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?

If almost everyone here is agreed in saying that, if medically necessary, circumcision is more beneficial, then why is it such a leap to presume that people will perform this operation as a "preventative" measure, to ensure that any future medical problems with the penis won't be an issue any more?

And if you disagree with circumcision as a preventative measure, where do you stand on injections? Because the jabs that children get are a preventative measure. It's not 100% that your child will get Mumps or Rubella, same as it isn't 100% that your male child will have penile issues stemming from a lack of circumcision, but we still get our children inoculated against them.

I'm all for a small amount of pain when they are young enough to be able to shake it off, if it means that they are able to live full and happy lives without pain whilst urinating, soreness and rubbing during sex and repeated infections due to not being able to clean he head of the penis properly.

Who said it's a small amount of pain, the risks of not having it done are erm maybe having it done later....not death or brain damage like vaccinations.

I am always amazed that supposed intelligent people manage to justify circumcision with crazy shit.

Whatme you need to come up with a better argument for, rather than saying that those against are racist.

It just shows how antiquated and idiotic the whole thing is if this is the best you can do. You have no well-reasoned, logical argument as to why it should be done because there isn't one. Because it always has been, and because I'm Jewish/Muslim and it's what we've always done isn't an example of this.

Did you read the part where I said my dad is Jewish.

Very selective in your posts and what you choose to read and quote.

Playing the race card is really the pits when it comes to trying to justify, an otherwise abbhorent practice.

The NHS does not fund routine circumcision or circumcision that is carried out for religious reasons. The majority of healthcare professionals now agree that the risks associated with routine circumcision, such as infection and excessive bleeding, far outweigh any potential benefits.

The NHS only funds circumcision that is used treat a small number of medical conditions (see below). In such cases, circumcision is usually regarded as a ?treatment of last resort? when all other treatment options have failed.

Last post to Argy - No You Can't.

It should not be available and if it is, the physician in question (unless it's for justified medical reasons) can and should be reported.

By the "get it done later when something goes wrong that needs to be fixed" logic, I'm guessing you don't have House Insurance? Contents Insurance? Because you can just get House Insurance when something goes wrong. You don't need House Insurance when something isn't wrong after all.

I expressed my view, and you called me "supposedly intelligent" and thought my opinion was "crazy shit". I personally think it was a very valid point that you still haven't addressed.

There are lots of reasons why infant circumcision is preferable to having it done later, the most obvious ones are that it does not need suture, it heels quicker and an infant does not get erections which are painful during the healing period. The fact that they don't remember the pain (if any) also shouldn't be underestimated.

And why wear condoms? Since obviously just getting abortions is easier than a preventative contraception method.

It's my view, and I'm sticking to it. If people want to do it, it's their choice.

*heals even

Primfacie OR....how about NOT DOING IT AT ALL! Then there would be no pain and no stitches!

Whatme you need to come up with a better argument for, rather than saying that those against are racist

Actually I think its a damn good argument as it removes your moral high ground, which is why you hate it :)

It should not be available and if it is, the physician in question (unless it's for justified medical reasons) can and should be reported.

Go ahead, report the bastards. I'll bet you are also spitting tacks that abortions aren't performed in back streets anymore either.

Face it, there is absolutely no social, medical or health or any other rational reason to deny circumcision, so you are merely left with the grubby practice of foisting your "superior" ideology on other people who are from different races and religions.

Stealth Your argument is crap...preventative my arse....just cut of girls labia then incase they get infections....men who are taught to wash properly do not get infections.

Yes there are plenty of reasons to deny circumcision....it's not needed....it puts babies at risk and causes pain. It is aso against their human rights imo. My DH hates the fact that his foreskin was taken without his consent.

Mumbling, my post was about the advantages of doing it in infancy rather than later. There are still health benefits from having it done at a later stage, though whether you think the risks outweigh the benefits is down to you. As for your position that men who wash properly don't get UTIs, that's very judgmental isn't it?

Everything we do in life involves some risk. There is a much, much greater risk every time you put your baby in a car that he might be injured than the risk arising from circumcision. Does the baby get a say whether he wants to be in a car? Does the baby enjoys being constrained in a car seat? Or would you say it is a violation of the baby's human rights?

