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.

Mine referred to male newborns being circumcised. You are talking about a subset of some other age group. So I doubt they are the same.

Still unclear how you get from 11.6% on a 13 year old study (which I note has dropped by 1% from the study 10 years before) to 15% on a slightly younger group. But hey.

So what have we established in this thread so far?

1. Well, we have established that circumcision DOES have benefits. It IS cleaner (wasing does not stop drips of soon stale urine soaking the penis head), it DOES prevent penile cancer and it DOES reduce the risk of some other illnesses such as UTI's and STD's.

The anti-circumcision response has been:
a. You can't keep every body part clean, including female parts, so who cares if the penis head is damp with stale urine all the time.

b. Penile cancer is rare. (Which it is, but it is a terrible disease for the 1 in 600 who get it and suffer amputation or partial amputation of the penis.)

c. The many works showing a protective effect from circumcision are flawed.

2. We have established that the benefits of circumcision ARE recognised by medical bodies: the Centre for Disease Control, the American Pediatric Association and even the NHS in a recent update on their website.

3. We have established that circumcision can and should be, and usually is, virtually pain free and free of any significant risk in childhood.

The anti-circumcision response has been to post a link to a baby screaming as he is circumcised without anesthetic to frighten parents.

4. We have established that circumcision before the age of 8 is quick and simple (taking five minutes) and pain free. We have also established that childhood circumcision provides many benefits adult circumcision does not. (zero penile cancer risk, easy and quick procedure, reduces risk of kidney damage from UTI's.)

The anti-circumcision response has been to claim that because an unknown but low number of adults get circumcised child circumcision is not necessary. (ignoring the advantages of circumcision and the disadvantages of adult circumcision.)

5. We have established that the drawbacks and risks of circumcision have been greatly exaggerated by the anti-circumcision evangelists for their own agenda. This includes posting videos of screaming babies, untrue warnings of the risk of death and claims of severely overstated claims of desensitising of the penis following circumcision which use circumcision as the scapegoat for nearly all male sexual disfunction.

We have established that the issue of consent is actually an issue of whether you agree with the benefits of the procedure. Persuading a child to undergo a non-medically essential procedure is perfectly acceptable, it seems, as long as you think the benefits are great enough. Therefore consent ceases to be an issue and whether you agree that the benefits are greater than the risks and drawbacks becomes the only issue.

The anti-circumcision response has been to try to mislead by giving bogus examples and then to backtrack when they realised the implications of such claims on their fitness as a responsible parent.

A fair summary, I think.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "Still unclear how you get from 11.6% on a 13 year old study (which I note has dropped by 1% from the study 10 years before) to 15% on a slightly younger group. But hey."

My apologies. The 15.8% figure is the combined 16 to 40 age group. It divides down to 11.7% for 16-19 year olds and 19.6% for 40-44 year olds. (Not sure what happened to the 19-40 year olds!)

FWIW, my teeth are pretty wonky. This is because, although I consented to having a brace as a teenager, I grew bored of it and stopped wearing it. My parents pointed out the benefits of continuing its use, but in a non-persuasive manner, and they did not insist I continue to wear it.

Despite my wonky teeth, I have managed to live a normal life. I've been very successful in securing jobs and have managed to attract quite a number of suitors over the years; even snaring a gorgeous husband, who is benevolent enough to overlook my grotesque imperfections.

baggins, you have consistently misunderstood and misquoted other posters' responses on this thread. You read what you want to read, instead of what is actually written. I don't wish to bang my head against this particular brick wall any longer. I am neither a hypocrite nor an incompetent parent. I wish you good luck in your campaign to convince the world that it is acceptable to chop bits of children's bodies off. I remain unconvinced.

Good day

waterlego,

I never thought for a moment I would convince you. It is a perfectly valid choice for a parent NOT to circumcise their child. My object was to show that the vehement, vitriolic opposition to circumcision is not justified and that the arguments used to demonise parents who choose circumcision are baseless.

There are valid arguments for and against circumcision and circumcision is a valid choice for a parent to make for their child.

Sadly most of those who jump on the anti-circumcision bandwagon and shout abuse at circumcising parents no nothing about the topic they claim such expertise in.

Baggins

Has anyone typed abuse at you in this thread re your decisions or have you in fact typed abuse at others?

Well I'm convinced, I'm off to book the DSs into the local chop shop, I'll get DP to go along too and see if they can do a 3 for 2.

If I get them all to read these persuasive arguments I'm sure they'll realise that it is in their best interests and will happily consent to having their foreskins cut.

