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?

" all research can be countered and refuted."

So what now, science is subjective? There are no facts, only viewpoints? Scientific experiments all show different results, depending on the opinions of the scientists?

I'm not quite sure what you are debating here but it is a proven fact that circumcised men have a lower risk of HIV and penile cancer.

The opinion part is whether you feel the "mutilation" of circumcision is worth these lower rates or not.

I'm not quite sure what you are debating here but it is a proven fact that circumcised men have a lower risk of HIV and penile cancer

Its all been said, believe me, but Posies and Perriwunkle are zealots so will just carry on chewing the end of the thread till MN puts it out of its misery.

Please do not feed the trolls.

iirc, Posies, there's a helpful section in the link on how to read the stats if you're bewildered.

Zealots, and you've changed your mind have you Wmw?

I can read stats just fine. Just that circumcising doesn't seem to have affected the populations at all in the West, re HIV. So instead of patronising me Maths, why don't you tell me how those stats support your fucking argument. Unless Jewish and Muslim men have higher rates of homosexual activity, you've lost your own argument.

, take a look at North Africa in my link and compare to sub-Saharan Africa. North Africa tends to be - Muslim.

Just a quick comment before I scarper from the thread.

Circumcision for religious or vanity reasons is just plain wrong and it's mutilation of a child.

North Africa is also much richer is it not and has more sanitation.

I read research in the USA which looked at death from circumcision and death from penile cancer. Pretty sure it worked out even or more risky to be circumcised. Also HIV is a sexually, mainly, transmitted disease and the ONLY proven prevention is condom wearing.

Let me rephrase that so it dosn't get deleted again.....

It would appear that the 2 anti-circumcision posters are extremely fixed in their views, have not absorbed any counter argument in 330 odd messages, and are very unlikely to do so in another 330, and thus it is probably pointless to keep on arguing with them as it merely gives them a platform to carry on repeating the same message.

There :)

Is that in complete opposite to those in favour of circumcision only I must have missed that bit.

Glass houses wmw.

So richer and working toilets = less HIV?

Why do your stats indicate otherwise.

Posies, this table at the top of page 2 of this paper by the World Bank may help. Benin, Mauritania, Togo, Angola (to name a few) are not rich countries, or 'sanitized', yet HIV prevalence is massively lower than in Botswana, Zimbabwe and Swaziland - we are talking 10, 20 or 30 times lower. The former countries have a high incidence of male circumcision; the latter don't.

This table focuses on antenatal HIV by the way. While I accept that it is not fun thinking about a tiny baby being circumcised, I find it much more difficult to stomach the fact that nearly 2 out of 5 babies born in Botswana are HIV positive.

Glass houses wmw

Except that I am not calling for a ban, nor am I convinced on the rightness of any one argument - I am advocating a choice so people can do as they please, ie tolerance based on reason. You are advocating intolerance based on dogma.

Anyway, I do feel there is no point in arguing anymore as it just gives you a platform to spout offensive dogma from.

Posies, are you serious that toilets have anything to do with it?

To be fair, I thought Posies meant sanitation in a wider sense, as in better/more sterile medical environment - not in the sense that you might catch aids by sitting on a dirty loo

I really want to find out as I think she meant it literally.

FFs math, who means just toilets?

However my argument is not to refute the African research. I was saying that it has no relevance to the West. In so much as circumcision rates seems to have no impact on HIV rates.

Intolerance? Wtf? Intolerance of Americans? Or are we just ignoring them? A bit racist

But why did you mention sanitation and relative prosperity? And why does African research have nothing to do with the west?

African research has little to do with the west because it's not an absolute prevention, to circumcise, therefore it's not worth much is it? And as I said more people die from circumcision than penile cancer.