Kendodd said: Out of interest baggins101 how much does the risk of penile cancer increase if circumcision is done in young adulthood instead of young child/babyhood? Is the increased risk (if any) great enough to justify not waiting for the person concerned to decide for themselves?
Penile cancer is just one of the benefits of circumcision, Kendodd. The advantages of getting your son circumcised before the age of 8 are:
1. It is a simple and PAIN FREE procedure using the pastibell or cicumplast with local anesthetic. These methods of circumcision cannot be used after the age of 8 as the skin is too thick.
2. It takes days rather than weeks for the circumcision to heal. An adult or adolescent male would have to refrain from all sexual activity (including masturbation) for about six weeks, which is very frustrating.
3. Circumcision in childhood provides almost complete protection against penile cancer. Circumcision in adulthood does not.
4. There are also advantages with significantly reduced risk of UTI in childhood. Urinary tract infections are, like penile cancer, uncommon but even with modern medicine can cause long term harm. This protection only starts from when the boy is circumcised
Although I concede there may be some advantages having circumcision done as a baby/young child, for instance being able to use the procedure you describe and with a baby, even if it is painful they won't remember it. IMO the consent issue outweighs this and I will say again that this was not your choice to make
And yet teeth straightening IS your choice to make? When deciding to convince your child to have teeth extracted and a brace fitted you, like all good parents, weigh up the advantages and disadvantages and make what you believe to be the best decision for your child. And there are disadvantages to fitting a brace: pain and discomfort for as long as a couple of years; it is time consuming to clean the teeth with braces fitted; possible ridicule from peers; lots of visits to the orthodontist; etc. But the long term benefits outweigh these drawbacks.... or so you decide as a good parent.
So lets pretend for a moment that you accepted the benefits of circumcision outweighed the drawbacks, I fail to see how you can claim "the consent issue outweighs this" for circumcision but not for fitting a brace, without leaving yourself open to the accusation of hypocricy.
Your comment about removing a flap of skin to protect from breast cancer is fine as far as it goes... but in your scenario there is no advantage to having the flap removed in childhood. With the foreskin there ARE advantages to having it removed in childhood. You clearly don't see them as over-riding, but there certainly are advantages.
The bottom line, Kendodd, is that it IS a valid choice for parents to make. The advantages are not so great that it should be considered essential, but then the disadvantages are also minimal, despite what the intactivists say. You cannot die from circumcision any more than a cut finger, you can only die from excessive bleeding (over a cupful for a baby) or general anesthetic, and these are matters of criminal medical (or parental) negligence, not circumcision itself. Cut a foreskin off with a pair of scissors and just wind a bandage around it and walk away and yes, the risk is high. And the Intactivists exaggerate even those figures. The recent case of Joshua Haskins being a prime example.
And although I won't repeat them now, the other claims of long term harm are equally exaggerated by the intactivists, and lapped up by those who want to lap them up.
And finally, the term Intactivist is not mine. It is the name the pressure groups opposing circumcision have given themselves. The arguments "facts" and figures given by most in this thread are straight from the intactivist websites.