Feeling forced to chose a circumcision...is it my husband,is the religion,is it really necessary?

[efy]

I have read some messages related to this tread by some of you and I understand when you guys call people like us....crazy etc.
I come from a non-circumcised family, my three brothers have never done or need it.
After I have changed my religion I wanted to follow the requirements of being from this religion. I like to believe that I have personally done some changes which were related to my self.
Now that I have an almost 12 months son, it looks that I have to fill up another requirement, which is circumcision, because I am from the religion that requires circumcision but the difference is....the change I need to do does not envolve me directly...is actually my little baby boy.
How do I feel about this?? Well I feel is unnecessary, I already feel guilty for planning to handle my little precious boy in someone's else hands to just harm him...yeah that is exactly how I feel...me and his father taking him with his little smile to a place that God knows what may happen.
And you know what, it was actually planned for tomorrow but I feel relief for now because we have discovered the person who was suppose to do it has had an unfortunate case where the little boy had to be taken to hospital for more operations in order to be 'fixed'.
My husband was circumcised when he was 5 and he believes in it, I don't believe and I think is more cultural than religious, I just do not understand why God will leave this for us humans to do it? Why did he leave that thing there if it need to be removed and why on such as small baby? Why??
My husband speaks about it as being just a simple procedure because he is a doctor but this is not the point, what about the baby? how is he going to feel?
I am relief for now but I am not convinced that this is in anyway necessary if at all...
I rather feel pushed to do it along with my baby.

Fair enough, but my question to you is why you single the foreskin out as a consent issue."

I don't.
I apply the same principle to any non medically necessary surgical procedure performed on a person unable to
consent. Down to, and including, ear piercing.

ASmidgeofMidge said: "Survival rates at 5 years are quoted as being between 70-80% between 2002 and 2006... I found this with only the most cursory of Googling."

*Sadly survival rates depend on how early the cancer is diagnosed. According to the BBC (discussing the 20% rise in penile cancer recently) the cancer is usually either mistaken for a rash in the early stages and ignored, or misdiagnosed as an STD by Doctors. As a consequence, they stated, the mortality rate from the disease was over 50% where with early diagnosis only 1 in 10 men would die.

HOWEVER, most cases, even with early diagnosis, require surgery and this involves removing up to 2cm of healthy tissue surrounding the cancer. A 4cm lump taken from a glans is going to leave it pretty damaged. A full or partial penectomy is a common consequence of this cancer.*

PigletJohn said: "Try asking her if she thinks parents should make the choice to amputate the breasts from baby girls to avoid the risk of breast cancer.

*See if, as you suggest, she singles the foreskin out as a consent issue.

I think you may find it is because this is a thread about circumcision."

I tried asking generally is anyone would refuse to allow teeth to be extracted from their child's mouth in order for a brace to be fitted and the teeth straightened for purely cosmetic reasons.

Guess how many came forward and said they wouldn't remove teeth from their child for cosmetic reasons.....

So yes, Piglet, both she and you are being hypocritical is claiming you would do nothing to your child's body that didn't have an immediate medical need.*

Martorana said:

"I apply the same principle to any non medically necessary surgical procedure performed on a person unable to
consent. Down to, and including, ear piercing."

Except tooth extraction for cosmetic reasons, eh!

baggins said "Fair enough, but my question to you is why you single the foreskin out as a consent issue."

Answer is, she doesn't

If you had asked me, I don't either.

Your question is based on a fallacious, self-invented premise.

So yes, Piglet, both she and you are being hypocritical is claiming you would do nothing to your child's body that didn't have an immediate medical need.

If by 'she', you are referring to me, can you please point out where on this thread I have been shown to be a hypocrite?

Since you can't be bothered to read back for yourself, Mart posted:

OK, Baggins- if you insist on comparing circumcision to braces on teeth, how about we agree to leave it til the child is 13 and let them choose?

Absolutely nothing about cosmetic tooth extraction. HTH.

Because you didn't answer a question baggins posted somewhat incoherently several pages before you joked the thread, waterlego. Obvious, innit ?

