What exactly is the advantage of circumcision and why is their such insistence?

[FrigginRexManningDay]

I was watching 'What to expect when you're expecting' last night and one of the male characters was insisting on circumcision for his unborn son,which turned out to be a girl.

One of the reasons he agreed with was making the penis less sensitive. I don't understand the reasons behind it. AFAIK its not healthier or cleaner. I understand it being done for medical reasons of course,but it just seems unnecessary to be so routine in America.

Prima - actually, NHS guidelines match WHO organization guideline for vernix, which is not to remove for at least six hours after birth as it has a wide range of benefits. The World Health Organization has little ulterior motive for this.

WHO does not have guidelines for circumcision in Western countries - other than the usage of anaesthetic - and it's guidelines in East Africa and other regions with high HIV areas is voluntary circumcision - which is by adults - shows signs of helping lower the spread of HIV, though not nearly as successful as condoms but missionaries in the area have made that culturally difficult.

I am American. It has been well shown that American medical practices go against best practice from the World Health organization due to a preference because it is far more tied into making money, fearing litigation, and a general America is always right attitude. Many American governmental boards have been caught up in it lately, not just medicine, education has been totally screwed over and the FDA is a corporations dream. It isn't looking for ulterior motive to point out that the American systems have a massive problem, Americans have been shouting and fighting against it for years. Cause even American births being so much more expensive, it's death rates are appalling and women tend to have far less aftercare than British ones. When a super-posh Duchesses' private birth costs less than half an average/poor hospital American one for the family with far higher rates of death, the problem should be obvious, and circumcision is just another thing on the insurance bill in most areas. In American areas where it's stopped being paid for by insurance, the rates doctors who push for it drop. The volume is loud, we've been fighting for it to be recognised for years, no ulterior motives, just want best practice and routine infant circumcision isn't it.

That sounds very hopeful Spork. I hope the trend continues.

I'm in America. The problems with the us health care system are way beyond whether an infant is circumcised! You'll pay through the nose for the most natural of births (I got the bill for thousands after a midwife attended completely natural birth!)

Circumcision probably shouldn't be routine but an informed option.

See there are 4 possible cases here.

1. You hack a bit of a newborns penis and because of their cultural background etc. they are glad you did it when they grow up because they don't remember the process.
2. You dont hack anything off and you child when grown is perfectly happy with that. (alternatively by the time your kid has grown up the very idea that people impose their religious / cultural views on children has become totally ethically unacceptable and they are glad they had forward thinking parents)

1. You dont hack anything off and your child grows up and wants the operation (or maybe converts unexpectedly to Islam etc.)

1. You hack a bit off and your child grows up and wishes you hadn't and feels he was abused and treated like a possession by his parents.

In case 3. kung is indeed correct that some extra hassle has been incurred.

In case 4. some massive fucking hassle has been incurred. I'm guessing we can't currently fix that and will not be able to for the forseeable future.

The moral of this story. LEAVE OTHER PEOPLES GENITALS INTACT. They can always lose bits they decide not to keep...but they can't put it back.

The cancer risk and health benefits are silly nonsense arguments as far as I am concerned, circumcision may reduce the chances of catching HIV or developing penile cancer, and?

Breast cancer is far more common than penile cancer, does that mean it'd be perfectly acceptable for me to give my son or daughter a radical mastectomy to prevent her developing it? Should I have their appendix or tonsils whipped out at birth? Maybe we should remove their teeth once they've all emerged just in case they get gum disease? How about I have my daughter circumcised to prevent her developing cancer of the vulva or a hysterectomy in case she develops ovarian cancer?

Oh right, they'd all be barbaric, but cutting off part of your son's penis almost straight after birth, nah, that's cool.

Ignoring the fact that you can't go back to being a newborn and the 2 week window of a relatively easy, simple and straightforward procedure.

So you take a leap of faith and make a decision either way since either decision is effectively irreversible.

And if you believe that one of your scenarios is more likely than the other, then that will inform your decision.

It's my decision to make in the best interest of my child, not yours

Thank you for the hyperbole anormalone

It's my decision whether to circumcise my daughter, remove her uterus, ovaries and breast tissue, not yours. Guess we'll be booking ourselves in then, she's my child, it's my choice.

What is the risk/benefit analysis of the procedures you mentioned vis-a-vis newborn circumcision?

