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.

My post of 1447, and the figure of roughly 1 in 100 000 was based upon the data in the journal article I linked to. My post of 1453 and the figure of 1.8 per 100 000 was based upon your figures in your post of 0050. Apologies as I should have made that clearer.

My point is that 1/1.8 in 100 000 is not the same as 1 in 531. You are misrepresenting the level of risk

ASmidgeofMidge saod: "Which is why I would question the rationale of circumcision for such a rare illness"

That is a matter of opinion. 1 in 600 is rare, but not "vanishingly small." And when you consider how devastating it is and the extremely high mortality (one of the highest mortality in cancers), and consider that preventing penile cancer is just one of the advantages of circumcision and that the risks and negatives of circumcision are so small, circumcision is a valid choice to make for your son.

Re risks of circumcision I'd refer you back to the journal article linked by BreakingDad77 above

It has a 50% mortality rate, is that really one if the highest amongst cancers? I'm surprised.

ASmidgeofMidge said: "My point is that 1/1.8 in 100 000 is not the same as 1 in 531. You are misrepresenting the level of risk"

No, I am not overstating the risks : both figues compliment the other, one os the chance of a man getting cancer in his lifetime and the other is the risk of an individual male getting penile cancer in any particular year of his life.

Of course intactivists like the second figure because it really does make penile cancer risk look vanishingly small, and they use ot on the hope tjat their audience won't understand what the figure means.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "It has a 50% mortality rate, is that really one if the highest amongst cancers? I'm surprised."

No ot isn't the highest mortality rate among cancers, but I never said it was. Pancreatic cancer has a much higher mortality rate, for example. It is, however, very high up the mortality table and therefore more lethal than the vast majority of cancers.

"And when you consider how devastating it is and the extremely high mortality (one of the highest mortality in cancers)"

Is what you said.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch,
By the way, the /100,000 type figures are used to help plan funding and resources in the medical field and have little or no value to individuals. They apportion risk equally to each year of life, giving a baby the same 1.8 in 100,000 chance of getting penile cancer this year as a 70 year old man. Life risk, the chance of getting a particular illness at some point in your life, is much more meaningful.

You are addressing the wrong poster again.

This table doesn't have penile cancer on it for some reason but here are the cancers it lists at >50% mortality:

Pancreatic cancer – 94%
Liver cancer – 83.9%
Lung cancer – 83.4%
Esophageal cancer – 82.7%
Stomach cancer – 72.3%
Brain cancer – 66.5%
Ovarian cancer – 55.8%

TheDoctrineOfSnatch sais: "And when you consider how devastating it is and the extremely high mortality (one of the highest mortality in cancers)"

Is what you said."

Yes. That is exactly what I said. It is written just a few posts back.

Again I am at a loss as to your point. ONE OF THE HIGHEST MORTALITY is not quite the same as THE HIGHEST MORTALITY!!

I never said the highest mortality. You misread my reply:

"TheDoctrineOfSnatch said: "It has a 50% mortality rate, is that really one if the highest amongst cancers? I'm surprised."

To which you said:

"No ot isn't the highest mortality rate among cancers, but I never said it was"

I never said that you said it was, if you read carefully.

You are addressing the wrong poster again.

This table doesn't have penile cancer on it for some reason but here are the cancers it lists at >50% mortality:
TheDoctrineOfSnatch said:"
Pancreatic cancer – 94%
Liver cancer – 83.9%
Lung cancer – 83.4%
Esophageal cancer – 82.7%
Stomach cancer – 72.3%
Brain cancer – 66.5%
Ovarian cancer – 55.8%"

Yes. And?

I'm with Brunobrookes. The issue of consent is the overwhelming one for me.

When my son is old enough to read and understand the facts and statistics regarding penile cancer and HIV, he can make his own choice, for his own body. I would not be so arrogant as to make a choice on his behalf which affects a delicate part of his body.

I'm not male, so have no idea how attached (haha) a man might feel to his foreskin and therefore I'll leave well alone and allow my son to make that choice, if he wishes.

That's not to say that I think fathers should choose this for their sons either. It didn't occur to my husband to circumcise our son.

And...I thought it was an interesting table.

Do you acknowledge yet that you misread my post?

TheDoctrineOfSnatch sad: "Do you acknowledge yet that you misread my post?"

Yes, it seems I did. Apologies for that. And your table was interesting. Irrelevant, but interesting!

Thank you.

I thought the table was relevant in the context of cancers with high mortality rates.

waterlego said:stuff about consent.

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

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.

here

Methinks there's a bit of scaremongering going on here...

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.

Thanks, Midge. Or do you prefer Smidge?

Bagging, I take it you mean that there are other decisions we make on behalf of our children? Well yes, there are plenty.

I have to decide which school they will go to, because they don't know enough about education to make that decision for themselves.

I choose (largely) what they eat, because if I didn't, they would eat bread/chocolate/cheese/sausages all the time, and overwhelming evidence suggests that such a diet would not be healthy, and could make them overweight.

I decide what time they go to bed, because if I didn't, they'd stay up all night watching crap cartoons on Youtube, and not be fit for school in the morning. And because I like some peace and quiet of an evening.

In all of these cases, I am making decisions based on overwhelming evidence about what is healthy and sensible. Feeding them a very unhealthy diet and letting them stay up late every night could constitute neglect, could it not? None of these decisions involves putting them through a medical procedure to remove a part of their body.

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?

Updated mortality table in light of Midge's numbers:

Pancreatic cancer – 94%
Liver cancer – 83.9%
Lung cancer – 83.4%
Esophageal cancer – 82.7%
Stomach cancer – 72.3%
Brain cancer – 66.5%
Ovarian cancer – 55.8%
Leukemia – 44%
Laryngeal cancer – 39.4%
Oral cancer – 37.8%
Colon cancer – 35.1%
Bone cancer – 33.6%
Rectal cancer – 33.5%
Cervical cancer – 32.1%
Kidney cancer – 28.2%
Bladder cancer – 22.1%

Sorry, baggins not bagging.

Thank you PJ, you are entirely correct.

Tis a pleasure, Doctrine

Open to Smidge or Midge