Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be pretty uncomfortable with home circumcision

578 replies

EastofEast · 20/10/2013 20:31

We get on very well with our neighbours and are pretty close but I was a bit shocked today, one of those moments where you find you really have opposing views on something quite fundamental.

Neighbour has a (gorgeous) two week old boy. She knocked on the door earlier to return my car keys (went to get a new battery for hers in my car) and I mentioned her new ds was unsettled for the first time ever; joking maybe he wasn't the perfect baby after all. My baby is demanding much more vocal about her needs. She said it was because he was circumcised today. I must have looked a little put off, I don't agree with it at all, as she then said 'oh he's doing really well. We were lucky the doctor came to house to do this one, all the others had to go to a clinic'. I was stunned, I'm amazed you're allowed to do such a thing at home in such an unregulated way. Frankly I wouldn't allow any deliberate harm to come to a child that wasn't medically necessary, but considering some people do do it I thought the rules would be tighter. We're both from (different) backgrounds which circumcise, although I refused to change my son, and I knew she'd do it after a related chat about whether fgm was that bad over a coffee one day but it's still upset me a bit the way it's done. The poor little thing is grumpy with loads of adults around to celebrate the event passing him round and round at 8.30pm.

I know the circumcision vs no circumcision has been done already, and not everyone shares my strong views, but at home? Should this be ok? I can't think of other similar procedures happening in a similar environment.

OP posts:
thebody · 22/10/2013 17:57

Prima, many circumcisions male and female are carried out in the child's house by unqualified people and no anaesthetic.

as a former district nurse I can assure you it happens.

no idea where the full ashtray and fried chicken comes in here.

again if circumcision is so healthy and wonderful by all means let it be carried out on adults. they can choose. ch

thebody · 22/10/2013 17:58

Prima, many circumcisions male and female are carried out in the child's house by unqualified people and no anaesthetic.

as a former district nurse I can assure you it happens.

no idea where the full ashtray and fried chicken comes in here.

again if circumcision is so healthy and wonderful by all means let it be carried out on adults. they can choose. ch

peacefuloptimist · 22/10/2013 18:05

Oh sorry thebody. I can see where you got that image from now. Well we had it done at the GP. He cried when he was given the anesthetic. He was awake when we took him there. The baby before him was asleep when he went in so he slept through the anesthetic and the circumcision. My son copes quite well the injections (he cries when its administered but stops about 30 seconds later. Brushing his teeth though Confused thats another story. Im scared one day someone is going to call social services on me or the police because of his screaming.

crescentmoon · 22/10/2013 18:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2013 18:15

crescentmoon I see you were not able to give a straight answer. I didn't expect you could, but it confirms to anyone reading what I'm saying. That your religion requires its followers to put god's wishes before the health of a child.

All the Abrahamic religions share this in common. That what god wants is more important than the welfare of a child. Not surprising when you think that Abraham was famous for being willing to murder a child to please god.

ElleBelly · 22/10/2013 18:21

There is no major medical organisation worldwide which recommends non therapeutic neonatal circumcision. It seems largely because a lot of the research into the benefits is inconclusive. The WHO recommend it, but only in areas with very high HIV rates, and under very strict criteria and conditions.

crescentmoon · 22/10/2013 18:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StitchingMoss · 22/10/2013 18:41

It's threads like these that make me thank god every day that I'm an atheist.

HomeHelpMeGawd · 22/10/2013 18:45

It was Einstein who said "make things as simple as possible but not simpler". BoB, your comment about Abraham is quite clearly an over-simplification. It really takes an effort to read this story as being about promoting the murder of children, when it has widely been seen as an important moment in human history when people turned away from infanticide.

Kierkegaard wrote a very good book on it: Fear and Trembling.

On your other points, I can't help but get the feeling that you're more interested in arguing with your idea of me than with what I'm actually saying.

Re: "Now since our starting position is that it would hurt US a lot I'd expect anyone who claimed it hurt babies less to come up with evidence. Otherwise what basis do they have for saying it."

All very interesting. But you were the one that made a claim about evidence, rather than me.

Re: "And I will say it one more time. The important part of "hurting people for your benefit not theirs" is that it's for your benefit not theirs."

You haven't actually singled out a particular part of this statement before. I clearly demonstrated I understood that point, because I gave you examples of times when people could act morally while inflicting pain on someone else for their own benefit and not the benefit of the person on whom the pain was being inflicted. Your statement as it stands would rule any use of violence ever as being unethical, and that is untenable.

I presume that this is why you flip from discussing your general statement, which is too general, to putting a specific situation in front of me. Presumably you expect that I will have no choice but to agree with you that:
a) the situation you describe is an appropriate parallel with circumcision
b) this is the only type of situation that your moral principle is intended to capture.

I agree with (b), but not (a). And I think that (b) accurately describes your intention, but does not describe what you have actually done.

Anyhoo, I said before and will say again: there are definitely ethical problems with the brit, but it remains important to Jews for many reasons. What I haven't said yet, but will say now, is that of all the things to fulminate about, I can't see why this would rise to the top of the list. Not with FGM rates, rape rates, child marriage rates, DV rates being the way they are. And not without a much higher rate of complaint from the boys and men being circumcised. This matters because we live in a world of limited resources, so we need to set some priorities to be effective.

harticus · 22/10/2013 18:46

crescent moon

Lopping breasts off reduces the risk of developing breast cancer but I don't see people queuing up to inflict bilateral mastectomies on their adolescent daughters.

