Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Pregnancy

Talk about every stage of pregnancy, from early symptoms to preparing for birth.

Wow; it's only circumcision..

781 replies

Chloejp91 · 29/12/2010 22:11

Before I get killed, I'm not suggesting it is only circumsion, that's just the title of this thread.

I'm due in less than 4 weeks and I'm having a boy. I'm definitely going to circumcise him. It's part of my culture and my partner's culture so it's going to be done. I just feel sad that it's seen as such a bad thing, where there are some benefits to it.

Anyone circumsised/circumsizing their sons?

OP posts:
larrygrylls · 05/01/2011 10:29

"Talking about pierced ears is a strawman argument. A pierced ear is of a completely different order of body modification, permanence, pain and risk than circumcision. An ear piercing does not remove a sizeable piece of very sensitive genital tissue."

It is a tiny piece of the LEAST sensitive genital tissue. It is directly comparable to ear piercing. Both slightly painful and done for cosmetic/cultural reasons.

And most females with whom I have spoken I have had have told me that they either preferred men to be circumcised or did not care one way or the other.

Teela · 05/01/2011 10:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ladysoandso · 05/01/2011 10:39

And most females ... I have had have told me that they either preferred men to be circumcised or did not care one way or the other.

'had'?? What a lothario you sound. Not.

HouseOfBamboo · 05/01/2011 10:40

Excerpt from the BMA website (on the page that SVH linked to below):

"Best interests
In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out.

The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child?s best interests falls to his parents.

It is important that doctors consider the child?s social and cultural circumstances. Where a child is living in a culture in which circumcision is required for all males, the increased acceptance into a family or society that circumcision can confer is considered to be a strong social or cultural benefit. Exclusion may cause harm by, for example, complicating the individual?s search for identity and sense of belonging. Clearly, assessment of such intangible risks and benefits is complex. On a more practical level, some people also argue that it is necessary to consider the effects of a decision not to circumcise. If there is a risk that a child will be circumcised in unhygienic or otherwise unsafe conditions, doctors may consider it better that they carry out the procedure, or refer to another practitioner, rather than allow the child to be put at risk.

On the other hand, very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual?s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure."

It seems to me that what this is saying is that the only demonstrable benefits that the BMA can see are those to do with cultural identity and fitting in. It is interesting that they also mention FGM.

SVH78 · 05/01/2011 10:46

ladysoandso - he didn't say had!!!!!!!!!! He said 'with whom I have spoken'.....

ladysoandso · 05/01/2011 10:47

are you blind???

Teela · 05/01/2011 10:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SVH78 · 05/01/2011 10:49

Are you?!! He said "And most females with whom I have spoken I have had have told me that they either preferred"

It is clearly a typo which should say "And most females with whom I have spoken have told me that they either preferred

GColdtimer · 05/01/2011 10:49

"I strongly feel that people should be allowed to make decisions for their children based on religious/cultural beliefs within the law without being judged by others."

I agree with you. However, when those decisions include torturing and mutilating their children I think they have to be challenged. And the legality of the act is still unclear.

(Definition of mutilation: To deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or some principal organ of the body; to cut off or otherwise destroy the use of (a limb or organ))

ladysoandso · 05/01/2011 10:53

The typo is that he forgot to delete the bit that says "I have had".

SVH78 · 05/01/2011 10:53

Teela - no I don't think you have to be Jewish - as I have said, I am not and yet I have an opinion. I simply said to Geneieve that I would be interested to know how she was qualified to comment, I asked whether she had studied religion.

HouseofBamboo - the BMA excerpt also says "Circumcision of male babies and children at the request of their parents is an increasingly controversial area and strongly opposing views about circumcision are found within society and within the BMA?s membership. The medical evidence about its health impact is equivocal." Which proves my point that this is an unclear area and the opposing views will be able to find medical evidence/research/opinion which supports that view and therefore is not an argument in which either party is correct. It is a matter of opinion.

SVH78 · 05/01/2011 10:56

twofalls - the legality of the act is not unclear - it is perfectly clear that at the current time in this country it is legal - if it was not, doctors would not be able to perform the procedure. As I have said previously, it is within the powers of the courts in this country to order circumcision in certain circumstances where the parents disagree about whether it should be done (I do not agree with this but it is a fact).

Circumcision does not fit within the definition of mutilation which you have posted. It's not deprivation of a limb or a principal organ nor is it cutting off or destroying the use of a limb or organ.

Snorbs · 05/01/2011 10:58

Your foreskin may not be very sensitive larry, but mine is.

Actually, given that you've had yours removed, how do you know how sensitive an intact foreskin is?