In the meantime I may also ask if they can have their tonsils and appendixes removed to prevent the possibility of any future issues there.

I'll totally dismiss DS1's concerns about the dentist and use some Jedi mind tricks to convince him that he really does want braces.

While I'm waiting I'll have a preventative double mastectomy because who knows, I may get breast cancer at some point in the future and these pesky things bouncing around in front of me have served their purpose now.

Then we'll all go and have a lovely family portrait done with our wincing wonky smiles, safe in the knowledge that none of us can ever get ill again.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch:
Check back to page 2. I think you will find first blood goes to NurseyWorsey (who went on to demonstrate a startling level of ignorance.)

TheDoctrineOfSnatch,
Great idea. Get the sane surgeon who did your full frontal lobotomy, he did a brilliant job.

She said that the practise you advocate was barbaric and disgusting. She didn't call you personally any names

In between her two comments on the practise, you asked her if she had a foreskin fetish.

HTH.

Oh baggins, have you mixed me up with another poster AGAIN?

Sigh.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch: Yes, I'm afaid I have mixed you up again. You all blend into one after a while.

As far as NurseWorswy's comments are concerned they are there for all to read. That's the beauty of the Internet, you can't deny the comments you make.

As are yours, baggins.

They certainly are.

Oh this thread has moved on a bit since I last looked!

I have only really read the last page will read the rest later maybe. I do think it's funny the NHS doesn't recommend circumcision though it's it Baggins? I think you should alert all the experts that looked at the evidence at once that you know better than they do. Oh and you can laugh in their faces if they raise the issue of consent, of course a parent has complete jurisdiction over their child's body and can chop off any bits they don't like.

BTW Baggins why did you wait until your child was five when (according to you) the benefits are greater in infancy? And why didn't you get yourself circumcised as soon as you were old enough?

How the hell is circumcising a baby pain free, its totally cruel to mutilate an infant. If there is a medical need then fine, but to do it just because some religion or sect or whatever says so is utter madness.

somewheresomehow said: "How the hell is circumcising a baby pain free, its totally cruel to mutilate an infant."

How can you lecture others on circumcision when you clearly know so little about it yourself? Your arguments against it are so week that you are forced into using emotive terms like "mutliate" to intimidate parents into silence.

Circumcision is painless, regardless of age, since local anesthetic works just as well for infants as older children or adults. That some Jewish people CHOOSE to circumcise without anesthetic is not an argument against circumcision, it is an argument against traditional Jewish circumcision.

"If there is a medical need then fine, but to do it just because some religion or sect or whatever says so is utter madness."

IF it was just because a religion said so and IF it caused more harm than good then, yes. It would be utter madness. However since this ISN'T the case then your argument has no validity at all.

Kendodd said: "Oh this thread has moved on a bit since I last looked!

I have only really read the last page will read the rest later maybe. I do think it's funny the NHS doesn't recommend circumcision though it's it Baggins? I think you should alert all the experts that looked at the evidence at once that you know better than they do."

Again, an argument out of ignorance. The NHS has softened its opinion on circumcision recently: their website now acknowledges the advantages of circumcision. Although this is far from a ringing endorsement of routine circumcision the wording is notable:

Where they list the potential benefits they state:

There ARE several potential advantages and disadvantages associated with circumcising boys shortly after they are born.

Where they list the risks they state:

CRITICS of circumcision argue that it has disadvantages, such as:

And you FAIL to note that the American CDC and AAP state that circumcision is not only a valid choice for parents to make but that funding SHOULD be available for all parents to choose circumcision for their child. A clear critisism of the states who have withdrawn funding for circumcision for financial reasons.

As far as the NHS is concerned, you should also acknowledge that funding is a major factor in the recommendations it makes. It is far cheaper, for example, to amputate the penis from on man than to circumcise 600 boys (not that that makes it any better for the one in 600 who will one day lie in a hospital bed waiting for his amputation, knowing that the one thing that would have certainly prevented this is if his parents had chosen to circumcise him as a child.

If you think I am cynical, that money plays no part in the recommendations of the NHS then consider the various cancer drugs that have been witheld by the NHS over the years for cost reasons.

(A recent example: www.activequote.com/news/uk-government-accused-of-withholding-cancer-drugs-from-the-nhs-to-save-money.aspx )

So no, Kendodd, I do not need to educate the professionals. They are fully aware that there are benefits as well as potential drawbacks to circumcision. The only question is whether you consider the benefits outweigh the drawbacks (which include cost.)

"Oh and you can laugh in their faces if they raise the issue of consent, of course a parent has complete jurisdiction over their child's body and can chop off any bits they don't like."