Most parents who circuncise are just as capable of assessing risk as you are. And they don't love their children any less. Nor are they any less intelligent than you

Well if I remove her vulva she won't get cancer of the vulva, removal of the uterus no chance of uterine cancer, no ovaries no ovarian cancer, no breast tissue a reduced chance of breast cancer. How's that any different from touting a reduced chance of penile cancer as a big plus for removing your son's foreskin?

If you support removing his foreskin because it reduces the chance of penile cancer why object to my suggestions? There's clearly a benefit it doing it so surely it should be a choice I get to make?

I'd suggest anyone putting a newborn infant through an unnecessary operation, in many cases without anesthetic, that can actually kill them is pretty unintelligent if you ask me.

ICBINEG _ I note you still haven't answered my question about how evil we are? As for your cases, all our family have been 1, and I don't see any sign of it changing anytime soon....

If we did nothing, our DS's might regret not having been able to go to their Jewish school, might be a bit upset at being the only members of their extended family not to be part of the Jewish community. But of course they will have the (theoretical) benefit that they weren't treated like a possession....

sam Only you can answer that. Only you know to what extent your hand was forced by your own religious / cultural indoctrination.

I can't wrap my head around access to education being linked to state of penis.

I really really can't.

The world is TOTALLY fucked up.

Let's imagine that your DS might grow up resenting that a part of his anatomy is missing due to no decision on his own part. Let's imagine that he really regrets that his parents didnt cede him autonomy over his own body...let alone his own thoughts on religion etc.

ICBINEG - It wasn't forced at all, any more than I was forced to marry someone Jewish or take the religion seriously. Where does that leave me in the evil stakes (I'm genuinely interested to know)?

kung when the decision is genuinely in the best interests of the child, it will be backed up by HCP recommending it (impartial ones..not ones that are going to benefit financially from the arrangement) and we wouldn't be having this discussion if that were the case.

Anyone having their child circumsised without the recommendation of a HCP is doing it for their own interest and not those of the child.

sam well I would say that if you believe your DS will go to hell if he dies with an uncut penis, then your aren't evil to do it. Wrong, but not evil.

the argument that it reduces the risk of penile cancer is clearly a non-runner since as others have said we don't remove at birth every other part of the body that might one day become diseased

the fact is, and i have personal experience of this having argued with my jewish mother about my not circumcising my sons, there is an understandably immensely strong desire among people who have circumcised their sons to normalise that decision. my mother, an extremely strong minded and not religious woman, believed that it was the 'right' thing to do. she had been brought up to think it was normal. she had had it done to her own son. so my telling her that i considered it a barbaric mutilation did not go down very well, just like it's not going down well on this thread. so i can sort of understand why there are people on here who want to defend their decision to circumcise as clearly they thought it was in the best interests of their child.

i would hazard a guess though, that the number of non-circumcised adult men who wake up one day and wish they had been circumcised is pretty close to nil. (and yes i do know of 2 converts to judaism who had it done in order to marry. i am confident that they are very much in the minority though)

yep some of the people on here remind me of 80's school teachers wondering how the hell they can teach if they aren't allowed to use the cane any more...a sort of befuddled kind of "but we were only caning children for their own good?" puzzlement.

You've missed your window of opportunity to do it very simply as a newborn.

It's only easier on a newborn as the poor things can't fight back while they're being mutilated.

Oooh good, I love a nice Routine Circumcision With No Medical Need thread. They always go so well. I haven't read it - has anyone claimed religious intolerance and victimisation yet?

I predict that 100 years from now it will be illegal everywhere on the planet to permanently modify any body but your own. Medically advised procedures will of course continue to go ahead, but no other reason to chop up someone else's body will be seen as valid.

...has anyone claimed religious intolerance and victimisation yet?

Oh yes.

EDL and BNP mentioned, too.

ICBINEG - don't know if on its own it will consign him to some divinely-inspired punishment, but it certainly won't gain him or me any heavenly brownie points. I keep a number of other practices, even though I don't think that Jews who don't are necessarily headed for a sticky end....

You've missed your window of opportunity to do it very simply as a newborn.

If you remove someone else's foreskin they have entirely and forever missed their window of opportunity to experience life with a foreskin.

You have indelibly marked them as your property first, and their own person second as thoroughly as if you had tatooed 'belongs to X' on their forehead.

TMI alert.
My DP absolutely loves it when I gently slide his foreskin down. I would hate to think he could have been deprived of that pleasure by the whim of a parent. His penis is just perfect as it is.