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.

Dropyoursword

Ideally food/liquids shouldn't have to go over the trachea to reach the oesophagus. Think how many people choke to death each year! It's a serious design flaw!!

I also understand research jellybeans and I can see that it's pretty equally balanced either way.

The evidence isn't strong enough in favour that it should be routine but not strong enough against that it should be outlawed or demonised. Which is why it's legal and down to parental choice and religious/cultural preference.

'What harm did I do him other than ensure that, if he wants, he can be a full and accepted member of his community?'

Yes there is a claim for taking cultural relativism into account but even so in some cultures rituals such as scarification mark people as part of a group or being accepted into a culture. Also, female circumcision. Is it being ethnocentric to be against those too? Surely physical cutting/harm is where we should draw the line no matter what the culture/religion. People have died during these procedures. All it takes is for people to challenge these rituals and then move forward to other symbols and ways of belonging.

But there's a mechanism in place to cover the trachea as you swallow. Yes it sometimes works poorly and people then choke. But if they were switched around how could it be ensured that food didn't go to the back of your throat and still go down the wrong tube. There would still need to be a mechanism in place to cover the trachea as you swallow, which may go wrong.

It makes sense to me that they are in the right order....babies laying flat on their backs may vomit small amounts. If the tubes were reversed then they would potentially choke on this fluid, as it would trickle down into their lungs. The way the body is designed means that if they do being anything up as they are sleeping, it can sit generally harmlessly in their oesophagus and not disturb breathing via the trachea. I would imagine the same principle applies for adults and saliva accumulating in the mouth during sleep.

For me personally, the line would be if it was a proven harmful procedure in which case the cultural benefits would be less important.

With male circumcision, health pros and cons seem more or less balanced (albeit somewhat inconclusive) which means that I think parents can then legitimately decide on cultural/religious preference.

If I saw more conclusive research against, i'd change my mind.

drop your sword

I'm not sure what the 'fix' would be because evolution is a complex thing! Possibly if we were designed from scratch we could do it all different.

But the epiglottis is clearly an evolutionary fix to a design flaw that came about because of how we evolved.

But the point is that if people wish to be circumcised for religious or cultural reasons when they are able to make that decision for themselves then that is fair enough. That is entirely different than a parent inflicting it on a baby.

Marjorie...I think we should start a new thread with suggestions of redesigning the human body!

marjoriedawes

Sorry I wasn't very clear - no conclusions jumped to, as the baby's mum said that the hospital told her that the infection was due to the circumcision in this case. Have now read more on this thread, and realized that this is a deeply held religious belief. As people are less likely to question a tradition that they have grown up with and see as part of their religion, I think I understand a little better.

Ellebelly

I know many men who were circumcised as newborns and the ones I've asked (admittedly not a huge amount) were all pleased it had been done at that stage.

Circumcising a newborn is much more simple and straight forward than circumcising an adult.

And since the health pros and cons are kind of equally balanced, it boils down to parents trying to make the best decision for their child.

But as adults they can understand the risks and pain involved, and the reasons they want to be circumcised. Babies can't. Plus it takes their future feelings and decisions about their own cultural or religious choices out of their hands.

Parents make those decisions for their children as they do about many other things. It's just the way it is.

Clearly you wouldn't circumcise your children. I'm not sure what I'd do if I had boys. Others do circumcise their boys and it's a valid choice.

A needle prick a bit different than removing a body part though?

Yes be much better if left to decide when they are older.

In your opinion Jellybeans

But I have asked a number of owners of circumcised penises (circumcised as newborns) who are actually very pleased it was done when they were babies. So their parents at least got it right. Not sure why you think you know better than them.

There are others who don't feel that way however. Yes I'm sure as an adult they are pleased they don't have to go through it! Doesn't really justify why a baby should have to though.

There may be others who don't feel that way. I don't know any personally.

If I had a baby boy, I'd hope that I'd get it right and I'd hope that as an adult he'd feel that I'd made the right decision, whether I'd decided to circumcise or not. I certainly wouldn't call a decision to circumcise child abuse though!

I know I'd be heavily influenced by the fact that every circumcised man who has discussed it with me is happy about having been circumcised as a baby.

Cote, my red herring comment was in specific relation to the comparison of scientific date re: circumcision and that re: labial removal. Which is a red herring, even by your definition. I am not saying that scientific evidence per se is a red herring. HTH

There are entire websites devoted to men who are devastated by having it done as babies though MarjorieDawes So are YOU saying you know better than them?

There will be those happy and those unhappy. So let them decide as adults so all with it are happy?

Jellybeans - we all know that making decisions as an adult is a sure way to guarantee happiness. That's why no-one ever regrets their tattoos?! All the men in my family have been circ'd and have done the same to their sons. All well adjusted and seemingly happy with it (unless they've NC'd to go on these websites you seem to find so convincing). What they wouldn't have wanted would be to take time off school/uni to have it done at 13 or 18.

It would be their regret to have though if they made the choice as an adult. Better than inflicting it on a baby.

Jelly, it has been explained time and again that infant circumcision is simpler, safer and more beneficial than adult circumcision. Given the incredibly small number of people who seem to regret being circumcised, do you really think informed parents, having weighed the pros and cons, can't make that decision for their son?