To be pretty uncomfortable with home circumcision

[EastofEast]

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.

If the evidence base was so infallible then non therapeutic circumcision would be recommended by the WHO and other leading medical organisations.As I've stated, there are no leading organisations who recommend it. Most NHS trusts in this country don't fund it, if the evidence base was there to show the benefits do you think that would be the case?

he foreskin is the foreskin - whatever the reasons, whether cultural/medical/religious the part taken off is the same and the scientific benefits listed are the same

Breasts are sometimes removed because of the risk of breast cancer. Should we remove those at childhood too? Because your 'logic' says yes.

crescentmoon unless you have your posts deleted people can see and make up their own mind. I have no need to say more.

If it seems I was picking on you then rest assured that I have asked other religious (christian and jewish) pro circumcision posters the same question. None have ever responded. Usually they leave the thread.

This thread and some of the posts just make me glad that there isn't a religion that prescribes throwing every third child in the river.

I really couldn't care a monkeys about religion or custom.

if an adult wishes to do anything to their body then so be it. their informed choice.

the WHO research does NOT advocate world wide circumsicion as a method of stopping the HIV virus.

they do however advocate the rights of the child is paramount.

so do what you like to yourself in the name of whatever you belive but Don't dress up child mutulation as acceptable, right or ok. it just isn't.

they have no choice.

"I'm entitled to my opinion. "

Calling something that is perfectly factual and relevant a Red Herring is not an opinion.

"I think blue is a fab color" is an opinion. "I think the WHO link is a red herring" is a misrepresentation.

"And the reason HIV isn't as common as the vaccinable diseases is, er, because we vaccinate!"

Priceless

So it is your considered opinion (to which you are of course entitled) that the diseases we vaccinate against are more common than HIV is because we vaccinate against them?

Love the "er" there as well, as if it is such common sense to believe diseases everyone is vaccinated against should be more prevalent than HIV, which we obviously can't vaccinate against

I love this thread and really wish it would never end

crescentmoon I don't have an appendix. It would have been a much easier proceedure for me if it hadn't been taken out whilst I was already ill. Do you suggest removing appendices from all newborns "before they can remember it"?

I certainly don't, and would definitely object if someone suggested they wanted to do it to DS.

thebody - re "purely cosmetic procedure"

Do you have a problem with English comprehension?

It. Is. Not. A. Purely. Cosmetic. Procedure.

BOB - re "the difference is between a doctor cutting a patient for the patients good or you cutting someone to please your god"

Clearly, you have a problem with English comprehension too.

Were you not able to understand my two previous posts below, addressed directly to you?

CoteDAzur Tue 22-Oct-13 15:13:38
BOB - Circumcision isn't done for the benefit of parents. It isn't done so the dad's penis loses its foreskin. Dad's penis already has no foreskin. I don't know what you think your point is.

CoteDAzur Tue 22-Oct-13 14:40:05
BOB - You are using Christian terminology and talking about Christian issues. Muslims don't circumcise to get their "immortal souls" into heaven. They circumcise because it's "cleaner" & more hygienic and because they want to live like Mohammad & do what he has said to do.

"It. Is. Not. A. Purely. Cosmetic. Procedure."

Yes. It. Is.

What, because you know so much about why parents circumcise their babies?

Like, Muslims do it because Mohammad has said "circumcised penis looks pretty"?

Oh dear. The fankle people can get themselves into trying to justify the indefensible. I don't think anybody has a problem with comprehending English so much as finding some arguments incomprehensible.

Have men who were circumcised as babies complained about missing that part of their body or are you just projecting?"

www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2449027/Circumcised-men-desperate-reverse-procedure-visit-foreskin-restoration-net-circumstitions-com.html

www.intactamerica.org/

No one is saying a sexually active adult male shouldn't be allowed to make the decision to be circumcised if they think it will improve their chances of not contacting HIV. But there really is no benefit to a baby

If God made the world and, therefore the human body, why would it be a religious requirement to mutilate Gods work... It makes no sense to me.

I always wondered that and what really annoys me is living in the USA where everyone does it... even atheists. I believe in evolution, I think humans have done a pretty good job evolving with out doctors thinking they can improve on the human body. (I am not talking about illness or mutation or correcting something gone "wrong" on a few individuals) I just refuse to believe half the human population is not correct with out intervention

Very interesting article here on intactivism, and how efficient a fringe group is at disseminating utterly biased untruths on the Internet. Curlew and others quoting from the circumstitions and intectamerica websites, this will no doubt interest you.

The bottom line is that the anti-circumcision discourse is akin to the anti-vaccination one: rooted in paranoia and resolutely anti-science.

I'm not quoting from anything. I find the Intactivists insistence that male infant circumcision should be treated as if it as as physically and psychologically damaging as FGM completely outrageous. And I have been banned from a MRA forum for saying so.

However, I do think that performing surgery which had no medical benefit on a person too young to consent is completely unacceptable. That is the basis for my objection to circumcision.

I also find the concept of irreversibly changing a baby's body so that he can later fit into a religion he may or may not wish to follow also completely unacceptable. As do many adherents of such religions- there are some Jews, for example, who are advocating a ritualised "circumcision" ceremony that does not actually involve surgery. I will fins and link to it shortly.

Brit Shalom

There's nothing paranoid and anti-science about it all - as curlew said its about performing utterly unnecessary surgery for no reason. Simple.

Trying to claim those against it are crack pots is a pretty desperate argument.

I like how these questions haven't been answered:

Would you remove part of a baby girls labia if your religion said so?

Would you suggest we remove breasts, tonsils, appendix at birth because using the strange logic in this thread we should do so.

There is no point trying to speak to the brainwashed and deluded.

You are no better than the people you condemn. The people who do FGM are also brainwashed and under the impression it's for the best, just like you are.

Strumpetron, no one has answered my question either so I'll simplify it down and repeat it again.

If your son had to be circumcised for medical reasons would you refer to it and be happy with others referring to it as mutilation or your son as having had his penis mutilated?

Im not interested in the rights and wrongs of circumcision here, Im interested in language. Are you choosing to use that word because of the actual act being doing (so for any reason it occurs the poor boys penis is mutilated) or are you using that word because of the reason its done.

So, we've heard the benefits of circumcision. What are the benefits of having a foreskin? Most men seem pretty happy with theirs, so I'm assuming there are some.