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.

"When two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary."

What a thoroughly fatuous comment.

Shall we cut off breasts as there's a hell of a lot of beast cancer nowadays?
Yes baggins I think you'll find those who circumcise for religious reasons don't do so in hospital and use all sorts of barbaric methods. Some sucking the blood from the babies penis it really is shocking.

Breast cancer*

Layl77 said: "Shall we cut off breasts as there's a hell of a lot of beast cancer nowadays?"

If you could snip of a fold of skin which didn't affect the function of the breasts but removed the risk if breast cancer, most good parents would get it done. (And yes, orgasms are just as intense when you are circumcised!)

"Yes baggins I think you'll find those who circumcise for religious reasons don't do so in hospital and use all sorts of barbaric methods. Some sucking the blood from the babies penis it really is shocking."

I specifically noted that traditional religious circumcision is done without anesthetic and I do not condone that practice. To post such videos in an effort to scare all parents into thinking their child will suffer in such a manner if they are circumcised in hospital is nothing more than intactivist lies and propaganda.

So, let me get this straight. Your main reason for circumcision is the risk of penile cancer?

What is your reason, then, for not leaving the procedure until the child concerned is in a position to consent to it?

And how would you comment on the information above that more than 100 babies died in the US during circumcision or after?

No surgery is without risk.

Martorana said: "So, let me get this straight. Your main reason for circumcision is the risk of penile cancer?

What is your reason, then, for not leaving the procedure until the child concerned is in a position to consent to it?"

This is like running in circles. You lot don't seem to retain information for more than a couple of posts.

No, Martorana, that men circumcised in childhood almost never get penile cancer while 1 in 600 uncircumcised men do is only ONE reason I have given for deciding to circumcise my son.

Perhaps instead of making me repeat the same things again you would like to address the question I posed: if you could remove a small flap of skin which didn't significantly affect the function of the breasts in return for a virtual guarantee that your daughter would never suffer from breast cancer, would you do it?

(Not that I expect an honest answer to this question from an intactivist who opposes circumcision as a matter of principle.)

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "And how would you comment on the information above that more than 100 babies died in the US during circumcision or after?

No surgery is without risk."

In the UK there have been two deaths from circumcision in the last ten years. Both were caused by excessive bleeding following botched home circumcisions by non-medical religious circumcision who were criminally negligent in their actions.

The death rate for circumcisions carried out by trained Doctors in medical institutions is 0.

I suspect the same is the case in the US. I also suspect that the number of deaths attributed to circumcision has been greatly exaggerated by intactivists to fit their own agenda. The recent case of Joshua Haskins being a perfect example.

The actual risk of dieing from circumcision should be about the same as dying from a cut finger: both involve nothing more than cut skin. That some imbeciles ignore a baby loosing a cup full of blood from a cut is negligence, not a reflection of the risk of circumcision.

The other risk is general anesthetic. This is simply not required for childhood circumcision as it can be done with a plastibell or circumplast under risk free local anesthetic. Yet some hospitals still use a general anesthetic for very young children for this simple and pain free procedure.

You should be arguing for better practice when circumcising, not banning a procedure that can be undertaken virtually risk free.

I quoted the penile cancer one because it is the only one that bears any scrutiny at all.

Can anyone confirm the 1:600 uncircumcised men get penile cancer statistic?

And just for the record, I am not an "intactivist". I am just someone who opposes performing non medically required surgical procedures on somebody unable to consent. Particularly when such a procedure can be done at any point in the person's life, so it can wait until they are able to consent.

"a virtual guarantee that your daughter would never suffer from breast cancer, would you do it?"

No. I would let her decide whether to do it.

"The lifetime risk has been estimated as 1 in 1,437 in the United States and 1 in 1,694 in Denmark.[8]"

(Of penile cancer)

"Circumcision during infancy or in childhood may provide partial protection against penile cancer. Several authors have proposed circumcision as a possible strategy for penile cancer prevention;[1][16][21] however, the American Cancer Society points to the rarity of the disease and notes that neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommend routine neonatal circumcision.[11]"

I will happily suggest that my sons do the following;

"The use of condoms is thought to be protective against the HPV associated penile cancer.[1]
Good genital hygiene, which involves washing the penis, the scrotum, and the foreskin daily with water, may prevent balanitis and penile cancer. However, soaps with harsh ingredients should be avoided.
Cessation smoking may reduce the risk of penile cancer.[7]
Phimosis can be prevented by practising proper hygiene and by retracting the foreskin on a regular basis.
Paraphimosis can be prevented by not leaving the foreskin retracted for prolonged periods of time."

To put the penile cancer risk in context:

"In 2010, in the UK, the lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is 1 in 8 for women and 1 in 868 for men."

You should be arguing for better practice when circumcising, not banning a procedure that can be undertaken virtually risk free.

I would 'argue for' is the ban of circumcision first.