It is perfectly doable in most settings to live your life (at least in an urban setting) without a car, or to restrict its use to cases of absolute necessity. However, some people will want to take that risk every day of their life. I may not agree with it, and I may find it odd that some people drive everywhere, but I don't lose sleep over it. It is their choice.

I don't have the moral high ground whatme.

I also don't 'hate it' that you choose to call me racist or morally superior either. I'm indifferent to the opinion of a stranger on the internet, firstly when they're wrong and secondly because YOU still haven't come up with a good reason to do it

Face it, there is absolutely no social, medical or health or any other rational reason to deny circumcision, so you are merely left with the grubby practice of foisting your "superior" ideology on other people who are from different races and religions

And here ^ we have possibly the most dim-witted post I have ever read on MN.

YANBU.

I saw a programme recently where a beautiful brand new 7 day old baby was circumcised and the father said that at that age babies don't feel pain.

I'd say the terrible, heartwrenching cries that came from that baby afterwards pissed all over that argument. I had to stop watching, it was unbearable.

primiface a car eat doesn't cause lasting damage or change a persons body permanently. Unlss the chlild or adult is born with or develops a condition to nessecitate the removal of the foreskin...there is NO earthly reason to chop it off.

Yanbu. Unless medically needed, obviously. I can't believe it is still legal tbh.

Mumbling - yes there is. As a preventative measure.

What if the boys father has had a history of issues with penile function and hygiene? I'm sure he'd be more than happy to try and d what's best for the child by preventing him from getting the same condition he has.

In this day and age it's all about preventative measures. We inoculate so that there's less chance of disease, we purchase Car, Home, Contents and Landlord insurance so that, when something goes wrong, we're covered for it. We use contraception to limit the risk of pregnancy. So why is any of this different to preventative circumcision?

I'd rather have anything like that done sooner rather than later, because if you wait and then something goes wrong you're going to have even more of an issue trying to get it fixed than if you'd just taken the time to do one simple thing years before that could stop it from happening.

What a patronising post!!! My child abused circumcised American husband saw it and laughed.How rude of you to suggest that many Americans are abusing their children through this safe medical practice! You show no respect to the millions of people who practice this as part of their religion too, implying they are ignorant and uneducated. Parallels others have drawn to female circumsision are incorrect also, as the point of that practice is to prevent sexual pleasure in adulthood, thus ensuring chastity. Male circumsision does no such thing. Thank goodness the world has you OP to tell everyone what to do and how to live.
If you don't like it, then don't do it. Otherwise, stop judging whole nations and religions who do.

Who practise this as part of their religion - sorry - typing fast.

ThruAGlassDarkly - I've been trying to talk sensibly to everyone, however my valid points seem to be drowned out by the screams of "ABUSE! ABUSE! IGNORANT BITCH! RACIST! ABUSE ABUSE ABUSE!"

I wouldn't bother. It's just one of those "ishoos" that gets well out of hand.

I live in the states.

I had a very good British friend here, when she had her newborn son done ,I found it near on impossible to continue the friendship.

My American husband is done, he is livid he was.

My sons are intact...they is no way I would touch them.

My nephew was done because my BIL wanted it, SIL did not. Unfortunately she gave in and agreed to have her newborn taken from her arms and 'fixed'

It was done incorrectly , at 14 he had to have an operation to put right what should never have been messed with in the first place!

Americans have been brain-washed in to thinking its normal.

There was NO excuse for my English friend.

Stealth - I find it very offensive the way the OP generalises about Americans (and through her other statements, about Jews and Muslims). It smacks of smug British imperialistic attitudes and it makes me boak that she suggests my family are child abusers because my MIL, my lovely, lovely MIL had her boys' foreskins removed at a young age back in the 60s. I don't have sons myself, but have occasionally wondered what I'd do about circumcision in the event that I had one. I probably wouldn't do it as I personally don't feel it's necessary routinely, BUT I think it's wrong to be so judgemental of others who DO practise it.

FWIW - my friend was circumcised as an adult and he was in a LOT of pain for weeks. He couldn't go near his girlfriend (the erections thingy). Plus, he got a lot of ribbing that he had to wear tracksuit bottoms all the time. Now everytime I think of him, I remember this about him.