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.

I think his teeth are ok as they are and more importantly, so does he. They're not perfectly straight American style teeth, but they are fine as they are and I didn't want him to endure the discomfort and social awkwardness that he was worried about, in order to possibly prevent him feeling self conscious about his smile as an adult at some point in the future.

When he is older, if he wishes he'd had them done then he can make his own decision and spend his hard earned cash straightening them up.

My own teeth were a bit wonky as a teen, the day I was going to have braces fitted my dentist died. I never had them, my teeth sorted themselves out. His may or may not do the same. Either way, at 12 I think he has a right to have a say in what happens to his body when there is no immediate threat to his health or well-being.

Ahem...

...am I still a hypocrite?

Lynda, you are either a hypocrite or a bad parent, don'tcha know? Those are your only choices

Oh and baggins101 if you do come back to me with some figures re: point 4 maybe you could compare them to the number of circumcised children who injure their penis that would otherwise have been protected from injury if they still had a foreskin.

Coming from the mutilationist, I'll take that as a compliment

Gosh, is he still hanging on about the benefits of circumcision?

Being judged as a hypocrite or a bad parent if that's the best argument he can come up with...

My, my! The Hyenas are out in force, aren't they! Lots of bluster but sadly lacking in any substance I note. It is a shame how you go around attacking parents for making the decision to circumcise their sons and yet have nothing to back up your attacks but emotional vitriol. Well, most anyway.

But we have moved forward.

Sadly there is very little substance to respond to in this last batch of froth but lets see what I can find....

Kendodd: You are looking for statistics, although since you are arguing against circumcision I would like to think you had seen statistics and had some idea what you were arguing about. Sadly you are not the only one arguing against circumcision in this forum without having a clue what they are talking about.

The CDC (US Center for Disease Control) has conducted a review of research into the effects of circumcision. Some of their findings are available here:

www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/otherconditions.html

including the finding that:

a retrospective review of 5 studies with 592 cases of invasive penile cancer in the United States; none of the cases were in men who had been circumcised in infancy.

and in another

98% (of cases of invasive penile cancer) were in uncircumcised men; of 118 cases of carcinoma in situ, 84% were in uncircumcised men.

Some studies have found that the penile cancer rate for those circumcised as adults is actually marginally higher than uncircumcised men, however these results are skewed since a since a significnant percentage of men circumcised as adults as a result of phimosis, another known risk factor.

You also asked for statistics about penile injuries. I have no idea. However I would say that it is far more difficult to catch a smooth exposed glans in a zip than loose skin so I suspect there are very, very few zipper accidents involving a bare glans... although that doesn't stop a circumcised man catching the shaft skin in a zip.

Your point (2) is irrelevant. If significant numbers of men found circumcision so awful you wouldn't have so many non-religious circumcisions in the US. What father is going to circumcise his son if he finds his own circumcision so bad (religious reasons excepted)? There are many reasons why an adult would not want to go through circumcision so for them the disadvantages are more likely to outweigh the benefits.

I do know that about 15% of 16 year olds have been circumcised in the UK and that the percentage increases with age, but since circumcision rates were higher in the past I have no idea how many were circumcised as adults.

Point 4: ?? What is an ITU? If you mean UTI then no-one catches a UTI because of being circumcised. Uncircumcised boys are 3.5 times more likely to catch a UTI. Babies are at highest risk of kidney damage from a UTI. Cleanliness certainly does play a large role in preventing UTI's, however since the advice is not to retract the foreskin of a baby or toddler as it can be damaged there is nothing a parent can do to avoid UTI's in uncircumcised infants.

Have I missed anything??

I think you missed your apologies to me and Lynda for calling us hypocrites.

LyndaCartersBigPants said: I think his teeth are ok as they are and more importantly, so does he. They're not perfectly straight American style teeth, but they are fine as they are and I didn't want him to endure the discomfort and social awkwardness that he was worried about, in order to possibly prevent him feeling self conscious about his smile as an adult at some point in the future.

When he is older, if he wishes he'd had them done then he can make his own decision and spend his hard earned cash straightening them up.

My own teeth were a bit wonky as a teen, the day I was going to have braces fitted my dentist died. I never had them, my teeth sorted themselves out. His may or may not do the same. Either way, at 12 I think he has a right to have a say in what happens to his body when there is no immediate threat to his health or well-being.

Ahem...

...am I still a hypocrite?

So let me get this straight.... you were trying to pull a fast one, making it look like you didn't persuade your son to have a brace fitted as a point of principle when all along it was because his teeth weren't that bad anyway!

So what does this prove? Nothing as far as the consent issue is concerned. You left it because it wasn't a problem, not because of a principle that you wouldn't do anything to alter your sons body until he was old enough to decide for himself rather than being persuaded by his parent.

And what if he had looked like Bugs Bunny? Same story? You would shrug your shoulders and leave him to face a huge bill and ridicule when he was an adult?

Yes, Lynda. You ARE a hypocrite. And I should add a fraud as well since you used this nonsense to dispute the consent issue.

Oh wow, Lynda, you're a fraud as well!

If he had Bugs Bunny teeth and was happy to keep them, yes I would accept that his wishes were more important than vanity or wanting to conform to some idea of physical perfection.

