Wow; it's only circumcision..

[Chloejp91]

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?

It's diffcult to say because I don't know what offence you are suggesting they be charged with. Are you thinking abh/gbh?

I would guess so, but I'm not a legal expert. There might be a more appropriate charge which I'm not aware of.

"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 am glad you asked that as it clarifies two issues that are, on the whole, being conflated here.

1. Is is unreasonable to endure pain and make a small body modification for cultural/aesthetic reasons.

1. Is it OK to make this choice on behalf of a minor.

If you accept that ear piercings are not unacceptable mutilations, then I think you also accept that circumcisions are not, which only leaves question 2.

If it was a qualified doctor undertaking the procedure improperly then I think it should be reported to the GMC. If it was someone not properly qualified to carry out the procedure then yes I think legal action should be taken against them.

Ear piercing and circumcision aren't comparable physiologically at all.

The anatomy, function and sensitivity of the ear as an organ isn't altered for a start. Yes the earlobe has a hole in it, but no bits are actually removed, and if left it will usually close up again with little trace.

Personally I don't agree with ear piercing in young babies because of the pain of the procedure and risk of injury when wearing earrings, but it's not even remotely comparable with circumcision.

Larrygrylls - I don't believe anyone on this thread has 'conflated' these 'issues' or indeed suggested that any modification to your own body for whatever reason is an issue

What people find issue with is that parents would choose this for their child for purely cultural/aesthetic reasons.

As a mother of two boys, I find it all incredibly depressing.

I 'get' the argument that, because of certain cultural norms, it could potentially be damaging to the family/future adult if they do not have the procedure which is clearly painful (regardless of the degree which may be claimed by either side of the argument) and is (thus far) equivocal in its benefits (I suspect this has more to do with politics than reality IMHO).

This is why I would wholeheartedly support anyone who was in a position to question it, refuse it, debate it.

If the cultural aspect was removed (i.e. you and your family would not face any effects within your community) then I believe that would bring around the very basic question of whether or not you can choose to perform (or have) an unnecessary procedure performed on your child. All other arguments removed (aesthetic is objective, health is unproven at best, culture is just not a good enough reason IMO) I think very few people would make this choice.

TeuchnutsRoastingOnAnOpenFire - it is interesting how you conclude that an opinion which is cited by an independent medical body has more to do with politics - perhaps this could be because it suits you to believe this. If you look at the published research you will see for yourself that it is equivocal.

I think there are lots of things in life that are unsaid, at this time, because of the power that organised religions have throughout the world and not necessarily based on clear, unbiased research.

That is a bold assertion based on absolutely no evidence! I am sure that the medical researchers would wholeheartedly disagree with you!

"health is unproven at best"

No, it isn't. I linked to two very meaningful studies as to the health benefits in an earlier post. Of course, if one uses barrier protection and/or never comes into contact with any STDs, the health benefit is negated. On the same basis, though, vaccinations have no health benefit if you isolate yourself from the viruses that they immunise against.

Sorry - that should have read:

I think...

Using a barrier method is a fairly sure-fire way of protecting from STD's (along with unwanted pregnancies).

Can you suggest a similar, free (or widely available), accessible and socially acceptable method of isolating your children from the viruses you refer to? In that case, I suggest that you do not circumcise your sons, just tell them never to have sex!

larrygryllhs, the american Academy of Pediatrics "does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn males stating the evidence was not significant enough to prove the operation's benefit"

larry, i said it before and you ignord it.

a circumcised man will still need to wear a condom to protect himself from STDs. so why bother circumcising in the first place? unless you believe circumcision to be as effective as condoms in protecting against STDs? which would of course mean you never wear condoms?

ignored

TeuchnutsRoastingOnAnOpenFire - please do not reduce yourself to childish comments such as that. They add nothing to the debate.

ILoveIt,

It is not realistic to expect men to wear condoms all the time, even in medium/long term relationships. Of course, in an ideal world, everyone should use barrier protection. However, it is not an ideal world. I certainly know that when I was younger, after seeing someone for a couple of months, and ascertaining that they were on the pill, I would stop using condoms. I would never ask for a certificate of sexual health and nor would any of my gfs ask me. I think that I am fairly typical. And, condoms DO split. It has only happened to me once, but it has happened.