Joked the thread = joined the thread

waterlego said:

"In all of these cases, I am making decisions based on overwhelming evidence about what is healthy and sensible. "

Sensible is a nice get out of jail free card, eh! It allows extraction of teeth so that a brace can be fitted to make them look better.... but then again it also allows circumcision which has more benefits than drawbacks, doesn't it!

"Just out of interest (and they're nosy questions, so feel free to ignore)... Am I right in thinking that you were circumcised as an adult because of a medical problem? If this is the case, I wonder why you had not chosen circumcision prior to that, because of the benefits as you see them. Have you ever wished that your parents had made that choice for you when you were an infant?"

I was circumcised as an adult following a rather bloody argument with an unusually sharp zipper!

I knew little about circumcision before this and what I did know was the lies and exaggerations the intactivists spew forth.... screaming babies, ridiculous claims of the risk of death, insensitive penises and lack of sexual pleasure and no benefits at all. All crap, of course, but you don't know that until you check it out for yourself.

I would never have circumcised my son if I didn't believe the advantages outweighed the disadvantages and if I wouldn't have wanted to be circumcised myself as a child.

poor OP has not been back. Probably too scared to join in the massive bunfight!

Sensible is a nice get out of jail free card, eh! It allows extraction of teeth so that a brace can be fitted to make them look better.... but then again it also allows circumcision which has more benefits than drawbacks, doesn't it!

I have said nothing anywhere on this thread about my attitudes and beliefs wrt extracting teeth or fitting braces. As Doctrine correctly said, you evidently asked that question some pages back before I joined the thread.

waterlego said: "If by 'she', you are referring to me, can you please point out where on this thread I have been shown to be a hypocrite?"

I have no idea of your sex so I do apologise for making the wrong assumption.

So, to establish whether you are a hypocrite, are you the only poster here who would refuse to encourage your child to have teeth extracted and a brace fitted in order to straighten out his / her teeth so they look better?

If you can honestly say you would tell the dentist you will wait until your child is 18 and can their own decision I will withdraw my accusation.....

Or perhaps add an accusation of dishonesty....

Bloody hell Baggins you seem a bit obsessed, having joined mnet to post solely about this issue. Yet you yourself weren't circumcised until age 29 and then only because of a 'zipper accident' why if you think it is so amazing did you not have it done before? And going on about an uncircumcised penis not being as clean etc, it's perfectly clean if you wash! Or did you have a problem doing this?

Would you have circumcised your son if you were not circumcised yourself? Again if you think it is so marvelous why did you wait until he was five?

I suspect had you not had your zipper incident you would still be uncircumcised and so would your son, but having Been forced to have it done yourself you have since desperately tried to convince yourself that it is better...

Circumcision can have medical benefits and may be needed medically in some cases but in general it's fine to leave males uncut, let them make the choice themselves when old enough.

OK. For those who haven't bothered to read this thread before contributing to it, I challenged those who claimed they would never alter their child's body without their consent. I asked if they would be willing to allow teeth to be extracted and a brace fitted in order to make a cosmetic improvement to their teeth. (Extraction of teeth is commonly required to allow the teeth to be straightened.)

No-one said they would tell the dentist to wait until their child was 18 and could decide for him / her self.

A couple made claims that braces could be fitted to cure a medical problem, which was irrelevant to the point I made.

And someone else seemed to think that 12 year olds make their own decision about having teeth extracted and braces fitted which is nothing more than self-righteous delusion since parents normally "persuade" their kids to have braces: 12 year olds do what their parents tell them to do. Why do you think Muslim boys undergo circumcision in late childhood, and many teenagers in South African communities undergo barbaric circumcision rituals. To claim otherwise is to lie to yourself.

So the label of "hypocrite" fits well with anyone claiming that altering your child's body in a way YOU feel is in their interests is mutilation.

still wouldnt chop a bit of my son's penis off for no good reason. I do not know of anyone with penile cancer and do not know of anyone here who is circumcised either.

you seem a little obsessed (understatement)

5madthings said: "Bloody hell Baggins you seem a bit obsessed, having joined mnet to post solely about this issue."