Well, TheDoctrinOfSnatch, your figures are accurate as far as they go. Now you need to consider that penile cancer is almost unheard of in men circumcised as children.

Since 80% (approx) of the high risk males in the US are circumcised, the lifetime risk is shared exclusively among them.

This means the lifetime risk for and uncircumcised man in the US is 1437 divided by 5... a one in 300 chance. Twice as high as in the UK! I suggest you get your sons down to the clinic as soon as possible!

And Denmark is often quoted by intactivists to defend their argument that circumcision has no benefits. Denmark is certainly an anomaly. Perhaps they under-report? Perhaps they are good at identifying the disease early? Who knows.

Whatever the reasons for Denmark's low figures, unless we all plan to move to Denmark we have to deal with the reality of our own countries. What we DO KNOW is that men circumcised as children are almost completely protected from the disease.

Oh, and the number of cases of penile cancer has risen by 20% in the UK over the last two decades... almost exactly reflecting the post war drop in circumcision rate for men now in the high risk age group.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "To put the penile cancer risk in context:

"In 2010, in the UK, the lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is 1 in 8 for women and 1 in 868 for men."

1 in 868 of ALL MEN, which is exactly the same as 1 in 600 UNCIRCUMCISED MEN. You intactivists do love twisting the figures to suit your own agenda, don't you!

And yes, the risk of penile cancer is far, far less than the risk of breast cancer, but no less traumatic for those unlucky one's who get it.

Is it worth circumcising just to prevent the 1 in 600 chance of getting this nasty cancer? That is a matter of opinion - BUT it IS one of the benefits of circumcision you should consider when weighing up the pro's and cons.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said:

"I will happily suggest that my sons do the following;

"The use of condoms is thought to be protective against the HPV associated penile cancer.[1]"

Yes. As long as they ALWAYS use a condom. Remember to tell them that circumcision AND using condoms is better than condoms alone.

"Good genital hygiene, which involves washing the penis, the scrotum, and the foreskin daily with water, may prevent balanitis and penile cancer. However, soaps with harsh ingredients should be avoided."

Yes, it may. But remember to tell them that circumcision WILL reduce their chance of getting penile cancer to virtually nil.

"Cessation smoking may reduce the risk of penile cancer.[7]"

Yes, it may. But remember to tell then that circumcision WILL reduce their chance of getting penile cancer to virtually nil.

"Phimosis can be prevented by practising proper hygiene and by retracting the foreskin on a regular basis.
Paraphimosis can be prevented by not leaving the foreskin retracted for prolonged periods of time."

Yes, it can. But remember to tell them that circumcision reduces the chance of phimosis and paraphimosis to absooutely zero.

The Danish circumcision figures are around 1.6% of the population. Interesting that you have decided they are an anomaly, for whatever reason.

Interesting too that the figures you cite for the US have NOT caused US cancer bodies to make the recommendation you suggest.

Incidentally, putting something in context is neither a positive or a negative action. It's simply providing additional context.

baggins, can you show us the source of your assertion

"... penile cancer while 1 in 600 uncircumcised men do"

please?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "The Danish circumcision figures are around 1.6% of the population. Interesting that you have decided they are an anomaly, for whatever reason."

*You are aware what an anomaly is, are you? It is something that is different from the norm, unexpected. I have decided nothing, the Danish figures for penile cancer are an anomaly by virtue of the fact that they are so different from other countries.

There must be a reason for this but I find it hard to believe it is just that the Danes are scrupulous about cleaning under their foreskins. As I said previousely, unless we all intend to move to Denmark we have to deal with the situation we have.

One thing that is true in Denmark as much as in every other country is that invasive penile cancer is virtually unheard of in circumcised men.*

"Interesting too that the figures you cite for the US have NOT caused US cancer bodies to make the recommendation you suggest."

Not at all. As you have already noted, 1 in 600 still makes this cancer rare, but no less traumatic for the guy lying in his hospital bed waiting to have his penis amputated.

is that a "no" then?

PigletJohn said: "baggins, can you show us the source of your assertion

"... penile cancer while 1 in 600 uncircumcised men do"

please?"

*Certainly. It is easy enough to work out from verifiable date:

550 new cases of penile cancer per year (with more than 50% death rate)

www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/type/penile-cancer/about/risks-and-causes-of-penile-cancer

UK male population 31 000 000

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

UK male life expectancy 79.5 years

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

550 per year x 79.5 years = 43,725 cases in average lifetime

Shared among 31 million males = 43725 out of 31,000,000 chance for all males
= 1 in 708 chance for all males (raw lifetime risk)

Since penile cancer is almost unheard of in circumcised males, this risk is shared between uncircumcised males only.

Circumcision rate in 50+ age (high risk age group) = 25 % approx
Lifetime risk for uncircumcised male is 1 in 531

But let’s call it 1 in 600 to be generous.