Circumcision

[SouthAfricanmuminUK]

I was thoroughly abused by several English mums of my acquaintance for having my sons circumcised at birth. Although I did my research and found it to be better from a number of perspectives, nothing would convince them it was reasonable. I am wondering if they will retract their accusations now that it has been revealed that Diana, saintliest of all mothers, had both her boys circumcised ...

Oh dear, a stranger on the Internet thinks I'm uneducated. How will I cope

@BabyOnBoard90 you need to check your SPAG, you're now not making sense?

But I think an ear lobe is less intrusive and would lead to less pain and future issues.

Just think about the pain you are inflicting on a baby that relays on you to keep them safe and free from harm.

So utterly cruel and I'm sure that in time we will find that it is a practise that will stop completely, it's vastly reduced, thank goodness!

Why were you surprised by people that had knowledge of male circumcision commenting on this thread? Surely with even your extremely low morals and IQ, can see why they would comment? It's just common sense really?

*relies

Of course its comparable, an earlobe has no real biological function, whereas the foreskin does.

Asserting cognitive dissonance =/= Surprise. Verbal reasoning.

Again, if you think the foreskin of a penis is comparable to an ear lobe, I really can't help you with that lack of understanding.

I don't think I'm the one having trouble understanding here, its very simple. One holds a biological function and has a purpose, one does not.

I think we should all stop engaging with @BabyOnBoard90 since it's obvious she's not posting in good faith and enjoys being antagonistic and derailing productive conversations.

There's no productive discourse here, just an echo chamber of ignorant and uneducated views.

It's you, and your peers rhetorting with ad hominems who can't stomach dissent and debate. Your views on life aren't perfect and absolute I'm afraid, deal with it.

Okay dear

Haha mate. Your posts are proving otherwise aren't they.

Sure

I am just aghast there is anyone dim enough to argue that cutting of a part of a baby is an ok practice. Just utter madness.

Male genital mutilation should only be undertaken if there is a medical reason. Otherwise it's no different to female genital mutilation, it shouldn't be done.

Good thing you see it 👍

No, just CBA. But if it pleases your ego take it as a win.

Why start then?

It is a thing that needs doing sometimes, and it is potentially more complicated, painful etc if done later.

The reason people excuse circumcision as being cleaner are wrong.
The old testament advises it, because common sense can tell you, there wasn't the washing facilities for wandering 40 years in the desert, so in those circumstances it's TRUE.
But nowadays it's a lame reason, I feel the only time it's ok is for medical reasons.

Exactly but some people are still referring to the Old Testament without question, very very odd!

Bodies vary, but for some (non trivial proportion of) men the foreskin is formed in ways that complicate things as much in 2023 as they would in 2023BC. It isn't only about hygiene problems that can be easily fixed by having a shower.

There are some men who will need a circumcision for medical reasons at some point. That is not a good reason to preventively circumcise all male babies. We don't preventively remove people's appendix or tonsils either.

And a small but non trivial portion of men who have been circumcised as babies develop physical, psychological and sexual problems as adults. The practice is not harmless - and that's discounting those babies who have immediate complications from the procedure, which have on rare occasions included death.

A few things about this comment. There isn't a pressing medical reason to conduct infant circumcision, nor did I say there was one; Appendectomies and tonsillectomies are both much more invasive and risky procedures than circumcision and both are frequently done on a prophylactic/preventative basis - but not generally on very young infants.

I have to say, though, the idea circumcisions are a hangover that has not been necessary or an improvement to people's lives since the bronze age is a MYTH put about by people who are, let's assume with the best of intentions, focused on it not happening any more to babies.

That myth, along with a few others has the side effect of some adults who need it thinking they cannot have appropriate medical care, and living in misery, and feeling they can't possibly ask for help or admit such a physical deficiency. So it is worth putting it right.

Far too often people's health goes by the wayside because people let myths/folklore/outdated thinking by with a handwave. Certainly a lot of cancer death, but also less deadly intimate things like this. There's no excuse for it in modern times.

I felt bad enough getting a tongue tie snipped that was stopping my baby for feeding. Definitely wouldn’t put them through this unless there was a medical reason advised by a doctor.

@ConcordeOoter I'm fully aware that there is a medical need for better support of patients with phimosis or other foreskin related problems, but that's a separate thing. Infant circumcision for religious and cultural reasons rather than medical ones is absolutely a hangover from another age. The two things can both be true.