No, Kendodd, they can't. Which should tell you something about circumcision.... the reason it isn't banned anywhere in the world )unlike FGM) is because there is NO EVIDENCE it causes any significant harm.

"BTW Baggins why did you wait until your child was five when (according to you) the benefits are greater in infancy? And why didn't you get yourself circumcised as soon as you were old enough?"

You really haven't read much of this thread, have you! I have responded in detail to this point twice already. The short answer is that I wasn't aware of the truth behind the arguments until I did more than just read the intactivist lies and exaggerations which they have flooded the internet with, helped along by well meaning but ignorant individuals who have jumped on the anti-circumcision bandwagon.

" It is far cheaper, for example, to amputate the penis from on man than to circumcise 600 boys "

I very much doubt this, especially as there will be treatments for cancer alongside amputation to prevent recurrence and spreading of the cancer. I await your health economic statistics, agog.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "I very much doubt this, especially as there will be treatments for cancer alongside amputation to prevent recurrence and spreading of the cancer. I await your health economic statistics, agog."

Pray tell, Snatch, what is it that baffles you so this time? That it costs the NHS £600,000 to circumcise 600 boys? That 1 in 600 uncircumcised boys will eventually develop penile cancer? That the treatment for penile cancer usually involves removing the tumor and 2cm of healthy tissue around the tumor? That, sadly, most cases of penile cancer are misdiagnosed in the early stages as STD's or a simple rash by both Doctors and patients?

Tell me what baffles you and I will try to enlighten you.

The death of a baby following circumcision in my-then GP practice, which I changed as soon as this was revealed, stays with me whenever I read stuff about circumcision. The circumstances were horrible.

This article lists his name.

www.cirp.org/library/death/

ProcessYellowC said: "The death of a baby following circumcision in my-then GP practice, which I changed as soon as this was revealed, stays with me whenever I read stuff about circumcision. The circumstances were horrible. "

Can you expand on the circumstances? Was the circumcision carried out at your GP practice? What was the cause of death?

Did the OP come back?

Oh dear baggins you really are in corner here aren't you. To admit that actually circumcising your boy might not have been what he would have chosen for himself and that parents don't have the right to do whatever they like with their child's bodies wouldn't put you in a vary good light would it! You have no choice really except to keep banging on about the tiny chance he might get penile cancer as an old man, I can really see why you keep doing this and sympathise. I'm sure you thought you were acting in the best interests of your children and don't doubt that your heart really was in the right place. I guess your uncles cancer really frightened you as well, I hope your uncle's recovered and is ok now.

Your argument about circumcising children isn't completely without merit but really the risks you mention are so low and whether you admit it or not there are downsides beyond the consent issue. I can see from this thread though that you are so blinkered you won't see any of them though. Having said all that I'm very glad you're so pleased with your new penis, genuinely. BTW I'm not anti circumcision at all, it's your body so your business what you do with it. I also really hope you do get away with circumcising your son and he doesn't think you overstepped a line when he's older, the chances are you will get away with it.

As for calling other people bad parents if they can't or won't persuade their teenage children to have braces when they don't want them, actually I hope that by the time my children are teens they will have the self confidence to stand up to me. Even if it's something I think is in their best interests, if they really don't want their teeth straightened they should not be scared to put their foot down and say 'no, this is my body'. Maybe they are on their way to being some sort of radical feminist and crocked teeth make a statement about who they are or are really geekie and aren't interested at all in how they look. I think that sort of bodily autonomy is very important for a young woman to have and think that if they can stand up to us at that age regarding what does and doesn't happen to their own body, then good. This of course isn't to say that I would just let the decide for themselves, I'd nag and keep revisiting it and would feel very frustrated if they refused teeth straightening, but that would be my problem, not theirs. I know that you obviously think differently.

Anyway, if that makes me a bad parent in your eyes then so be it, sign me up for your bad parent club. Waves at all the other bad parents!

Kendodd said: "blah, blah, blah"

Re-writing reality as you wish it were does not help the anti-circumcision argument. Do you have any reasoned argument to support the position that circumcision is something parents should not be permitted to choose for their son?

So far you have argued that it is wrong in principle because parents shouldn't do anything permenant to their child unless it is a medical necessity...

and failed as it has been shown that even the hardened intactivists wouldn't play the "consent" card if a parent chose to have teeth removed and a brace fitted for cosmetic reasons. Which clearly leaves them, and you, open to the accusation of hypocricy.

Anything else? Or is the failed argument of consent, which you exclusively apply to foreskin removal, the only argument you have to demonise parents who choose circumcision?