Challenging the lies being posted in this thread about circumcision is as good a reason as any to join.

Yet you yourself weren't circumcised until age 29 and then only because of a 'zipper accident' why if you think it is so amazing did you not have it done before?

Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect you to have read the whole thread before posting, but I would expect you to have read the last few pages at least. Clearly you haven't or you wouldn't be asking questions answered so recently.

And going on about an uncircumcised penis not being as clean etc, it's perfectly clean if you wash! Or did you have a problem doing this?

Again, had you bothered to read a bit you would find this question has been responded to in detail.

Would you have circumcised your son if you were not circumcised yourself? Again if you think it is so marvelous why did you wait until he was five?

Responded to in detail a few pages back. Try reading before posting.

I suspect had you not had your zipper incident you would still be uncircumcised and so would your son, but having Been forced to have it done yourself you have since desperately tried to convince yourself that it is better...

And I suspect that you have a foreskin fetish which is why you cannot accept circumcision is a valid choice for parents to make for their son, and why you make such pitiful efforts to undermine those who do.

Circumcision can have medical benefits and may be needed medically in some cases but in general it's fine to leave males uncut, let them make the choice themselves when old enough.

Once again your laziness is apparent. This has been addressed in detail in recent pages.

I would not make my child undergo tooth extraction for purely cosmetic reasons, no. If it were initiated by them, I would support them in it. In all likelihood, it would be suggested by a dentist, in the first instance. I would then ask my child what they thought about the dentist's suggestion. So no, I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.

By the way, there are actually a number of medical reasons for orthodontics- it is not always purely about the cosmetic. For example, overcrowding can cause discomfort or make it more difficult to maintain oral hygiene.

I suspect had you not had your zipper incident you would still be uncircumcised and so would your son, but having Been forced to have it done yourself you have since desperately tried to convince yourself that it is better...
5madthings I wondered the same.

Braces are fitted on a case by case basis, following medical advice.

No poster on this thread has said they wouldn't consider circumcision for their child if a medical professional had advised it.

No medical professional following NHS guidance in the uk advises pre-emptive circumcision.

So your analogy isn't parallel.

Hope that helps.

Hear hear Doctrine

ilovepowerhoop said: "you seem a little obsessed (understatement)"

Interesting angle. Much better that I just allow the anti-circumcision lies/ delusions to remain unchallenged, eh!

And just to reiterate my original position: the benefits of circumcision outweigh the drawbacks, and although the benefits are not so great that it should be considered essential, it is a valid choice for a parent to make for their child, not "mutilation".

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "Braces are fitted on a case by case basis, following medical advice."

Yes... and usually for cosmetic rather than medical reasons. Or are you trying to pretend most braces are fitted to cure a medical problem??

No poster on this thread has said they wouldn't consider circumcision for their child if a medical professional had advised it.

Entirely irrelevant. The point was that they would allow teeth to be extracted and a brace fitted for cosmetic reasons.

No medical professional following NHS guidance in the uk advises pre-emptive circumcision.

*A meaningless statement. What you mean is the NHS doesn't recommend pre-emptive circumcision. It follows that any Doctor recommending circumcision isn't following NHS guidance!

It is interesting to note (as I did a little way back, that NHS guidance has softened towards circumcision on the website and that they do, at least, recognise there are some advantages to it. Link was provided.*

So your analogy isn't parallel.

My analogy clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy of those who claim no procedure should be undertaken on a child unless it is medically necessary.

Hope that helps.

Well, it was a good attempt at wriggling out of an accusation of hypocrisy.

But I don't think a single poster has actually said that they would make their child have teeth extracted, for purely cosmetic reasons. So where are all these hypocrites you're so paranoid about?

Baggins- are you genuinely saying that a 12/13 year old is not able to make an informed decision about whether or not to have comsmetic dental treatment??? Have you actually met any 12 year olds?

Do you really think that a 12 year old is as incapable of informed consent as a baby?