Surely, any extra protection is a good thing?

of course it is realistic. unless both partners know each other has a clean bill of sexual health then yes, teh responsible thing to do is wear a condom. you cannot justify circumcision as a back up for laziness/forgetfulness/unwillingness on a man's behalf.

are you saying you think circumcision is an equivalent method of protection to condoms?

Larrygrylls, you did decide not to have your son circumcised though. Why if you believe the potential benefits you mention exist?

As for ear piercing, I actually don't agree with the decision being made for a child, although there is obviously a huge difference in that if a child grows up and decides they don't like the piercing (as I did) they can let it close up. A man can't exactly get his foreskin back. If an adult man chooses to be circumcised, that is up to him, but it is not a decison we should be making for children unless there is clear medical need.

I have to say, the latter part of this thread has actually made me change my views on MumNWLondon. I don't agree with her, but at least she was brave enough to admit she and other Mum's find the procedure 'barabaric' and acknowledge it is painful and isn't just trying to pretent it's no big deal. I guess that is at least a very small step in the right direction.

not childish - just a relevant response to larrygrylls outlandish comparison between circumcision as protection against std's and vaccinations. I believe you may have made that tenuous comparison earlier in the thread (I may be wrong) with the reference to MMR and autism. Which has now been proven wrong and the doctor in question struck off IIRC.

Please don't suggest that I am childish. Sometimes you need to get back to basics when arguments such as those are put forward.

With reference to the HIV/STD protection...would it be childish to point out that (as has been mentioned before) you could defer circumcision until pre-pubescence/adolescence?

FWIW I think that it is an interesting study and does need further exploration with reference to the control of HIV in developing countries. But the study circumcised adult males with their consent. Men who are at very high risk of contracting HIV.

Not babies.

"on a man's behalf"

Lots of women prefer a guy not to wear a condom. It is not always the guy pressing to take it off.

No, I never said circumcision conferred the same protection as condoms. What on earth makes you think I did? Try not to imply I am a complete idiot because I disagree with you, unless you have some evidence that it is the case.

"Larrygrylls, you did decide not to have your son circumcised though. Why if you believe the potential benefits you mention exist?"

1/ I could not actually face it at the time. That does not make it the right decision.

2/ I did not really have buy in from my wife. She agreed to do it but I did not feel her heart was in it so I let it go. It has to be a decision taken positively by both parents.

Technut

"not childish - just a relevant response to larrygrylls outlandish comparison between circumcision as protection against std's and vaccinations"

Please explain the difference between circumcision, if it affords protection from STDs and the "cervical cancer" vaccine? By the way, the studies showing this are reputable studies conducted in the U.S, not like the MMR/autism debacle, which I certainly did not mention, as that was just bad science.

"Lots of women prefer a guy not to wear a condom. It is not always the guy pressing to take it off."

and must that man comply with what his partner (not always female btw) wishes? or should he use his brain and make his own decision. ridiculous argument for not using a condom as a means of protection. only a fool will remove a condom for a woman from whom he has no guarantee of clear sexual health.

"What on earth makes you think I did?"

erm the fact that you are advocating circumcision as a means of STD protection, because "condoms split", tells me you think circumcision is as effective. and if you don't agree it is as effective, why are you advocating it in the first place when wearing a condom is far safer and do not carry the same risks as circumcision does, let alone pain.

Surely if you couldn't face it the fact the procedure was going to cause your son immense pain and discomfort outweighed what you perceive as the benefits at that time?

I mean, if your son had needed a painful but lifesaving surgical procedure at the same age would you have then been able to face it then? Surely you would.

larrygrylls - you are the one who suggested vaccines and in the context of parents choosing them for minors. The difference, as far as I can see, is not to do with the redundancy of the procedure if you do not have sex, but that fact that teenage girls are vaccinated.

Not babies.

I know what studies you are refering to, and i have acknowledged their potential - I just feel they offer little to the debate of whether or not parents can choose to perform this procedure on babies. I actually think is strengthens the argument for deferring until adolescence since there appears to be no benefits during childhood.

Let's not 'conflate' the issues, hmm?