Domestic circumcision is only performed for religious/cultural reasons not perceived health benefits. The highly unconvincing health argument is always trotted out by those who support genital mutilation of infants in a desperate attempt to prop up the utterly indefensible.

Primafacie · 22/10/2013 18:49

Elleberry, the AAP and ACOG's view is that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks - though I grant you that they are not a 'worldwide' organisation.

link

Thebody, as a former nurse, it's surprising that you don't know the benefits of infant circumcision over adult circumcision. I expect you have access to the medical evidence but I'm happy to send you some links if you don't.

The fact that a circumcision is carried at home does not mean it is not done by a professional with sterile instruments. I'm not denying that there are some outliers - circumcisions done by non-professionals- and I don't condone those. But condemning circumcision as a whole because of isolated poor practice is an overreaction.

And the idea (can't remember who expressed it) that parents do it for their own benefit is very misguided - as if Korean, American, Jewish, Muslim parents somehow don't love their children as much as 'we' do, and/or are too stupid to understand the errors of their ways Hmm.

Strumpetron · 22/10/2013 18:51

Right let's not all pretend you're doing it for these cock and bull medical reasons.

Let's take it back to the actual victims who people seem to think don't exist.

What pisses me off is how proud my mom is to this day about giving a "natural" birth, not taking pain pills or anything and then moments after my birth getting part of my penis amputated. Seriously mom

Sky7: "If anyone thinks that my physical scarring and loss from having been sexually violated makes me look better/neat to them as opposed to natural looks, they are obviously not my type.

I will fully admit that I try to maintain some level of political correctness when I talk about circumcision. Yes. I am a victim of circumcision. Yes. Victim. It upsets me, it angers me. My body was violated without my consent, for no reason. This is a fact. My penis was mutilated. If you can not see this, then you're an idiot. Uh oh, I said an insult!

timmytm.livejournal.com/33872.html?thread=2081616

EmbitteredCrusader: "Am I the only person offended at the thought of someone being more attracted to me, because of my disfigurement

Educate yourselves, there's loads of studies on the effects of male circumcision on its victims. Yet you chose to not acknowledge anyone suffers. Read Boyles 'Male Circumscision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequele' I think some of you will be shocked at the results of the the study.

I cannot believe you ignorant people can condone causing this, it's not your fucking body. It's not your sexual organ. How dare you.

peacefuloptimist · 22/10/2013 18:52

Let me ask those objecting to male circumcision if your son needed for a medical reason would you agree to get it done even though you are doing it without his consent? Also if your son did need to be circumcised for a medical reason would you be happy for someone to describe your son as being mutilated? It seems like this is a case of if we do it its okay and for a good reason but if you do it its bad.

HomeHelpMeGawd · 22/10/2013 18:54

The Wikipedia articles on these topics are pretty good

Primafacie · 22/10/2013 18:54

Stitching eh? I'm an atheist too. Most American men are circumcised, it's not just zealots who do it you know.

harticus · 22/10/2013 19:01

Circumcision for essential medical reasons handled by a doctor in a hygienic environment is NOT the same as domestic religious circumcision.

Why is this basic fact so hard for pro-mutilators to understand?

thebody · 22/10/2013 19:13

prima, no I am perfectly aware of the WHO report in circumcision. it has no more benefit to reducing HIV than wearing a condom.

unless it's for a good medical reason there are no benefits whatsoever to this for males or females.

it's done to please a God or a community or some other spurious idea.

mutilating children is just wrong. inflicting pain on children is wrong. it's indefensible.

do I judge people who have their babies ears pierced? yes.

ownership and autonomy over your body is a basic human right which should be accorded to children as well as adults.

crescentmoon · 22/10/2013 19:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

crescentmoon · 22/10/2013 19:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2013 19:23

crescentmoon I understand. You can't bring yourself to lie, but can't say what you'd really do.

HomeHelpMeGawd What? you're now taking issue with my statement that cutting bits of flesh off of adults would hurt? And you were worried I might make you look like a buffoon?

I gave you examples of times when people could act morally while inflicting pain on someone else for their own benefit No you didn't. I think perhaps you might be struggling with the actual sentences here. Get someone to read that back to you and explain where you got confused.

curlew · 22/10/2013 19:23

"what cock and bull reasons? theres tonnes of scientific research to show that circumcision alone, both done as an infant or as an adult, can lower or completely eradicate the risks of alot of diseases associated just as much if not more with the MODERN 21st century world, not the ancient."

There isn't, you know.

curlew · 22/10/2013 19:26

"it just the setting that you object to?"

No. It is completely unacceptable to perform a surgical procedure on a child too young to consent unless it is of medical benefit to that child

That is an unequivocal fact- wriggle as much as you want.

BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2013 19:29

peacefuloptimist you want to know why what the difference is between a doctor cutting a patient for the patients good or you cutting someone to please your god?

Did you genuinely need to ask?

PrincessFlirtyPants · 22/10/2013 19:32

It is completely unacceptable to perform a surgical procedure on a child too young to consent unless it is of medical benefit to that child

^^This is essentially it.

BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2013 19:32

BoB, your comment about Abraham is quite clearly an over-simplification. It really takes an effort to read this story as being about promoting the murder of children, when it has widely been seen as an important moment in human history when people turned away from infanticide.

It is simple. Offer someone a reward for killing a child. If they go to do it they are a sick fuck who should be locked up. Instead you all based your religion on him.