where and what is written, but I am slightly suspicious that people just go along with it without any real understanding. As did Egyptians long before their people, which makes me think this is just cultural. And why has this stood the test of time, aside from banning and reintroducing post war.

Posies what have you got against giving people a choice, given the arguments pro or con are pretty inconclusive?

Where do you stand on abortion by the way?

This will just keep going. WhatMeWorry - I'm so proud of you. I gave up days ago but you continue to fight your corner and not be bullied into submission.

The best thing this thread will do is alert posters to the true nature of some people. And the only thing this thread will do is teach the posters that have tried (and failed) to reason with the OP and several others on here, not to bother trying again as obviously "tolerance" is not a word found much on here.

It won't change peoples views, it won't do any good, it won't change the future for the "better" and it certainly won't come to an amicable conclusion.

I'm sure what my views on abortion has to do with cutting a child. And tolerance and choice are fine when it's not parents choice inflicted upon a child.

This is just one of those things that, sadly, I think culture wins over the rights of the child for some.