I am not a hypocrite. I told the dentist that despite their recommendation to straighten up his teeth, I wouldn't force him to do that because NOT to do so wouldn't cause him any health/functional/confidence issues.

I would also argue that if everybody was born with Bugs Bunny teeth, but a few (mainly religious) people routinely had certain teeth removed and braces fitted, but plenty or people also left them au naturel, that he wouldn't feel the need to alter them because they would be exactly as nature intended.

Waterlego said: "I think you missed your apologies to me and Lynda for calling us hypocrites."

Let it be known that Waterlego has declared that he/she would refuse treatment for his/her child if his teeth made them look like Bugs Bunny as a matter of principle. He/she would not attempt to persuade him to have a brace fitted and would leave his teeth for him to sort out when he was an adult.

The accusation of being a hypocrite is therefore withdrawn and replaced with an accusation of being an incompetent parent who has failed in his/her duty of care towards his/her child for the sake of his/her personal beliefs.

Will that do you, Waterlego? Or would you prefer to admit you are lying in order to "score a point"??

Patricia Arquette

LyndaCartersBigPants:

Ditto the comment to Waterlego. I must say there are an extraordinary number of people with exceptional illnesses on this forum when it fits their argument, and now an extraordinary number of inept parents too, also conveniently fitting their argument. But so bit it. You are the one declaring your position on an open forum.

there are a lot of us bad parents around. Apparently I'm in good company with Mick Jagger!

And I didn't say I wouldn't attempt to convince him to have them done, I would explain the pros and cons and allow him to have his own input into the decision, as it is HIS body. As I have already stated. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

Well, your definition of incompetent parenting differs from mine.

My conscience is clear.

LyndaCartersBigPants said: there are a lot of us bad parents around. Apparently I'm in good company with Mick Jagger!

No Lynda. There are very few of you bad parents around. Most parents persuade their kids to do what is in their ling term interests rather than pandering to the whims of a 12 year old.

Mine too, I haven't chopped off my son's foreskin.

And actually baggins, you've yet again misquoted me, by putting your own spin on my responses.

I haven't 'declared' anything. I certainly didn't say I would refuse any such dental treatment. I said I wouldn't force it. There's quite a difference there, if you care to examine the subtleties. But I'm getting that subtlety isn't really your thing.

"the most recent figures suggest just 3.8 per cent of male babies are circumcised in the UK. "

(Quoting my own post)

Do you have more recent figures than the 24 year old study from your mutilationist site that you linked to above, which showed 12,6% of 16-24 year olds being circumcised? Is that what you've based your "about 16% of 15 year olds in the UK" on?

"...a good argument."

When you say a GOOD argument, Lynda...

Well I'm quite enjoying it Doc!

LyndaCartersBigPants said: "I didn't say I wouldn't attempt to convince him to have them done,"

waterlego said: "I haven't 'declared' anything. I certainly didn't say I would refuse any such dental treatment. I said I wouldn't force it."

Not the iron ladies, that's for sure. These ones ARE for turning! Now Lynda would try to convince her son to have braces fitted for cosmetic reasons and waterlego "wouldn't refuse such treatment" on the grounds that she would be making alterations to her child's body without their consent.

Well, at least you have demonstrated you are not callous parents. Hypocrites for sure, but not callous parents.

I have never suggested you should drag your child kicking and screaming to the dentist. No half competent would need to. And of course you discuss the reasons why you want them to have it done and listen to what they have to say. You even add their views to the "pros and cons" list. But at the end of the day you are the responsible parent and must do what is in the best interests of your child, and you achieve this by persuading them. Just like Muslim parents persuade their 12 year old sons to get circumcised because they believe it is in their child's best interests. Assuming you have a good enough relationship with your child there is no need for force or coercion.

Or did you think all 12 year old Muslim boys are bound and dragged to their circumcision??

The case of the Muslim boys clearly demonstrates that a competent parent can convince their 12 year old of just about anything. So does the fact that so many young teenagers wear braces and so few have the wonky teeth Lynda seems to be actually proud of.

Therefore there is NO real choice for the 12 year old. If you are so set on real choice then you wait until the child is an adult and beyond your easy influence.

So the bottom line is there is the consent issue you claim is so important is ONLY important if the decision made is not one you agree with! If YOU think it is important for the long term interests of your child you are happy to use your parental authority to persuade your child.

The "consent is the top priority" argument fails.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "Do you have more recent figures than the 24 year old study from your mutilationist site that you linked to above, which showed 12,6% of 16-24 year olds being circumcised? Is that what you've based your "about 16% of 15 year olds in the UK" on?"

My figures come from The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. The most recent figures available are for 2001. A new survey was carried out recently but all the findings are not available yet.

Such surveys are the most reliable method of finding circumcision figures: circumcisions carried out by private practices are not usually recorded anywhere, not even on the patient notes held by the GP, and since the NHS only funds circumcision for immediate medical need their figures are far below the actual circumcision rate.

According to that survey, 11.6% of 16-24 year olds reported being circumcised, with 3.8% being circumcised for medical reasons.

Since the 3.8% reported circumcisions for medical reasons in the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles is exactly the same as your 3.8% figure, I am guessing the survey was the origin of your figure. Sadly it has been misused, probably by intactivists for their own agenda.