WTF? "Half of all uncircumcised males will, over the course of their lifetime, develop some kind of medical issue related to their foreskin."

[missingwelliesinsd]

Question as a Brit in the USA. I just read this news article on the never-ending debate (in the USA at least) of whether it's better to circumcise male babies. Some paper just issued by the Mayo Clinic concluded that the benefits out weigh the risks 100-1 and it would be unethical to not circumcise a male baby just it it would be if you don't get immunizations for your child. WTF?

I know that circumcising can help reduce STD transmissions - but hey, just use a condom! What I can't believe is that "50% of non-circumcised males have medical issues with their foreskins." That would make 50% of most of the male population of Europe having foreskin issues at some point. Can this be right? I tend to think it's just American prejudice against foreskins after decades of snipping. I'm TTC and if I do and we have a boy, no way am I snipping the poor thing.

Here's the article:
jezebel.com/circumcision-rates-decline-in-the-u-s-1557539810

I once* spent a week shouting at my partner, telling him what a useless worthless piece of shit he was. When he tried to walk away I followed him continuing my tirade. When he tried to object to me behaving this way I told him it was his own fault. Before this week and after this week our relationship was lovely. Respectful, kind, affectionate, generous. I'm not an abusive person but that week I abused him.

When people say circumcision is abuse they are not saying those parents are abusive day in day out. They are saying that that act is abuse.

• I didn't really.

The medical argument for automatic circumcision of babies doesn't hold water. We don't lop all babies' tonsils out because sometimes children get tonsilitis, or even because for some at some point the removal of tonsils will be medically considered more beneficial than having tonsils. We don't remove a whole mouthful of teeth because sometimes people get fillings, or abcesses or even gum disease which can cause heart problems. We wait and see if there is a problem before acting.

Apologies, Animation.

No it's ok squoosh I really understand that to criticise a custom based on a religious practise will always be called out as prejudiced.

If I am called prejudiced as I don't agree with cutting little boys and girls sex organs that's fine.

thebody

You still haven't shown me any evidence of how the 'Jewish political lobby' in the US has influenced research on circumcision. Yet you discredit the AAP's technical report on the basis that it's a US organization and therefore influenced by Jews.

Here's the full PDF of their report. It references and summarises nearly 250 articles. Exactly which research don't you agree with? ANd which ones have been influenced by the 'Jewish lobby'?

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756.full.pdf+html

"The medical argument for automatic circumcision of babies doesn't hold water. We don't lop all babies' tonsils out because sometimes children get tonsilitis, or even because for some at some point the removal of tonsils will be medically considered more beneficial than having tonsils. We don't remove a whole mouthful of teeth because sometimes people get fillings, or abcesses or even gum disease which can cause heart problems. We wait and see if there is a problem before acting."

Exactly.

No, I never said that the fact that it's common makes it right. I said that, on the whole, the benefits outweigh the risks (or at worst it's benign) which makes it a valid choice.

At worst it is not 'benign'. If you are circumcised you will be without your foreskin for the rest of your life, that is not a risk, it is a certainty. If you don't the risks of some mostly minor and treatable ailments are slightly higher. I do not see the benefits outweighing the risks in the majority of cases.

I think these threads can be considered pointless because when common sense it pitted against religious or cultural dogma there isn't a reasonable debate to be had.

It's about time we shuffled whatever God to the bottom of the pack and took responsibility for the evils that we do.

Shak again for you as you don't seem to understand.

The research is discredited by many research linked to this thread. Read it.

Again, mutilation of a baby is wrong. It can't be justified by religion or custom. It's wrong. It's wrong to cut a child without anaesthetic or solid medical reasons.

Can't you see the simple debate here?

Nothing to do with religious or cultural dogma in my case.

Evidence, pure and simple.

I didn't see any valid discrediting of the AAP technical report or the research contained in it on this thread.

Throwing around suggestions of making money or the Jewish lobby isn't called critical assessment of the evidence.

I have a PhD in a health related field and training in critically assessing scientific evidence. I'm capable of making up my own mind which is what I've done. If new evidence came to light, I'd reconsider.

I suppose it also boils down to the way you see your baby and your responsibilities as a parent.

My parenting is based on keeping my children as safe as possible. Protecting them from harm hurt abuse fear pain as much as I can.

I don't see my children as my property to carry out procedures on.

I wouldn't tattoo my babies, I wouldn't pierce their ears.

I See them as little people in their own rights with rights.

My dd had her ears pierced at 9 as she choose to.

My ds had a tattoo at 18 because he wanted to.

I don't own my children's bodies. I respect them.

coruskate

I think most parents try to make the best decision for their child. Myabe that should be the point of departure?

me too thebody what a surprise!

The point is coruskate that parents who circumcise their sons are doing because they have made a (hopefully informed) choice that this is in the best interest of their child. It is the chocie I would have made had I had a son after careful consideration of the evidence. It would have been a choice made in, what I consider as an educated, intelligent and loving parent, the best interst of my child. It is not abuse.

It IS abuse.

And I for one think you are wrapped up in religious dogma.

It worries me that you are scientifically trained but refuse to actually look at this morally.

I'm not religious and don't believe in God. Sorry to disappoint you.

I approached this with an open mind as I wanted to see what the evidence had to say. I know this is hard for you to accept as I came to a different conclusion to you but since the AAP also came to a similar conclusion, I feel quite confident in my abilities.

A lot of things on this thread worry me. But thankfully I've never experienced such prejudice and blinkered thinking in real life so maybe, as babybarrsiter said, it's an MN phenomenon. I hope so.

9 is old enough to choose to have their ears pierced yes. We both watched and chatted to the technician. Her choice.

Not sure what you mean by age of consent hope you are not suggesting anything sexual here. Would be very sick and inappropriate so will gloss over that baby if you are referring to that you may need to ask fit that disgusting comment to be deleted.

shak obviously you can't read if you thought my post could include circumsicion in my parenting rules. Just wierd.