HouseOfBamboo · 05/01/2011 11:06

SVG - I see your point about picking and choosing evidence to prove your point one way or the other. And yes, there do seem to be a lot of conflicting studies. (By the way, that circinfo.net site is definitely not unbiased, the author is very much pro-circumcision and chooses his quoted evidence accordingly. Which of course happens the other way round too.)

But it still seems to me that what the BMA are saying is that the only clear benefit for non-therapeutic circumcision is cultural, not medical.

And actually, when you think about it, they have to be very careful what they say. The implications of them declaring circumcision to be medically unnecessary for a healthy child would be leave a lot of doctors open to lawsuits for carrying out an unnecessary medical procedure, would it not?

SVH78 · 05/01/2011 11:10

HouseofBamboo - the way the law currently stands, cultural/societal reasons can be sufficient for the court to sanction circumcision. I don't think that the BMA declaring circumcision to be medically unnecessary for a healthy child would change that. TBH, I think that is what the BMA is saying - that it is not a medical neccessity. I think that is acknowledged by many/most people who circumcise for cultural/religious reasons.

HouseOfBamboo · 05/01/2011 11:31

Hmm - I guess you get into the realms of how far the wording would have to go before non-therapeutic circumcision was deemed to unnecessary and illegal. The difference between

  • 'medically unnecessary'
  • 'risks outweigh the benefits'

and

  • 'causing actual bodily harm'

perhaps? I don't know.

On the other hand, it appears that the risks of not making it available on the NHS are also pretty horrendous - as described in this Guardian article

Anyway I'm thoroughly depressed by the whole subject now, so am off to do some work!

GColdtimer · 05/01/2011 11:32

But any Doctor performing it could be in breach of Human Rights law, according to many scholars, eg:

Clinical Ethics, 2009;4:181-186. doi:10.1258/ce.2009.009029

And from the Journal of Medical Ethics, the authors conclude that "it is ethically inappropriate to subject children?male or female?to the acknowledged risks of circumcision and contend that there is no compelling legal authority for the common view that male circumcision is lawful."

Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 31, Issue 8, 2005;31:463-469 doi:10.1136/jme.2004.009340

So whilst it might not be illegal, it is still a highly contentious issue and doctors performing it could be inbreach of the Human Rights Act.

And do these definitions suit you better:

  1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part;
  2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: .
  3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.
  • thefreedictionary.com
  1. to damage severely, especially by violently removing a part - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
larrygrylls · 05/01/2011 11:33

SVH78,

Of course it is a typo, as you said.

When you cannot make an argument, attack the person.

I still cannot see a difference between ear piercing and circumcision. No-one has told me why this is not an unnecessary surgical procedure. And, if it is, why they have had it and/or do not feel strongly about it?

SVH78 · 05/01/2011 11:42

twofalls - no those definitions do not 'suit me' better. Circumcision does not fit into those definitions either.

I agree is it highly contentious - I have said that several time. But as a matter of fact it is lawful in this country at the current time. Citing contentions and opinions does not change this fact.

TeuchnutsRoastingOnAnOpenFire · 05/01/2011 11:54

larrygrylls - we are not discussing a act or adornment which is, on the whole, chosen by adults (or older children who may better understand the risks/pain) for themselves.

I think if you would like to draw comparison to the strength of feeling on parents making this choice for their children (just because is it a 'norm' in their culture/sub-culture) you can search for threads on here - there are plenty!

GColdtimer · 05/01/2011 12:26

So, let me get this straight.

If I told you that my religion called for me to tear out my new born baby's fingernails (without pain relief), as a sacrifice to God and to ensure I wouldn't loose face within my community. That I knew it would be painful but I didn't question it because those of faith don't question but just do as they are told. If I found some spurious "benefits" to further justify my acts and I refused to acknowledge that there was anything wrong with my action would you say "Oh, each to their own"?

Or would you call social services?

And that is a serious question.

SVH78 · 05/01/2011 12:41

twofalls - if it was as well documented, researched and practised as circumcision is and if it was legal in this country (as circumcision is) then I would say that it is your choice to make. However, it is none of those things and therefore is an inappropriate analogy to make.

In any event, if I did call social services and all the cirucmstances were the same as they are for circumcision, they would not do anything about it.

Circumcision is done with pain relief and therefore your analogy does not work on that level either.

HouseOfBamboo · 05/01/2011 13:07

What about unregulated circumcisions? Should the perpetrators be prosecuted for that?

Doctors urge circumcision on NHS

SVH78 · 05/01/2011 13:28

HouseofBamboo - I do not agree with unregulated circumcision just as I would not agree with unqualified people undertaking any other operation/procedure or qualified people doing so in improper conditions.

HouseOfBamboo · 05/01/2011 13:37

Do you think the perpetrators should be prosecuted though? (I don't know if they were or not in the cases mentioned in the article.)